History of Dogma

History of Dogma by Adolf Harnack History of Dogma - Volume I Adolf Harnack Table of Contents About This Book. . . ...

Author: Adolf von Harnack

140 downloads 1564 Views 10MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

History of Dogma by

Adolf Harnack

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

Table of Contents About This Book. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. ii Title Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 1 Volume I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 2 Prefatory Material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 2 Introductory Division. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 11 Chapter I. Prolegomena to the Discipline of the History of Dogma. . . . . p. 12 Chapter II. The Presuppositions of the History of Dogma. . . . . . . . . . p. 34 Supplementary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 85 The Genesis of the Ecclesiastical Dogma, or the Genesis of the Catholic Apostolic Dogmatic Theology and the First Scientific Ecclesiastical System of Doctrine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 89 Chapter I. Historical Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 90 Chapter II. The Element Common to All Christians and the Breach with Judaism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 93 Chapter III. The Common Faith and the Beginnings of Knowledge in Gentile Christianity as It Was Being Developed into Catholicism. . . . . p. 95 Chapter IV. The Attempts of the Gnostics to Create an Apostolic Dogmatic, and a Christian Theology; or, the Acute Secularising of Christianity. . . . p. 138 Chapter V. Marcion’s Attempt to Set Aside the Old Testament Foundation of Christianity to Purify Tradition, and to Reform Christendom on Basis of Pauline Gospel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 163 Chapter VI. The Christianity of Jewish Christians, Definition of the Notion of Jewish Christianity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 175 Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 193 Appendix I. On the Conception of Pre-existence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 193 Appendix II. On Liturgies and the Genesis of Dogma. . . . . . . . . . . . p. 201 Appendix III. On Neoplatonism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 203 Indexes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 220 Index of Scripture References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 220 Greek Words and Phrases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 221 Latin Words and Phrases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 237 Index of Pages of the Print Edition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 243

iii

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

iv

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

HISTORY OF DOGMA BY

DR. ADOLPH HARNACK ORDINARY PROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, BERLIN

TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION

BY

NEIL BUCHANAN VOLUME I

iv

History of Dogma - Volume I

v

Adolf Harnack

VORWORT ZUR ENGLISCHEN AUSGABE. Ein theologisches Buch erhælt erst dadurch einen Platz in der Weltlitteratur, dass es Deutsch und Englisch gelesen werden kann. Diese beiden Sprachen zusammen haben auf dem Gebiete der Wissenschaft vom Christenthum das Lateinische abgelöst. Es ist mir daher eine grosse Freude, dass mein Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte in das Englische übersetzt worden ist, und ich sage dem Uebersetzer sowie den Verlegern meinen besten Dank. Der schwierigste Theil der Dogmengeschichte ist ihr Anfang, nicht nur weil in dem Anfang die Keime fur alle späteren Entwickelungen liegen, und daher ein Beobachtungsfehler beim Beginn die Richtigkeit der ganzen folgenden Darstellung bedroht, sondern auch desshalb, weil die Auswahl des wichtigsten Stoffs aus der Geschichte des Urchristenthums und der biblischen Theologie ein schweres Problem ist. Der Eine wird finden, dass ich zu viel in das Buch aufgenommen habe, und der Andere zu wenig—vielleicht haben Beide recht; ich kann dagegen nur anführen, dass sich mir die getroffene Auswahl nach wiederholtem Nachdenken und Experimentiren auf’s Neue erprobt hat.

vi

Wer ein theologisches Buch aufschlagt, fragt gewöhnlich zuerst nach dem “Standpunkt” des Verfassers. Bei geschichtlichen Darstellungen sollte man so nicht fragen. Hier handelt es sich darum, ob der Verfasser einen Sinn hat für den Gegenstand den er darstellt, ob er Originales und Abgeleitetes zu unterscheiden versteht, ob er seinen Stoff volkommen kennt, ob er sich der Grenzen des geschichtlichen Wissens bewusst ist, und ob er wahrhaftig ist. Diese Forderungen erhalten den kategorischen Imperativ für den Historiker; aber nur indem man rastlos an sich selber arbeitet, sind sie zu erfüllen,—so ist jede geschichtliche Darstellung eine ethische Aufgabe. Der Historiker treu sein: ob er das gewesen ist, darnach soll mann fragen. Berlin, am 1. Mai, 1894. ADOLF HARNACK.

vii

THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. No theological book can obtain a place in the literature of the world unless it can be read both in German and in English. These two languages combined have taken the place of Latin in the sphere of Christian Science. I am therefore greatly pleased to learn that my “History of Dogma” has been translated into English, and I offer my warmest thanks both to the translator and to the publishers. The most difficult part of the history of dogma is the beginning, not only because it contains the germs of all later developments, and therefore an error in observation here endangers the correctness of the whole following account, but also because the selection of the most important material from the history of primitive Christianity and biblical theology is a hard problem. Some will think that I have admitted too much into the book, others too little. Perhaps both are right. I can only reply that after repeated consideration and experiment I continue to be satisfied with my selection.

2

History of Dogma - Volume I

viii

Adolf Harnack

In taking up a theological book we are in the habit of enquiring first of all as to the “stand-point” of the Author. In a historical work there is no room for such enquiry. The question here is, whether the Author is in sympathy with the subject about which he writes, whether he can distinguish original elements from those that are derived, whether he has a thorough acquaintance with his material, whether he is conscious of the limits of historical knowledge, and whether he is truthful. These requirements constitute the categorical imperative for the historian: but they can only be fulfilled by an unwearied self-discipline. Hence every historical study is an ethical task. The historian ought to be faithful in every sense of the word ; whether he has been so or not is the question on which his readers have to decide. Berlin, 1st May, 1894. ADOLF HARNACK.

xix

FROM THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. The task of describing the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma which I have attempted to perform in the following pages, has hitherto been proposed by very few scholars, and, properly speaking, undertaken by one only. I must therefore crave the indulgence of those acquainted with the subject for an attempt which no future historian of dogma can avoid.

x

At first I meant to confine myself to narrower limits, but I was unable to carry out that intention, because the new arrangement of the material required a more detailed justification. Yet no one will find in the book, which presupposes the knowledge of Church history so far as it is given in the ordinary manuals, any repertory of the theological thought of Christian antiquity. The diversity of Christian ideas, or of ideas closely related to Christianity, was very great in the first centuries. For that very reason a selection was necessary; but it was required, above all, by the aim of the work. The history of dogma has to give an account only of those doctrines of Christian writers which were authoritative in wide circles, or which furthered the advance of the development; otherwise it would become a collection of monographs, and thereby lose its proper value. I have endeavoured to subordinate everything to the aim of exhibiting the development which led to the ecclesiastical dogmas, and therefore have neither, for example, communicated the details of the gnostic systems, nor brought forward in detail the theological ideas of Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, etc. Even a history of Paulinism will be sought for in the book in vain. It is a task by itself, to trace the after-effects of the theology of Paul in the post-Apostolic age. The History of Dogma can only furnish fragments here; for it is not consistent with its task to give an accurate account of the history of a theology the effects of which were at first very limited. It is certainly no easy matter to determine what was authoritative in wide circles at the time when dogma was first being developed, and I may confess that I have found the working out of the third chapter of the first book very difficult. But I hope that the severe limitation in the material will be of service to the subject. If the result of this limitation should be to lead students to read connectedly the manual which has grown out of my lectures, my highest wish will be gratified.

3

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

There can be no great objection to the appearance of a text-book on the history of dogma at the present time. We now know in what direction we have to work; but we still want a history of Christian theological ideas in their relation to contemporary philosophy. Above all, we have net got an exact knowledge of the Hellenistic philosophical terminologies in their development up to the fourth century. I have keenly felt this want, which can only be remedied by well-directed common labour. I have made a plentiful use of the controversial treatise of Celsus against Christianity, of which little use has hitherto been made for the history of dogma. On the other hand, except in a few cases, I have deemed it inadmissible to adduce parallel passages, easy to be got, from Philo, Seneca, Plutarch, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Porphyry, etc.; for only a comparison strictly carried out would have been of value here. I have been able neither to borrow such from others, nor to furnish it myself. Yet I have ventured to submit my work, because, in my opinion, it is possible to prove the dependence of dogma on the Greek spirit, without being compelled to enter into a discussion of all the details. The Publishers of the Encyclopedia Brittannica have allowed me to print here, in a form but slightly altered, the articles on Neoplatonism and Manichæism which I wrote for their work, and for this I beg to thank them. xi

It is now eighty-three years since my grandfather, Gustav Ewers, edited in German the excellent manual on the earliest history of dogma by Münter, and thereby got his name associated with the history of the founding of the new study. May the work of the grandson be found not unworthy of the clear and disciplined mind which presided over the beginnings of the young science. Giessen, 1st August, 1885.

xii

AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. In the two years that have passed since the appearance of the first edition I have steadily kept in view the improvement of this work, and have endeavoured to learn from the reviews of it that have appeared. I owe most to the study of Weizsäcker’s work on the Apostolic Age, and his notice of the first edition of this volume in the Göttinger gelehrte Anzeigen, 1886, No. 21. The latter, in several decisive passages concerning the general conception, drew my attention to the fact that I had emphasised certain points too strongly, but had not given due prominence to others of equal importance, while not entirely overlooking them. I have convinced myself that these hints were, almost throughout, well founded, and have taken pains to meet them in the new edition. I have also learned from Heinrici’s commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and from Bigg’s “Lectures on the Christian Platonists of Alexandria.” Apart from these works there has appeared very little that could be of significance for my historical account; but I have once more independently considered the main problems, and in some cases, after repeated reading of the sources, checked my statements, removed mistakes and explained what had been to briefly stated. Thus, in particular, Chapter II. §§©1-3 of the “Presuppositions,” also the Third Chapter of the First Book (especially

4

History of Dogma - Volume I

xiii

xiv

Adolf Harnack

Section 6), also in the Second Book, Chapter I. and Chapter II. (under B), the Third Chapter (Supplement 3 and excursus on “Catholic and Romish”), the Fifth Chapter (under 1 and 3) and the Sixth Chapter (under 2) have been subjected to changes and greater additions. Finally, a new excursus has been added on the various modes of conceiving pre-existence, and in other respects many things have been improved in detail. The size of the book has thereby been increased by about fifty pages. As I have been misrepresented by some as one who knew not how to appreciate the uniqueness of the Gospel history and the evangelic faith, while others have conversely reproached me with making the history of dogma proceed from an “apostasy” from the Gospel to Hellenism, I have taken pains to state my opinions on both these points as clearly as possible. In doing so I have only wrought out the hints which were given in the first edition, and which, as I supposed, were sufficient for readers. But it is surely a reasonable desire when I request the critics in reading the paragraphs which treat of the “Presuppositions,” not to forget how difficult the questions there dealt with are, both in themselves and from the nature of the sources, and how exposed to criticism the historian is who attempts to unfold his position towards them in a few pages. As is self-evident, the centre of gravity of the book lies in that which forms its subject proper, in the account of the origin of dogma within the Græco-Roman empire. But one should not on that account, as many have done, pass over the beginning which lies before the beginning, or arbitrarily adopt a starting-point of his own; for everything here depends on where and how one begins. I have not therefore been able to follow the well-meant counsel to simply strike out the “Presuppositions.” I would gladly have responded to another advice to work up the notes into the text; but I would then have been compelled to double the size of some chapters. The form of this book, in many respects awkward, may continue as it is so long as it represents the difficulties by which the subject is still pressed. When they have been removed—and the smallest number of them lie in the subject matter—I will gladly break up this form of the book and try to give it another shape. For the friendly reception given to it I have to offer my heartiest thanks. But against those who, believing themselves in possession of a richer view of the history here related, have called my conception meagre, I appeal to the beautiful words of Tertullian: Malumus in scripturis minus, si forte, sapere quam contra.” Marburg, 24th December, 1887.

xv

AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. In the six years that have passed since the appearance of the second edition I have continued to work at the book, and have made use of the new sources and investigations that have appeared during this period, as well as corrected and extended my account in many passages. Yet I have not found it necessary to make many changes in the second half of the work. The increase of about sixty pages is almost entirely in the first half.

xvi

Berlin, 31st December, 1893. Τὸ δόγματος ὄνομα τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἔχεται βουλῆς τε καὶ γνώμης. Ὅτι δὲ τοῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχει, μαρτυρεῖ μὲν, ἱκανῶς ἡ δογματικὴ τῶν ἰατρῶν τέχνη μαρτυρεῖ δὲ καὶ τὰ τῶν φιλοσόφων καλούμενα 5

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

δόγματα. Ὅτι δὲ καὶ τὰ συγκλήτῳ δόξαντα ἔτι καὶ νῦν δόγματα συγκλήτου λέγεται, οὑδένα ἀγνοεῖν οἶμαι. Marcellus of Ancyra Die Christliche Religion hat nichts in der Philosophie zu thun, Sie ist ein mächtiges Wesen für sich, woran die gesunkene und leidende Menschheit von Zeit zu Zeit sich immer wieder emporgearbeitet hat; und indem man ihr diese Wirkung zugesteht, ist sie über aller Philosophie erhaben und bedarf von ihr keine Stütze. Gespräche mit Goethe von Eckermann, Th. p. 39

CONTENTS.

xvii

Page INTRODUCTORY DIVISION CHAPTER I.—Prolegomena to the Study of the History

1–40

§©1. The Idea and Task of the History of Dogma

1–23

Definition

1

Limits and Divisions

3

Dogma and Theology

9

Factors in the formation of Dogma

12

Explanation as to the conception and 13 task of the History of Dogma §©2. History of the History of Dogma

23–40

The Early, the Mediæval, and the 23 Roman Catholic Church The Reformers and the 17th Century 25 Mosheim, Walch Ernesti

27

Lessing, Semler, Lange, Münscher, 29 Baumgarten-Crusius, Meir Baur, Neander, Kliefoth, Thomasius, 37 Nitzsch, Ritschl, Renan, Loofs CHAPTER II.—The Presuppositions of the History of Dogma

41–136

41–57

§©1. Introductory

The Gosppel and the Old Testament

41

The Detachment of the Christians from 43 the Jewish Church

6

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

The Church and the Græco-Roman 45 World The Greek spirit an element of the 47 Ecclesiastical Doctrine of Faith xviii

The Elements connecting Primitive 50 Christianity and the growing Catholic Church The Presuppositions of the origin of 57 the Apostolic Catholic Doctrine of Faith

§©2. The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to His own 58–76 Testimony concerning Himself

Fundamental Features

58

Details

61

Supplements

70

Literature

75

§©3. The Common Preaching concerning Jesus Christ in 76–98 the first generation of believers

General Outline

76

The faith of the first Disciples

78

The beginnings of Christology

80

Conceptions of the Work of Jesus

83

Belief in the Resurrection

84

Righteousness and the Law

86

Paul

86

The Self-consciousness of being the 88 Church of God Supplement 1. Universalism

89

Supplement 2. Questions as to the 89 validity of the Law; the four main tendencies at the close of the Apostolic Age Supplement 3. The Pauline Theology 92 Supplement 4. The Johannine Writings 95 Supplement 5. The Authorities in the 98 Church

7

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

§©4. The current Exposition of the Old Testament and the 99–107 Jewish hopes of the future, in their significance for the Earliest types of Christian preaching

The Rabbinical Methods

and

Exegetical 99

The Jewish Apocalyptic literature

100

Mythologies and poetical ideas, notions 102 of pre-existence and their application to Messiah The limits of the explicable

105

Literature

107

§©5. The Religious Conceptions and the Religious 107–116 Philosophy of the Hellenistic Jews in their significance for the later formulation of the Gospel xix

Spiritualising and Moralising of the 107 Jewish Religion Philo

109

The Hermeneutic principles of Philo 114 §©6. The religious dispositions of the Greeks and Romans 116–129 in the first two centuries, and the current Græco-Roman philosophy of religion

The new religious needs and the old 116 worship (Excursus on       The System of associations, and the 121 Empire Philosophy and its acquisitions

122

Platonic and Stoic Elements in the 126 philiosophy of religion Greek culture and Roman ideas in the 127 Church The Empire and philosophic schools 128 (the Cynics) Literature

128

SUPPLEMENTARY.

(1) The twofold conception of the blessing of Salvation in 129 its significance for the following period (2) Obscurity in the origin of the most important Christian 132 ideas and Ecclesiastical forms 8

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

(3) Significance of the Pauline theology for the legitimising 133 and reformation of the doctrine of the Church in the following period DIVISION I.—The Genesis of Ecclesiastical Dogma, or the Genesis of the Catholic Apostolic Dogmatic Theology, and the first Scientific Ecclesiastical System of Doctrine BOOK I. THE PREPARATION. CHAPTER I.—Historical Survey

141–144

CHAPTER II.—The Element common to all Christians and the breach with 145–149 Judaism CHAPTER III.—The Common Faith and the Beginnings of Knowledge in 150–222 Gentile Christianity as it was being developed into Catholicism

(1) The Communities and the Church

150

xx

(2) The Foundation of the Faith; the Old Testament, and 155 the traditions about Jesus (sayings of Jesus, the Kerygma about Jesus), the significance of the “Apostolic” (3) The main articles of Christianity and the conceptions 163 of salvation. The new law. Eschatology. (4) The Old Testament as source of the knowledge of faith 175 (5) The knowledge of God and of the world, estimate of 180 the world (Demons) (6) Faith in Jesus Christ

183

Jesus the Lord

183

Jesus the Christ

184

Jesus the Son of God, the Theologia 186 Christi The Adoptian and the Pneumatic 190 Christology Ideas of Christ’s work

199

(7) The Worship, the sacred actions, and the organization 204 of the Churches

The Worship and Sacrifice

204

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

207

The organization

214

SUPPLEMENTARY. 9

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

The premises of Catholicism

Doctrinal diversities of the Apostolic 218 Fathers

CHAPTER IV.—The attempts of the Gnostics to create an Apostolic Dogmatic, and a Christian theology; or the acute secularising of Christianity

218

223–266

(1) The conditions for the rise of Gnosticism

223

(2) The nature of Gnosticism

227

(3) History of Gnosticism and the forms in which it 238 appeared (4) The most important Gnostic doctrines CHAPTER V.—The attempt of Marcion to set aside the Old Testament foundation of Christianity, to purify the tradition and reform Christendom on the basis of the Pauline Gospel

Characterisation of Marcion’s attempt

253 267–286

267

xxi

(1)

His estimate of the Old Testament and 271 the god of the Jews

(2)

The God of the Gospel

(3)

The relation of the two Gods according 274 to Marcion

The Gnostic woof in Marcion’s 275 Christianity

(4)

The Christology

275

(5)

Eschatology and Ethics

277

(6)

Criticism of the Christian tradition, the 278 Marcionite Church

Remarks

CHAPTER VI.—The Christianity of Jewish Christians, Definition of the notion Jewish Christianity

Characterisation of Marcion’s attempt

272

282 287–317

267

(1)

General conditions for the development 287 of Jewish Christianity

(2)

Jewish Christianity and the Catholic 289 Church, insignificance of Jewish Christianity, “Judaising” in Catholicism 10

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

Alleged documents of Jewish 295 Christianity (Apocalpse of John, Acts of the Apostles, Epistle to the Hebrews, Hegesippus) History of Jewish Christianity

296

The witness of Justin

296

The witness of Celsus

298

The witness of Irenæus and Origen

299

The witness of Eusebius and Jerome

300

The Gnostic Jewish Christianity

302

The Elkesaites and Ebionites of 304 Epiphanius Estimate of the Pseudo-Clementine 311 Recognitions and Homilies, their want of significance for the question as to the genesis of Catholicism and its doctrine APPENDICES. I.

On the different notions of Pre-existence

318

II.

On Liturgies and the genesis of Dogma

332

III.

On Neoplatonism

335

Literature

361

xxii

xxiii

I PROLEGOMENA TO THE DISCIPLINE OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA.

11

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

II THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA

1

CHAPTER I. PROLEGOMENA TO THE DISCIPLINE OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA. §©I. The Idea and Task of the History of Dogma. 1. The History of Dogma is a discipline of general Church History, which has for its object the dogmas of the Church. These dogmas are the doctrines of the Christian faith logically formulated and expressed for scientific and apologetic purposes, the contents of which are a knowledge of God, of the world, and of the provisions made by God for man’s salvation. The Christian Churches teach them as the truths revealed in Holy Scripture, the acknowledgment of which is the condition of the salvation which religion promises. But as the adherents of the Christian religion had not these dogmas from the beginning, so far, at least, as they form a connected system, the business of the history of dogma is, in the first place, to ascertain the origin of Dogmas (of Dogma), and then secondly, to describe their development (their variations). 2. We cannot draw any hard and fast line between the time of the origin and that of the development of dogma; they rather shade off into one another. But we shall have to look for the final point of division at the time when an article of faith logically formulated and scientifically expressed, was first raised to the articulus constitutivus ecclesia, and as such was universally enforced by the Church. Now that first happened when the doctrine of Christ, as the pre-existent and personal Logos of God, had obtained acceptance everywhere in the confederated Churches as the revealed and fundamental doctrine of faith, that is, about the end of the third century or the beginning of the

2

12

History of Dogma - Volume I

3

Adolf Harnack

fourth. We must therefore, in our account, take this as the final point of division.1 As to the development of dogma, it seems to have closed in the Eastern Church with the seventh Œcumenical Council (787). After that time no further dogmas were set up in the East as revealed truths. As to the Western Catholic, that is, the Romish Church, a new dogma was promulgated as late as the year 1870, which claims to be, and in point of form really is, equal in dignity to the old dogmas. Here, therefore, the History of Dogma must extend to the present time. Finally, as regards the Protestant Churches, they are a subject of special difficulty in the sphere of the history of dogma; for at the present moment there is no agreement within these Churches as to whether, and in what sense, dogmas (as the word was used in the ancient Church) are valid. But even if we leave the present out of account and fix our attention on the Protestant Churches of the 16th century, the decision is difficult. For, on the one hand, the Protestant faith, the Lutheran as well as the Reformed (and that of Luther no less), presents itself as a doctrine of faith which, resting Catholic canon of scripture, is, in point of form, quite analogous to the Catholic doctrine of faith, has a series of dogmas in common with it, and only differs in a few. On the other hand, Protestantism has taken its stand in principle on the Gospel exclusively, and declared its readiness at all times to test all doctrines afresh by a true understanding of the Gospel. The Reformers, however, in addition to this, began to unfold a conception of Christianity which might be described, in contrast with the Catholic type of religion, as a new conception, and which indeed draws support from the old dogmas, but changes their original significance materially and formally. What this conception was may still be ascertained from those writings received by the Church, the Protestant symbols of the 16th century, in which the larger part of the traditionary dogmas are recognised as the appropriate expression of the Christian religion, nay, as the Christian religion itself.2 Accordingly, it can neither be maintained that the expression of the Christian faith in the form of dogmas is abolished in the Protestant Churches—the very acceptance of the Catholic canon as the revealed record of faith is opposed to that view—nor that its meaning has remained absolutely unchanged.3 The history of dogma has simply to recognise this state of things, and to represent it exactly as it lies before us in the documents.

1

2 3

Weizsäcker, Gott. Gel. Anz. 1886, p. 823 f. says, “It is a question whether we should limit the account of the genesis of Dogma to the Antenicene and designate all else as a development of that. This is undoubted correct so long as our view is limited to the history of dogma of the Greek Church in the second period, and the development of it by the Œcumenical Synods. On the other hand, the Latin Church, in its own way and in its own province, becomes productive from the days of Augustine onwards; the formal signification of dogma in the narrower sense becomes different in the middle ages. Both are repeated in a much greater measure through theReformation. We may therefore in process, in opposition to that division into genesis and development, regard the whole as a continuous process, in which the contents as well as the formal authority of dogma are in process of continuous development.” This view is certainly just, and I think is indicated by myself in what follows. We have to decide here, as so often elsewhere in our account, between rival points of view. The view favoured by me has the advantage of making the nature of dogma clearly appear as a product of the mode of thought of the early church, and that is what it has remained, in spite of all changes both in form and substance, till the present day. See Kattenbusch. Luther’s Stellung zu den ökumenischen Symbolen, 1883. See Ritschl. Geschichte des Pietismus, I. p. 80 ff.: 93 ff., II. p. 60 f.: 88 f. “The Lutheran view of life did not remain pure and undefiled, but was limited and obscured by the preponderance of dogmatic interests. Protestantism was not delivered from the womb of the Western Church of the middle ages in full power and equipment, like Athene from the head of Jupiter. The incompleteness of its ethical view, the splitting up of its general conceptions into a series of particular dogmas, the tendency to express its beliefs as a hard and fast whole, are defects which soon made Protestantism appear to disadvantage in comparison with the wealth of mediæval theology and asceticism. . . The scholastic form of pure doctrine is really only the provisional, and not the final form of Protestantism.”

13

History of Dogma - Volume I

4

Adolf Harnack

But the point to which the historian should advance here still remains an open question. If we adhere strictly to the definition of the idea of dogma given above, this much is certain, that dogmas were no longer set up after the Formula of Concord, or in the case of the Reformed Church, after the decrees of the Synod of Dort. It cannot, however, be maintained that they have been set aside in the centuries that have passed since then; for apart from some Protestant National and independent Churches, which are too insignificant and whose future is too uncertain to be taken into account here, the ecclesiastical tradition of the 16th century, and along it the tradition of the early Church, have not been abrogated in authoritative form. Of course, changes of the greatest importance with regard to doctrine have appeared everywhere in Protestantism from the 17th century to the present day. But these changes cannot in any sense be taken into account in a history of dogma, because they have not as yet attained a form valid for the Church. However we may changes, whether we regard them as corruptions or improvements, or explain the want of fixity in which the Protestant Churches find themselves, as a situation that is forced on them, or the situation that is agreeable to them and for which they are adapted, in no sense is there here a development which could be described as history of dogma. These facts would seem to justify those who, like Thomasius and Schmid, carry the history of dogma in Protestantism to the Formula of Concord, or, in the case of the Reformed Church, to the decrees of the Synod of Dort. But it may be objected to this boundary line; (1) That those symbols have at all times attained only a partial authority in Protestantism; (2) That as noted above, the dogmas, that is, the formulated doctrines of faith have different meanings on different matters in the Protestant and in the Catholic Churches. Accordingly, it seems advisable within the frame-work of the history of dogma, to examine Protestantism only so far as this is necessary for obtaining a knowledge of its deviations from the Catholic dogma materially and formally, that is, to ascertain the original position of the Reformers with regard to the doctrine of the Church, a position which is beset with contradictions. The more accurately we determine the relation of the Reformers to Catholicism, the more intelligible will be the developments which Protestantism has passed through in the course of its history. But these developments themselves (retrocession and advance) do not belong to the sphere of the history of dogma, because they stand in no comparable relation to the course of the history of dogma within the Catholic Church. As history of Protestant doctrines they form a peculiar independent province of Church history.

5

As to the division of the history of dogma, it consists of two main parts. The first has to describe the origin of dogma, that is, of the Apostolic Catholic system of doctrine based on the foundation of the tradition authoritatively embodied in the creeds and Holy Scripture, and extends to the beginning of the fourth century. This may be conveniently divided into two parts, the first of which will treat of the preparation, the second of the establishment of the ecclesiastical doctrine of faith. The second main part, which has to portray the development of dogma, comprehends three stages. In the first stage the doctrine of faith appears as Theology and Christology. The Eastern Church has never got beyond this stage, although it has to a large extent enriched dogma ritually and mystically (see the decrees of the seventh council). We will have to shew how the doctrines of faith formed in this stage have remained for all time in the Church dogmas κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. The second stage was initiated by Augustine. The doctrine of faith appears here on the one side completed, and on the other re-expressed by new dogmas, which treat of the relation of sin and grace, freedom and 14

History of Dogma - Volume I

6

Adolf Harnack

grace, grace and the means of grace. The number and importance of the dogmas that were, in the middle ages, really fixed after Augustine’s time, had no relation to the range and importance of the questions which they raised, and which emerged in the course of centuries in consequence of advancing knowledge, and not less in consequence of the growing power of the Church. Accordingly, in this second stage which comprehends the whole of the middle ages, the Church as an institution kept believers together in a larger measure than was possible to dogmas. These in their accepted form were too poor to enable them to be the expression of religious conviction and the regulator of Church life. On the other hand, the new decisions of Theologians, Councils and Popes, did not yet possess the authority which could have made them incontestable truths of faith. The third stage begins with the Reformation, which compelled the Church to fix its faith on the basis of the theological work of the middle ages. Thus arose the Catholic dogma which has found in the Vatican decrees its provisional settlement. This Roman Catholic dogma, as it was formulated at Trent, was moulded in express opposition to the Theses of the Reformers. But these Theses themselves represent a peculiar conception of Christianity, which has its root in the theology of Paul and Augustine, and includes either explicitly or implicitly a revision of the whole ecclesiastical tradition, and therefore of dogma also. The History of Dogma in this last stage, therefore, has a twofold task. It has, on the one hand, to present the Romish dogma as a product of the ecclesiastical development of the middle ages under the influence of the Reformation faith which was to be rejected, and on the other hand, to portray the conservative new formation which we have in original Protestantism, and determine its relation to dogma. A closer examination, however, shews that in none of the great confessions does religion live in dogma, as of old. Dogma everywhere has fallen into the background; in the Eastern Church it has given place to ritual, in the Roman Church to ecclesiastical instructions, in the Protestant Churches, so far as they are mindful of their origin, to the Gospel. At the same time, however, the paradoxical fact is unmistakable that dogma as such is nowhere at this moment so powerful as in the Protestant Churches, though by their history they are furthest removed from it. Here, however, it comes into consideration as an object of immediate religious interest, which, strictly speaking, in the Catholic Church is not the case.4 The Council of Trent was simply wrung

4

It is very evident how the mediæval and old catholic dogmas were transformed in the view which Luther originally took of them. In this view we must remember that he did away with all the presuppositions of dogma, the infallible Apostolic Canon of Scripture, the infallible teaching function of the Church, and the infallible Apostolic doctrine and constitution. On this basis dogmas can only be utterances which do not support faith, but are supposed by it. But, on the other hand his opposition to all the Apocryphal saints which the Church has created, compelled him to emphasise faith alone, and to give it a firm basis in Scripture, in order to free it from the burden of tradition. Here then, very soon, first by Melanchthon, a summary of articuli fide was substituted for the faith, and the Scriptures recovered their place as a rule. Luther himself, however, is responsible for both, and so it came about that very soon the new evangelic standpoint was explained almost exclusively by the “abolition of abuses,” and by no means so surely by the transformation of the whole doctrinal tradition. The classic authority for this is the Augsburg confession (“hæc fere summa est doctrina apud suos, in qua cerni potest nihil inesse, quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia Catholica vel ab ecclesia Romana . . . . sed dissensio est de quibusdam abusibus”). The purified catholic doctrine has since then become the palladium of the Reformation Churches. The refuters of the Augustana have justly been unwilling to admit the mere “purifying,” but have noted in addition that the Augustana does not say everything that was urged by Luther and the Doctors (see Ficker, Die Konfutation des Augsburgischen Bekenntnisse, 1891). At the same time, however, the Lutheran Church, though not so strongly as the English, retained the consciousness of being the true Catholics. But, as the history of Protestantism proves, the original impulse has not remained inoperative. Though Luther himself all his life measured his personal Christian standing by an entirely different standard than subjection to a law of faith; yet, however presumptous the words may sound, we might say that in the complicated struggle that was forced on him, he did not always clearly understand his own faith.

15

History of Dogma - Volume I

7

8

9

Adolf Harnack

from the Romish Church, and she has made the dogmas of that council in a certain sense innocuous by the Vatican decrees.5 In this sense, it may be said that the period of development of dogma is altogether closed, and that therefore our discipline requires a statement such as belongs to a series of historical phenomena that has been completed. 3. The Church has recognised her faith, that is religion itself, in her dogmas. Accordingly, one very important business of the History of Dogma is to exhibit the unity that exists in the dogmas of a definite period, and to shew how the several dogmas are connected with one another and what leading ideas they express. But, as a matter of course, this undertaking has its limits in the degree of unanimity which actually existed in the dogmas of the particular period. It may be shewn without much difficulty, that a strict though by no means absolute unanimity is expressed only in the dogmas of the Greek Church. The peculiar character of the western post-Augustinian ecclesiastical conception of Christianity, no longer finds a clear expression in dogma, and still less is this the case with the conception of the Reformers. The reason of this is that Augustine, as well as Luther, disclosed a new conception of Christianity, but at the same time appropriated the old dogmas.6 But neither Baur’s nor Kliefoth’s method of writing the history of dogmas has done justice to this fact. Not Baur’s, because, notwithstanding the division into six periods, it sees a uniform process in the development of dogma, a process which begins with the origin of Christianity and has run its course, as is alleged, in a strictly logical way. Not Kliefoth’s, because, in the dogmas of the Catholic Church which the East has never got beyond, it only ascertains the establishment of one portion of the Christian faith, to which the parts still wanting have been successively added in later times.7 In contrast with this, we may refer to the fact that we can clearly distinguish three styles of building in the history of dogma, but only three; the style of Origen, that of Augustine, and that of the Reformers. But the dogma of the post-Augustinian Church, as well as that of Luther, does not in any way represent itself as a new building, not even as the mere extension of an old building, but as a complicated rebuilding, and by no means in harmony with former styles, because neither

5

6

7

In the modern Romish Church, dogma is, above all, a judicial regulation which one has to submit to, and in certain circumstances submission alone is sufficient, fides implicita. Dogma is thereby just as much deprived of its original sense and its original authority as by the demand of the Reformers, that every thing should be based upon a clear understanding of the Gospel. Moreover, the changed position of the Romish Church towards dogma is also shewn by the fact that it no longer gives a plain answer to the question as to what dogma is. Instead of a series of dogmas definitely defined, and of equal value, there is presented an infinite multitude of whole and half dogmas, doctrinal directions, pious opinions, probable theological propositions, etc. It is often a very difficult question whether a solemn decision has or has not already been taken on this or that statement, or whether such a decision is still necessary. Everything that must be believed is nowhere stated, and so one sometimes hears in Catholic circles the exemplary piety of a cleric praised with the words that “he believes more than is necessary.” The great dogmatic conflicts within the Catholic Church, since the Council of Trent, have been silenced by arbitrary Papal pronouncements and doctrinal directions. Since one has simply to accommodate oneself to these as laws, it once more appears clear that dogma has become a judicial regulation, administered by the Pope, which is carried out in an administrative way and loses itself in an endless casuistry. We do not mean by this to deny that dogma has a decided value for the pious Catholic as a summary of the faith. But in the Catholic Church it is no longer piety, but obedience that is decisive. The solidarity with the orthodox Protestants may be explained by political reasons, in order, from political reasons again, to condemn, where it is necessary, all Protestants as heretics and revolutionaries. See the discussions of Biedermann (Christliche Dogmatik. 2 Ed. p. 150 f.) about what he calls the law of stability in the history of religion. See Ritschl’s discussion of the methods of the early histories of dogma in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theologie, 1871, p. 181 ff.

16

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

Augustine nor Luther ever dreamed of building independently.8 This perception leads us to the most peculiar phenomenon which meets the historian of dogma, and which must determine his method.

10

Dogmas arise, develop themselves and are made serviceable to new aims; this in all cases takes place through Theology. But Theology is dependent on innumerable factors, above all on the spirit of the time; for it lies in the nature of theology that it desires to make its object intelligible. Dogmas are the product of theology, not inversely; of a theology of course which, as a rule, was in correspondence with the faith of the time. The critical view of history teaches this: first we have the Apologists and Origen, then the councils of Nice and Chalcedon; first the Scholastics, and the Council of Trent. In consequence of this, dogma bears the mark of all the factors on which the theology was dependent. That is one point. But the moment in which the product of theology became dogma, the way which led to it must be obscured; for, according to the conception of the Church, dogma can be nothing else than the revealed faith itself. Dogma is regarded not as the exponent, but as the basis of theology, and there-fore the product of theology having passed into dogma limits, and criticises the work of theology both past and future.9 That is the second point. It follows from this that the history of the Christian religion embraces a very complicated relation of ecclesiastical dogma and theology, and that the ecclesiastical conception of the significance of theology cannot at all do justice to this significance. The ecclesiastical scheme which is here formed and which denotes the utmost concession that can be made to history, is to the effect that theology gives expression only to the form of dogma, while so far as it is ecclesiastical theology, it presupposes the unchanging dogma, i.e., the substance of dogma. But this scheme, which must always leave uncertain what the form really is, and what the substance, is in no way applicable to the actual circumstances. So far, however, as it is itself an article of faith it is an object of the history of dogma. Ecclesiastical dogma when put on its defence must at all times take up an ambiguous position towards theology, and ecclesiastical theology a corresponding position towards dogma; for they are condemned to perpetual uncertainty as to what they owe each other, and what they have to fear from each other. The theological Fathers of dogma have almost without exception failed to escape being condemned by dogma, either because it went beyond them, or lagged behind their theology. The Apologist, Origen and Augustine may be cited in support of this; and even in Protestantism, mutatis mutandis, the same of thing has been repeated, as is proved by the fate of Melanchthon and Schleiermacher. On the other hand, there have been few theologians who have not shaken some article of the traditional dogma. We are wont to get rid of these fundamental facts by hypostatising the ecclesiastical principle or the common ecclesiastical spirit, and by this normal hypostasis, measuring, approving or condemning the doctrines of the theologians, unconcerned about the actual conditions and frequently following a hysteron-proteron. But this is a view of history which should in justice be left to the Catholic Church, which indeed cannot dispense with it. The critical history of dogma has, on the contrary, to shew above all how an ecclesiastical theology has arisen; for it 8

9

In Catholicism, the impulse which proceeded from Augustine has finally proved powerless to break the traditional conception of Christianity, as the Council of Trent and the decrees of the Vatican have shewn. For that very reason the development of the Roman Catholic Church doctrine belongs to the history of dogma. Protestantism must, however, under all circumstances be recognised as a new thing, which indeed in none of its phases has been free from contradictions. Here then begins the ecclesiastical theology which takes as its starting-point the finished dogma it strives to prove or harmonise, but very soon, as experience has shewn, loses its firm footing in such efforts and so occasions new crises.

17

History of Dogma - Volume I

11

12

Adolf Harnack

can only give account of the origin of dogma in connection with this main question. The horizon must be taken here as wide as possible; for the question as to the origin of theology can only be answered by surveying all the relations into which the Christian religion has entered in naturalising itself in the world and subduing it. When ecclesiastical dogma has once been created and recognised as an immediate expression of the Christian religion, the history of dogma has only to take the history of theology into account so far as it has been active in the formation of dogma. Yet it must always keep in view the peculiar claim of dogma to be a criterion and not a product of theology. But it will also be able to shew how, partly by means of theology and partly by other means—for dogma is also dependent on ritual, constitution, and the practical ideals of life, as well as on the letter, whether of Scripture, or of tradition no longer understood—dogma in its development and re-expression has continually changed, according to the conditions under which the Church was placed. If dogma is originally the formulation of Christian faith as Greek culture understood it and justified it to itself, then dogma has never indeed lost this character, though it has been radically modified in later times. It is quite as important to keep in view the tenacity of dogma as its changes, and in this respect the Protestant way of writing history, which, here as elsewhere in the history of the Church, is more disposed to attend to differences than to what is permanent, has much to learn from the Catholic. But as the Protestant historian, as far as possible, judges of the progress of development in so far as it agrees with the Gospel in its documentary form, he is still able to shew, with all deference to that tenacity, that dogma has been so modified and used to the best advantage by Augustine and Luther, that its Christian character has in many respects gained, though in other respects it has become further and further alienated from that character. In proportion as the traditional system of dogmas lost its stringency it became richer. In proportion as it was stripped by Augustine and Luther of its apologetic philosophic tendency, it was more and more filled with Biblical ideas, though, on the other hand, it became more full of contradictions and less impressive. This outlook, however, has already gone beyond the limits fixed for these introductory paragraphs and must not be pursued further. To treat in abstracto of the method of the history of dogma in relation to the discovery, grouping, and interpretation of the material is not to be recommended; for general rules to preserve the ignorant and half instructed from overlooking the important, and laying hold of what is not important, cannot be laid down. Certainly everything depends on the arrangement of the material; for the understanding of history is to find the rules according to which the phenomena should be grouped, and every advance in the knowledge of history is inseparable from an accurate observance of these rules. We must, above all, be on our guard against preferring one principle at the expense of another in the interpretation of the origin and aim of particular dogmas. The most diverse factors have at all times been at work in the formation of dogmas. Next to the effort to determine the doctrine of religion according to the finis religionis, the blessing of salvation, the following may have been the most important. (1) The conceptions and sayings contained in the canonical Scriptures. (2) The doctrinal tradition originating in earlier epochs of the Church, and no longer understood. (3) The needs of worship and organisation. (4) The effort to adjust the doctrine of religion to the prevailing doctrinal opinions. (5) Political and social circumstances. (6) The changing moral ideals of life. (7) The so-called logical consistency, that is the abstract analogical treatment of one dogma according to the form of another. (8) The effort to adjust different tendencies and contradictions in the Church. (9) The endeavour to reject once for all a doctrine regarded as erroneous. (10) The sanctifying power of blind custom. The method of 18

History of Dogma - Volume I

13

Adolf Harnack

explaining everything wherever possible by “the impulse of dogma to unfold itself,” must be given up as unscientific, just as all empty abstractions whatsoever must be given up as scholastic and mythological. Dogma has had its history in the individual living man and nowhere else. As soon as one adopts this statement in real earnest, that mediæval realism must vanish to which a man so often thinks himself superior while imbedded in it all the time. Instead of investigating the actual conditions in which believing and intelligent men have been placed, a system of Christianity has been constructed from which, as from a Pandora’s box, all doctrines which in course of time have been formed, are extracted, and in this way legitimised as Christian. The simple fundamental proposition that that only is Christian which can be established authoritatively by the Gospel, has never yet received justice in the history of dogma. Even the following account will in all probability come short in this point; for in face of a prevailing false tradition the application of a simple principle to every detail can hardly succeed at the first attempt. Explanation as to the Conception and Task of the History of Dogma.

14

No agreement as yet prevails with regard to the conception of the history of dogma. Münscher (Handbuch der Christl. D. G. 3rd ed. I. p. 3 f.) declared that the business of the history of dogma is “To represent all the changes which the theoretic part of the Christian doctrine of religion has gone through from its origin up to the present, both in form and substance,” and this definition held sway for a long time. Then it came to be noted that the question was not about changes that were accidental, but about those that were historically necessary, that dogma has a relation to the Church, and that it represents a rational expression of the faith. Emphasis was put sometimes on one of these elements and sometimes on the other. Baur, in particular, insisted on the first; V. Hofmann, after the example of Schleiermacher, on the second, and indeed exclusively (Encyklop. der theol. p. 257 f.: “The history of dogma is the history of the Church confessing the faith in words”). Nitzsch (Grundriss der Christl. D. G. I. p. I) insisted on the third: “The history of dogma is the scientific account of the origin and development of the Christian system of doctrine or that part of historical theology which presents the history of the expression of the Christian faith in notions, doctrines and doctrinal systems.” Thomasius has combined the second and third by conceiving the history of dogma as the history of the development of the ecclesiastical system of doctrine. But even this conception is not sufficiently definite, inasmuch as it fails to do complete justice to the special peculiarity of the subject. Ancient and modern usage does certainly seem to allow the word dogma to be applied to particular doctrines, or to a uniform system of doctrine, to fundamental truths, or to opinions, to theoretical propositions or practical rules, to statements of belief that have not been reached by a process of reasoning, as well as to those that bear the marks of such a process. But this uncertainty vanishes on closer examination. We then see that there is always an authority at the basis of dogma, which gives it to those who recognise that authority the signification of a fundamental truth “quæ sine scelere prodi non poterit” (Cicero Quæst. Acad. IV. 9). But therewith at the same time is introduced into the idea of dogma a social element (see Biedermann, Christl. Dogmatik. 2 Edit. I. p. 2 f.); the confessors of one and the same dogma form a community. There can be no doubt that these two elements are also demonstrable in Christian dogma, and therefore we must reject all definitions of the history of dogma which do not take them into account. 19

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

If we define it as the history of the understanding of Christianity by itself, or as the history of the changes of the theoretic part of the doctrine of religion or the like, we shall fail to do justice to the idea of dogma in its most general acceptation. We cannot describe as dogmas, doctrines such as the Apokatastasis, or the Kenosis of the Son of God, without coming into conflict with the ordinary usage of language and with ecclesiastical law.

15

16

If we start, therefore, from the supposition that Christian dogma is an ecclesiastical doctrine which presupposes revelation as its authority, and therefore claims to be strictly binding, we shall fail to bring out its real nature with anything like completeness. That which Protestants and Catholics call dogmas, are not only ecclesiastical doctrines, but they are also: (1) theses expressed in abstract terms, forming together a unity, and fixing the contents of the Christian religion as a knowledge of God, of the world, and of the sacred history under the aspect of a proof of the truth. But (2) they have also emerged at a definite stage of the history of the Christian religion; they shew in their conception as such, and in many details, the influence of that stage, viz., the Greek period, and they have preserved this character in spite of all their reconstructions and additions in after periods. This view of dogma Cannot be shaken by the fact that particular historical facts, Miraculous or not miraculous are described as dogmas; for here they are regarded as such only in so far as they have got the value of doctrines which have been inserted in the complete structure of doctrines and are, on the other hand, members of a chain of proofs, viz., proofs from prophecy. But as soon as we perceive this, the parallel between the ecclesiastical dogmas and those of ancient schools of philosophy appears to be in point of form complete. The only difference is that revelation is here put as authority in the place of human knowledge, although the later philosophic schools appealed to revelation also. The theoretical as well as the practical doctrines which embraced the peculiar conception of the world and the ethics of the school, together with their rationale, were described in these schools as dogmas. Now, in so far as the adherents of the Christian religion possess dogmas in this sense, and form a community which has gained an understanding of its religious faith by analysis and by scientific definition and grounding, they appear as a great philosophic school in the ancient sense of the word. But they differ from such a school in so far as they have always eliminated the process of thought which has led to the dogma, looking upon the whole system of dogma as a revelation and there-fore, even in respect of the reception of the dogma, at least at first, they have taken account not of the powers of human understanding, but of the Divine enlightenment which is bestowed on all the willing and the virtuous. In later times, indeed, the analogy was far more complete, in so far as the Church reserved the full possession of dogma to a circle of consecrated and initiated individuals. Dogmatic Christianity is therefore a definite stage in the history of the development of Christianity. It corresponds to the antique mode of thought, but has nevertheless continued to a very great extent in the following epochs, though subject to great transformations. Dogmatic Christianity stands between Christianity as the religion of the Gospel, presupposing a personal experience and dealing with disposition and conduct, and Christianity as a religion of cultus, sacraments, ceremonial and obedience, in short of superstition, and it can be united with either the one or the other. In itself and in spite of all its mysteries it is always intellectual Christianity, and therefore there is always the danger here that as knowledge it may supplant religious faith, or connect it with a doctrine of religion, instead of with God and a living experience. 20

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

If then the discipline of the history of dogma is to be what its name purports, its object is the very dogma which is so formed, and its fundamental problem will be to discover how it has arisen. In the history of the canon our method of procedure has for long been to ask first of all, how the canon originated, and then to examine the changes through which it has passed. We must proceed in the same way with the history of dogma, of which the history of the canon is simply a part. Two objections will be raised against this. In the first place, it will be said that from the very first the Christian religion has included a definite religious faith as well as a definite ethic, and that therefore Christian dogma is as original as Christianity itself, so that there can be no question about a genesis, but only as to a development or alteration of dogma within the Church. Again it will be said, in the second place, that dogma as defined above, has validity only for a definite epoch in the history of the Church, and that it is therefore quite impossible to write a comprehensive history of dogma in the sense we have indicated.

17

18

As to the first objection, there can of course be no doubt that the Christian religion is founded on a message, the contents of which are a definite belief in God and in Jesus Christ whom he has sent, and that the promise of salvation is attached to this belief. But faith in the Gospel and the later dogmas of the Church are not related to each other as theme and the way in which it is worked out, any more than the dogma of the New Testament canon is only the explication of the original reliance of Christians on the word of their Lord and the continuous working of the Spirit; but in these later dogmas an entirely new element has entered into the Conception of religion. The message of religion appears here Clothed in a knowledge of the world and of the ground of the World which had already been obtained without any reference to it, and therefore religion itself has here become a doctrine Which has, indeed, its certainty in the Gospel, but only in part derives its contents from it, and which can also be appropriated by such as are neither poor in spirit nor weary itnd heavy laden. Now, it may of course be shewn that a philosophic conception of the Christian religion is possible, Ind began to make its appearance from the very first, as in the case of Paul. But the Pauline gnosis has neither been simply identified with the Gospel by Paul himself (I Cor. III. 2 f.: XII. 3: Phil. I. 18) nor is it analogous to the later dogma, not to speak of being identical with it. The characteristic of this dogma is that it represents itself in no sense as foolishness, but as wisdom, and at the same time desires to be regarded as the contents of revelation itself. Dogma in its conception and development is a work of the Greek spirit on the soil of the Gospel. By comprehending in itself and giving excellent expression to the religious conceptions contained in Greek philosophy and the Gospel, together with its Old Testament basis; by meeting the search for a revelation as well as the desire for a universal knowledge; by subordinating itself to the aim of the Christian religion to bring a Divine life to humanity as well as to the aim of philosophy to know the world: it became the instrument by which the Church conquered the ancient world and educated the modern nations. But this dogma—one cannot but admire its formation or fail to regard it as a great achievement of the spirit, which never again in the history of Christianity has made itself at home with such freedom and boldness in religion—is the product of a comparatively long history which needs to be deciphered; for it is obscured by the completed dogma. The Gospel itself is not dogma, for belief in the Gospel provides room for knowledge only so far as it is a state of feeling and course of action, that is a definite form of life. Between practicl faith in the Gospel and the historico-critical account of the Christian religion and its history, a third element can no longer be thrust in without its coming into conflict with faith, or with the historical data--the only thing left is the practical task of defending 21

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

the faith. But a third element has been thrust into the history of this religion, viz., dogma, that is, the philosophical means which were used in early times for the purpose of making the Gospel intelligible have been fused with the contents of the Gospel and raised to dogma. This dogma, next to the Church, has become a real world power, the pivot in the history of the Christian religion. The transformation of the Christian faith into dogma is indeed no accident, but has its reason is in spiritual character of the Christian religion, which at all times will feel the need of a scientific apologetic.10 But the question here is not as to something indefinite and general, but as to the definite dogma formed in the first centuries, and binding even yet.

19

This already touches on the second objection which was raised above, that dogma, in the given sense of the word, was too narrowly conceived, and could not in this conception be applied throughout the whole history of the Church. This objection would only be justified, if our task were to carry the history of the development of dogma through the whole history of the Church. But the question is just whether we are right in proposing such a task. The Greek Church has no history of dogma after the seven great Councils, and it is incomparably more important to recognise this fact than to register the theologoumena which were later on introduced by Individual Bishops and scholars in the East, who were partly Influenced by the West. Roman Catholicism in its dogmas, though, as noted above, these at present do not very clearly characterise it, is to-day essentially—that is, so far as it is religion—what it was 1500 years ago, viz., Christianity as Understood by the ancient world. The changes which dogma has experienced in the course of its development in western Catholicism are certainly deep and radical: they have, in point of fact, as has been indicated in the text above, modified the position of the Church towards Christianity as dogma. But as the Catholic Church herself maintains that she adheres to Christianity in the old dogmatic sense, this claim of hers cannot be contested. She has embraced new things and changed her relations to the old, but still preserved the old. But she has further developed new dogmas according to the scheme of the old. The decrees of Trent and of the Vatican are formally analogous to the old dogmas. Here, then, a history of dogma may really be carried forward to the present day without thereby shewing that the definition of dogma given above is too narrow to embrace the new doctrines. Finally, as to Protestantism, it has been briefly explained above why the changes in Protestant systems of doctrine are not to be taken up into the history of dogma. Strictly speaking, dogma, as dogma, has had no development in Protestantism, inasmuch as a secret note of interrogation has been here associated with it from the very beginning. But the old dogma has continued to be a power in it, because of its tendency to look back and to seek for authorities in the past, and partly in the original unmodified form. The dogmas of the fourth and fifth centuries have more influence to-day in wide circles of Protestant Churches than all the doctrines which are concentrated around justification by faith. Deviations from the latter are borne comparatively easy, while as a rule, deviations from the former are followed by notice to quit the Christian communion, that is, by excommunication. The 10

Weizsäcker, Apostolic Age, Vol. I. p. 123. “Christianity as religion is absolutely inconceivable without theology; first of all, for the same reasons which called forth the Pauline theology. As a religion it cannot be separated from the religion of its founder, hence not from historical knowledge. And as Monotheism and belief in a world purpose, it is the religion of reason with the inextinguishable impulse of thought. The first gentile Christians therewith gained the proud consciousness of a gnosis.” But of ecclesiastical Christianity which rests on dogma ready made, as produced by an earlier epoch, this conception holds good only in a very qualified way; and of the vigorous Christian piety of the earliest and of every period, it may also be said that it no less feels the impulse to think against reason than with reason.

22

History of Dogma - Volume I

20

21

Adolf Harnack

historian of to-day would have no difficulty in answering the question whether the power of Protestantism as a Church lies at present in the elements which it has in common with the old dogmatic Christianity, or in that by which it is distinguished from it. Dogma, that is to say, that type of Christianity which was formed in ecclesiastical antiquity, has not been suppressed even in Protestant Churches, has really not been modified or replaced by a new conception of the Gospel. But, on the other hand, who could deny that the Reformation began to disclose such a conception, and that this new conception was related in a very different way to the traditional dogma from that of the new propositions of Augustine to the dogmas handed down to him? Who could further call in question that, in consequence of the reforming impulse in Protestantism, the way was opened up for a conception which does not identify Gospel and dogma, which does not disfigure the latter by changing or paring down its meaning while failing to come up to the former? But the historian who has to describe the formation and changes of dogma can take no part in these developments. It is a task by itself more rich and comprehensive than that of the historian of dogma, to portray the diverse conceptions that have been formed of the Christian religion, to portray how strong men and weak men, great and little minds have explained the Gospel outside and inside the frame-work of dogma, and how under the cloak, or in the province of dogma, the Gospel has had its own peculiar history. But the more limited theme must not be put aside. For it can in no way be conducive to historical knowledge to regard as indifferent the peculiar character of the expression of Christian faith as dogma, and allow the history of dogma to be absorbed in a general history of the various conceptions of Christianity. Such a “liberal” view would not agree either with the teaching of history or with the actual situation of the Protestant Churches of the present day: for it is, above all, of crucial importance to perceive that it is a peculiar stage in the development of the human spirit which is described by dogma. On this stage, parallel with dogma and inwardly united with it, stands a definite psychology, metaphysic and natural philosophy, as well as a view of history of a definite type. This is the conception of the world obtained by antiquity after almost a thousand years’ labour, and it is the same connection of theoretic perceptions and practical ideals which it accomplished. This stage on which the Christian religion has also entered we have in no way as yet transcended, though science has raised itself above it.11 But the Christian religion, as it was not born of the culture of the ancient world, is not for ever chained to it. The form and the new contents which the Gospel received when it entered into that world have only the same guarantee of endurance as that world itself. And that endurance is limited. We must indeed be on our guard against taking episodes for decisive crises. But every episode carries us forward, and retrogressions are unable to undo that progress. The Gospel since the Reformation, in spite of retrograde movements which have not been wanting, is working itself out of the forms which it was once compelled to assume, and a true comprehension of its history will also contribute to hasten this process. 1. The definition given above, p. 17: “Dogma in its conception and development is a work of the Greek spirit on the soil of the Gospel,” has frequently been distorted by my critics, as they have 11

In this sense it is correct to class dogmatic theology as historical theology, as Schleiermacher has done. If we, maintain that for practical reasons it must be taken out of the province of historical theology, then we must make it part of practical theology. By dogmatic theology here, we understand the exposition of Christianity in the form of Church doctrine, as it has been shaped since the second century. As distinguished from it, a branch of theological study must be conceived which harmonises the historical exposition of the Gospel with the general state of knowledge of the time. The Church can as little dispense with such a discipline as there can be a Christianity which does not account to itself for its basis and spiritual contents.

23

History of Dogma - Volume I

22

Adolf Harnack

suppressed the words “on the soil of the Gospel.” But these words are decisive. The foolishness of identifying dogma and Greek philosophy never entered my mind; on the contrary, the peculiarity of ecclesiastical dogma seemed to me to lie in the very fact that, on the one hand, it gave expression to Christian Monotheism and the central significance of the person of Christ, and, on the other hand, comprehended this religious faith and the historical knowledge connected with it in a philosophic system. I have given quite as little ground for the accusation that I look upon the whole development of the history of dogma as a pathological process within the history of the Gospel. I do not even look upon the history of the origin of the Papacy as such a process, not to speak of the history of dogma. But the perception that “everything must happen as it has happened” does not absolve the historian from the task of ascertaining the powers which have formed the history, and distinguishing between original and later, permanent and transitory, nor from the duty of stating his own opinion. 2. Sabatier has published a thoughtful treatise on “Christian Dogma: its Nature and its Development,” I agree with the author in this, that in dogma—rightly understood—two elements are to be distinguished, the religious proceeding from the experience of the individual or from the religious spirit of the Church, and the intellectual or theoretic. But I regard as false the statement which he makes, that the intellectual element in dogma is only the symbolical expression of religious experience. The intellectual element is itself again to be differentiated. On the one hand, it certainly is the attempt to give expression to religious feeling, and so far is symbolical; but, on the other hand, within the Christian religion it belongs to the essence of the thing itself, inasmuch as this not only awakens feeling, but has a quite definite content which determines and should determine the feeling. In this sense Christianity without dogma, that is, without a clear expression of its content, is inconceivable. But that does not justify the unchangeable permanent significance of that dogma which has once been formed under definite historical conditions.

23

3. The word “dogmas” (Christian dogmas) is, if I see correctly, used among us in three different senses, and hence spring all manner of misconceptions and errors. By dogmas are denoted: (1) The historical doctrines of the Church. (2) The historical facts on which the Christian religion is reputedly or actually founded. (3) Every definite exposition of the contents of Christianity is described as dogmatic. In contrast with this the attempt has been made in the following presentation to use dogma only in the sense first stated. When I speak, therefore, of the decomposition of dogma, I mean by that, neither the historical facts which really establish the Christian religion, nor do I call in question the necessity for the Christian and the Church to have a creed. My criticism refers not to the general genus dogma, but to the species, viz., the defined dogma, as it was formed on the soil of the ancient world, and is still a power, though under modifications. §©2. History of the History of Dogma. The history of dogma as a historical and critical discipline had its origin in the last century through the works of Mosheim, C. W. F. Walch, Ernesti, Lessing and Semler. Lange gave to the world in 1796 the first attempt at a history of dogma as a special branch of theological study. The theologians of the Early and Mediaeval Churches have only transmitted histories of Heretics and of Literature,

24

History of Dogma - Volume I

24

Adolf Harnack

regarding dogma as unchangeable.12 This presupposition is so much a part of the nature of Catholicism that it has been maintained till the present day. It is there-fore impossible for a Catholic to make a free, impartial and scientific investigation of the history of dogma.13 There have, indeed, at almost all times before the Reformation, been critical efforts in the domain of Christianity, especially of western Christianity, efforts which in some cases have led to the proof of the novelty and inadmissibility of particular dogmas. But, as a rule, these efforts were of the nature of a polemic against the dominant Church. They scarcely prepared the way for, far less produced a historical view of, dogmatic tradition.14 The progress of the sciences15 and the conflict with Protestantism could here, for the Catholic Church, have no other effect than that of leading to the collecting, with great learning, of material for the history of dogma,16 the establishing of the consensus patrum et doctorum, the exhibition of the necessity of a continuous explication of dogma, and the description of the history of heresies pressing in from without, regarded now as unheard-of novelties, and again as old enemies in new masks. The modern Jesuit-Catholic historian indeed exhibits, in certain circumstances, a manifest indifference to the task of establishing the semper idem in the faith of the Church, but this indifference is at present regarded with disfavour, and, besides, is only an apparent one, as the continuous though inscrutable guidance of the Church by the infallible teaching of the Pope is the more emphatically maintained.17

25

12

13

14

15

16

17

See Eusebius’ preface to his Church History. Eusebius in this work set himself a comprehensive task, but in doing so he never in the remotest sense thought of a history of dogma. In place of that we have a history of men “who from generation to generation proclaimed the word of God orally or by writing,” and a history of those who by their passion for novelties, plunged themselves into the greatest errors. See for example, B. Schwane, Dogmengesch. d. Vornicänischen Zeit, 1862, where the sense in which dogmas have no historical side is first expounded, and then it is shewn that dogmas, “notwithstanding, present a certain side which permits a historical consideration, because in point of fact they have gone through historical developments.” But these historical developments present themselves simply either as solemn promulgations and explications, or as private theological speculations. If we leave out of account the Marcionite gnostic criticism of ecclesiastical Christianity, Paul of Samosata and Marcellus of Ancyra may be mentioned as men who, in the earliest period, criticised the apologetic Alexandrian theology which was being naturalised (see the remarkable statement of Marcellus in Euseb. C. Marc. I. 4: τὸ τοῦ δόγματος ὄνομα τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἔχεται βουλῆς τε καὶ γνώμης κ.τ.λ., which I have chosen as the motto of this book). We know too little of Stephen Gobarus (VI. cent.) to enable us to estimate his review of the doctrine of the Church and its development (Photius Bibl. 232). With regard to the middle ages (Abelard “Sic et Non”), see Reuter, Gesch. der relig. Aufklärung im MA., 1875. Hahn Gesch. der Ketzer, especially in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, 3 vols., 1845. Keller, Die Reformation und die alteren Reform-Parteien, 1885. See Voigt, Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums, 2 vols., 1881, especially vol. II. p. 1 ff. 363 ff. 494 ff. (“Humanism and the science of history”). The direct importance of humanism for illuminating the history of the middle ages is very little, and least of all for the history of the Church and of dogma. The only prominent works here are those of Saurentius Valla and Erasmus. The criticism of the scholastic dogmas of the Church and the Pope began as early as the 12th century. For the attitude of the Renaissance to religion, see Burckhardt, Die Cultur der Renaissance, 2 vols., 1877. Baronius, Annals Eccles. XIi. vol. 1588-1607. Chief work: Dionysius Petavius, Opus de theologicis dogmatibus. 4 vols. (incomplete) 1644-1650. See further Thomassin, Dogmata theologica. 3 vols. 1684-1689. See Holtzmann, Kanon und Tradition, 1859. Hase, Handbuch der protest, Polemik. 1878. Joh. Delitszch, Das Lehrsystem der röm. Kirche, 1875. New revelations, however, are rejected, and bold assumptions leading that way are not favoured: See Schwane, above work p. 11: “The content of revelation is not enlarged by the decisions or teaching of the Church, nor are new revelations added in course of time. . . . Christian truth cannot therefore in its content be completed by the Church, nor has she ever claimed the right of doing so, but always where new designations or forms of dogma became necessary for the putting down of error or the instruction of the faithful, she would always teach what she had received in Holy Scripture or in the oral tradition of the Apostles.” Recent Catholic accounts of the history of dogma are Klee, Lehrbuch der D.G. 2 vols. 1837, (Speculative). Schwane, Dogmengesch. der Vornicänischen Zeit, 1862, der patrist. Zeit, 1869; der Mittleren Zeit, 1882. Bach, Die D.G. des MA. 1873. There is a wealth of material for the history of dogma in Kuhn’s Dogmatik, as well as in the great controversial writings occasioned

25

History of Dogma - Volume I

26

Adolf Harnack

It may be maintained that the Reformation opened the way for a critical treatment of the history of dogma.18 But even in Protestant Churches, at first, historical investigations remained under the ban of the confessional system of doctrine and were used only for polemics.19 Church history itself up to the 18th century was not regarded as a theological discipline in the strict sense of the word; and the history of dogma existed only within the sphere of dogmatics as a collection of testimonies to the truth, theologia patristica. It was only after the material had been prepared in the course of the 16th and 17th centuries by scholars of the various Church parties, and, above all, by excellent editions of the Fathers,20 and after Pietism had exhibited the difference between Christianity and Ecclesiasticism, and had begun to treat the traditional confessional structure of doctrine with indifference,21 that a critical investigation was entered on. The man who was the Erasmus of the 18th century, neither orthodox nor pietistic, nor rationalistic, but capable of appreciating all these tendencies; familiar with English, French and Italian literature; influenced by the spirit of the new English Science,22 while avoiding all statements of it that would endanger positive Christianity: John Lorenz Mosheim, treated Church history in the spirit of his

27

18

19

20

21

22

by the celebrated work of Bellarmin; Disputationes de controversiis Christianæ fidei adversus hujus temporis hæreticos, 1581-1593. It need not be said that, in spite of their inability to treat the history of dogma historically and critically, much may be learned from these works, and some other striking monographs of Roman Catholic scholars. But everything in history that is fitted to shake the high antiquity and unanimous attestation of the Catholic dogmas, becomes here a problem, the solution of which is demanded, though indeed its carrying out often requires a very exceptional intellectual subtlety. Historical interest in Protestantism has grown up around the questions as to the power of the Pope, the significance of Councils, or the Scripturalness of the doctrines set up by them, and about the meaning of the Lord’s supper, of the conception of it by the Church Fathers; (see Œcolampadius and Melanchthon.) Protestants were too sure that the doctrine of justification was taught in the scriptures to feel any need of seeking proofs for it by studies in the history of dogma, and Luther also dispensed with the testimony of history for the dogma of the Lord’s supper. The task of shewing how far and in what way Luther and the Reformers compounded with history has not even yet been taken up. And yet there may be found in Luther’s writings surprising and excellent critical comments on the history of dogma and the theology of the Fathers, as well as genial conceptions which have certainly remained inoperative; see especially the treatise “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen,” and his judgment on different Church Fathers. In the first edition of the Loci of Melanchthon we have also critical material for estimating the old systems of dogma. Calvin's depreciatory estimate of the Trinitarian and Christological Formula, which, however, he retracted at a later period is well known. Protestant Church history was brought into being by the Interim, Flacius being its Father; see his Catalogus Testium Veritatis, and the so-called Magdeburg Centuries, 1559-1574; also Jundt., Les Centuries de Magdebourg, Paris, 1883. Von Engelhardt (Christenthum Justin’s, p. 9 ff.) has drawn attention to the estimate of Justin in the Centuries, and has justly insisted on the high importance of this first attempt at a criticism of the Church Fathers. Kliefoth (Einl. in d. D.G. 1839) has the merit of pointing out the somewhat striking judgment of A. Hyperius on the history of dogma. Chemnitz, Examen concilii Tridentini, 1565. Forbesius a Corse (a Scotsman). Instructiones historico-theologiæ de doctrina Christiana, 1645. The learning, the diligence in collecting, and the carefulness of the Benedictines and Maurians, as well as of English, Dutch and French theologians, such as Casaubon, Vossius, Pearson, Dalläus, Spanheim, Grabe, Basnage, etc. have never since been equalled, far less surpassed. Even in the literary, historical and higher criticism these scholars have done splendid work, so far as the confessional dogmas did not come into question. See especially, G. Arnold, Unpartheyische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie, 1699 also Baur, Epochen der kirchlichen Geschichtsschreibung, p. 84 ff.; Floring, G. Arnold als Kirchenhistoriker, Darmstadt, 1883. The latter determines correctly the measure of Arnold’s importance. His work was the direct preparation for an impartial examination of the history of dogma, however partial it was in itself. Pietism, here and there, after Spener, declared war against scholastic dogmatics as a hindrance to piety, and in doing so broke the ban under which the knowledge of history lay captive. The investigations of the so-called English Deists about the Christian religion contain the first, and to some extent a very significant free-spirited attempt at a critical view of the history of dogma (see Lechler, History of English Deism, 1841). But the criticism is an abstract, rarely a historical one. Some very learned works bearing on the history of dogma were written in England against the position of the Deists, especially by Lardner: see also at an earlier time Bull, Defensio fidei nic.

26

History of Dogma - Volume I

28

Adolf Harnack

great teacher Leibnitz,23 and by impartial analysis, living reproduction, and methodical artistic form raised it for the first time to the rank of a science. In his monographic works also, he endeavours to examine impartially the history of dogma, and to acquire the historic stand-point between the estimate of the orthodox dogmatics and that of Gottfried Arnold. Mosheim, averse to all fault-finding and polemic, and abhorring theological crudity as much as pietistic narrowness and undevout Illuminism, aimed at an actual correct knowledge of history, in accordance with the principle of Leibnitz, that the valuable elements which are everywhere to be found in history must be sought out and recognised. And the richness and many-sidedness of his mind qualified him for gaining such a knowledge. But his latitudinarian dogmatic standpoint as well as the anxiety to awaken no controversy or endanger the gradual naturalising of a new science and culture, caused him to put aside the most important problems of the history of dogma and devote his attention to political Church history as well as to the more indifferent historical questions. The opposition of two periods which he endeavoured peacefully to reconcile could not in this way be permanently set aside.24 In Mosheim’s sense, but without the spirit of that great man, C. W. F. Walch taught on the subject and described the religious controversies of the Church with an effort to be impartial, and has thus made generally accessible the abundant material collected by the diligence of earlier scholars.25 Walch, moreover, in the “Gedanken von der Geschichte der Glaubenslehre,” 1756, gave the impulse that was needed to fix attention on the history of dogma as a special discipline. The stand-point which he took up was still that of subjection to ecclesiastical dogma, but without confessional narrowness. Ernesti in his programme of the year 1759, “De theologiæ historiæ et dogmaticæ conjungendæ necessitate,” gave eloquent expression to the idea that Dogmatic is a positive science which has to take its material from history, but that history itself requires a devoted and candid study, on account of our being separated from the earlier epochs by a complicated tradition.26 He has also shewn in his celebrated “Antimuratorius,” that an impartial and critical investigation of the problems of the history of dogma, might render the most effectual service to the polemic against the errors of Romanism. Besides, the greater part of the dogmas were already unintelligible to Ernesti, and yet during his lifetime the way was opened up for that tendency in theology, which, prepared in Germany by Chr. Thomasius, supported by English writers, drew the sure principles

23

24

25

26

Calixtus of Helmstädt was the forerunner of Leibnitz with regard to Church history. But the merit of having recognised the main problem of the history of dogma does not belong to Calixtus. By pointing out what Protestantism and Catholicism had in common he did not in any way clear up the historical-critical problem. On the other hand the Consensus repetitus of the Wittenberg theologians shews what fundamental questions Calixtus had already stirred. Among the numerous historical writings of Mosheim may be mentioned specially his Dissert ad hist. Eccles. pertinentes. 2 vols. 1731-1741, as well as the work: “De rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum M. Commentarii,” 1753; see also “Institutions hist. Eccl.” last Edition, 1755. Walch, “Entwurf einer vollständigen Historie der Ketzereien, Spaltungen und Religionsstreitigkeiten bis auf die Zeiten der Reformation.” II Thle (incomplete), 1762-1785. See also his “Entwurf einer vollständigen Historie der Kirchenversammlungen,” 1759, as well as numerous monographs on the history of dogma. Such were already produced by the older Walch, whose a Histor. theol. Einleitung in die Religionsstreitigkeiten der Ev. Luth. Kirche,” 5 vols. 1730-1739, and “Histor.-theol. Einleit. in die Religionsstreitigkeiten welche sonderlich ausser der Ev. Luth. Kirche entstanden sind 5 Thle,” 1933-1736, had already put polemics behind the knowledge of history (see Gass. “Desch. der protest. Dogmatik,” 3rd Vol. p. 205 ff.). Opusc. p. 576 f.: “Es quo fit, ut nullo modo in theologicis, quæ omnia e libris antiquis hebraicis, græcis, latinis ducuntur, possit aliquis bene in definiendo versari et a peccatis multis et magnis sibi cavere, nisi litteras et historiam assumat.” The title of a programme of Crusius, Ernesti’s opponent, “De dogmatum Christianorum historia cum probatione dogmatum non confundenda,” 1770, is significant of the new insight which was steadily making way.

27

History of Dogma - Volume I

29

30

Adolf Harnack

of faith and life from what is called reason, and therefore was not only indifferent to the system of dogma, but felt it more and more to be the tradition of unreason and of darkness. Of the three requisites of a historian ; knowledge of his subject, candid criticism, and a capacity for finding himself at home in foreign interests and ideas, the Rationalistic Theologians who had outgrown Pietism and passed through the school of the English Deists and of Wolf, no longer possessed the first, a knowledge of the subject, to the same extent as some scholars of the earlier generation. The second, free criticism, they possessed in the high degree guaranteed by the conviction of having a rational religion; the third, the power of comprehension, only in a very limited measure. They had lost the idea of positive religion, and with it a living and just conception of the history of religion. In the history of thought there is always need for an apparently disproportionate expenditure of power, in order to produce an advance in the development. And it would appear as if a certain self-satisfied narrow-mindedness within the progressing ideas of the present, as well as a great measure of inability even to understand the past and recognise its own dependence on it, must make its appearance, in order that a whole generation may be freed from the burden of the past. It needed the absolute certainty which Rationalism had found in the religious philosophy of the age, to give sufficient courage to subject to historical criticism the central dogmas on which the Protestant system as well as the Catholic finally rests, the dogmas of the canon and inspiration on the one hand, and of the Trinity and Christology on the other. The work of Lessing in this respect had no great results. We to-day see in his theological writings the most important contribution to the understanding of the earliest history of dogma, which that period supplies; but we also understand why its results were then so trifling. This was due, not only to the fact that Lessing was no theologian by profession, or that his historical observations were couched in aphorisms, but because, like Leibnitz and Mosheim, he had a capacity for appreciating the history of religion which forbade him to do violence to that history or to sit in judgment on it, and because his philosophy in its bearings on the case allowed him to seek no more from his materials than an assured understanding of them; in a word again, because he was no theologian. The Rationalists, on the other hand, who within certain limits were no less his opponents than the orthodox, derived the strength of their opposition to the systems of dogma, as the Apologists of the second century had already done with regard to polytheism, from their religious belief and their inability to estimate these systems historically. That, however, is only the first impression which one gets here from the history, and it is everywhere modified by other impressions. In the first place, there is no mistaking a certain latitudinarianism in several prominent theologians of the rationalistic tendency. Moreover, the attitude to the canon was still frequently, in virtue of the Protestant principle of scripture, an uncertain one, and it was here chiefly that the different types of rational supernaturalism were developed. Then, with all subjection to the dogmas of Natural religion, the desire for a real true knowledge was unfettered and powerfully excited. Finally, very significant attempts were made by some rationalistic theologians to explain in a real historical way the phenomena of the history of dogma, and to put an authentic and historical view of that history in the place of barren pragmatic or philosophic categories. The special zeal with which the older rationalism applied itself to the investigation of the canon, either putting aside the history of dogma, or treating it merely in the frame-work of Church history, has only been of advantage for the treatment of our subject. It first began to be treated with 28

History of Dogma - Volume I

31

32

Adolf Harnack

thoroughness when the historical and critical interests had become more powerful than the rationalistic. After the important labours of Semler, which here, above all, have wrought in the interests of freedom,27 and after some monographs on the history of dogma,28 S. G. Lange for the first time treated the history of dogma as a special subject.29 Unfortunately, his comprehensively planned and carefully written work, which shews a real understanding of the early history of dogma, remains in-complete. Consequently, W. Münscher, in his learned manual, which was soon followed by his compendium of the history of dogma, was the first to produce a complete presentation of our subject.30 Münscher’s compendium is a counterpart to Giesler’s Church history; it shares with that the merit of drawing from the sources, intelligent criticism and impartiality, but with a thorough knowledge of details it fails to impart a real conception of the development of ecclesiastical dogma. The division of the material into particular loci, which, in three sections, is carried through the whole history of the Church, makes insight into the whole Christian conception of the different epochs impossible, and the prefixed “General History of Dogma,” is far too sketchily treated to make up for that defect. Finally, the connection between the development of dogma and the general ideas of the time is not sufficiently attended to. A series of manuals followed the work of Münscher, but did not materially advance the study.31 The compendium of Baumgarten Crusius,32 and that of F. K. Meier,33 stand out prominently among them. The work of the former is distinguished by its independent learning as well as by the discernment of the author that the centre of gravity of the subject lies in the so-called general history of dogma.34 The work of Meier goes still further, and 27

28

29 30

31

32

33 34

Semler, Einleitung zu Baumgartens evang. Glaubenslehre, 1759: also Geschichte der Glaubenslehre, zu Baumgartens Untersuch. theol. Streitigkesten, 1762-1764. Semler paved the way for the view that dogmas have arisen and been gradually developed under definite historical conditions. He was the first to grasp the problem of the relation of Catholicism to early Christianity, because he freed the early Christian documents from the letters of the Canon. Schröckh (Christl. Kirchengesch., 1786) in the spirit of Semler described with impartiality and care the changes of the dogmas. Rössler, Lehrbegriff der Christlichen Kirche in den 3 ersten Jahrb., 1775; also, Arbeiten by Burscher, Heinrich, Stäudlin, etc., see especially, Löffler’s “Abhandlung welche eine kurze Darstellung der Entstehungsart der Dreieinigkeit enthält, 1792, in the translation of Souverain’s Le Platonisme devoilé, 1700. The question as to the Platonism of the Fathers, this fundamental question of the history of dogma, was raised even by Luther and Flacius, and was very vigorously debated at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries, after the Socinians had already affirmed it strongly. The question once more emerges on German soil in the church history of G. Arnold, but cannot he said to have received the attention it deserves in the 150 years that have followed (see the literature of the controversy in Tzsohirner, Fall des Heidenthums, p. 580 f.). Yet the problem was first thrust aside by the speculative view of the history of christianity. Lange. Ausführ. Gesch. der Dogmen, oder der Glaubenslehre der Christl. Kirche nach den Kirchenvater ausgearbeitet. 1796. Münscher, Handb. d. Christl. D. G. 4 vols. first 6 Centuries 1797-1809; Lehrbuch, 1st Edit. 1811; 3rd Edit. edited by v. Cölln, Hupfeld and Neudecker, 1832-1838. Planck’s epoch-making work: Gesch. der Veränderungen und der Bildung unseres protestantischen Lehrbegriffs. 6 vols. 1791-1800, had already for the most part appeared. Contemporary with Münscher are Wundemann, Gesch. d. Christl. Glaubenslehren vom Zeitalter des Athanasius bis auf Gregor. d. Gr. 2 Thle. 1789-1799; Münter, Handbuch der alteren Christl. D. G. hrsg. von Ewers. 2 vols. 1802-1804; Stäudlin, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik und Dogmengeschichte, 1800, last Edition 1822, and Beck, Comment. hist. decretorum religionis Christianæ, 1801. Augusti, Lehrb. d. Christl. D. G. 1805. 4 Edit. 1835. Berthold, Handb. der D. G. 2 vols. 1822-1823. Schickedanz, Versuch einer Gesch. d. Christl. Glaubenslehre, etc. 1827. Rüperti, Geschichte der Dogmen, 1831. Lenz, Gesch. der Christl. Dogmen. 2 parts. 1834-1835. J. G. V. Engelhardt, Dogmengesch. 1839. See also Giesler, Dogmengesch. 2 vols. edited by Redepenning, 1855: also Illgen, Ueber den Werth der Christl. D. G. 1817. Baumgarten Crusius, Lehrb. d. Christl. D. G. 1852: also conpendium d. Christl. D. G. 2 parts 1830-1846, the second part edited by Hase. Meier, Lehrb. d. D. G, 1840, 2nd Edit. revised by G. Baur 1854. The “Special History of Dogma,” in Baumgarten Crusius, in which every particular dogma is by itself pursued through the whole history of the Church, is of course entirely unfruitful. But even the opinions which are given in the “General History of Dogma,”

29

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

accurately perceives that the division into a general and special history of dogma must be altogether given up, while it is also characterised by an accurate setting and proportional arrangement of the facts.35

33

34

The great spiritual revolution at the beginning of our century, which must in every respect be regarded as a reaction against the efforts of the rationalistic epoch, changed also the conceptions of the Christian religion and its history. It appears therefore plainly in the treatment of the history of dogma. The advancement and deepening of Christian life, the zealous study of the past, the new philosophy which no longer thrust history aside, but endeavoured to appreciate it in all its phenomena as the history of the spirit, all these factors co-operated in begetting a new temper, and accordingly, a new estimate of religion proper and of its history. There were three tendencies in theology that broke up rationalism; that which was identified with the names of Schleiermacher and Neander, that of the Hegelians, and that of the Confessionalists. The first two were soon divided into a right and a left, in so far as they included conservative and critical interests from their very commencement. The conservative elements have been used for building up the modern confessionalism, which in its endeavours to go back to the Reformers has never actually got beyond the theology of the Formula of Concord, the stringency of which it has no doubt abolished by new theologoumena and concessions of all kinds. All these tendencies have in common the effort to gain a real comprehension of history and be taught by it, that is, to allow the idea of development to obtain its proper place, and to comprehend the power and sphere of the individual. In this and in the deeper conception of the nature and significance of positive religion, lay the advance beyond Rationalism. And yet the wish to understand history, has in great measure checked the effort to obtain a true knowledge of it, and the respect for history as the greatest of teachers, has not resulted in that supreme regard for facts which distinguished the critical rationalism. The speculative pragmatism, which, in the Hegelian School, was put against the “lower pragmatism,” and was rigorously carried out with the view of exhibiting the unity of history, not only neutralised the historical material, in so far as its concrete definiteness was opposed, as phenomenon, to the essence of the matter, but also curtailed it in a suspicious way, as may be seem for example, in the works of Baur. Moreover, the universal historical suggestions which the older history of dogma had given were not at all, or only very little regarded. The history of dogma was, as it were, shut out by the watchword of the immanent development of the spirit in Christianity. The disciples of Hegel, both of the right and of the left, were, and still are, agreed in this watch-word,36 the working out of which, including an apology for the course of the history of dogma, must be for the advancement of conservative theology. But at the basis of the statement that the history of Christianity is the history

35

36

are frequently very far from the mark (Cf. e.g., § 14 and p. 67), which is the more surprising as no one can deny that he takes a scholarly view of history. Meier’s Lehrbuch is formally and materially a very important piece of work, the value of which has not been sufficiently recognised, because the author followed neither the track of Neander nor of Bauer. Besides the excellences noted in the text, may be further mentioned, that almost everywhere Meier has distinguished correctly between the history of dogma and the history of theology, and has given an account only of the former. Biedermann (Christl. Dogmatik. 2 Edit. I vol. p. 332 f.) says, “The history of the development of the Dogma of the Person of Christ will bring before us step by step the ascent of faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ to its metaphysical basis in the nature of his person. This was the quite normal and necessary way of actual faith, and is not to be reckoned as a confused mixture of heterogeneous philosophical opinions. . . . The only thing taken from the ideas of contemporary philosophy was the special

30

History of Dogma - Volume I

35

Adolf Harnack

of the spirit, there lay further a very one-sided conception of the nature of religion, which confirmed the false idea that religion is theology. It will always, however, be the imperishable merit of Hegel’s great disciple, F. Chr. Baur, in theology, that he was the first who attempted to give a uniform general idea of the history of dogma, and to live through the whole process in himself, without renouncing the critical acquisitions of the 18th century.37 His brilliantly written manual of the history of dogma, in which the history of this branch of theological science is relatively treated with the utmost detail, is, however, in material very meagre, and shews in the very first proposition of the historical presentation an abstract view of history.38 Neander, whose “Christliche Dogmengeschichte,” 1857, is distinguished by the variety of its points of view, and keen apprehension of particular forms of doctrine, shews a far more lively and therefore a far more just conception of the Christian religion. But the general plan of the work, (General history of dogma—loci, and these according to the established scheme), proves that Neander has not succeeded in giving real expression to the historical character of the study, and in attaining a clear insight into the progress of the development.39 Kliefoth’s thoughtful and instructive, “Einleitung in die Dogmengeschichte,” 1839, contains the programme for the conception of the history of dogma characteristic of the modern confessional theology. In this work the Hegelian view of history, not without being influenced by Schleiermacher, is so represented as to legitimise a return to the theology of the Fathers. In the successive great epochs of the Church several circles of dogmas have been successively fixed, so that the respective doctrines have each time been adequately formulated.40 Disturbances of the development are due to the influence of sin. Apart from this, Kliefoth’s conception is in point of form equal to that of Baur and Strauss, in so far as they also have considered the theology represented by themselves as the goal of the whole historical development. The only distinction is that, according to them, the next following stage always cancels the preceding, while according to Kliefoth, who, moreover, has no desire to give effect to mere traditionalism, the new knowledge is added to the old. The new edifice of true historical knowledge, according to Kliefoth, is raised on the ruins of Traditionalism,

37

38

39

40

material of consciousness in which the doctrine of Christ’s Divinity was at any time expressed. The process of this doctrinal development was an inward necessary one.” Baur, Lehrbuch der Christl. D. G. 1847. 3rd Edit. 1867: also Vorles. über die Christl. D. G. edited by F. Baur, 1865-68. Further the Monographs, “Ueber die Christl. Lehre v. d. Versöhnung in ihrer gesch. Entw.” 1838: Ueber die Christl. Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit u. d. Menschwerdung.” 1841: etc. D. F. Strauss, preceded him with his work: Die Christl. Glaubenslehre in ihrer gesch. Entw. 2 vols. 1840-41. From the stand-point of the Hegelian right we have: Marheineke, Christl. D. G. edited by Matthias and Vatke, 1849. From the same stand-point, though at the same time influenced by Schleiermacher, Dorner wrote “The History of the Person of Christ.” See p. 63: “As Christianity appeared in contrast with Judaism and Heathenism, and could only represent a new and peculiar form of the religious consciousness in distinction from both, reducing the contrasts of both to a unity in itself, so also the first difference of tendencies developing themselves within Christianity, must be determined by the relation in which it stood to Judaism on the one hand, and to Heathenism on the other.” Compare also the very characteristic introduction to the first volume of the “Vorlesungen.” Hagenbach’s Manual of the history of dogma, might be put alongside of Neander’s work. It agrees with it both in plan and spirit. But the material of the history of dogma, which it offers in superabundance, seems far less connectedly worked out than by Neander. In Shedd’s history of Christian doctrine the Americans possess a presentation of the history of dogma worth noting, 2 vols. 3 Edit. 1883. The work of Fr. Bonifas. Hist. des Dogmes. 2 vols. 1886, appeared after the death of the author and is not important. No doubt Kliefoth also maintains for each period a stage of the disintegration of dogma, but this is not to be understood in the ordinary sense of the word. Besides, there are ideas in this introduction which would hardly obtain the approval of their author to-day.

31

History of Dogma - Volume I

36

37

Adolf Harnack

Scholasticism, Pietism, Rationalism and Mysticism. Thomasius (Das Bekenntniss der evang.-luth. Kirche in der Consequenz seines Princips, 1848) has, after the example of Sartorius, attempted to justify by history the Lutheran confessional system of doctrine from another side, by representing it as the true mean between Catholicism and the Reformed Spiritualism. This conception has found much approbation in the circles of Theologians related to Thomasius, as against the Union Theology. But Thomasius is entitled to the merit of having produced a Manual of the history of dogma which represents in the most worthy manner41 the Lutheran confessional view of the history of dogma. The introduction, as well as the selection and arrangement of his material, shews that Thomasius has learned much from Baur. The way in which he distinguishes between central and peripheral dogmas is, accordingly, not very appropriate, especially for the earliest period. The question as to the origin of dogma and theology is scarcely even touched by him. But he has an impression that the central dogmas contain for every period the whole of Christianity, and that they must therefore be apprehended in this sense.42 The presentation is dominated throughout by the idea of the self-explication of dogma, though a malformation has to be admitted for the middle ages,43 and therefore the formation of dogma is almost everywhere justified as the testimony of the Church represented as completely hypostatised, and the outlook on the history of the time is put into the background. But narrow and insufficient as the complete view here is, the excellences of the work in details are great, in respect of exemplary clearness of presentation, and the discriminating knowledge and keen comprehension of the author for religious problems. The most important work done by Thomasius is contained in his account of the history of Christology. In his outlines of the history of Christian dogma (Grundriss der Christl. Dogmengesch. 1870), which unfortunately has not been carried beyond the first part (Patristic period), F. Nitzsch, marks an advance in the history of our subject. The advance lies, on the one hand, in the extensive use he makes of monographs on the history of dogma, and on the other hand, in the arrangement. Nitzsch has advanced a long way on the path that was first entered by F. K. Meier, and has arranged his material in a way that far excels all earlier attempts. The general and special aspects of the history of dogma are here almost completely worked into one,44 and in the main divisions, “Grounding of the old Catholic Church doctrine,” and “Development of the old Catholic Church doctrine,” justice

41

42 43

44

Thomasius’ Die Christl. Dogmengesch. als Entwickel. Gesch. des Kirchl. Lehrbegriffs. 2 vols. 1874–76. 2nd Edit. intelligently and carefully edited by Bonwetsch. and Seeberg, 1887. (Seeberg has produced almost a new work in vol. II.) From the same stand-point is the manual of the history of dogma by H. Schmid, 1859, (in the 4th Ed. revised and transformed into an excellent collection of passages from the sources by Hauck, 1887) as well as the Luther. Dogmatik (Vol. II. 1864: Der Kirchenglaube) of Kahnis, which, however, subjects particular dogmas to a freer criticism. See Vol. I. p. 14. See Vol. I. p. 11. “The first period treats of the development of the great main dogmas which were to become the basis of the further development (the Patristic age). The problem of the second period was, partly to work up this material theologically, and partly to develop it. But this development, under the influence of the Hierarchy, fell into false paths, and became partly, at least, corrupt (the age of Scholasticism), and therefore a reformation was necessary. It was reserved for this third period to carry back the doctrinal formation, which had become abnormal, to the old sound paths, and on the other hand, in virtue of the regeneration of the Church which followed, to deepen it and fashion it according to that form which it got in the doctrinal systems of the Evangelic Church, while the remaining part fixed its own doctrine in the decrees of Trent (period of the Reformation.).” This view of history, which from the Christian stand-point, will allow absolutely nothing to be said against the doctrinal formation of the early Church, is a retrogression from the view of Luther and the writers of the “Centuries,” for these were well aware that the corruption did not first begin in the middle ages. This fulfils a requirement urged by Weizsäcker (Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 170 ff.).

32

History of Dogma - Volume I

38

39

Adolf Harnack

is at last done to the most important problem which the history of dogma presents, though in my opinion the division is not made at the right place, and the problem is not so clearly kept in view in the execution as the arrangement would lead one to expect.45 Nitzsch has freed himself from that speculative view of the history of dogma which reads ideas into it. No doubt idea and motive on the one hand, form and expression on the other, must be distinguished for every period. But the historian falls into vagueness as soon as he seeks and professes to find behind the demonstrable ideas and aims which have moved a period, others of which, as a matter of fact, that period itself knew nothing at all. Besides, the invariable result of that procedure is to concentrate the attention on the theological and philosophical points of dogma, and either neglect or put a new construction on the most concrete and important, the expression of the religious faith itself. Rationalism has been reproached with “throwing out the child with the bath,” but this is really worse, for here the child is thrown out while the bath is retained. Every advance in the future treatment of our subject will further depend on the effort to comprehend the history of dogma without reference to the momentary opinions of the present, and also on keeping it in closest connection with the history of the Church, from which it can never be separated without damage. We have something to learn on this point from rationalistic historians of dogma.46 But progress is finally dependent on a true 45

46

See Ritschl’s Essay, “Ueber die Methode der alteren Dogmengeschichte” (Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1871. p. 191 ff.) in which the advance made by Nitzsch is estimated, and at the same time an arrangement proposed for the treatment of the earlier history of dogma which would group the material more clearly and more suitable than has been done by Nitzsch. After having laid the foundation for a correct historical estimate of the development of early Christianity in his work “Entstehung der Alt-Katholischen Kirche,” 1857, Ritschl published an epoch-making study in the history of dogma in his “History of the doctrine of justification and reconciliation,” 2 edit. 1883. We have no superabundance of good monographs on the history of dogma. There are few that give such exact information regarding the Patristic period as that of Von Engelhardt “Ueber das Christenthum Justin’s,” 1878, and Zahn’s work on Marcellus, 1867. Among the investigators of our age, Renan above all has clearly recognised that there are only two main periods in the history of dogma, and that the changes which Christianity experienced after the establishment of the Catholic Church bear no proportion to the changes which preceded. His words are as follows (Hist. des origin. du Christianisme T. VII. p. 503 f.):—the division about the year 180 is certainly placed too early, regard being had to what was then really authoritative in the Church.—“Si nous comparons maintenant le Christianisme, tel qu’il existait vers l’an 180, an Christianisme du IVe et du Ve siècle, au Christianisme du moyen âge, an Christianisme de nos jours, nous trouvons qu’en réalité it s’est augmente des très peu de chose dans les siècles qui ont suivis. En 180, le nouveau Testament est clos: it ne s’y ajoutera plus un seul livre nouveau(?). Lentement, les Épitres de Paul ont conquis leur place à la suite des Evangiles, dans le code sacré et dans la liturgie. Quant aux dogmes, rien n’est fixé; mais le germe de tout existe; presque aucune idée n’apparaitra qui ne puisse faire valoir des autorités du 1er et du 2e siècle. Il y a du trop, il y a des contradictions; le travail théologique consistera bien plus á émonder, à écarter des superfuites qu’à inventer du nouveau. L’Église laissera tomber une foule de choses mal commencées, elle sortira de bien des impasses. Elle a encore deux cœurs, pour ainsi dire; elle a plusieurs têtes; ces anomalies tomberont; mais aucun dogme vraiment original ne se formera plus.” Also the discussions in chapter 28–34 of the same volume. H. Thiersch (Die Kirche im Apostolischen Zeitalter, 1852) reveals a deep insight into the difference between the spirit of the New Testament writers and the post-Apostolic Fathers, but he has overdone these differences, and sought to explain them by the mythological assumption of an Apostasy. A great amount of material for the history of dogma may be found in the great work of Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographien. 2 Edit. 1864. By the connection with general church history we must, above all, understand, a continuous regard to the world within which the church has been developed, The most recent works on the history of the church and of dogma, those of Renan, Overbeck (Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur). Aube, Von Engelhardt (Justin), Kühn (Minucius Felix). Hatch (“Organization of the Early Church,” and especially his posthumous work “The influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian Church,” 1890, in which may be found the most ample proof for the conception of the early history of dogma which is set forth in the following pages), are in this respect worthy of special note. Deserving of mention also is R. Rothe, who, in his “Vorlesungen über Kirchengeschichte,” edited by Weingarten,” 1875, 2 vols., gave most significant suggestions towards a really historical conception of the history of the church and of dogma. To Rothe belongs the undiminished merit of realising thoroughly the significance of a nationality in church history. But the theology of our century is also indebted for the first scientific conception of Catholicism, not to Marheineke or Winer, but to Rothe (see Vol. II. pp. 1–11 especially p. 7 f.). “The development of the Christian Church

33

History of Dogma - Volume I

40

Adolf Harnack

perception of what the Christian religion originally was, for this perception alone enables us to distinguish that which sprang out of the inherent power of Christianity from that which it has assimilated in the course of its history. For the historian, however, who does not wish to serve a party, there are two standards in accordance with which he may criticise the history of dogma. He may either, as far as this is possible, compare it with the Gospel, or he may judge it according to the historical conditions of the time and the result. Both ways can exist side by side, if only they are not mixed up with one another. Protestantism has in principle expressly recognised the first, and it will also have the power to bear its conclusions ; for the saying of Tertullian still holds good in it; “Nihil veritas erubescit nisi solummodo abscondi.” The historian who follows this maxim, and at the same time has no desire to be wiser than the facts, will, while furthering science, perform the best service also to every Christian community that desires to build itself upon the Gospel. After the appearance of the first and second editions of this Work, Loofs published, “Leitfaden für seine Vorlesungen über Dogmengeschichte,” Halle, 1889, and in the following year, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, zunächst für seine Vorlesungen,” (second and enlarged edition of the first-named book). The work in its conception of dogma and its history comes pretty near that stated above, and it is distinguished by independent investigation and excellent selection of material. I myself have published a “Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte,” 2 Edit. in one vol. 1893. (Outlines of the History of Dogma, English translation. Hodder and Stoughton). That this has not been written in vain, I have the pleasure of seeing from not a few notices of professional colleagues. I may mention the Church history of Herzog in the new revision by Koffmane, the first vol. of the Church history of Karl Müller, the first vol. of the Symbolik of Kattenbusch, and Kaftan’s work. “The truth of the Christian religion.” Wilhelm Schmidt, “Der alte Glaube und die Wahrheit des Christenthums,” 1891, has attempted to furnish a refutation in principle of Kaftan’s work.

41

II

in the Græco-Roman world was not at the same time a development of that world by the Church and further by Christianity. There remained, as the result of the process, nothing but the completed Church. The world which had built it had made itself bankrupt in doing so.” With regard to the origin and development of the Catholic cultus and constitution, nay, even of the Ethic (see Luthardt, Die antike Ethik, 1887, preface), that has been recognised by Protestant scholars, which one always hesitates to recognise with regard to catholic dogma: see the excellent remarks of Schwegler, Nachapostolisches Zeitalter, Vol. I. p. 3 ff. It may be hoped that an intelligent consideration of early christian literature will form the bridge to a broad and intelligent view of the history of dogma. The essay of Overbeck mentioned above (Histor. Zeitschrift N. F. XII. p. 417 ff.) may be most heartily recommended in this respect. It is very gratifying to find an investigator so conservative as Sohm, now fully admitting that “Christian theology grew up in the second and third centuries, when its foundations were laid for all time (?), the last great production of the Hellenic Spirit.” (Kirchengeschichte im Grundriss. 1888, p. 37). The same scholar in his very important Kirchenrecht. Bd. I. 1892. has transferred to the history of the origin of Church law and Church organization, the points of view which I have applied in the following account to the consideration of dogma. He has thereby succeeded in correcting many old errors and prejudices; but in my opinion he has obscured the truth by exaggerations connected with a conception, not only of original Christianity, but also of the Gospel in general, which is partly a narrow legal view, partly an enthusiastic one. He has arrived ex errare per veritatem ad errorem; but there are few books from which so much may be learned about early church history as from this paradoxical “ Kirchenrecht.”

34

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA § I. Introductory. THE Gospel presents itself as an Apocalyptic message on the soil of the Old Testament, and as the fulfilment of the law and the prophets, and yet is a new thing, the creation of a universal religion on the basis of that of the Old Testament. It appeared when the time was fulfilled, that is, it is not without a connection with the stage of religious and spiritual development which was brought about by the intercourse of Jews and Greeks, and was established in the Roman Empire; but still it is a new religion because it cannot be separated from Jesus Christ. When the traditional religion has become too narrow the new religion usually appears as something of a very abstract nature; philosophy comes upon the scene, and religion withdraws from social life and becomes a private matter. But here an overpowering personality has appeared—the Son of God. Word and deed coincide in that personality, and as it leads men into a new communion with God, it unites them at the same time inseparably with itself, enables them to act on the world as light and leaven, and joins them together in a spiritual unity and an active confederacy.

42

2. Jesus Christ brought no new doctrine, but he set forth in his own person a holy life with God and before God, and gave himself in virtue of this life to the service of his brethren in order to win then for the Kingdom of God, that is, to lead them out of selfishness and the world to God, out of the natural connections and contrasts to a union in love, and prepare them for an eternal kingdom and an eternal life. But while working for this Kingdom of God he did not withdraw from the religious and political communion of his people, nor did he induce his disciples to leave that communion. On the contrary, he described the Kingdom of God as the fulfilment of the promises given to the nation, and himself as the Messiah whom that nation expected. By doing so he secured for his new message, and with it his own person, a place in the system of religious ideas and hopes, which by means of the Old Testament were then, in diverse forms, current in the Jewish nation. The origin of a doctrine concerning the Messianic hope, in which the Messiah was no longer an unknown being, but Jesus of Nazareth, along with the new temper and disposition of believers was a direct result of the impression made by the person of Jesus. The conception of the Old Testament in accordance with the analogia fidei, that is, in accordance with the conviction that this Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, was therewith given. Whatever sources of comfort and strength Christianity, even in its New Testament, has possessed or does possess up to the present, is for the most part taken from the Old Testament, viewed from a Christian stand-point, in virtue of the impression of the person of Jesus. Even its dross was changed into gold; its hidden treasures were brought forth, and while the earthly and transitory were recognised as symbols of the heavenly and eternal, there rose up a world of blessings, of holy ordinances, and of sure grace prepared by God from eternity. One could joyfully make oneself at home in it; for its long history guaranteed a sure future and a blessed close, while it offered comfort and certainty in all the changes of life to every individual heart that would only raise itself to God. From the positive position which Jesus took up towards the Old Testament, that is, towards the religious traditions of his people, his Gospel gained a footing which, later on, preserved it from dissolving in the glow of enthusiasm, or melting away in the ensnaring dream of antiquity, that dream of the indestructible Divine nature of the human spirit, 35

History of Dogma - Volume I

43

44

Adolf Harnack

and the nothingness and baseness of all material things.47 But from the positive attitude of Jesus to the Jewish tradition, there followed also, for a generation that had long been accustomed to grope after the Divine active in the world, the summons to think out a theory of the media of revelation, and so put an end to the uncertainty with which speculation had hitherto been afflicted. This, like every theory of religion, concealed in itself the danger of crippling the power of faith; for men are ever prone to compound with religion itself by a religious theory. 3. The result of the preaching of Jesus, however, in the case of the believing Jews, was not only the illumination of the Old Testament by the Gospel and the confirmation of the Gospel by the Old Testament, but not less, though indirectly, the detachment of believers from the religious community of the Jews from the Jewish Church. How this came about cannot be discussed here: we may satisfy ourselves with the fact that it was essentially accomplished in the first two generations of believers. The Gospel was a message for humanity even when there was no break with Judaism; but it seemed impossible to bring this message home to men who were not Jews in any other way than by leaving the Jewish Church. But to leave that Church was to declare it to be worthless, and that could only be done by conceiving it as a malformation from its very commencement, or assuming that it had temporarily or completely fulfilled its mission. In either case it was necessary to put another in its place, for, according to the Old Testament, it was unquestionable that God had not only given revelations, but through these revelations had founded a nation, a religious community. The result, also, to which the conduct of the unbelieving Jews, and the social union of the disciples of Jesus required by that conduct, led, was carried home with irresistible power: believers in Christ are the community of God, they are the true Israel, the ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ: but the Jewish Church persisting in its unbelief is the Synagogue of Satan. Out of this consciousness sprang—first as a power in which one believed, but which immediately began to be operative, though not as a commonwealth—the Christian Church, a special communion of hearts on the basis of a personal union with God, established by Christ and mediated by the Spirit; a communion whose essential mark was to claim as its own the Old Testament and the idea of being the people of God, to sweep aside the Jewish conception of the Old Testament and the Jewish Church, and thereby gain the shape and power of a community that is capable of a mission for the world. 4. This independent Christian community could not have been formed had not Judaism, in consequence of inner and outer developments, then reached a point at which it must either altogether cease to grow or burst its shell. This community is the presupposition of the history of dogma, and the position which it took up towards the Jewish tradition is, strictly speaking, the point of departure for all further developments, so far as with the removal of all national and ceremonial peculiarities it proclaimed itself to be what the Jewish Church wished to be. We find the Christian Church about the middle of the third century, after severe crisis, in nearly the same position to the Old Testament

47

The Old Testament of itself alone could not have convinced the Græco-Roman world. But the converse question might perhaps be raised as to what results the Gospel would have had in that world without its union with the Old Testament. The Gnostic Schools and the Marcionite Church are to some extent the answer. But would they ever have arisen without the presupposition of a Christian community which recognised the Old Testament?

36

History of Dogma - Volume I

45

46

Adolf Harnack

and to Judaism as it was 150 or 200 years earlier.48 It makes the same claim to the Old Testament, and builds its faith and hope upon its teaching. It is also, as before, strictly anti-national; above all, anti-judaic, and sentences the Jewish religious community to the abyss of hell. It might appear, then, as though the basis for the further development of Christianity as a church was completely given from the moment in which the first breach of believers with the synagogue and the formation of independent Christian communities took place. The problem, the solution of which will always exercise this church, so far as it reflects upon its faith, will be to turn the Old Testament more completely to account in its own sense, so as to condemn the Jewish Church with its particular and national forms. 5. But the rule even for the Christian use of the Old Testament lay originally in the living connection in which one stood with the Jewish people and its traditions, and a new religious community, a religious commonwealth, was not yet realised, although it existed for faith and thought. If again we compare the Church about the middle of the third century with the condition of Christendom 150 or 200 years before, we shall find that there is now a real religious commonwealth, while at the earlier period there were only communities who believed in a heavenly Church, whose earthly image they were, endeavoured to give it expression with the simplest means, and lived in the future as strangers and pilgrims on the earth, hastening to meet the Kingdom of whose existence they had the surest guarantee. We now really find a new commonwealth, politically formed and equipped with fixed forms of all kinds. We recognise in these forms few Jewish, but many Græco-Roman features, and finally we perceive also in the doctrine of faith on which this common-wealth is based, the philosophic spirit of the Greeks. We find a Church as a political union and worship institute, a formulated faith and a sacred learning; but one thing we no longer find, the old enthusiasm and individualism which had not felt itself fettered by subjection to the authority of the Old Testament. Instead of enthusiastic independent Christians, we find a new literature of revelation, the New Testament, and Christian priests. When did these formations begin? How and by what influence was the living faith transformed into the creed to be believed, the surrender to Christ into a philosophic Christology, the Holy Church into the corpus permixtum, the glowing hope of the Kingdom of heaven into a doctrine of immortality and deification, prophecy into a learned exegesis and theological science, the bearers of the spirit into clerics, the brethren into laity held in tutelage, miracles and healings into nothing or into priestcraft, the fervent prayers into a solemn ritual, renunciation of the world into a jealous dominion over the world, the “spirit” into constraint and law ? There can be no doubt about the answer: these formations are as old in their origin as the detachment of the Gospel from the Jewish Church. A religious faith which seeks to establish a communion of its own in opposition to another, is compelled to borrow from that other what it needs. The religion which is life and feeling of the heart cannot be converted into a knowledge determining the motley multitude of men without deferring to their wishes and opinions. Even the holiest must clothe itself in the same existing earthly forms as the profane if it wishes to found on earth a confederacy which

48

We here leave out of account learned attempts to expound Paulinism. Nor do we take any notice of certain truths regarding the relation of the Old Testament to the New, and regarding the Jewish religion, stated by the Antignostic church teachers, truths which are certainly very important, but have not been sufficiently utilised.

37

History of Dogma - Volume I

47

Adolf Harnack

is to take the place of another, and if it does not wish to enslave, but to determine the reason. When the Gospel was rejected by the Jewish nation, and had disengaged itself from all connection with that nation, it was already settled whence it must take the material to form for itself a new body and be transformed into a Church and a theology. National and particular, in the ordinary sense of the word, these forms could not be: the contents of the Gospel were too rich for that; but separated from Judaism, nay, even before that separation, the Christian religion came in contact with the Roman world and with a culture which had already mastered the world, viz., the Greek. The Christian Church and its doctrine were developed within the Roman world and Greek culture in opposition to the Jewish Church. This fact is just as important for the history of dogma as the other stated above, that this Church was continuously nourished on the Old Testament. Christendom was of course conscious of being in opposition to the empire and its culture, as well as to Judaism; but this from the beginning—apart from a few exceptions—was not without reservations. No man can serve two masters; but in setting up a spiritual power in this world one must serve an earthly master, even when he desires to naturalise the spiritual in the world. As a consequence of the complete break with the Jewish Church there followed not only the strict necessity of quarrying the stones for the building of the Church from the Græco-Roman world, but also the idea that Christianity has a more positive relation to that world than to the synagogue. And, as the Church was being built, the original enthusiasm must needs vanish. The separation from Judaism having taken place, it was necessary that the spirit of another people should be admitted, and should also materially determine the manner of turning the Old Testament to advantage. 6. But an inner necessity was at work here no less than an outer. Judaism and Hellenism in the age of Christ were opposed to each other, not only as dissimilar powers of equal value, but the latter having its origin among a small people, became a universal spiritual power, which, severed from its original nationality, had for that very reason penetrated foreign nations. It had even laid hold of Judaism, and the anxious care of her professional watchmen to hedge round the national possession, is but a proof of the advancing decomposition within the Jewish nation. Israel, no doubt, had a sacred treasure which was of greater value than all the treasures of the Greeks,—the living God; but in what miserable vessels was this treasure preserved, and how much inferior was all else possessed by this nation in comparison with the riches, the power, the delicacy and freedom of the Greek spirit and its intellectual possessions. A movement like that of Christianity, which discovered to the Jew the soul whose dignity was not dependent on its descent from Abraham, but on its responsibility to God, could not continue in the frame-work of Judaism however expanded, but must soon recognise in that world which the Greek spirit had discovered and prepared, the field which belonged to it: εἰκότως Ἰουδαίοίς μὲν νόμος, Ἕλλεσι δὲ φιλοσοφία μέχρις τῆς παρουσίας ἐντεῦθεν δὲ ἡ κλῆσις ἡ καθολική [to the Jews the law, to the Greeks Philosophy, up to the Parousia; from that time the catholic invitation]. But the Gospel at first was preached exclusively to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and that which inwardly united it with Hellenism did not yet appear in any doctrine or definite form of knowledge.

48

On the contrary, the Church doctrine of faith, in the preparatory stage, from the Apologists up to the time of Origen, hardly in any point shews the traces, scarcely even the remembrance of a time in which the Gospel was not detached from Judaism. For that very reason it is absolutely impossible to understand this preparation and development solely from the writings that remain to us as 38

History of Dogma - Volume I

49

Adolf Harnack

monuments of that short earliest period. The attempts at deducing the genesis of the Church’s doctrinal system from the theology of Paul, or from compromises between Apostolic doctrinal ideas, will always miscarry; for they fail to note that to the most important premises of the Catholic doctrine of faith belongs an element which we cannot recognise as dominant in the New Testament.49 viz., the Hellenic50 spirit. As far backwards as we can trace the history of the propagation of the Church’s doctrine of faith, from the middle of the third century to the end of the first, we nowhere perceive a leap, or the sudden influx of an entirely new element. What we perceive is rather the gradual disappearance of an original element, the Enthusiastic and Apocalyptic, that is, of the sure consciousness of an immediate possession of the Divine Spirit, and the hope of the future conquering the present; individual piety conscious of itself and sovereign, living in the future world, recognising no external authority and no external barriers. This piety became ever weaker and passed away: the utilising of the Codex of Revelation, the Old Testament, proportionally increased with the Hellenic influences which controlled the process, for the two went always hand in hand. At an earlier period the Churches made very little use of either, because they had in individual religious inspiration on the basis of Christ’s preaching and the sure hope of his Kingdom which was near at

49

50

There is indeed no single writing of the new Testament which does not betray the influence of the mode of thought and general conditions of the culture of the time which resulted from the Hellenising of the east: even the use of the Greek translation of the Old Testament attests this fact. Nay, we may go further, and say that the Gospel itself is historically unintelligible, so long as we compare it with an exclusive Judaism as yet unaffected by any foreign influence. But on the other hand, it is just as clear that, specifically, Hellenic ideas form the pre-suppositions neither for the Gospel itself, nor for the most important New Testament writings. It is a question rather as to a general spiritual atmosphere created by Hellenism, which above all strengthened the individual element, and with it the idea of completed personality, in itself living and responsible. On this foundation we meet with a religious mode of thought in the Gospel and the early Christian writings, which so far as it is at all dependent on an earlier mode of thought, is determined by the spirit of the Old Testament (Psalms and Prophets) and of Judaism. But it is already otherwise with the earliest Gentile Christian writings. The mode of thought here is so thoroughly determined by the Hellenic spirit that we seem to have entered a new world when we pass from the synoptists, Paul and John, to Clement, Barnabas, Justin or Valeutinus. We may therefore say, especially in the frame-work of the history of dogma, that the Hellenic element has exercised an influence on the Gospel first on Gentile Christian soil, and by those who were Greek by birth, if only we reserve the general spiritual atmosphere above referred to. Even Paul is no exception; for in spite of the well-founded statement of Weizsäcker (Apostolic Age, vol. I. Book II) and Heinrici (Das 2 Sendschreiben an die Korinthier, 1887, p. 578 ff.), as to the Hellenism of Paul, it is certain that the Apostle’s mode of religious thought, in the strict sense of the word, and therefore also the doctrinal formation peculiar to him, are but little determined by the Greek spirit. But it is to he specially noted that as a missionary and an Apologist he made use of Greek ideas (Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians). He was not afraid to put the Gospel into Greek modes of thought. To this extent we can already observe in him the beginning of the development which we can trace so clearly in the Gentile Church from Clement to Justin, and from Justin to Irenæus. The complete universalism of salvation is given in the Pauline conception of Christianity. But this conception is singular. Because: (1) the Pauline universalism is based on a criticism of the Jewish religion as religion, including the Old Testament, which was not understood and therefore not received by Christendom in general. (2) Because Paul not only formulated no national anti-judaism, but always recognised the prerogative of the people of Israel as a people. (3) Because his idea of the Gospel, with all his Greek culture, is independent of Hellenism in its deepest grounds. This peculiarity of the Pauline Gospel is the reason why little more could pass from it into the common consciousness of Christendom than the universalism of salvation, and why the later development of the Church cannot be explained from Paulinism. Baur, therefore, was quite right when he recognised that we must exhibit another and more powerful element in order to comprehend the post-Pauline formations. In the selection of this element, however, he has made a fundamental mistake by introducing the narrow national Jewish Christianity, and he has also given much too great scope to Paulinism by wrongly conceiving it as Gentile Christian doctrine. One great difficulty for the historian of the early Church is that he cannot start from Paulinism, the plainest phenomenon of the Apostolic age, in seeking to explain the following development, that in fact the premises for this development are not at all capable of being indicated in the form of outlines, just because they were too general. But, on the other hand, the Pauline theology, this theology of one who had been a Pharisee, is the strongest proof of the independent and universal power of the impression made by the Person of Jesus.

39

History of Dogma - Volume I

50

51

Adolf Harnack

hand, much more than either could bestow. The factors whose co-operation we observe in the second and third centuries, were already operative among the earliest Gentile Christians. We nowhere find a yawning gulf in the great development which lies between the first Epistle of Clement and the work of Origen, Περὶ ἀρχῶν. Even the importance which the “Apostolic” was to obtain, was already foreshadowed by the end of the first century, and enthusiasm always had its limits.51 The most decisive division, therefore, falls before the end of the first century; or more correctly, the relatively new element, the Greek, which is of importance for the forming of the Church as a commonwealth, and consequently for the formation of its doctrine, is clearly present in the churches even in the Apostolic age. Two hundred years, however, passed before it made itself completely at home in the Gospel, although there were points of connection inherent in the Gospel. 7. The cause of the great historical fact is clear. It is given in the fact that the Gospel, rejected by the majority of the Jews, was very soon proclaimed to those who were not Jews, that after a few decades the greater number of its professors were found among the Greeks, and that, consequently. the development leading to the Catholic dogma took place within Grco-Roman culture. But within this culture there was lacking the power of understanding either the idea of the completed Old Testament theocracy, or the idea of the Messiah. Both of these essential elements of the original proclamation, therefore, must either be neglected or remodelled.52 But it is hardly allowable to mention details however important, where the whole aggregate of ideas, of religious historical perceptions and presuppositions, which were based on the old Testament, understood in a Christian sense, presented itself as something new and strange. One can easily appropriate words, but not practical ideas. Side by side with the Old Testament religion as the presupposition of the Gospel, and using its forms of thought, the moral and religious views and ideals dominant in the world of Greek culture could not but insinuate themselves into the communities consisting of Gen-tiles. From the enormous material that was brought home to the hearts of the Greeks, whether formulated by Paul or by any other, only a few rudimentary ideas could at first be appropriated. For that very reason, the Apostolic Catholic doctrine of faith in its preparation and establishment, is no mere continuation of that which, by uniting things that are certainly very dissimilar, is wont to be described as “Biblical Theology of the New Testament.” Biblical Theology, even when kept within reasonable limits, is not the presupposition of the history of dogma. The Gentile Christians were little able to comprehend the controversies which stirred the Apostolic age within Jewish Christianity. The

51

52

In the main writings of the New Testament itself we have a twofold conception of the Spirit. According to the one he comes upon the believer fitfully, expresses himself in visible signs, deprives men of self-consciousness, and puts them beside themselves. According to the other, the spirit is a constant possession of the Christian, operates in him by enlightening the conscience and strengthening the character, and his fruits are love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, etc. (Gal. V. 22). Paul above all taught Christians to value these fruits of the spirit higher than all the other effects of his working. But he has not by any means produced a perfectly clear view on this point: for “he himself spoke with more tongues than they all.” As yet “Spirit” lay within “Spirit.” One felt in the spirit of sonship a completely new gift coming from God and recreating life, a miracle of God; further, this spirit also produced sudden exclamations—“Abba, Father” and thus shewed himself in a way patent to the senses. For that very reason, the spirit of ecstasy and of miracle appeared identical with the spirit of sonship. (See Gunkel, Die Wirkungen d. h. Geistes nach der popularen Anschauung der Apostol. Zeit. Göttingen, 1888). It may even be said here that the ἀθανασία (ζωὴ αἰώνιος), on the one hand, and the ἐκκλησία, on the other, have already appeared in place of the Βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, and that the idea of Messiah has been finally replaced by that of the Divine Teacher and of God manifest in the flesh.

40

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

presuppositions of the history of dogma are given in certain fundamental ideas, or rather motives of the Gospel, (in the preaching concerning Jesus Christ, in the teaching of Evangelic ethics and the future life, in the Old Testament capable of any interpretation, but to be interpreted with reference to Christ and the Evangelic history), and in the Greek spirit.53

52

53

8. The foregoing statements involve that the difference between the development which led to the Catholic doctrine of religion and the original condition, was by no means a total one. By recognising the Old Testament as a book of Divine revelation, the Gentile Christians received along with it the religious speech which was used by Jewish Christians, were made dependent upon the interpretation which had been used from the very beginning, and even received a great part of the Jewish literature which accompanied the Old Testament. But the possession of a common religious speech and literature is never a mere outward bond of union, however strong the impulse be to introduce the old familiar contents into the newly acquired speech. The Jewish, that is, the Old Testament element, divested of its national peculiarity, has remained the basis of Christendom. It has saturated this element with the Greek spirit, but has always clung to its main idea, faith in God as the creator and ruler of the world. It has in the course of its development rejected important parts of that Jewish element, and has borrowed others at a later period from the great treasure that was transmitted to it. It has also been able to turn to account the least adaptable features, if only for the external confirmation of its own ideas. The Old Testament applied to Christ and his universal Church has always remained the decisive document, and it was long ere Christian writings received the same authority, long ere individual doctrines and sayings of Apostolic writings obtained an influence on the formation of ecclesiastical doctrine. 9. From yet another side there makes its appearance an agreement between the circles of Palestinian believers in Jesus and the Gentile Christian communities, which endured for more than a century, though it was of course gradually effaced. It is the enthusiastic element which unites them, the consciousness of standing in an immediate union with God through the Spirit, and receiving directly

53

It is one of the merits of Bruno Bauer (Christus und die Cäsaren, 1877), that he has appreciated the real significance of the Greek element in the Gentile Christianity which became the Catholic Church and doctrine, and that he has appreciated the influence of the Judaism of the Diaspora as a preparation for this Gentile Christianity. But these valuable contributions have unfortunately been deprived of their convincing power by a baseless criticism of the early Christian literature, to which Christ and Paul have fallen a sacrifice. Somewhat more cautious are the investigations of Havet in the fourth volume of Le Christianisme, 1884; Le Nouveau Testament. He has won great merit by the correct interpretation of the elements of Gentile Christianity developing themselves to catholicism, but his literary criticism is often unfortunately entirely abstract, reminding one of the criticism of Voltaire, and therefore his statements in detail are, as a rule, arbitrary and untenable. There is a school in Holland at the present time closely related to Bruno Bauer and Havet, which attempts to banish early Christianity from the world. Christ and Paul are creations of the second century: the history of Christianity begins with the passage of the first century into the second—a peculiar phenomenon on the soil of Hellenised Judaism in quest of a Messiah. This Judaism created Jesus Christ just as the later Greek religious philosophers created their Saviour (Apollonius, for example). The Marcionite Church produced Paul, and the growing Catholic Church completed him. See the numerous treatises of Loman, the Verisimilia of Pierson and Naber (1886), and the anonymous English work “Antigua Mater” (1887), also the works of Steck (see especially his Untersuchung über den Galaterbrief). Against these works see P. V. Schmidt’s “Der Galaterbrief,” 1892. It requires a deep knowledge of the problems which the first two centuries of the Christian Church present, in order not to thrust aside as simply absurd these attempts, which as yet have failed to deal with the subject in a connected way. They have their strength in the difficulties and riddles which are contained in the history of the formation of the Catholic tradition in the second century. But the single circumstance that we are asked to regard as a forgery such a document as the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, appears to me, of itself, to be an unanswerable argument against the new hypotheses.

41

History of Dogma - Volume I

54

55

Adolf Harnack

from God’s hand miraculous gifts, powers and revelations, granted to the individual that he may turn them to account in the service of the Church. The depotentiation of the Christian religion, where one may believe in the inspiration of another, but no longer feels his own, nay, dare not feel it, is not altogether coincident with its settlements on Greek soil. On the contrary, it was more than two centuries ere weakness and reflection suppressed, or all but suppressed, the forms in which the personal consciousness of God originally expressed itself.54 Now it certainly lies in the nature of enthusiasm, that it can assume the most diverse forms of expression, and follow very different impulses, and so far it frequently separates instead of uniting. But so long as criticism and reflection are not yet awakened, and a uniform ideal hovers before one, it does unite, and in this sense there existed an identity of disposition between the earliest Jewish Christians and the still enthusiastic Gentile Christian communities. 10. But, finally, there is a still further uniting element between the beginnings of the development to Catholicism, and the original condition of the Christian religion as a movement within Judaism, the importance of which cannot be over-rated, although we have every reason to complain here of the obscurity of the tradition. Between the Græco-Roman world which was in search of a spiritual religion, and the Jewish commonwealth which already possessed such a religion as a national property, though vitiated by exclusiveness, there had long been a Judaism which, penetrated by the Greek spirit, was, ex professo, devoting itself to the task of bringing a new religion to the Greek world, the Jewish religion, but that religion in its kernel Greek, that is, philosophically moulded, spiritualised and secularised. Here then was already consummated an intimate union of the Greek spirit with the Old Testament religion, within the Empire and to a less degree in Palestine itself. If everything is not to be dissolved into a grey mist, we must clearly distinguish this union between Judaism and Hellenism and the spiritualising of religion it produced, from the powerful but indeterminable influences which the Greek spirit exercised on all things Jewish, and which have been a historical condition of the Gospel. The alliance, in my opinion, was of no significance at all for the origin of the Gospel, but was of the most decided importance, first, for the propagation of Christianity, and then, for the development of Christianity to Catholicism, and for the genesis of

54

It would be a fruitful task, though as yet it has not been undertaken, to examine how long visions, dreams and apocalypses, on the one hand, and the claim of speaking in the power and name of the Holy Spirit, on the other, played a rôle in the early Church; and further to shew how they nearly died out among the laity, but continued to live among the clergy and the monks, and how, even among the laity, there were again and again sporadic outbreaks of them. The material which the first three centuries present is very great. Only a few may he mentioned here: Ignat. ad. Rom. VII. 2: ad Philad VII. ad. Eph. XX. I. etc.: 1 Clem. LXIII. 2: Martyr. Polyc.: Acta Perpet. et Felic: Tertull de animo XLVII.: “Major pæne vis hominum e visionibus deum discunt.” Orig. c. Celsum. 1. 46: πολλοὶ ὡσπερεὶ ἅκοντες προσεληλύθασι χριστιανισμῶ, πνεύματός τινός τρέψαντος . . . καὶ φαντασιώσαντος αὐτοὺς ὕπαρ ἤ ὄναρ (even Arnobius was ostensibly led to Christianity by a dream). Cyprian makes the most extensive use of dreams, visions, etc., in his letters, see for example Ep. XI. 3–5: XVI. 4 (“præter nocturnas visiones per dies quoque impletur apud nos spiritu sancto puerorum innocens ætas, quæ in ecstasi videt,” etc.); XXXIX. i: LXVI. Io (very interesting: “quamquam sciam somnia ridicula et visiones ineptas quibusdam videri, sed utique illis, qui malunt contra sacerdotes credere quam sacerdoti, sed nihil mirum, quando de Joseph fratres sui dixerunt: ecce somniator ille,” etc.). One who took part in the baptismal controversy in the great Synod of Carthage writes, “secundum motum animi mei et spiritus Sancti.” The enthusiastic element was always evoked with special power in times of persecution, as the genuine African matyrdoms, from the second half of the third century, specially shew. Cf. especially the passio Jacobi, Mariani, etc. But where the enthusiasm was not convenient it was called, as in the case of the Montanists, dæmonic. Even Constantine operated with dreams and visions of Christ (see his Vita).

42

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

the Catholic doctrine of faith.55 We cannot certainly name any particular personality who was specially active in this, but we can mention three facts which prove more than individual references. (1) The propaganda of Christianity in the Diaspora followed the Jewish propaganda and partly took its place, that is, the Gospel was at first preached to those Gentiles who were already acquainted with the general outlines of the Jewish religion, and who were even frequently viewed as a Judaism of a second order, in which Jewish and Greek elements had been united in a peculiar mixture. (2) The conception of the Old Testament, as we find it even in the earliest Gentile Christian teachers, the method of spiritualising it, etc., agrees in the most surprising way with the methods which were used by the Alexandrian Jews. (3) There are Christian documents in no small number and of unknown origin, which completely agree in plan, in form and contents with Græco-Jewish writings of the Diaspora, as for example, the Christian Sibylline Oracles, and the pseudo-Justinian treatise, “de Monarchia.” There are numerous tractates of which it is impossible to say with certainty whether they are of Jewish or of Christian origin. 56

57

The Alexandrian and non-Palestinian Judaism is still Judaism. As the Gospel seized and moved the whole of Judaism, it must also have been operative in the non-Palestinian Judaism. But that already foreshadowed the transition of the Gospel to the non-Jewish Greek region, and the fate which it was to experience there. For that non-Palestinian Judaism formed the bridge between the Jewish Church and the Roman Empire, together with its culture.56 The Gospel passed into the world chiefly by this bridge. Paul indeed had a large share in this, but his own Churches did not understand the way he led them, and were not able on looking back to find it.57 He indeed became a Greek to the Greeks, and even began the undertaking of placing the treasures of Greek knowledge at the service of the Gospel. But the knowledge of Christ crucified, to which he subordinated all other 55

56

57

As to the first, the recently discovered “Teaching of the Apostles” in its first moral part, shews a great affinity with the moral philosophy which was set up by Alexandrian Jews and put before the Greek world as that which had been revealed: see Massebieau, L’enseignement des XII. Apôtres. Paris. 1884, and in the Journal “Le Témoignage,” 7 Febr. 1885. Usener, in his Preface to the Ges. Abhandl. Jacob Bernays’, which he edited, 1885, p. v. f., has, independently of Massebieau, pointed out the relationship of chapters 1-5 of the “Teaching of the Apostles” with the Phocylidean poem (see Bernays’ above work, p. 192 ff.). Later Taylor “The teaching of the twelve Apostles,” 1886, threw out the conjecture that the Didache had a Jewish foundation, and I reached the same conclusion independently of him: see my Treatise: Die Apostellehre und die jüdischen beiden Wege, 1886. It is well known that Judaism at the time of Christ embraced a great many different tendencies. Beside Pharisaic Judaism as the stem proper, there was a motley mass of formations which resulted from the contact of Judaism with foreign ideas, customs and institutions (even with Babylonian and Persian), and which attained importance for the development of the predominant church, as well as for the formation of the so-called gnostic Christian communions. Hellenic elements found their way even into Pharisaic theology. Orthodox Judaism itself has marks which shew that no spiritual movement was able to escape the influence which proceeded from the victory of the Greeks over the east. Besides, who would venture to exhibit definitely the origin and causes of that spiritualising of religions and that limitation of the moral standard of which we can find so many traces in the Alexandrian age? The nations who inhabited the eastern shore of the Mediterranean sea, had from the fourth century B. C., a common history, and therefore had similar convictions. Who can decide what each of them acquired by its own exertions, and what it obtained through interchange of opinions? But in proportion as we see this we must be on our guard against jumbling the phenomena together and effacing them. There is little meaning in calling a thing Hellenic, as that really formed an element in all the phenomena of the age. All our great political and ecclesiastical parties to-day are dependent on the ideas of 1789, and again on romantic ideas. It is just as easy to verify this as it is difficult to determine the measure and the manner of the influence for each group. And yet the understanding of it turns altogether on this point. To call Pharisaism, or the Gospel, or the old Jewish Christianity Hellenic, is not paradox, but confusion. The Acts of the Apostles is in this respect a most instructive book. It, as well as the Gospel of Luke, is a document of Gentile christianity developing itself to Catholicism: Cf. Overbeck in his Commentar z. Apostelgesch. But the comprehensive judgment of Havet (in the work above mentioned, IV. p. 395 is correct. “L’hellénisme tient assez peu de place clans le N. T., du moins

43

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

knowledge as only of preparatory value, had nothing in common with Greek philosophy, while the idea of justification and the doctrine of the Spirit (Rom. VIII.), which together formed the peculiar contents of his Christianity, were irreconcilable with the moralism and the religious ideals of Hellenism. But the great mass of the earliest Gentile Christians became Christians because they perceived in the Gospel the sure tidings of the benefits and obligations which they had already sought in the fusion of Jewish and Greek elements. It is only by discerning this that we can grasp the preparation and genesis of the Catholic Church and its dogma. From the foregoing statements it appears that there fall to be considered as presuppositions of the origin of the Catholic Apostolic doctrine of faith, the following topics, though of unequal importance as regards the extent of their influence. (a). The Gospel of Jesus Christ. (b). The common preaching of Jesus Christ in the first generation of believers. (c). The current exposition of the Old Testament, the Jewish speculations and hopes of the future, in their significance for the earliest types of Christian preaching.58 (d). The religious conceptions, and the religious philosophy of the Hellenistic Jews, in their significance for the later restatement of the Gospel. (e). The religious dispositions of the Greeks and Romans of the first two centuries, and the current Græco-Roman philosophy of religion. § 2. The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to His own testimony concerning Himself. 58

I. The Fundamental Features. The Gospel entered into the world as an apocalyptic eschatological message, apocalyptical and eschatological not only in its form, but also in its contents. But Jesus announced that the kingdom of God had already begun with his own work, and those who received him in faith became sensible of this beginning; for the “apocalyptical” was not merely the unveiling of the future, but above all the revelation of God as the Father, and the “eschatological” received its counterpoise in the view of Jesus’ work as Saviour, in the assurance of being certainly called to the kingdom, and in the conviction that life and future dominion is hid with God the Lord and preserved for believers by him. Consequently, we are following not only the indications of the succeeding history, but also the requirement of the thing itself, when, in the presentation of the Gospel, we place in the foreground, not that which unites it with the contemporary disposition of Judaism, but that which

58

l’hellénisme voulu et réfléchi. Ces livres sont écrits en grec et leurs auteurs vivaient en pays grec; il y a donc eu chez eux infiltration des idées et des sentiments helléniques; quelquefois même l’imagination hellénique y a pénétré comme dans le 3 évangile et dans les Actes . . . . Dans son ensemble, le N. T. garde le caractère d’un livre hébraïque Le christianisme ne commence avoir une littérature et des doctrines vraiment helléniques qu’au milieu du second siècle. Mais il y avait un judaïsme, celui d’Alexandrie, qui avait faite alliance avec 1’hellénisme avant même qu’il y eût des chrétiens.” The right of distinguishing (b) and (c) may be contested. But if we surrender this we therewith surrender the right to distinguish kernel and husk in the original proclamation of the Gospel. The dangers to which the attempt is exposed should not frighten us from it, for it has its justification in the fact that the Gospel is neither doctrine nor law.

44

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

raises it above it. Instead of the hope of inheriting the kingdom, Jesus had also spoken simply of preserving the soul, or the life. In this one substitution lies already a transformation of universal significance, of political religion into a religion that is individual and therefore holy; for the life is nourished by the word of God, but God is the Holy One.

59

60

The Gospel is the glad message of the government of the world and of every individual soul by the almighty and holy God, the Father and Judge. In this dominion of God, which frees men from the power of the Devil, makes them rulers in a heavenly kingdom in contrast with the kingdoms of the world, and which will also be sensibly realised in the future on just about to appear, is secured life for all men who yield themselves to God, although they should lose the world and the earthly life. That is, the soul which is pure and holy in connection with God, and in imitation of the Divine perfection is eternally preserved with God, while those who would gain the world and preserve their life, fall into the hands of the Judge who sentences them to Hell. This dominion of God imposes on men a law, an old and yet a new law, viz., that of the Divine perfection and therefore of undivided love to God and to our neighbour. In this love, where it sways the inmost feeling, is presented the better righteousness (better not only with respect to the Scribes and Pharisees, but also with respect to Moses, see Matt. V.), which corresponds to the perfection of God. The way to attain it is a change of mind, that is, self-denial, humility before God, and heartfelt trust in him. In this humility and trust in God there is contained a recognition of one’s own unworthiness; but the Gospel calls to the kingdom of God those very sinners who are thus minded, by promising the forgiveness of the sins which hitherto have separated them from God. But the Gospel which appears in these three elements, the dominion of God, a better righteousness embodied in the law of love, and the forgiveness of sin, is inseparably connected with Jesus Christ; for in preaching this Gospel Jesus Christ everywhere calls men to himself. In him the Gospel is word and deed; it has become his food, and therefore his personal life, and into this life of his he draws all others. He is the Son who knows the Father. In him men are to perceive the kindness of the Lord; in him they are to feel God’s power and government of the world, and to become certain of this consolation; they are to follow him the meek and lowly, and while he, the pure and holy one, calls sinners to himself, they are to receive the assurance that God through him forgiveth sin. Jesus Christ has by no express statement thrust this connection of his Gospel with his Person into the foreground. No words could have certified it unless his life, the overpowering impression of his Person, had created it. By living, acting and speaking from the riches of that life which he lived with his Father, he became for others the revelation of the God of whom they formerly had heard, but whom they had not known. He declared his Father to be their Father and they understood him. But he also declared himself to be Messiah, and in so doing gave an intelligible expression to his abiding significance for them and for his people. In a solemn hour at the close of his life, as well as on special occasions at an earlier period, he referred to the fact that the surrender to his Person which induced them to leave all and follow him, was no passing element in the new position they had gained towards God the Father. He tells them, on the contrary, that this surrender corresponds to the service which he will perform for them and for the many, when he will give his life a sacrifice for the sins of the world. By teaching them to think of him and of his death in the breaking of bread and the drinking of wine, and by saying of his death that it takes place for the remission of sins, he has claimed as his due from all future disciples what was a matter of course so long as he sojourned 45

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

with them, but what might fade away after he was parted from them. He who in his preaching of the kingdom of God raised the strictest self-examination and humility to a law, and exhibited them to his followers in his own life, has described with clear consciousness his life crowned by death as the imperishable service by which men in all ages will be cleansed from their sin and made joyful in their God. By so doing he put himself far above all others, although they were to become his brethren; and claimed a unique and permanent importance as Redeemer and Judge. This permanent importance as the Lord he secured, not by disclosures about the mystery of his Person, but by the impression of his life and the interpretation of his death. He interprets it, like all his sufferings, as a victory, as the passing over to his glory, and in spite of the cry of God-forsakenness upon the cross, he has proved himself able to awaken in his followers the real conviction that he lives and is Lord and Judge of the living and the dead.

61

The religion of the Gospel is based on this belief in Jesus Christ, that is, by looking to him, this historical person, it becomes certain to the believer that God rules heaven and earth, and that God, the Judge, is also Father and Redeemer. The religion of the Gospel is the religion which makes the highest moral demands, the simplest and the most difficult, and discloses the contradiction in which every man finds himself towards them. But it also procures redemption from such misery, by drawing the life of men into the inexhaustible and blessed life of Jesus Christ, who has overcome the world and called sinners to himself. In making this attempt to put together the fundamental features of the Gospel, I have allowed myself to be guided by the results of this Gospel in the case of the first disciples. I do not know whether it is permissible to present such fundamental features apart from this guidance. The preaching of Jesus Christ was in the main so plain and simple, and in its application so manifold and rich, that one shrinks from attempting to systematise it, and would much rather merely narrate according to the Gospel. Jesus searches for the point in every man on which he can lay hold of him and lead him to the Kingdom of God. The distinction of good and evil—for God or against God—he would make a life question for every man, in order to shew him for whom it has become this, that he can depend upon the God whom he is to fear. At the same time he did not by any means uniformly fall back upon sin, or even the universal sinfulness, but laid hold of individuals very diversely, and led them to God by different paths. The doctrinal concentration of redemption on sin was certainly not carried out by Paul alone; but, on the other hand, it did not in any way become the prevailing form for the preaching of the Gospel. On the contrary, the antitheses, night, error, dominion of demons, death and light, truth, deliverance, life, proved more telling in the Gentile Churches. The consciousness of universal sinfulness was first made the negative fundamental frame of mind of Christendom by Augustine. II. Details.

62

1. Jesus announced the Kingdom of God which stands in opposition to the kingdom of the devil, and therefore also to the kingdom of the world, as a future Kingdom, and yet it is presented in his preaching as present; as an invisible, and yet it was visible—for one actually saw it. He lived and spoke within the circle of eschatological ideas which Judaism had developed more than two hundred years before: but he controlled them by giving them a new content and forcing them into a new direction. Without abrogating the law and the prophets he, on fitting occasions, broke through the 46

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

national, political and sensuous eudæmonistic forms in which the nation was expecting the realisation of the dominion of God, but turned their attention at the same time to a future near at hand, in which believers would be delivered from the oppression of evil and sin, and would enjoy blessedness and dominion. Yet he declared that even now, every individual who is called into the kingdom may call on God as his Father, and be sure of the gracious will of God, the hearing of his prayers, the forgiveness of sin. and the protection of God even in this present life.59 But everything in this proclamation is directed to the life beyond: the certainty of that life is the power and earnestness of the Gospel. 2. The conditions of entrance to the kingdom are, in the first place, a complete change of mind, in which a man renounces the pleasures of this world, denies himself, and is ready to surrender all that he has in order to save his soul; then, a believing trust in God’s grace which he grants to the humble and the poor, and therefore hearty confidence in Jesus as the Messiah chosen and called by God to realise his kingdom on the earth. The announcement is therefore directed to the poor, the suffering, those hungering and thirsting for righteousness, not to those who live, but to those who wish to be healed and redeemed, and finds them prepared for entrance into, and reception of the blessings of the kingdom of God,60 while it brings down upon the self-satisfied, the rich and those proud of their righteousness, the judgment of obduracy and the damnation of Hell. 63

3. The commandment of undivided love to God and the brethren, as the main commandment, in the observance of which righteousness is realised, and forming the antithesis to the selfish mind, the lust of the world, and every arbitrary impulse,61 corresponds to the blessings of the Kingdom of God, viz., forgiveness of sin, righteousness, dominion and blessedness. The standard of personal worth for the members of the Kingdom is self-sacrificing labour for others, not any technical mode of worship or legal preciseness. Renunciation of the world together with its goods, even of life itself in certain circumstances, is the proof of a man’s sincerity and earnestness in seeking the Kingdom of God; and the meekness. which renounces every right, bears wrong patiently, requiting it with kindness, is the practical proof of love to God, the conduct that answers to God’s perfection. 4. In the proclamation and founding of this kingdom, Jesus summoned men to attach themselves to him, because he had recognised himself to be the helper called by God, and therefore also the

59

60

61

Therewith are, doubtless, heavenly blessings bestowed in the present. Historical investigation has, notwithstanding, every reason for closely examining, whether, and in how far, we may speak of a present for the Kingdom of God, in the sense of Jesus. But even if the question had to be answered in the negative, it would make little or no difference for the correct understanding of Jesus’ preaching. The Gospel viewed in its kernel is independent of this question. It deals with the inner constitution and mood of the soul. The question whether, and in what degree, a man of himself can earn righteousness before God is one of those theoretic questions to which Jesus gave no answer. He fixed his attention on all the gradations of the moral and religious conduct of his countrymen as they were immediately presented to him, and found some prepared for entrance into the kingdom of God, not by a technical mode of outward preparation, but by hungering and thirsting for it, and at the same time unselfishly serving their brethren. Humility and love unfeigned were always the decisive marks of these prepared ones. They are to be satisfied with righteousness before God, that is, are to receive the blessed feeling that God is gracious to them as sinners, and accepts them as his children. Jesus, however, allows the popular distinction of sinners and righteous to remain, but exhibits its perverseness by calling sinners to himself, and by describing the opposition of the righteous to his Gospel as a mark of their godlessness and hardness of heart. The blessings of the kingdom were frequently represented by Jesus as a reward for work done. But this popular view is again broken through by reference to the fact that all reward is the gift of God’s free grace.

47

History of Dogma - Volume I

64

65

Adolf Harnack

Messiah who was promised.62 He gradually declared himself to the people as such by the names he assumed,63 for the names “Anointed,” “King,” “Lord,” “Son of David,” “Son of Man,” “Son of God,” all denote the Messianic office, and were familiar to the greater part of the people.64 But though, at first, they express only the call, office, and power of the Messiah, yet by means of them and especially by the designation Son of God, Jesus pointed to a relation to God the Father, then and in its immediateness unique, as the basis of the office with which he was entrusted. He has, however, given no further explanation of the mystery of this relation than the declaration that the Son alone knoweth the Father, and that this knowledge of God and Sonship to God are secured for all others by the sending of the Son.65 In the proclamation of God as Father,66 as well as in the other proclamation that all the members of the kingdom following the will of God in love, are to become one with the Son and through him with the Father,67 the message of the realised kingdom of God receives its richest, inexhaustible content: the Son of the Father will be the first-born among many brethren. 5. Jesus as the Messiah chosen by God has definitely distinguished himself from Moses and all the Prophets: as his preaching and his work are the fulfilment of the law and the prophets, so he himself is not a disciple of Moses, but corrects that law-giver; he is not a Prophet, but Master and Lord. He proves this Lordship during his earthly ministry in the accomplishment of the mighty deeds given

62

63

64

65

66

67

Some Critics—most recently Havet, Le Christianisme et ses origines, 1884. T. IV. p. 15 ff.—have called in question the fact that Jesus called himself Messiah. But this article of the Evangelic tradition seems to me to stand the test of the most minute investigation. But, in the case of Jesus, the consciousness of being the Messiah undoubtedly rested on the certainty of being the Son of God, therefore of knowing the Father and being constrained to proclaim that knowledge. We can gather with certainty from the Gospels that Jesus did not enter on his work with the announcement: Believe in me for I am the Messiah. On the contrary, he connected his work with the baptising movement of John, but carried that movement further, and thereby made the Baptist his forerunner (Mark I. 15: πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἤ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ· μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίω). He was in no hurry to urge anything that went beyond that message, but gradually prepared, and cautiously required of his followers an advance beyond it. The goal to which he led them was to believe in him as Messiah without putting the usual political construction on the Messianic ideal. Even “Son of Man” probably means Messiah: we do not know whether Jesus had any special reason for favouring this designation which springs from Dan. VII. The objection to interpreting the word as Messiah really resolves itself into this, that the disciples (according to the Gospels) did not at once recognise him as Messiah. But that is explained by the contrast of his own peculiar idea of Messiah with the popular idea. The confession of him as Messiah was the keystone of their confidence in him, inasmuch as by that confession they separated themselves from old ideas. The distinction between the Father and the Son stands out just as plainly in the sayings of Jesus, as the complete obedient subordination of the Son to the Father. Even according to John’s Gospel, Jesus finishes the work which the Father has given him, and is obedient in everything even unto death. He declares Mat. XIX. 17: εἱ̂ς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός. Special notice should be given to Mark XIII. 32, (Matt. XXIV, 36). Behind the only manifested life of Jesus, later speculation has put a life in which he wrought, not in subordination and obedience, but in like independence and dignity with God. That goes beyond the utterances of Jesus even in the fourth Gospel. But it is no advance beyond these, especially in the religious view and speech of the time, when it is announced that the relation of the Father to the Son lies beyond time. It is not even improbable that the sayings in the fourth Gospel referring to this, have a basis in the preaching of Jesus himself. Paul knew that the designation of God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was the new Evangelic confession. Origen was the first among the Fathers (though before him Marcion) to recognise that the decisive advance beyond the Old Testament stage of religion, was given in the preaching of God as Father; see the exposition of the Lord’s Prayer in his treatise De oratione. No doubt the Old Testament, and the later Judaism knew the designation of God as Father; but it applied it to the Jewish nation, it did not attach the evangelic meaning to the name, and it did not allow itself in any way to be guided in its religion by this idea. See the farewell discourses in John, the fundamental ideas of which are, in my opinion, genuine, that is, proceed from Jesus.

48

History of Dogma - Volume I

66

67

Adolf Harnack

him to do, above all in withstanding the Devil and his kingdom,68 and—according to the law of the Kingdom of God—for that very reason in the service which he performs. In this service Jesus also reckoned the sacrifice of his life, designating it as a “λύτρν” which he offered for the redemption of man.69 But he declared at the same time that his Messianic work was not yet fulfilled in his subjection to death. On the contrary, the close is merely initiated by his death; for the completion of the kingdom will only appear when he returns in glory in the clouds of heaven to judgment. Jesus seems to have announced this speedy return a short time before his death, and to have comforted his disciples at his departure, with the assurance that he would immediately enter into a supramundane position with God.70 6. The instructions of Jesus to his disciples are accordingly dominated by the thought that the end,—the day and hour of which, however, no one knows,—is at hand. In consequence of this, also, the exhortation to renounce all earthly good takes a prominent place. But Jesus does not impose

68

69

70

The historian cannot regard a miracle as a sure given historical event: for in doing so he destroys the mode of consideration on which all historical investigation rests. Every individual miracle remains historically quite doubtful, and a summation of things doubtful never leads to certainty. But should the historian, notwithstanding, be convinced that Jesus Christ did extraordinary things, in the strict sense miraculous things, then, from the unique impression he has obtained of this person, he infers the possession by him of supernatural power. This conclusion itself belongs to the province of religious faith: though there has seldom been a strong faith which would not have drawn it. Moreover, the healing miracles of Jesus are the only ones that come into consideration in a strict historical examination. These certainly cannot be eliminated from the historical accounts without utterly destroying them. But how unfit are they of themselves, after 1800 years, to secure any special importance to him to whom they are attributed, unless that importance was already established apart from them. That he could do with him-self what he would, that he created a new thing without overturning the old, that he won men to himself by announcing the Father, that he inspired without fanaticism, set up a kingdom without politics, set men free from the world without asceticism, was a teacher without theology, at a time of fanaticism and politics, asceticism and theology, is the great miracle of his person, and that he who preached the Sermon on the Mount declared himself in respect of his life and death, to be the Redeemer and Judge of the world, is the offence and foolishness which mock all reason. See Mark X. 45—That Jesus at the celebration of the first Lord’s supper described his death as a sacrifice which he should offer for the forgiveness of sin, is clear from the account of Paul. From that account it appears to be certain that Jesus gave expression to the idea of the necessity and saving significance of his death for the forgiveness of sins, in a symbolical ordinance (based on the conclusion of the covenant, Exod. XXIV. 3 ff., perhaps, as Paul presupposes, on the Passover), in order that his disciples by repeating it in accordance with the will of Jesus, might be the more deeply impressed by it. Certain observations based on John VI., on the supper prayer in the Didache, nay, even on the report of Mark, and supported at the same time by features of the earliest practice in which it had the character of a real meal, and the earliest theory of the supper, which viewed it as a communication of eternal life and an anticipation of the future existence, have for years made me doubt very much whether the Pauline account and the Pauline conception of it, were really either the oldest, or the universal and therefore only one. I have been strengthened in this suspicion by the profound and remarkable investigation of Spitta (z. Gesch. u. Litt. d. Urchristenthums: Die urchristl. Traditionen ü. den Urspr. u. Sinnd. Abendmahls, 1893). He sees in the supper as not instituted, but celebrated by Jesus, the festival of the Messianic meal, the anticipated triumph over death, the expression of the perfection of the Messianic work, the symbolic representation of the filling of believers with the powers of the Messianic kingdom and life. The reference to the Passover and the death of Christ was attached to it later, though it is true very soon. How much is thereby explained that was hitherto obscure—critical, historical, and dogmatico-historical questions—cannot at all be stated briefly. And yet I hesitate to give a full recognition to Spitta’s exposition: the words I. Cor. XI. 23: ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν κ.τ.λ., are too strong for me. Cf. besides, Weizsäcker’s investigation in “The Apostolic Age.” Lobstein, La doctrine de la s. cène, 1889. A. Harnack i. d. Texten u. Unters. VII. 2 p. 139 if. Schürer, Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1891, p. 29 if. Jülicher Abhandl. f. Weizsäker, 1892, p. 215 ff. With regard to the eschatology, no one can say in detail what proceeds from Jesus, and what from the disciples. What has been said in the text does not claim to be certain, but only probable. The most important, and at the same time the most certain point, is that Jesus made the definitive fate of the individual depend on faith, humility and love. There are no passages in the Gospel which conflict with the impression that Jesus reserved day and hour to God, and wrought in faith and patience as long as for him it was day.

49

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

ascetic commandments as a new law, far less does he see in asceticism, as such, sanctification71—he himself did not live as an ascetic, but was reproached as a wine-bibber—but he prescribed a perfect simplicity and purity of disposition, and a singleness of heart which remains invariably the same in trouble and renunciation, in possession and use of earthly good. A uniform equality of all in the conduct of life is not commanded: “To whom much is given, of him much shall be required.” The disciples are kept as far from fanaticism and overrating of spiritual results as from asceticism. “Rejoice not that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” When they besought him to teach them to pray, he taught them the “Lord’s prayer”, a prayer which demands such a collected mind, and such a tranquil, childlike elevation of the heart to God, that it cannot be offered at all by minds subject to passion or preoccupied by any daily cares.

68

69

7. Jesus himself did not found a new religious community, but gathered round him a circle of disciples, and chose Apostles whom he commanded to preach the Gospel. His preaching was universalistic inasmuch as it attributed no value to ceremonialism as such, and placed the fulfilment of the Mosaic law in the exhibition of its moral contents, partly against or beyond the letter. He made the law perfect by harmonising its particular requirements with the fundamental moral requirements which were also expressed in the Mosaic law. He emphasised the fundamental requirements more decidedly than was done by the law itself, and taught that all details should be referred to them and deduced from them. The external righteousness of Pharisaism was thereby declared to be not only an outer covering, but also a fraud, and the bond which still united religion and nationality in Judaism was sundered.72 Political and national elements may probably have been made prominent in the hopes of the future, as Jesus appropriated them for his preaching. But from the conditions to which the realising of the hopes for the individual was attached, there already 71

72

He did not impose on every one, or desire from every one even the outward following of himself: see Mark V. 18-19. The “imitation of Jesus,” in the strict sense of the word, did not play any noteworthy role either in the Apostolic or in the old Catholic period. It is asserted by well-informed investigators, and may be inferred from the Gospels (Mark XII. 32–34; Luke X. 27, 28), perhaps also from the Jewish original of the Didache, that some representatives of Pharisaism, beside the pedantic treatment of the law, attempted to concentrate it on the fundamental moral commandments. Consequently, in Palestinian and Alexandrian Judaism at the time of Christ, in virtue of the prophetic word and the Thora, influenced also, perhaps, by the Greek spirit which everywhere gave the stimulus to inwardness, the path was indicated in which the future development of religion was to follow. Jesus entered fully into the view of the law thus attempted, which comprehended it as a whole and traced it back to the disposition. But he freed it from the contradiction that adhered to it, (because, in spite of and alongside the tendency to a deeper perception, men still persisted in deducing righteousness from a punctilious observance of numerous particular commandments, because in so doing they became self-satisfied, that is, irreligious, and because in belonging to Abraham, they thought they had a claim of right on God). For all that, so far as a historical understanding of the activity of Jesus is at all possible, it is to be obtained from the soil of Pharisaism, as the Pharisees were those who cherished and developed the Messianic expectations, and because, along with their care for the Thora, they sought also to preserve, in their own way, the prophetic inheritance. If everything does not deceive us, there were already contained in the Pharisaic theology of the age, speculations which were fitted to modify considerably the narrow view of history, and to prepare for universalism. The very men who tithed mint, anise and cummin, who kept their cups and dishes outwardly clean, who, hedging round the Thora, attempted to hedge round the people, spoke also of the sum total of the law. They made room in their theology for new ideas which are partly to be described as advances, and on the other hand, they have already pondered the question even in relation to the law, whether submission to its main contents was not sufficient for being numbered among the people of the covenant (see Renan: Paul). In particular the whole sacrificial system, which Jesus also essentially ignored, was therewith thrust into the background. Baldensperger (Selbstbewusstsein Jesu. p. 46) justly says, “There lie before us definite marks that the certainty of the nearness of God in the Temple (from the time of the Maccabees) begins to waver, and the efficacy of the temple institutions to be called in question. Its recent desecration by the Romans, appears to the author of the Psalms of Solomon (II. 2) as a kind of Divine requital for the sons of Israel themselves

50

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

shone the clearer ray which was to eclipse those elements, and one saying such as Matt. XXII. 31., annulled at once political religion and religious politics. 70

Supplement 1.—The idea of the inestimable inherent value of every individual human soul, already dimly appearing in several psalms, and discerned by Greek Philosophers, though as a rule developed in contradiction to religion, stands out plainly in the preaching of Jesus. It is united with the idea of God as Father, and is the complement to the message of the communion of brethren realising itself in love. In this sense the Gospel is at once profoundly individualistic and Socialistic. The prospect of gaining life, and preserving it for ever, is therefore also the highest which Jesus has set forth; it is not, however, to be a motive, but a reward of grace. In the certainty of this prospect, which is the converse of renouncing the world, he has proclaimed the sure hope of the resurrection, and consequently the most abundant compensation for the loss of the natural life. Jesus put an end to the vacillation and uncertainty which in this respect still prevailed among the Jewish people of his day. The confession of the Psalmist, “Whom have I in heaven but thee, and there is none upon the earth that I desire beside thee”, and the fulfilling of the Old Testament commandment, “Love

having been guilty of so grossly profaning the sacrificial gifts. Enoch calls the shewbread of the second Temple polluted and unclean . . . There had crept in among the pious a feeling of the insufficiency of their worship, and from this side the Essenic schism will certainly represent only the open outbreak of a disease which had already begun to gnaw secretly at the religious life of the nation”: see here the excellent explanations of the origin of Essenism in Lucius (Essenism, 75 ff. 509 ff.). The spread of Judaism in the world, the secularization and apostacy of the priestly caste, the desecration of the Temple, the building of the Temple at Leontopolis, the perception brought about by the spiritualising of religion in the empire of Alexander the Great, that no blood of beasts can be a means of reconciling God—all these circumstances must have been absolutely dangerous and fatal, both to the local centralisation of worship, and to the statutory sacrificial system. The proclamation of Jesus (and of Stephen) as to the overthrow of the Temple, is therefore no absolutely new thing, nor is the fact that Judaism fell back upon the law and the Messianic hope, a mere result of the destruction of the Temple. This change was rather prepared by the inner development. Whatever point in the preaching of Jesus we may fix on, we shall find, that—apart from the writings of the Prophets and the Psalms, which originated in the Greek Maccabean periods—parallels can be found only in Pharisaism, but at the same time that the sharpest contrasts must issue from it. Talmudic Judaism is not in every respect the genuine continuance of Pharisaic Judaism, but a product of the decay which attests that the rejection of Jesus by the spiritual leaders of the people had deprived the nation and even the Virtuosi of Religion of their best part: (see for this the expositions of Kuenen “Judaismus und Christenthum,” in his (Hibbert) lectures on national religions and world religions). The ever recurring attempts to deduce the origin of Christianity from Hellenism, or even from the Roman Greek culture, are there also rightly, briefly and tersely rejected. Also the hypotheses, which either entirely eliminate the person of Jesus or make him an Essene, or subordinate him to the person of Paul, may be regarded as definitively settled. Those who think they can ascertain the origin of Christian religion from the origin of Christian Theology will indeed always think of Hellenism: Paul will eclipse the person of Jesus with those who believe that a religion for the world must be born with a universalistic doctrine. Finally, Essenism will continue in authority with those who see in the position of indifference which Jesus took to the Temple worship, the main thing, and who, besides, create for themselves an “Essenism of their own finding.” Hellenism, and also Essenism, can of course indicate to the historian some of the conditions by which the appearance of Jesus was prepared and rendered possible; but they explain only the possibility, not the reality of the appearance. But this with its historically not deducible power is the decisive thing. If some one has recently said that “the historical speciality of the person of Jesus” is not the main thing in Christianity; he has thereby betrayed that he does not know how a religion that is worthy of the name is founded, propagated, and maintained. For the latest attempt to put the Gospel in a historical connection with Buddhism (Seydel. Das Ev. von Jesus in seinem Verhältnissen zur Buddha-Sage, 1882: likewise, Die Buddha-Legende und das Leben Jesu, 1884), see, Oldenburg, Theol. Lit.-Ztg. 1882, Col. 415 f.; 1884, 185 f. However much necessarily remains obscure to us in the ministry of Jesus when we seek to place it in a historical connection, what is known is sufficient to confirm the judgment that his preaching developed a germ in the religion of Israel (see the Psalms) which was finally guarded and in many respects developed by the Pharisees, but which languished and died under their guardianship. The power of development which Jesus imported to it was not a power which he himself had to borrow from without; but doctrine and speculation were as far from him as ecstasy and visions. On the other hand, we must remember we do not know the history of Jesus up to his public entrance on his ministry, and that therefore we do not know whether in his native province he had any connection with Greeks.

51

History of Dogma - Volume I

71

Adolf Harnack

thy neighbour as thyself”, were for the first time presented in their connection in the person of Jesus. He himself therefore is Christianity, for the “impression of his person convinced the disciples of the facts of forgiveness of sin and the second birth, and gave them courage to believe in and to lead a new life”. We cannot therefore state the “doctrine” of Jesus; for it appears as a supramundane life which must be felt in the person of Jesus, and its truth is guaranteed by the fact that such a life can be lived. Supplement 2.—The history of the Gospel contains two great transitions, both of which, however, fall within the first century; from Christ to the first generation of believers, including Paul, and from the first, Jewish Christian, generation of these believers to the Gentile Christians; in other words, from Christ to the brotherhood of believers in Christ, and from this to the incipient Catholic Church. No later transitions in the Church can be compared with these in importance. As to the first, the question has frequently been asked, Is the Gospel of Christ to be the authority or the Gospel concerning Christ? But the strict dilemma here is false. The Gospel certainly is the Gospel of Christ. For it has only, in the sense of Jesus, fulfilled its Mission when the Father has been declared to men as he was known by the Son, and where the life is swayed by the realities and principles which ruled the life of Jesus Christ. But it is in accordance with the mind of Jesus and at the same time a fact of history, that this Gospel can only be appropriated and adhered to in connection with a believing surrender to the person of Jesus Christ. Yet every dogmatic formula is suspicious, be-cause it is fitted to wound the spirit of religion; it should not at least be put before the living experience in order to evoke it; for such a procedure is really the admission of the half belief which thinks it necessary that the impression made by the person must be supplemented. The essence of the matter is a personal life which awakens life around it as the fire of one torch kindles another. Early as weakness of faith is in the Church of Christ, it is no earlier than the procedure of making a formulated and ostensibly proved confession the foundation of faith, and therefore demanding, above all, subjection to this confession. Faith assuredly is propagated by the testimony of faith, but dogma is not in itself that testimony.

72

The peculiar character of the Christian religion is conditioned by the fact that every reference to God is at the same time a reference to Jesus Christ, and vice versa. In this sense the Person of Christ is the central point of the religion, and inseparably united with the substance of piety as a sure reliance on God. Such a union does not, as is supposed, bring a foreign element into the pure essence of religion. The pure essence of religion rather demands such a union; for “the reverence for persons, the inner bowing before the manifestation of moral power and goodness is the root of all true religion” (W. Herrmann). But the Christian religion knows and names only one name before which it bows. In this rests its positive character, in all else, as piety, it is by its strictly spiritual and inward attitude, not a positive religion alongside of others, but religion itself. But just because the Person of Christ has this significance is the knowledge and understanding of the “historical Christ” required: for no other comes within the sphere of our knowledge. “The historical Christ” that, to be sure, is not the powerless Christ of contemporary history shewn to us through a coloured biographical medium, or dissipated in all sorts of controversies, but Christ as a power and as a life which towers above our own life, and enters into our life as God's Spirit and God's Word, (see Herrmann, Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott. 2. Edit. 1892, [i. e., “The Fellowship of the Christian with God”, an important work included in the present series of translations. Ed.]: Kähler, Der sog. historische 52

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

Jesus und der geschichtliche biblische Christus, 1892). But historical labour and investigation are needed in order to grasp this Jesus Christ ever more firmly and surely.

73

As to the second transition, it brought with it the most important changes, which, however, became clearly manifest only after the lapse of some generations. They appear, first, in the belief in holy consecrations, efficacious in themselves, and administered by chosen persons; further, in the conviction, that the relation of the individual to God and Christ is, above all, conditioned on the acceptance of a definite divinely attested law of faith and holy writings; further, in the opinion that God has established Church arrangements, observance of which is necessary and meritorious, as well as in the opinion that a visible earthly community is the people of a new covenant. These assumptions, which formally constitute the essence of Catholicism as a religion, have no support in the teaching of Jesus, nay, offend against that teaching. Supplement 3.—The question as to what new thing Christ has brought, answered by Paul in the words, “If any man be in Christ he is a new creature, old things are passed away, behold all things are become new”, has again and again been pointedly put since the middle of the second century by Apologists, Theologians and religious Philosophers within and without the Church, and has received the most varied answers. Few of the answers have reached the height of the Pauline confession. But where one cannot attain to this confession, one ought to make clear to oneself that every answer which does not lie in the line of it is altogether unsatisfactory; for it is not difficult to set over against every article from the preaching of Jesus an observation which deprives it of its originality. It is the Person, it is the fact of his life that is new and creates the new. The way in which he called forth and established a people of God on earth, which has become sure of God and of eternal life; the way in which he set up a new thing in the midst of the old and transformed the religion of Israel into the religion: that is the mystery of his Person, in which lies his unique and permanent position in the history of humanity.

74

Supplement 4.—The conservative position of Jesus towards the religious traditions of his people had the necessary result that his preaching and his Person were placed by believers in the frame-work of this tradition, which was thereby very soon greatly expanded. But, though this way of understanding the Gospel was certainly at first the only possible way, and though the Gospel itself could only be preserved by such means (see § 1), yet it cannot be mistaken that a displacement in the conception of the Person and preaching of Jesus, and a burdening of religious faith, could not but forthwith set in, from which developments followed, the premises of which would be vainly sought for in the words of the Lord (see §§ § 3, 4). But here the question arises as to whether the Gospel is not inseparably connected with the eschatological world-renouncing element with which it entered into the world, so that its being is destroyed where this is omitted. A few words may be devoted to this question. The Gospel possesses properties which oppose every positive religion, because they depreciate it, and these properties form the kernel of the Gospel. The disposition which is devoted to God, humble, ardent and sincere in its love to God and to the brethren, is as an abiding habit, law, and at the same time a gift of the Gospel, and also finally exhausts it. This quiet, peaceful element was at the beginning strong and vigorous, even in those who lived in the world of ecstasy and expected the world to come. One may be named for all, Paul. He who wrote I. Cor. XIII. and Rom. VIII. should not, in spite of all that he has said elsewhere, be called upon to witness

53

History of Dogma - Volume I

75

Adolf Harnack

that the nature of the Gospel is exhausted in its world-renouncing, ecstatic and eschatological elements, or at least that it is so inseparable united with these as to fall along with them. He who wrote those chapters, and the greater than he who promised the kingdom of heaven to children and to those who were hungering and thirsting for righteousness, he to whom tradition ascribes the words: “Rejoice not that the spirits are subject to you. but rather rejoice that your names are written in heaven”—both attest that the Gospel lies above the antagonisms between this world and the next, work and retirement from the world, reason and ecstasy, Judaism and Hellenism. And because it lies above them it may be united with either, as it originally unfolded its powers under the ruins of the Jewish religion. But still more; it not only can enter into union with them, it must do so if it is other-wise the religion of the living and is itself living. It has only one aim; that man may find God and have him as his own God, in order to gain in him humility and patience, peace, joy and love. How it reaches this goal through the advancing centuries, whether with the co-efficients of Judaism or Hellenism, of renunciation of the world or of culture, of mysticism or the doctrine of predestination, of Gnosticism or Agnosticism, and whatever other incrustations there may yet be which can defend the kernel, and under which alone living elements can grow—all that belongs to the centuries. However each individual Christian may reckon to the treasure itself the earthly vessel in which he hides his treasure; it is the duty and the right, not only of the religious, but also of the historical estimate to distinguish between the vessel and the treasure; for the Gospel did not enter into the world as a positive statutory religion, and cannot therefore have its classic manifestation in any form of its intellectual or social types, not even in the first. It is therefore the duty of the historian of the first century of the Church, as well as that of those which follow, not to be content with fixing the changes of the Christian religion, but to examine how far the new forms were capable of defending, propagating and impressing the Gospel itself. It would probably have perished if the forms of primitive Christianity had been scrupulously maintained in the Church; but now primitive Christianity has perished in order that the Gospel might be preserved. To study this progress of the development, and fix the significance of the newly received forms for the kernel of the matter, is the last and highest task of the historian who himself lives in his subject. He who approaches from without must be satisfied with the general view that in the history of the Church some things have always remained, and other things have always been changing. Literature.—Weiss. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. T. and T. Clark. Wittichen. Beitr. z. bibl. Theol. 3. Thle. 1864-72. Schurer. Die Predigt Jesu in ihrem Verhaltniss z. A. T. u z. Judenthum, 1882. Wellhausen. Abriss der Gesch. Israels u. Juda's (Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten) 1. Heft. 1884. Baldensperger. Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Licht der Messianischen Hoffnungen seiner Zeit, 1888, (2 Aufl. 1891). The prize essays of Schmoller and Issel, Ueber die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes irn N. Test. 1891 (besides Gunkel in d. Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1893. No. 2). Wendt. Die Lehre Jesu. (The teaching of Jesus. T. and T. Clark. English translation.)

76

Job. Weiss. Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 1892. Bousset. Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judenthum, 1892. 54

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

C. Holtzman. Die Offenbarung durch Christus und das Neue Testament (Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche I. p. 367 ff.) The special literature in the above work of Weiss, and in the recent works on the life of Jesus, and the Biblical Theology of the New Testament by Beyschlag. [T. T. Clark] § 3. The Common Preaching concerning Jesus Christ in the First Generation of Believers.

77

Men had met with Jesus Christ and in him had found the Messiah. They were convinced that God had made him to be wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption. There was no hope that did not seem to be certified in him, no lofty idea which had not become in him a living reality. Everything that one possessed was offered to him. He was everything lofty that could be imagined. Everything that can be said of him was already said in the first two generations after his appearance. Nay, more: he was felt and known to be the ever living one Lord of the world and operative principle of one's own life. “To me to live is Christ and to die is gain;” “He is the way, the truth and the life.” One could now for the first time be certain of the resurrection and eternal life, and with that certainty the sorrows of the world melted away like mist before the sun, and the residue of this present time became as a day. This group of facts which the history of the Gospel discloses in the world, is at the same time the highest and most unique of all that we meet in that history: it is its seal and distinguishes it from all other universal religions. Where in the history of mankind can we find anything resembling this, that men who had eaten and drunk with their Master should glorify him, not only as the revealer of God, but as the Prince of life, as the Redeemer and Judge of the world, as the living power of its existence, and that a choir of Jews and Gentiles, Greeks and Barbarians, wise and foolish, should along with them immediately confess that out of the fulness of this one man they have received grace for grace? It has been said that Islam furnishes the unique example of a religion born in broad daylight, but the community of Jesus was also born in the clear light of day. The darkness connected with its birth is occasioned not only by the imperfection of the records, but by the uniqueness of the fact, which refers us back to the uniqueness of the Person of Jesus. But though it certainly is the first duty of the historian to signalise the overpowering impression made by the Person of Jesus on the disciples, which is the basis of all further developments, it would little become him to renounce the critical examination of all the utterances which have been connected with that Person with the view of elucidating and glorifying it; unless he were with Origen to conclude that Jesus was to each and all whatever they fancied him to be for their edification. But this would destroy the personality. Others are of opinion that we should conceive him, in the sense of the early communities, as the second God who is one in essence with the Father, in order to understand from this point of view all the declarations and judgments of these communities. But this hypothesis leads to the most violent distortion of the original declarations, and the suppression or concealment of their most obvious features. The duty of the historian rather consists in fixing the common features of the faith of the first two generations, in explaining them as far as possible from the belief that Jesus is Messiah, and in seeking analogies for the several assertions. Only a very meagre sketch can be given in what follows. The presentation of the matter in the frame-work of the history of dogma does not permit of more, because as noted above, § 1, the presupposition of dogma forming itself in the Gentile Church is not the whole infinitely rich abundance of early Christian views and perceptions. That presupposition is simply a proclamation of the one God and of Christ transferred to Greek soil, fixed merely in its leading features and

55

History of Dogma - Volume I

78

Adolf Harnack

otherwise very plastic, accompanied by a message regarding the future, and demands for a holy life. At the same time the Old Testament and the early Christian Palestinian writings with the rich abundance of their contents, did certainly exercise a silent mission in the earliest communities, till by the creation of the canon they became a power in the Church. 1. The contents of the faith of the disciples,73 and the common proclamation which united them, may be comprised in the following propositions. Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah promised by the prophets. Jesus after his death is by the Divine awakening raised to the right hand of God, and will soon return to set up his kingdom visibly upon the earth. He who believes in Jesus, and has been received into the community of the disciples of Jesus, who, in virtue of a sincere change of mind, calls on God as Father, and lives according to the commandments of Jesus, is a saint of God, and as such can be certain of the sin-forgiving grace of God, and of a share in the future glory, that is, of redemption.74

79

A community of Christian believers was formed within the Jewish national community. By its organisation, the close brotherly union of its members, it bore witness to the impression which the Person of Jesus had made on it, and drew from faith in Jesus and hope of his return, the assurance of eternal life, the power of believing in God the Father and of fulfilling the lofty moral and social commands which Jesus had set forth. They knew themselves to be the true Israel of the Messianic time (see § 1), and for that very reason lived with all their thoughts and feelings in the future. Hence the Apocalyptic hopes which in manifold types were current in the Judaism of the time, and which Jesus had not demolished, continued to a great extent in force (see § 4). One guarantee for their fulfilment was supposed to be possessed in the various manifestations of the Spirit,75 which were displayed in the members of the new communities at their entrance, with which an act of baptism seems to have been united from the very first,76 and in their gatherings. They were a guarantee that 73

74

75

76

See the brilliant investigations of Weizsäcker (Apost. Zeitalter. p. 36) as to the earliest significant names, self-designations, of the disciples. The twelve were in the first place “μαθηταί” (disciples and family-circle of Jesus, see also the significance of James and the brethren of Jesus), then witnesses of the resurrection and therefore Apostles; very soon there appeared beside them, even in Jerusalem, Prophets and Teachers. The christian preaching is very pregnantly described in Acts XXVIII. 31, as κηρύσσειν τὴν Βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ διδάσκειν τὰ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. On the spirit of God (of Christ) see note, p. 50. The earliest christians felt the influence of the spirit as one coming on them from without. It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted baptism, for Matth. XXVIII. 19, is not a saying of the Lord. The reasons for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus, and has not the authority in the Apostolic age which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself. On the other hand, Paul knows of no other way of receiving the Gentiles into the Christian communities than by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of Paul all Jewish Christians were also baptised. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was continued in consequence of Jesus' recognition of John the Baptist and his baptism, even after John himself had been removed. According to John IV. 2, Jesus himself baptised not, but his disciples under his superintendence. It is possible only with the help of tradition to trace back to Jesus a “Sacrament of Baptism,” or an obligation to it ex necessitate salutis, though it is credible that tradition is correct here. Baptism in the Apostolic age was εἰς τὸ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, and indeed εἰς τὸ ὄνομα (1. Cor. I. 13: Acts XIX. 5). We cannot make out when the formula, εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ τοῦ ὑιοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἀγίου ρνεύματος, emerged. The formula, εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, expresses that the person baptised is put into a relation of dependence on him into whose name he is baptised. Paul has given baptism a relation to the death of Christ, or justly inferred it from the εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. The descent of the spirit on the baptised very soon ceased to be regarded as the necessary and immediate result of baptism; yet Paul, and probably his

56

History of Dogma - Volume I

80

81

Adolf Harnack

believers really were the ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ, those called to be saints, and, as such, kings and priests unto God77 for whom the world, death and devil are overcome, although they still rule the course of the world. The confession of the God of Israel as the Father of Jesus, and of Jesus as Christ and Lord78 was sealed by the testimony of the possession of the Spirit, which as Spirit of God assured every individual of his call to the kingdom, united him personally with God himself and became to him the pledge of future glory.79 2. As the Kingdom of God which was announced had not yet visibly appeared, as the appeal to the Spirit could not be separated from the appeal to Jesus as Messiah, and as there was actually nothing possessed but the reality of the Person of Jesus, so, in preaching, all stress must necessarily fall on this Person. To believe in him was the decisive fundamental requirement, and, at first, under the presupposition of the religion of Abraham and the Prophets, the sure guarantee of salvation. It is not surprising then to find that in the earliest Christian preaching Jesus Christ comes before us as frequently as the Kingdom of God in the preaching of Jesus himself. The image of Jesus and the power which proceeded from it were the things which were really possessed. Whatever was expected was expected only from Jesus the exalted and returning one. The proclamation that the Kingdom of heaven is at hand must therefore become the proclamation that Jesus is the Christ, and that in him the revelation of God is complete. He who lays hold of Jesus lays hold in him of the grace of God and of a full salvation. We cannot, however, call this in itself a displacement: but as soon as the proclamation that Jesus is the Christ ceased to be made with the same emphasis and the same meaning that it had in his own preaching, and what sort of blessings they were which he brought, not only was a displacement inevitable, but even a dispossession. But every dispossession requires the given forms to be filled with new contents. Simple as was the pure tradition of the confession: “Jesus is the Christ,” the task of rightly appropriating and handing down entire the peculiar contents which Jesus had given to his self-witnessing and preaching was nevertheless great, and in its limit uncertain. Even the Jewish Christian could perform this task only according to the measure of his spiritual understanding and the strength of his religious life. Moreover, the external position of the first communities in the midst of contemporaries who had crucified and rejected Jesus, compelled them to prove, as their main duty, that Jesus really was the Messiah who was promised. Consequently, everything united to bring the first communities to the conviction that the proclamation of the Gospel with which they were entrusted, resolved itself into the proclamation that Jesus is

77

78

79

contemporaries also, considered the grace of baptism and the communication of the spirit to be inseparably united. See Scholten. Die Taufformel. 1885. Holtzman, Die Taufe im N. T. Ztsch. f. wiss. Theol. 1879. The designation of the Christian community as ἐκκλησία originates perhaps with Paul, though that is by no means certain; see as to this “name of honour,” Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. p. 16 ff. The words of the Lord, Matt. XVI. 18: XVIII. 17, belong to a later period. According to Gal. I. 22, ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ is added to the ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ἰουδαίας. The independence of every individual Christian in and before God is strongly insisted on in the Epistles of Paul, and in the Epistle of Peter, and in the Christian portions of Revelations: ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ. Jesus is regarded with adoring reverence as Messiah and Lord, that is, these are regarded as the names which his Father has given him. Christians are those who call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. I. 2): every creature must bow before him and confess him as Lord (Phil. II. 9): see Deissmann on the N. T. formula “in Christo Jesu.” The confession of Father, Son and Spirit is therefore the unfolding of the belief that Jesus is the Christ; but there was no intention of expressing by this confession the essential equality of the three persons, or even the similar relation of the Christian to them. On the contrary, the Father in it is regarded as the God and Father over all, the Son as revealer, redeemer and Lord, the Spirit as a possession, principle of the new supernatural life and of holiness. From the Epistles of Paul we perceive that the Formula, Father, Son and Spirit, could not yet have been customary, especially in Baptism. But it was approaching (2 Cor. XIII. 13).

57

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

the Christ. The διδάσκειν τηρεῖν πάντα ὃσα ἐνετείλατο ὀ Ἰησοῦς (teaching to observe all that Jesus had commanded), a thing of heart and life, could not lead to reflection in the same degree, as the διδάσκειν ὅτι οὖτὸς ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (teaching that this is the Christ of God); for a community which possesses the Spirit does not reflect on whether its conception is right, but, especially a missionary community, on what the certainty of its faith rests.

82

The proclamation of Jesus as the Christ, though rooted entirely in the Old Testament, took its start from the exaltation of Jesus, which again resulted from his suffering and death. The proof that the entire Old Testament points to him, and that his person, his deeds and his destiny are the actual and precise fulfilment of the Old Testament predictions, was the foremost interest of believers, so far as they at all looked backwards. This proof was not used in the first place for the purpose of making the meaning and value of the Messianic work of Jesus more intelligible, of which it did not seem to be in much need, but to confirm the Messiahship of Jesus. Still, points of view for contemplating the Person and work of Jesus could not fail to be got from the words of the Prophets. The fundamental conception of Jesus dominating everything was, according to the Old Testament, that God had chosen him and through him the Church. God had chosen him and made him to be both Lord and Christ. He had made over to him the work of setting up the Kingdom, and had led him through death and resurrection to a supramundane position of sovereignty, in which he would soon visibly appear and bring about the end. The hope of Christ's speedy return was the most important article in the “Christology,” inasmuch as his work was regarded as only reaching its conclusion by that return. It was the most difficult, inasmuch as the Old Testament contained nothing of a second advent of Messiah. Belief in the second advent became the specific Christian belief. But the searching in the scriptures of the Old Testament, that is, in the prophetic texts, had already, in estimating the Person and dignity of Christ, given an important impulse towards transcending the frame-work of the idea of the theocracy completed solely in and for Israel. Moreover, belief in the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God, caused men to form a corresponding idea of the beginning of his existence. The missionary work among the Gentiles, so soon begun and so rich in results, threw a new light on the range of Christ's purpose and work, and led to the consideration of its significance for the whole human race. Finally, the self-testimony of Jesus summoned them to ponder his relation to God the Father, with the presuppositions of that relation, and to give it expression in intelligible statements. Speculation had already begun on these four points in the Apostolic age, and had resulted in very different utterances as to the Person and dignity of Jesus (§ 4).80 80

The Christological utterances which are found in the New Testament writings, so far as they explain and paraphrase the confession of Jesus as the Christ and the Lord, may be almost entirely deduced from one or other of the four points mentioned in the text. But we must at the same time insist that these declarations were meant to be explanations of the confession that “Jesus is the Lord,” which of course included the recognition that Jesus by the resurrection became a heavenly being (see Weizsäcker in above mentioned work, p. 110). The solemn protestation of Paul, I Cor. XII. 3; διὸ γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεις ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει, ΑΝΑΘΕΜΑ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ, καὶ οὐδεις δύναται εἰπεῖν, ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (cf. Rom. X. 9), shews that he who acknowledged Jesus as the Lord, and accordingly believed in the resurrection of Jesus, was regarded as a full-born Christian. It undoubtedly excludes from the Apostolic age the independent authority of any christological dogma besides that confession and the worship of Christ connected with it. It is worth notice, however, that those early Christian men who recognised Christianity as the vanquishing of the Old Testament religion (Paul, the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, John) all held that Christ was a being who had come down from heaven.

58

History of Dogma - Volume I

83

84

Adolf Harnack

3. Since Jesus had appeared and was believed on as the Messiah promised by the Prophets, the aim and contents of his mission seemed already to be therewith stated with sufficient clearness. Further, as the work of Christ was not yet completed, the view of those contemplating it was, above all, turned to the future. But in virtue of express words of Jesus, and in the consciousness of having received the Spirit of God, one was already certain of the forgiveness of sin dispensed by God, of righteousness before him, of the full knowledge of the Divine will, and of the call to the future Kingdom as a present possession. In the procuring of these blessings not a few perceived with certainty the results of the first advent of Messiah, that is, his work. This work might be seen in the whole activity of Christ. But as the forgiveness of sins might be conceived as the blessing of salvation which included with certainty every other blessing, as Jesus had put his death in express relation with this blessing, and as the fact of this death so mysterious and offensive required a special explanation, there appeared in the foreground from the very beginning the confession, in I Cor. XV. 3: παρέδωκα ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὁ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὁτ́ ι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. “I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins.” Not only Paul, for whom, in virtue of his special reflections and experiences, the cross of Christ had become the central point of all knowledge, but also the majority of believers, must have regarded the preaching of the death of the Lord as an essential article, in the preaching of Christ,81 seeing that, as a rule, they placed it somehow under the aspect of a sacrifice offered to God. Still, there were very different conceptions of the value of the death as a means of procuring salvation, and there may have been many who were satisfied with basing its necessity on the fact that it had been predicted, (ἀπέθανεν κατὰ τὰς γραφάς: “he died for our sins according to the scriptures”), while their real religious interests were entirely centered in the future glory to be procured by Christ. But it must have been of greater significance for the following period that, from the first, a short account of the destiny of Jesus lay at the basis of all preaching about him (see a part of this in 1. Cor. XV. 1-11). Those articles in which the identity of the Christ who had appeared with the Christ who had been promised stood out with special clearness, must have been taken up into this report, as well as those which transcended the common expectations of Messiah, which for that very reason appeared of special importance, viz., his death and resurrection. In putting together this report, there was no intention of describing the “work” of Christ. But after the interest which occasioned it had been obscured, and had given place to other interests, the customary preaching of those articles must have led men to see in them Christ's real performance, his “work.”82 4. The firm confidence of the disciples in Jesus was rooted in the belief that he did not abide in death, but was raised by God. That Christ had risen was, in virtue of what they had experienced in him, certainly only after they had seen him, just as sure as the fact of his death, and became the

81

82

Compare in their fundamental features the common declarations about the saving value of the death of Christ in Paul, in the johannine writings, in 1st Peter, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in the Christian portions of the book of Revelation: Τῷ ἀγαπῶνί ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ ἁμαρτιῶν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτῷ, αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα: Compare the reference to Isaiah LIII. and the Passover lamb: the utterances about the “lamb” generally in the early writings: see Westcott, The Epistles of John, p. 34 f.: The idea of the blood of Christ in the New Testament. This of course could not take place otherwise than by reflecting on its significance. But a dislocation was already completed as soon as it was isolated and separated from the whole of Jesus, or even from his future activity. Reflection on the meaning or the causes of particular facts might easily, in virtue of that isolation, issue in entirely new conceptions.

59

History of Dogma - Volume I

85

Adolf Harnack

main article of their preaching about him.83 But in the message of the risen Lord was contained not only the conviction that he lives again, and now lives for ever, but also the assurance that his people will rise in like manner and live eternally. Consequently, the resurrection of Jesus became the sure pledge of the resurrection of all believers, that is of their real personal resurrection. No one at the beginning thought of a mere immortality of the spirit, not even those who assumed the perishableness of man's sensuous nature. In conformity with the uncertainty which yet adhered to the idea of resurrection in Jewish hopes and speculations, the concrete notions of it in the Christian communities were also fluctuating. But this could not affect the certainty of the conviction that the Lord would raise his people from death. This conviction, whose reverse side is the fear of that God who casts into hell, has become the mightiest power through which the Gospel has won humanity.84 83

See the discriminating statements of Weizsäcker, “Apostolic Age,” p. 1 f., especially as to the significance of Peter as first witness of the resurrection. Cf. 1 Cor. XV. 5 with Luke XXIV. 34: also the fragment of the “Gospel of Peter” which unfortunately breaks off at the point where one expects the appearance of the Lord to Peter.

84

It is often said that Christianity rests on the belief in the resurrection of Christ. This may be correct, if it is first declared who this Jesus Christ is, and what his life signifies. But when it appears as a naked report to which one must above all submit, and when in addition, as often happens, it is supplemented by the assertion that the resurrection of Christ is the most certain fact in the history of the world, one does not know whether he should marvel more at its thoughtlessness or its unbelief. We do not need to have faith in a fact, and that which requires religious belief, that is, trust in God, can never be a fact which would hold good apart from that belief. The historical question and the question of faith must therefore be clearly distinguished here. The following points are historically certain. (1) That none of Christ's opponents saw him after his death. (2) That the disciples were convinced that they had seen him soon after his death. (3) That the succession and number of those appearances can no longer be ascertained with certainty. (4) That the disciples and Paul were conscious of having seen Christ not in the crucified earthly body, but in heavenly glory—even the later incredible accounts of the appearances of Christ, which strongly emphasise the reality of the body, speak at the same time of such a body as can pass through closed doors, which certainly is not an earthly body. (5) That Paul does not compare the manifestation of Christ given to him with any of his later visions, but, on the other hand, describes it in the words (Gal. I. 15: ὅτε εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεὸς ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν ὑιὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, and yet puts it on a level with the appearances which the earlier Apostles had seen. But, as even the empty grave on the third day can by no means be regarded as a certain historical fact, because it appears united in the accounts with manifest legendary features, and further because it is directly excluded by the way in which Paul has portrayed the resurrection 1 Cor. XV. it follows: (1) That every conception which represents the resurrection of Christ as a simple reanimation of his mortal body, is far from the original conception, and (2) that the question generally as to whether Jesus has risen, can have no existence for any one who looks at it apart from the contents and worth of the Person of Jesus. For the mere fact that friends and adherents of Jesus were convinced that they had seen him, especially when they themselves explain that he appeared to them in heavenly glory, gives, to those who are in earnest about fixing historical facts, not the least cause for the assumption that Jesus did not continue in the grave. History is therefore at first unable to bring any succour to faith here. However firm may have been the faith of the disciples in the appearances of Jesus in their midst, and it was firm, to believe in appearances which others have had is a frivolity which is always revenged by rising doubts. But history is still of service to faith: it limits its scope and therewith shews the province to which it belongs. The question which history leaves to faith is this: Was Jesus Christ swallowed up of death, or did he pass through suffering and the cross to glory, that is, to life, power and honour? The disciples would have been convinced of that in the sense in which Jesus meant them to understand it, though they had not seen him in glory (a consciousness of this is found in Luke XXIV. 26: οὐχὶ ταῦτα ἔδει παθεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν καί εὐσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ; and Joh. XX. 29: ὅτι εώρακας με πεπίστευκας, μακαριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδοντες καὶ πιστέυσαντες) and we might probably add, that no appearances of the Lord could permanently have convinced them of his life, if they had not possessed in their hearts the impression of his Person. Faith in the eternal life of Christ and in our own eternal life is not the condition of becoming a disciple of Jesus, but is the final confession of discipleship. Faith has by no means to do with the knowledge of the form in which Jesus lives, but only with the conviction that he is the living Lord The determination of the form was immediately dependent on the most varied general ideas of the future life, resurrection, restoration, and glorification of the body, which were current at the time. The idea of the rising again of the body of Jesus appeared comparatively early, because it was this hope which animated wide circles of pious people for their own future. Faith in Jesus, the living Lord, in spite of the death on the cross, cannot be generated by proofs of reason or authority, but only to-day in the same way as Paul has confessed of himself: ὅτε εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεὸς ἀποκαλύψσαι τὸν ὑιὸν αὐτοῦ

60

History of Dogma - Volume I

86

87

88

Adolf Harnack

5. After the appearance of Paul, the earliest communities were greatly exercised by the question as to how believers obtain the righteousness which they possess, and what significance a precise observance of the law of the Fathers may have in connection with it. While some would hear of no change in the regulations and conceptions which had hitherto existed, and regarded the bestowal of righteousness by God as possible only on condition of a strict observance of the law, others taught that Jesus as Messiah had procured righteousness for his people, had fulfilled the law once for all, and had founded a new covenant, either in opposition to the old, or as a stage above it. Paul especially saw in the death of Christ the end of the law, and deduced righteousness solely from faith in Christ, and sought to prove from the Old Testament itself, by means of historical speculation, the merely temporary validity of the law and therewith the abrogation of the Old Testament religion. Others, and this view, which is not everywhere to be explained by Alexandrian influences (see above p. 72 f.), is not foreign to Paul, distinguished between spirit and letter in the Mosaic law, giving to everything a spiritual significance, and in this sense holding that the whole law as νόμος τνευματικός was binding. The question whether righteousness comes from the works of the law or from faith, was displaced by this conception, and therefore remained in its deepest grounds unsolved, or was decided in the sense of a spiritualised legalism. But the detachment of Christianity from the political forms of the Jewish religion, and from sacrificial worship, was also completed by the conception, although it was regarded as identical with the Old Testament religion rightly understood. The surprising results of the direct mission to the Gentiles would seem to have first called forth those controversies (but see Stephen) and given them the highest significance. The fact that one section of Jewish Christians, and even some of the Apostles at length recognised the right of the Gentile Christians to be Christians without first becoming Jews, is the clearest proof that what was above all prized was faith in Christ and surrender to him as the Saviour. In agreeing to the direct mission to the Gentiles the earliest Christians, while they themselves observed the law, broke up the national religion of Israel, and gave expression to the conviction that Jesus was not only the Messiah of his people, but the redeemer of humanity.85 The establishment of the universal

85

ἐν ἐμοὶ. The conviction of having seen the Lord was no doubt of the greatest importance for the disciples and made them Evangelists: but what they saw cannot at first help us. It can only then obtain significance for us when we have gained that confidence in the Lord which Peter has expressed in Mark VIII. 29. The Christian even to-day confesses with Paul: εἰ ἐν τῇ ζωῇ ταύτὴ ἐν χριστῷ ἡλπικότες ἐσμὲν μόνον, ἐλεεινότεροι πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἐσμέν. He believes in a future life for himself with God because he believes that Christ lives. That is the peculiarity and paradox of Christian faith. But these are not convictions that can be common and matter of course to a deep feeling and earnest thinking being standing amid nature and death, but can only be possessed by those who live with their whole hearts and minds in God, and even they need the prayer: “I believe, help thou mine unbelief.” To act as if faith in eternal life and in the living Christ was the simplest thing in the world, or a dogma to which one has just to submit, is irreligious. The whole question about the resurrection of Christ, its mode and its significance, has thereby been so thoroughly confused in later Christendom, that we are in the habit of considering eternal life as certain, even apart from Christ. That, at any rate, is not Christian. It is Christian to pray that God would give the Spirit to make us strong to overcome the feelings and the doubts of nature, and create belief in an eternal life through the experience of “dying to live.” Where this faith, obtained in this way, exists, it has always been supported by the conviction that the Man lives who brought life and immortality to light. To hold fast this faith is the goal of life, for only what we consciously strive for is in this matter our own. What we think we possess is very soon lost. Weizsäcker (Apostolic Age, p. 73) says very justly: “The rising of Judaism against believers put them on their own feet. They saw themselves for the first time persecuted in the name of the law, and therewith for the first time it must have become clear to them, that in reality the law was no longer the same to them as to the others. Their hope is the coming kingdom of heaven, in which it is not the law, but their Master from whom they expect salvation. Everything connected with salvation is in him. But we should not investigate the conditions of the faith of that early period, as though the question had been laid before the Apostles

61

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

character of the Gospel, that is, of Christianity as a religion for the world, became now, however, a problem, the solution of which, as given by Paul, but few were able to understand or make their own.

89

6. In the conviction that salvation is entirely bound up with faith in Jesus Christ, Christendom gained the consciousness of being a new creation of God. But while the sense of being the true Israel was thereby, at the same time, held fast, there followed, on the one hand, entirely new historical perspectives, and on the other, deep problems which demanded solution. As a new creation of God, ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ, the community was conscious of having been chosen by God in Jesus before the foundation of the world. In the conviction of being the true Israel, it claimed for itself the whole historical development recorded in the Old Testament, convinced that all the divine activity there recorded had the new community in view. The great question which was to find very different answers, was how, in accordance with this view, the Jewish nation, so far as it had not recognised Jesus as Messiah, should be judged. The detachment of Christianity from Judaism was the most important preliminary condition, and therefore the most important preparation, for the Mission among the Gentile nations, and for union with the Greek spirit. Supplement 1.—Renan and others go too far when they say that Paul alone has the glory of freeing Christianity from the fetters of Judaism. Certainly the great Apostle could say in this connection also: περισσότερον αὐτῶν πάντων ἐκοπίασα, but there were others beside him who, in the power of the Gospel, transcended the limits of Judaism. Christian communities, it may now be considered certain, had arisen in the empire, in Rome for example, which were essentially free from the law without being in any way determined by Paul's preaching. It was Paul's merit that he clearly formulated the great question, established the universalism of Christianity in a peculiar manner, and yet in doing so held fast the character of Christianity as a positive religion, as distinguished from Philosophy and Moralism. But the later development presupposes neither his clear formulation nor his peculiar establishment of universalism, but only the universalism itself. Supplement 2.—The dependence of the Pauline Theology on the Old Testament or on Judaism is overlooked in the traditional contrasting of Paulinism and Jewish Christianity, in which Paulinism is made equivalent to Gentile Christianity. This theology, as we might a priori suppose, could, apart from individual exceptions, be intelligible as a whole to born Jews, if to any, for its doctrinal presuppositions were strictly Pharisaic, and its boldness in criticising the Old Testament, rejecting and asserting the law in its historical sense, could be as little congenial to the Gentile Christians as its piety towards the Jewish people. This judgment is confirmed by a glance at the fate of Pauline Theology in the 120 years that followed. Marcion was the only Gentile Christian who understood

whether they could have part in the Kingdom of heaven without circumcision, or whether it could be obtained by faith in Jesus, with or without the observance of the law. Such questions had no existence for them either practically or as questions of the school. But though they were Jews, and the law which even their Master had not abolished, was for them a matter of course, that did not exclude a change of inner position towards it, through faith in their Master and hope of the Kingdom. There is an inner freedom which can grow up along-side of all the constraints of birth, custom, prejudice, and piety. But this only comes into consciousness, when a demand is made on it which wounds it, or when it is assailed on account of an inference drawn not by its own consciousness, but only by its opponents.

62

History of Dogma - Volume I

90

91

Adolf Harnack

Panl, and even he misunderstood him: the rest never got beyond the appropriation of particular Pauline sayings, and exhibited no comprehension especially of the theology of the Apostle, so far as in it the universalism of Christianity as a religion is proved, even without recourse to Moralism and without putting a new construction on the Old Testament religion. It follows from this, however, that the scheme “Jewish Christianity”—“Gentile Christianity” is insufficient. We must rather, in the Apostolic age, at least at its close, distinguish four main tendencies that may have crossed each other here and there,86 (within which again different shades appear). (1) The Gospel has to do with the people of Israel, and with the Gentile world only on the condition that believers attach themselves to the people of Israel. The punctilious observance of the law is still necessary and the condition on which the messianic salvation is bestowed (particularism and legalism, in practice and in principle, which, however, was not to cripple the obligation to prosecute the work of the Mission). (2) The Gospel has to do with Jews and Gentiles: the first, as believers in Christ, are under obligation as before to observe the law, the latter are not; but for that reason they cannot on earth fuse into one community with the believing Jews. Very different judgments in details were possible on this stand-point; but the bestowal of salvation could no longer be thought of as depending simply on the keeping of the ceremonial commandments of the law87 (universalism in principle, particularism in practice; the prerogative of Israel being to some extent clung to). (3) The Gospel has to do with both Jews and Gentiles; no one is any longer under obligation to observe the law; for the law is abolished (or fulfilled), and the salvation which Christ's death has procured is appropriated by faith. The law (that is the Old Testament religion) in its literal sense is of divine origin, but was intended from the first only for a definite epoch of history. The prerogative of Israel remains, and is shewn in the fact that salvation was first offered to the Jews, and it will be shewn again at the end of all history. That prerogative refers to the nation as a whole, and has nothing to do with the question of the salvation of individuals (Paulinism: universalism in principle and in practice, and Antinomianism in virtue of the recognition of a merely temporary validity of the whole law; breach with the traditional religion of Israel; recognition of the prerogative of the people of Israel; the clinging to the prerogative of the people of Israel was not, however, necessary on this stand-point: see the epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of John). (4) The Gospel has to do with Jews and Gentiles: no one need therefore be under obligation to observe the ceremonial commandments and sacrificial worship, because these commandments themselves are only the wrappings or moral and spiritual commandments which the Gospel has set forth as fulfilled in a more perfect form (universalism in principle and in practice in virtue of a neutralising of the distinction between law and Gospel, old and new; spiritualising and universalising of the law).88 86

87

88

Only one of these four tendencies—the Pauline, with the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Johannine writings which are related to Paulinism—has seen in the Gospel the establishment of a new religion. The rest identified it with Judaism made perfect, or with the Old Testament religion rightly understood. But Paul, in connecting Christianity with the promise given to Abraham, passing thus beyond the actual Old Testament religion, has not only given it a historical foundation, but also claimed for the Father of the Jewish nation a unique significance for Christianity. As to the tendencies named 1 and 2, see Book I. chap. 6. It is clear from Gal. II. 11 ff. that Peter then and for long before occupied in principle the stand-point of Paul: see the judicious remarks of Weizsäcker in the book mentioned above, p. 75 f. These four tendencies were represented in the Apostolic age by those who had been born and trained in Judaism, and they were collectively transplanted into Greek territory. But we cannot be sure that the third of the above tendencies found intelligent and independent representatives in this domain, as there is no certain evidence of it. Only one who had really been subject to it, and therefore understood it, could venture on a criticism of the Old Testament religion. Still, it may be noted that the majority of non-Jewish converts in the Apostolic age had probably come to know the Old Testament beforehand—not always the Jewish

63

History of Dogma - Volume I

92

93

Adolf Harnack

Supplement 3.—The appearance of Paul is the most important fact in the history of the Apostolic age. It is impossible to give in a few sentences an abstract of his theology and work; and the insertion here of a detailed account is forbidden, not only by the external limits, but by the aim of this investigation. For, as already indicated (§ 1), the doctrinal formation in the Gentile Church is not connected with the whole phenomenon of the Pauline theology, but only with certain leading thoughts which were only in part peculiar to the Apostle. His most peculiar thoughts acted on the development of Ecclesiastical doctrine only by way of occasional stimulus. We can find room here only for a few general outlines.89 (1) The inner conviction that Christ had revealed himself to him, that the Gospel was the message of the crucified and risen Christ, and that God had called him to proclaim that message to the world, was the power and the secret of his personality and his activity. These three elements were a unity in the consciousness of Paul, constituting his conversion and determining his after-life. (2) In this conviction he knew himself to be a new creature, and so vivid was this knowledge that he was constrained to become a Jew to the Jews, and a Greek to the Greeks in order to gain them. (3) The crucified and risen Christ became the central point of his theology, and not only the central point, but the one source and ruling principle. The Christ was not in his estimation Jesus of Nazareth now exalted, but the mighty personal spiritual being in divine form who had for a time humbled himself, and who as Spirit has broken up the world of law, sin and death, and continues to overcome them in believers. (4) Theology therefore was to him, looking forwards, the doctrine of the liberating power of the Spirit (of Christ) in all the concrete relations of human life and need. The Christ who has already overcome law, sin and death, lives as Spirit, and through his Spirit lives in believers, who for that very reason know him not after the flesh. He is a creative power of life to those who receive him in faith in his redeeming death upon the cross, that is to say, to those who are justified. The life in the Spirit, which results from union with Christ, will at last reveal itself also in the body (not in the flesh). (5) Looking backwards, theology was to Paul a doctrine of the law and of its abrogation; or more accurately, a description of the old system before Christ in the light of the Gospel, and the proof that it was destroyed by Christ. The scriptural proof, even here, is only a superadded support to inner considerations which move entirely within the thought that that which is abrogated has already had its due, by having its whole strength made manifest that it might then be annulled,—the law, the flesh of sin, death: by the law the law is destroyed, sin is abolished in sinful flesh, death is destroyed by death. (6) The historical view which followed from this begins,

89

religion, (see Havet, Le Christianisme, T. IV. p. 120: “Je ne sais s'il y est entré, du vivant de Paul, un seul païen: je veux dire un homme, qui ne connût pas déjà, avant d'y entrer, le judaism et la Bible”). These indications will shew how mistaken and misleading it is to express the different tendencies in the Apostolic age and the period closely following by the designations “Jewish Christianity—Gentile Christianity.” Short watchwords are so little appropriate here that one might even with some justice reverse the usual conception, and maintain that what is usually understood by Gentile Christianity (criticism of the Old Testament religion) was possible only within Judaism, while that which is frequently called Jewish Christianity is rather a conception which must have readily suggested itself to born Gentiles superficially acquainted with the Old Testament. The first edition of this volume could not appeal to Weizsäcker's work, Das Apostolisehe Zeitalter der Christlichen Kirche, 1886, [second edition translated in this series]. The author is now in the happy position of being able to refer the readers of his imperfect sketch to this excellent presentation, the strength of which lies in the delineation of Paulinism in its relation to the early Church, and to early Christian theology (p. 79-172). The truth of Weizsäcker's expositions of the inner relations (p. 85 f.), is but little affected by his assumptions concerning the outer relations, which I cannot everywhere regard as just. (The work of Weizsäcker as a whole is, in my opinion, the most important work on Church history we have received since Ritschl's “Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche.” 2 Aufl. 1857.)

64

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

as regards Christ, with Adam and Abraham; as regards the law, with Moses. It closes, as regards Christ, with the prospect of a time when he shall have put all enemies beneath his feet, when God will be all in all; as regards Moses and the promises given to the Jewish nation, with the prospect of a time when all Israel will be saved. (7) Paul's doctrine of Christ starts from the final confession of the primitive Church, that Christ is with the Father as a heavenly being and as Lord of the living and the dead. Though Paul must have accurately known the proclamation concerning the historical Christ, his theology in the strict sense of the word does not revert to it: but springing over the historical, it begins with the pre-existent Christ (the Man from heaven), whose moral deed it was to assume the flesh in self-denying love, in order to break for all men the powers of nature and the doom of death. But he has pointed to the words and 94

95

example of the historical Christ in order to rule the life in the Spirit. (8) Deductions, proofs, and perhaps also conceptions, which in point of form betray the theology of the Pharisaic schools, were forced from the Apostle by Christian opponents, who would only grant a place to the message of the crucified Christ beside the δικαιοσύνη ἐξ ἔργων. Both as an exegete and as a typologist he appears as a disciple of the Pharisees. But his dialectic about law, circumcision and sacrifice, does not form the kernel of his religious mode of thought, though, on the other hand, it was unquestionably his very Pharisaism which qualified him for becoming what he was. Pharisaism embraced nearly everything lofty which Judaism apart from Christ at all possessed, and its doctrine of providence, its energetic insistance on making manifest the religious contrasts, its Messianic expectations, its doctrines of sin and predestination, were conditions for the genesis of a religious and Christian character such as Paul.90 This first Christian of the second generation is the highest product of the Jewish spirit under the creative power of the Spirit of Christ. Pharisaism had fulfilled its mission for the world when it produced this man. (9) But Hellenism also had a share in the making of Paul, a fact which does not conflict with his Pharisaic origin, but is partly given with it. In spite of all its exclusiveness the desire for making proselytes especially in the Diaspora, was in the blood of Pharisaism. Paul continued the old movement in a new way, and he was qualified for his work among the Greeks by an accurate knowledge of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, by considerable dexterity in the use of the Greek language, and by a growing insight into the spiritual life of the Greeks. But the peculiarity of his Gospel as a message from the Spirit of Christ, which was equally near to and equally distant from every religious and moral mode of thought among the nations of the world, signified much more than all this. This Gospel—who can say whether Hellenism had already a share in its conception—required that the missionary to the Greeks should become a Greek and that believers should come to know, “all things are yours, and ye are Christ's.” Paul, as no doubt other missionaries besides him, connected the preaching of Christ with the Greek mode of thought; he even employed philosophic doctrines of the Greeks as presuppositions in his apologetic,91 and therewith prepared the way for the introduction of the Gospel to the Græco-Roman world of thought. But, in my opinion, he has nowhere allowed that world of thought to influence 90

91

Kabisch, Die Eschatologie des Paulus, 1893, has shewn how strongly the eschatology of Paul was influenced by the later Pharisaic Judaism. He has also called attention to the close connection between Paul's doctrine of sin and the fall, and that of the Rabbis. Some of the Church Fathers (see Socr. H. E. III. 16) have attributed to Paul an accurate knowledge of Greek literature and philosophy: but that cannot be proved. The references of Heinrici (2 Kor -Brief. p. 537-604) are worthy of our best thanks; but no certain judgment can be formed about the measure of the Apostles' Greek culture, so long as we do not know how great was the extent of spiritual ideas which were already precipitated in the speech of the time.

65

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

his doctrine of salvation. This doctrine, however, was so fashioned in its practical aims that it was not necessary to become a Jew in order to appropriate it. (10) Yet we cannot speak of any total effect of Paulinism, as there was no such thing. The abundance of its details was too great and the greatness of its simplicity too powerful, its hope of the future too vivid, its doctrine of the law too difficult, its summons to a new life in the spirit too mighty to be comprehended and adhered to even by those communities which Paul himself had founded. What they did comprehend was its Monotheism, its universalism, its redemption, its eternal life, its asceticism; but all this was otherwise combined than by Paul. The style became Hellenic, and the element of a new kind of knowledge from the very first, as in the Church of Corinth, seems to have been the ruling one. The Pauline doctrine of the incarnate heavenly Man was indeed apprehended; it fell in with Greek notions, although it meant something very different from the notions which Greeks had been able to form of it.

96

97

Supplement 4.—What we justly prize above all else in the New Testament is that it is a union of the three groups, Synoptic Gospels, Pauline Epistles,92 and Johannine writings, in which are expressed the richest contents of the earliest history of the Gospel. In the Synodic Gospels and the epistles of Paul are represented two types of preaching the Gospel which mutually supplement each other. The subsequent history is dependent on both, and would have been other than it is had not both existed alongside of each other. On the other hand, the peculiar and lofty conception of Christ and of the Gospel, which stands out in the writings of John, has directly exercised no demonstrable influence on the succeeding development—with the exception of one peculiar movement, the Montanistic which, however, does not rest on a true understanding of these writings—and indeed partly for the same reason that has prevented the Pauline theology as a whole from having such an influence. What is given in these writings is a criticism of the Old Testament as religion, or the independence of the Christian religion, in virtue of an accurate knowledge of the Old Testament through development of its hidden germs. The Old Testament stage of religion is really transcended and over-come in the Johannine Christianity, just as in Paulinism, and in the theology of the epistle to the Hebrews. “The circle of disciples who appropriated this characterisation of Jesus is,” says Weizsäcke, “a revived Christ-party in the higher sense.” But this transcending of the Old Testament religion was the very thing that was unintelligible, because there were few ripe for such a conception. Moreover, the origin of the Johannine writings is, from the stand-point of a history of literature and dogma, the most marvellous enigma which the early history of Christianity presents: Here we have portrayed a Christ who clothes the indescribable with words, and proclaims as his own self-testimony what his disciples have experienced in him, a speaking, acting, Pauline Christ, walking on the earth, far more human than the Christ of Paul and yet far more Divine, an abundance of allusions to the historical Jesus, and at the same time the most sovereign treatment of the history. One divines that the Gospel can find no loftier expression than John XVII.: one feels that Christ himself put these words into the mouth of the disciple, who gives them back to him, but word and thing, history and

92

The epistle to the Hebrews and the first epistle of Peter, as well as the Pastoral epistles belong to the Pauline circle; they are of the greatest value because they shew that certain fundamental features of Pauline theology took effect after-wards in an original way, or received independent parallels, and because they prove that the cosmic Christology of Paul made the greatest impression and was continued. In Christology, the epistle to the Ephesians in particular, leads directly from Paul to the pneumatic Christology of the post-apostolic period. Its non-genuineness is by no means certain to me.

66

History of Dogma - Volume I

98

Adolf Harnack

doctrine are surrounded by a bright cloud of the suprahistorical. It is easy to shew that this Gospel could as little have been written without Hellenism, as Luther's treatise on the freedom of a Christian man could have been written without the “Deutsche Theologie.” But the reference to Philo and Hellenism is by no means sufficient here, as it does not satisfactorily explain even one of the external aspects of the problem. The elements operative in the Johannine theology were not Greek Theologoumena—even the Logos has little more in common with that of Philo than the name, and its mention at the be-ginning of the book is a mystery, not the solution of one93—but the Apostolic testimony concerning Christ has created from the old faith of Psalmists and Prophets, a new faith in a man who lived with the disciples of Jesus among the Greeks. For that very reason, in spite of his abrupt Anti Judaism, we must without doubt regard the Author as a born Jew. Supplement 5.—The authorities to which the Christian communities were subjected in faith and life, were these: (1) The Old Testament interpreted in the Christian sense. (2) The tradition of the Messianic history of Jesus. (3) The words of the Lord: see the epistles of Paul, especially I Corinthians. But every writing which was proved to have been given by the Spirit has also to be regarded as an authority, and every tested Christian Prophet and Teacher inspired by the Spirit could claim that his words be received and regarded as the words of God. Moreover, the twelve whom Jesus had chosen had a special authority, and Paul claimed a similiar authority for himself (διατάξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων). Consequently, there were numerous courts of appeal in the earliest period of Christendom, of diverse kinds and by no means strictly defined. In the manifold gifts of the spirit was given a fluid element indefinable in its range and scope, an element which guaranteed freedom of development, but which also threatened to lead the enthusiastic communities to extravagance. Literature.—Weiss, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 1884. Beyschlag, New Testament Theology, 1892. Ritschl, Entstehung der Alt-Katholischen Kirche, 2 Edit. 1857. Reuss, History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, 1864. Baur, The Apostle Paul, 1866. Holsten, Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus, 1868. Pfleiderer, Paulinism, 1873: also, Das Urchristenthum, 1887. Schenkel, Das Christusbild der Apostel, 1879. Renan, Origins of Christianity, Vols. II.—IV. Havet, Le Christianisme et ses orig. T. IV. 1884. Lechler, The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Age, 1885. Weizsäcker, The Apostolic Age, 1892. Hatch, Article “Paul” in the Encyclopædia Britannica.

93

In the Ztschr. für Theol. und Kirche, II. p. 1.89 if. I have discussed the relation of the prologue of the fourth Gospel to the whole work and endeavoured to prove the following: “The prologue of the Gospel is not the key to its comprehension. It begins with a well-known great object, the Logos, re-adapts and transforms it—implicitly opposing false Christologies—in order to substitute for it Jesus Christ, the μονογενὴς θέος, or in order to unveil it as this Jesus Christ. The idea of the Logos is allowed to fall from the moment that this takes place.” The author continues to narrate of Jesus only with the view of establishing the belief that he is the Messiah, the Son of God. This faith has for its main article the recognition that Jesus is descended from God and from heaven; but the author is far from endeavouring to work out this recognition from cosmological, philosophical considerations. According to the Evangelist, Jesus proves himself to be the Messiah, the Son of God, in virtue of his self-testimony, and because he has brought a full knowledge of God and life—purely supernatural divine blessings. (Cf. besides, and partly in opposition, Holtzmann, i. d. Ztschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1893.) The author's peculiar world of theological ideas, is not, however, so entirely isolated in the early Christian literature as appears on the first impression. If, as is probable, the Ignatian Epistles are independent of the Gospel of John, further, the Supper prayer in the Didache, finally, certain mystic theological phrases in the Epistle of Barnabas, in the second epistle of Clement, and in Hermas: a complex of Theologoumena may be put together, which reaches back to the primitive period of the Church, and may be conceived as the general ground for the theology of John. This complex has on its side a close connection with the final development of the Jewish Hagiographic literature under Greek influence.

67

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

Everett, The Gospel of Paul. Boston, 1893. On the origin and earliest history of the Christian proofs from prophecy, see my “Texte und Unters. z. Gesch. der Alt-Christl.” Lit. I. 3, p. 56 f. § 4. The Current Exposition of the Old Testament, and the Jewish hopes of the future, in their significance for the earliest types of Christian preaching.

99

Instead of the frequently very fruitless investigations about “Jewish-Christian”, and “Gentile-Christian”, it should be asked, What Jewish elements have been naturalised in the Christian Church, which were in no way demanded by the contents of the Gospel? Have these elements been simply weakened in course of the development, or have some of them been strengthened by a peculiar combination with the Greek? We have to do here, in the first instance, with the doctrine of Demons and Angels, the view of history, the growing exclusiveness, the fanaticism; and on the other hand, with the cultus, and the Theocracy, expressing itself in forms of law. 1. Although Jesus had in principle abolished the methods of pedantry, the casuistic treatment of the law, and the subtleties of prophetic interpretation, yet the old Scholastic exegesis remained active in the Christian communities above all the unhistorical local method in the exposition of the Old Testament, both allegoristic and Haggadic; for in the exposition of a sacred text—and the Old Testament was regarded as such—one is always required to look away from its historical limitations and to expound it according to the needs of the present.94 The traditional view exercised its influence on the exposition of the Old Testament, as well as on the representations of the person, fate and deeds of Jesus, especially in those cases where the question was about the proof of the fulfilment of prophecy, that is, of the Messiahship of Jesus. (See above § 3, 2.) Under the impression made by the history of Jesus it gave to many Old Testament passages a sense that was foreign to them, and, on the other hand, enriched the life of Jesus with new facts, turning the interest at the same time to details which were frequently unreal and seldom of striking importance.95 100

2. The Jewish Apocalyptic literature, especially as it flourished since the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and was impregnated with new elements borrowed from an ethico-religious philosophy, as well as with Babylonian and Persian myths (Greek myths can only be detected in very small

94 95

The Jewish religion, specially since the (relative) close of the canon, had become more and more a religion of the Book. Examples of both in the New Testament are numerous. See above all, Matt. I. II. Even the belief that Jesus was born of a Virgin sprang from Isaiah VII. 14. It cannot, however, be proved to be in the writings of Paul (the two genealogies in Matt. and Luke directly exclude it: according to Dillmann, Jahrb. f. protest. Theol. p. 192 ff. Luke I. 34, 35 would be the addition of a redactor); but it must have arisen very early, as the Gentile Christians of the second century would seem to have unanimously confessed it (see the Romish Symbol. Ignatius, Aristides, Justin, etc.). For the rest, it was long before theologians recognised in the Virgin birth of Jesus more than fulfilment of a prophecy, viz., a fact of salvation. The conjecture of Usener, that the idea of the birth from a Virgin is a heathen myth which was received by the Christians, contradicts the entire earliest development of Christian tradition, which is free from heathen myths so far as these had not already been received by wide circles of Jews, (above all, certain Babylonian and Persian Myths), which in the case of that idea is not demonstrable. Besides, it is in point of method not permissible to stray so far when we have near at hand such a complete explanation as Isaiah VII. 14. Those who suppose that the reality of the Virgin birth must be held fast, must assume that a misunderstood prophecy has been here fulfilled (on the true meaning of the passage see Dillmann [Jesajas, 5 Aufl. p. 69]: “of the birth by a Virgin [i.e., of one who at the birth was still a Virgin.] the Hebrew text says nothing . . . Immanuel as beginning and representative of the new generation, from which one should finally take possession of the king's throne”). The application of an unhistorical local method in the exposition of the Old Testament—Haggada and Rabbinic allegorism—may be found in many passages of Paul (see, e.g., Gal. III. 16, 19; IV. 22–31; 1 Cor. IX. 9; X. 4; XI. 10; Rom. IV. etc.).

68

History of Dogma - Volume I

101

102

Adolf Harnack

number), was not banished from the circles of the first professors of the Gospel, but was rather held fast, eagerly read, and even extended with the view of elucidating the promises of Jesus.96 Though their contents seem to have been modified on Christian soil, and especially the uncertainty about the person of the Messiah exalted to victory and coming to judgment,97 yet the sensuous earthly hopes were in no way repressed. Green fat meadows and sulphurous abysses, white horses and frightful beasts, trees of life, splendid cities, war and blood-shed filled the fancy,98 and threatened to obscure the simple and yet, at bottom, much more affecting maxims about the judgment which is certain to every individual soul, and drew the confessors of the Gospel into a restless activity, into politics, and abhorrence of the State. It was an evil inheritance which the Christians took over from the Jews,99 an inheritance which makes it impossible to reproduce with certainty the eschatological sayings of Jesus. Things directly foreign were mixed up with them, and, what. was most serious, delineations of the hopes of the future could easily lead to the undervaluing of the most important gifts and duties of the Gospel.100 3. A wealth of mythologies and poetic ideas was naturalised and legitimised101 in the Christian communities, chiefly by the reception of the Apocalyptic literature, but also by the reception of artificial exegesis and Haggada. Most important for the following period were the speculations about Messiah, which were partly borrowed from expositions of the Old Testament and from the Apocalypses, partly formed in-dependently, according to methods the justice of which no one contested, and the application of which seemed to give a firm basis to religious faith.

96

The proof of this may be found in the quotations in early Christian writings from the Apocalypses of Enoch, Ezra, Eldad and Modad, the assumption of Moses and other Jewish Apocalypses unknown to us. They were regarded as Divine revelations beside the Old Testament; see the proofs of their frequent and long continued use in Schürer's “History of the Jewish people in the time of our Lord.” But the Christians in receiving these Jewish Apocalypses did not leave them intact, but adapted them with greater or less Christian additions (see Esra, Enoch, Ascension of Isaiah). Even the Apocalypse of John is, as Vischer (Texte u. Unters. 3 altchristl. lit. Gesch. Bd. II. H. 4) has shown, a Jewish Apocalypse adapted to a Christian meaning. But in this activity, and in the production of little Apocalyptic prophetic sayings and articles, (see in the Epistle to the Ephesians, and in those of Barnabas and Clement) the Christian labour here in the earliest period seems to have exhausted itself. At least we do not know with certainty of any great Apocalyptic writing of an original kind proceeding from Christian circles. Even the Apocalypse of Peter which, thanks to the discovery of Bouriant, we now know better, is not a completely original work as contrasted with the Jewish Apocalypses. 97 The Gospel reliance on the Lamb who was slain very significantly pervades the Revelation of John, that is, its Christian parts. Even the Apocalypse of Peter shews Jesus Christ as the comfort of believers and as the Revealer of the future. In it (v. 3,) Christ says; “Then will God come to those who believe on me, those who hunger and thirst and mourn, etc.” 98 These words were written before the Apocalypse of Peter was discovered. That Apocalypse confirms what is said in the text. Moreover, its delineation of Paradise and blessedness are not wanting in poetic charm and power. In its delineation of Hell, which prepares the way for Dante's Hell, the author is scared by no terror. 99 These ideas, however, encircled the earliest Christendom as with a wall of fire, and preserved it from a too early contact with the world. 100 An accurate examination of the eschatological sayings of Jesus in the synoptists shews that much foreign matter is mixed with them (see Weiffenbach, Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu, 1875). That the tradition here was very uncertain, because influenced by the Jewish Apocalyptic, is shewn by the one fact that Papias (in Iren. V. 33) quotes as words of the Lord which had been handed down by the disciples, a group of sayings which we find in the Apocalypse of Baruch, about the amazing fruitfulness of the earth during the time of the Messianic Kingdom. 101 We may here call attention to an interesting remark of Goethe. Among his Apophthegms (no. 537) is the following: “Apocrypha: It would be important to collect what is historically known about these books, and to shew that these very Apocryphal writings with which the communities of the first centuries of our era were flooded, were the real cause why Christianity at no moment of political or Church history could stand forth in all her beauty and purity.” A historian would not express himself in this way, but yet there lies at the root of this remark a true historical insight.

69

History of Dogma - Volume I

103

104

Adolf Harnack

Some of the Jewish Apocalyptists had already attributed pre-existence to the expected Messiah, as to other precious things in the Old Testament history and worship, and, without any thought of denying his human nature, placed him as already existing before his appearing in a series of angelic beings.102 This took place in accordance with an established method of speculation, so far as an attempt was made thereby to express the special value of an empiric object, by distinguishing between the essence and the inadequate form of appearance, hypostatising the essence, and exalting it above time and space. But when a later appearance was conceived as the aim of a series of preparations, it was frequently hypostatised and placed above these preparations even in time. The supposed aim was, in a kind of real existence, placed, as first cause, before the means which were destined to realise it on earth.103 Some of the first confessors of the Gospel, though not all the writers of the New Testament, in accordance with the same method, went beyond the declarations which Jesus himself had made about his person, and endeavoured to conceive its value and absolute significance abstractly and speculatively. The religious convictions (see § 3. 2): (1) That the founding of the Kingdom of God 102

See Schürer, History of the Jewish people. Div. II. vol. II. p. 160 f.; yet the remarks of the Jew Trypho in the dialogue of Justin shew that the notions of a pre-existent Messiah were by no means very widely spread in Judaism. (See also Orig. c. Cels. 1. 49: “A Jew would not at all admit that any Prophet had said the Son of God will come; they avoided this designation and used instead the saying, the anointed of God will come.”) The Apocalyptists and Rabbis attributed pre-existence, that is, a heavenly origin, to many sacred things and persons, such as the Patriarchs, Moses, the Tabernacle, the Temple vessels, the city of Jerusalem. That the true Temple and the real Jerusalem were with God in heaven and would come down from heaven at the appointed time, must have been a very wide-spread idea, especially at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and even earlier than that (see Gal. IV. 26: Rev. XXI. 2: Heb. XII. 22). In the Assumption of Moses (c. I) Moses says of himself: Dominus invenit me, qui ab initio orbis terrarum præparatus sum, ut sim arbiter (μεσίτης) testamenti illius (τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ). In the Midrasch Bereschith rabba VIII. 2. we read, “R. Simeon ben Lakisch says, 'The law was in existence 2000 years before the creation of the world.’” In the Jewish treatise Προσευχὴ Ἰωσήφ, which Origen has several times quoted, Jacob says of himself (ap. Orig. torn. II. in Joann. c. 25. Op. IV. 84: “ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἐγω Ἰακὼβ καὶ Ἰσραήλ, ἄγγελος θεοῦ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ καὶ πνεῦμα ἀρχικὸν καὶ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ προεκτίσθησαν προ παντος ἐρ́ γου, ἐγὼ δὲ Ἰακὼβ . . . . ἐγὼ πρωτογονος παντὸ ζώος ζωουμένου ὑπὸ θεοῦ.” These examples could easily be increased. The Jewish speculations about Angels and Mediators, which at the time of Christ grew very luxuriantly among the Scribes and Apocalyptists, and endangered the purity and vitality of the Old Testament idea of God, were also very important for the development of Christian dogmatics. But neither these speculations, nor the notions of heavenly Archetypes, nor of pre-existence, are to be referred to Hellenic influence. This may have co-operated here and there, but the rise of these speculations in Judaism is not to be explained by it; they rather exhibit the Oriental stamp. But, of course, the stage in the development of the nations had now been reached, in which the creations of Oriental fancy and Mythology could be fused with the ideal conceptions of Hellenic philosophy. 103 The conception of heavenly ideals of precious earthly things followed from the first naive method of speculation we have mentioned, that of a pre-existence of persons from the last. If the world was created for the sake of the people of Israel, and the Apocalyptists expressly taught that, then it follows that in the thought of God Israel was older than the world. The idea of a kind of pre-existence of the people of Israel follows from this. We can still see this process of thought very plainly in the shepherd of Hermas, who expressly declares that the world was created for the sake of the Church. In consequence of this he maintains that the Church was very old, and was created before the foundation of the world. See Vis. I. 2. 4: II. 4. 11: Διατί οὖν πρεσβυτέρα (sci1. ἡ ἐκκλησία): Ὅτι, φησίν, πάντων πρώτη ἐκτισθη διὰ τοῦτο πρεσβυτέρα, καὶ διὰ ταύτην ὁ κόσμος κατηρτίσθη. But in order to estimate aright the bearing of these speculations, we must observe that, according to them, the precious things and persons, so far as they are now really manifested, were never conceived as endowed with a double nature. No hint is given of such an assumption; the sensible appearance was rather conceived as a mere wrapping which was necessary only to its becoming visible, or, conversely, the pre-existence or the archetype was no longer thought of in presence of the historical appearance of the object. That pneumatic form of existence was not set forth in accordance with the analogy of existence verified by sense, but was left in suspense. The idea of “existence” here could run through all the stages which, according to the Mythology and Metaphysic of the time, lay between what we now call “valid,” and the most concrete being. He who nowadays undertakes to justify the notion of pre-existence, will find himself in a very different situation from these earlier times, as he will no longer be able to count on shifting conceptions of existence. See Appendix I. at the end of this Vol. for a fuller discussion of the idea of pre-existence.

70

History of Dogma - Volume I

105

Adolf Harnack

on earth, and the mission of Jesus as the perfect mediator, were from eternity based on God's plan of Salvation, as his main purpose; (2) that the exalted Christ was called into a position of Godlike Sovereignty belonging to him of right; (3) that God himself was manifested in Jesus, and that he therefore surpasses all mediators of the Old Testament, nay, even all angelic powers,—these convictions with some took the form that Jesus pre-existed, and that in him has appeared and taken flesh a heavenly being fashioned like God, who is older than the world, nay, its creative principle.104 The conceptions of the old Teachers, Paul, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, the author of the first Epistle of Peter, the fourth Evangelist, differ in many ways when they attempt to define these convictions more closely. The latter is the only one who has recognised with perfect clearness that the premundane Christ must be assumed to be θεὸς ὥν ἐν ἀρχῆ πρός τὸν θεόν, so as not to endanger by this speculation the contents and significance of the revelation of God which was given in Christ. This, in the earliest period, was essentially a religious problem, that is, it was not introduced for the explanation of cosmological problems, (see, especially, Epistle to the Ephesians, I Peter; but also the Gospel of John), and there stood peacefully beside it, such conception as recognised the equipment of the man Jesus for his office in a communication of the Spirit at his baptism,105 or in virtue of Isaiah VII., found the germ of his unique nature in his miraculous origin.106 But as soon as that speculation was detached from its original foundation, it necessarily withdrew the minds of believers from the consideration of the work of Christ, and from the contemplation of the revelation of God which was given in the ministry of the historical person Jesus. The mystery of the person of Jesus in itself, would then necessarily appear as the true revelation.107 A series of theologoumena and religious problems for the future doctrine of Christianity lay ready in the teaching of the Pharisees and in the Apocalypses (see especially the fourth book of Ezra), and was really fitted for being of service to it; e.g., doctrines about Adam, universal sinfulness, the fall, predestination, Theodocy, etc., besides all kinds of ideas about redemption. Besides these spiritual doctrines there were not a few spiritualised myths which were variously made use of in the Apocalypses. A rich, spiritual, figurative style, only too rich and therefore confused, waited for the theological artist to purify, reduce and vigorously fashion. There really remained very little of the Cosmico-Mythological in the doctrine of the great Church.

104

It must be observed here that Palestinian Judaism, without any apparent influence from Alexandria, though not independently of the Greek spirit, had already created a multitude of intermediate beings between God and the world, avowing thereby that the idea of God had become stiff and rigid. “Its original aim was simply to help the God of Judaism in his need.” Among these intermediate beings should be specially mentioned the Memra of God (see also the Shechina and the Metatron). 105 See Justin. Dial. 48. fin: Justin certainly is not favourably disposed towards those who regard Christ as a “man among men,” but he knows that there are such people. 106 The miraculous genesis of Christ in the Virgin by the Holy Spirit and the real pre-existence are of course mutually exclusive. At a later period, it is true, it became necessary to unite them in thought. 107 There is the less need for treating this more fully here, as no New Testament Christology has become the direct starting-point of later doctrinal developments. The Gentile Christians had transmitted to them, as an unanimous doctrine, the message that Christ is the Lord who is to be worshipped, and that one must think of him as the Judge of the living and the dead, that is, ὡς περὶ θεοῦ. But it certainly could not fail to be of importance for the result that already many of the earliest Christian writers, and therefore even Paul, perceived in Jesus a spiritual being come down from heaven (πνεῦμα) who was ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ, and whose real act of love consisted in his very descent.

71

History of Dogma - Volume I

106

107

Adolf Harnack

Supplement.—The reference to the proof from prophecy, to the current exposition of the Old Testament, the Apocalyptic and the prevailing methods of speculation, does not suffice to explain all the elements which are found in the different types of Christian preaching. We must rather bear in mind here that the earliest communities were enthusiastic, and had yet among them prophets and ecstatic persons. Such circumstances will always directly produce facts in the history. But, in the majority of cases, it is absolutely impossible to account subsequently for the causes of such productions, because their formation is subject to no law accessible to the understanding. It is therefore inadmissible to regard as proved the reality of what is recorded and believed to be a fact, when the motive and interest which led to its acceptance can no longer be ascertained.108 Moreover, if we consider the conditions, outer and inner, in which the preaching of Christ in the first decades was placed, conditions which in every way threatened the Gospel with extravagance, we shall only see cause to wonder that it continued to shine forth amid all its wrappings. We can still, out of the strangest “fulfilments”, legends and mythological ideas, read the religious conviction that the aim and goal of history is disclosed in the history of Christ, and that the Divine has now entered into history in a pure form. Literature.—The Apocalypses of Daniel, Enoch, Moses, Baruch, Ezra; Schürer, History of the Jewish People in the time of Christ; Baldensperger, in the work already mentioned. Weber, System der Altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie, 1880, Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures, 1883. Hilgenfeld, Die jüdische Apokalyptik, 1859. Wellhausen, Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah, 1887. Diestel, Gesch. des A. T. in der Christl. Kirche, 1869. Other literature in Schürer. The essay of Hellwag in the Theol. Jahrb. von Baur and Zeller, 1848, “Die Vorstellung von der Präexistenz Christi in der ältesten Kirche”, is worth noting; also Joël; Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des 2 Christl. Jahrhunderts, 1880— 1883. § 5. The Religious Conceptions and the Religious Philosophy of the Hellenistic Jews, in their significance for the later formulation of the Gospel.

108

The creation of the New Testament canon first paved the way for putting an end, though only in part, to the production of Evangelic “facts” within the Church. For Hermas (Sim. IX. 16) can relate that the Apostles also descended to the under world and there preached. Others report the same of John the Baptist. Origen in his homily on 1. Kings XXVII. says that Moses, Samuel and all the Prophets descended to Hades and there preached. A series of facts of Evangelic history which have no parallel in the accounts of our Synoptists, and are certainly legendary, may be but together from the epistle of Barnabas, Justin, the second epistle of Clement, Papias, the Gospel to the Hebrews, and the Gospel to the Egyptians. But the synoptic reports themselves, especially in the articles for which we have only a solitary witness, shew an extensive legendary material, and even in the Gospel of John, the free production of facts cannot be mistaken. Of what a curious nature some of these were, and that they are by no means to be entirely explained from the Old Testament, as for example, Justin's account of the ass on which Christ rode into Jerusalem, having been bound to a vine, is shewn by the very old fragment in one source of the Apostolic constitutions (Texte u. Unters. II, 5. p. 28 ff.); ὅτε ᾒτωσεν ὁ διδάσκαλος τὸν ἂρτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον καὶ ηὐλόγησεν αὐτὰ λέγων· τοῦτο ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου καὶ τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἐπὲτρεψε ταύταις the women) συστῆναι ἡμῖν . . . . Μάρθα εἶπεν διὰ Μαριάμ, ὅτι εἶδεν αὐτὴν μειδιῶταν. Μαρία εἶπεν οὐκέτι ἐγέλασα. Narratives such as those of Christ's descent to Hell and ascent to heaven, which arose comparatively late, though still at the close of the first century (see Book I. Chap. 3) sprang out of short formula containing an antithesis (death and resurrection, first advent in lowliness, second advent in glory: descensus de cœlo, ascensus in cœlum; ascensus in cœlum, descensus ad inferna) which appeared to be required by Old Testament predictions, and were commended by their naturalness. Just as it is still, in the same way naively inferred: if Christ rose bodily he must also have ascended bodily (visibly?) into heaven.

72

History of Dogma - Volume I

108

Adolf Harnack

1. From the remains of the Jewish Alexandrian literature and the Jewish Sibylline writings, also from the work of Josephus, and especially from the great propaganda of Judaism in the Græco-Roman world, we may gather that there was a Judaism in the Diaspora, for the consciousness of which the cultus and ceremonial law were of comparatively subordinate importance; while the monotheistic worship of God, apart from images, the doctrines of virtue and belief in a future reward beyond the grave, stood in the foreground as its really essential marks. Converted Gentiles were no longer everywhere required to be even circumcised; the bath of purification was deemed sufficient. The Jewish religion here appears transformed into a universal human ethic and a monotheistic cosmology. For that reason, the idea of the Theocracy as well as the Messianic hopes of the future faded away or were uprooted. The latter, indeed, did not altogether pass away; but as the oracles of the Prophets were made use of mainly for the purpose of proving the antiquity and certainty of monotheistic belief, the thought of the future was essentially exhausted in the expectation of the dissolution of the Roman empire, the burning of the world, and the eternal recompense. The specific Jewish element, however, stood out plainly in the assertion that the Old Testament, and especially the books of Moses, were the source of all true knowledge of God, and the sum total of all doctrines of virtue for the nations, as well as in the connected assertion that the religious and moral culture of the Greeks was derived from the Old Testament, as the source from which the Greek Poets and Philosophers had drawn their inspiration.109 These Jews and the Greeks converted by them formed, as it were, a Judaism of a second order without law, i.e., ceremonial law, and with a minimum of statutory regulations. This Judaism prepared the soil for the Christianising of the Greeks, as well as for the genesis of a great Gentile Church in the empire, free from the law; and this the more that, as it seems, after the second destruction of Jerusalem, the punctilious observance of the law110 was imposed more strictly than before on all who worshipped the God of the Jews.111

109

The Judaism just portrayed, developed itself, under the influence of the Greek culture with which it came in contact, into a kind of Cosmopolitanism. It divested itself, as religion, of all national forms, and exhibited itself as the most perfect expression of that “natural” religion which the stoics had disclosed. But in proportion as it was enlarged and spiritualised to a universal religion for humanity, it abandoned what was most peculiar to it, and could not compensate for that loss by the

109

The Sibylline Oracles, composed by Jews, from 160 B.C. to 189 A.D. are specially instructive here: see the Editions of Friedlieb. 1852; Alexandre, 1869; Rzach. 1891. Delaunay, Moines et Sibylles dans l’antiquité judéo-grecque, 1874. Schürer in the work mentioned above. The writings of Josephus also yield rich booty, especially his apology for Judaism in the two books against Apion. But it must be noted that there were Jews enlightened by Hellenism, who were still very zealous in their observance of the law. “Philo urges most earnestly to the observance of the law in opposition to that party which drew the extreme inferences of the allegoristic method, and put aside the outer legality as something not essential for the spiritual life. Philo thinks that by exact observance of these ceremonies on their material side, one will also come to know better their symbolical meaning” (Siegfried, Philo, p. 157). 110 Direct evidence is certainly almost entirely wanting here, but the indirect speaks all the more emphatically: see § 3, Supplement 1. 2. 111 The Jewish propaganda, though by no means effaced, gave way very distinctly to the Christian from the middle of the second century. But from this time we find few more traces of an enlightened Hellenistic Judaism. Moreover, the Messianic expectation also seems to have somewhat given way to occupation with the law. But the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as other Jewish terms certainly played a great rôle in Gentile and Gnostic magical formulæ of the third century, as may be seen e.g., from many passages in Origen c. Celtum.

73

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

assertion of the thesis that the Old Testament is the oldest and most reliable source of that natural religion, which in the traditions of the Greeks had only witnesses of the second rank. The vigour and immediateness of the religious feeling was flattened down to a moralism, the barrenness of which drove some Jews even into Gnosis, mysticism and asceticism.112

110

2. The Jewish Alexandrian philosophy of religion, of which Philo gives us the clearest conception,113 is the scientific theory which corresponded to this religious conception. The theological system which Philo, in accordance with the example of others, gave out as the Mosaic system revealed by God, and proved from the Old Testament by means of the allegoric exegetic method, is essentially identical with the system of Stoicism, which had been mixed with Platonic elements and had lost its Pantheistic materialistic impress. The fundamental idea from which Philo starts is a Platonic one; the dualism of God and the world, spirit and matter. The idea of God itself is therefore abstractly and negatively conceived (God, the real substance which is not finite), and has nothing more in common with the Old Testament conception. The possibility, however, of being able to represent God as acting on matter, which as the finite is the non-existent, and therefore the evil, is reached, with the help of the Stoic λόγοι as working powers and of the Platonic doctrine of archetypal ideas, and in outward connection with the Jewish doctrine of angels and the Greek doctrine of demons, by the introduction of intermediate spiritual beings which, as personal and impersonal powers proceeding from God, are to be thought of as operative causes and as Archetypes. All these beings are, as it were, comprehended in the Logos. By the Logos Philo understands the operative reason of God, and consequently also the power of God. The Logos is to him the thought of God and at the same time the product of his thought, therefore both idea and power. But further, the Logos is God himself on that side of him which is turned to the world, as also the ideal of the world and the unity of the spiritual forces which produce the world and rule in it. He can therefore be put beside God and in opposition to the world; but he can also, so far as the spiritual contents of the world are comprehended in him, be put with the world in contrast with God. The Logos accordingly appears as the Son of God, the foremost creature, the representative, Viceroy, High Priest, and Messenger of God; and again as principle of the world, spirit of the world, nay, as the world itself. He appears as a power and as a person, as a function of God and as an active divine being. Had Philo cancelled the contradiction which lies in this whole conception of the Logos, his system would have been

112 113

The prerogative of Israel was, for all that, clung to: Israel remains the chosen people. The brilliant investigations of Bernays, however, have shewn how many-sided that philosophy of religion was. The proofs of asceticism in this Hellenistic Judaism are especially of great interest for the history of dogma (see Theophrastus' treatise on piety). In the eighth Epistle of Heraclitus, composed by a Hellenistic Jew in the first century, it is said (Bernays, p. 182). “So long a time before, O Hermodorus, saw thee that Sibyl, and even then thou wert” (εἶδρ σε πρὸ ποσούτου αἰῶνος, Ερμόδωρε, ἡ Σίβυλλα ἐκείνη, καὶ τότε ἦσθα). Even here then the notion is expressed that foreknowledge and predestination invest the known and the deter-mined with a kind of existence. Of great importance is the fact that even before Philo, the idea of the wisdom of God creating the world and passing over to men had been hypostatised in Alexandrian Judaism (see Sirach, Baruch. the wisdom of Solomon, Enoch, nay, even the book of Proverbs). But so long as the deutero-canonical Old Testament, and also the Alexandrine and Apocalyptic literature continue in the sad condition in which they are at present, we can form no certain judgment and draw no decided conclusions on the subject. When will the scholar appear who will at length throw light on these writings, and therewith or the section of inner Jewish history most interesting to the Christian theologian? As yet we have only a most thankworthy preliminary study in Schürer's great work, and beside it particular or dilettante attempts which hardly shew what the problem really is, far less solve it. What disclosures even the fourth book of the Maccabees alone yields for the connection of the Old Testament with Hellenism!

74

History of Dogma - Volume I

111

112

Adolf Harnack

demolished; for that system with its hard antithesis of God and the world, needed a mediator who was, and yet was not God, as well as world. From this contrast, however, it further followed that we can only think of a world-formation by the Logos, not of a world-creation.114 Within this world man is regarded as a microcosm, that is, as a being of Divine nature according to his spirit, who belongs to the heavenly world, while the adhering body is a prison which holds men captive in the fetters of sense, that is, of sin. The Stoic and Platonic ideals and rules of conduct (also the Neo-pythagorean) were united by Philo in the religious Ethic as well as in the Cosmology. Rationalistic moralism is surmounted by the injunction to strive after a higher good lying above virtue. But here, at the same time, is the point at which Philo decidedly goes beyond Platonism, and introduces a new thought into Greek Ethics, and also in correspondence therewith into theoretic philosophy. This thought, which indeed lay altogether in the line of the development of Greek philosophy, was not, however, pursued by Philo into all its consequences, though it was the expression of a new frame of mind. While the highest good is resolved by Plato and his successors into knowledge of truth, which truth, together with the idea of God, lies in a sphere really accessible to the intellectual powers of the human spirit, the highest good, the Divine original being, is considered by Philo, though not invariably, to be above reason, and the power of comprehending it is denied to the human intellect. This assumption, a concession which Greek speculation was compelled to make to positive religion for the supremacy which was yielded to it, was to have far-reaching consequences in the future. A place was now for the first time provided in philosophy for a mythology to be regarded as revelation. The highest truths which could not otherwise be reached, might be sought for in the oracles of the Deity; for knowledge resting on itself had learnt by experience its inability to attain to the truth in which blessedness consists. In this very experience the intellectualism of Greek Ethics was, not indeed cancelled, but surmounted. The injunction to free oneself from sense and strive upwards by means of knowledge, remained; but the wings of the thinking mind bore it only to the entrance of the sanctuary. Only ecstasy produced by God himself was able to lead to the reality above reason. The great novelties in the system of Philo, though in a certain sense the way had al-ready been prepared for them, are the introduction of the idea of a philosophy of revelation and the advance beyond the absolute intellectualism of Greek philosophy, an advance based on scepticism, but also on the deep-felt needs of life. Only the germs of these are found in Philo, but they are already operative. They are innovations of world-wide importance: for in them the covenant between the thoughts of reason on the one hand, and the belief in revelation and mysticism on the other, is already so completed that neither by itself could permanently maintain the supremacy. Thought about the world was henceforth dependent, not only on practical motives, it is always that, but on the need of a blessedness and peace which is higher than all reason. It might, perhaps, be allowable to say

114

“So far as the sensible world is a work of the Logos, it is called νεώτερος ὑιός (quod deus immut. 6. I. 277), or according to Prov. VIII. 22, an offspring of God and wisdom: ἡ δὲ παραδεξαμένη τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ σπέρμα τελεσφόροις ὠδῖσι τὸν μόνον καὶ ἀγαπητὸν αἰσθητὸν ὑιὸν ἀπεκύησε τὸνδε τὸν κὸσμον (de ebriet. 8. I. 361 f.). So far as the Logos is High Priest his relation to the world is symbolically expressed by the garment of the High Priest, to which exegesis the play on the word κόσμος, as meaning both ornament and world, lent its aid.” This speculation (see Siegfried. Philo. 235) is of special importance, for it shews how closely the ideas κὸσμος and λὸγος were connected.

75

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

that Philo was the first who, as a philosopher, plainly expressed that need, just because he was not only a Greek, but also a Jew.115

113

Apart from the extremes into which the ethical counsels of Philo run, they contain nothing that had not been demanded by philosophers before him. The purifying of the affections, the renunciation of sensuality, the acquisition of the four cardinal virtues, the greatest possible simplicity of life, as well as a cosmopolitan disposition are enjoined.116 But the attainment of the highest morality by our own strength is despaired of, and man is directed beyond himself to God's assistance. Redemption begins with the spirit reflecting on its own condition; it advances by a knowledge of the world and of the Logos, and it is perfected, after complete asceticism, by mystic ecstatic contemplation in which a man loses himself, but in return is entirely filled and moved by God.117 In this condition man has a foretaste of the blessedness which shall be given him when the soul, freed from the body, will be restored to its true existence as a heavenly being. This system, notwithstanding its appeal to revelation, has, in the strict sense of the word, no place for Messianic hopes, of which nothing but very insignificant rudiments are found in Philo. But he was really animated by the hope of a glorious time to come for Judaism. The synthesis of the Messiah and the Logos did not lie within his horizon.118

114

3. Neither Philo's philosophy of religion, nor the mode of thought from which it springs, exercised any appreciable influence on the first generation of believers in Christ.119 But its practical ground-thoughts, though in different degrees, must have found admission very early into the Jewish Christian circles of the Diaspora, and through them to Gentile Christian circles also. Philo's philosophy of religion became operative among Christian teachers from the beginning of the second century,120 and at a later period actually obtained the significance of a standard of Christian theology, Philo gaining a place among Christian writers. The systems of Valentinus and Origen presuppose that of Philo. It can no longer, however, be shewn with certainty how far the direct influence of Philo reached, as the development of religious ideas in the second century took a direction which necessarily led to views similar to those which Philo had anticipated (see § 6, and the whole following account).

115

Of all the Greek Philosophers of the second century, Plutarch of Chäronea, died c. 125 A.D., and Numenius of Apamea, second half of the second century, approach nearest to Philo; but the latter of the two was undoubtedly familiar with Jewish philosophy, specially with Philo, and probably also with Christian writings. 116 As to the way in which Philo (see also 4 Maccab. V. 24) learned to connect the Stoic ethics with the authority of the Torah, as was also done by the Palestinian Midrash, and represented the Torah as the foundation of the world, and therewith as the law of nature: see Siegfried, Philo, p. 156. 117 Philo by his exhortations to seek the blessed life, has by no means broken with the intellectualism of the Greek philosophy, he has only gone beyond it. The way of knowledge and speculation is to him also the way of religion and morality. But his formal principle is supernatural and leads to a supernatural knowledge which finally passes over into sight. 118 But everything was now ready for this synthesis, so that it could be, and immediately was, completed by Christian philosophers. 119 We cannot discover Philo's influence in the writings of Paul. But here again we must remember that the scripture learning of Palestinian teachers developed speculations which appear closely related to the Alexandrian, and partly are so, but yet cannot be deduced from them. The element common to them must, for the present at least, be deduced from the harmony of conditions in which the different nations of the East were at that time placed, a harmony which we cannot exactly measure. 120 The conception of God's relation to the world as given in the fourth Gospel is not Philonic. The Logos doctrine there is therefore essentially not that of Philo. (Against Kuenen and others, see p. 93.)

76

History of Dogma - Volume I

115

116

Adolf Harnack

Supplement.—The hermeneutic principles (the “Biblical-alchemy”), above all, became of the utmost importance for the following period. These were partly invented by Philo himself, partly traditional,—the Haggadic rules of exposition and the hermeneutic principles of the Stoics having already at an earlier period been united in Alexandria. They fall into two main classes: “first, those according to which the literal sense is excluded, and the allegoric proved to be the only possible one; and then, those according to which the allegoric sense is discovered as standing beside and above the literal sense.”121 That these rules permitted the discovery of a new sense by minute changes within a word, was a point of special importance.122 Christian teachers went still further in this direction, and, as can be proved, altered the text of the Septuagint in order to make more definite what suggested itself to them as the meaning of a passage, or in order to give a satisfactory meaning to a sentence which appeared to them unmeaning or offensive.123 Nay, attempts were not wanting among Christians in the second century—they were aided by the uncertainty that existed about the extent of the Septuagint, and by the want of plain predictions about the death upon the cross—to determine the Old Testament canon in accordance with new principles; that is, to alter the text on the plea that the Jews had corrupted it, and to insert new books into the Old Testament, above all, Jewish Apocalypses revised in a Christian sense. Tertullian (de cultu fem. 1. 3,) furnishes a good example of the latter. “Scio scripturam Enoch, quæ hunc ordinem angelis dedit, non recipi a quibusdam, quia nec in armorium Judaicum admittitur . . . sed cum Enoch eadem scriptura etiam de domino prædicarit, a nobis quidem nihil omnino reiciendum est quod pertinet ad nos. Et legimus omnem scripturam ædificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. A Judæis potest jam videri propterea reiecta, sicut et cetera fera quæ Christum sonant. . . . . Eo accedit quod Enoch apud Judam apostolum testimonium possidet.” Compare also the history of the Apocalypse of Ezra in the Latin Bible (Old Testament). Not only the genuine Greek portions of the Septuagint, but also many Apocalypses were quoted by Christians in the second century as of equal value with the Old Testament. It was the New Testament that slowly put an end to these tendencies towards the formation of a Christian Old Testament. To find the spiritual meaning of the sacred text, partly beside the literal, partly by excluding it, became the watchword for the “scientific” Christian theology which was possible only on this basis, 121

Siegfried (Philo. pp. 160–197) has presented in detail Philo's allegorical interpretation of scripture, his hermeneutic principles and their application. Without an exact knowledge of these principles we cannot understand the Scripture expositions of the Fathers, and therefore also cannot do them justice. 122 See Siegfried, Philo, p. 176. Yet, as a rule, the method of isolating and adapting passages of scripture, and the method of unlimited combination were sufficient. 123 Numerous examples of this may he found in the epistle of Barnabas (see cc. 4–9), and in the dialogue of Justin with Trypho (here they are objects of controversy, see cc. 71–73, 120), but also in many other Christian writings, (e.g. 1 Clem. ad Cor. VIII. 3: XVII. 6: XXIII. 3, 4: XXVI. 5: XLVI. 2: 2 Clem. XIII. 2). These Christian additions were long retained in the Latin Bible, (see also Lactantius and other Latins: Pseudo-Cyprian de aleat. 2 etc.), the most celebrated of them is the addition “a ligno” to “dominus regnavit” in Psalm XCVI., see Credner, Beiträge II. The treatment of the Old Testament in the epistle of Barnabas is specially instructive, and exhibits the greatest formal agreement with that of Philo. We may close here with the words in which Siegfried sums up his judgment on Philo: “No Jewish writer has contributed so much as Philo to the breaking up of particularism and the dissolution of Judaism. The history of his people, though he believed in it literally, was in its main points a didactic allegoric poem for enabling him to inculcate the doctrine that man attains the vision of God by mortification of the flesh. The law was regarded by him as the best guide to this, but it had lost its exclusive value, as it was admitted to be possible to reach the goal without it, and it had, besides, its aim outside itself. The God of Philo was no longer the old living God of Israel, but an imaginary being who, to obtain power over the world, needed a Logos by whom the palladium of Israel, the unity of God, was taken a prey. So Israel lost everything which had hitherto characterised her.”

77

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

as it endeavoured to reduce the immense and dissimilar material of the Old Testament to unity with the Gospel, and both with the religious and scientific culture of the Greeks,—yet without knowing a relative standard, the application of which would alone have rendered possible in a loyal way the solution of the task. Here, Philo was the master; for he first to a great extent poured the new wine into old bottles. Such a procedure is warranted by its final purpose; for history is a unity. But applied in a pedantic and stringently dogmatic way it is a source of deception, of untruthfulness, and finally of total blindness. Literature.—Gefrörer, Das Jahr des Heils, 1838. Parthey, Das Alexandr. Museum, 1838. Matter, Hist. de l’école d’Alex. 1840. Dähne, Gesch. Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religionsphilos. 1834. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, III. 2. 3rd Edition. Mommsen, History of Rome, Vol. V. Siegfried, Philo van Alex. 1875. Massebieau, Le Classement des Œuvres de Philon. 1889. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889. Drummond, Philo Judæus, 1888. Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 1886. Schürer, History of the Jewish People. The investigations of Freudenthal (Hellenistische Studien), and Bernays (Ueber das phokylideische Gedicht; Theophrastos' Schrift über Frömmigkeit; Die heraklitischen Briefe). Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures: “Christian Theology could have made and has made much use of Hellenism. But the Christian religion cannot have sprung from this source.” Havet thinks otherwise, though in the fourth volume of his “Origines” he has made unexpected admissions. § 6. The Religious Dispositions of the Greeks and Romans in the first two centuries, and the current Græco-Roman Philosophy of Religion.

117

1. After the national religion and the religious sense generally in cultured circles had been all but lost in the age of Cicero and Augustus, there is noticeable in the Græco-Roman world from the beginning of the second century a revival of religious feeling which embraced all classes of society, and appears, especially from the middle of that century, to have increased from decennium to decennium.124 Parallel with it went the not altogether unsuccessful attempt to restore the old national worship, religious usages, oracles, etc. In these attempts, however, which were partly superficial and artificial, the new religious needs found neither vigorous nor clear expression. These needs rather sought new forms of satisfaction corresponding to the wholly changed conditions or the time, including intercourse and mixing of the nations; decay of the old republican orders, divisions and ranks; monarchy and absolutism and social crises; pauperism; influence of philosophy on the domain of public morality and law; cosmopolitanism and the rights of man; influx of Oriental cults into the West; knowledge of the world and disgust with it. The decay of the old political cults and syncretism produced a disposition in favour of monotheism both among the cultured classes who had been prepared for it by philosophy, and also gradually among the masses. Religion and individual morality became more closely connected. There was developed a corresponding attempt at spiritualising the worship alongside of and within the ceremonial forms, and at giving it a direction towards the moral elevation of man through the ideas of moral personality, conscience, and purity, The ideas of repentance and of expiation and healing of the soul became of special importance, and consequently such Oriental cults came to the front as required the former and guaranteed the

124

Proofs in Friedländer, Sittengeschichte, vol. 3.

78

History of Dogma - Volume I

118

119

Adolf Harnack

latter. But what was sought above all, was to enter into an inner union with the Deity, to be saved by him and become a partaker in the possession and enjoyment of his life. The worshipper consequently longed to find a “præsens numen” and the revelation of him in the cultus, and hoped to put himself in possession of the Deity by asceticism and mysterious rites. This new piety longed for health and purity of soul, and elevation above earthly things, and in connection with these a divine, that is a painless and eternal, life beyond the grave (“renatus in æternum taurobolio”). A world beyond was desired, sought for, and viewed with an uncertain eye. By detachment from earthly things and the healing of its diseases (the passions) the freed, new born soul should return to its divine nature and existence. It is not a hope of immortality such as the ancients had dreamed of for their heroes, where they continue, as it were, their earthly existence in blessed enjoyment. To the more highly pitched self-consciousness this life had become a burden, and in the miseries of the present, one hoped for a future life in which the pain and vulgarity of the unreal life of earth would be completely laid aside (Ἐγκράτεια and ἀνάστασις). If the new moralistic feature stood out still more emphatically in the piety of the second century, it vanished more and more behind the religious feature, the longing after life125 and after a Redeemer God. No one could any longer be a God who was not also a saviour.126 With all this Polytheism was not suppressed, but only put into a subordinate place. On the contrary, it was as lively and active as ever. For the idea of a numen supremum did not exclude belief in the existence and manifestation of sub-ordinate deities. Apotheosis came into currency. The old state religion first attained its highest and most powerful expression in the worship of the emperor, (the emperor glorified as “dominus ac deus noster”,127 as “præsens et corporalis deus”, the Antinous cult, etc.), and in many circles an incarnate ideal in the present or the past was sought, which might be worshipped as revealer of God and as God, and which might be an example of life and an assurance of religious hope. Apotheosis became less offensive in proportion as, in connection with the fuller recognition of the spiritual dignity of man, the estimate of the soul, the spirit, as of supramundane nature, and the hope of its eternal continuance in a form of existence befitting it, became more general. That was the import of the message preached by the Cynics and the Stoics, that the truly wise man is Lord, Messenger of God, and God upon the earth. On the other hand, the popular belief clung to the idea that the gods could appear and be visible in human form, and this

125

See the chapter on belief in immortality in Friedländer, Sittengesch. Roms Bde. 3. Among the numerous mysteries known to us, that of Mythras deserves special consideration. From the middle of the second century the Church Fathers saw in it, above all, the caricature of the Church. The worship of Mithras had its redeemer, its mediator, hierarchy, sacrifice, baptism and sacred meal. The ideas of expiation, immortality, and the Redeemer God, were very vividly present in this cult, which of course, in later times, borrowed from Christianity: see the accounts of Marquardt, Réville, and the Essay of Sayous, Le Taurobole in the Rev. de l’Hist. des Religions, 1887, where the earliest literature is also utilised. The worship of Mithras in the third century became the most powerful rival of Christianity. In connection with this should be specially noted the cult of Æsculapius, the God who helps the body and the soul; see my essay “Medicinisches aus der ältesten Kirchengeschichte,” 1892. p. 93 ff. 126 Hence the wide prevalence of the cult of Æsculapius. 127 Dominus in certain circumstances means more than deus; see Tertull. Apol. It signifies more than Soter: see Irenæus I. 1. 3; . . . . . τὸν σωτῆρα λέγουσιν, οὐδὲ γὰρ κύριον ὀνομάζειν αὐτὸν θὲλουσιν—κύριος and δεσπότης are almost synonymous. See Philo. Quis. rer. div. heres. 6: συνώνυμα ταῦτα εἶναι λέγεται.

79

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

faith, though mocked by the cultured, gained numerous adherents, even among them, in the age of the Antonines.128 128

We must give special attention here to the variability and elasticity of the concept “θεὸς”, and indeed among the cultured as well as the uncultured (Orig. prolegg. in Psalm. in Pitra, Anal. T. II. p. 437i according to a Stoic source; κατ᾽ ἀλ ́ λον δέ τρόπον λέγεσθαι θεὸν ζῷον ἀθάνατον λογικὸν σπουδαῖον, ὥστε πᾶσαν ἀστείαν ψυχήν θεὸν ὑπάρχειν, κἃν περιόχηται, ἄλλως δὲ λενεσθαι θεὸν τὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ ὄν ζῷνν ἀθάνατον ὡς τὰ ἐν ἀνθρωποις σοφοῖς περιεχομένας ψυχὰς μὴ ὑπάρχειν θεούς). They still regarded the Gods as passionless, blessed men living for ever. The idea therefore of a θεοποίησις, and on the other hand, the idea of the appearance of the Gods in human form presented no difficulty (see Acts XIV. 11: XXVIII. 6). But philosophic speculation—the Platonic, as well as in yet greater measure the Stoic, and in the greatest measure of all the Cynic—had led to the recognition of something divine in man's spirit (πνεῦμα, νοῦς). Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations frequently speaks of the God who dwells in us. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VI. 14. 113) says: οὕτως δύναμιν λαβοῦσα κυριακὴν ἡ ψυχὴ μελετᾷ εἶναι θεός, κακὸν μὲν οὐδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν ἀγνοίας εἶναι νομίζουσα. In Bernays' Heraclitian Epistles, pp. 37 f. 135 f., will be found a valuable exposition of the Stoic [Heraclitian] thesis and its history, that men are Gods. See Norden, Beitrage zur Gesch. d. griech. Philos. Jahrb. f. klass. Philol. XIX. Suppl. Bd. p. 373 ff., about the Cynic Philosopher who, contemplating the life and activity of man [κατάσκοπος], becomes its ἐπίσκοπος, and further κύριός, ἄγγελος θεοῦ, θεὸς ἐν ἀνθρώποις. The passages which he adduces are of importance for the history of dogma in a twofold respect. (1) They present remarkable parallels to Christiology [one even finds the designations, κύριος, ἄγγελος, κατάσκοπος, ἐπίσκοπος, θεὸς associated with the philosophers as with Christ, e.g, in Justin; nay, the Cynics and Neoplatonics speak of ἐπίσκοποι δαίμονες; cf. also the remarkable narrative in Laertius VI. 102, concerning the Cynic Menedemus; οὗτὸς, καθά φησιν Ἰππόβοτος, εἰς ποσος τον τερατείας ἤλασεν, ὥστε Ἐρινύος ἀναλαβὼν σχῆμα περιῄει, λέγων ἐπισκοπος ἀφἶχθαι ἐξ Ἁί δου τῶν ἁμαρτόμένων, ὁπ ́ ως πάλιν κατιὼν ταςτα ἀπαγγέλλοι τοῖς ἐκεῖ, δαίμοσιν (2) They also explain how the ecclesiastical ἐπίσκοποι came to be so highly prized, inasmuch as these also were from a very early period regarded as mediators between God and man, and considered as ἐν ἀνθρώποις θεοί). There where not a few who in the first and second centuries, appeared with the claim to be regarded as a God or an organ inspired and chosen by God (Simon Magus [cf. the manner of his treatment in Hippol. Philos. VI. 8: see also Clem. Hom. II. 27], Apollonius of Tyana (?), see further Tacitus Hist. II. 51: “Mariccus . . . . iamque adsertor Galliarum et deus, nomen id sibi indiderat,”; here belongs also the gradually developing worship of the Emperor: “dominus ac deus noster.” Cf. Augustus, Inscription of the year 25/24 B.C. in Egypt, [where the Ptolemies were for long described as Gods]: Ύπὲρ Καίσαρος Αὐτοκράττορος θεοῦ (Zeitschrift für Ægypt. Sprache. XXXI. Bd. p. 3). Domitian: θεὸς Ἀδριανός, Kaibel Inscr. Gr. 829. 1053. θεός Σεουῆρος Ευσεβῆς, 1061—the Antinous cult with its prophets. See also Josephus on Herod Agrippa. Antiq. XIX. 8. 2. (Euseb. H. E. II. Io). The flatterers said to him, θεὸν προσαγορεύοντες· εἰ καί μέχρι νῦν ὡς ἀν ́ θρωπον ἐφοβήθημεν, ἀλλὰ τούντεῦθεν κρείττονα σε θνητῆς τῆς φύσεως ὁμολογοῦμεν. Herod himself, § 7, says to his friends in his sickness; ὁ θεὸς ὑμῖν ἐγὼ ἤδη καταστρέφειν ἐπιτάττομαι τὸν βίον . . . . ὁ κληθεις ἀθάνατος ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἤδη θανεῖν ἀπάγομαι). On the other hand, we must mention the worship of the founder in some philosophic schools, especially among the Epicureans. Epictetus says (Moral. 15), Diogenes and Heraclitus and those like them are justly called Gods. Very instructive in this connection are the reproaches of the heathen against the Christians, and of Christian partisans against one another with regard to the almost divine veneration of their teachers. Lucian (Peregr. II) reproaches the Christians in Syria for having regarded Peregrinus as a God and a new Socrates. The heathen in Smyrna, after the burning of Polycarp, feared that the Christians would begin to pay him divine honours (Euseb. H. E. IV. 15. 41). Cæcilius in Minucius Felix speaks of divine honours being paid by Christians to priests. (Octav. IX. 10.) The Antimontanist (Euseb. H. E. V. 18. 6) asserts that the Montanists worship their prophet and Alexander the Confessor as divine. The opponents of the Roman Adoptians (Euseb. H. E. V. 28) reproach them with praying to Galen. There are many passages in which the Gnostics are reproached with paying Divine honours to the heads of their schools, and for many Gnostic schools (the Carpocratians, for example) the reproach seems to have been just. All this is extremely instructive. The genius, the hero, the founder of a new school who promises to shew the certain way to the vita beata, the emperor, the philosopher, (numerous Stoic passages might be noted here) finally man, in so far as he is inhabited by νοῦς—could all somehow be considered as θεοί, so elastic was the concept. All these instances of Apotheosis in no way endangered the Monotheism which had been developed from the mixture of Gods and from philosophy; for the one supreme Godhead can unfold his inexhaustible essence in a variety of existences, which, while his creatures as to their origin, are parts of his essence as to their contents. This Monotheism does not yet exactly disclaim its Polytheistic origin. The Christian, Hermas, says to his Mistress (Vis. I. 1. 7) οὐ πάντοτέ σε ὡς θεάν ἡγησάμην, and the author of the Epistle of Diognetus writes (X. 6) ταῦτα τοις ἐπιδεομένοις χορηγῶν (i.e., the rich man) θεὸς γίνεται τῶν λαμβανόντων. That the concept θεὸς was again used only of one God, was due to the fact that one now started from the definition “qui vitam æternam habet,” and again from the definition “qui est super omnia et originem nescit.” From the latter followed the absolute unity of God, from the former a plurality of Gods. Both could be so harmonised (see Tertull. adv. Prax. and Novat. de Trinit.) that one could assume

80

History of Dogma - Volume I

120

121

122

Adolf Harnack

The new thing which was here developed, continued to be greatly obscured by the old forms of worship which reasons of state and pious custom maintained. And the new piety, dispensing with a fixed foundation, groped uncertainly around, adapting the old rather than rejecting it. The old religious practices of the Fathers asserted themselves in public life generally, and the reception of new cults by the state, which was certainly effected, though with many checks, did not disturb them. The old religious customs stood out especially on state holidays, in the games in honour of the Gods, frequently degenerating into shameless immorality, but yet protecting the institutions of the state. The patriot, the wise man, the sceptic, and the pious man compounded with them, for they had not really at bottom outgrown them, and they knew of nothing better to substitute for the services they still rendered to society (see the λόγος ἀληθής of Celsus). 2. The system of associations, naturalised centuries before among the Greeks, was developed under the social and political pressure of the empire, and was greatly extended by the change of moral and religious ideas. The free unions, which, as a rule, had a religious element and were established for mutual help, support, or edification, balanced to some extent the prevailing social cleavage, by a free democratic organisation. They gave to many individuals in their small circle the rights which they did not possess in the great world, and were frequently of service in obtaining admission for new cults. Even the new piety and cosmopolitan disposition seem to have turned to them in order to find within them forms of expression. But the time had not come for the greater corporate unions, and of an organised connection of societies in one city with those of another we know nothing. The state kept these associations under strict control. It granted them only to the poorest classes (collegia tenuiorum) and had the strictest laws in readiness for them. These free unions, however, did not in their historical importance approach the fabric of the Roman state in which they stood. That represented the union of the greater part of humanity under one head, and also more and more under one law. Its capital was the capital of the world, and also, from the beginning of the third century, of religious syncretism. Hither migrated all who desired to exercise an influence on the great scale: Jew, Chaldean, Syrian priest, and Neoplatonic teacher. Law and Justice radiated from Rome to the provinces, and in their light nationalities faded away, and a cosmopolitanism was developed which pointed beyond itself, because the moral spirit can never find its satisfaction in that which is realised. When that spirit finally turned away from all political life, and after having laboured for the ennobling of the empire, applied itself, in Neoplatonism, to the idea of a new and free union of men, this certainly was the result of the felt failure of the great creation, but it nevertheless had that creation for its presupposition. The Church appropriated piecemeal the great apparatus of the Roman state, and gave new powers, new significance and respect to every article that had been depreciated. But what is of greatest importance is that the Church by her preaching would never have gained whole circles, but only individuals, had not the universal state already produced a neutralising of nationalities and brought men nearer each other in temper and disposition. 3. Perhaps the most decisive factor in bringing about the revolution of religious and moral convictions and moods, was philosophy, which in almost all its schools and representatives, had deepened ethics, and set it more and more in the fore-ground. After Possidonius, Seneca, Epictetus, and that the God qui est super omnia, might allow his monarchy to be administered by several persons, and might dispense the gift of immortality and with it a relative divinity.

81

History of Dogma - Volume I

123

124

Adolf Harnack

Marcus Aurelius of the Stoical school, and men like Plutarch of the Platonic, attained to an ethical view, which, though not very clear in principle (knowledge, resignation, trust in God), is hardly capable of improvement in details. Common to them all, as distinguished from the early Stoics, is the value put upon the soul, (not the entire human nature), while in some of them there comes clearly to the front a religious mood, a longing for divine help, for redemption and a blessed life beyond the grave, the effort to obtain and communicate a religious philosophical therapeutic of the soul.129 From the beginning of the second century, however, already announced itself that eclectic philosophy based on Platonism, which after two or three generations appeared in the form of a school, and after three generations more was to triumph over all other schools. The several elements of the Neoplatonic philosophy, as they were already foreshadowed in Philo, are clearly seen in the second century, viz., the dualistic opposition of the divine and the earthly, the abstract conception of God, the assertion of the unknowableness of God, scepticism with regard to sensuous experience, and distrust with regard to the powers of the understanding, with a greater readiness to examine things and turn to account the result of former scientific labour; further, the demand of emancipation from sensuality by means of asceticism, the need of authority, belief in a higher revelation, and the fusion of science and religion. The legitimising of religious fancy in the province of philosophy was already begun. The myth was no longer merely tolerated and re-interpreted as formerly, but precisely the mythic form with the meaning imported into it was the precious element.130 There were, however, in the second century numerous representatives of every possible philosophic view. To pass over the frivolous writers of the day, the Cynics criticised the traditional mythology in the interests of morality and religion.131 But there were also men who opposed the “ne quid nimis” to every form of practical scepticism, and to religion at the same time, and were above all intent on preserving the state and society, and on fostering the existing arrangements which appeared to be threatened far more by an intrusive religious than by a nihilistic philosophy.132 Yet men whose interest was ultimately practical and political, became ever more rare, especially as from the death of Marcus Aurelius, the maintenance of the state had to be left more and more to the sword of the Generals. The general conditions from the end of the second century were favourable to a philosophy which no longer in any respect took into real consideration the old forms of the state.

129

The longing for redemption and divine help is, for example, clearer in Seneca than in the Christian philosopher, Minucius Felix: see Kühn, Der Octavius des M. F. 1882, and Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1883. No. 6. 130 See the so-called Neopythagorean philosophers and the so-called forerunners of Neoplatonism. (Cf. Bigg, The Platonists of Alexandria, p. 250, as to Numenius.) Unfortunately, we have as yet no sufficient investigation of the question what influence, if any, the Jewish Alexandrian Philosophy of religion had on the development of Greek philosophy in the second and third centuries. The answering of the question would be of the greatest importance. But at present it cannot even be said whether the Jewish philosophy of religion had any influence on the genesis of Neoplatonism. On the relation of Neoplatonism to Christianity and their mutual approximation, see the excellent account in Tzschirner, Fall des Heidenthums, pp. 574-618. Cf. also Réville,, La Religion à Rome. 1886. 131 The Christians, that is the Christian preachers, were most in agreement with the Cynics (see Lucian's Peregrinus Proteus), both on the negative and on the positive side; but for that very reason they were hard on one another (Justin and Tatian against Crescens)—not only because the Christians gave a different basis for the right mode of life from the Cynics, but above all, because they did not approve of the self-conscious, contemptuous, proud disposition which Cynicism produced in many of its adherents. Morality frequently underwent change for the worse in the hands of Cynics, and became the morality of a “Gentleman,” such as we have also experience of in modern Cynicism. 132 The attitude of Celsus, the opponent of the Christians, is specially instructive here.

82

History of Dogma - Volume I

125

126

Adolf Harnack

The theosophic philosophy which was prepared for in the second century,133 was, from the stand-point of enlightenment and knowledge of nature, a relapse; but it was the expression of a deeper religious need, and of a self-knowledge such as had not been in existence at an earlier period. The final consequences of that revolution in philosophy, which made consideration of the inner life the starting-point of thought about the world, only now began to be developed. The ideas of a divine, gracious providence, of the relationship of all men, of universal brotherly love, of a ready forgiveness of wrong, of forbearing patience, of insight into one's own weakness—affected no doubt with many shadows—became, for wide circles, a result of the practical philosophy of the Greeks as well as the conviction of inherent sinfulness, the need of redemption, and the eternal value and dignity of a human soul which finds rest only in God. These ideas, convictions and rules, had been picked up in the long journey from Socrates to Ammonius Saccas: at first, and for long afterwards, they crippled the interest in a rational knowledge of the world; but they deepened and enriched the inner life, and therewith the source of all knowledge. Those ideas, however, lacked as yet the certain coherence, but, above all, the authority which could have raised them above the region of wishes, presentiments, and strivings, and have given them normative authority in a community of men. There was no sure revelation, and no view of history which could be put in the place of the no longer prized political history of the nation or state to which one belonged.134 There was, in fact, no such thing as certainty. In like manner, there was no power which might overturn idolatry and abolish the old, and therefore one did not get beyond the wavering between self-deification, fear of God, and deification of nature. The glory is all the greater of those statesmen and jurists who, in the second and third centuries, introduced human ideas of the Stoics into the legal arrangements of the empire, and raised them to standards. And we must value all the more the numerous undertakings and performances in which it appeared that the new view of life was powerful enough in individuals to beget a corresponding practice even without a sure belief in revelation.135 Supplement.—For the correct understanding of the beginning of Christian theology, that is, for the Apologetic and Gnosis, it is important to note where they are dependent on Stoic and where on Platonic lines of thought. Platonism and Stoicism, in the second century, appeared in union with each other: but up to a certain point they may be distinguished in the common channel in which they flow. Wherever Stoicism prevailed in religious thought and feeling, as, for example, in Marcus Aurelius, religion gains currency as natural religion in the most comprehensive sense of the word. The idea of revelation or redemption scarcely emerges. To this rationalism the objects of knowledge are unvarying, ever the same: even cosmology attracts interest only in a very small degree. Myth and history are pageantry and masks. Moral ideas (virtues and duties) dominate even the religious 133

For the knowledge of the spread of the idealistic philosophy the statement of Origen (c. Celsum VI. 2) that Epictetus was admired not only by scholars, but also by ordinary people who felt in themselves the impulse to be raised to something higher, is well worthy of notice. 134 This point was of importance for the propaganda of Christianity among the cultured. There seemed to be given here a reliable, because revealed, Cosmology and history of the world—which already contained the foundation of everything worth knowing. Both were needed and both were here set forth in closest union. 135 The universalism as reached by the Stoics is certainly again threatened by the self-righteous and self-complacent distinction between men of virtue and men of pleasure, who, properly speaking, are not men. Aristotle had already dealt with the virtuous elite in a notable way. He says (Polit. 3. 13. p. 1284), that men who are distinguished by perfect virtue should not be put on a level with the ordinary mass, and should not be subjected to the constraints of a law adapted to the average man. “There is no law for these elect, who are a law to themselves.”

83

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

sphere, which in its final basis has no independent authority. The interest in psychology and apologetic is very pronounced. On the other hand, the emphasis which, in principle, is put on the contrast of spirit and matter, God and the world, had for results: inability to rest in the actual realities of the cosmos, efforts to unriddle the history of the universe backwards and forwards, recognition of this process as the essential task of theoretic philosophy, and a deep, yearning conviction that the course of the world needs assistance. Here were given the conditions for the ideas of revelation, redemption, etc., and the restless search for powers from whom help might come, received here also a scientific justification. The rationalistic apologetic interests thereby fell into the background: contemplation and historical description predominated.136

127

The stages in the ecclesiastical history of dogma, from the middle of the first to the middle of the fifth century, correspond to the stages in the history of the ancient religion during the same period. The Apologists, Irenæus, Tertullian, Hippolytus; the Alexandrians; Methodius, and the Cappadocians; Dionysius, the Areopagite, have their parallels in Seneca, Marcus Aurelius; Plutarch, Epictetus, Numenius; Plotinus, Porphyry; Iamblichus and Proclus. But it is not only Greek philosophy that comes into question for the history of Christian dogma. The whole of Greek culture must be taken into account. In his posthumous work Hatch has shewn in a masterly way how that is to be done. He describes the Grammar, the Rhetoric, the learned Profession, the Schools, the Exegesis, the Homilies, etc., of the Greeks, and everywhere shews how they passed over into the Church, thus exhibiting the Philosophy, the Ethic, the speculative Theology, the Mysteries, etc., of the Greeks, as the main factors in the process of forming the ecclesiastical mode of thought. But, besides the Greek, there is no mistaking the special influence of Romish ideas and customs upon the Christian Church. The following points specially claim attention: (1) The conception of the contents of the Gospel and its application as “salus legitima,” with the results which followed from the naturalising of this idea. (2) The conception of the word of Revelation, the Bible, etc., as “lex.” (3) The idea of tradition in its relation to the Romish idea. (4) The Episcopal constitution of the Church, including the idea of succession, of the Primateship and universal Episcopate, in their dependence on Romish ideas and institutions (the Ecclesiastical organisation in its dependence on the Roman Empire). (5) The separation of the idea of the “sacrement” from that of the “mystery,” and the development of the forensic discipline of penance. The investigation has to proceed in a historical line, described by the following series of chapters: Rome and Tertullian; Rome and Cyprian; Rome, Optatus and Augustine; Rome and the Popes of the fifth century. We have to shew how, by the power of her constitution and the earnestness and consistency of her policy, Rome a second time, step by step, conquered the world, but this time the Christian world.137

128

136

Notions of pre-existence were readily suggested by the Platonic philosophy; yet this whole philosophy rests on the fact that one again posits the thing (after stripping it of certain marks as accidental or worthless, or ostensibly foreign to it) in order to express its value in this form, and hold fast the permanent in the change of the phenomena. 137 See Tzschirn. i. d. Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. XII. p 215 if. “The genesis of the Romish Church in the second century.” What he presents is no doubt partly incomplete, partly overdone and not proved: yet much of what he states is useful.

84

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

Greek philosophy exercised the greatest influence not only on the Christian mode of thought, but also through that, on the institutions of the Church. The Church never indeed be-came a philosophic school: but yet in her was realised in a peculiar way, that which the Stoics and the Cynics had aimed at. The Stoic (Cynic) Philosopher also belonged to the factors from which the Christian Priests or Bishops were formed. That the old bearers of the Spirit—Apostles, Prophets, Teachers—have been changed into a class of professional moralists and preachers, who bridle the people by counsel and reproof (νουθετεῖν καὶ ἐλέγχειν), that this class considers itself and de-sires to be considered as a mediating Kingly Divine class, that its representatives became “Lords” and let themselves be called “Lords,” all this was prefigured in the Stoic wise man and in the Cynic Missionary. But so far as these several “Kings and Lords” are united in the idea and reality of the Church and are subject to it, the Platonic idea of the republic goes beyond the Stoic and Cynic ideals, and subordinates them to it. But this Platonic ideal has again obtained its political realisation in the Church through the very concrete laws of the Roman Empire, which were more and more adopted, or taken possession of. Consequently, in the completed Church we find again the philosophic schools and the Roman Empire.

129

Literature.—Besides the older works of Tzschirner, Döllinger, Burckhardt, Preller, see Friedländer, Darstellungen aus der Sittengesch. Roms in der Zeit von August bis zum Ausgang der Antonine, 3 Bd. Aufl. Boissier, La Religion Romaine d'Auguste aux Antonins, 2 Bd. 1874. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire before 170. London, 1893. Réville, La Religion à Rome sous les Sévères, 1886. Schiller, Geschichte der Röm Kaiserzeit, 1883. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, 3 Bde. 1878. Foucart, Les Associations Relig. chez les Grecs, 1873. Liebeman, Z. Gesch. u. Organisation d. Röm. Vereinswesen, 189o. K. J. Neumann, Der Röm. Staat und die allg. Kirche, Bd. I. 1890. Leopold Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, 2 Bd. 1882. Heinrici, Die Christengemeinde Korinth's und die religiösen Genossenschaften der Griechen, in der Ztschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1876-77. Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church. Buechner, De neocoria, 1888. Hirschfeld. Z. Gesch. d. röm. Kaisercultus. The Histories of Philosophy by Zeller, Erdmann, Ueberweg, Strümpell, Windelband, etc. Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der Griech. Philosophie, 1872. By same Author, Der Eudämonismus in der Griech. Philosophic, 1883. Hirzel, Untersuchungen zu Cicero's philos. Schriften, 3 Thle. 1877-1883. These investigations are of special value for the history of dogma, because they set forth with the greatest accuracy and care, the later developments of the great Greek philosophic schools, especially on Roman soil. We must refer specially to the discussions on the influence of the Roman on the Greek Philosophy. Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer, 1872.

SUPPLEMENTARY. Perhaps the most important fact for the following development of the history of Dogma, the way for which had already been prepared in the Apostolic age, is the twofold conception of the aim of Christ's appearing, or of the religious blessing of salvation. The two conceptions were indeed as yet mutually dependent on each other, and were twined together in the closest way, just as they are presented in the teaching of Jesus himself; but they began even at this early period to be 85

History of Dogma - Volume I

130

131

Adolf Harnack

differentiated. Salvation, that is to say, was conceived, on the one hand, as sharing in the glorious kingdom of Christ soon to appear, and everything else was regarded as preparatory to this sure prospect; on the other hand, however, attention was turned to the conditions and to the provisions of God wrought by Christ, which first made men capable of attaining that portion, that is, of becoming sure of it. Forgiveness of sin, righteousness, faith, knowledge, etc., are the things which come into consideration here, and these blessings themselves, so far as they have as their sure result life in the kingdom of Christ, or more accurately eternal life, may be regarded as salvation. It is manifest that these two conceptions need not be exclusive. The first regards the final effect as the goal and all else as a preparation, the other regards the preparation, the facts already accomplished by Christ and the inner transformation of men as the main thing, and all else as the natural and necessary result. Paul, above all, as may be seen especially from the arguments in the epistle to the Romans, unquestionably favoured the latter conception and gave it vigorous expression. The peculiar conflicts with which he saw himself confronted, and, above all, the great controversy about the relation of the Gospel and the new communities to Judaism, necessarily concentrated the attention on questions as to the arrangements on which the community of those sanctified in Christ should rest, and the conditions of admission to this community. But the centre of gravity of Christian faith might also for the moment be removed from the hope of Christ's second advent, and would then necessarily be found in the first advent, in virtue of which salvation was already prepared for man, and man for salvation (Rom. III.–VIII.). The dual development of the conception of Christianity which followed from this, rules the whole history of the Gospel to the present day. The eschatological view is certainly very severely repressed, but it always breaks out here and there, and still guards the spiritual from the secularisation which threatens it. But the possibility of uniting the two conceptions in complete harmony with each other, and on the other hand, of expressing them antithetically, has been the very circumstance that has complicated in an extraordinary degree the progress of the development of the history of dogma. From this follows the antithesis, that from that conception which somehow recognises salvation itself in a present spiritual possession, eternal life in the sense of immortality may be postulated as final result, though not a glorious kingdom of Christ on earth; while, conversely, the eschatological view must logically depreciate every blessing which can be possessed in the present life. It is now evident that the theology, and, further, the Hellenising, of Christianity, could arise and has arisen in connection, not with the eschatological, but only with the other conception. Just because the matters here in question were present spiritual blessings, and because, from the nature of the case, the ideas of forgiveness of sin, righteousness, knowledge, etc., were not so definitely outlined in the early tradition, as the hopes of the future, conceptions entirely new and very different, could, as it were, be secretly naturalised. The spiritual view left room especially for the great contrast of a religious and a moralistic conception, as well as for a frame of mind which was like the eschatological in so far as, according to it, faith and knowledge were to be only preparatory blessings in contrast with the peculiar blessing of immortality, which of course was contained in them. In this frame of mind the illusion might easily arise that this hope of immortality was the very kernel of those hopes of the future for which old concrete forms of expression were only a temporary shell. But it might further be assumed that contempt for the transitory and finite as such, was identical with contempt for the kingdom of the world which the returning Christ would destroy.

86

History of Dogma - Volume I

132

133

Adolf Harnack

The history of dogma has to shew how the old eschatological view was gradually repressed and transformed in the Gen-tile Christian communities, and how there was finally developed and carried out a spiritual conception in which a strict moralism counterbalanced a luxurious mysticism, and wherein the results of Greek practical philosophy could find a place. But we must here refer to the fact, which is already taught by the development in the Apostolic age, that Christian dogmatic did not spring from the eschatological, but from the spiritual mode of thought. The former had nothing but sure hopes and the guarantee of these hopes by the Spirit, by the words of prophecy and by the apocalyptic writings. One does not think, he lives and dreams, in the eschatological mode of thought; and such a life was vigorous and powerful till beyond the middle of the second century. There can be no external authorities here; for one has at every moment the highest authority in living operation in the Spirit. On the other hand, not only does the ecclesiastical christology essentially spring from the spiritual way of thinking, but very specially also the system of dogmatic guarantees. The co-ordination of λόγος θεοῦ, διδαχή κύριου, κήρυγμα τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων [word of God, teaching of the Lord, preaching of the twelve Apostles], which lay at the basis of all Gentile Christian speculation almost from the very beginning, and which was soon directed against the enthusiasts, originated in a conception which regarded as the essential thing in Christianity, the sure knowledge which is the condition of immortality. If, however, in the following sections of this historical presentation, the pervading and continuous opposition of the two conceptions is not everywhere clearly and definitely brought into prominence, that is due to the conviction that the historian has no right to place the factors and impelling ideas of a development in a clearer light than they appear in the development itself. He must respect the obscurities and complications as they come in his way. A clear discernment of the difference of the two conceptions was very seldom attained to in ecclesiastical antiquity, because they did not look beyond their points of contact, and because certain articles of the eschatological conception could never be suppressed or remodelled in the Church. Goethe (Dichtung und Wahrheit, II. 8,) has seen this very clearly. “The Christian religion wavers between its own historic positive element and a pure Deism, which, based on morality, in its turn offers itself as the foundation of morality. The difference of character and mode of thought shew themselves here in infinite gradations, especially as another main distinction co-operates with them, since the question arises, what share the reason, and what the feelings, can and should have in such convictions.” See, also, what immediately follows. 2. The origin of a series of the most important Christian customs and ideas is involved in an obscurity which in all probability will never be cleared up. Though one part of those ideas may be pointed out in the epistles of Paul, yet the question must frequently remain unanswered, whether he found them in existence or formed them independently, and accordingly the other question, whether they are exclusively indebted to the activity of Paul for their spread and naturalisation in Christendom. What was the original conception of baptism? Did Paul develop independently his own conception? What significance had it in the following period? When and where did baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit arise, and how did it make its way in Christendom? In what way were views about the saving value of Christ's death developed alongside of Paul's system? When and how did belief in the birth of Jesus from a Virgin gain acceptance in Christendom? Who first distinguished Christendom, as ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ, from Judaism, and how did the concept ἐκκλησία become current? How old is the triad: Apostles, Prophets and Teachers? When were Baptism and

87

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

the Lord's Supper grouped together? How old are our first three Gospels? To all these questions and many more of equal importance there is no sure answer. But the greatest problem is presented by Christology, not indeed in its particular features doctrinally expressed, these almost everywhere may be explained historically, but in its deepest roots as it was preached by Paul as the principle of a new life (2 Cor. V. 17), and as it was to many besides him the expression of a personal union with the exalted Christ (Rev. II. 3). But this problem exists only for the historian who considers things only from the outside, or seeks for objective proofs. Behind and in the Gospel stands the Person of Jesus Christ who mastered men's hearts, and constrained them to yield themselves to him as his own, and in whom they found their God. Theology attempted to describe in very uncertain and feeble outline what the mind and heart had grasped. Yet it testifies of a new life which, like all higher life, was kindled by a Person, and could only be maintained by connection with that Person. “I can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me.” “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” These convictions are not dogmas and have no history, and they can only be propagated in the manner described by Paul, Gal. I. 15, 16.

134

3. It was of the utmost importance for the legitimising of the later development of Christianity as a system of doctrine. that early Christianity had an Apostle who was a theologian, and that his Epistles were received into the canon. That the doctrine about Christ has become the main article in Christianity is not of course the result of Paul's preaching, but is based on the confession that Jesus is the Christ. The theology of Paul was not even the most prominent ruling factor in the transformation of the Gospel to the Catholic doctrine of faith, although an earnest study of the Pauline Epistles by the earliest Gentile Christian theologians, the Gnostics, and their later opponents, is unmistakable. But the decisive importance of this theology lies in the fact that, as a rule, it formed the boundary and the foundation—just as the words of the Lord himself—for those who in the following period endeavoured to ascertain original Christianity, because the Epistles attesting it stood in the canon of the New Testament. Now, as this theology comprised both speculative and apologetic elements, as it can be thought of as a system, as it contained a theory of history and a definite conception of the Old Testament,—finally, as it was composed of objective and subjective ethical considerations and included the realistic elements of a national religion (wrath of God, sacrifice, reconciliation, Kingdom of glory), as well as profound psychological perceptions and the highest appreciation of spiritual blessings, the Catholic doctrine of faith as it was formed in the course of time, seemed, at least in its leading features, to be related to it, nay, demanded by it. For the ascertaining of the deep-lying distinctions, above all for the perception that the question in the two cases is about elements quite differently conditioned, that even the method is different,—in short, that the Pauline Gospel is not identical with the original Gospel and much less with any later doctrine of faith, there is required such historical judgment and such honesty of purpose not to be led astray in the investigation by the canon of the New Testament,138 that no change in the prevailing

138

What is meant here is the imminent danger of taking the several constituent parts of the canon, even for historical investigation, as constituent parts, that is, of explaining one writing by the standard of another and so creating an artificial unity. The contents of any of Paul's epistles, for example, will be presented very differently if it is considered by itself and in the circumstances in which it was written, or if attention is fixed on it as part of a collection whose unity is presupposed.

88

History of Dogma - Volume I

135

136

Adolf Harnack

ideas can be hoped for for long years to come. Besides, critical theology has made it difficult to gain an insight into the great difference that lies between the Pauline and the Catholic theology, by the one-sided prominence it has hitherto given to the antagonism between Paulinism and Judaistic Christianity. In contrast with this view the remark of Havet, though also very one-sided, is instructive, “Quand on vient de relire Paul, on ne peut méconnaître le caractère élevé de son œuvre. Je dirai en un mot, qu'il a agrandi dans une proportion extraordinaire l’attrait que le judaïsme exerçait sur le monde ancien” (Le Christianisme, T. IV. p. 216). That, however, was only very gradually the case and within narrow limits. The deepest and most important writings of the New Testament are incontestably those in which Judaism is understood as religion, but spiritually overcome and subordinated to the Gospel as a new religion,—the Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Gospel and Epistle of John. There is set forth in these writings a new and exalted world of religious feelings, views and judgments, into which the Christians of succeeding centuries got only meagre glimpses. Strictly speaking, the opinion that the New Testament in its whole extent comprehends a unique literature is not tenable; but it is correct to say that between its most important constituent parts and the literature of the period immediately following there is a great gulf fixed. But Paulinism especially has had an immeasurable and blessed influence on the whole course of the history of dogma, an influence it could not have had if the Pauline Epistles had not been received into the canon. Paulinism is a religious and Christocentric doctrine, more inward and more powerful than any other which has ever appeared in the Church. It stands in the clearest opposition to all merely natural moralism, all righteousness of works, all religious ceremonialism, all Christianity without Christ. It has therefore become the con-science of the Church, until the Catholic Church in Jansenism killed this her conscience. “The Pauline reactions describe the critical epochs of theology and the Church.”139 One might write a history of dogma as a history of the Pauline reactions in the Church, and in doing so would touch on all the turning-points of the history. Marcion after the Apostolic Fathers; Irenæus, Clement and Origen after the Apologists; Augustine after the Fathers of the Greek Church;140 the great Reformers of the middle ages from Agobard to Wessel in the bosom of the mediæval Church; Luther after the Scholastics; Jansenism after the council of Trent:—everywhere it has been Paul, in these men, who produced the Reformation. Paulinism has proved to be a ferment in the history of dogma, a basis it has never been.141 Just as it had that significance in Paul himself, with reference to Jewish Christianity, so it has continued to work through the history of the Church.

DIVISION I.

137

139

See Bigg, The Christian Platonist of Alexandria, pp. 53, 283 ff. Reuter (August. Studien, p. 492) has drawn a valuable parallel between Marcion and Augustine with regard to Paul. 141 Marcion of course wished to raise it to the exclusive basis, but he entirely misunderstood it. 140

89

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

THE GENESIS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL DOGMA,

OR

THE GENESIS OF THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC DOGMATIC THEOLOGY,

AND

THE FIRST SCIENTIFIC ECCLESIASTICAL SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE.

BOOK I. THE PREPARATION.

139 138

Ἐαν́ μυρίους παιδαγωγοὺς ἐχ́ ητε ἐν χριστῷ ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πολλους πατέρας 1 Cor. IV. 15. Eine jede Idee tritt als ein fremder Gast in die Erscheinung, und wie sie sich zu realisiren beginnt, ist sie kaum von Phantasie und Phantasterei zu unterscheiden. GOETHE, Sprüche in Prosa, 566.

141 140

BOOK I THE PREPARATION

CHAPTER I HISTORICAL SURVEY

90

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

THE first century of the existence of Gentile Christian communities is particularly characterised by the following features: I. The rapid disappearance of Jewish Christianity.142 II. The enthusiastic character of the religious temper: the Charismatic teachers and the appeal to the Spirit.143 III. The strength of the hopes for the future, Chiliasm.144 IV. The rigorous endeavour to fulfil the moral precepts of Christ, and truly represent the holy and heavenly community of God in abstinence from everything unclean, and in love to God and the brethren here on earth “in these last days.145 142

V. The want of a fixed doctrinal form in relation to the abstract statement of the faith, and the corresponding variety and freedom of Christian preaching on the basis of clear formulæ and an increasingly rich tradition. VI. The want of a clearly defined external authority in the communities, sure in its application, and the corresponding independence and freedom of the individual Christian in relation to the expression of the ideas, beliefs and hopes of faith.146 VII. The want of a fixed political union of the several communities with each other—every ecclesia is an image complete in itself, and an embodiment of the whole heavenly Church—while the consciousness of the unity of the holy Church of Christ which has the spirit in its midst, found strong expression.147 142

This fact must have been apparent as early as the year too. The first direct evidence of it is in Justin (Apol. I. 53). Every individual was, or at least should have been conscious, as a Christian, of having received the πνεῦμα θεοῦ, though that does not exclude spiritual grades. A special peculiarity of the enthusiastic nature of the religious temper is that it does not allow reflection as to the authenticity of the faith in which a man lives. As to the Charismatic teaching, see my edition of the Didache (Texte u. Unters. II. 1. 2. p. 93 ff.). 144 The hope of the approaching end of the world and the glorious kingdom of Christ still determined men’s heart; though exhortations against theoretical and practical scepticism became more and more necessary. On the other hand, after the Epistles to the Thessalonians, there were not wanting exhortations to continue sober and diligent. 145 There was a strong consciousness that the Christian Church is, above all, a union for a holy life, as well as a consciousness of the obligation to help one another, and use all the blessings bestowed by God in the service of our neighbours. Justin (2 Apol. in Euseb. H. E. IV. 17. 10) calls Christianity τὸ διδασκάλιον τῆς θείας ἀρετῆς. 146 The existing authorities (Old Testament, sayings of the Lord, words of Apostles) did not necessarily require to be taken into account; for the living acting Spirit, partly attesting himself also to the senses, gave new revelations. The validity of these authorities therefore held good only in theory, and might in practice be completely set aside. (Cf., above all, the Shepherd of Hermas.) 147 Zahn remarks (Ignatius. v. A. p. VII.): “I do not believe it to be the business of that province of historical investigation which is dependent on the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers as main sources, to explain the origin of the universal Church in any sense of the term; for that Church existed before Clement and Hermas, before Ignatius and Polycarp. But an explanatory answer is needed for the question: By what means did the consciousness of the “universal Church,” so little favoured by our circumstances, maintain itself unbroken in the post-Apostolic communities? This way of stating it obscures, at least, the problem which here lies before us, for it does not take account of the changes which the idea “universal Church” underwent up to the middle of the third century—besides, we do not find the title before Ignatius. In so far as the “universal Church” is set forth as an earthly power recognisable in a doctrine or in political forms, the question as to the origin of the idea is not only allowable, 143

91

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

VIII. A quite unique literature in which were manufactured facts for the past and for the future, and which did not submit to the usual literary rules and forms, but came forward with the loftiest pretensions.148 143

IX. The reproduction of particular sayings and arguments of Apostolic Teachers with an uncertain understanding of them.149 X. The rise of tendencies which endeavoured to hasten in every respect the inevitable process of fusing the Gospel with the spiritual and religious interests of the time, viz., the Hellenic, as well as attempts to separate the Gospel from its origins and provide for it quite foreign presuppositions. To the latter belongs, above all, the Hellenic idea that knowledge is not a charismatic supplement to the faith, or an outgrowth of faith alongside of others, but that it coincides with the essence of faith itself.150 The sources for this period are few, as there was not much written, and the following period did not lay itself out for preserving a great part of the literary monuments of that epoch. Still we do possess a considerable number of writings and important fragments,151 and further important inferences here are rendered possible by the monuments of the following period, since the conditions of the first century were not changed in a moment, but were partly, at least, long preserved, especially in certain national Churches and in remote communities.152

144

Supplement.—The main features of the message concerning Christ, of the matter of the Evangelic history, were fixed in the first and second generations of believers, and on Palestinian soil. But yet, up to the middle of the second century, this matter was in many ways increased in Gentile Christian regions, revised from new points of view, handed down in very diverse forms, and systematically allegorised by individual teachers. As a whole, the Evangelic history certainly appears to have been completed at the beginning of the second century. But in detail, much that was new was produced at a later period—and not only in Gnostic circles—and the old tradition was recast or rejected.153 but must be regarded as one of the most important. On the earliest conception of the “Ecclesia” and its realisation, see the fine investigations of Sohm “Kirchenrecht,” I. p. 1 ff., which, however, suffer from being a little overdriven. 148 See the important essay of Overbeck: Ueber die Anfänge d. patrist. Litteratur (Hist. Ztschr. N. F. Bd. XII. pp. 417-472). Early Christian literature, as a rule, claims to be inspired writing. One can see, for example, in the history of the resurrection in the recently discovered Gospel of Peter (fragment) how facts were remodelled or created. 149 The writings of men of the Apostolic period, and that immediately succeeding, attained in part a wide circulation, and in some portions of them, often of course incorrectly understood, very great influence. How rapidly this literature was diffused, even the letters, may be studied in the history of the Epistles of Paul, the first Epistle of Clement, and other writings. 150 That which is here mentioned is of the greatest importance; it is not a mere reference to the so-called Gnostics. The foundations for the Hellenising of the Gospel in the Church were already laid in the first century (50-150). 151 We should not over-estimate the extent of early Christian literature. It is very probable that we know, so far as the titles of hooks are concerned, nearly all that was effective, and the greater part, by very diverse means, has also been preserved to us. We except, of course, the so-called Gnostic literature of which we have only a few fragments. Only from the time of Commodus, as Eusebius H. E. V. 21. 27, has remarked, did the great Church preserve an extensive literature. 152 It is therefore important to note the locality in which a document orginates, and the more so the earlier the document is. In the earliest period, in which the history of the Church was more uniform, and the influence from without relatively less, the differences are still in the background. Yet the spirit of Rome already announces itself in the Epistle of Clement, that of Alexandria in the Epistle of Barnabas, that of the East in the Epistles of Ignatius. 153 The history of the genesis of the four Canonical Gospels, or the comparison of them, is instructive on this point. Then we must bear in mind the old Apocryphal Gospels, and the way in which the so-called Apostolic Fathers and Justin attest the Evangelic

92

History of Dogma - Volume I

145

Adolf Harnack

CHAPTER II. THE ELEMENT COMMON TO ALL CHRISTIANS AND THE BREACH WITH JUDAISM ON account of the great differences among those who, in the first century, reckoned themselves in the Church of God, and called themselves by the name of Christ,154 it seems at first sight scarcely possible to set up marks which would hold good for all, or even for nearly all, the groups. Yet the great majority had one thing in common, as is proved, among other things, by the gradual expulsion of Gnosticism. The conviction that they knew the supreme God, the consciousness of being responsible to him (Heaven and Hell), reliance on Jesus Christ, the hope of an eternal life, the vigorous elevation above the world—these are the elements that formed the fundamental mood. The author of the Acts of Thecla expresses the general view when he (c. 5.7) co-ordinates τὸν τοῦ χριστοῦ λόγον, with λόγος θεοῦ περὶ ἐγκατείας, καὶ ἀναστάσεως. The following particulars may here be specified.155 I. The Gospel, because it rests on revelation, is the sure manifestation of the supreme God, and its believing acceptance guarantees salvation (σωτερία). II. The essential content of this manifestation (besides the revelation and the verification of the oneness and spirituality of God),156 is, first of all, the message of the resurrection and eternal life (ἀνάστασις, ζωὴ ἀιώνιος), then the preaching of moral purity and continence (ἐγκράτεια), on the basis of repentance toward God (μετάνοια), and of an expiation once assured by baptism, with eye ever fixed on the requital of good and evil.157

146

III. This manifestation is mediated by Jesus Christ, who is the Saviour (σωτήρ) sent by God “in these last days,” and who stands with God himself in a union special and unique, (cf. the ambiguous παῖς θεοῦ, which was much used in the earliest period). He has brought the true and full knowledge history, and in part reproduce it independently; the Gospels of Peter, of the Egyptians, and of Marcion; the Diatesseron of Tatian; the Gnostic Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, etc. The greatest gap in our knowledge consists in the fact, that we know so little about the course of things from about the year 61 to the beginning of the reign of Trajan. The consolidating and remodelling process must, for the most part, have taken place in this period. We possess probably not a few writings which belong to that period; but how are we to prove this? how are they to be arranged? Here lies the cause of most of the differences, combinations and uncertainties; many scholars, therefore, actually leave these 40 years out of account, and seek to place everything in the first three decennia of the second century. 154 See, as to this, Celsus in Orig. III. 10 ff. and V. 59 ff. 155 The marks adduced in the text do not certainly hold good for some comparatively unimportant Gnostic groups, but they do apply to the great majority of them, and in the main to Marcion also. 156 Most of the Gnostic schools know only one God, and put all emphasis on he knowledge of the oneness, supramundaneness, and spirituality of this God. The Æons, the Demiurgus, the God of matter, do not come near this God though they are called Gods. See the testimony of Hippolytus c. Noet. II; καὶ γὰρ πάντες ἀπεκλείσθησαν εἰς τοῦτο ἀκ ́ οντες εἰπεῖν, ὁτ́ ι τὸ πᾶν εἰς ἑν ́ α ἀνατρέχει. εἰ οὖν τὰ πάντα εἰς ἕνα ἀνατρέχει καὶ κατὰ θύαλεντῖνον καὶ κατὰ Μαρκίωνα. Κήρίνθόν τὲ καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ἐκείνων φλυαρίαν, καὶ ἄκοντες εἰς τοῦτο περιέπεσαν, ἵνα τὸν ἕνα ὅμολογήσωσιν αἴτιον τῶν πάντων οὕτως οὖν συντρέχουσιν καὶ αὐτοὶ μὴ θέλοντες τῇ ἀληθείᾳ ἕνα θεὸν λέγειν ποιήσαντα ὡς ἠθέλσεν. 157 Continence was regarded as the condition laid down by God for the resurrection and eternal life. The sure hope of this was for many, if not for the majority, the whole sum of religion, in connection with the idea of the requital of good and evil which was now firmly established. See the testimony of the heathen Lucian, in Peregrinus Proteus.

93

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

of God, as well as the gift of immortality (γνώσις καὶ ζωἡ, or γνώσις τῆς ζωῆς, as an expression for the sum of the Gospel. See the supper prayer in the Didache, c. IX. and X.; εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἡμῶν ὑπερ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου), and is for that very reason the redeemer (σώτηρ and victor over the demons) on whom we are to place believing trust. But he is, further, in word and walk the highest example of all moral virtue, and therefore in his own person the law for the perfect life, and at the same time the God-appointed lawgiver and judge.158 IV. Virtue, as continence, embraces as its highest task, renunciation of temporal goods and separation from the common world; for the Christian is not a citizen, but a stranger on the earth, and expects its approaching destruction.159 147

V. Christ has committed to chosen men, the Apostles (or to one Apostle), the proclamation of the message he received from God; consequently, their preaching represents that of Christ himself. But, besides, the Spirit of God rules in Christians, “the Saints.” He bestows upon them special gifts, and, above all, continually raises up among them Prophets and spiritual Teachers who receive revelations and communications for the edification of others, and whose injunctions are to be obeyed. VI. Christian Worship is a service of God in spirit and in truth (a spiritual sacrifice), and therefore has no legal ceremonial and statutory rules. The value of the sacred acts and consecrations which are connected with the cultus, consists in the communication of spiritual blessings. (Didache X., ἡμιν δὲ ἐχαρίσω, δέσποτα, πνευματικὴν τροφήν καὶ ποτὸν καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον διὰ τοῦ παιδός σου). VII. Everything that Jesus Christ brought with him, may be summed up in γνώσις καὶ ζωή, or in the knowledge of immortal life.160 To possess the perfect knowledge was, in wide circles, an expression for the sum total of the Gospel.161 158

Even where the judicial attributes were separated from God (Christ) as not suitable, Christ was still comprehended as the critical appearance by which every man is placed in the condition which belongs to him. The Apocalypse of Peter expects that God himself will come as Judge. See the Messianic expectations of Judaism, in which it was always uncertain whether God or the Messiah would hold the judgment. 159 Celsus (Orig. c. Celsum, V. 59) after referring to the many Christian parties mutually provoking and fighting with each other, remarks (V. 64) that though they differ much from each other, and quarrel with each other, you can yet hear from them all the protestation, “The world is crucified to me and I to the world.” In the earliest Gentile Christian communities brotherly love for reflective thought falls into the background behind ascetic exercises of virtue, in unquestionable deviation from the sayings of Christ, but in fact it was powerful. See the testimony of Pliny and Lucian, Aristides, Apol. 15, Tertull. Apol. 39. 160 The word “life” comes into consideration in a double sense, viz., as soundness of the soul and as immortality. Neither, of course, is to be separated from the other. But I have attempted to shew in my essay, “Medicinisches aus der ältesten Kirchengesch.” (1892), the extent to which the Gospel in the earliest Christendom was preached as medicine and Jesus as a Physician, and how the Christian Message was really comprehended by the Gentiles as a medicinal religion. Even the Stoic philosophy gave itself out as a soul therapeutic, and Æsculapius was worshipped as a Saviour-God; but Christianity alone was a religion of healing. 161 Heinrici, in his commentary on the epistles to the Corinthians, has dealt very clearly with this matter; see especially (Bd. II. p. 557 ff.) the description of the Christianity of the Corinthians: “On what did the community base its Christian character? It believed in one God who had revealed himself to it through Christ, without denying the reality of the hosts of gods in the heathen world (I. VIII. 6). It hoped in immortality without being clear as to the nature of the Christian belief in the resurrection (I. XV.) It had no doubt as to the requital of good and evil (I. IV. 5: 2 V. so: XI. 15: Rom. II. 4), without understanding the value of self-denial, claiming no merit, for the sake of important ends. It was striving to make use of the Gospel as a new doctrine of wisdom about earthly and super-earthly things, which led to the perfect and best established knowledge (1 I. 21: VIII. 1). It boasted of special

94

History of Dogma - Volume I

148

Adolf Harnack

VIII. Christians, as such, no longer take into account the distinctions of race, age, rank, nationality and worldly culture, but the Christian community must be conceived as a communion resting on a divine election. Opinions were divided about the ground of that election. IX. As Christianity is the only true religion, and as it is no national religion, but somehow concerns the whole of humanity, or its best part, it follows that it can have nothing in common with the Jewish nation and its contemporary cultus. The Jewish nation in which Jesus Christ appeared, has, for the time at least, no special relation to the God whom Jesus revealed. Whether it had such a relation at an earlier period is doubtful (cf. here, e.g., the attitude of Marcion, Ptolemæus the disciple of Valentinus, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, Aristides and Justin); but certain it is that God has now cast it off, and that all revelations of God, so far as they took place at all before Christ, (the majority assumed that there had been such revelations and considered the Old Testament as a holy record), must have aimed solely at the call of the “new people”, and in some way prepared for the revelation of God through his Son.162

150 149

CHAPTER III. THE COMMON FAITH AND THE BEGINNINGS OF KNOWLEDGE IN GENTILE CHRISTIANITY AS IT WAS BEING DEVELOPED INTO CATHOLICISM163

operations of the Divine Spirit, which in themselves remained obscure and non-transparent, and therefore unfruitful (1. XIV), while it was prompt to put aside as obscure, the word of the Cross as preached by Paul (2. IV. 1 f.). The hope of the near Parousia, however, and the completion of all things, evinced no power to effect a moral transformation of society. We herewith obtain the outline of a conviction that was spread over the widest circles of the Roman Empire.” Naturam si expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. 162 Nearly all Gentile Christian groups that we know, are at one in the detachment of Christianity from empiric Judaism; the “Gnostics,” however, included the Old Testament in Judaism, while the greater part of Christians did not. That detachment seemed to be demanded by the claims of Christianity to be the one, true, absolute and therefore oldest religion, foreseen from the beginning. The different estimates of the Old Testament in Gnostic circles have their exact parallels in the different estimates of Judaism among the other Christians; cf. for example, in this respect, the conception stated in the Epistle of Barnabas with the views of Marcion, and Justin with Valentinus. The particulars about the detachment of the Gentile Christians from the Synagogue, which was prepared for by the inner development of Judaism itself, and was required by the fundamental fact that the Messiah, crucified and rejected by his own people, was recognised as Saviour by those who were not Jews, cannot be given in the frame-work of a history of dogma; though, see Chaps. III. IV. VI. On the other hand, the turning away from Judaism is also the result of the mass of things which were held in common with it, even in Gnostic circles. Christianity made its appearance in the Empire in the Jewish propaganda. By the preaching of Jesus Christ who brought the gift of eternal life, mediated the full knowledge of God, and assembled round him in these last days a community, the imperfect and hybrid creations of the Jewish propaganda in the empire were converted into independent formations. These formations were far superior to the synagogue in power of attraction, and from the nature of the case would very soon be directed with the utmost vigour against the synagogue. 163 The statements made in this chapter need special forbearance, especially as the selection from the rich and motley material—cf. only the so-called Apostolic Fathers—the emphasising of this, the throwing into the background of that element, cannot here be vindicated. It is not possible, in the compass of a brief account, to give expression to that elasticity and those oscillations of ideas and thoughts which were peculiar to the Christians of the earliest period. There was indeed, as will be shewn, a complex of tradition in many respects fixed, but this complex was still under the dominance of an enthusiastic fancy, so that what at one moment seemed fixed, in the next had disappeared. Finally, attention must be given to the fact that when we speak of the

95

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

§©1. The Communities and the Church.

151

THE confessors of the Gospels, belonging to organised communities who recognised the Old Testament as the Divine record of revelation, and prized the Evangelic tradition as a public message for all, to which, in its undiluted form, they wished to adhere truly and sincerely, formed the stem of Christendom both as to extent and importance.164 The communities stood to each other in an outwardly loose, but inwardly firm connection, and every community by the vigour of its faith, the certainty of its hope, the holy character of its life, as well as by unfeigned love, unity and peace, was to be an image of the holy Church of God which is in heaven, and whose members are scattered over the earth. They were, further, by the purity of their walk and an active brotherly disposition, to prove to those without, that is to the world, the excellence and truth of the Christian faith.165 The beginnings of knowledge, the members of the Christian community in their totality are no longer in question, but only individuals who of course were the leaders of the others. If we had no other writings from the times of the Apostolic Fathers than the first Epistle of Clement and the Epistle of Polycarp, it would he comparatively easy to sketch a clear history of the development connecting Paulinism with the Old-Catholic Theology as represented by Iræneus, and so to justify the traditional ideas. But besides these two Epistles which are the classic monuments of the mediating tradition, we have a great number of documents which shew us how manifold and complicated the development was. They also teach us how carefnl we should be in the interpretation of the post-Apostolic documents that immediately followed the Pauline Epistles, and that we must give special heed to the paragraphs and ideas in them, which distinguish them from Paulinism. Besides, it is of the greatest importance that those two Epistles originated in Rome and Asia Minor, as these are the places where we must seek the embryonic stage of old-Catholic doctrine. Numerous fine threads, in the form of fundamental ideas and particular views, pass over from the Asia Minor theology of the post-Apostolic period into the old-Catholic theology. 164 The Epistle to the Hebrews (X. 25), the Epistle of Barnabas (IV. 10), the Shepherd of Hermas (Sim. IX. 26. 3), but especially the Epistle of Ignatius and still later documents, shew that up to the middle of the second century, and even later, there were Christians who, for various reasons, stood outside the union of communities, or wished to have only a loose and temporary relation to them. The exhortation: ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνερχόμενοι συνζητεῖτε περὶ τοῦ κοινῇ συμφέροντος (see my note on Didache XVI. 2, and cf. for the expression the interesting State Inscription which was found at Magnesia on the Meander. Bull, Corresp. Hellen. 1883 p. 506: ἀπαγορεύω μήτε συνέρχεσθαι τοὺς ἀρτοκόκους κατ᾽ ἑταιρίαν μήτε παρεστηκότας θρασύνεσθαι. πειθάρχεἰν δε πάντως τοῖς ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινῇ συμφέροντος ἐπιταττομένοις κ.τ.λ. or the exhortation: κολλᾶσθε τοἶς ἁγίοις, ὅτι οἱ κολλώμενοι αὐτοῖς ἁγιασθήσονται (1 Clem. 46. 2, introduced as γραφὴ) runs through most of the writings of the post-Apostolic and pre-catholic period. New doctrines were imported by wandering Christians who, in many cases, may not themselves have belonged to a community, and did not respect the arrangements of those they found in existence, but sought to form conventicles. If we remember how the Greeks and Romans were wont to get themselves initiated into a mystery cult, and took part for a long time in the religious exercises, and then, when they thought they had got the good of it, for the most part or wholly to give up attending, we shall not wonder that the demand to become a permanent member of a Christian community was opposed by many. The statements of Hermas are specially instructive here. 165 “Corpus sumus,” says Tertullian, at a time when this description had already become an anachronism, “de conscientia religionis et disciplinæ unitate et spei foedere.” (Apol. 39: cf. Ep. Petri ad Jacob. I.; εἷς θεὸς, εἷς νόμος, μία ἐλπίς). The description was applicable to the earlier period, when there was no such thing as a federation with political forms, but when the consciousness of belonging to a community and of forming a brotherhood (ἀδελφότης) was all the more deeply felt: See, above all, 1 Clem. and Corinth., the Didache (9-15), Aristides, Apol 15: “and when they have become Christians they call them (the slaves) brethren without hesitation . . . . for they do not call them brethren according to the flesh, but according to the spirit and in God;” cf. also the statements on brotherhood in Tertullian and Minucius Felix (also Lucian). We have in 1 Clem. 1. 2. the delineation of a perfect Christian Church. The Epistles of Ignatius are specially instructive as to the independence of each individual community: 1 Clem. and Didache, as to the obligation to assist stranger communities by counsel and action, and to support the travelling brethren. As every Christian is a πάροικος, so every community is a παροικοῦσα τὴν πόλιν, but it is under obligation to give an example to the world, and must watch that “the name be not blasphemed.” The importance of the social element in the oldest Christian communities, has been very justly brought into prominence in the latest works on the subject (Renan, Heinrici, Hatch). The historian of dogma must also emphasise it, and put the fluid notions of the faith in contrast with the definite consciousness of moral tasks. See 1. Clem. 47-50; Polyc. Ep. 3; Didache 1 ff.; Ignat. ad Eph. 14, on ἀγάπη as the main requirement. Love demands that everyone: “ζητεῖ τὸ κοινωφελὲς πᾶσιν καὶ μὴ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ” (1. Clem. 48. 6. with parallels; Didache 16. 3; Barn. 4. 10; Ignatius).

96

History of Dogma - Volume I

152

153

Adolf Harnack

hope that the Lord would speedily appear to gather into his Kingdom the believers who were scattered abroad, punishing the evil and rewarding the good, guided these communities in faith and life. In the recently discovered “Teaching of the Apostles” we are confronted very distinctly with ideas and aspirations of communities that are not influenced by Philosophy. The Church, that is the totality of all believers destined to be received into the kingdom of God (Didache, 9. 10), is the holy Church, (Hermas) because it is brought together and preserved by the Holy Spirit. It is the one Church, not because it presents this unity outwardly, on earth the members of the Church are rather scattered abroad, but because it will be brought to unity in the kingdom of Christ, because it is ruled by the same spirit and inwardly united in a common relation to a common hope and ideal. The Church, considered in its origin, is the number of those chosen by God,166 the true Israel,167 nay, still more, the final purpose of God, for the world was created for its sake.168 There were in connection with these doctrines in the earliest period, various speculations about the Church: it is a heavenly Æon, is older than the world, was created by God at the beginning of things as a companion of the heavenly Christ;169 its members form the new nation which is really the oldest nation,170 it is the λαὸς ὁ τοῦ ἡγαπημένου ὁ φιλούμενος καὶ φιλῶν αὐτνόν,171 the people whom God has prepared “in the Beloved”,172 etc. The creation of God, the Church, as it is of an antemundane and heavenly nature, will also attain its true existence only in the Æon of the future, the Æon of the Kingdom of Christ. The idea of a heavenly origin, and of a heavenly goal of the Church, was therefore an essential one, various and fluctuating as these speculations were. Accordingly, the exhortations, so far as they have in view the Church, are always dominated by the idea of the contrast of the kingdom of Christ with the kingdom of the world. On the other hand, he who communicated knowledge for the present time, prescribed rules of life, endeavoured to remove conflicts, did not appeal to the peculiar character of the Church. The mere fact, however, that from nearly the beginning of Christendom, there were reflections and speculations not only about God and Christ, but also about the Church, teaches us how profoundly the Christian consciousness was impressed with being a new people, viz., the people of God.173 These speculations of the earliest Gentile Christian time about Christ and the Church, as inseparable correlative ideas, are of the greatest importance, for they have absolutely nothing Hellenic in them, but rather have their origin in the Apostolic tradition. But for that very reason the combination very soon, comparatively speaking, be-came obsolete or lost its power to influence. Even the Apologists made no use of it,

166

1 Clem. 59. 2, in the church prayer; ὅπως τὸν ἀριθμὸν τὸν κατηριθμημένον τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν ὅλῳ κόσμῳ διαφυλάξῃ ἄθραυστον ὁ δημιουργὸς τῶν ἁπάντων διὰ τοῦ ἡγαπημένου παιδὸς αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 167 See 1 Clem., 2 Clem., Ignatius (on the basis of the Pauline view; but see also Rev. II. 9). 168 See Hermas (the passage is given above, p. 103, note.) 169 See Hermas. Vis. I.-III. Papias. Fragm. VI. and VII. of my edition, 2 Clem. 14: ποηοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἐσόμεθα ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς πρώτης τῆς πνευματικῆς, τῆς πρὸ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης ἐκτισμένης . . . . ἐκκλησία ζῶσα σῶμά ἐστι Χριστοῦ· λέγει γάρ ἡ γραφή· ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἄρσεν καί θῆλυ. Τὸ ἄρσεν ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός, τὸ θῆλυ ἡ ἐκκλησία. 170 See Barn. 13 (2 Clem. 2). 171 See Valentinus in Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 52. “Holy Church”, perhaps also in Marcion, if his text (Zahn. Gesch. des N. T. lichen Kanons, II p. 502) in Gal. IV. 21, read; ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν, γεννῶσα εἰς ἣν ἐπηγγειλάμεθα ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν. 172 Barn. 3. 6. 173 We are also reminded here of the “tertium genus.” The nickname of the heathen corresponded to the self-consciousness of the Christians, (see Aristides, Apol.).

97

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

though Clement of Alexandria and other Greeks held it fast, and the Gnostics by their Æon “Church” brought it into discredit. Augustine was the first to return to it.

154

155

The importance attached to morality is shewn in Didache cc. 1-6, with parallels.174 But this section and the statements so closely related to it in the pseudo-phocylidean poem which is probably of Christian origin, as well as in Sibyl, II. v. 56-148, which is likewise to be regarded as Christian, and in many other Gnomic paragraphs, shews at the same time, that in the memorable expression and summary statement of higher moral commandments, the Christian propaganda had been preceded by the Judaism of the Diaspora, and had entered into its labours. These statements are throughout de-pendent on the Old Testament wisdom, and have the closest relationship with the genuine Greek parts of the Alexandrian Canon, as well as with Philonic exhortations. Consequently, these moral rules, “the two ways,” so aptly compiled and filled with such an elevated spirit, represent the ripest fruit of Jewish as well as of Greek development. The Christian spirit found here a disposition which it could recognise as its own. It was of the utmost importance, however, that this disposition was already expressed in fixed forms suitable for didactic purposes. The young Christianity therewith received a gift of first importance. It was spared a labour in a region, the moral, which experience shews can only be performed in generations, viz., the creation of simple fixed impressive rules, the labour of the Catechist. The sayings of the Sermon on the Mount were not of themselves sufficient here. Those who in the second century attempted to rest in these alone, and turned aside from the Judheo-Greek inheritance, landed in Marcionite or Encratite doctrines.175 We can see, especially from the Apologies of Aristides (c. 15), Justin and Tatian (see also Lucian), that the earnest men of the Græco-Roman world were won by the morality and active love of the Christians. §©2. The Foundations of the Faith.

174

See also the letter of Pliny, the paragraphs about Christian morality in the first third-part of Justin’s apology, and especially the apology of Aristides, c. 15. Aristides portrays Christianity by portraying Christian morality. “The Christians know and believe in God, the creator of heaven and of earth, the God by whom all things consist, i.e., in him from whom they have received the commandments which they have written in their hearts, commandments which they observe in faith and in the expectation of the world to come. For this reason they do not commit adultery, nor practise unchastity, nor bear false witness, nor covet that with which they are entrusted, or what does not belong to them, etc.” Compare how in the Apocalypse of Peter definite penalties in hell are portrayed for the several forms of immorality. 175 An investigation of the Græco-Jewish, Christian literature of gnomes and moral rules, commencing with the Old Testament doctrine of wisdom on the one hand, and the Stoic collections on the other, then passing beyond the Alexandrian and Evangelic gnomes up to the Didache, the Pauline tables of domestic duties, the Sibylline sayings, Phocylides, the Neopythagorean rules, and to the gnomes of the enigmatic Sextus, is still an unfulfilled task. The moral rules of the Pharisaic Rabbis should also be included.

98

History of Dogma - Volume I

156

Adolf Harnack

The foundations of the faith—whose abridged form was, on the one hand, the confession of the one true God, μὸνος ἀληθινὸς,176 and of Jesus, the Lord, the Son of God, the Saviour,177 and also of the Holy Spirit; and on the other hand, the confident hope of Christ’s kingdom and the resurrection—were laid on the Old Testament interpreted in a Christian sense together with the Apocalypses,178 and the progressively enriched traditions about Jesus Christ. (ἡ παράδοσις— ὁ παραδοθεὶς λόγος— ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας or τὴς παραδόσεως—ἡ πίστις— ὁ κανών τῆς πίστεως— ὁ δοθεῖσα πίστις—τὸ κήρυγμα—τὰ διδὰγματα τοῦ χριστοῦ—ἡ διδαχὴ—τὰ μαθήματα, or τὸ μάθημα).179 The Old Testament revelations and oracles were regarded as pointing to Christ; the Old Testament itself, the words of God spoken by the Prophets, as the primitive Gospel of salvation, having in view the new people, which is, however, the oldest, and belonging to it alone.180 The exposition of the Old Testament, which, as a rule, was of course read in the Alexandrian Canon of the Bible, turned it into a Christian book. A historical view of it, which no born Jew could in some measure fail to take, did not come into fashion, and the freedom that was used in interpreting the Old Testament,—so far as there was a method, it was the Alexandrian Jewish—went the length of even correcting the letter and enriching the contents.181 The traditions concerning Christ on which the communities were based, were of a twofold character. First, there were words of the Lord, mostly ethical, but also of eschatological content, which were regarded as rules, though their expression was uncertain, ever changing, and only gradually assuming

176

Herm. Mand. I. has merely fixed the Monotheistic confession: πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον, ὁτ́ ι εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ θεὸς, ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, κ.τ.λ. See Praed. Petri in Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 48: VI. 5. 39: Aristides gives in c. 2. of his Apology the preaching of Jesus Christ: but where he wishes to give a short expression of Christianity he is satisfied with saying that Christians are those who have found the one true God. See, e. g., c. 15 “Christians have . . . . found the truth .... They know and believe in God, the creator of heaven and of earth, by whom all things consist, and from whom all things come, who has no other god beside him, and from whom they have received commandments which they have written in their hearts, commandments which they observe in faith and in expectation of the world to come.” It is interesting to note how Origen, Comm. in Joh. XXXII 9, has brought the Christological Confession into approximate harmony with that of Hermas First, Mand. I. is verbally repeated and then it is said: χρὴ δὲ καὶ πιστεύειν, ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ πασῃ τῇ τερὶ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν θεοτητα καὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα· ἀληθείᾳ δεὶ δὲ καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πιστεύειν πνεῦμα, καὶ ὅτι αὐτεξούσιοι ὄντες κολαζόμεθα μὲν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἁμαρτάνομεν, τιμώμεθα δὲ ἐφ᾽ οἷς εὖ πραττομεν. 177 Very instructive here is 2 Clem. ad Corinth. 20. 5: τῷ μόνῳ θεῷ ἀοράτῳ, πατρὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, τῷ ἐξαποστείλαντι ἡμῖν τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ ἀρχηγὸν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν ἡμῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ τὴν ἐπουράνιον ζωήν, αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα. On the Holy Spirit see previous note. 178 They were quoted as ἡ γραφὴ, τὰ βιβλία, or with the formula ὁ θεὸς (κύριος) λέγει. Also “Law and Prophets,” “Law Prophets and Psalms.” See the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions. 179 See the collection of passages in Patr. App. Opp. edit. Gebhardt. I. 2 p. 133, and the formula, Diogn. 11: ἀποστόλων γένομενος μαθητὴς γὶνομαι διδάσκαλος εθνῶν, τὰ παραδοθέντα ἀξίως ὑπηρετῶν γινομένοις ἀληθείας μαθηταῖς. Besides the Old Testament and the traditions about Jesus (Gospels), the Apocalyptic writings of the Jews, which were regarded as writings of the Spirit, were also drawn upon. Moreover, Christian letters and manifestoes proceeding from Apostles, prophets, or teachers, were read. The Epistles of Paul were early collected and obtained wide circulation in the first half of the second century but they were not Holy Scripture in the specific sense, and therefore their authority was not unqualified. 180 Barn. 5. 6, οἱ προφηται, ἀπὸ τοῦ κύριου ἐχοντες τὴν χάριν, εἰς αὐτὸν ἑπροφήτευσαν. Ignat. ad Magn. 8. 2: cf. also Clem. Paedag. I. 7. 59: ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς οὗτος παιδαγωγὸς τότε μὲν “φοβηθήση κύριον τὸν θεὸν ἔλεγεν, ἡμῖν δὲ “ὰγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεὸν σου” ταρῄνεσεν. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐντέλλεται ἡμῖν “παύσασθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων ὐμῶν” τῶν ταλαιῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, “μάθετε καλὸν ποιεῖν, ἔκκλινον ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ ποίησον ἀγαθόν, ἡγάπησας δικαιοσύνην, ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν” αὕτη μου ἡ νέα διαθήκη παλαὶῷ κεχαραγμένη γράμματι. 181 See above §©5, p. 114 f.

99

History of Dogma - Volume I

157

Adolf Harnack

a fixed form. The διδάγματα τοῦ χριστοῦ are often just the moral commandments.182 Second, the foundation of the faith, that is, the assurance of the blessing of salvation, was formed by a proclamation of the history of Jesus concisely expressed, and composed with reference to prophecy.183 The confession of God the Father Almighty, of Christ as the Lord and Son of God, and of the Holy Spirit,184 was, at a very early period in the communities, united with the short proclamation of the history of Jesus, and at the same time, in certain cases, referred expressly to the revelation of God (the Spirit) through the prophets.185 The confession thus conceived had not everywhere obtained a fixed definite expression in the first century (cc. 50-150). It would rather seem that, in most of the communities, there was no exact formulation beyond a confession of Father, Son and Spirit, accompanied in a free way by the historical proclamation.186 It is highly probable, however, that a short confession was strictly formulated in the Roman community before the middle of the second century,187 expressing belief in the Father, Son and Spirit, embracing also the most important facts in the history of Jesus, and mentioning the Holy Church, as well as the two great blessings of Christianity, the forgiveness of sin, and the resurrection of the dead (ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν, σαρκὸς188). 182

See my edition of the Didache, Prolegg. p. 32 ff.; Rothe, “De disciplina arcani origine,” 1841. The earliest example is 1. Cor. XI. 1 f. It is different in 1 Tim. III. 16 where already the question is about τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον: See Patr. App. Opp. I. 2. p. 134. 184 Father, son, and spirit: Paul; Matt. XXVIII. 19; 1 Clem. ad. Cor. 58. 2, (see 2. 1. f.: 42. 3: 46. 6); Didache 7; Ignat. Eph. 9. 1; Magn. 13. 1. 2.; Philad. inscr.; Mart. Polyc. 14. I. 2; Ascens. Isai. 8. 18: 9. 27: 10. 4: 11. 32 ff.; Justin passim; Montan. ap. Didym. de trinit. 411; Excerpta ex Theodot. 80; Pseudo Clem. de virg. 1. 13. Yet the omission of the Holy Spirit is frequent, as in Paul; or the Holy Spirit is identified with the Spirit of Christ. The latter takes place even with such writers as are familiar with the baptismal formula, Ignat. ad Magn. 15; κεκτημένοι ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα, ὅς ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς. 185 The formulæ run: “God who has spoken through the Prophets,” or the “Prophetic Spirit,” etc. 186 That should be assumed as certain in the case of the Egyptian Church, yet Caspari thinks he can shew that already Clement of Alexandria presupposes a symbol. 187 Also in the communities of Asia Minor (Smyrna); for a combination of Polyc. Ep. c. 2 with c. 7, proves that in Smyrna the παραδοθεὶς λόγος must have been something like the Roman Symbol, see Lightfoot on the passage; it cannot be proved that it was identical with it. See, further, how in the case of Polycarp the moral element is joined on to the dogmatic. This reminds us of the Didache and has its parallel even in the first homily of Aphraates. 188 See Caspari, Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols, III. p. 3. ff., and Patr. App. Opp. 1. 2. pp. 115-142. The old Roman Symbol reads: Πιστεύω εἰς θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα καὶ εἰς Χριτὸν Ἰησοῦν (τὸν) ὑιὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῇ, (on this word see Westcott’s Excursus in his commentary on 1st John) τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντιον Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα καὶ ταφέντα; τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· καὶ εἰς πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἁγίαν ἐκκλισίαν, ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν, ἀμήν. To estimate this very important article aright we must note the following: (1) It is not a formula of doctrine, but of confession. (2) It has a liturgical form which is shewn in the rhythm and in the disconnected succession of its several members, and is free from everything of the nature polemic. (3) It tapers off into the three blessings, Holy Church, forgiveness of sin, resurrection of the body, and in this as well as in the fact that there is no mention of γνῶσις (ἀλήθεια) καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνος, is revealed an early Christian untheological attitude. (4) It is worthy of note, on the other hand, that the birth from the Virgin occupies the first place, and all reference to the baptism of Jesus, also to the Davidic Sonship, is wanting. (5) It is further worthy of note, that there is no express mention of the death of Jesus, and that the Ascension already forms a special member (that is also found elsewhere, Ascens. Isaiah, c. 3. 13. ed. Dillmann. p. 13. Murator. Fragment, etc.). Finally, we should consider the want of the earthly Kingdom of Christ and the mission of the twelve Apostles, as well as, on the other hand, the purely religious attitude, no notice being taken of the new law. Zahn (Das Apostol. Symbolum, 1893) assumes, “That in all essential respects the identical baptismal confession which Justin learned in Ephesus about 130, and Marcion confessed in Rome about 145, originated at latest somewhere about 120”. In some “unpretending notes” (p. 37 ff.) he traces this confession back to a baptismal confession of the Pauline period (“it had already assumed a more or less stereotyped form in the earlier Apostolic period”), which, however, was somewhat revised, so far as it contained, for example, “of the house of David”, with reference to Christ. “The original formula, reminding us of the Jewish soil of Christianity, was thus remodelled, perhaps about 70-120, with retention of the fundamental features so that it might appear to answer better to the need of candidates for baptism, proceeding more and 183

100

History of Dogma - Volume I

158

159

160

Adolf Harnack

But, however the proclamation might be handed down, in a form somehow fixed, or in a free form, the disciples of Jesus, the (twelve) Apostles, were regarded as the authorities who mediated and guaranteed it. To them was traced back in the same way everything that was narrated of the history of Jesus, and everything that was inculcated from his sayings.189 Consequently, it may be said, that beside the Old Testament, the chief court of appeal in the communities was formed by an aggregate of words and deeds of the Lord ;—for the history and the suffering of Jesus are his deed: ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὑπέμεινεν παθεῖν, κ.τ.λ.,—fixed in certain fundamental features, though constantly enriched, and traced back to apostolic testimony.190 more from the Gentiles. . . . This changed formula soon spread on all sides. It lies at the basis of all the later baptismal confessions of the Church, even of the East. The first article was slightly changed in Rome about 200-220”. While up till then, in Rome as everywhere else, it had read πιστεύω εἰς ἑν ́ α θεὸν παντοκράτορα, it was now changed in πιστεύω εἰς θεὸν πετέρα παντοκράτορα. This hypothesis, with regard to the early history of the Roman Symbol, presupposes that the history of the formation of the baptismal confession in the Church, in east and west, was originally a uniform one. This cannot be proved; besides, it is refuted by the facts of the following period. It presupposes secondly, that there was a strictly formulated baptismal confession outside Rome before the middle of the second century, which likewise cannot he proved; (the converse rather is probable, that the fixed formulation proceeded from Rome). Moreover, Zahn himself retracts everything again by the expression “more or less stereotyped form;” for what is of decisive interest here is the question, when and where the fixed sacred form was produced. Zahn here has set up the radical thesis that it can only have taken place in Rome between 200 and 220. But neither his negative nor his positive proof for a change of the Symbol in Rome at so late a period is sufficient. No sure conclusion as to the Symbol can be drawn from the wavering regulæ fidei of Irenæus and Tertullian, which contain the “unum”; further, the “unum” is not found in the western provincial Symbols, which, however, are in part earlier than the year 200. The Romish correction must therefore have been subsequently taken over in the provinces (Africa?). Finally, the formula θεὸν πάτερα παντοκράτορα beside the more frequent θεὸν παντοκράτορα, is attested by Irenæus, I. 10. 1, a decisive passage. With our present means we cannot attain to any direct knowledge of Symbol formation before the Romish Symbol. But the following hypotheses, which I am not able to establish here, appear to me to correspond to the facts of the case and to be fruitful: (1) There were, even in the earliest period, separate Kerygmata about God and Christ: see the Apostolic writings, Hermas, Ignatius, etc. (2) The Kerygma about God was the confession of the one God of creation, the almighty God. (3) The Kerygma about Christ had essentially the same historical contents everywhere, but was expressed in diverse forms: (a) in the form of the fulfilment of prophecy, (b) in the form κατὰ σάκρα, κατὰ πνεῦμα, (c) in the form of the first and second advent, (d) in the form, καταβάς-ἀναβάς; these forms were also partly combined. (4) The designations “Christ”, “Son of God” and “Lord”; further, the birth from the Holy Spirit, or κατὰ πνεῦμα, the sufferings (the practice of exorcism contributed also to the fixing and naturalising of the formula “crucified under Pontius Pilate”), the death, the resurrection, the coming again to judgment, formed the stereotyped content of the Kerygma about Jesus. The mention of the Davidic Sonship, of the Virgin Mary, of the baptism by John, of the third day, of the descent into Hades, of the demonstratio veræ carnis post resurrectionem , of the ascension into heaven and the sending out of the disciples, were additional articles which appeared here and there. The σάκρα λαβών, and the like, were very early developed out of the forms (b) and (d). All this was already in existence at the transition of the first century to the second. (5) The proper contribution of the Roman community consisted in this, that it inserted the Kerygma about God and that about Jesus into the baptismal formula; widened the clause referring to the Holy Spirit, into one embracing Holy Church, forgiveness of sin, resurrection of the body; excluded theological theories in other respects; undertook a reduction all round, and accurately defined everything up to the last world. (6) The western regulæ fide do not fall back exclusively on the old Roman Symbol, but also on the earlier freer Kerygmata about God and about Jesus which were common to the east and west; not otherwise can the regulæ fide of Irenæus and Tertullian, for example, be explained. But the symbol became more and more the support of the regula. (7) The eastern confessions (baptismal symbols) do not fall back directly on the Roman Symbol, but were probably on the model of this symbol, made up from the provincial Kerygmata, rich in contents and growing ever richer, hardly, however, before the third century. (8) It cannot be proved, and it is not probable, that the Roman Symbol was in existence before Hermas, that is, about 135. 189 See the fragment in Euseb. H. E. III. 39, from the work of Papias. 190 Διδαχὴ κύριον διὰ τῶν ιβ᾽ ἀποστόλων (Διδ. inscr.) is the most accurate expression (similarly 2. Pet. III. 2). Instead of this might be said simply ὁ κύριος (Hegesipp.). Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E., IV. 22. 3: See also Steph. Gob.) comprehends the ultimate authorities under the formula: ὠς ὁ νομος κηρύσσει καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ κύριος; just as even Pseudo Clem. de Virg. I. 2: “Sicut ex lege ac prophetis et a domino nostro Jesu Christo didicimus.” Polycarp (6. 3) says: καθὼς αὐτὸς ἐνετείλατο καὶ οἱ εὐαγγελισάμενοι ἡμᾶς ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ προφῆται οἱ προκηρύξαντες τὴν ἔλευσιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. In the second Epistle of Clement (14. 2) we read: τὰ βιβλία (O. T.) καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι; τὸ εὐαγγέλιον may also stand for ὁ κύριος (Ignat., Didache. 2

101

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

The authority which the Apostles in this way enjoyed, did not, in any great measure, rest on the remembrance of direct services which the twelve had rendered to the Gentile Churches: for, as the want of reliable concrete traditions proves, no such services had been rendered, at least not by the twelve. 161

On the contrary, there was a theory operative here regarding the special authority which the twelve enjoyed in the Church at Jerusalem, a theory which was spread by the early missionaries, including Paul, and sprang from the a priori consideration that the tradition about Christ, just because it grew up so quickly,191 must have been entrusted to eye-witnesses who were commissioned to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world, and who fulfilled that commission. The a priori character of this assumption is shewn by the fact that—with the exception of reminiscences of an activity of Peter and John among the ἔθνη, not sufficiently clear to us192—the twelve, as a rule, are regarded as a college, to which the mission and the tradition are traced back.193 That such a theory, based on a dogmatic construction of history, could have at all arisen, proves that either the Gentile Churches never had a living relation to the twelve, or that they had very soon lost it in the rapid disappearance of Jewish Christianity, while they had been referred to the twelve from the beginning. But even in the communities which Paul had founded and for a long time guided, the remembrance of the controversies of the Apostolic age must have been very soon effaced, and the vacuum thus produced filled by a theory which directly traced back the status quo of the Gentile Christian communities to a tradition of the twelve as its foundation. This fact is extremely paradoxical, and is not altogether explained by the assumptions that the Pauline-Judaistic controversy had not made a great impression on the Gentile Christians, that the way in which Paul, while fully recognising the twelve, had insisted

Clem. etc.). The Gospel, so far as it is described, is quoted as τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τ. ἀποστόλων (Justin, Tatian), or on the other hand, as αἱ κυριακαὶ γραφαί, (Dionys. Cor. in Euseb. H. E. IV. 23. 12: at a later period in Tertull. and Clem. Alex.). The words of the Lord, in the same way as the words of God, are called simply τά λόγια (κυριακά). The declaration of Serapion at the beginning of the third century (Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3): ἡμεῖς καὶ Πέτρον καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀποστόλους ἀποδεχόμεθα ὡς Χριστόν, is an innovation in so far as it puts the words of the Apostles fixed in writing and as distinct from the words of the Lord, on a level with the latter. That is, while differentiating the one from the other, Serapion ascribes to the words of the apostles and those of the Lord equal authority. But the development which led to this position, had already begun in the first century. At a very early period there were read in the communities, beside the Old Testament, Gospels, that is collections of words of the Lord, which at the same time contained the main facts of the history of Jesus. Such notes were a necessity (Luke 1. 4: ἵνα ἐπιγνῶς περιὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν), and though still indefinite and in many ways unlike, they formed the germ for the genesis of the New Testament. (See Weiss. Lehrb. d. Einleit in d. N. T. p. 21 ff.) Further, there were read Epistles and Manifestoes by apostles, prophets and teachers, but, above all, Epistles of Paul. The Gospels at first stood in no connection with these Epistles, however high they might be prized. But there did exist a connection between the Gospels and the ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπταις καὶ ὑπηρέταις τοῦ λόγου, so far as these mediated the tradition of the Evangelic material, and on their testimony rests the Kerygma of the Church about the Lord as the Teacher, the crucified and risen One. Here lies the germ for the genesis of a canon which will comprehend the Lord and the Apostles, and will also draw in the Pauline Epistles. Finally, Apocalypses were read as Holy Scriptures. 191 Read, apart from all others, the canonical Gospels, the remains of the so-called Apocryphal Gospels, and perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas: see also the statements of Papias. 192 That Peter was in Antioch follows from Gal. II.; that he laboured in Corinth, perhaps before the composition of the first epistle to the Corinthians, is not so improbable as is usually maintained (1 Cor.; Dionys. of Corinth); that he was at Rome even is very credible. The sojourn of John in Asia Minor cannot, I think, be contested. 193 See how in the three early “writings of Peter” (Gospel, Apocalypse, Kerygma) the twelve are embraced in a perfect unity. Peter is the head and spokesman for them all.

102

History of Dogma - Volume I

162

Adolf Harnack

on his own independent importance, had long ceased to be really understood, and that Peter and John had also really been missionaries to the Gentiles. The guarantee that was needed for the “teaching of the Lord” must finally be given not by Paul, but only by chosen eye-witnesses. The less that was known about them, the easier it was to claim them. The conviction as to the unanimity of the twelve, and as to their activity in founding the Gentile Churches, appeared in these Churches as early as the urgent need of protection against the serious consequences of unfettered religious enthusiasm and unrestrained religious fancy. This urgency cannot be dated too far back. In correspondence therewith, the principle of tradition in the Church (Christ, the twelve Apostles) in the case of those who were intent on the unity and completeness of Christendom, is also very old. But one passed logically from the Apostles to the disciples of the Apostles, “the Elders,” without at first claiming for them any other significance than that of reliable hearers (Apostoli et discentes ipsorum). In coming down to them, one here and there betook oneself again to real historical ground, disciples of Paul, of Peter, of John.194 Yet even here legends with a tendency speedily got mixed with facts, and because, in consequence of this theory of tradition, the Apostle Paul must needs fall into the background, his disciples also were more or less forgotten. The attempt which we have in the Pastoral Epistles remained without effect, as regards those to whom these epistles were addressed. Timothy and Titus obtained no authority outside these epistles. But so far as the epistles of Paul were collected, diffused, and read, there was created a complex of writings which at first stood beside the “Teaching of the Lord by the twelve Apostles”, without being connected with it, and only obtained such connection by the creation of the New Testament, that is, by the interpolation of the Acts of the Apostles, between Gospels and Epistles.195 194 195

See Papias and the Reliq. Presbyter. ap. Iren., collecta in Parr. Opp. I. 2, p. 105: see also Zahn, Forschungen. III., p. 156 f. The Gentile-Christian conception of the significance of the twelve—a fact to be specially noted—was all but unanimous (see above Chap. II.): the only one who broke through it was Marcion. The writers of Asia Minor, Rome and Egypt, coincide in this point. Beside the Acts of the Apostles, which is specially instructive see 1 Clem. 42; Barn. 5. 9. 8. 3: Didache inscr.; Hermas. Vis. III. 5, 11; Sim. IX. 15, 16, 17, 25; Petrusev-Petrusapok. Præd. Petr. ap. Clem. Strom. VI. 6, 48; Ignat. ad Trall. 3; ad Rom. 4; ad Philad. 5; Papias; Polyc.; Aristides; Justin passim; inferences from the great work of Irenæus, the works of Tertull. and Clem. Alex.; the Valentinians. The inference that follows from the eschatological hope, that the Gospel has already been preached to the world, and the growling need of having a tradition mediated by eye-witnesses co-operated here, and out of the twelve who were in great part obscure, but who had once been authoritative in Jerusalem and Palestine, and highly esteemed in the Christian Diaspora from the beginning, though unknown, created a court of appeal which presented itself as not only taking a second rank after the Lord himself, but as the medium through which alone the words of the Lord became the possession of Christendom, as he neither preached to the nations nor left writings. The importance of the twelve in the main body of the Church may at any rate be measured by the facts, that the personal activity of Jesus was confined to Palestine, that he left behind him neither a confession nor a doctrine, and that in this respect the tradition tolerated no more corrections. Attempts which were made in this direction, the fiction of a semi-Gentile origin of Christ, the denial of the Davidic Sonship, the invention of a correspondence between Jesus and Abgarus, meeting of Jesus with Greeks, and much else, belong only in part to the earliest period, and remained as really inoperative as they were uncertain (according to Clem. Alex., Jesus himself is the Apostle to the Jews; the twelve are the Apostles to the Gentiles in Euseb. H. E. VI. 14). The notion about the helve Apostles evangelising the world in accordance with the commission of Jesus, is consequently to be considered as the means by which the Gentile Christians got rid of the inconvenient fact of the merely local activity of Jesus. (Compare how Justin expresses himself about the Apostles: their going out into all the world is to him one of the main articles predicted in the Old Testament, Apol. 1. 39; compare also the Apology of Aristides, c. 2, and the passage of similar tenor in the Ascension of Isaiah, where the “adventus XII. discipulorum” is regarded as one of the fundamental facts of salvation, c. 3. 13, ed. Dillmann, p. 13, and a passage such as Iren. fragm. XXIX. in Harvey II., p. 494, where the parable about the grain of mustard seed is applied to the λόγος ἀπουράνιος, and the twelve Apostles; the Apostles are the branches ὑφ᾽ ὧν κλάδων σκεπασθέντες οἱ πάντες ὡς ὅρνεα ὑπὸ καλιὰν συνελθόντα μετέλαβον τῆς ἐξ αὐτῶν προερχομένης ἐδωδίμου καὶ ἐπουρανίου τροφῆς Hippol., de Antichr. 61. Orig c. Cels. III. 28.) This means, as it was empty of contents, was very soon to prove the very most convenient instrument for establishing ever new historical connections, and legitimising the status quo in the communities. Finally, the whole catholic idea of tradition was rooted in that statement which

103

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

was already, at the close of the first century, formulated by Clement of Rome (c. 42): οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἡμῖν εὐηγγελίσθησαν ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Ἰησοῦς ὁ χριστὸς ἀπρ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξεπόμφθη. ὁ χριστὸς οὖν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ· ἐγένοντο οὖν ἀμφότερα εὐτάκτῶς ἐκ θελήματος θεοῦ κ.τ.λ. Here, as in all similar statements which elevate the Apostles into the history of revelation, the unanimity of all the Apostles is always presupposed, so that the statement of Clem. Alex. (Strom. VII., 17, 108: μία ἡ πάντων γέγονε τῶν ἀποστόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις; see Tertull., de præscr. 32: “Apostoli non diversa inter se docuerent,” Iren. alii), contains no innovation, but gives expression to an old idea. That the twelve unitedly proclaimed one and the same message, that they proclaimed it to the world, that they were chosen to this vocation by Christ, that the communities possess the witness of the Apostles as their rule of conduct (Excerp. ex Theod. 25. ὥσπερ ὑπὸ τῶν ζωδίων ἡ γένεσις διοικεῖται, οὕτως ὐπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἡ ἀναγέννησις are authoritative theses which can be traced back as far as we have any remains of Gentile-Christian literature. It was thereby presupposed that the unanimous kerygma of the twelve Apostles, which the communities possess as κανὼν τῆς παραδόσεως (1 Clem. 7), was public and accessible to all. Yet the idea does not seem to have been everywhere kept at a distance, that besides the kerygma a still deeper knowledge was transmitted by the Apostles, or by certain Apostles, to particular Christians who were specially gifted. Of course we have no direct evidence of this; but the connection in which certain Gnostic unions stood at the beginning with the communities developing themselves to Catholicism, and inferences from utterances of later writers (Clem. Alex. Tertull.), make it probable that this conception was present in the communities here and there even in the age of the so-called Apostolic Fathers. It may be definitely said that the peculiar idea of tradition (θεός—χριστος—οἱ δώδεκα ἀποστόλοι—ἐκκλησίαι) in the Gentile Churches is very old, but that it was still limited in its significance at the beginning, and was threatened (1) by a wider conception of the idea “Apostle” (besides, the fact is important, that Asia Minor and Rome were the very places where a stricter idea of “Apostle” made its appearance: See my Edition of the Didache, p. 117); (2) by free prophets and teachers moved by the Spirit, who introduced new conceptions and rules, and whose word was regarded as the word of God; (3) by the assumption, not always definitely rejected, that besides the public tradition of the kerygma there was a secret tradition. That Paul, as a rule, was not included in this high estimate of the Apostles is shewn by this fact, among others, that the earlier Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles are much less occupied with his person than with the rest of the Apostles. The features of the old legends which make the Apostles in their deeds, their fate, nay, even in appearance as far as possible equal to the person of Jesus himself, deserve special consideration, (see, for example, the descent of the Apostles into hell in Herm. Sim. IX. 16); for it is just here that the fact above established, that the activity of the Apostles was to make up for the want of the activity of Jesus himself among the nations, stands clearly out. (See Acta Johannis ed. Zahn, p. 246: ὁ ἐκλεξάμενος ἡμᾶς εἰς ἀποστολὴν ἐθνῶν, ὁ ἐκπέμψας ἡμας εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην θεός, ὁ δειξας ἑαυτὸν διὰ τῶν ἀποςτολῶν, also the remarkable declaration of Origen about the Chronicle [Hadrian], that what holds good of Christ, is in that Chronicle transferred to Peter; finally we may recall to mind the visions in which an Apostolic suddenly appears as Christ.) Between the judgment of value: ἡμεῖς τούς ἀποστόλους ἀποδεχόμεθα ὡς Χριστὸν, and those creations of fancy in which the Apostles appear as gods and demigods, there is certainly a great interval; but it can be proved that there are stages lying between the extreme points. It is therefore permissible to call to mind here the oldest Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, although they may have originated almost completely in Gnostic circles (see also the Pistis Sophia which brings a metaphysical theory to the establishment of the authority of the Apostles, p. 11, 14, see Texte u. Unters. VII. 2. p. 61 ff.). Gnosticism here, as frequently elsewhere, is related to common Christianity, as excess progressing to the invention of a myth with a tendency, to a historical theorem determined by the effort to maintain one’s own position, (cf. the article from the kerygma of Peter in Clem. Strom. VI. 6, 48: Ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς δωδεκα μαθηπὰς, κ.τ.λ., the introduction to the basal writing of the first 6 books of the Apostolic Constitutions, and the introduction to the Egyptian ritual, κατὰ κέλευσίν τοῦ κυρίου ὑμῶν, κ.ὼ.λ.). Besides, it must be admitted that the origin of the idea of tradition and its connection with the twelve, is obscure: what is historically reliable here has still to be investigated; even the work of Seufert (Der Urspr. u. d. Bedeutung des Apostolats in der christl. Kirche der ersten zwei Jahrhunderte, 1887) has not cleared up the dark points. We will, perhaps, get more light by following the important hint given by Weizäcker (Apost. Age, p. 13 ff.) that Peter was the first witness of the resurrection, and was called such in the kerygma of the communities (see 1 Cor. XV. 5: Luke XXIV. 34). The twelve Apostles are also further called οἱ περὶ τὸν Πετρὸν (Mrc. fin. in L. Ign. ad Smyrn. 3; cf. Luke VIII. 45; Acts. II. 14; Gal. I. 18 f; 1 Cor. XV. 5), and it is a correct historical reminiscence when Chrysostom says (Hom. in Joh. 88), ὁ Πέτρος ἔκκριτος ἡν τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ πτόμα τῶν μαθητῶν καὶ κορυφή τοῦ σόρου. Now, as Peter was really in personal relation with important Gentile-Christian communities, that which held good of him, the recognized head and spokesman of the twelve, was perhaps transferred to these. One has finally to remember that besides the appeal to the twelve there was in the Gentile Churches an appeal to Peter and Paul (but not for the evangelic kerygma), which has a certain historical justification; cf. Gal. II. 8; 1 Cor. I. 12 f., IX. 5; I Clem. Ign. ad Rom. 4, and the numerous later passages. Paul in claiming equality with Peter, though Peter was the head and mouth of the twelve and had himself been active in mission work, has perhaps contributed most towards spreading the authority of the twelve. It is notable how rarely we find any special appeal to John in the tradition of the main body of the Church. For the middle of the 2nd century, the authority of the twelve Apostles may be expressed in the following statements: (1) They were missionaries for the world; (2) They ruled the Church and established Church Offices; (3) They guaranteed the true doctrine, (a) by the tradition going back to them, (b)

104

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

§©3. The Main Articles of Christianity and the Conceptions of Salvation. Eschatology. 163

164

165

166

167

1. The main articles of Christianity were (1) belief in God the δεσπότης, and in the Son in virtue of proofs from prophecy, and the teaching of the Lord as attested by the Apostles; (2) discipline according to the standard of the words of the Lord; (3) baptism; (4) the common offering of prayer, culminating in the Lord’s Supper and the holy meal; (5) the sure hope of the nearness of Christ’s glorious kingdom. In these appears the unity of Christendom, that is, of the Church which possesses the Holy Spirit.196 On the basis of this unity Christian knowledge was free and manifold. It was distinguished as σοφία, σύνεσις, ἐπιστήμη, γνῶσις (τῶν δικαιωμάτων), from the λόγος θεοῦ τῆς πίστεως, and the κλῆσις τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, and the ἐντολαὶ τῆς διδαχῆς (Barn. 16, 9, similarly Hermas). Perception and knowledge of Divine things was a Charism, possessed only by individuals; but, like all Charisms, it was to be used for the good of the whole. In so far as every actual perception was a perception produced by the Spirit, it was regarded as important and indubitable truth, even though some Christians were unable to understand it. While attention was given to the firm inculcation and observance of the moral precepts of Christ, as well as to the awakening of sure faith in Christ, and while all waverings and differences were excluded in respect of these, there was absolutely no current doctrine of faith in the communities, in the sense of a completed theory; and the theological speculations of even closely related Christian writers of this epoch, exhibit, the greatest differences.197 The productions of fancy, the terrible or consoling pictures of the future pass for sacred knowledge, just as much as intelligent and sober reflections, and edifying interpretation of Old Testament sayings. Even that which was afterwards separated as Dogmatic and Ethics was then in no way distinguished.198 The communities gave expression in the cultus, chiefly in the hymns and prayers, to what they possessed in their God and their Christ; here sacred formulæ were fashioned and delivered to the members.199 The problem of surrendering the world in the hope of a life beyond was regarded as the practical side of the faith, and the unity in temper and disposition resting on faith in the saving revelation of God in Christ, permitted the highest degree of freedom in knowledge, the results of which were absolutely without control as soon as the preacher or the writer was recognised as a true teacher, that is inspired by the Spirit of God.200 There was also in wide circles a conviction that the Christian faith, after the night of error, included by writings; (4) They are the ideals of Christian life; (5) They are also directly mediators of salvation—though this point is uncertain. 196 See Διδαχὴ, c. 1-10, with parallel passages. 197 Cf., for example, the first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians with the Shepherd of Hermas. Both documents originated in Rome. 198 Compare how dogmatic and ethical elements are inseparably united in the Shepherd, in first and second Clement, as well as in Polycarp and Justin. 199 Note the hymnal parts of the Revelation of John, the great prayer with which the first epistle of Clement closes, the “carmen dicere Christo quasi deo” reported by Pliny, the eucharist prayer in the Διδαχὴ, the hymn 1 Tim. III. 16, the fragments from the prayers which Justin quotes, and compare with these the declaration of the anonymous writer in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 5, that the belief of the earliest Christians in the Deity of Christ might be proved from the old Christian hymns and odes. In the epistles of Ignatius the theology frequently consists of an aimless stringing together of articles manifestly originating in hymns and the cultus. 200 The prophet and teacher express what the Spirit of God suggest to them. Their word is therefore God’s word, and their writings, in so far as they apply to the whole of Christendom, are inspired, holy writings. Further, not only does Acts XV. 22 f. exhibit the formula; ἔδοξεν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀγίῳ καὶ ἡμῖν (see similar passages in the Acts), but the Roman writings also appeal to the

105

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

the full knowledge of everything worth knowing, that precisely in its most important articles it is accessible to men of every degree of culture, and that in it, in the now attained truth, is contained one of the most essential blessings of Christianity. When it is said in the Epistle of Barnabas (II. 2. 3); τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν εἰσὶν βοηθοὶ φόβος καὶ ὑπομονή, τὰ δὲ συμμαχοῦντα ἡμῖν μακροθυμία καὶ ἐγκράτεια· τούτων μενόντων τὰ πρὸς κόριον ἁγνῶς, συνευφραίνονταί αὐτοῖς σοφία, σύνεσις, ἐπιστήμη, γνῶσις, knowledge appears in this classic formula to be an essential element in Christianity, conditioned by faith and the practical virtues, and dependent on them. Faith takes the lead, knowledge follows it: but of course in concrete cases it could not always be decided what was λόγος τῆς πίστεως, which implicitly contained the highest knowledge, and what the special γνώσις; for in the last resort the nature of the two was regarded as identical, both being represented as produced by the Spirit of God. 2. The conceptions of Christian salvation, or of redemption, were grouped around two ideas, which were themselves but loosely connected with each other, and of which the one influenced more the temper and the imagination, the other the intellectual faculty. On the one hand, salvation, in accordance with the earliest preaching, was regarded as the glorious kingdom which was soon to appear on earth with the visible return of Christ, which will bring the present course of the world to an end, and introduce for a definite series of centuries, before the final judgment, a new order of all things to the joy and blessedness of the saints.201 In connection with this the hope of the 168

Holy Spirit (1 Clem. 63. 2): likewise Barnabas, Ignatius, etc. Even in the controversy about the baptism of heretics a Bishop gave his vote with the formula “secundum motum animi mei et spiritus sancti” (Cypr. Opp. ed. Hartel. I. p. 457). 201 The so-called Chiliasm—the designation is unsuitable and misleading—is found wherever the Gospel is not yet Hellenised (see, for example, Barn. 4. 15; Hermas; 2 Clem.; Papias [Euseb. III. 39];        , 10. 16; Apoc. Petri; Justin, Dial. 32, 51, 80, 82, 110, 139; Cerinthus), and must be regarded as a main element of the Christian preaching (see my article “Millenium” in the Encycl. Brit.). In it lay not the least of the power of Christianity in the first century, and the means whereby it entered the Jewish propaganda in the Empire and surpassed it. The hopes springing out of Judaism were at first but little modified, that is, only so far as the substitution of the Christian communities for the nation of Israel made modification necessary. In all else, even the details of the Jewish hopes of the future were retained, and the extra-canonical Jewish Apocalypses (Esra, Enoch, Baruch, Moses, etc.) were diligently read alongside of Daniel. Their contents were in part joined on to sayings of Jesus, and they served as models for similar productions (here, therefore, an enduring connection with the Jewish religion is very plain). In the Christian hopes of the future, as in the Jewish eschatology, may be distinguished essential and accidental, fixed and fluid elements To the former belong (1) the notion of a final fearful conflict with the powers of the world which is just about to break out                                  , (2) belief in the speedy return of Christ, (3) the conviction that after conquering the secular power (this was variously conceived, as God’s Ministers, as “that which restrains”—2 Thess. II. 6, as a pure kingdom of Satan; see the various estimates in Justin, Melito, Irenæus and Hyppolytus), Christ will establish a glorious kingdom on the earth, and will raise the saints to share in that kingdom, and (4) that he will finally judge all men. To the fluid elements belong the notions of the Antichrist, or of the secular power culminating in the Antichrist, as well as notions about the place, the extent, and the duration of Christ’s glorious kingdom. But it is worthy of special note, that Justin regarded the belief that Christ will set up his kingdom in Jerusalem, and that it will endure for 1000 years, as a necessary element of orthodoxy, though he confesses he knew Christians who did not share this belief, while they did not, like the pseudo-Christians, reject also the resurrection of the body (the promise of Montanus that Christ’s kingdom would be let down at Pepuza and Tymion is a thing by itself, and answers to the other promises and pretensions of Montanus). The resurrection of the body is expressed in the Roman Symbol, while, very notably, the hope of Christ’s earthly kingdom is not there mentioned, (see above, p. 157). The great inheritance which the Gentile Christian communities received from Judaism, is the eschatological hopes, along with the Monotheism assured by revelation and belief in providence. The law as a national law was abolished. The Old Testament became a new book in the hands of the Gentile Christians. On the contrary, the eschatological hopes in all their details, and with all the deep shadows which they threw on the state and public life, were at

106

History of Dogma - Volume I

169

170

Adolf Harnack

resurrection of the body occupied the foreground.202 On the other hand, salvation appeared to be given in the truth, that is, in the complete and certain knowledge of God, as contrasted with the error of heathendom and the night of sin, and this truth included the certainty of the gift of eternal life, and all conceivable spiritual blessings.203 Of these the community, so far as it is a community of saints, that is, so far as it is ruled by the Spirit of God, already possesses forgiveness of sins and first received, and maintained themselves in wide circles pretty much unchanged, and only succumbed in some of their details just as in Judaism—to the changes which resulted from the constant change of the political situation. But these hopes were also destined in great measure to pass away after the settlement of Christianity on Græco-Roman soil. We may set aside the fact that they did not occupy the foreground in Paul, for we do not know whether this was of importance for the period that followed. But that Christ would set up the kingdom in Jerusalem, and that it would be an earthly kingdom with sensuous enjoyments—these and other notions contend, on the one hand, with the vigorous antijudaism of the communities, and on the other, with the moralistic spiritualism, in the pure carrying out of which the Gentile Christians, in the East at least, increasingly recognised the essence of Christianity. Only the vigorous world-renouncing enthusiasm which did not permit the rise of moralistic spiritualism and mysticism, and the longing for a time of joy and dominion that was born of it, protected for a long time a series of ideas which corresponded to the spiritual disposition of the great multitude of converts, only at times of special oppression. Moreover, the Christians, in opposition to Judaism, were, as a rule, instructed to obey magistrates, whose establishment directly contradicted the judgment of the state contained in the Apocalypses. In such a conflict, however, that judgment necessarily conquers at last, which makes as little change as possible in the existing forms of life. A history of the gradual attenuation and subsidence of eschatological hopes in the II.-IV. centuries can only be written in fragments. They have rarely—at best, by fits and starts—marked out the course. On the contrary, if I may say so, they only gave the smoke: for the course was pointed out by the abiding elements of the Gospel, trust in God and the Lord Christ, the resolution to a holy life, and a firm bond of brotherhood. The quiet, gradual change in which the eschatological hopes passed away, fell into the background, or lost important parts, was, on the other hand, a result of deep-reaching changes in the faith and life of Christendom. Chiliasm as a power was broken up by speculative mysticism, and on that account very much later in the West than in the East. But speculative mysticism has its centre in christology. In the earliest period, this, as a theory, belonged more to the defence of religion than to religion itself. Ignatius alone was able to reflect on that transference of power from Christ which Paul had experienced. The disguises in which the apocalyptic eschatological prophecies were set forth, belonged in part to the form of this literature, (in so far as one could easily be given the lie if he became too plain, or in so far as the prophet really saw the future only in large outline), partly it had to be chosen in order not to give political offence. See Hippol., comm. in Daniel (Georgiades, p. 49, 51:               μ                       μ                              ); by above all, Constantine, orat. ad. s. cœtum 19, on some verses of Virgil which are interpreted in a Christian sense,” but that none of the rulers in the capital might be able to accuse their author of violating the laws of the state with his poetry, or of destroying the traditional ideas of the procedure about the gods, he concealed the truth under a veil.” That holds good also of the Apocalyptists and the poets of the Christian Sibylline sayings. 202 The hope of the resurrection of the body (1 Clem. 26. 3: ἀναστήσεις τὴν σάρκα μου ταύτην. Herm. Sim. V. 7. 2: βλέπε μήποτε ἀναβῇ ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν σου τὴν σάρκα σου ταύτην φθαρτὴν εἶναι. Barn. 5. 6 f.: 21. 1: 2 Clem. 1: καὶ μή λεγέτω τις ὑμῶν ὅτι αὕτη ἡ σὰρξ οὐ κρίνεται οὐδὲ ἀνίσταται. Polyc. Ep. 7. 2: Justin, Dial. 80 etc.,) finds its place originally in the hope of a share in the glorious kingdom of Christ. It therefore disappears or is modified wherever that hope itself falls into the background. But it finally asserted itself throughout and became of independent importance, in a new structure of eschatological expectations, in which it attained the significance of becoming the specific conviction of Christian faith. With the hope of the resurrection of the body was originally connected the hope of a happy life in easy blessedness, under green trees in magnificent fields with joyous feeding flocks, and flying angels clothed in white. One must read the Revelation of Peter, the Shepherd, or the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, in order to see how entirely the fancy of many Christians, and not merely of those who were uncultured, dwelt in a fairyland in which they caught sight now of the Ancient of Days, and now of the Youthful Shepherd, Christ. The most fearful delineations of the torments of Hell formed the reverse side to this. We now know, through the Apocalypse of Peter, how old these delineations are. 203 The perfect knowledge of the truth and eternal life are connected in the closest way (see p. 144, note 1), because the Father of truth is also Prince of life (see Diognet. 12: οὐδὲ γάρ ξωὴ ἄνευ γνώσεως οὐδὲ γνῶσις ἀσφαλὴς ἄνευ ζωῆς ἀληθοῦς· διὸ πλησιον ἐκάτερον πεφύτευται, see also what follows). The classification is a Hellenic one, which has certainly penetrated also into Palestinian Jewish theology. It may be reckoned among the great intuitions, which in the fulness of the times, united the religious and reflective minds of all nations. The Pauline formula, “Where there is forgiveness of sin, there also is life and salvation”, had for centuries no distinct history. But the formula, “Where there is truth, perfect knowledge, there also is eternal life”, has had the richest history in Christendom from the beginning. Quite apart from John, it is older than the theology of the Apologists (see, for example, the Supper prayer in the Didache, 9. 10, where there is no mention of the forgiveness of sin, but thanks are given,

107

History of Dogma - Volume I

171

172

Adolf Harnack

righteousness. But, as a rule, neither blessing was understood in a strictly religious sense, that is to say, the effect of their religious sense was narrowed. The moralistic view, in which eternal life is the wages and reward of a perfect moral life wrought out essentially by one’s own power, took the place of first importance at a very early period. On this view, according to which the righteousness of God is revealed in punishment and reward alike, the forgiveness of sin only meant a single remission of sin in connection with entrance into the Church by baptism,204 and righteousness became identical with virtue. The idea is indeed still operative, especially in the oldest Gentile-Christian writings known to us, that sinlessness rests upon a new creation (regeneration) which is effected in baptism;205 but, so far as dissimilar eschatological hopes do not operate, it is everywhere in danger of being supplanted by the other idea, which maintains that there is no other blessing in the Gospel than the perfect truth and eternal life. All else is but a sum of obligations in which the Gospel is presented as a new law. The christianising of the Old Testament supported this conception. There was indeed an opinion that the Gospel, even so far as it is a law, comprehends a gift of salvation which is to be grasped by faith (νόμος ἄνευ ζυγοῦ ἀνάγκης,206 νόμος τ. ἐλευθερίας,207 Christ himself the law);208 but this notion, as it is obscure in itself, was also an uncertain one and was gradually lost. Further, by the “law” was frequently meant in the first place,

ὑπὲρ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ πίστεως καὶ ἀθανασίας ἧς ἐγνώρισεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς διὰ Ἰησοῦ, or ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως, and 1 Clem. 36. 2: διὰ τούτο ἡθέλησεν ὁ δεσπότης τῆς ἀθανάτου γνώσεως ἡμᾶς γεύσασθαι). It is capable of a very manifold content, and has never made its way in the Church without reservations, but so far as it has we may speak of a hellenising of Christianity. This is shewn most clearly in the fact that the ἀθανασία, identical with ἀφθαρσία and ζωὴ αἰώνιος, as is proved by their being often interchanged, gradually supplanted the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (χριστοῦ) and thrust it out of the sphere of religious intuition and hope into that of religious speech. It should also be noted at the same time, that in the hope of eternal life which is bestowed with the knowledge of the truth, the resurrection of the body is by no means with certainty included. It is rather added to it (see above) from another series of ideas. Conversely, the words ζωὴν αἰώνιον were first added to the words σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν in the western Symbols at a comparatively late period, while in the prayers they are certainly very old. 204 Even the assumption of such a remission is fundamentally in contradiction with moralism; but that solitary remission of sin was not called in question, was rather regarded as distinctive of the new religion, and was established by an appeal to the omnipotence and special goodness of God, which appears just in the calling of sinners. In this calling, grace as grace is exhausted (Barn. 5. 9; 2 Clem. 2. 4-7). But this grace itself seems to be annulled, inasmuch as the sins committed before baptism were regarded as having been committed in a state of ignorance (Tertull. de bapt. I.: delicta pristinæ cæcitatis), ou account of which it seemed worthy of God to forgive them, that is, to accept the repentance which followed on the ground of the new knowledge. So considered, everything, in point of fact, amounts to the gracious gift of knowledge, and the memory of the saying, “Jesus receiveth sinners”, is completely obscured. But the tradition of this saying and many like it, and above all, the religious instinct, where it was more powerfully stirred, did not permit a consistent development of that moralistic conception. See for this, Hermas. Sim. V. 7. 3: περὶ τῶν προτέρων ἀγνοημάτων τῷ θεῷ μονῷ δυνατὸν ἴασιν δοῦναι· αὐτοῦ γὰρ ἐστι πᾶσα ἐξουσία. Præd. Petri ap. Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 48: ὅσα ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ τις ὑμῶν ἐποίησεν μὴ εἐδὼς σαφῶς τὸν θεὸν, ἐὰν ἐπιγνοὺς μετανοήσῃ, τάντα αὐτῷ ἀφεθήσεται τὰ ἀμαρτήματα. Aristides, Apol. 17: “The Christians offer prayers (for the unconverted Greeks) that they may be converted from their error. But when one of them is converted he is ashamed before the Christians of the works which he has done. And he confesses to God, saying: ‘I have done these things in ignorance.’ And he cleanses his heart, and his sins are forgiven him, because he had done them in ignorance, in the earlier period when he mocked and jeered at the true knowledge of the Christians.” Exactly the same in Tertull. de pudic. 10. init. The statement of this same writer (1. c. fin), “Cessatio delicti radix est veniæ, ut venia sit pænitentiæ fructus”, is a pregnant expression of the conviction of the earliest Gentile Christians. 205 This idea appears with special prominence in the Epistle of Barnabas (see 6. II. 14); the new formation (ἀναπλασσειν) results through the forgiveness of sin. In the moralistic view the forgiveness of sin is the result of the renewal that is spontaneously brought about on the ground of knowledge shewing itself in penitent feeling. 206 Barn. 2. 6, and my notes on the passage. 207 James I. 25. 208 Hermas. Sim. VIII. 3. 2; Justin Dial. II. 43; Praed. Petri in Clem., Strom. I. 29. 182; II. 15. 68.

108

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

not the law of love, but the commandments of ascetic holiness, or an explanation and a turn were given to the law of love, according to which it is to verify itself above all in asceticism.209 The expression of the contents of the Gospel in the concepts ἐπαγγελία (ζωὴ αἰῴνιος) γνῶσις (ἀληθεία) νόμος (ἐγκρὰτέια), seemed quite as plain as it was exhaustive, and the importance of faith which was regarded as the basis of hope and knowledge and obedience in a holy life, was at the same time in every respect perceived.210

173

Supplement 1.—The moralistic view of sin, forgiveness of sin, and righteousness, in Clement, Barnabas, Polycarp and Ignatius, gives place to Pauline formulæ; but the uncertainty with which these are reproduced, shews that the Pauline idea has not been clearly seen.211 In Hermas, however, and in the second Epistle of Clement, the consciousness of being under grace, even after baptism, almost completely disappears behind the demand to fulfil the tasks which baptiser imposes.212 The idea that serious sins, in the case of the baptised, no longer should or can be forgiven, except under special circumstances, appears to have prevailed in wide circles, if not everywhere.213 It reveals the earnestness of those early Christians and their elevated sense of freedom and power; but it might be united either with the highest moral intensity, or with a lax judgment on the little sins of the day. The latter, in point of fact, threatened to become more and more the presupposition and result of that idea—for there exists here a fatal reciprocal action. Supplement 2.—The realisation of salvation—as βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ and as ἀφθαρσία—being expected from the future, the whole present possession of salvation might be comprehended under the title of vocation (κλῆσις): see, for example, the second Epistle of Clement. In this sense gnosis itself was regarded as something only preparatory. Supplement 3.—In some circles the Pauline formula about righteousness and salvation by faith alone, must, it would appear, not infrequently (as already in the Apostolic age itself) have been partly misconstrued, and partly taken advantage of as a cloak for laxity. Those who resisted such a disposition, and therefore also the formula in the post-Apostolic age, shew indeed by their opposition how little they have hit upon or understood the Pauline idea of faith: for they not only issued the watchword “faith and works” (though the Jewish ceremonial law was not thereby meant),

209

Didache, c I., and my notes on the passage (Prolegg. p. 45 f.). The concepts ἐπαγγελία, γνῶσις, νόμος, form the Triad on which the later catholic conception of Christianity is based, though it can he proved to have been in existence at an earlier period. That πίστις must everywhere take the lead was undoubted, though we must not think of the Pauline idea of πίστις. When the Apostolic Fathers reflect upon faith, which, however, happens only incidentally, they mean a holding for true of a sum of holy traditions, and obedience to them, along with the hope that their consoling contents will yet be fully revealed. But Ignatius speaks like a Christian who knows what he possesses in faith in Christ, that is, in confidence in him. In Barn. I.: Polyc. Ep. 2, we find “faith, hope love”; in Ignatius, “faith and love”. Tertullian, in an excellent exposition, has shewn how far patience is a temper corresponding to Christian faith (see besides the Epistle of James). 211 See Lipsius De Clementis. R. ep ad. Cor. priore disquis. 1855. It would be in point of method inadmissible to conclude from the fact that in 1 Clem. Pauline formulæ are relatively most faithfully produced, that Gentile Christianity generally understood Pauline theology at first, but gradually lost this understanding in the course of two generations. 212 Formally: τηρήσατε τὴν σάρκα ἁγνὴν καὶ τὴν σφραγῖδα ἄσπιλον (2 Clem. 8. 6.) 213 Hermas (Mand. IV. 3) and Justin presuppose it. Hermas of course sought and found a way of meeting the results of that idea which were threatening the Church with decimation; but he did not question the idea itself. Because Christendom is a community of saints which has in its midst the sure salvation, all its members—this is the necessary inference—must lead a sinless life. 210

109

History of Dogma - Volume I

174

175

Adolf Harnack

but they admitted, and not only hypothetically, that one might have the true faith even though in his case that faith remained dead or united with immorality. See, above all, the Epistle of James and the Shepherd of Hermas; though the first Epistle of John comes also into consideration (III. 7: “He that doeth righteousness is righteous”).214 Supplement 4.—However similar the eschatological expectations of the Jewish Apocalyptists and the Christians may seem, there is yet in one respect an important difference between them. The uncertainty about the final consummation was first set aside by the Gospel. It should be noted as highly characteristic of the Jewish hopes of the future, even of the most definite, how the beginning of the end, that is, the overthrow of the world-powers and the setting up of the earthly kingdom of God, was much more certainly expressed than the goal and the final end. Neither the general judgment, nor what we, according to Christian tradition, call heaven and hell, should be described as a sure possession of Jewish faith in the primitive Christian period. It is only in the Gospel of Christ, where everything is subordinated to the idea of a higher righteousness and the union of the individual with God, that the general judgment and the final condition after it are the clear, firmly grasped goal of all meditation. No doctrine has been more surely preserved in the convictions and preaching of believers in Christ than this. Fancy might roam ever so much and, under the direction of the tradition, thrust bright and precious images between the present condition and the final end, the main thing continued to be the great judgment of the world, and the certainty that the saints would go to God in heaven, the wicked to hell. But while the judgment, as a rule, was connected with the Person of Jesus himself (see the Romish Symbol: the words κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν, were very frequently applied to Christ in the earliest writings), the moral condition of the individual, and the believing recognition of the Person of Christ were put in the closest relation. The Gentile Christians held firmly to this. Open the Shepherd, or the second Epistle of Clement, or any other early Christian writing, and you will find that the judgment, heaven and hell, are the decisive objects. But that shews that the moral character of Christianity as a religion is seen and adhered to. The fearful idea of hell, far from signifying a backward step in the history of the religious spirit, is rather a proof of its having rejected the morally indifferent point of view, and of its having become sovereign in union with the ethical spirit. §©4. The Old Testament as Source of the Knowledge of Faith.215 The sayings of the Old Testament, the word of God, were believed to furnish inexhaustible material for deeper knowledge. The Christian prophets were nurtured on the Old Testament, the teachers gathered from it the revelation of the past, present and future (Barn. 1. 7), and were therefore able as prophets to edify the Churches; from it was further drawn the confirmation of the answers to all

214

The formula, “righteousness by faith alone,” was really repressed in the second century; but it could not he entirely destroyed: see my Essay, “Gesch. d. Seligkeit allein durch den Glauben in der alten K.” Ztsch. f. Theol, u. Kirche. I. pp. 82-105. 215 The only thorough discussion of the use of the Old Testament by an Apostolic Father, and of its authority, that we possess, is Wrede’s “Untersuchungen zum 1 Clementsbrief” (1891). Excellent preliminary investigations, which, however, are not everywhere quite reliable, may be found in Hatch’s Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889. Hatch has taken up again the hypothesis of earlier scholars, that there were very probably in the first and second centuries systematised extracts from the Old Testament (see pp. 203-214). The hypothesis is not yet quite establised (see Wrede, above work, p. 65), but yet it is hardly to be rejected. The Jewish catechetical and missionary instruction in the Diaspora needed such collections, and their existence seem to be proved by the Christian Apologies and the Sybilline books.

110

History of Dogma - Volume I

176

177

Adolf Harnack

emergent questions, as one could always find in the Old Testament what he was in search of. The different writers laid the holy book under contribution in very much the same way; for they were all dominated by the presupposition that this book is a Christian book, and contains the explanations that are necessary for the occasion. There were several teachers,—e.g., Barnabas,—who at a very early period boasted of finding in it ideas of special profundity and value—these were always an expression of the difficulties that were being felt. The plain words of the Lord as generally known, did not seem sufficient to satisfy the craving for knowledge, or to solve the problems that were emerging;216 their origin and form also opposed difficulties at first to the attempt to obtain from them new disclosures by re-interpretation. But the Old Testament sayings and histories were in part unintelligible, or in their literal sense offensive; they were at the same time regarded as fundamental words of God. This furnished the conditions for turning them to account in the way we have stated. The following are the most important points of view under which the Old Testament was used. (1) The Monotheistic cosmology and view of nature were borrowed from it (see, for example, 1 Clem.). (2) It was used to prove that the appearance and entire history of Jesus had been foretold centuries, nay, thousands of years beforehand, and that the founding of a new people gathered out of all nations had been predicted and prepared for from the very beginning.217 (3) It was used as a means of verifying all principles and institutions of the Christian Church,—the spiritual worship of God without images, the abolition of all ceremonial legal precepts, baptism, etc. (4) The Old Testament was used for purposes of exhortation according to the formula a minori ad majus ; if God then punished and rewarded this or that in such a way, how much more may we expect, who now stand in the last days, and have received the κλῆσις τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. (5) It was proved from the Old Testament that the Jewish nation is in error, and either never had a covenant with God or has lost it, that it has a false apprehension of God’s revelations, and therefore has, now at least, no longer any claim to their possession. But beyond all this, (6) there were in the Old Testament books, above all, in the Prophets and in the Psalms, a great number of sayings—confessions of trust in God and of help received from God, of humility and holy courage, 216

It is an extremely important fact that the words of the Lord were quoted and applied in their literal sense (that is chiefly for the statement of Christian morality) by Ecclesiastical authors, almost without exception. up to and inclusive of Justin. It was different with the theologians of the age, that is the Gnostics, and the Fathers from Irenæus. 217 Justin was not the first to do so, for it had already been done by the so-called Barnabas (see especially c. 13) and others. On the proofs from prophecy see my Texte und Unters. Bd. I. 3. pp. 56-74. The passage in the Praed. Petri (Clem. Strom. VI. 15. 128) is very complete: Ἡμεῖς ἀναπτίξαντες τὰς βίβλους ἃς εἴχομεν τῶν προφητῶν, ἃ μὲν διὰ παραβολῶν ἃ δὲ διὰ αἰνιγμάτων ἡ δὲ αὐθεντικῶ; καὶ αὐτολεξεί τὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ὀνομαζόντων, εὑρ̀ μεν καὶ τὴν παρουσίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν θανατον καὶ τὸν σταυρὸν καὶ τὰς λοιπάς κολάσεις πάσας, ὃσας ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, καὶ τὴν ἔγερσιν καὶ τὴν εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνάληψιν πρὸ τοῦ Ἱερσόλυμα κριθῆναι, καθὼς ἐγέγραπτο ταῦτα πάντα ἃ ἔδει αὐτὸν παθεῖν καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν ἃ ἔσται· ταῠτα οὖν ἐπιγνόντες ἐπιστεύσαμεν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τῶν γεγραμμένων εἰς αὐτὸν. With the help of the Old Testament the teachers dated back the Christian religion to the beginning of the human race, and joined the preparations for the founding of the Christian community with the creation of the world. The Apologists were not the first to do so, for Barnabas and Hermas, and before these, Paul, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and others had already done the same. This was undoubtedly to the cultured classes one of the most impressive articles in the missionary preaching. The Christian religion in this way got a hold which the others—with the exception of the Jewish—lacked. But for that very reason, we must guard against turning it into a formula, that the Gentile Christians had comprehended the Old Testament essentially through the scheme of prediction and fulfilment. The Old Testament is certainly the book of predictions, but for that very reason the complete revelation of God which needs no additions and excludes subsequent changes. The historical fulfilment only proves to the world the truth of those revelations. Even the scheme of shadow and reality is yet entirely out of sight. In such circumstances the question necessarily arises, as to what independent meaning and significance Christ’s appearance could have, apart from that confirmation of the Old Testament. But, apart from the Gnostics, a surprisingly long time passed before this question was raised, that is to say, it was not raised till the time of Irenæus.

111

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

testimonies of a world-overcoming faith and words of comfort, love and communion—which were too exalted for any cavilling, and intelligible to every spiritually awakened mind. Out of this treasure which was handed down to the Greeks and Romans, the Church edified herself, and in the perception of its riches was largely rooted the conviction that the holy book must in every line contain the highest truth.

178

179

The point mentioned under (5) needs, however, further explanation. The self-consciousness of the Christian community of being the people of God, must have been, above all, expressed in its position towards Judaism, whose mere existence—even apart from actual assaults—threatened that consciousness most seriously. A certain antipathy of the Greeks and Romans towards Judaism co-operated here with a law of self-preservation. On all hands, therefore, Judaism as it then existed was abandoned as a sect judged and rejected by God, as a society of hypocrites,218 as a synagogue of Satan,219 as a people seduced by an evil angel,220 and the Jews were declared to have no further right to the possession of the Old Testament. Opinions differed, however, as to the earlier history of the nation and its relation to the true God. While some denied that there ever had been a covenant of salvation between God and this nation, and in this respect recognised only an intention of God,221 which was never carried out because of the idolatry of the people, others admitted in a hazy way that a relation did exist; but even they referred all the promises of the Old Testament to the Christian people.222 While the former saw in the observance of the letter of the law, in the case of circumcision, sabbath, precepts as to food, etc., a proof of the special devilish temptation to which the Jewish people succumbed,223 the latter saw in circumcision a sign224 given by God, and in virtue of certain considerations acknowledged that the literal observance of the law was for the time God’s intention and command, though righteousness never came from such observance. Yet even they saw in the spiritual the alone true sense, which the Jews had denied, and were of opinion that the burden of ceremonies was a pædagogic necessity with reference to a people stiff-necked and prone to idolatry,

218

See Διδαχὴ, 8. See the Revelation of John II. 9: III. 9; but see also the “Jews” in the Gospels of John and Peter. The latter exonerates Pilate almost completely, and makes the Jews and Herod responsible for the crucifixion. 220 See Barn. 9. 4. In the second epistle of Clement the Jews are called: “οἱ δοκοῦντες ἔχειν θεὸν,” cf. Præd. Petri in Clem. Strom. VI. 5. 41: μηδὲ κατὰ Ἰουδαίους σέβεσθε· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι μόνοι οἰόμενοι τὸν θεὸν γιγνώσκειν οὐκ ἐπίστανται, λατρεύοντες ἀγγέλοις καὶ ἀρχαγγέλοις, μηνὶ καὶ σελήνη, καὶ ἐὰν μὴ σελήνη φανῇ, σάββατον οὐκ ἀγουσι τὸ λεκόμενον πρῶτον, οὐδὲ γεομηνίαν ἄγουσιν, οὐδὲ ἄζυμα, οὐδὲ ἑορτήν, οὐδὲ μεγάλην ἡμέραν. (Cf. Diognet. 34.) Even Justin does not judge the Jews more favourably than the Gentiles, but less favourably; see Apol. I. 37, 39, 43, 44, 47, 53, 60. On the other hand, Aristides (Apol. c. 14, especially in the Syrian text) is much more friendly disposed to the Jews and recognises them more. The words of Pionius against and about the Jews in the “Acta Pionii,” c. 4, are very instructive. 221 Barn. 4. 6. f.: 14. 1. f. The author of Præd. Petri must have had a similar view of the matter. 222 Justin in the Dialogue with Trypho. 223 Barn. 9. f. It is a thorough misunderstanding of Barnabas’ position towards the Old Testament to suppose it possible to pass over his expositions, c. 6-10, as oddities and caprices, and put them aside as indifferent or unmethodical. There is nothing here unmethodical, and therefore nothing arbitrary. Barnabas’ strictly spiritual idea of God, and the conviction that all (Jewish) ceremonies are of the devil, compel his explanations. These are so little ingenious conceits to Barnabas that, but for them, he would have been forced to give up the Old Testament altogether. The account, for example, of Abraham having circumcised his slaves would have forced Barnabas to annul the whole authority of the Old Testament if he had not succeeded in giving it a particular interpretation. He does this by combining other passages of Genesis with the narrative, and then finding in it no longer circumcision, but a prediction of the crucified Christ. 224 Barn 9. 6: ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖς· καὶ μὴν περιτέτμηται ὁ λαὸς εἰς σφραγῖδα. 219

112

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

i.e., a defence of monotheism, and gave an interpretation to the sign of circumcision which made it no longer a blessing, but rather the mark for the execution of judgment on Israel.225 Israel was thus at all times the pseudo-Church. The older people does not in reality precede the younger people, the Christians, even in point of time; for though the Church appeared only in the last days, it was foreseen and created by God from the beginning. The younger people is therefore really the older, and the new law rather the original law.226 The Patriarchs, Prophets, and men of God, however, who were favoured with the communication of God’s words, have nothing inwardly in common with the Jewish people. They are God’s elect who were distinguished by a holy walk, and must be regarded as the forerunners and fathers of the Christian people.227 To the question how such holy men appeared exclusively, or almost exclusively, among the Jewish people, the documents preserved to us yield no answer. §©5. The Knowledge of God and of the World. Estimate of the World. 180

The knowledge of faith was, above all, the knowledge of God as one, supramundane, spiritual,228 and almighty (παντοκράτωρ); God is creator and governor of the world and therefore the Lord.229 But as he created the world a beautiful ordered whole (monotheistic view of nature)230 for the sake

225

See the expositions of Justin in the Dial. (especially, 16, 18, 20, 30, 40-46); Von Engelhardt, “Christenthum Justin’s,” p. 429. ff. Justin has the three estimates side by side. (1) That the ceremonial law was a pædagogic measure of God with reference to a stiff-necked people prone to idolatry. (2) That it—like circumcision—was to make the people conspicuous for the execution of judgment, according to the Divine appointment. (3) That in the ceremonial legal worship of the Jews is exhibited the special depravity and wickedness of the nation. But Justin conceived the Decalogue as the natural law of reason, and therefore definitely distinguished it from the ceremonial law. 226 See Ztschr. für K. G, I., p. 330 f. 227 This is the unanimous opinion of all writers of the post-Apostolic age. Christians are the true Israel; and therefore all Israel’s predicates of honour belong to them. They are the twelve tribes, and therefore Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are the Fathers of the Christians. This idea, about which there was no wavering, cannot everywhere be traced back to the Apostle Paul. The Old Testament men of God were in certain measure Christians. See Ignat. Magn. 8. 2: οἱ προφῆται κατὰ Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν έζησαν. 228 God was naturally conceived and represented as corporeal by uncultured Christians, though not by these alone, as the later controversies prove (e.g., Orig. contra Melito; see also Tertull. De anima). In the case of the cultured, the idea of a corporeality of God may be traced back to Stoic influences; in the case of the uncultured, popular ideas co-operated with the sayings of the Old Testament literally understood, and the impression of the Apocalyptic images. 229 See Joh. IV. 22; ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν. I Clem. 59. 3. 4; Herm. Mand. I.; Præd. Petri in Clem. Strom. VI. 5. 9.: γινωσκετε ὅτι εἷς θεὸς ἐστιν ὅς ἀρχὴν πάντων ἐποίησεν, καὶ τέλους ἐξουσίαν ἔχων. Aristides Apol. 15 (Syr.): “The Christians know and believe in God, the creator of heaven and of earth.” Chap. 16: “Christians as men who know God, pray to him for things which it becomes him to give and them to receive.” (Similarly Justin.) From very many old Gentile Christian writings we hear it as a cry of joy. “We know God the Almighty; the night of blindness is past” (see, e.g., 2 Clem. c. 1). God is δεσπότης, a designation which is very frequently used (it is rare in the New Testament). Still more frequently do we find κύριος. As the Lord and Creator, God is also called the Father (of the world) so 1 Clem. 19. 2: ὁ πατὴρ καὶ κτίστης τοῦ σύμπαντος κόσμου. 35. 3: δημιουργὸς καὶ πατῆρ τῶν αἰώνων. This use of the name Father for the supreme God was, as is well known, familiar to the Greeks, but the Christians alone were in earnest with the name. The creation out of nothing was made decidedly prominent by Hermas, see Vis. I. 1. 6, and my notes on the passage. In the Christian Apocrypha, in spite of the vividness of the idea of God, the angels play the same rôle as in the Jewish, and as in the current Jewish speculations. According to Hermas, e.g., all God’s actions are mediated by special angels, nay, the Son of God himself is represented by a special angel, viz., Michael, and works by him. But outside the Apocalypses there seems to have been little interest in the good angels. 230 See, for example, 1 Clem. 20.

113

History of Dogma - Volume I

181

Adolf Harnack

of man,231 he is at the same time the God of goodness and redemption (θεὸς σωτήρ), and the true faith in God and knowledge of him as the Father,232 is made perfect only in the knowledge of the identity of the God of creation and the God of redemption. Redemption, however, was necessary, because at the beginning humanity and the world alike fell under the dominion of evil demons,233 231

This is frequent in the Apologists; see also Diogn. 10. 2: but Hermas, Vis. II. 4. I (see also Cels. ap. Orig. IV. 23) says: διὰ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ὁ κόσμος κατηρτίσθη (cf. I. 1. 6. and my notes on the passage). Aristides (Apol. 16) declares it as his conviction that “the beautiful things,” that is, the world, are maintained only for the sake of Christians; see, besides, the words (I. c.); “I have no doubt, that the earth continues to exist (only) on account of the prayers of the Christians.” Even the Jewish Apocalyptists wavered between the formulæ, that the world was created for the sake of man, and for the sake of the Jewish nation. The two are not mutually exclusive. The statement in the Eucharistic prayer of Didache, 9. 3, ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματος σου, is singular. 232 God is named the Father, (1) in relation to the Son (very frequent), (2) as Father of the world (see above), (3) as the merciful one who has proved his goodness, declared his will, and called Christians to be his sons (1 Clem. 23. 1; 29, 1; 2 Clem. 1. 4; 8. 4; 10. 1; 14. 1; see the index to Zahn’s edition of the Ignatian Epistles; Didache. 1. 5; 9. 2. 3; 10. 2.) The latter usage is not very common; it is entirely wanting, for example, in the Epistle of Barnabas. Moreover, God is also called πετὴρ τῆς ἀληθείας, as the source of all truth (2 Clem. 3. 1: 20, 5: θεὸς τ. ἀληθείας). The identity of the Almighty God of creation with the merciful God of redemption is the tacit presupposition of all declarations about God, in the case of both the cultured and the uncultured. It is also frequently expressed (see, above all, the Pastoral Epistles), most frequently by Hermas (Vis. I. 3. 4), so far as the declaration about the creation of the world is there united in the closest way with that about the creation of the Holy Church. As to the designation of God in the Roman Symbol, as the “Father Almighty,” that threefold exposition just given may perhaps allow it. 233 The present dominion of evil demons, or of one evil demon, was just as generally presupposed as man’s need of redemption, which was regarded as a result of that dominion. The conviction that the world’s course (the πολιτεία ἐν τῷ κοσμῳ: the Latins afterwards used the word Sæculum) is determined by the devil, and that the dark one (Barnabas) has dominion, comes out most prominently where eschatological hopes obtain expression. But where salvation is thought of as knowledge and immortality, it is ignorance and frailty from which men are to be delivered. We may here also assume with certainty that these, in the last instance, were traced back by the writers to the action of demons. But it makes a very great difference whether the judgment was ruled by fancy which saw a real devil everywhere active, or whether, in consequence of theoretic reflection, it based the impression of universal ignorance and mortality on the assumption of demons who have produced them. Here again we must note the two series of ideas which intertwine and struggle with each other in the creeds of the earliest period; the traditional religious series, resting on a fanciful view of history—it is essentially identical with the Jewish Apocalyptic: see, for example, Barn. 4—and the empiric moralistic (see 2 Clem. 1. 2-7, as a specially valuable discussion, or Præd. Petri in Clem. Strom. VI. 5, 39, 40), which abides by the fact that men have fallen into ignorance, weakness and death (2 Clem. 1. 6: ὁ βίος ἡμῷν ὅλος ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἦν εἰ μὴ θάνατος). But, perhaps, in no other point, with the exception of the ἀνάστασις σαρκὸς, has the religious conception remained so tenacious as in this, and it decidedly prevailed, especially in the epoch with which we are now dealing. Its tenacity may be explained, among other things, by the living impression of the polytheism that surrounded the communities on every side. Even where the national gods were looked upon as dead idols—and that was perhaps the rule, see Præd. Petri, I. c.; 2 Clem. 3. 1; Didache, 6—one could not help assuming that there were mighty demons operative behind them, as otherwise the frightful power of idolatry could not be explained. But, on the other hand, even a calm reflection and a temper unfriendly to all religious excess must have welcomed the assumption of demons who sought to rule the world and man. For by means of this assumption, which was wide-spread even among the Greeks, humanity seemed to be unburdened, and the presupposed capacity for redemption could therefore be justified in its widest range. From the assumption that the need of redemption was altogether due to ignorance and mortality, there was but one step, or little more than one step, to the assumption that the need of redemption was grounded in a condition of man for which he was not responsible, that is, in the flesh. But this step, which would have led either to dualism (heretical Gnosis) or to the abolition of the distinction between natural and moral, was not taken within the main body of the Church. The eschatological series of ideas with its thesis that death, evil and sin entered into humanity at a definite historical moment, when the demons took possession of the world, drew a limit which was indeed overstepped at particular points, but was in the end respected. We have therefore the remarkable fact that, on the one hand, early Christian (Jewish) eschatology called forth and maintained a disposition in which the Kingdom of God and that of the world (Kingdom of the devil) were felt to be absolutely opposed (practical dualism), while, on the other hand, it rejected theoretic dualism. Redemption through Christ, however, was conceived in the eschatological Apocalyptic series of ideas as essentially something entirely in the future, for the power of the devil was not broken, but rather increased (or it was virtually broken in believers and increased in unbelievers) by the first advent of Christ, and therefore the period between the first and second advent of Christ belongs to οὗτος ὁ αἰών (see Barn. 2. 4; Herm. Sim. I; 2. Clem. 6. 3: ἔστιν δὲ οὗτος ὁ αἰὼν καὶ ὁ μέλλων δύο ἐχθροί· οὗτος

114

History of Dogma - Volume I

182

183

Adolf Harnack

of the evil one. There was no universally accepted theory as to the origin of this dominion; but the sure and universal conviction was that the present condition and course of the world is not of God, but is of the devil. Those, however, who believed in God, the almighty creator, and were expecting the transformation of the earth, as well as the visible dominion of Christ upon it, could not be seduced into accepting a dualism in principle (God and devil: spirit and matter). Belief in God, the creator, and eschatological hopes preserved the communities from the theoretic dualism that so readily suggested itself, which they slightly touched in many particular opinions, and which threatened to dominate their feelings. The belief that the world is of God and therefore good, remained in force. A distinction was made between the present constitution of the world, which is destined for destruction, and the future order of the world which will be a glorious “restitutio in integrum”, The theory of the world as an articulated whole which had already been proclaimed by the Stoics, and which was strengthened by Christian monotheism, would not, even if it had been known to the uncultured, have been vigorous enough to cope with the impression of the wickedness of the course of this world, and the vulgarity of all things material. But the firm belief in the omnipotence of God, and the hope of the world’s transformation grounded on the Old Testament, conquered the mood of absolute despair of all things visible and sensuous, and did not allow a theoretic conclusion, in the sense of dualism in principle, to be drawn from the practical obligation to renounce the world, or from the deep distrust with regard to the flesh. §©6. Faith in Jesus Christ.

184

1. As surely as redemption was traced back to God himself, so surely was Jesus (ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν) held to be the mediator of it. Faith in Jesus was therefore, even for Gentile Christians, a compendium of Christianity. Jesus is mostly designated with the same name as God,234 ὁ κύριος (ἡμῶν), for we must remember the ancient use of this title. All that has taken place or will take place with reference to salvation, is traced back to the “Lord.” The carelessness of the early Christian writers about the bearing of the word in particular cases,235 shews that in a religious relation, so far as there was reflection on the gift of salvation, Jesus could directly take the place of God. The invisible God is the author, Jesus the revealer and mediator, of all saving blessings. The final subject is presented in the nearest subject, and there is frequently no occasion for expressly distinguishing them, as the range and contents of the revelation of salvation in Jesus coincide with the range and contents of λέγει μοιχείαν καὶ φθορὰν καὶ φιλαργουρίαν καὶ ἀπάτην, ἐκεῖνος δὲ τούτοις ἀποστάσσεται; Ignat. Magn. 5. 2). For that very reason, the second coming of Christ must, as a matter of course, be at hand, for only through it could the first advent get its full value. The painful impression that nothing had been outwardly changed by Christ’s first advent (the heathen, moreover, pointed this out in mockery to the suffering Christians), must be destroyed by the hope of his speedy coming again. But the first advent had its independent significance in the series of ideas which regarded Christ as redeeming man from ignorance and mortality; for the knowledge was already given and the gift of immortality could only of course be dispensed after this life was ended, but then immediately. The hope of Christ’s return was therefore a superfluity, but was not felt or set aside as such, because there was still a lively expectation of Christ’s earthly Kingdom. 234 No other name adhered to Christ so firmly as that of κύριος: see a specially clear evidence of this, Novatian de trinit. 30, who argues against the Adoptian and Modalistic heretics thus: “Et in primis illud retorquendum in istos, qui duorum nobis deorum controversiam facere præsumunt. Scriptum est, quod negare non possunt: “Quoniam unus est dominus.” De Christo ergo quid sentiunt? Dominum esse, aut ilium omnino non esse? Sed dominum illum omnino non dubitant. Ergo si vera est illorum ratiocinatio, jam duo sunt domini.” On κύριος = δεσποτης, see above, p. 119, note. 235 Specially instructive examples of this are found in the Epistle of Barnabas and the second Epistle of Clement. Clement (Ep. 1) speaks only of faith in God.

115

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

the will of salvation in God himself. Yet prayers, as a rule, were addressed to God: at least, there are but few examples of direct prayers to Jesus belonging to the first century (apart from the prayers in the Act. Joh. of the so-called Leucius). The usual formula rather reads: θεῷ ἐξομολογούμεθα διὰ Ἰ. Χρ.—θεῷ δόξα διά Ἰ. Χρ.236

185

2. As the Gentile Christians did not understand the significance of the idea that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), the designation “χριστός” had either to be given up in their communities, or to subside into a mere name.237 But even where, through the Old Testament, one was reminded of the meaning of the word, and allowed a value to it, he was far from finding in the statement that Jesus is the Lord’s anointed, a clear expression of the dignity peculiar to him. That dignity had therefore to be expressed by other means. Nevertheless the eschatological series of ideas connected the Gentile Christians very closely with the early Christian ideas of faith, and therefore also with the earliest ideas about Jesus. In the confession that God chose238 and prepared239 Jesus, that Jesus is the Angel240

236

See 1 Clem. 59—61. Διδαχή, c. 9. 10. Yet Novatian (de trinit. 14) exactly reproduces the old idea, “Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur homo in orationibus mediator invocatur, cum invocatio hominis ad præstandam salutem inefficax judicetur.” As the Mediator, High Priest, etc., Christ is of course always and every-where invoked by the Christians, but such invocations are one thing and formal prayer another. The idea of the congruence of God’s will of salvation with the revelation of salvation which took place through Christ, was further continued in the idea of the congruence of this revelation of salvation with the universal preaching of the twelve chosen Apostles (see above, p. 162 ff.), the root of the Catholic principle of tradition. But the Apostles never became “οἱ κύριοι,” though the concepts διδαχὴ, (λόγος) κύριου, διδαχὴ (κήρυγμα) τῶν ἀποστόλων were just as interchangeable as λόγος θεοῦ and λόγος χριστοῦ. The full formula would be λὸγος θεοῦ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων. But as the subjects introduced by ara are chosen and perfect media, religious usage permitted the abbreviation. 237 In the epistle of Barnabas “Jesus Christ” and “Christ” appear each once, but “Jesus” twelve times: in the Didache “Jesus Christ” once, “Jesus” three times. Only in the second half of the second century, if I am not mistaken, did the designation “Jesus Christ,” or “Christ,” become the current one, more and more crowding out the simple “Jesus.” Yet the latter designation—and this is not surprising—appears to have continued longest in the regular prayers. It is worthy of note that in the Shepherd there is no mention either of the name Jesus or of Christ. The Gospel of Peter also says ὁ κύριος where the other Gospels use these names. 238 See 1 Clem. 64: ὁ θεὸς, ὁ ἐκλεξάμενος τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν καὶ ἡμᾶς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰς λαὸν περιούσιον δῷν. κ.τ.λ. (It is instructive to note that wherever the idea of election is expressed, the community is immediately thought of, for in point of fact the election of the Messiah has no other aim than to elect or call the community; Barn. 3. 6: ὁ λαὸς ὁν ́ ἡτοίμασεν ἡν τῷ ᾐγαπημόνῳ αὐτοῦ.) Herm. Sim. V. 2: ἐκλεξάμενος δοῦλόν τινα πιστὸ καὶ εὐάρεστον. V. 6. 5. Justin, Dial. 48: μὴ ἀρνεῖσθαι ὅτι οὑτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, ἐὰν φαίνηται ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἀνθρώπον γεννηθεὶς καὶ ἐκλογῇ γενόμενος εἰς τὸ Χριστὸν εἰναι ἀποδεικνύηται. 239 See Barn. 14. 5: Ἰησοῦς εἰς τοῦτο ἡτοιμασθη, ἵνα . . . . ἡμᾶς λυτρωσάμενος ἐκ τοῦ σκότους διάθηται ἐν ἡμῖν διαθήκην λόγῳ. The same word concerning the Church, 1. c. 3. 6. and 5. 7: αὐτὸς ἐαυτῷ τὸν λαὸν τὸν καινὸν ἐτοιμάζων. 14. 6. 240 “Angel” is a very old designation for Christ (see Justin’s Dial.) which maintained itself up to the Nicean controversy, and is expressly claimed for him in Novatian’s treatise “de trinit.” 11. 25 ff. (the word was taken from Old Testament passages which were applied to Christ). As a rule, however, it is not to be understood as a designation of the nature, but of the office of Christ as such, though the matter was never very clear. There were Christians who used it as a designation of the nature, and from the earliest times we find this idea contradicted. (See the Apoc. Sophoniæ, ed Stern, 1886, IV. fragment, p. 10: “He appointed no Angel to come to us, nor Archangel, nor any power, but he transformed himself into a man that he might come to us for our deliverance.” Cf. the remarkable parallel, ep. ad. Diagn. 7. 2: . . . . οὐ, καθάπερ ἀν ́ τις εἰκάσειεν ἁν ̀ θρωπος, ὑπηρέτην τινὰ πέμψας ἣ ἄγγελον ἣ ἄρχοντα ἣ τινα τῶν διεπόντων τὰ ἐπίγεια ἣ τινα τῶν πεπιστευμένων τὰς ἐν οὐρανοῖς διοικήσεις, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν τεχνίτην καὶ δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων, κ.τ.λ.) Yet it never got the length of a great controversy, and as the Logos doctrine gradually made way, the designation “Angel” became harmless and then vanished.

116

History of Dogma - Volume I

186

187

Adolf Harnack

and the servant of God,241 that he will judge the living and the dead,242 etc., expression is given to ideas about Jesus, in the Gentile Christian communities, which are borrowed from the thought that he is the Christ called of God and entrusted with an office.243 Besides, there was a very old designation handed down from the circle of the disciples, and specially intelligible to Gentile Christians, though not frequent and gradually disappearing, viz., “the Master”.244 3. But the earliest tradition not only spoke of Jesus as κύριος, σωτήρ, and διδάσκαλος, but as “ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ θεοῦ”, and this name was firmly adhered to in the Gentile Christian communities.245 It followed immediately from this that Jesus belongs to the sphere of God, and that, as is said in the earliest preaching known to us,246 one must think of him “ὡς περὶ θεοῦ”. This formula describes in a classic manner the indirect “theologia Christi” which we find unanimously expressed in all witnesses of the earliest epoch.247 We must think about Christ as we think about God, because, on 241

Παῖς (after Isaiah): this designation, frequently united with Ἰησοῦς and with the adjectives ἅγιος and ἡγαπημένος (see Barn. 3. 6: 4. 3: 4. 8: Valent. ap. Clem. Alex, Strom. VI. 6. 52, and the Ascensio Isaiæ), seems to have been at the beginning a usual one. It sprang undoubtedly from the Messianic circle of ideas, and at its basis lies the idea of election. It is very interesting to observe how it was gradually put into the background and finally abolished. It was kept longest in the liturgical prayers: see 1 Clem. 59. 2; Barn. 61: 9. 2; Acts iii. 13. 26; iv. 27. 30; Didache, 9. 2. 3; Mart. Polyc. 14. 20; Act. Pauli et Theclæ, 17. 24; Sibyl. I. v. 324, 331, 364; Diogn. 8, 9, 10: ὁ ἁγαπητὸς παῖς, 9. I; also Ep. Orig. ad Afric. init; Clem. Strom. VII. 1. 4: ὁ μονογενὴς παῖς, and my note on Barn. 6. 1. In the Didache (9. 2) Jesus as well as David is in one statement called “Servant of God.” Barnabas, who calls Christ the “Beloved,” uses the same expression for the Church (4. 1. 9); see also Ignat. ad Smyrn. inscr. 242 See the old Roman Symbol and Acts X. 42; 2 Tim. IV. 1; Barn. 7. 2; Polyc. Ep. 2. 1; 2 Clem. 2. 1; Hegesipp. in Euseb., H. E. III. 20 6: Justin Dial. 118. 243 There could of course be no doubt that Christ meant the “anointed” (even Aristides Apol. 2 fin., if Nestle’s correction is right, Justin’s Apol. 1. 4 and similar passages do not justify doubt on that point). But the meaning and the effect of this anointing was very obscure. Justin says (Apol. II. 6): Χριστὸς μὲν κατὰ τὸ κεχρῖσθαι καὶ κοσμῆσαι τα πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸν θεὸν λέγεται, and therefore (see Dial. 76 fin.) finds in this designation an expression of the cosmic significance of Christ. 244 See the Apologists Apost. K. O. (Texte v. Unters. II. 5. p. 25), προορῶντας τοὺς λόγους τοῦ διδασκάλου ἡμῶν, ibid., p. 28: ὅτε ᾔτησεν ὁ διδασκάλος τὸν ἀρ́ τον, ibid. p. 30: προέλεγεν, ὁτ́ ε ἐδίδασκν. Apost. Constit. (original writing) III. 6: αὐτὸς ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν καὶ κύριος. III. 7: ὁ κύριος καὶ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν εἷπεν. III. 19: III. 20: V. 12: 1 Clem. 13. 1 . . . . τῶν λόγων τοῦ κύριου Ἰησοῦ, οὓς ἐλάκησεν διδάσκων. Polyc. Ep. 2: μνημονεύοντες ὧν εἶπεν ὁ κυρίος διδάσκων. Ptolem. ad Floram. 5: ἡ διδασκαλια τοῦ σωτῆρος. 245 The baptismal formula, which had been naturalised everywhere in the communities at this period, preserved it above all. The addition of ἴδιος, πρωτόποκος is worthy of notice. Μονογενής (= the only begotten and also the beloved) is not common; it is found only in John, in Justin, in the Symbol of the Romish Church, and in Mart. Polyc. (Diogn. 10. 3). 246 The so-called second Epistle of Clement begins with the words: Ἀδελφοί, οὕτως δεῖ ἦμᾶς φρονεῖν περὶ Ἰησοῦ, ὡς περὶ θεοῦ, ὡς περὶ κριτοῦ ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν, (this order in which the Judge appears as the higher is also found in Barn. 7. 2), καὶ οὐ δεῖ ἡμᾶς μικρὰ φρονεῖν περὶ τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν· ἐν τᾧ γὰρ φρονεῖν ἡμᾶς μικρὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ, μικρὰ καί ἐλριζομεν λαβεῖν. This argumentation (see also the following verses up to II. 7) is very instructive; for it shews the grounds on which the φρονεῖν περὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς περὶ θεοῦ was based. H. Schultz, (L. v. d. Gottheit Christi, p. 25 f.) very correctly remarks: “In the second Epistle of Clement, and in the Shepherd, the Christological interest of the writer ends in obtaining the assurance, through faith in Christ as the world-ruling King and Judge, that the community of Christ will receive a glory corresponding to its moral and ascetic works. 247 Pliny in his celebrated letter (96), speaks of a “Carmen dicere Christo quasi deo” on the part of the Christians. Hermas has no doubt that the Chosen Servant, after finishing his work, will be adopted as God’s Son, and therefore has been destined from the beginning, εἰς ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην καὶ κυριύτητα (Sim. V. 6. 1). But that simply means that he is now in a Divine sphere, and that one must think of him as of God. But there was no unanimity beyond that. The formula says nothing about the nature or constitution of Jesus. It might indeed appear from Justin’s dialogue that the direct designation of Jesus as θεός (not as ὁ θεός) was common in the communities; but not only are there some passages in Justin him-self to be urged against this, but also the testimony of other writers. Θεός, even without the article, was in no case a usual designation for Jesus. On the contrary, it was always quite definite occasions which led them to speak of Christ as of a God. In the first place there were Old Testament

117

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

passages such as Ps. XLV. 8: CX. 1 f., etc., which, as soon as they were interpreted in relation to Christ, led to his getting the predicate θεός. These passages, with many others taken from the Old Testament, were used in this way by Justin. Yet it is very well worth noting, that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas avoided this expression, in a passage which must have suggested it. (12, 10, 11 on Ps. CX. 4.) The author of the Didache calls him “ὁ θεός Δάβιδ” on the basis of the above psalm. It is manifestly therefore in liturgical formulæ of exalted paradox, or living utterances of religious feeling that Christ is called God. See Ignat. ad Rom. 6. 3; ἐπιτρέψατέ μοι μιμητὴν εἶναι τοῦ παθους τοῦ θεοῦ μου (the μον here should be observed); ad Eph. 1. 1: ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἴματι θεοῦ: Tatian Orat. 13: διάκονος τοῦ πεπονθότος θεοῦ. As to the celebrated passage 1 Clem. ad Cor. 2, 10: τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ, (the αὐτοῦ refers to θεός) we may perhaps observe that that ὁ θεός stands far apart. However, such a consideration is hardly in place. The passages just adduced shew that precisely the union of suffering (blood, death) with the concept “God”—and only this union—must have been in Christendom from a very early period; see Acts XX. 28 . . . τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, and from a later period, Melito, Fragm. (in Routh Rel., Sacra I. 122): ὁ θεὸς πέπονθεν ὑπὸ δεξιάς Ἰσραηλιτίδος, Anonym. ap. Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 11; ὁ εὔσπλαγχνος θεός καὶ κυριός ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς οὐκ ἐβούλετο ἀπολέσθαι μάρτυρα τῶν ἰδίων παθημάτων; Test. XII. Patriarch. (Levi 4): ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει τοῦ ὑψίστου; Tertull. de carne 5; “passiones dei,” ad Uxor II. 3: “sanguine dei.” Tertullian also speaks frequently of the crucifying of God, the flesh of God, the death of God. (See Lightfoot, Clem. of Rome, p. 400 sq.) These formulæ were first subjected to examination in the Patripassian controversy. They were rejected by Athanasius, for example, in the fourth century (cf. Apollin. II. 13. 14. Opp. I. p. 758); πῶς οὖν γεγράφατε ὅτι θεός ὁ διὰ σάρκος παθὼν καὶ ἃναστάς, . . . . οὐδαμοῦ δὲ αἷμα θεοῦ δίχα σαρκὸς παραδεδώκασιν αἱ γραφαὶ ἣ θεὸν διὰ σαρκὸς παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα. They continued in use in the west and became of the utmost significance in the christological controversies of the fifth century. It is not quite certain whether there is a “theologia Christi” in such passages as Tit. II. 13: 2 Pet. I. 1 (see the controversies on Rom. IX. 5). Finally, θεός and Christus were often interchanged in religious discourse (see above). In the so-called second Epistle of Clement (c. 1. 4) the dispensing of light, knowledge, is traced back to Christ. It is said of him that, like a Father, he has called us children, he has delivered us, he has called us into existence out of non-existence, and in this God himself is not thought of. Indeed he is called (2. 2. 3) the hearer of prayer and controller of history; but immediately thereon a saying of the Lord is introduced as a saying of God (Matt. IX. 13). On the contrary, Isaiah XXIX. 13, is quoted 3. 5) as a declaration of Jesus, and again (13. 4) a saying of the Lord with the formula: λέγει ὁ θεός. It is Christ who pitied us (3. 1: 16. 2); he is described simply as the Lord who hath called and redeemed us (5. 1: 8. 2: 9. 5: etc.). Not only is there frequent mention of the ἐντλαι (ἐντάλματα) of Christ, but 6, 7 (see 14. 1) speak directly of a ποιεῖν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Χριστὸῦ. Above all, in the entire first division (up to 9. 5) the religious situation is for the most part treated as if it were something essentially between the believer and Christ. On the other hand, (10. 1) the Father is he who calls (see also 16. 1), who brings salvation (9. 7), who accepts us as sons (9. 10: 16. 1); he has given us promises (11. 1. 6. 7); we expect his kingdom, nay, the day of his appearing (12. 1 f.: 6. 9: 9. 6: 11. 7: 12. 1). He will judge the world, etc.; while in 17. 4 we read of the day of Christ’s appearing, of his kingdom and of his function of Judge, etc. Where the preacher treats of the relation of the community to God, where he describes the religious situation according to its establishment or its consummation, where he desires to rule the religious and moral conduct, he introduces, without any apparent distinction, now God himself, and now Christ. But this religious view, in which acts of God coincide with acts of Christ, did not, as will be shewn later on, influence the theological speculations of the preacher. We have also to observe that the interchanging of God and Christ is not always an expression of the high dignity of Christ, but, on the contrary, frequently proves that the personal significance of Christ is misunderstood, and that he is regarded only as the dependent revealer of God. All this shews that there cannot have been many passages in the earliest literature where Christ was roundly designated θεός. It is one thing to speak of the blood (death, suffering) of God, and to describe the gifts of salvation brought by Christ as gifts of God, and another thing to set up the proposition that Christ is a God (or God). When, from the end of the second century, one began to look about in the earlier writings for passages ἐν οἷς θεολογεῖται ὁ χριστός, because the matter had become a subject of controversy, one could, besides the Old Testament, point only to the writings of authors from the time of Justin, (to apologists and controversialists) as well as to Psalms and odes (see the Anonymn. in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 4–6). In the following passages of the Ignatian Epistles “θεός” appears as a designation of Christ; he is called ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν in Ephes. inscript; Rom. inscr. bis 3. 2; Polyc. 8. 3; Eph. 1. 1, αῖμα θεοῦ; Rom. 6. 3, τὸ πάθος τοῦ θεοῦ μου; Eph. 7. 2, ἐ99 σαρκὶ γενόμενος θεός, in another reading, ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ θεός, Smyrn. I. 1., Ἰ. Χρ. ὁ θεός ὁ οὕτως ὑμᾶς ποφίσας. The latter passage, in which the relative clause must he closely united with “θεός,”; seems to form the transition to the three passages (Trail. 7. I; Smyrn. 6. 1; 10. 1), in which Jesus is called θεος without addition. But these passages are critically suspicious, see Lightfoot in loco. In the same way the “deus Jesus Christus” in Polyc. Ep. 12. 2, is suspicious, and indeed in both parts of the verse. In the first, all Latin codd. have “dei filius,” and in the Greek codd. of the Epistle, Christ is nowhere called θεός. We have a keen polemic against the designation of Christ as θεός in Clem. Rom. Homil. XVI. 15 sq.; Ὁ Πέτρος ἀπεκρίθη· ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν οὐτ́ ε θεοὺς εἶναι ἐφθέγξατο παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα τὰ πάντα οὐτ́ ε ἑαυτὸν θεὸν εἶναι ἀνηγόρευσεν, ὑιὸν δὲ θεοῦ τοῦ τὰ πάντα διακοσμήσαντος τὸν εἱπόντα αὐτὸν εὐλόγως ἐμακάρισεν καὶ ὁ Σίμων ἀπεκρίνατο· οὐ δοκεῖ σοι οὖν

118

History of Dogma - Volume I

188

189

190

Adolf Harnack

the one hand, God had exalted him, and committed to him as Lord, judgment over the living and the dead, and because, on the other hand, he has brought the knowledge of the truth, called sinful men, delivered them from the dominion of demons, and hath led, or will lead them, out of the night of death and corruption to eternal life. Jesus Christ is “our faith”, “our hope”, “our life”, and in this sense “our God”. The religious assurance that he is this, for we find no wavering on this point, is the root of the “theologia Christi”; but we must also remember that the formula “θεός” was inserted beside “κύριος,” that the “dominus ac deus” was very common at that time,248 and that a Saviour (σωτήρ) could only be represented somehow as a Divine being.249 Yet Christ never was, as “θεός”, placed on an equality with the Father,250—monotheism guarded against that. Whether he was intentionally and deliberately identified with Him the following paragraph will shew. 4. The common confession did not go beyond the statements that Jesus is the Lord, the Saviour, the Son of God, that one must think of him as of God, that dwelling now with God in heaven, he is to be adored as προστάτης καὶ βοηθὸς τῆς ἀσθενείας, and as ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν προσφορῶν ἡμῶν [as guardian and helper of the weak and as High Priest of our oblations], to be feared as the future Judge, to be esteemed most highly as the bestower of immortality, that he is our hope and our faith. There are found rather, on the basis of that confession, very diverse conceptions of the Person, that is, of the nature of Jesus, beside each other,251 which collectively exhibit a certain analogy with the Greek theologies, the naive and the philosophic.252 There was as yet no such thing here as

τὸν ἀπὸ θεὸν εἶναι; καὶ ὁ Πέτρος ἔφη· πῶς τοῦτο εἶναι δύναται, φράσον ἡμῖν, τοῦτο γὰρ ἡμεῖς εἰπεῖν σοι οὐ δυνάμεθα ὃτι μὴ ἡκούσαμεν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ. 248 On the further use of the word θεός in antiquity, see above, §©8, p. 120 f.; the formula “θεός ἐκ θεοῦ” for Augustus, even 24 years before Christ’s birth; on the formula “dominus ac deus,” see John XX. 28; the interchange of these concepts in many passages beside one another in the anonymous writer (Euseb. II. E. V. 28. 11.) Domitian first allowed himself to be called “dominus ac deus.” Tertullian Apol. 10. 11, is very instructive as to the general situation in the second century. Here are brought forward the different causes which then moved men, the cultured and the uncultured, to give to this or that personality the predicate of Divinity. In the third century the designation of “domus ac deus noster” for Christ was very common, especially in the west. (See Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, Novatian; in the Latin Martyrology a Greek ὁ κύριος is also frequently so translated.) But only at this time had the designation come to be in actual use even for the Emperor. It seems at first sight to follow from the statements of Celsus (in Orig. c. Cels. III. 22-43) that this Greek had and required a very strict conception of the Godhead; but his whole work shews how little that was really the case. The reference to these facts of the history of the time is not made with the view of discovering the “theologia Christi” itself in its ultimate roots—these roots lie elsewhere, in the person of Christ and Christian experience; but that this experience, before any technical reflection, had so easily and so surely substituted the new formula instead of the idea of Messiah, can hardly be explained without reference to the general religious ideas of the time. 249 The combination of θεὸς and σωτήρ in the Pastoral Epistles is very important. The two passages in the New Testament in which perhaps a direct “theologia Christi” may be recognised, contain likewise the concept σωτὴρ; see Tit. II. 13; προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (cf. Abbot, Journal of the Society of Bibl. Lit., and Exeg. 1881. June. p. 3 sq.): 2 Pet. I. 1: ἐν δικαιοσυνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος. Ἰ. Χρ. In both cases the ἡμῶν should be specially noted., Besides, θεὸς σωτήρ is also an ancient formula. 250 A very ancient formula ran “θεὸς καὶ θεὸς ὑιὸς,” see Cels. ap. Orig II. 30; Justin, frequently: Alterc. Sim. et Theoph. 4, etc. The formula is equivalent to θεὸς μονογενής (see Joh. I. 18). 251 Such conceptions are found side by side in the same writer. See, for example, the second Epistle of Clement, and even the first. 252 See §©6, p. 120. The idea of a θεοποιήσις was as common as that of the appearances of the gods. In wide circles, however, philosophy had long ago naturalised the idea of the λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ. But now there is no mistaking a new element everywhere. In the case of the Christologies which include a kind of θεοπιιήσις, it is found in the fact that the deified Jesus was to be recognised not as a Demigod or Hero, but as Lord of the world, equal in power and honour to the Deity. In the case of those Christologies which start with Christ as the heavenly spiritual being, it is found in the belief in an actual incarnation. These two articles, as was to be expected, presented difficulties to the Gentile Christians and the latter more than the former.

119

History of Dogma - Volume I

191

Adolf Harnack

ecclesiastical “doctrines” in the strict sense of the word, but rather conceptions more or less fluid, which were not seldom fashioned ad hoc.253 These may be reduced collectively to two.254 Jesus was either regarded as the man whom God hath chosen, in whom the Deity or the Spirit of God dwelt, and who, after being tested, was adopted by God and invested with dominion, (Adoptian Christology);255 or Jesus was regarded as a heavenly spiritual being (the highest after God) who 253

This is usually overlooked. Christological doctrinal conceptions are frequently constructed by a combination of particular passages, the nature of which does not permit of combination. But the fact that there was no universally recognised theory about the nature of Jesus till beyond the middle of the second century, should not lead us to suppose that the different theories were anywhere declared to be of equal value, etc., therefore more or less equally valid; on the contrary, everyone, so far as he had a theory at all, included his own in the revealed truth. That they had not yet come into conflict is accounted for, on the one hand, by the fact that the different theories ran up into like formulæ, and could even frequently be directly carried over into one another; and on the other hand, by the fact that their representatives appealed to the same authorities. But we must, above all, remember that conflict could only arise after the enthusiastic element, which also had a share in the formation of Christology, had been suppressed, and problems were felt to be such, that is, after the struggle with Gnosticism, or even during that struggle. 254 Both were clearly in existence in the Apostolic age. 255 Only one work has been preserved entire which gives clear expression to the Adoptian Christology, viz., the Shepherd of Hermas (see Sim. V. and IX. 1. 12). According to it, the Holy Spirit—it is not certain whether he is identified with the chief Archangel—is regarded as the pre-existent Son of God, who is older than creation, nay, was God’s counsellor at creation. The Redeemer is the virtuous man (σάρξ) chosen by God, with whom that Spirit of God was united. As he did not defile the Spirit, but kept him constantly as his companion, and carried out the work to which the Deity had called him, nay, did more than he was commanded, he was in virtue of a Divine decree adopted as a son and exalted to μεγάλη ἐξουσια καὶ κυριότης. That this Christology is set forth in a book which enjoyed the highest honour and sprang from the Romish community, is of great significance. The representatives of this Christology, who in the third century were declared to be heretics, expressly maintained that it was at one time the ruling Christology at Rome and had been handed down by the Apostles. (Anonym. H. E. V. 28. 3, concerning the Artemonites: φασὶ τοὺς μὲν προτέρους ἅπαντας καί αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἀποστόλους παρειληφέναι τε καὶ δεδιδαχέναι ταῦτα, ἅ νῦν οὗτοι λέγουσι, καὶ τετηρῆσθαι τὴν ἀλήθεια τοῦ κηρύγματος μέχρι τῶν χρόνων τοῦ Βίκτορος . . . ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ διαδόχου αὐτοῦ Ζεφυρίνου παρακεχαράχθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν.) This assertion, though exaggerated, is not incredible after what we find in Hermas. It cannot, certainly, be verified by a superficial examination of the literary monuments preserved to us, but a closer investigation shews that the Adoptian Christology must at one time have been very widespread, that it continued here and there undisturbed up to the middle of the third century (see the Christology in the Acta Archelai. 49. 50), and that it continued to exercise great influence even in the fourth and fifth centuries (see Book II. c. 7). Something similar is found even in some Gnostics, e.g., Valentinus himself (see Iren. I. 11. 1: καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν δὲ οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν τῷ πληρώματι αἰώνων προβεβλῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ τῆς μητρὸς, ἔξω δὲ γενομένης, κατὰ τὴν γνώμην τῶν κρειττόνων ἀποκεκυῆσθαι μετὰ σκιᾶς τινός. Καὶ τοῦτον μέν, ἅτε ἅρρενα ὑπάρχοντα, ἀποκὸψαντα ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὴν σκιὰν, ἀναδραμεῖν εἱς τὸ πλήρωμα. The same in the Exc. ex Theodot §§©22, 23, 32, 33), and the Christology of Basilides presupposes that of the Adoptians. Here also belongs the conception which traces back the genealogy of Jesus to Joseph. The way in which Justin (Dialogues 48, 49, 87 ff.) treats the history of the baptism of Jesus, against the objection of Trypho that a pre-existent Christ would not have needed to be filled with the Spirit of God. is instructive. It is here evident that Justin deals with objections which were raised within the communities themselves to the pre-existence of Christ, on the ground of the account of the baptism In point of fact, this account (it had, according to very old witnesses, see Resch, Agrapha Christi, p. 307, according to Justin; for example, Dial. 88, 103, the wording: ἅμα τῷ ἀναβῆναι αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ λεχθείσης υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε; see the Cod. D. of Luke. Clem. Alex. etc.) forms the strongest foundation of the Adoptian Christology, and hence it is exceedingly interesting to see how one compounds with it from the second to the fifth century, an investigation which deserves a special monograph. But, of course, the edge was taken off the report by the assumption of the miraculous birth of Jesus from the Holy Spirit, so that the Adoptians in recognising this, already stood with one foot in the camp of their opponents. It is now instructive to see here how the history of the baptism, which originally formed the beginning of the proclamation of Jesus’ history, is suppressed in the earliest formulæ, and therefore also in the Romish Symbol, while the birth from the Holy Spirit is expressly stated. Only in Ignatius (ad Smyrn. I: cf. ad Eph. 18. 2) is the baptism taken into account in the confession; but even he has given the event a turn by which it has no longer any significance for Jesus himself (just as in the case of Justin, who concludes from the resting of the Spirit in his fulness upon Jesus, that there will be no more prophets among the Jews, spiritual gifts being rather communicated to Christians; compare also the way in which the baptism of Jesus is treated in John I.). Finally, we must point out that in the Adoptian Christology the parallel between Jesus and all believers who have the Spirit and are Sons of God, stands out very clearly. (Cf. Herm. Sim. V. with Maud. III. V. 1: X. 2: most important is Sim. V. 6. 7.) But this was the very thing that endangered the whole view. Celsus, I. 57,

120

History of Dogma - Volume I

192 193

Adolf Harnack

took flesh, and again returned to heaven after the completion of his work on earth (pneumatic Christology).256 These two Christologies which are, strictly speaking, mutually exclusive—the man who has become a God, and the Divine being who has appeared in human form—yet came very near each other when the Spirit of God implanted in the man Jesus was conceived as the pre-existent

194

addressing Jesus, asks; “If thou sayest that every man whom Divine Providence allows to be born (this is of course a formulation for which Celsus alone is responsible) is a son of God, what advantage hast thou then over others?” We can see already in the Dialogue of Justin the approach of the later great controversy, whether Christ is Son of God κατὰ γνώμην or κατὰ φύσιν, that is, had a pre-existence: “καί γὰρ εἶσι τινες, he says, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱμετέρου γένους ὁμολογοῦντες αὐτὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι, ἄνθρωπον δὲ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενόμενον ἀποφαινόμενοι, οἷς οὐ συντίθεμαι” (c. 48). 256 This Christology, which may be traced back to the Pauline, but which can hardly have its point of departure in Paul alone, is found also in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in the writings of John, including the Apocalypse, and is represented by Barnabas, I and 2 Clem., Ignatius, Polycarp, the author of the Pastoral Epistles, the Authors of Præd. Petri, and the Altercatio Jasonis et Papisci, etc. The Classic formulation is in 2 Clem. 9. 5: Χριστὸς ὁ κύριος ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς ὣν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεθμα ἐγήνετο σὰρξ καὶ οὥτως ἡμᾶς ἡκάλεσεν. According to Barnabas (5. 3), the pre-existent Christ is παντὸς τοῦ κοσμου κύριος; to him God said, ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κὸσμου, “Let us make man, etc.” He is (5. 6) the subject and goal of all Old Testament revelation. He is οὐχὶ ὑιὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀλλ: ὑιὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, τωπῷ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς (12. 10); the flesh is merely the veil of the Godhead, without which man could not have endured the light (5. 10). According to 1 Clement, Christ is τὸ σκῆπτρον τῆς μελαγοσύνης τοῦ θεοῦ (16. 2), who, if he had wished, could have appeared on earth ἐν κόμπῳ ἀλαζονείας; he is exalted far above the angels (32), as he is the Son of God (παθήματα τοῦ θεοῦ, 2. 1); he hath spoken through the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament (22. 1). It is not certain whether Clement understood Christ under the λόγος μεγαλοσύνης τοῦ θεοῦ (27. 4). According to 2 Clem., Christ and the Church are heavenly spiritual existences which have appeared in the last times. Gen. 1. 27 refers to their creation (c. 14; see my note on the passage: We learn from Origen that a very old Theologoumenon identified Jesus with the ideal of Adam, the Church with that of Eve. Similar ideas about Christ are found in Gnostic Jewish Christians); one must think about Christ as about God (I. 1). Ignatius writes (Eph. 7. 2): Εἰς, ἰατρός ἐστιν σαρκικός τε καὶ πνευματικός, γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος, ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος θεὸς, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινή, καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ θεοῦ, πρῶτον παθητος καὶ τότε ἀπαθής Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν. As the human predicates stand here first, it might appear as though, according to Ignatius, the man Jesus became God (ὁ θεός ἡμῶν, Cf. Eph. inscr.: 18. 2). In point of fact, he regards Jesus as Son of God only by his birth from the Spirit; but on the other hand, Jesus is ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς πατρός προελθῶν (Magn. 7. 2), is λόγος θεοὕ (Magn. 8. 2), and when Ignatius so often emphasises the truth of Jesus’ history against Docetism (Trall. 9. for example), we must assume that he shares the thesis with the Gnostics that Jesus is by nature a spiritual being. But it is well worthy of notice that Ignatius, as distinguished from Barnabas and Clement, really gives the central place to the historical Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Mary, and his work. The like is found only in Irenæus. The pre-existence of Christ is presupposed by Polycarp. (Ep. 7. 1); but, like Paul, he strongly emphasises a real exaltation of Christ (2. 1). The author of Præd. Petri calls Christ the λόγος (Clem. Strom. I. 29, 182). As Ignatius calls him this also, as the same designation is found in the Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse of John (the latter a Christian adaptation of a Jewish writing), in the Act. Joh. (see Zahn, Acta Joh. p. 220), finally, as Celsus (II. 31) says quite generally, “The Christians maintain that the Son of God is at the same time his incarnate Word,” we plainly perceive that this designation for Christ was not first started by professional philosophers (see the Apologists, for example, Tatian, Orat. 5, and Melito Apolog. fragm. in the Chron. pasch. p. 483, ed. Dindorf: Χριστὸς ὤν θεοῦ λόγος πρό αἰώνων). We do not find in the Johannine writings such a Logos speculation as in the Apologists, but the current expression is taken up in order to shew that it has its truth in the appearing of Jesus Christ. The ideas about the existence of a Divine Logos were very widely spread; they were driven out of philosophy into wide circles. The Author of the Alterc. Jas. et Papisci conceived the phrase in Gen. I. 1, ἐνἀρχῇ, as equivalent to ἐν ὑιῷ (χριστῷ) Jerome, Quæst. hebr. in Gen. p. 3; see Tatian Orat. 5: θεὸς ἡν ἐν ἀρχῇ τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν λόγου δύναμιν παρειλήφαμεν. Ignatius (Eph. 3) also called Christ ἡ γνώμη τοῦ πατρός (Eph. 17: ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ θεοῦ); that is a more fitting expression than λόγος. The subordination of Christ as a heavenly being to the Godhead is seldom or never carefully emphasised, though it frequently comes plainly into prominence. Yet the author of the second Epistle of Clement does not hesitate to place the pre-existent Christ and the pre-existent Church on one level, and to declare of both that God created them (c. 14). The formulæ φανεροῦσθαι ἐν σαρκί, or γίγνεσθαι σάρξ, are characteristic of this Christology. It is worthy of special notice that the latter is found in all those New Testament writers who have put Christianity in contrast with the Old Testament religions, and proclaimed the conquest of that religion by the Christian, viz., Paul, John, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

121

History of Dogma - Volume I

195

Adolf Harnack

Son of God,257 and when, on the other hand, the title, Son of God, for that pneumatic being was derived only from the miraculous generation in the flesh; yet both these seem to have been the rule.258 Yet, in spite of all transitional forms, the two Christologies may be clearly distinguished. Characteristic of the one is the development through which Jesus is first to become a Godlike Ruler,259 and connected therewith, the value put on the miraculous event at the baptism; of the other, a naive docetism.260 For no one as yet thought of affirming two natures in Jesus:261 the Divine dignity appeared rather, either as a gift,262 or the human nature (σάρξ) as a veil assumed for a time, or as the metamorphosis of the Spirit.263 The formula that Jesus was a mere man (ψίλὸς ἄνθρωπος), was

196

257

Hermas, for example, does this (therefore Link; Christologie des Hermas, and Weizsäcker, Gott. Gel. Anz. 1886, p. 830, declare his Christology to be directly pneumatic): Christ is then identified with this Holy Spirit (see Acta Archel. 50), similarly Ignatius (ad Magn. 15): κεκτημένοι ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα, ὁς ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, This formed the transition to Gnostic conceptions on the one hand, to pneumatic Christology on the other. But in Hermas the real substantial thing in Jesus is the σάρξ. 258 Passages may indeed be found in the earliest Gentile Christian literature in which Jesus is designated Son of God, independently of his human birth and before it (so in Barnabas, against Zahn), but they are not numerous. Ignatius very clearly deduces the predicate “Son” from the birth in the flesh. Zahn, Marcellus, p. 216 ff. 259 The distinct designation “θεοποίησις” is not found, though that may be an accident. Hermas has the thing itself quite distinctly, (see Epiph. c. Alog. H. 51. 18: νομίζοντες ἀπὸ Μαρίας καὶ δεῦρο Χριστὸν αὐτὸν καλεῖσθαι καί ὑιὸν θεοῦ, καὶ εἶναι μὲν πρότερον ψιλὸν ἀν́ θρωπον, κατὰ προκοπὴν δὲ εἰληφέναι τὴν τοῦ ὑιοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ προσηγορίαν). The stages of the προκοπὴ were undoubtedly the birth, baptism and resurrection. Even the adherents of the pneumatic Christology could not at first help recognising that Jesus, through his exaltation, got more than he originally possessed. Yet in their case this conception was bound to become rudimentary, and it really did so. 260 The settlement with Gnosticism prepared a still always uncertain end for this naive Docetism. Apart from Barn 5. 12, where it plainly appears, we have to collect laboriously the evidences of it which have not accidentally either perished or been concealed. In the communities of the second century there was frequently no offence taken at Gnostic docetism (see the Gospel of Peter, Clem. Alex., Adumbrat. in Joh. Ep. I. c. 1. [Zahn, Forsch. z. Gesch. des N. T.-lichen Kanons, III p. 87]; “Fertur ergo in traditionibus, quoniam Johannes ipsum corpus, quod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui præbuisse discipuli.” Also Acta Joh. p. 209, ed. Zahn). In spite of all his polemic against “δόκησις” proper, one can still perceive a “moderate docetism” in Clem. Alex., to which indeed certain narratives in the Canonical Gospels could not but lead. The so-called Apocryphal literature (Apocryphal Gospels and Acts of Apostles), lying on the boundary between heretical and common Christianity, and preserved only in scanty fragments and extensive alterations, was, it appears, throughout favourable to Docetism. But the later recensions attest that it was read in wide circles. 261 Even such a formulation as we find in Paul (e.g., Rom. I. 3 f. κατὰ σάρκα—κατὰ πνεῦμα) does not seem to have been often repeated (yet see 1 Clem. 32. 2). It is of value to Ignatius only, who has before his mind the full Gnostic contrast. But even to him we cannot ascribe any doctrine of two natures: for this requires as its presupposition, the perception that the divinity and humanity are equally essential and important for the personality of the Redeemer Christ. Such insight, however, presupposes a measure and a direction of reflection which the earliest period did not possess. The expression “δύο οὐσίαι Χριστοῦ” first appears in a fragment of Melito, whose genuineness is not, however, generally recognised (see my Texte u. Unters. I. 1. 2. p. 257). Even the definite expression for Christ, θεὸς ὣν ὀμοῦ τε καὶ ἄνθρωπος, was fixed only in consequence of the Gnostic controversy. 262 Hermas (Sim. V. 6. 7) describes the exaltation of Jesus thus: ἵνα καὶ ἡ σάρξ αὕτη, δουλεύσασα τῷ πνεύμαρι ἀμέμπτως, σχῇ τόπον τινὰ κατασκήνώσεως, καὶ μὴ δοξῃ τὸν μισθὸν τῆς δουλείας αὐτῆς ἀπολωλεκέναι. The point in question is a reward of grace which consists in a position of rank (see Sim. V. 6. 1). The same thing is manifest from the statements of the later Adoptians. (Cf. the teaching of Paul Samosata.) 263 Barnabas, e.g., conceives it as a veil (5. 10: εἰ γὰρ μή ἦλθεν εν σαρκί, οὐδ᾽ ἄν πως οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἐσώθησαν βλέποντες αὐτόν· ὅτε τὸν μέλλοντα μὴ εἶναι ἥλιον ἐμβλέποντες οὐκ ἰσχύσουσιν εἰς τὰς ἀκτῖνας αὐτοῦ ἀντοφθαλμῆσαι). The formulation of the Christian idea in Celsus is instructive (c. Cels. VI. 69): “Since God is great and not easily accessible to the view, he put his spirit in a body which is like our own, and sent it down in order that we might be instructed by it.” To this conception corresponds the formula: ἔρχεσθαι (φανεροῦσθαι) εν σαρκί (Barnabas, frequently; Polyc. Ep. 7. 1). But some kind of transformation must also have been thought of (see 2 Clem. 9. 5, and Celsus IV. 18: “Either God, as these suppose, is really transformed into a mortal body ...” Apoc. Sophon. ed Stern. 4 fragm. p. 10; “He has transformed himself into a man who comes to us to redeem us”). This

122

History of Dogma - Volume I

197

Adolf Harnack

undoubtedly always and from the first regarded as offensive.264 But the converse formulæ, which identified the person of Jesus in its essence with the Godhead itself, do not seem to have been rejected with the same decision.265 Yet such formulæ may have been very rare, and even objects of suspicion, in the leading ecclesiastical circles, at least until after the middle of the second century we can point to them only in documents which hardly found approbation in wide circles. The assumption of the existence of at least one heavenly and eternal spiritual being beside God was plainly demanded by the Old Testament writings, as they were understood; so that even those whose

conception might grow out of the formula σάρξ ἐγένετο (Ignat. ad Eph. 7. 2 is of special importance here). One is almost throughout here satisfied with the σάρξ of Christ, that is the ἀληθεία τῆς σαρκός, against the heretics (so Ignatius, who was already antignostic in his attitude). There is very seldom any mention of the humanity of Jesus. Barnabas (12), the author of the Didache (c. 10. 6. See my note on the passage), and Tatian questioned the Davidic Sonship of Jesus, which was strongly emphasised by Ignatius; nay, Barnabas even expressly rejects the designation “Son of Man” (12. 10; ἴδε πάλιν Ἰησοῦς, οὐχὶ ὑιὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀλλὰ ὑιὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, τύπῳ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς). A docetic thought, however, lies in the assertion that the spiritual being Christ only assumed human flesh, however, much the reality of the flesh may be emphasised. The passage 1 Clem. 49. 6, is quite unique: τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς . . . καὶ τὴν σάρκα ὑπὲρ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὸρ τῶν ψυχῶν ἥμῶν. One would fain believe this an interpolation; the same idea is first found in Irenæus. (V. 1. 1). 264 Even Hermas does not speak of Jesus as ἄνθρωπος (see Link). This designation was used by the representatives of the Adoptian Christology only after they had expressed their doctrine antithetically and developed it to a theory, and always with a certain reservation. The “ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς” in 1 Tim. II. 5 is used in a special sense. The expression ἄνθρωπος for Christ appears twice in the Ignatian Epistles (the third passage Smyrn. 4. 2: αὐτοῦ με ἐνδυναμοῦντος τοῦ τελείου ἀνθρωπου γενομένου, apart from the γενομένου, is critically suspicious, as well as the fourth, Eph. 7. 2; see above), in both passages, however, in connections which seem to modify the humanity; see Eph. 20. 1: οἰκονομία εἰς τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν; Eph. 20. 2: τῷ ὑιῷ ἀνθρώπου καὶ ὑιῷ θεοῦ. 265 See above p. 185, note; p. 189, note. We have no sure evidence that the later so-called Modalism (Monarchianism) had representatives before the last third of the second century; yet the polemic of Justin, Dial. 128. seems to favour the idea, (the passage already presupposes controversies about the personal independence of the pre-existent pneumatic being of Christ beside God; but one need not necessarily think of such controversies within the communities; Jewish notions might be meant, and this, according to Apol. 1. 63, is the more probable). The judgment is therefore so difficult, because there were numerous formulæ in practical use which could be so understood, as if Christ was to be completely identified with the God-head itself (see Ignat. ad Eph. 7. 2, besides Melito in Otto. Corp. Apol. IX. p. 419, and Noëtus in the Philos. IX. 10, p. 448). These formula may, in point of fact, have been so understood, here and there, by the rude and uncultivated. The strongest again is presented in writings whose authority was always doubtful: see the Gospel of the Egyptians (Epiph. H. 62. 2), in which must have stood a statement somewhat to this effect: τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι πατέρα, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ὑιὸν, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἅγιον πνεῦμα, and the Acta Joh. (ed. Zahn, p. 220 f., 240 f.: ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἡμῶν θεὸς ὁ εὔσπλαγχνος, ὁ ἐλεήμων, ὁ ἅγιος, ὁ καθαρός, ὁ ἀμίαντος, ὁ μόνος, ὁ εἷς, ὁ ἀμετάβλητος, ὁ εἰλικρινής, ὁ ἄδολος, ὁ μὴ ὀργιζόμενος, ὁ πᾶσης ἡμῖν λεγομένης ἣ νοουμένης προσηγορίας ἀνώτερος καὶ ὑψηλότερος ἡμῶν θεὸς Ἰησοῦς). In the Act. Joh. are found also prayers with the address θεὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ (pp. 242, 247). Even Marcion and in part the Montanists—both bear witness to old traditions—put no value on the distinction between God and Christ; cf. the Apoc. Sophon. A witness to a naive Modalism is found also in the Acta Pionii 9: “Quem deum colis? Respondit: Christum. Polemon (judex): Quid ergo? iste alter est? [the co-defendant Christians had immediately before confessed God the Creator]. Respondit: Non; sed ipse quem et ipsi paullo ante confessi sunt; cf. c. 16. Yet a reasoned Modalism may perhaps he assumed here. See also the Martyr Acts; e.g., Acta Petri, Andrae, Pauli et Dionysiæ 1 (Ruinart, p. 205): ἡμεῖς οἱ Χριστὸν τὸν βασιλέα ἐχ́ ομεν, ὁτ́ ι ἀληθινὸς θεός ἐστιν καὶ ποιητὴς οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης. “Oportet me magis deo vivo et vero, regi sæculorum omnium Christo, sacrificium offerre.” Act. Nicephor. 3 (p. 285). I take no note of the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, out of which one can, of course, beautifully verify the strict Modalistic, and even the Adoptian Christology. But the Testamenta are not a primitive or Jewish Christian writing which Gentile Christians have revised, but a Jewish writing christianised at the end of the second century by a Catholic of Modalistic views. But he has given us a very imperfect work, the Christology of which exhibits many contradictions. It is instructive to find Modalism in the theology of the Simonians, which was partly formed according to Christian ideas; see Irenæus I. 23, 1: “hic igitur a multis quasi deus glorificatus est, et docuit semetipsunr esse qui inter Judæos quidem quasi filius apparuerit, in Samaria autem quasi pater descenderit in reliquis vero gentibus quasi Spiritus Sanctus adventaverit.

123

History of Dogma - Volume I

198

199

Adolf Harnack

Christology did not require them to reflect on that heavenly being were forced to recognise it.266 The pneumatic Christology accordingly meets us wherever there is an earnest occupation with the Old Testament, and wherever faith in Christ as the perfect revealer of God occupies the foreground, therefore not in Hermas, but Certainly in Barnabas, Clement, etc. The future belonged to this Christology because the current exposition of the Old Testament seemed directly to require it, because it alone permitted the close connection between creation and redemption, because it furnished the proof that the world and religion rest upon the same Divine basis, because it was represented in the most valuable writings of the early period of Christianity, and finally, because it had room for the speculations about the Logos. On the other hand, no direct and natural relation to the world and to universal history could be given to the Adoptian Christology, which was originally determined eschatologically. If such a relation, however, were added to it, there resulted formulæ such as that of two Sons of God, one natural and eternal, and one adopted, which corresponded neither to the letter of the Holy Scriptures, nor to the Christian preaching. Moreover, the revelations of God in the Old Testament made by Theophanies must have seemed, because of this their form, much more exalted than the revelations made through a man raised to power and glory, which Jesus constantly seemed to be in the Adoptian Christology. Nay, even the mysterious personality of Melchisedec, without father or mother, might appear more impressive than the Chosen Servant, Jesus, who was born of Mary, to a mode of thought which, in order to make no mistake, desired to verify the Divine by outer marks. The Adoptian Christology, that is the Christology which is most in keeping with the self-witness of Jesus (the Son as the chosen Servant of God), is here shewn to be unable to assure to the Gentile Christians those conceptions of Christianity which they regarded as of highest value. It proved itself insufficient when confronted by any reflection on the relation of religion to the cosmos, to humanity, and to its history. It might, perhaps, still have seemed doubtful about the middle of the second century as to which of the two opposing formulæ, “Jesus is a man exalted to a Godlike dignity” and “Jesus is a divine spiritual being incarnate”, would succeed in the Church. But one only needs to read the pieces of writing which represent the latter thesis, and to compare them, say, with the Shepherd of Hermas, in order to see to which view the future must belong. In saying this, however, we are anticipating; for the Christological reflections were not yet vigorous enough to overcome enthusiasm and the expectation of the speedy end of all 266

That is a very important fact which clearly follows from the Shepherd, Even the later school of the Adoptians in Rome, and the later Adoptians in general, were forced to assume a divine hypostasis beside the Godhead, which of course sensibly threatened their Christology. The adherents of the pneumatic Christology partly made a definite distinction between the pre-existent Christ and the Holy Spirit (see, e.g., 1 Clem. 22. 1), and partly made use of formulæ from which one could infer an identity of the two. The conceptions about the Holy Spirit were still quite fluctuating: whether he is a power of God, or personal; whether he is identical with the pre-existent Christ, or is to be distinguished from him; whether he is the servant of Christ (Tatian Orat. 13); whether he is only a gift of God to believers, or the eternal Son of God, was quite uncertain. Hermas assumed the latter, and even Origen (de princip. præf. c. 4) acknowledges that it is not yet decided whether or not the Holy Spirit is likewise to be regarded as God’s Son. The baptismal formula prevented the identification of the Holy Spirit with the pre-existent Christ, which so readily suggested itself. But so far as Christ was regarded as a πνεῦμα, his further demarcation from the angel powers was quite uncertain, as the Shepherd of Hermas proves (though see 1 Clem. 36). For even Justin, in a passage, no doubt, in which his sole purpose was to shew that the Christians were not ἄθεοι, could venture to thrust in between God, the on and the Spirit, the good angels as beings who were worshipped and adored by the Christians (Apol I. 6 [if the text be genuine and not an interpolation]; see also the Suppl. of Athanagoras). Justin, and certainly most of those who accepted a pre-existence of Christ, conceived of it as a real pre-existence. Justin was quite well acquainted with the controversy about the independent quality of the power which proceeded from God. To him it is not merely, “Sensus, motus, affectus dei,” but a “personalis substantia” (Dial. 128).

124

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

things; and the mighty practical tendency of the new religion to a holy life did not allow any theory to become the central object of attention. But, still, it is necessary to refer here to the controversies which broke out at a later period; for the pneumatic Christology forms an essential article which cannot be dispensed with, in the expositions of Barnabas, Clement and Ignatius; and Justin shews that he cannot conceive of a Christianity without the belief in a real pre-existence of Christ. On the other hand, the liturgical formulæ, the prayers, etc., which have been preserved, scarcely ever take notice of the pre-existence of Christ; they either comprise statements which are borrowed from the Adoptian Christology, or they testify in an unreflective way to the Dominion and Deity of Christ.

200

5. The ideas of Christ’s work which were influential in the communities—Christ as Teacher: creation of knowledge, setting up of the new law; Christ as Saviour: creation of life, overcoming of the demons, forgiveness of sins committed in the time of error,—were by some, in conformity with Apostolic tradition and following the Pauline Epistles, positively connected with the death and resurrection of Christ, while others maintained them without any connection with these events. But one nowhere finds independent thorough reflections on the connection of Christ’s saving work with the facts proclaimed in the preaching, above all, with the death on the cross and the resurrection as presented by Paul. The reason of this undoubtedly is that in the conception of the work of salvation, the procuring of forgiveness fell into the background, as this could only be connected by means of the notion of sacrifice, with a definite act of Jesus, viz., with the surrender of his life. Consequently, the facts of the destiny of Jesus combined in the preaching formed only for the religious fancy, not for reflection, the basis of the conception of the work of Christ, and were therefore by many writers, Hermas, for example, taken no notice of. Yet the idea of suffering freely accepted, of the cross and of the blood of Christ, operated in wide circles as a holy mystery in which the deepest wisdom and power of the Gospel must somehow lie concealed.267 The peculiarity and uniqueness of the work of the historical Christ seemed, however, to be prejudiced by the assumption that Christ, essentially as the same person, was already in the Old Testament the Revealer of God. All emphasis must therefore fall on this—without a technical reflection which cannot be proved—that the Divine revelation has now, through the historical Christ, become accessible and intelligible to all, and that the life which was promised will shortly be made manifest.268 267 268

See the remarkable narrative about the cross in the fragment of the Gospel of Peter, and in Justin, Apol. I. 55. We must, above all things, be on our guard here against attributing dogmas to the churches, that is to say, to the writers of this period. The difference in the answers to the question, How far and by what means Jesus procured salvation? was very great, and the majority undoubtedly never at all raised the question, being satisfied with recognising Jesus as the revealer of God’s saving will (Didache, 10. 2: εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἅγιε, ὑπερ τοῦ ἀγίου ὀνόματός σου, οὖ καεσκήνωσας ἐν ταῖς καρδίας ἡμῶν καὶ ὑπέρ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ πίστεως αί ἀθανασίας, ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ ταιδος σου), without reflecting on the fact that this saving will was already revealed in the Old Testament. There is nowhere any mention of saving work of Christ in the whole Didache—nay, even the Kerygma about him is not taken notice of. The extensive writing of Hermas shews that this is not an accident. There is absolutely no mention here of the birth, death, resurrection, etc., of Jesus, although the author in Sim. V. had an occasion for mentioning them. He describes the work of Jesus as (1) preserving the people whom God had chosen, (2) purifying the people from sin, (3) pointing out the path of life and promulgating the Divine law (cc. 5. 6). This work however, seems to have been performed by the whole life and activity of Jesus; even to the purifyng of sin the author has only added the words; (καὶ αὐτὸς τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν ἐκαθάρισε) πολλὰ κοπιάσας καὶ πολλοὺς κόποὺς ἡντληκώς (Sim. V. 6. 2). But we must further note that Hermas held the proper and obligatory work of Jesus to be only the preservation of the chosen people (from demons in the last days, and at the end), while in the other two articles he saw a performance in excess of his duty, and wished undoubtedly to declare therewith, that the purifying from sin and the giving of the law are not, strictly speaking, integral parts of the Divine plan of salvation, but are due to the special goodness of Jesus (this idea is explained by Moralism). Now, as Hermas and others

125

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

saw the saving activity of Jesus in his whole labours, others saw salvation given and assured in the moment of Jesus’ entrance into the world, and in his personality as a spiritual being become flesh. This mystic conception, which attained such wide-spread recognition later on, has a representative in Ignatius, if one can at all attribute clearly conceived doctrines to this emotional confessor. That something can be declared of Jesus, κατὰ πνεῦμα and κατὰ σάρκα—this is the mystery on which the significance of Jesus seems to Ignatius essentially to rest, but how far is not made clear. But the πάθος (αἷμα, σταυρός) and ἀναστάσις of Jesus are to the same writer of great significance, and by forming paradoxical formulæ of worship, and turning to account reminiscences of Apostolic sayings, he seems to wish to base the whole salvation brought by Christ on his suffering and resurrection (see Lightfoot on Eph. inscr. Vol. II, p. 25). In this connection also, he here and there regards all articles of the Kerygma as of fundamental significance. At all events, we have in the Ignatian Epistles the first attempt in the post-Apostolic literature to connect all the theses of the Kerygma about Jesus as closely as possible with the benefits which he brought. But only the will of the writer is plain here, all else is confused, and what is mainly felt is that the attempt to conceive the blessings of salvation as the fruit of the sufferings and resurrection, has deprived them of their definiteness and clearness. In proof we may adduce the following: If we leave out of account the passages in which Ignatius speaks of the necessity of repentance for the Heretics, or the Heathen, and the possibility that their sins may be forgiven (Philad. 3. 2: 8. 1; Smyrn. 4. 1: 5. 3; Eph. 10. 1), there remains only one passage in which the forgiveness of sin is mentioned, and that only contains a traditional formula (Smyrn. 7. 1: σάρξ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἡ ὑπέρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθοῦσα). The same writer, who is constantly speaking of the πάθος and ἀναστάσις of Christ, has nothing to say to the communities to which he writes, about the forgiveness of sin. Even the concept “sin,” apart from the passages just quoted, appears only once, viz., Eph. 14. 2: οὐδεὶς πίστιν ἐπαγγελλόμενος ἁμαρτάνει. Ignatius has only once spoken to a community about repentance (Smyrn. 9. 1). It is characteristic that the summons to repentance runs exactly as in Hermas and 2 Clem., the conclusion only being peculiarly Ignatian. It is different with Barnabas, Clement and Polycarp. They (see 1 Clem. 7. 4: 12. 7: 21. 6: 49. 6: Barn. 5. 1 ff.) place the forgiveness of sin procured by Jesus in the foreground, connect it most definitely with the death of Christ, and in some passages seem to have a conception of that connection, which reminds us of Paul. But this just shews that they are dependent here on Paul (or on 1st Peter), and on a closer examination we perceive that they very imperfectly understand Paul, and have no independent insight into the series of ideas which they reproduce. That is specially plain in Clement. For, in the first place, he everywhere passes over the resurrection (he mentions it only twice, once as a guarantee of our own resurrection, along with the Phœnix and other guarantees, 24. 1; and then as a means whereby the Apostles were convinced that the kingdom of God will come, 42. 3). In the second place, he in one passage declares that the χάρις μετανοίας was communicated to the world through the shedding of Christ’s blood (7. 4.). But this transformation of the ἄφοσις ἁμαρτιῶν into χάρις μετανοίας plainly shews that Clement had merely taken over from tradition the special estimate of the death of Christ as procuring salvation; for it is meaningless to deduce the χάρις μετανοίας from the blood of Christ. Barnabas testifies more plainly that Christ behoved to offer the vessel of his spirit as a sacrifice for our sins (4. 3: 5. 1), nay, the chief aim of his letter is to harmonise the correct understanding of the cross, the blood, and death of Christ in connection with baptism, the forgiveness of sin, and sanctification (application of the idea of sacrifice). He also unites the death and resurrection of Jesus (5. 6: αὐτὸς δὲ ἱν ́ α καταργήσῃ τὸν θάνατον καὶ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν δείξη, οτι ἐν σαρκὶ ἑδ́ ει αὐτὸν φανερωθῆναι, ὑπέμεινεν, ἵνα καὶ τοῖς πατράσιν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν ἀποδῷ καὶ αὐτὸς εαυτῷ τὸν λαὸν τὸν καινὸν ἑτοιμάζων, ἐπιδείξῃ, τῆς γῆς ὤν, ὅτρ τήν ὡνάστασιγ αὐτὸς ποιήσας κρινεῖ): but the significance of the death of Christ is for him, at bottom, the fact that it is the fulfilment of prophecy. But the prophecy is related, above all, to the significance of the tree, and so Barnabas on one occasion says with admirable clearness (5, 13); αὐτὸς δὲ ἡθέλησεν οὕτω παθεῖν· ἔδει γὰρ ἵνα ἐπὶ ξύλου πάθῃ. The notion which Barnabas entertains of the σάρξ of Christ suggests the supposition that he could have given up all reference to the death of Christ, if it had not been transmitted as a fact and predicted in the Old Testament. Justin shews still less certainty. To him also, as to Ignatius, the. cross (the death) of Christ is a great—nay, the greatest mystery, and he sees all things possible in it (see Apol. 1. 35, 55). He knows, further, as a man acquainted with the Old Testament, how to borrow from it very many points of view for the significance of Christ’s death, (Christ the sacrifice, the Paschal lamb; the death of Christ the means of redeeming men; death as the enduring of the curse for us; death as the victory over the devil; see Dial. 44, 90, 91, 111, 134). But in the discussions which set forth in a more intelligible way the significance of Christ, definite facts from the history have no place at all, and Justin nowhere gives any indication of seeing in the death of Christ more than the mystery of the Old Testament, and the confirmation of its trustworthiness. On the other hand, it cannot be mistaken that the idea of an individual righteous man being able effectively to sacrifice himself for the whole, in order through his voluntary death to deliver them from evil, was not unknown to antiquity. Origen (c. Celsum 1. 31) has expressed himself on this point in a very instructive way. The purity and voluntariness of him who sacrifices himself are here the main things. Finally, we must be on our guard against supposing that the expressions σωτηρία, ἀπολύτρωσις and the like, were as a rule related to the deliverance from sin. In the superscription of the Epistle from Lyons, for example, (Euseb. H E. V. I. 3: οἱ αὐτὴν τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως ἡμῖν πίστιν καὶ ἐλπιδα ἔχοντες) the future redemption is manifestly to be understood by ἀπολύτρωσις.

126

History of Dogma - Volume I

201

202

203

204

Adolf Harnack

As to the facts of the history of Jesus, the real and the supposed, the circumstance that they formed the ever repeated proclamation about Christ gave them an extraordinary significance. In addition to the birth from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin, the death, the resurrection, the exaltation to the right hand of God, and the coming again, there now appeared more definitely the ascension to heaven, and also, though more uncertainly, the descent into the kingdom of the dead. The belief that Jesus ascended into heaven forty days after the resurrection, gradually made way against the older conception, according to which resurrection and ascension really coincided, and against other ideas which maintained a longer period between the two events. That probably is the result of a reflection which sought to distinguish the first from the later manifestations of the exalted Christ, and it is of the utmost importance as the beginning of a demarcation of the times. It is also very probable that the acceptance of an actual ascensus in cœlum, not a mere assumptio, was favourable to the idea of an actual descent of Christ de cœlo, therefore to the pneumatic Christology and vice versa. But there is also closely connected with the ascensus in cœlum, the notion of a descensus ad inferna, which commended itself on the ground of Old Testament prediction. In the first century, however, it still remained uncertain, lying on the borders of those productions of religious fancy which were not able at once to acquire a right of citizenship in the communities.269 One can plainly see that the articles contained in the Kerygma were guarded and defended in their reality (κατ᾽ ἀληθείαν) by the professional teachers of the Church, against sweeping attempts at explaining them away, or open attacks on them.270 But they did not yet possess the value of dogmas, for they were neither put in an indissoluble union with the idea of salvation, nor were they stereotyped in their extent, nor were fixed limits set to the imagination in the concrete delineation and conception of them.271 269

On the Ascension, see my edition of the Apost. Fathers I. 2, p. 138. Paul knows nothing of an Ascension, nor is it mentioned by Clement, Ignatius, Hermas, or Polycarp. In no case did it belong to the earliest preaching. Resurrection and sitting at the right hand of God are frequently united in the formulæ (Eph. I. 20: Acts. II. 32 ff.) According to Luke XXIV. 51, and Barn. 15. 9, the ascension into heaven took place on the day of the resurrection (probably also according to Joh. XX. 17; see also the fragment of the Gosp. of Peter), and is hardly to he thought of as happening but once. (Joh. III. 13: VI. 62; see also Rom. X. 6 f.; Eph. IV. 9 f.; I Pet. III. 19 f.; very instructive for the origin of the notion), According to the Valentinians and Ophites, Christ ascended into heaven 18 months after the resurrection (Iren. I. 3. 2: 30. 14); according to the Ascension of Isaiah, 545 days (ed. Dillmann, pp. 43, 57 etc.); according to Pistis Sophia 11 years after the resurrection. The statement that the Ascension took place 40 days after the resurrection is first found in the Acts of the Apostles. The position of the ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ, in the fragment of an old Hymn, 1 Tim. III. 16, is worthy of note, in so far as it follows the ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις. ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ. Justin speaks very frequently of the Ascension into heaven (see also Aristides). It is to him a necessary part of the preaching about Christ. On the descent into hell, see the collection of passages in my edition of the Apost. Fathers, III. p. 232. It is important to note that it is found already in the Gospel of Peter (ἐκήρυξας τοῖς κοιμωμένοις; ναί), and that even Marcion recognised it (in Iren. I. 27. 3), as well as the Presbyter of Irenæus (IV. 27. 2), and Ignatius (ad Magn. 9. 3); see also Celsus in Orig. II. 43. The witnesses to it are very numerous; sec Huidekoper, “The belief of the first three centuries concerning Christ’s mission to the under-world.” New York, 1876. 270 See the Pastoral Epistles, and the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp. 271 The “facts” of the history of Jesus were handed down to the following period as mysteries predicted in the Old Testament, but the idea of sacrifice was specially attached to the death of Christ, certainly without any closer definition. It is very noteworthy that in the Romish baptismal confession, the Davidic Sonship of Jesus, the baptism, the descent into the under-world, and the setting up of a glorious Kingdom on the earth, are not mentioned. These articles do not appear even in the parallel confessions which began to be formed. The hesitancy that yet prevailed here with regard to details is manifest from the fact, for example, that instead of the formula “Jesus was born of (ἐκ) Mary,” is found the other, “He was born through (διὰ) Mary,” (see Justin, Apol. I. 22, 31-33, 54, 63; Dial. 23, 43, 45, 48, 54, 57, 63, 66, 75, 85, 87, l00, 105, 120, 127). Iren. (I. 7. 2) and Tertull. (de carne 20) first contested the δὶα against the Valentinians.

127

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

§©7. The Worship, the Sacred Ordinances, and the Organisation of the Churches. It is necessary to examine the original forms of the worship and constitution, because of the importance which they acquired in the following period even for the development of doctrine.

205

206

1. In accordance with the purely spiritual idea of God, it was a fixed principle that only a spiritual worship is well pleasing to Him, and that all ceremonies are abolished, ῖνα ὁ καινὸς νόμος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μὴ ἀνθρωποποιητον ἔχῃ τὴν προσφοράν.272 But as the Old Testament and the Apostolic tradition made it equally certain that the worship of God is a sacrifice, the Christian worship of God was set forth under the aspect of the spiritual sacrifice. In the most general sense it was conceived as the offering of the heart and of obedience, as well as the consecration of the whole personality, body and soul (Rom. XIII. 1) to God.273 Here, with a change of the figure, the individual Christian and the whole community were described as a temple of God.274 In a more special sense, prayer as thanksgiving and intercession275 was regarded as the sacrifice which was to be accompanied, without constraint or ceremony, by fasts and acts of compassionate love.276 Finally, prayers offered by the worshipper in the public worship of the community, and the gifts brought by them, out of which were taken the elements for the Lord’s supper, and which were used partly in the common meal, and partly in support of the poor, were regarded as sacrifice in the most special sense (προσφορὰ, δῶρα).277 For the following period, however, it became of the utmost importance, (1) that the idea of sacrifice ruled the whole worship, (2) that it appeared in a special 272

This was strongly emphasised; see my remarks on Barn. 2. 3. The Jewish cultus is often brought very close to the heathen by Gentile Christian writers. Præd. Petri (Clem. Strom. VI. 5. 41): καινῶς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ Ψριστοῦ σεβόμεθα. The statement in Joh. IV. 24: πνεῦμα ὁ θεὸς, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καί ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν, was for long the guiding principle for the Christian worship of God. 273 Ps. LI. 19 is thus opposed to the ceremonial system (Barn. 2. 10). Polycarp consumed by fire is (Mart. 14. 1) compared to a κριὸς ἐπίσημος ἐκ μεγάλου ποιμνίου εἰς προσφοράν, ὁλοκαύτωμα δεκτὸν τῷ θεῷ ἀτοιμασμένον. 274 See Barn. 6. 15: 16. 7-9; Tatian Orat. 15; Ignat. ad Eph. 9. 15; Herm. Mand. V. etc. The designation of Christians as priests is not often found. 275 Justin, Apol. 1. 9: Dial. 117: Ὅτι μὲν οὖν καὶ εὐχαι καὶ εὐχαριστίαι, ὑπό τῶν ἀξίων γινόμεναι, τέλειαι μόναι καὶ εὐάρεστοι εἰσι τῷ θεῷ θυσίαι, καὶ αὐτός φημι; see also still the later Fathers; Clem. Strom. VII. 6. 31: ἡμεῖς δι᾽ εὐχῆς τιμῶμεν τὸν θεὸν, καὶ ταύτην τὴν θυσίαν ἀρίστην, καὶ ἀγιωτάτην μετὰ δικαιοσύνης ἀναπέμπομεν τῷ δικαίῳ λόγῳ; Iren. III. 18. 3. Ptolem. ad Floram. 3: προσφορὰς προσφέρειν προσέταξεν ἡμῖν ὁ σωτήρ, ἀλλὰ οὐχί τὰς δι᾽ ἀλόγων ζώων ἣ τούτων τῶν θωμιαμάτων ἀλλὰ διὰ πνευματικῶν αἴνων καὶ δοξῶν καὶ εὐχαριστίας καὶ διὰ τῆς εἰς τοὶς πλησίον κοινωνίας καὶ ε̰ποιίας. 276 The Jewish regulations about fastings, together with the Jewish system of sacrifice were rejected; but on the other hand, in virtue of words of the Lord, fasts were looked upon as a necessary accompaniment of prayer, and definite arrangements were already made for them (see Barn. 3; Didache 8; Herm. Sim. V. 1. ff. The fast is to have a special value from the fact that whatever one saved by means of it, is to be given to the poor (see Hermas and Aristides, Apol. 15; “And if any one among the Christians is poor and in want, and they have not overmuch of the means of life, they fast two or three days, in order that they may provide those in need with the food they require”). The statement of James I. 27: θρησκεία καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος παρὰ τῷ θέῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὕτη ἐστίν, ἐπισκέπτεσθαι ὀρφάνους καὶ χήρας ἐν τῇ θλίψει αὐτῶν, was again and again inculcated in diverse phraseology (Polycarp. Ep. 4, called the Widows θυσιαστήριον of the community). Where moralistic views preponderated, as in Hermas and 2 Clement, good works were already valued in detail; prayers, fasts, alms appeared separately, and there was already introduced, especially under the influence of the so-called deutero-canonical writings of the Old Testament, the idea of a special meritoriousness of certain performances in fasts and alms (see 2 Clem. 16. 4). Still, the idea of the Christian moral life as a whole occupied the foreground (see Didache, cc. 1-5), and the exhortations to love God and one’s neighbour, which, as exhortations to a moral life, were brought forward in every conceivable relation, supplemented the general summons to renounce the world, just as the official diaconate of the churches originating in the cultus prevented the decomposition of them into a society of ascetics. 277 For details, see below in the case of the Lord’s Supper. It is specially important that even charity, through its union with the cultus, appeared as sacrificial worship (see e.g., Polyc. Ep. 4. 3).

128

History of Dogma - Volume I

207

208

Adolf Harnack

manner in the celebration of the Lord’s supper, and consequently invested that ordinance with a new meaning, (3) that the support of the poor, alms, especially such alms as had been gained by prayer and fasting, was placed under the category of sacrifice (Heb. XIII. 16); for this furnished the occasion for giving the widest application to ,the idea of sacrifice, and thereby substituting for the original Semitic Old Testament idea of sacrifice with its spiritual interpretation, the Greek idea with its interpretation.278 It may, however, be maintained that the changes imposed on the Christian religion by Catholicism, are at no point so obvious and far-reaching, as in that of sacrifice, and especially in the solemn ordinance of the Lord’s supper, which was placed in such close connection with the idea of sacrifice. 2. When in the “Teaching of the Apostles,” which may be regarded here as a classic document, the discipline of life in accordance with the words of the Lord, Baptism, the order of fasting and prayer, especially the regular use of the Lord’s prayer, and the Eucharist are reckoned the articles on which the Christian community rests, and when the common Sunday offering of a sacrifice made pure by a brotherly disposition, and the mutual exercise of discipline are represented as decisive for the stability of the individual community,279 we perceive that the general idea of a pure spiritual worship of God has nevertheless been realised in definite institutions, and that, above all, it has included the traditional sacred ordinances, and adjusted itself to them as far as that was possible.280 This could only take effect under the idea of the symbolical, and therefore this idea was most firmly attached to these ordinances. But the symbolical of that time is not to be considered as the opposite of the objectively real, but as the mysterious, the God produced (μυστήριον), as contrasted with the natural, the profanely clear. As to Baptism, which was administered in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, though Cyprian, Ep. 73. 16-18, felt compelled to oppose the custom of baptising in the name of Jesus, we noted above (Chap. III. p. 161 f.) that it was regarded as the bath of regeneration, and as renewal of life, inasmuch as it was assumed that by it the sins of the past state of blindness were blotted out.281 But as faith was looked upon as the necessary condition,282 and as on the other hand, the forgiveness of the sins of the past was in itself deemed worthy of God,283 the asserted specific result of baptism remained still very uncertain, and the hard tasks which it imposed, might seem more important than the merely retrospective gifts which it proffered.284 Under such circumstances the rite could not fail to lead believers about to be baptized to attribute value here

278

The idea of sacrifice adopted by the Gentile Christian communities was that which was expressed in individual prophetic sayings and in the Psalms, a spiritualising of the Semitic Jewish sacrificial ritual, which, however, had not altogether lost its original features. The entrance of Greek ideas of sacrifice cannot be traced before Justin. Neither was there as yet any reflection as to the connection of the sacrifice of the Church with the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. 279 See my Texte und Unters. z. Gesch. d. Altchristl. Lit .II. 1. 2, p. 88 ff., p. 137 ff. 280 There neither was a “doctrine” of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, nor was there any inner connection presupposed between these holy actions. They were here and there placed together as actions by the Lord. 281 Melito, Fragm. XII. (Otto. Corp. Apol. IX. p. 418). Δύο συνεστη τὰ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτημάτων παρεχόμενα, πάθος διὰ Χριστόν καὶ βάπτισμα. 282 There is no sure trace of infant baptism in this epoch; personal faith is a necessary condition (see Hermas, Vis. III. 7. 3; Justin, Apol. 1. 61). “Prius est prædicare posterius tinguere” (Tertull. “de bapt.” 14). 283 On the basis of repentance. See Præd. Petri in Clem. Strom. VI. 5. 43, 48. 284 See especially the second Epistle of Clement; Tertull. “de bapt.” 15: “Felix aqua quæ semel abluit, qum ludibrio pecatoribus non est.

129

History of Dogma - Volume I

209

Adolf Harnack

to the mysterious as such.285 But that always creates a state of things which not only facilitates, but positively prepares for the introduction of new and strange ideas. For neither fancy nor reflection can long continue in the vacuum of mystery. The names σφραγίς and φωτισμός, which at that period came into fashion for baptism, are instructive, inasmuch as neither of them is a direct designation of the presupposed effect of baptism, the forgiveness of sin, and as, besides, both of them evince a Hellenic conception. Baptism in being called the seal,286 is regarded as the guarantee of a blessing, not as the blessing itself, at least the relation to it remains obscure; in being called enlightenment,287 it is placed directly under an aspect that is foreign to it. It would be different if we had to think of φωτισμός as a gift of the Holy Spirit, which is given to the baptised as real principle of a new life and miraculous powers. But the idea of a necessary union of baptism with a miraculous communication of the Spirit seems to have been lost very early, or to have become uncertain, the actual state of things being no longer favourable to it;288 at any rate, it does not explain the designation of baptism as φωτισμός.

210

285

The sinking and rising in baptism, and the immersion, were regarded as significant but not indispensable symbols (see Didache. 7). The most important passages for baptism are Didache 7: Barn. 6. 11: 11. 1. 11 (the connection in which the cross of Christ is here placed to the water is important; the tertium comp. is that forgiveness of sin is the result of both); Herm. Vis. III. 3, Sim. IX. 16, Mand. IV. 3 (ἑτέρα μετάνοια οὐκ ἔστιν εἰ μὴ ἐκείνη, ὅτε εἰς ὕδωρ κατέβημεν καὶ ἐλάβομεν ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν τῶν προτέρῶν); 2 Clem. 6. 9: 7. 6: 8. 6. Peculiar is Ignat. ad. Polyc. 6. 2: τὸ βάπτισμα ὑμῶν μενέτω ὡς ὅπλα. Specially important is Justin, Apol I. 61. 65. To this also belong many passages from Tertullian’s treatise “de bapt.”; a Gnostic baptismal hymn in the third pseudo-Solomonic ode in the Pistis Sophia, p. 131, ed. Schwartze; Marcion’s baptismal formula in Irenæus I. 21. 3. It clearly follows from the seventh chapter of the Didache that its author held that the pronouncing of the sacred names over the baptised and over the water was essential, but that immersion was not; see the thorough examination of this passage by Schaff. “The oldest church manual called the teaching of the twelve Apostles” pp. 29-57. The controversy about the nature of John’s baptism in its relation to Christian baptism is very old in Christendom; see also Tertull. “de bapt.” 10. Tertullian sees in John’s baptism only a baptism to repentance, not to forgiveness. 286 In Hermas and 2 Clement. The expression probably arose from the language of the mysteries: see Appuleius, “de Magia,” 55: “Sacrorum pleraque initia in Græcia participavi. Eorum quædam signa et monumenta tradita mihi a sacerdotibus sedulo conservo.” Ever since the Gentile Christians conceived baptism (and the Lord’s Supper) according to the mysteries, they were of course always surprised by the parallel with the mysteries themselves. That begins with Justin. Tertullian, “de bapt.” 5, says: “Sed enim nationes extraneæ, ab omni intellectu spiritalium potestatum eadem efficacia idolis suis subministrant. Sed viduis aquis sibi mentiuntur. Nam et sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur, Isidis alicujus aut Mithræ; ipsos etiam deos suos lavationibus efferunt. Ceterum villas, domos, templa totasque urbes aspergine circumlatæ aqua expiant passim. Certe ludis Apollinaribus et Eleusiniis tinguuntur, idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem periuriorum suorum agere præsumunt. Item penes veteres, quisquis se homicidio infecerat, purgatrices aquas explorabat.” De praescr., 40: “Diabolus ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis æmulatur. Tingit et ipse quosdam, utique credentes et fideles suos; expositionem delictorum de lavacro repromittit, et si adhuc memini, Mithras signat illic in frontibus milites suos, celebrat et panis oblationem et imaginem resurrectionis inducit . . . . summum pontificem in unius nuptiis statuit, habet et virgines, habet et continentes.” The ancient notion that matter has a mysterious influence on spirit came very early into vogue in connection with baptism. We see that from Tertullian’s treatise on baptism and his speculations about the power of the water (c. 1 ff.). The water must, of course have been first consecrated for this purpose (that is, the demons must be driven out of it). But then it is holy water with which the Holy Spirit is united, and which is able really to cleanse the soul. See Hatch, “The influence of Greek ideas, etc.,” p. 19. The consecration of the water is certainly very old: though we have no definite witnesses from the earliest period. Even for the exorcism of the baptised before baptism I know of no earlier witness than the Sentent. LXXXVII. episcoporum (Hartel. Opp. Cypr. I. p. 450, No. 37: “primo per mantis impositionem in exorcismo, secundo per baptismi regenerationem”). 287 Justin is the first who does so (I. 61). The word comes from the Greek mysteries. On Justin’s theory of baptism, see also I. 62. and Von Engelhardt, “Christenthum Justin’s,” p. 102 f. 288 Paul unites baptism and the communication of the Spirit: but they were very soon represented apart, see the accounts in the Acts of the Apostles, which are certainly very obscure because the author has evidently never himself observed the descent of the

130

History of Dogma - Volume I

211

Adolf Harnack

As regards the Lord’s Supper, the most important point is that its celebration became more and more the central point, not only for the worship of the Church, but for its very life as a Church. The form of this celebration, the common meal, made it appear to be a fitting expression of the brotherly unity of the community (on the public confession before the meal, see Didache, 14, and my notes on the passage). The prayers which it included presented themselves as vehicles for bringing before God, in thanksgiving and intercession, every thing that affected the community; and the presentation of the elements for the holy ordinance was naturally extended to the offering of gifts for the poor brethren, who in this way received them from the hand of God himself. In all these respects, however, the holy ordinance appeared as a sacrifice of the community, and indeed, as it was also named εὐχαριστία, a sacrifice of thanksgiving.289 As an act of sacrifice, all the termini technici which the Old Testament applied to sacrifice could be applied to it, and all the wealth of ideas which the Old Testament connects with sacrifice could be transferred to it. One cannot say that anything absolutely foreign was therewith introduced into the ordinance, however doubtful it may be whether in the idea of its founder the meal was thought of as a sacrificial meal. But it must have been of the most wide-reaching significance, that a wealth of ideas was in this way connected with the ordinance, which had nothing whatever in common either with the purpose of the meal as a memorial of Christ’s death,290 or with the mysterious symbols of the body and blood of Christ. The result was that the one transaction obtained a double value. At one time it appeared as the προσφορά and θυσία of the Church,291 as the pure sacrifice which is presented to the great king by Christians scattered over the world, as they offer to him their prayers and place before him again what he has bestowed in order to receive it back with thanks and praise. But there is no reference in this to the mysterious Spirit, or anything like it. The ceasing of special manifestations of the Spirit in and after baptism, and the enforced renunciation of seeing baptism accompanied by special shocks, must be regarded as the first stage in the sobering of the churches. 289 The idea of the whole transaction of the Supper as a sacrifice is plainly found in the Didache, (c. 14), in Ignatius, and above all in Justin (I. 65 f.). But even Clement of Rome presupposes it, when (in cc. 40–44) he draws a parallel between bishops and deacons and the Priests and Levites of the Old Testament, describing as the chief function of the former (44. 4) προσφέρειν τὰ δῶρα. This is not the place to enquire whether the first celebration had, in the mind of its founder, the character of a sacrificial meal; but, certainly, the idea, as it was already developed at the time of Justin, had been created by the churches. Various reasons tended towards seeing in the Supper a sacrifice. In the first place, Malachi I. 11, demanded a solemn Christian sacrifice: see my notes on Didache, 14. 3. In the second place, all prayers were regarded as sacrifice, and therefore the solemn prayers at the Supper must be specially considered as such. In the third place, the words of institution τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, contained a command with regard to a definite religious action. Such an action, however, could only be represented as a sacrifice, and this the more that the Gentile Christians might suppose that they had to understand ποιεῖν in the sense of θύειν. In the fourth place, payments in kind were necessary for the “agapæ” connected with the Supper, out of which were taken the bread and wine for the Holy celebration; in what other aspect could these offerings in the worship be regarded than as προσφοραί for the purpose of a sacrifice? Yet the spiritual idea so prevailed that only the prayers were regarded as the θυσία proper, even in the case of Justin (Dial. 117). The elements are only δῶρα, προσφοραί, which obtain their value from the prayers in which thanks are given for the gifts of creation and redemption as well as for the holy meal, and entreaty is made for the introduction of the community into the Kingdom of God (see Didache, 9. 10). Therefore, even the sacred meal itself is called εὐχαριστία (Justin, Apol. I. 66: ἡ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεἷται παρ᾽ ἡμῖν εὐχαριστία. Didache 9. 1: Ignat., because it is τροφὴ εὐχαριστηθεῖςα. It is a mistake to suppose that Justin already understood the body of Christ to be the object of ποιεῖν, and therefore thought of a sacrifice of this body (I. 66). The real sacrificial act in the Supper consists rather, according to Justin, only in the εὐχαριστίαν ποιεῖν, whereby the κοινὸς ἄρτος becomes the ἄρτος τῆς εὐχαριστίας. The sacrifice of the Supper in its essence, apart from the offering of alms, which in the practice of the Church was closely united with it, is nothing but a sacrifice of prayer: the sacrificial act of the Christian here also is nothing else than an act of prayer (see Apol. I. 13, 65–67; Dial. 28, 29, 41, 70, 116–118). 290 Justin lays special stress on this purpose. On the other hand, it is wanting in the Supper prayers of the Didache, unless c. 9. 2 be regarded as an allusion to it. 291 The designation θυσία is first found in the Didache, c. 14.

131

History of Dogma - Volume I

212

Adolf Harnack

words, that the bread and wine are the body of Christ broken and the blood of Christ shed for the forgiveness of sin. These words, in and of themselves, must have challenged a special consideration. They called forth the recognition in the sacramental action, or rather in the consecrated elements, of a mysterious communication of God, a gift of salvation, and this is the second aspect. But on a purely spiritual conception of the Divine gift of salvation, the blessings mediated through the Holy Supper could only be thought of as spiritual (faith, knowledge, or eternal life), and the consecrated elements could only be recognised as the mysterious vehicles of these blessings. There was yet no reflection on the distinction between symbol and vehicle; the symbol was rather regarded as the vehicle, and vice versa. We shall search in vain for any special relation of the partaking of the consecrated elements to the forgiveness of sin. That was made impossible by the whole current notions of sin and forgiveness. That on which value was put was the strengthening of faith and knowledge, as well as the guarantee of eternal life; and a meal in which there was appropriated not merely common bread and wine, but a τροφὴ πνευματική, seemed to have a bearing upon these. There was as yet little reflection; but there can be no doubt that thought here moved in a region bounded, on the one hand, by the intention of doing justice to the wonderful words of institution which had been handed down, and on the other hand, by the fundamental conviction that spiritual things can only be got by means of the Spirit.292 There was thus attached to the Supper the idea of sacrifice, and of a sacred gift guaranteed by God. The two things were held apart, for there is as

213

292

The Supper was regarded as a “Sacrament” in so far as a blessing was represented in its holy food. The conception of the nature of this blessing as set forth in John VI. 27-58, appears to have been the most common. It may be traced back to Ignatius, ad Eph. 20. 2: ἕνα ἄρτον κλῶντες ὅς ἐστιν φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, ἀντίδοτος τοῦ μὴ ἀτοθανεῖν ἀλλὰ ζῆν ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ παντός. Cf. Didache, 10. 3: ἡμῖν ἐχαρίσω πνευματικὴν τροφὴν καὶ ποτὸν καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον; also 10. 21: εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι ὑπὲρ τῆς γνωσεως καὶ πίστεως καὶ ἀθανασίας. Justin Apol. I. 66: ἐκ τῆς τροφῆς ταύτης αἷμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν (κατὰ μεταβολήν, that is, the holy food, like all nourishment, is completely transformed into our flesh; but what Justin has in view here is most probably the body of the resurrection. The expression, as the context shews, is chosen for the sake of the parallel to the incarnation). Iren. IV. 18. 5: V. 2. 2 f. As to how the elements are related to the body and blood of Christ, Ignatius seems to have expressed himself in a strictly realistic way in several passages, especially ad. Smyr. 7. 1: εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσευχῆς ἀπέχονται διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν, τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶνει τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθοῦσαν. But many passages shew that Ignatius was far from such a conception, and rather thought as John did. In Trall. 8, faith is described as the flesh, and love as the blood of Christ; in Rom. 7, in one breath the flesh of Christ is called the bread of God, and the blood ἀγάπη ἀφ ́ θαρτος. In Philad. 1, we read: αἷμα Ἰ Χρ. ἡτ́ ις ἐστὶν χαρὰ αἰων ́ ιος καὶ παράμονος. In Philad. 5, the Gospel is called the flesh of Christ, etc. Hofling is therefore right in saying (Lehre v. Opfer, p. 39): “The Eucharist is to Ignatius σάρξ of Christ, as a visible Gospel, a kind of Divine institution attesting the content of πίστις, viz., belief in the σάρξ παθοῦσα, an institution which is at the same time, to the community, a means of representing and preserving its unity in this belief.” On the other hand, it cannot be mistaken that Justin (Apol. I. 66) presupposed the identity, miraculously produced by the Logos, of the consecrated bread and the body he had assumed. In this we have probably to recognise an influence on the conception of the Supper, of the miracle represented in the Greek Mysteries: Οὐχ ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον οὐδὲ κοινὸν πόμα ταῦτα λαμβάνομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅν τρόπον διὰ λόγου θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεῖς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἱμα ὑπερ σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἔσχεν, οὕτως καὶ τὴν δι᾽ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφήν, ἐξ ἧι αἱμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος Ἰησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα θδιδάχθημεν εἶναι (See Von Otto on the passage). In the Texte u. Unters. VII. 2. p. 117 ff., I have shewn that in the different Christian circles of the second century, water and only water was often used in the Supper instead of wine, and that in many regions this custom was maintained up to the middle of the third century (see Cypr. Ep. 63). I have endeavoured to make it further probable that even Justin in his Apology describes a celebration of the Lord’s Supper with bread and water. The latter has been contested by Zahn, “Bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, in the early Church,” 1892, and Jülicher, Zur Gesch. der Abendmahisfeier in der aeltesten Kirche (Abhandl. f. Weiszäcker, 1892, p. 217 ff.).

132

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

yet no trace of that conception according to which the body of Christ represented in the bread293 is the sacrifice offered by the community. But one feels almost called upon here to construe from the premises the later development of the idea, with due regard to the ancient Hellenic ideas of sacrifice. 214

215

3. The natural distinctions among men, and the differences of position and vocation which these involve, were not to be abolished in the Church, notwithstanding the independence and equality of every individual Christian, but were to be consecrated: above all, every relation of natural piety was to be respected. Therefore the elders also acquired a special authority, and were to receive the utmost deference and due obedience. But, however important the organisation that was based on the distinction between πρεσβύτεροι and νεώτεροι, it ought not to be considered as characteristic of the Churches, not even where there appeared at the head of the community a college of chosen elders, as was the case in the greater communities and, perhaps, soon everywhere. On the contrary, only an organisation founded on the gifts of the Spirit (χαρίσματα) bestowed on the Church by God,294 corresponded to the original peculiarity of the Christian community. The Apostolic age therefore transmitted a twofold organi sation to the communities. The one was based on the διακονία τοῦ λὸγου, and was regarded as established directly by God; the other stood in the closest connection with the economy of the Church, above all with the offering of gifts, and so with the sacrificial service. In the first were men speaking the word of God, commissioned and endowed by God, and bestowed on Christendom, not on a particular community, who as ἀπὸστολοι, προφῆται, and διδάσκαλοι had to spread the Gospel, that is to edify the Church of Christ. The were regarded as the real ἡγούμενοι in the communities, whose words given them by the Spirit all were to accept in faith. In the second were ἐπισκοποι, and διάκονοι, appointed by the individual congregation and endowed with the charisms of leading and helping, who had to receive and administer the gifts, to perform the sacrificial service (if there were no prophets present), and take charge of the affairs of the community.295 It lay in the nature of the case that as a rule the ἐπίσκοποι, as independent officials, were chosen from among the elders, and might thus coincide with the chosen πρεσβύτεροι. But a very important development takes place in the second half of our epoch. The prophets and teachers—as the result of causes which followed the naturalising of the Churches in the world—fell more and more into the background, and their function, the solemn service of the word, began to

293

Ignatius calls the thank-offering the flesh of Christ, but the concept “flesh of Christ” is for him itself a spiritual one. On the contrary, Justin sees in the bread the actual flesh of Christ, but does not connect it with the idea of sacrifice. They are thus both as yet far from the later conception. The numerous allegories which are already attached to the Supper (one bread, equivalent to one community; many scattered grains bound up in the one bread, equivalent to the Christians scattered abroad in the world, who are to be gathered together into the Kingdom of God; one altar, equivalent to one assembly of the community, excluding private worship, etc.), cannot as a group be adduced here. 294 Cf. for the following my arguments in the larger edition of the “Teaching of the Apostles” Chap. 5, (Texte u. Unters. II. 1. 2). The numerous recent enquiries (Loening, Loofs, Réville etc.) will be found referred to in Sohm’s Kirchenrecht. Vol. I. 1892, where the most exhaustive discussions are given. 295 That the bishops and deacons were, primarily, officials connected with the cultus is most clearly seen from 1 Clem. 40-44, but also from the connection in which the 14th Chap. of the Didache stands with the 15th (see the οὖν 15.1), to which Hatch in conversation called my attention. The φιλοξενία and the intercourse with other communities (the fostering of the “unitas”) belonged, above all, to the affairs of the Church. Here, undoubtedly, from the beginning lay an important part of the bishop’s duties. Ramsay (“The Church in the Roman Empire,” p. 361 ff.) has emphasised this point exclusively, and therefore one-sidedly. According to him, the monarchical Episcopate sprang from the officials who were appointed ad hoc and for a time, for the purpose of promoting intercourse with other churches.

133

History of Dogma - Volume I

216

217

Adolf Harnack

pass over to the officials of the community, the bishops, who already played a great role in the public worship. At the same time, however, it appeared more and more fitting to entrust one official, as chief leader (superintendent of public worship), with the reception of gifts and their administration, together with the care of the unity of public worship; that is, to appoint one bishop instead of a number of bishops, leaving, however, as before, the college of presbyters, as προϊστάμενοι τῆς ἐκκλησίας, a kind of senate of the community.296 Moreover, the idea of the chosen bishops and deacons as the antitypes of the Priests and Levites, had been formed at an early period in connection with the idea of the new sacrifice. But we find also the idea, which is probably the earlier of the two, that the prophets and teachers, as the commissioned preachers of the word, are the priests. The hesitancy in applying this important allegory must have been brought to an end by the disappearance of the latter view. But it must have been still more important that the bishops, or bishop, in taking over the functions of the old λαλοῦντες τὸν λόγον, who were not Church officials, took over also the profound veneration with which they were regarded as the special organs of the Spirit. But the condition of the organisation in the communities about the year 140, seems to have been a very diverse one. Here and there, no doubt, the convenient arrangement of appointing only one bishop was carried out, while his functions had not perhaps been essentially increased, and the prophets and teachers were still the great spokesmen. Conversely, there may still have been in other communities a number of bishops, while the prophets and teachers no longer played regularly an important role. A fixed organisation was reached, and the Apostolic episcopal constitution established, only in consequence of the so-called Gnostic crisis, which was epoch-making in every respect. One of its most important presuppositions, and one that has struck very deep into the development of doctrine must, however, be borne in mind here. As the Churches traced back all the laws according to which they lived, and all the blessings they held sacred, to the tradition of the twelve Apostles, because they regarded them as Christian only on that presupposition, they also in like manner, as far as we can discover, traced back their organisation of presbyters, i.e., of bishops and deacons, to Apostolic appointment. The notion which followed quite naturally, was that the Apostles themselves had appointed the first church officials.297 That idea may have found support in some actual cases of the kind, but this does not need to be considered here; for these cases would not have led to the setting up of a theory. But the point in question here is a theory, which is nothing else than an integral part of the general theory, that the twelve Apostles were in every respect the middle term between Jesus and the present Churches (see above, p. 158). This conception is earlier than the great Gnostic crisis, for the Gnostics also shared it. But no special qualities of the officials, but only of the Church itself, were derived from it, and it was believed that the independence and sovereignty of the Churches were in no way endangered by it, because an institution by Apostles was considered equivalent to an institution by the Holy Spirit, whom they possessed and whom 296

Sohm (in the work mentioned above) seeks to prove that the monarchical Episcopate originated in Rome and is already presupposed by Hermas. I hold that the proof for this has not been adduced, and I must also in great part reject the bold statements which are fastened on to the first Epistle of Clement. They may be comprehended in the proposition which Sohm, p. 158, has placed at the head of his discussion of the Epistle. “The first Epistle of Clement makes an epoch in the history of the organisation of the Church. It was destined to put an end to the early Christian constitution of the Church.” According to Sohm (p. 165), another immediate result of the Epistle was a change of constitution in the Romish Church, the introduction of the monarchical Episcopate. That, however, can only be asserted, not proved; for the proof which Sohm has endeavoured to bring from Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans and the Shepherd of Hermas, is not convincing. 297 See, above all, 1 Clem. 42, 44, Acts of the Apostles, Pastoral Epistles, etc.

134

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

they followed. The independence of the Churches rested precisely on the fact that they had the Spirit in their midst. The conception here briefly sketched was completely transformed in the following period by the addition of another idea—that of Apostolic succession,298 and then became, together with the idea of the specific priesthood of the leader of the Church, the most important means of exalting the office above the community.299 SUPPLEMENTARY. 218

This review of the common faith and the beginnings of knowledge, worship and organisation in the earliest Gentile Christianity will have shewn that the essential premises for the development of Catholicism were already in existence before the middle of the second century, and before the burning conflict with Gnosticism. We may see this, whether we look at the peculiar form of the Kerygma, or at the expression of the idea of tradition, or at the theology with its moral and philosophic attitude. We may therefore conclude that the struggle with Gnosticism hastened the development, but did not give it a new direction. For the Greek spirit, the element which was most operative in Gnosticism, was already concealed in the earliest Gentile Christianity itself; it was the atmosphere which one breathed; but the elements peculiar to Gnosticism were for the most part rejected.300 We may even go back a step further (see above, pp. 41, 76). The great Apostle to the Gentiles himself, in his epistle to the Romans and in those to the Corinthians, transplanted the Gospel into Greek modes of thought. He attempted to expound it with Greek ideas, and not only called the Greeks to the Old Testament and the Gospel, but also introduced the Gospel as a leaven into the religious and philosophic world of Greek ideas. Moreover, in his pneumatico-cosmic Christology he gave the Greeks an impulse towards a theologoumenon, at whose service they could place their whole philosophy and mysticism. He preached the foolishness of Christ crucified, and yet in doing so proclaimed the wisdom of the nature-vanquishing Spirit, the heavenly Christ. From this moment was established a development which might indeed assume very different forms, but in which all the forces and ideas of Hellenism must gradually pass over to the Gospel. But even with this the last word has not been said; on the contrary, we must remember that the Gospel itself

298

This idea is Romish. See Book II. chap 11. C. We must remember here that besides the teachers, elders and deacons, the ascetics (virgins, widows, celibates, abstinentes) and the martyrs (confessors) enjoyed a special respect in the Churches, and frequently laid hold of the government and leading of them. Hermas enjoins plainly enough the duty of esteeming the confessors higher than the presbyters (Vis. III. 1. 2). The widows were soon entrusted with diaconal tasks connected with the worship, and received a corresponding respect. As to the limits of this, there was, as we can gather from different passages, much disagreement. One statement in Tertullian shews that the confessors had special claims to be considered in the choice of a bishop (adv. Valent. 4: “Speraverat Episcopatum Valentinus, quia et ingenio poterat et eloquio. Sed alium ex martyrii prærogativa loci potitum indignatus de ecclesia authenticæ regulæ abrupit“). This statement is strengthened by other passages; see Tertull. de fuga; 11: “Hoc sentire et facere omnem servum dei oportet, etiam minor’s loci, ut maioris fieri possit, si quern gradum in persecutionis tolerantia ascenderit”; see Hippol. in the Arab. canons, and also Achelis, Texte u. Unters. VI. 4. pp. 67, 220: Cypr. Epp. 38. 39. The way in which confessors and ascetics, from the end of the second century, attempted to have their say in the leading of the Churches, and the respectful way in which it was sought to set their claims aside, shew that a special relation to the Lord, and therefore a special right with regard to the community, was early acknowledged to these people, on account of their archievements. On the transition of the old prophets and teachers into wandering ascetics, later into monks, see the Syriac Pseudo-Clementine Epistles, “de virginitate,” and my Abhandl. i. d. Sitzungsberichten d. K. Pr. Akad. d. Wissensch. 1891, p. 361 ff. 300 See Weizsäcker. Gött. Gel. Anz. 1886, No. 21, whose statements I can almost entirely make my own. 299

135

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

belonged to the fulness of the times, which is indicated by the inter-action of the Old Testament and the Hellenic religions (see above, pp. 41, 56). 219

220

The documents which have been preserved from the first century of the Gentile Church are, in their relation to the history of Dogma, very diverse. In the Didache we have a Catechism for Christian life dependent on a Jewish Greek Catechism, and giving expression to what was specifically Christian in the prayers and in the order of the Church. The Epistle of Barnabas, probably of Alexandrian origin, teaches the correct, Christian, interpretation of the Old Testament, rejects the literal interpretation and Judaism as of the devil, and in Christology essentially follows Paul. The Romish first Epistle of Clement, which also contains other Pauline reminiscences (reconciliation and justification), represents the same Christology, but it set it in a moralistic mode of thought. This is a most typical writing in which the spirit of tradition, order, stability, and the universal ecclesiastical guardianship of Rome is already expressed. The moralistic mode of thought is classically represented by the Shepherd of Hermas and the second Epistle of Clement, in which, besides, the eschatological element is very prominent. We have in the Shepherd the most important document for the Church Christianity of the age, reflected in the mirror of a prophet who, however, takes into account the concrete relations. The theology of Ignatius is the most advanced, in so far as he, opposing the Gnostics, brings the facts of salvation into the foreground, and directs his Gnosis not so much to the Old Testament as to the history of Christ. He attempts to make Christ κατὰ τνεῦμα and κατὰ σάρκα the central point of Christianity. In this sense his theology and speech is Christocentric, related to that of Paul and the fourth Evangelist, (specially striking is the relationship with Ephesians,) and is strongly contrasted with that of his contemporaries. Of kindred spirit with him are Melito and Irenæus, whose forerunner he is. He is related to them as Methodius at a later period was related to the classical orthodox theology of the fourth and fifth centuries. This parallel is appropriate not merely in point of form: it is rather one and the same tendency of mind which passes over from Ignatius to Melito, Irenæus, Methodius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa (here, however, mixed with Origenic elements), and to Cyril of Alexandria. Its characteristic is that not only does the person of Christ as the God-man form the central point and sphere of theology, but also that all the main points of his history are mysteries of the world’s redemption. (Ephes. 19). But Ignatius is also distinguished by the fact that behind all that is enthusiastic, pathetic, abrupt, and again all that pertains to liturgical form, we find in his epistles a true devotion to Christ (ὁ θεός μου). He is laid hold of by Christ: Cf. Ad. Rom. 6: ἐκεῖνον ζητῶ, τὸν ὑπερ ἡμῶν ἀποθανόντα, ἐκεῖνον θέλω, τὸν δι᾽ ἡμᾶς ἀναστάντα; Rom. 7: ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἐμοὶ πῦρ φιλοϋλον. As a sample of his theological speech and his rule of faith, see ad Smyrn. I: ἐνόησα ὑμᾶς κατηρτισμένους ἐν ἀκινήτῳ πίστει, ὥσπερ καθηλωμένους ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ κυριοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ σαρκί τε καὶ πνεύμαρι καὶ ἡδρασμένους ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐν τῶ αἵμαρι Χριστοῦ, πεπληροφορημένους εἰς τὸν κυρίου ἡμῶν, ἀληθῶς ὄντα ἐκ γένους Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, ὑιὸν θεοῦ κατὰ θέλημα καὶ δύναμιν θεοῦ, γεγενημένον ἀληθῶς ἐκ παρθένου, βεβαπτισμένον ὑπὸ Ἰωάννοῦ, ἵνα πληρωθῇ πᾶσα δικαιοσύνη ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἀληθῶς ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου καὶ Ἡρώδου τετράρχου καθηλωμένον ὑπέρ ἡμῶν ἐν σαρκί—ἀφ᾽ οὗ καρποῦ ἡμεῖς, ἀπὸ τοῦ θεομακαρίτου αὐτοῦ πάθους—ἱν́ α ἄρῃ σύσσημον εἰς τούς αἰῶνας διά τῆς ἀναστάσεως εἰς τούς ἀγίους καὶ πιστοὺς αὐτοῦ εἴτε ἐν Ἰουδαίοις εἴτε ἐν ἴθνεσιν ἐν ἑνὶ σώματη τῆς ἐκκλησίας αὐτοῦ. The Epistle of Polycarp is

136

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

characterised by its dependence on earlier Christian writings (Epistles of Paul, I Peter, I John), consequently by its conservative attitude with regard to the most valuable traditions of the Apostolic period. The Kerygma of Peter exhibits the transition from the early Christian literature to the apologetic (Christ as νὸμος and as λόγος).

221

222

It is manifest that the lineage, “Ignatius, Polycarp, Melito, Irenæus,” is in characteristic contrast with all others, has deep roots in the Apostolic age, as in Paul and in the Johannine writings, and contains in germ important factors of the future formation of dogma, as it appeared in Methodius, Athanasius, Marcellus, Cyril of Jerusalem. It is very doubtful, therefore, whether we are justified in speaking of an Asia Minor theology. (Ignatius does not belong to Asia Minor.) At any rate, the expression, Asia Minor-Romish Theology, has no justification. But it has its truth in the correct observation, that the standards by which Christianity and Church matters were measured and defined must have been similar in Rome and Asia Minor during the second century. We lack all knowledge of the closer connections. We can only again refer to the journey of Polycarp to Rome, to that of Irenæus by Rome to Gaul, to the journey of Abercius and others. (Cf. also the application of the Montanist communities in Asia Minor for recognition by the Roman bishop.) In all probability, Asia Minor, along with Rome, was the spiritual centre of Christendom from about 60-200; but we have but few means for describing how this centre was brought to bear on the circumference. What we do know belongs more to the history of the Church than to the special history of dogma. Literature.—The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers. See the edition of v. Gebhardt, Harnack, Zahn, 1876. Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra Can. recept. fasc. IV. 2 edit. 1884, has collected further remains of early Christian literature. The Teaching of the twelve Apostles. Fragments of the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter (my edition, 1893). Also the writings of Justin and other apologists, in so far as they give disclosures about the faith of the communities of his time, as well as statements in Celsus Ἀληθὴς Λόγος, in Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Even Gnostic fragments may be cautiously turned to profit. Ritschl, Entstehung der altkath. Kirche, 2 Aufl. 1857. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, 1887. Renan, Origins of Christianity, vol. V. V. Engelhardt, Das Christenthum Justin’s, d. M. 1878, p. 375 ff. Schenkel, Das Christusbild der Apostel, etc., 1879. Zahn, Gesch. des N.-Tlichen Kanons, 2 Bde. 1888. Behm, Das Christliche Gesetzthum der Apostolischen Väter (Zeitschr. f. kirchl. Wissensch. 1886). Dorner, History of the doctrine of the Person of Christ, 1845. Schultz, Die Lehre von der Gottheit Christi, 1881, p. 22 ff: Höfling, Die Lehre der ältesten Kirche vom Opfer, 1851, Höfling, Das Sacrament d. Taufe, 1848. Kahnis, Die Lehre vom Abendmahl, 1851. Th. Harnack, Der Christliche Gemeindegottedienst im Apost. u. Altkath. Zeitalter, 1854. Hatch, Organisation of the Early Church, 1883. My Prolegomena to the Didache (Texte u. Unters. II. Bd. H. 1, 2). Diestel, Gesch. des A. T. in der Christl. Kirche, 1869. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, 1892. Monographs on the Apostolic Fathers: on 1 Clem.: Lipsius, Lightfoot (most accurate commentary), Wrede; on 2 Clem.: A. Harnack (Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. 1887); on Barnabas: J. Müller; on Hermas: Zahn, Hückstädt, Link; on Papias: Weiffenbach, Leimbach, Zahn, Lightfoot; on Ignatius and Polycarp: Lightfoot (accurate commentary) and Zahn; on the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter: A. Harnack; on the Kerygma of Peter: von Dobschütz; on Acts of Thecla: Schlau.

223

137

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

CHAPTER IV THE ATTEMPTS OF THE GNOSTICS TO CREATE AN APOSTOLIC DOGMATIC, AND A CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY; OR, THE ACUTE SECULARISING OF CHRISTIANITY. § I. The Conditions for the Rise of Gnosticism.

224

THE Christian communities were originally unions for a holy life on the ground of a common hope, which rested on the belief that the God who has spoken by the Prophets has sent his Son Jesus Christ, and through him revealed eternal life, and will shortly make it manifest. Christianity had its roots in certain facts and utterances, and the foundation of the Christian union was the common hope, the holy life in the Spirit according to the law of God, and the holding fast to those facts and utterances. There was, as the foregoing chapter will have shewn, no fixed Didache beyond that.301 There was abundance of fancies, ideas, and knowledge, but these had not yet the value of being the religion itself. Yet the belief that Christianity guarantees the perfect knowledge, and leads from one degree of clearness to another, was in operation from the very beginning. This conviction had to be immediately tested by the Old Testament, that is, the task was imposed on the majority of thinking Christians, by the circumstances in which the Gospel had been proclaimed to them, of making the Old Testament intelligible to themselves, in other words, of using this book as a Christian book, and of finding the means by which they might be able to repel the Jewish claim to it, and refute the Jewish interpretation of it. This task would not have been imposed, far less solved, if the Christian communities in the Empire had not entered into the inheritance of the Jewish propaganda, which had al-ready been greatly influenced by foreign religions (Babylonian and Persian, see the Jewish Apocalypses), and in which an extensive spiritualising of the Old Testament religion had already taken place. This spiritualising was the result of a philosophic view of religion, and this philosophic view was the outcome of a lasting influence of Greek philosophy and of the Greek spirit generally on Judaism. In consequence of this view, all facts and sayings of the Old Testament in which one could not find his way were allegorised. “Nothing was what it seemed, but was only the symbol of something invisible. The history of the Old Testament was here sublimated to a history of the emancipation of reason from passion.” It describes, however, the beginning of the historical development of Christianity, that as soon as it wished to give account of itself, or to turn to advantage the documents of revelations which were in its possession, it had to adopt the methods of that fantastic syncretism. We have seen above that those writers who made a diligent use of the Old Testament had no hesitation in making use of the allegorical method. That was required not only by the inability to understand the verbal sense of the Old Testament, presenting diverging moral and religious opinions, but, above all, by the conviction that on every page of that book Christ and the Christian Church must be found. How could this conviction have been maintained unless the definite concrete meaning of the documents had been already obliterated by the Jewish philosophic view of the Old Testament? 301

We may consider here once more the articles which are embraced in the first ten chapters of the recently discovered Διδαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων, after enumerating and describing which, the author continues (11. 1): ὃς ἃν οὖν ἐλθών διδάξῃ ὑμᾶς ταῦτα πάντα τὰ προειρημένα, δέξασθε αὐτόν.

138

History of Dogma - Volume I

225

226

Adolf Harnack

This necessary allegorical interpretation, however, brought into the communities an intellectual philosophic element, γνώσις, which was perfectly distinct from the Apocalyptic dreams, in which were beheld angel hosts on white horses, Christ with eyes as a flame of fire, hellish beasts, conflict and victory.”302 In this γνώσις, which attached itself to the Old Testament, many began to see the specific blessing which was promised to mature faith, and through which it was to attain perfection. What a wealth of relations, hints, and intuitions seemed to disclose itself, as soon as the Old Testament was considered allegorically, and to what extent had the way been prepared here by the Jewish philosophic teachers! From the simple narratives of the Old Testament had already been developed a theosophy, in which the most abstract ideas had acquired reality, and from which sounded forth the Hellenic canticle of the power of the Spirit over matter and sensuality, and of the true home of the soul. Whatever in this great adaptation still remained obscure and unnoticed, was now lighted up by the history of Jesus, his birth, his life, his sufferings and triumph. The view of the Old Testament as a document of the deepest wisdom, transmitted to those who knew how to read it as such, unfettered the intellectual interest which would not rest until it had entirely transferred the new religion from the world of feelings, actions and hopes, into the world of Hellenic conceptions, and transformed it into a metaphysic. In that exposition of the Old Testament which we find, for example, in the so-called Barnabas, there is already concealed an important philosophic, Hellenic element, and in that sermon which bears the name of Clement (the so-called second Epistle of Clement), conceptions such as that of the Church, have already assumed a bodily form and been joined in marvellous connections, while, on the contrary, things concrete have been transformed into things invisible. But once the intellectual interest was unfettered, and the new religion had approximated to the Hellenic spirit by means of a philosophic view of the Old Testament, how could that spirit be prevented from taking complete and immediate possession of it, and where, in the first instance, could the power be found that was able to decide whether this or that opinion was incompatible with Christianity? This Christianity, as it was, unequivocally excluded all polytheism, and all national religions existing in the Empire. It opposed to them the one God, the Saviour Jesus, and a spiritual worship of God. But at the same time it summoned all thoughtful men to knowledge by declaring itself to be the only true religion, while it appeared to be only a variety of Judaism. It seemed to put no limits to the character and extent of the knowledge, least of all to such knowledge as was able to allow all that was transmitted to remain, and at the same time abolish it by transforming it into mysterious symbols. That really was the method which every one must and did apply who wished to get from Christianity more than practical motives and super earthly hopes. But where was the limit of the application? Was not the next step to see in the Evangelic records also new material for spiritual interpretations, and to illustrate from the narratives there, as from the Old Testament, the conflict of the spirit with matter, of reason with sensuality? Was not the 302

It is a good tradition which designates the so-called Gnosticism simply as Gnosis, and yet uses this word also for the speculations of non Gnostic teachers of antiquity (e.g., of Barnabas). But the inferences which follow have not been drawn. Origen says truly (c. Celsus III. 12): “As men, not only the labouring and serving classes, but also many from the cultured classes of Greece, came to see something honourable in Christianity, sects could not fail to arise, not simply from the desire for controversy and contradiction, but because several scholars endeavoured to penetrate deeper into the truth of Christianity. In this way sects arose which received their names from men who indeed admired Christianity in its essence, but from many different causes had arrived at different conceptions of it.”

139

History of Dogma - Volume I

227

Adolf Harnack

conception, that the traditional deeds of Christ were really the last act in the struggle of those mighty spiritual powers whose conflict is delineated in the Old Testament, at least as evident as the other, that those deeds were the fulfilment of mysterious promises? Was it not in keeping with the consciousness possessed by the new religion of being the universal religion, that one should not be satisfied with mere beginnings of a new knowledge, or with fragments of it, but should seek to set up such knowledge in a complete and systematic form, and so to exhibit the best and universal system of life as also the best and universal system of knowledge of the world? Finally, did not the free and yet so rigid forms in which the Christian communities were organised, the union of the mysterious with a wonderful publicity, of the spiritual with significant rites (baptism and the Lord’s Supper), invite men to find here the realisation of the ideal which the Hellenic religious spirit was at that time seeking, viz., a communion which, in virtue of a Divine revelation, is in possession of the highest knowledge, and therefore leads the holiest life; a communion which does not communicate the knowledge by discourse, but by mysterious efficacious consecrations and by revealed dogmas? These questions are thrown out here in accordance with the direction which the historical progress of Christianity took. The phenomenon called Gnosticism gives the answer to them.303 § 2. The Nature of Gnosticism.

228

The Catholic Church afterwards claimed as her own those writers of the first century (60-160) who were content with turning speculation to account only as a means of spiritualising the Old Testament, without, however, attempting a systematic reconstruction of tradition. But all those who in the first century undertook to furnish Christian practice with the foundation of a complete systematic knowledge, she declared false Christians, Christians only in name. Historical enquiry cannot accept this judgment. On the contrary, it sees in Gnosticism a series of undertakings, which in a certain way is analogous to the Catholic embodiment of Christianity, in doctrine, morals, and worship. The great distinction here consists essentially in the fact that the Gnostic systems represent the acute secularising or hellenising of Christianity, with the rejection of the Old Testament;304 while the Catholic system, on the other hand, represents a gradual process of the same kind with the conservation of the Old Testament. The traditional religion on being, as it were, suddenly required to recognise itself in a picture foreign to it, was yet vigorous enough to reject that picture; but to the gradual, and one might say indulgent remodelling to which it was subjected, it offered but little resistance, nay, as a rule, it was never conscious of it. It is therefore no paradox to say that Gnosticism, which is just Hellenism, has in Catholicism obtained half a victory. We have, at Ieast, the same justification for that assertion—the parallel may be permitted—as we have for recognising

303

The majority of Christians in the second century belonged no doubt to the uncultured classes and did not seek abstract knowledge, nay, were distrustful of it; see the λόγος ἀληθής of Celsus, especially III. 44, and the writings of the Apologists. Yet we may infer from the treatise of Origen against Celsus, that the number of “Christiani rudes” who cut themselves off from theological and philosophic knowledge, was about the year 240 a very large one; and Tertullian says (Adv. Prax. 3): “Simplices quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est,” cf. de jejun. 11: “Major pars imperitorum apud gloriosissimam multitudinem psychicorum.” 304 Overbeck (Stud. z. Gesch. d. alten Kirche. p. 184) has the merit of having first given convincing expression to this view of Gnosticism.

140

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

a triumph of 18th century ideas in the first Empire, and a continuance, though with reservations, of the old regime.

229

From this point of view the position to be assigned to the Gnostics in the history of dogma, which has hitherto been always misunderstood, is obvious. They were, in short, the Theologians of the first century.305 They were the first to transform Christianity into a system of doctrines (dogmas). They were the first to work up tradition systematically. They undertook to present Christianity as the absolute religion, and therefore placed it in definite opposition to the other religions, even to Judaism. But to them the absolute religion, viewed in its contents, was identical with the result of the philosophy of religion for which the support of a revelation was to be sought. They are therefore those Christians who, in a swift advance, attempted to capture Christianity for Hellenic culture, and Hellenic culture for Christianity, and who gave up the Old Testament in order to facilitate the conclusion of the covenant between the two powers, and make it possible to assert the absoluteness of Christianity.—But the significance of the Old Testament in the religious history of the world lies just in this, that, in order to be maintained at all, it required the application of the allegoric method, that is, a definite proportion of Greek ideas, and that, on the other hand, it opposed the strongest barrier to the complete hellenising of Christianity. Neither the sayings of Jesus, nor Christian hopes, were at first capable of forming such a barrier. If, now, the majority of Gnostics could make the attempt to disregard the Old Testament, that is a proof that, in wide circles of Christendom, people were at first satisfied with an abbreviated form of the Gospel, containing the preaching of the one God, of the resurrection and of continence,—a law and an ideal of practical life.306 In this form, as it was realised in life, the Christianity which dispensed with “doctrines” seemed capable of union with every form of thoughtful and earnest philosophy, because the Jewish foundation did not make its appearance here at all. But the majority of Gnostic undertakings may also be viewed as attempts to transform Christianity into a theosophy, that is, into a revealed metaphysic and philosophy of history, with a complete disregard of the Jewish Old Testament soil on which it originated, through the use of Pauline ideas,307 and under the influence of the Platonic spirit. Moreover, comparison is possible between writers such as Barnabas and Ignatius, and the so-called Gnostics, to the effect of making the latter appear in possession of a completed theory, to which fragmentary ideas in the former exhibit a striking affinity. We have hitherto tacitly presupposed that in Gnosticism the Hellenic spirit desired to make itself master of Christianity, or more correctly of the Christian communities. This conception may be, and really is still contested. For according to the accounts of later opponents, and on these we are almost exclusively dependent here, the main thing with the Gnostics seems to have been the

305

The ability of the prominent Gnostic teachers has been recognised by the Church Fathers: see Hieron. Comm. in Osee. II. to, Opp. VI. 1: “Nullus potest hæresim struere, nisi qui ardens ingenii est et habet dona naturæ quæ a deo artifice sunt creata: talis fait Valentinus, talis Marcion, quos doctissimos legimus, talis Bardesanes, cujus etiam philosophi admirantur ingenium.” It is still more important to see how the Alexandrian theologians (Clement and Origen) estimated the exegetic labours of the Gnostics and took account of them. Origen undoubtedly recognised Herakleon as a prominent exegete, and treats him most respectfully even where he feels compelled to differ from him. All Gnostics cannot, of course, be regarded as theologians. In their totality they form the Greek society with a Christian name. 306 Otherwise the rise of Gnosticism cannot at all be explained. 307 Cf. Bigg, “The Christian Platonists of Alexandria,” p. 83: “Gnosticism was in one respect distorted Paulinism”

141

History of Dogma - Volume I

230

231

Adolf Harnack

reproduction of Asiatic Mythologoumena of all kinds, so that we should rather have to see in Gnosticism a union of Christianity with the most remote Oriental cults and their wisdom. But with regard to the most important Gnostic systems the words hold true, “The hands are the hands of Esau, but the voice is the voice of Jacob.” There can be no doubt of the fact, that the Gnosticism which has become a factor in the movement of the history of dogma, was ruled in the main by the Greek spirit, and determined by the interests and doctrines of the Greek philosophy of religion,308 which doubtless had already assumed a syncretistic character. This fact is certainly concealed by the circumstance that the material of the speculations was taken now from this, and now from that Oriental religious philosophy, from astrology and the Semitic cosmologies. But that is only in keeping with the stage which the religious development had reached among the Greeks and Romans of that time.309 The cultured, and these primarily come into consideration here, no longer had a religion in the sense of a national religion, but a philosophy of religion. They were, however, in search of a religion, that is, a firm basis for the results of their speculations, and they hoped to obtain it by turning themselves towards the very old Oriental cults, and seeking to fill them with the religious and moral knowledge which had been gained by the Schools of Plato and of Zeno. The union of the traditions and rites of the Oriental religions, viewed as mysteries, with the spirit of Greek philosophy is the characteristic of the epoch. The needs, which asserted themselves with equal strength, of a complete knowledge of the All, of a spiritual God, a sure and therefore very old revelation, atonement and immortality, were thus to be satisfied at one and the same time. The most sublimated spiritualism enters here into the strangest union with a crass superstition based on Oriental cults. This superstition was supposed to insure and communicate the spiritual blessings. These complicated tendencies now entered into Christianity. We have accordingly to ascertain and distinguish in the prominent Gnostic schools, which, in the second century on Greek soil, became an important factor in the history of the Church, the Semitic-cosmological foundations, the Hellenic philosophic mode of thought, and the recognition of the redemption of the world by Jesus Christ. Further, we have to take note of the three elements of Gnosticism, viz., the speculative and philosophical, the mystic element connection with worship, and the practical, ascetic. The close connection in which these three elements appear,310 the total 308

Joel, “Blick in die Religionsgesch.” Vol I. pp. 101-170, has justly emphasised the Greek character of Gnosis, and insisted on the significance of Platonism for it. “The Oriental element did not always in the case of the Gnostics originate at first hand, but had already passed through a Greek channel.” 309 The age of the Antonines was the flourishing period of Gnosticism. Marquardt (Römische Staatsverwaltung, vol. 3, p. 81) says of this age: “With the Antonines begins the last period of the Roman religious development, in which two new elements enter into it. These are the Syrian and Persian deities, whose worship at this time was prevalent not only in the city of Rome, but in the whole empire, and at the same time Christianity, which entered into conflict with all ancient tradition, and in this conflict exercised a certain influence even on the Oriental forms of worship. 310 It is a special merit of Weingarten (Histor. Ztschr. Bd. 45. 1881. p. 441 f.) and Koffmane (De Gnosis nach ihrer Tendenz und Organisation, 1881) to have strongly emphasised the mystery character of Gnosis, and in connection with that, its practical aims. Koffmane, especially, has collected abundant material for proving that the tendency of the Gnostics was the same as that of the ancient mysteries, and that they thence borrowed their organisation and discipline. This fact proves the proposition that Gnosticism was an acute hellenising of Christianity. Koffmane has, however, undervalued the union of the practical and speculative tendency in the Gnostics, and, in the effort to obtain recognition for the mystery character of the Gnostic communities, has overlooked the fact that they were also schools. The union of mystery-cultus and school is just, however, their characteristic. In this also they prove themselves the forerunners of Neoplatonism and the Catholic Church. Moehler in his programme of 1831 (Urspr. d. Gnosticismus Tübingen), vigorously emphasised the practical tendency of Gnosticism, though not in a convincing way. Hackenschmidt (Anfänge des katholischen Kirchenbegriffs, p. 83 f.) has judged correctly.

142

History of Dogma - Volume I

232

233

Adolf Harnack

transformation of all ethical into cosmological problems, the upbuilding of a philosophy of God and the world on the basis of a combination of popular Mythologies, physical observations belonging to the Oriental (Babylonian) religious philosophy, and historical events, as well as the idea that the history of religion is the last act in the drama-like history of the Cosmos—all this is not peculiar to Gnosticism, but rather corresponds to a definite stage of the general development. It may, however, be asserted that Gnosticism anticipated the general development, and that not only with regard to Catholicism, but also with regard to Neoplatonism, which represents the last stage in the inner history of Hellenism.311 The Valentinians have already got as far as Jamblichus. The name Gnosis, Gnostics, describes excellently the aims of Gnosticism, in so far as its adherents boasted of the absolute knowledge, and faith in the Gospel was transformed into a knowledge of God, nature and history. This knowledge, however, was not regarded as natural, but in the view of the Gnostics was based on revelation, was communicated and guaranteed by holy consecrations, and was accordingly cultivated by reflection supported by fancy. A mythology of ideas was created out of the sensuous mythology of any Oriental religion, by the conversion of concrete forms into speculative and moral ideas, such as “Abyss,” “Silence,” “Logos,” “Wisdom,” “Life,” while the mutual relation and number of these abstract ideas were determined by the data supplied by the corresponding concretes. Thus arose a philosophic dramatic poem similar to the Platonic, but much more complicated, and therefore more fantastic, in which mighty powers, the spiritual and good, appear in an unholy union with the material and wicked, but from which the spiritual is finally delivered by the aid of those kindred powers which are too exalted to be ever drawn down into the common. The good and heavenly which has been drawn down into the material, and therefore really non-existing, is the human spirit, and the exalted power who delivers it is Christ. The Evangelic history as handed down is not the history of Christ, but a collection of allegoric representations of the great history of God and the world. Christ has really no history. His appearance in this world of mixture and confusion is his deed, and the enlightenment of the spirit about itself is the result which springs out of that deed. This enlightenment itself is life. But the enlightenment is dependent on revelation, asceticism and surrender to those mysteries which Christ founded, in which one enters into præsens numen and which in mysterious ways promote the process of raising the spirit above the sensual. This rising above the sensual is, however, to be actively practised. Abstinence therefore, as a rule, is the watchword. Christianity thus appears here as a speculative philosophy which redeems the spirit by enlightening it, consecrating it, and instructing it in the right conduct of life. The Gnosis is free from the rationalistic interest in the sense of natural religion. Because the riddles about the world which it desires to solve are not properly intellectual, but practical, because it desires to be in the end γνῶσις σωτηρίας, it removes into the region of the supra-rational the powers which are supposed to confer vigour and life on the human spirit. Only a μάθησις, however, united with μυσταγωγία resting on revelation leads thither, not an exact philosophy. Gnosis starts from the great problem of this world, but occupies itself with a higher world, and does not wish to be an exact philosophy, but a philosophy of religion. Its fundamental philosophic doctrines are the 311

We have also evidence of the methods by which ecstatic visions were obtained among the Gnostics: see the Pistis Sophia, and the important role which prophets and Apocalypses played in several important Gnostic communities (Barcoph and Barcabbas, prophets of the Basilideans; Martiades and Marsanes among the Ophites; Philumene in the case of Apelles; Valentinian prophecies; Apocalypses of Zostrian, Zoroaster, etc.). Apocalypses were also used by some under the names of Old Testament men of God and Apostles.

143

History of Dogma - Volume I

234

235

Adolf Harnack

following: (1) The indefinable, infinite nature of the Divine primeval Being exalted above all thought. (2) Matter as opposed to the Divine Being, and therefore having no real being, the ground of evil. (3) The fulness of divine potencies, sons, which are thought of partly as powers, partly as real ideas, partly as relatively independent beings, presenting in gradation the unfolding and revelation of the Godhead, but at the same time rendering possible the transition of the higher to the lower. (4) The Cosmos as a mixture of matter with divine sparks, which has arisen from a descent of the latter into the former, or, as some say, from the perverse, or at least merely permitted undertaking of a subordinate spirit. The Demiurge, therefore, is an evil, intermediate, or weak, but penitent being; the best thing therefore in the world is aspiration. (5) The deliverance of the spiritual element from its union with matter, or the separation of the good from the world of sensuality by the Spirit of Christ which operates through knowledge, asceticism, and holy consecration: thus originates the perfect Gnostic, the man who is free from the world, and master of himself, who lives in God and prepares himself for eternity. All these are ideas for which we find the way prepared in the philosophy of the time, anticipated by Philo, and represented in Neoplatonism as the great final result of Greek philosophy. It lies in the nature of the case that only some men are able to appropriate the Christianity that is comprehended in these ideas, viz., just as many as are capable of entering into this kind of Christianity, those who are spiritual. The others must be considered as non-partakers of the Spirit from the beginning, and therefore excluded from knowledge as the profanum vulgus. Yet some—the Valentinians, for example—made a distinction in this vulgus, which can only be discussed later on, because it is connected with the position of the Gnostics towards Jewish Christian tradition. The later opponents of Gnosticism preferred to bring out the fantastic details of the Gnostic systems, and thereby created the prejudice that the essence of the matter lay in these. They have thus occasioned modern expounders to speculate about the Gnostic speculations in a manner that is marked by still greater strangeness. Four observations shew how unhistorical and unjust such a view is, at least with regard to the chief systems. (1) The great Gnostic schools, wherever they could, sought to spread their opinions. But it is simply incredible that they should have expected of all their disciples, male and female, an accurate knowledge of the details of their system. On the contrary, it may be shewn that they often contented themselves with imparting consecration, with regulating the practical life of their adherents, and instructing them in the general features of their system.312 (2) We see how in one and the same school—for example, the Valentinian—the details of the religious metaphysic were very various and changing. (3) We hear but little of conflicts between the various schools. On the contrary, we learn that the books of doctrine and edification passed from one school to another.313 (4) The fragments of Gnostic writings which have been preserved, and this is the most important consideration of the four, shew that the Gnostics devoted their main strength to the working out of those religious, moral, philosophical and historical problems 312 313

See Koffmane, beforementioned work, p. 5 f. See Fragm. Murat. V. 81 f.; Clem. Strom. VII. 17. 108; Orig. Hom. 34. The Marcionite Antitheses were probably spread among other Gnostic sects. The Fathers frequently emphasise the fact that the Gnostics were united against the Church: Tertullian de præscr. 42: “Et hoc est, quod schismata apud hæreticos fere non sunt, quia cum Sint, non parent. Schisma est enim unitas ipsa.” They certainly also delight in emphasising the contradictions of the different schools; but they cannot point to any earnest conflict

144

History of Dogma - Volume I

236

237

Adolf Harnack

which must engage the thoughtful of all times.314 We only need to read some actual Gnostic document, such as the Epistle of Ptolemæus to Flora, or certain paragraphs of the Pistis Sophia, in order to see that the fantastic details of the philosophic poem can only, in the case of the Gnostics themselves, have had the value of liturgical apparatus, the construction of which was not of course matter of indifference, but hardly formed the principle interest. The things to be proved and to be confirmed by the aid of this or that very old religious philosophy, were certain religious and moral fundamental convictions, and a correct conception of God, of the sensible, of the creator of the world, of Christ, of the Old Testament, and the evangelic tradition. Here were actual dogmas. But how the grand fantastic union of all the factors was to be brought about, was, as the Valentinian school shews, a problem whose solution was ever and again subjected to new attempts.315 No one to-day can in all respects distinguish what to those thinkers was image and what reality, or in what degree they were at all able to distinguish image from reality, and in how far the magic formulæ of their mysteries were really objects of their meditation. But the final aim of their endeavours, the faith and knowledge of their own hearts which they instilled into their disciples, the practical rules which they wished to give them, and the view of Christ which they wished to confirm them in, stand out with perfect clearness. Like Plato, they made their explanation of the world start from the contradiction between sense and reason, which the thoughtful man observes in himself. The cheerful asceticism, the powers of the spiritual and the good which were seen in the Christian communities, attracted them and seemed to require the addition of theory to practice. Theory without being followed by practice had long been in existence, but here was the as yet rare phenomenon of a moral practice which seemed to dispense with that which was regarded as indispensable, viz., theory. The philosophic life was already there; how could the philosophic doctrine be wanting, and after what other model could the latent doctrine be reproduced than that of the Greek religious philosophy?316 That the Hellenic spirit in Gnosticism turned with such eagerness to the Christian communities and was ready even to believe in Christ in order to appropriate the moral powers which it saw operative in them, is a convincing proof of the extraordinary impression which these of these schools with each other. We know definitely that Bardasanes argued against the earlier Gnostics, and Ptolemæus against Marcion. 314 See the collection, certainly not complete, of Gnostic fragments by Grabe (Spicileg.) and Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte). Our books on the history of Gnosticism take far too little notice of these fragments as presented to us, above all, by Clement and Origen, and prefer to keep to the doleful accounts of the Fathers about the “Systems,” (better in Heinrici: Valent. Gnosis, 1871). The vigorous efforts of the Gnostics to understand the Pauline and Johannine ideas, and their in part surprisingly rational and ingenious solutions of intellectual problems, have never yet been systematically estimated. Who would guess, for example, from what is currently known of the system of Basilides, that, according to Clement, the following proceeds from him, (Strom. IV. 12. 18): ὡς αὐτός φησιν ὁ Βασιλείδης, ἓν μέρος ἐκ τοῦ λεγομένου θελήματος τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπειλήφαμεν, τὸ ἡγαπηκέναι ἅπαντα. ὅτι λόγον ἀποσώζουσι πρὸς τὸ πᾶν ἅπαντα· ἕτερον δὲ τὸ μηδενὸς ἐπιθυμεῖν, καὶ τὸ τρίτον μισείν μηδὲ ἕν? and where do we find, in the period before Clement of Alexandria, faith in Christ united with such spiritual maturity and inner freedom as in Valentinus, Ptolemæus and Heracleon? 315 Testament of Tertullian (adv. Valent. 4) shews the difference between the solution of Valentinus, for example, and his disciple Ptolemæus. “Ptolemæus nomina et numeros Æonum distinxit in personales substantias, sed extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat.” It is, moreover, important that Tertullian himself should distinguish this so clearly. 316 There is nothing here more instructive than to hear the judgments of the cultured Greeks and Romans about Christianity, as soon as they have given up the current gross prejudices. They shew with admirable clearness the way in which Gnosticism originated. Galen says (quoted by Gieseler, Church Hist. 1. 1. 4): “Hominum plerique orationem demonstrativam continuam mente assequi nequeunt, quare indigent, ut instituantur parabolis. Veluti nostro tempore videmus, homines illos, qui Christiani vocantur, fidem

145

History of Dogma - Volume I

238

Adolf Harnack

communities made. For what other peculiarities and attractions had they to offer to that spirit than the certainty of their conviction (of eternal life), and the purity of their life? We hear of no similar edifice being erected in the second century on the basis of any other Oriental cult—even the Mithras cult is scarcely to be mentioned here—as the Gnostic was on the foundation of the Christian.317 The Christian communities, however, together with their worship of Christ, formed the real solid basis of the greater number and the most important of the Gnostic systems, and in this fact we have, on the very threshold of the great conflict, a triumph of Christianity over Hellenism. The triumph lay in the recognition of what Christianity had already performed as a moral and social power. This recognition found expression in bringing the highest that one possessed as a gift to be consecrated by the new religion, a philosophy of religion whose end was plain and simple, but whose means were mysterious and complicated. § 3. History of Gnosticism and the forms in which it appeared. In the previous section we have been contemplating Gnosticism as it reached its prime in the great schools of Basilides and Valentinus, and those related to them,318 at the close of the period we are now considering, and became an important factor in the history of dogma. But this Gnosticism had (1) preliminary stages, and (2) was always accompanied by a great number of sects, schools and undertakings which were only in part related to it, and yet, reasonably enough, were grouped together with it.

suam e parabolis petiisse. Hi tamen interdum talia faciunt, qualia qui vere philosophantur. Nam quod mortem contemnunt, id quidem omnes ante oculos habemus; item quod verecundia quadam ducti ab usu rerum venerearam abhorrent. Sunt enim inter eos feminas et viri, qui per totam vitam a concubitu abstinuerint; sunt etiam qui in animis regendis coërcendisque et in accerrimo honestatis studio eo progressi sint, ut nihil cedant vere philosophantibus.” Christians, therefore, are philosophers without philosophy. What a challenge for them to produce such, that is to seek out the latent philosophy! Even Celsus could not but admit a certain relationship between Christians and philosophers. But as he was convinced that the miserable religion of the Christians could neither include nor endure a philosophy, he declared that the moral doctrines of the Christians were borrowed from the philosophers (I. 4). In course of his presentation (V. 65: VI. 12, 15-19, 42: VII. 27-35) he deduces the most decided marks of Christianity, as well as the most important sayings of Jesus from (misunderstood) statements of Plato and other Greek philosophers. This is not the place to shew the contradictions in which Celsus was involved by this. But it is of the greatest significance that even this intelligent man could only see philosophy where he saw something precious. The whole of Christianity from its very origin appeared to Celsus (in one respect) precisely as the Gnostic systems appear to us, that is, these really are what Christianity as such seemed to Celsus to be. Besides, it was constantly asserted up to the fifth century that Christ had drawn from Plato’s writings. Against those who made this assertion, Ambrosius (according to Augustine, Ep. 31. C. 8) wrote a treatise, which unfortunately is no longer in existence. 317 The Simonian system at most might be named, on the basis of the syncretistic religion founded by Simon Magus. But we know little about it, and that little is uncertain. Parallel attempts are demonstrable in the third century on the basis of various “revealed” fundamental ideas (ἡ ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφία). 318 Among these I reckon those Gnostics whom Irenæus (I. 29-31) has portrayed, as well as part of the so-called Ophites, Peratæ, Sethites and the school of the Gnostic Justin (Hippol. Philosoph. V. 6-28). There is no reason for regarding them as earlier or more Oriental than the Valentinians, as is done by Hilgenfeld against Baur, Möller, and Gruber (the Ophites, 1864). See also Lipsius, “Ophit. Systeme,” i. d. Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1863. IV. 1864, I. These schools claimed for themselves the name Gnostic (Hippol. Philosoph V. 6). A part of them, as is specially apparent from Orig. c. Celsus. VI., is not to be reckoned Christian. This motley group is but badly known to us through Epiphanius, much better through the original Gnostic writings preserved in the Coptic language. (Pistis Sophia and the works published by Carl Schmidt. Texte u. Unters. Bd. VIII.) Yet these original writings belong, for the most part, to the second half of the third century (see also the important statements of Porphyry in the Vita Plotini. c. 16), and shew a Gnosticism burdened with an abundance of wild speculations, formulæ, mysteries, and ceremonial. However, from these very monuments it becomes plain that Gnosticism anticipated Catholicism as a ritual system (see below).

146

History of Dogma - Volume I

239

240

Adolf Harnack

To begin with the second point, the great Gnostic schools were flanked on the right and left by a motley series of groups which at their extremities can hardly be distinguished from popular Christianity on the one hand, and from the Hellenic and the common world on the other.319 On the right were communities such as the Encratites, which put all stress on a strict asceticism, in support of which they urged the example of Christ, but which here and there fell into dualistic ideas.320 There were, further, whole communities which, for decennia, drew their views of Christ from books which represented him as a heavenly spirit who had merely assumed an apparent body.321 There were also individual teachers who brought forward peculiar opinions without thereby causing any immediate stir in the Churches.322 On the left there were schools such as the Carpocratians, in which the philosophy and communism of Plato were taught, the son of the founder and second teacher Epiphanes honoured as a God (at Cephallenia), as Epicurus was in his school, and the image of Jesus crowned along with those of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle.323 On this left flank are, further, swindlers who take their own way, like Alexander of Abonoteichus, magicians, soothsayers, sharpers 319

On Marcion, see the following Chapter. We know that from the earliest period (perhaps we might refer even to the Epistle to the Romans) there were circles of ascetics in the Christian communities who required of all, as an inviolable law, under the name of Christian perfection, complete abstinence from marriage, renunciation of possessions, and a vegetarian diet. (Clem. Strom. III. 6. 49: ὑπὸ διαβόλου ταύτην παραδίδοθσαι δογματίζουσι, μιμεῖσθαι δ᾽ αὐτοὺς οἱ μεγάλαυχοί φασι τὸν κύριον μήτε γήμαντα, μήτε τι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ κτησάμενον μᾶλλον παρὰ τοὺς ἀλ ́ λους νενοηκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καυχόμενοι—Here then, already, imitation of the poor life of Jesus, the “Evangelic” life, was the watchword. Tatian wrote a book, περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα καταρτισμοῦ, that is, on perfection according to the Redeemer: in which he set forth the irreconcilability of the worldly life with the Gospel). No doubt now existed in tht; Churches that abstinence from marriage, from wine and flesh, and from possessions, was the perfect fulfilling of the law of Christ (βαστάζειν ὅλον τὸν ζυγὸν τοῦ κύριου). But in wide circles strict abstinence was deduced from a special charism, all boastfulness was forbidden, and the watchword given out: ὅσον δύνασαι ἁγνεύσεις, which may be understood as a compromise with the worldly life as well as a reminiscence of a freer morality (see my notes on Didache, c. 6: 11, 11 and Prolegg. p. 42 ff.). Still, the position towards asceticism yielded a hard problem, the solution of which was more and more found in distinguishing a higher and a lower though sufficient morality, yet repudiating the higher morality as soon as it claimed to be the alone authoritative one. On the other hand, there were societies of Christian ascetics who persisted in applying literally to all Christians the highest demands of Christ, and thus arose, by secession, the communities of the Encratites and Severians. But in the circumstances of the time even they could not but be touched by the Hellenic mode of thought, to the effect of associating a speculative theory with asceticism, and thus approximating to Gnosticism. This is specially plain in Tatian, who connected himself with the Encratites, and in consequence of the severe asceticism which he prescribed, could no longer maintain the identity of the supreme God and the creator of the world (see the fragments of his later writings in the Corp. Apol. ed. Otto. T. VI.). As the Pauline Epistles could furnish arguments to either side, we see some Gnostics, such as Tatian himself, making diligent use of them, while others, such as the Severians, rejected them. (Euseb. H. E. IV. 29, 5, and Orig. c. Cels. V. 65). The Encratite controversy was, on the one hand, swallowed up by the Gnostic, and on the other hand, replaced by the Montanistic. The treatise written in the days of Marcus Aurelius by a certain Musanus (where?) which contains warnings against joining the Encratites (Euseb. H. E. VI. 28) we unfortunately no longer possess. 321 See Eusebius, H. E. VI. 12. Docetic elements are apparent even in the fragment of the Gospel of Peter recently discovered. 322 Here, above all, we have to remember Tatian, who in his highly praised Apology had already rejected altogether the eating of flesh (c. 23) and set up very peculiar doctrines about the spirit, matter, and the nature of man (c. 12 ff.). The fragments of the Hypotyposes of Clem. of Alex. show how much one had to bear in some rural Churches at the end of the second century. 323 See Clem. Strom. III. 2. 5; Ἐπιφάνης, ὑιὸς Καρποκράτους, ἔζησε τὰ πάντα ἔτη ἑπτακαίδεκα καί θεὸς ἐν Σαμῃ τῆς Κεφαλληνίας τετίμηται, ἔνθα αὐτῷ ἱερὸν ῥυτῶν λίθων, βωμοί, τεμένη, μουσεῖον, ᾠκοδόμηταί τε καί καθιέρωται, καὶ συνιόντες εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν οἱ Καφαλλῆνες κατὰ νουμηνίαν γενέθλιον ἀποθέωσιν θύουσιν Ἐπιφάνει, ππένδουσι τε καὶ εὐωχοῦνται καί ὕμνοι λέγονται. Clement’s quotations from the writings of Epiphanes shew him to be a pure Platonist: the proposition that property is theft is found in him. Epiphanes and his father, Carpocrates, were the first who attempted to amalgamate Plato’s State with the Christian ideal of the union of men with each other. Christ was to them, therefore, a philosophic Genius like Plato, see Irenæus. I. 25. 5: “Gnosticos autem se vocant, etiam imagines, quasdam quidem depictas, quasdam autem et de reliqua materia fabricatas habent et eas coronant, et proponent eas cum imaginibus mundi philosophorum, videlicet cum imagine Pythagoræ et Platonis et Aristotelis et reliquorum, et reliquam observationem circa eas similiter ut gentes faciunt.” 320

147

History of Dogma - Volume I

241

242

Adolf Harnack

and jugglers, under the sign-board of Christianity, deceivers and hypocrites who appear using mighty words with a host of unintelligible formulæ, and take up with scandalous ceremonies in order to rob men of their money and women of their honour.324 All this was afterwards called “Heresy” and “Gnosticism,” and is still so called.325 And these names may be retained, if we will understand by them nothing else than the world taken into Christianity, all the manifold formations which resulted from the first contact of the new religion with the society into which it entered. To prove the existence of that left wing of Gnosticism is of the greatest interest for the history of dogma, but the details are of no consequence. On the other hand, in the aims and undertakings of the Gnostic right, it is just the details that are of greatest significance, because they shew that there was no fixed boundary between what one may call common Christian and Gnostic Christian. But as Gnosticism, in its contents, extended itself from the Encratites and the philosophic interpretation of certain articles of the Christian proclamation as brought forward without offence by individual teachers in the communities, to the complete dissolution of the Christian element by philosophy, or the religious charlatanry of the age, so it exhibits itself formally also in a long series of groups which comprised all imaginable forms of unions. There were churches, ascetic associations, mystery cults, strictly private philosophic schools,326 free unions for edification, entertainments by Christian charlatans and deceived deceivers, who appeared as magicians and prophets, attempts at founding new religions after the model and under the influence of the Christian, etc. But, finally, the thesis that Gnosticism is identical with an acute secularising of Christianity in the widest sense of the word, is confirmed by the study of its own literature. The early Christian production of Gospel and Apocalypses was indeed continued in Gnosticism, yet so that the class of “Acts of the Apostles” was added to them, and that didactic, biographic and “belles lettres” elements were received into them, and claimed a very important place. If this makes the Gnostic literature approximate to the profane, that is much more the case with the scientific theological literature which Gnosticism first produced. Dogmatico-philosophic tracts, theologico-critical treatises, historical investigations and scientific commentaries on the sacred books, were, for the first time in Christendom, composed by

324

See the “Gnostics” of Hermas, especially the false prophet whom he portrays, Maud XI., Lucian’s Peregrinus, and the Marcus, of whose doings Irenæus (I. 13 ff.) gives such an abominable picture. To understand how such people were able to obtain a following so quickly in the Churches, we must remember the respect in which the “prophets” were held (see Didache XI.). If one had once given the impression that he had the Spirit, he could win belief for the strangest things, and could allow himself all things possible (see the delineations of Celsus in Orig. c. Cels. VII. 9. 11). We hear frequently of Gnostic prophets and prophetesses: see my notes on Herm. Mand. XI. 1. and Didache XI. 7. If an early Christian element is here preserved by the Gnostic schools, it has undoubtedly been hellenised and secularised as the reports shew. But that the prophets altogether were in danger of being secularised is shewn in Didache XI. In the case of the Gnostics the process is again only hastened. 325 The name Gnostic originally attached to schools which had so named themselves. To these belonged above all, the so-called Ophites, but not the Valentinians or Basilideans. 326 Special attention should be given to this form, as it became in later times of the very greatest importance for the general development of doctrine in the Church. The sect of Carpocrates was a school. Of Tatian, Irenæus says (I. 28. 1): Τατίανος Ἰουστινου ἀκροατὴς γεγονώς . . . . μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκείνου μαρτυρίαν ἀποστὰς τῆς ἐκκλησίας, οἰήματι διδασκάλου ἐπαρθεὶς . . . . ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα διδασκαλείου συνεστήσατο. Rhodon (in Euseb. H. E. V. 13. 4) speaks of a Marcionite διαασκαλεῖον. Other names were: “Collegium” (Tertull. ad Valent. 1); “Secta,” the word had not always a bad meaning; αἵρεσις, ἐκκλησία (Clem. Strom. VII. 16. 98; on the other hand, VII. 15. 92: Tertull. de præscr. 42: plerique nec Ecclesias habent); θίασος (Iren. I. 13, 4, for the Marcosians), συναγωγή, σύστημα, διατριβή, αἱ ἀθρώπιναι συνηλύσεις, factiuncula, congregatio, conciliabulum, conventiculum. The mystery-organisation most clearly appears in the Naassenes of Hippolytus, the Marcosians of Irenæus, and the Elkasites of Hippolytus, as well as the Coptic-Gnostic documents that have been preserved. (See Koffmane, above work, pp. 6-22).

148

History of Dogma - Volume I

243

Adolf Harnack

the Gnostics, who in part occupied the foremost place in the scientific knowledge, religious earnestness and ardour of the age. They form in every respect the counterpart to the scientific works which proceeded from the contemporary philosophic schools. Moreover, we possess sufficient knowledge of Gnostic hymns and odes, songs for public worship, didactic poems, magic formulæ, magic books, etc., to assure us that Christian Gnosticism took possession of a whole region of the secular life in its full breadth, and thereby often transformed the original forms of Christian literature into secular.327 If, however, we bear in mind how all this at a later period was gradually legitimised in the Catholic Church, philosophy, the science of the sacred books, criticism and exegesis, the ascetic associations, the theological schools, the mysteries, the sacred formulæ, the superstition, the charlatanism, all kinds of profane literature, etc., it seems to prove the thesis that the victorious epoch of the gradual hellenising of Christianity followed the abortive attempts at an acute hellenising. The traditional question as to the origin and development of Gnosticism, as well as that about the classification of the Gnostic systems, will have to be modified in accordance with the foregoing discussion. As the different Gnostic systems might be contemporary, and in part were undoubtedly contemporary, and as a graduated relation holds good only between some few groups, we must, in the classification, limit ourselves essentially to the features which have been specified in the foregoing paragraph, and which coincide with the position of the different groups to the early Christian tradition in its connection with the Old Testament religion, both as a rule of practical life, and of the common cultus.328

327

The particulars here belong to church history. Overbeck (“Ueber die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur” in d. hist. Ztschr. N. F. Bd. XII. p. 417 ff.) has the merit of being the first to point out the importance, for the history of the Church, of the forms of literature as they were gradually received in Christendom. Scientific, theological literature has undoubtedly its origin in Gnosticism. The Old Testament was here, for the first time, systematically and also in part historically criticised; a selection was here made from the primitive Christian literature; scientific commentaries were here written on the sacred hooks (Basilides and especially the Valentinians, see Heracleon’s comm. on the Gospel of John [in Origen]; the Pauline Epistles were also technically expounded; tracts were here composed on dogmatico-philosophic problems (for example, περὶ δικαιοσύνης—τερὶ προσφυοῦς ψυχῆς—ἡθικὰ—περὶ ἐγκρατείας ἡ περὶ εὐνουχίας), and systematic doctrinal systems already constructed (as the Basilidean and Valentinian); the original form of the Gospel was here first transmuted into the Greek form of sacred novel and biography (see, above all, the Gospel of Thomas, which was used by the Marcosians and Naassenes, and which contained miraculous stories from the childhood of Jesus); here, finally, psalms, odes and hymns were first composed (see the Acts of Lucius, the psalms of Valentinus, the psalms of Alexander the disciple of Valentinus, the poems of Bardesanes). Irenæus, Tertullian and Hippolytus have indeed noted that the scientific method of interpretation followed by the Gnostics, was the same as that of the philosophers (e.g., of Philo). Valentinus, as is recognised even by the Church Fathers, stands out prominent for his mental vigour and religious imagination; Heracleon for his exegetic theological ability; Ptolemy for his ingenious criticism of the Old Testament and his keen perception of the stages of religious development (see his Epistle to Flora in Epiphanius, hær. 33. c. 7). As a specimen of the language of Valentinus one extract from a homily may suffice (in Clem. Strom. IV. 13. 89). Ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἀθάνατοί ἐστε καὶ τέκνα ζωῆς ἐστε αἰωνίας, καὶ τὸν θάνατον ἡθέλετε μερίσασθαι εἰς ἐαυτούς, ἱν ́ α δαπανήσιτε αὐτὸν καὶ ἀναλώσητε, καὶ ἀποθάνή ὁ θάνατος ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ δι᾽ ὑμῶν, ὅταν γὰρ τὸν μὲν κόσμον λύητε, αὐτοι δὲ μὴ κατλύησθε, κυριεύετε τῆς κρίσεως καὶ τῆς φθορᾶς ἀπάσης. Basilides falls into the background behind Valentinus and his school. Yet the Church Fathers, when they wish to summarise the most important Gnostics, usually mention Simon Magus, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion (even Apelles). On the relation of the Gnostics to the New Testament writings and to the New Testament, see Zahn, Gesch. des N. T.-lichen Kanons. I. 2. p. 718. 328 Baur’s classification of the Gnostic systems, which rests on the observation of how they severally realised the idea of Christianity as the absolute religion in contrast to Judaism and Heathenism, is very ingenious and contains a great element of truth. But it is insufficient with reference to the whole phenomenon of Gnosticism, and has been carried out by Baur by violent abstractions.

149

History of Dogma - Volume I

244

245

Adolf Harnack

As to the origin of Gnosticism, we see how, even in the earliest period, all possible ideas and principles foreign to Christianity force their way into it, that is, are brought in under Christian rules, and find entrance, especially in the consideration of the Old Testament.329 We might be satisfied with the observation that the manifold Gnostic systems were produced by the increase of this tendency. In point of fact we must admit that in the present state of our sources, we can reach no sure knowledge beyond that. These sources, however, give certain indications which should not be left unnoticed. If we leave out of account the two assertions of opponents, that Gnosticism was produced by demons330 and—this, however, was said at a comparatively late period—that it originated in ambition and resistance to the ecclesiastical office, the episcopate, we find in Hegesippus, one of the earliest writers on the subject, the statement that the whole of the heretical schools sprang out of Judaism or the Jewish sects; in the later writers, Irenæus, Tertullian and Hippolytus, that these schools owe most to the doctrines of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, etc.331 But they all agree in this, that a definite personality, viz., Simon the Magician, must be regarded as the original source of the heresy. If we try it by these statements of the Church Fathers, we must see at once that the problem in this case is limited—certainly in a proper way. For after Gnosticism is seen to be the acute secularising of Christianity the only question that remains is, how are we to account for the origin of the great Gnostic schools, that is, whether it is possible to indicate their preliminary stages. The following may be asserted here with some confidence: Long before the appearance of Christianity, combinations of religion had taken place in Syria and Palestine,332 especially in Samaria, in so far, on the one hand, as the Assyrian and Babylonian religious philosophy, together with its myths, as well as the Greek popular religion with its manifold interpretations, had penetrated as far as the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, and been accepted even by the Jews; and, on the other hand, the Jewish Messianic idea had spread and called forth various movements.333 The result of every mixing of national religions, however, is to break through the traditional, legal and particular forms.334 For the Jewish religion syncretism signified the shaking of the authority of the Old Testament by a qualitative distinction of its different parts, as also doubt as to the identity of the supreme God with the national God. These ferments were once more set in motion by Christianity.

329

The question, therefore, as to the time of the origin of Gnosticism as a complete phenomenon cannot be answered. The remarks of Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E. IV. 22) refer to the Jerusalem Church, and have not even for that the value of a fixed datum. The only important question here is the point of time at which the expulsion or secession of the schools and unions took place in the different national churches. 330 Justin Apol. 1. 26. 331 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. IV. 22, Iren. II. 14. 1 f., Tertull. de præscr. 7, Hippol. Philosoph. The Church Fathers have also noted the likeness of the cultus of Mithras and other deities. 332 We must leave the Essenes entirely out of account here, as their teaching, in all probability, is not to be considered syncretistic in the strict sense of the word, (see Lucius, “Der Essenismus,” 1881,) and as we know absolutely nothing of a greater diffusion of it. But we need no names here, as a syncretistic, ascetic Judaism could and did arise everywhere in Palestine and the Diaspora. 333 Freudenthal’s a Hellenistische Studien” informs us as to the Samaritan syncretism; see also Hilgenfeld’s “Ketzergeschichte,” p. 149 ff. As to the Babylonian mythology in Gnosticism, see the statements in the elaborate article, “Manichäismus,” by Kessler (Real-Encycl. für protest. Theol., 2 Aufl.). 334 Wherever traditional religions are united under the badge of philosophy a conservative syncretism is the result, because the allegoric method, that is, the criticism of all religion, veiled and unconscious of itself, is able to blast rocks and bridge over abysses. All forms may remain here under certain circumstances, but a new spirit enters into them. On the other hand, where philosophy is still weak, and the traditional religion is already shaken by another, there arises the critical syncretism in which either the gods of one religion are subordinated to those of another, or the elements of the traditional religion are partly eliminated and replaced by others. Here, also, the soil is prepared for new religious formations, for the appearance of religious founders.

150

History of Dogma - Volume I

246

247

Adolf Harnack

We know that in the Apostolic age there were attempts in Samaria to found new religions, which were in all probability influenced by the tradition and preaching concerning Jesus. Dositheus, Simon Magus, Cleobius, and Menander appeared as Messiahs or bearers of the God-head, and proclaimed a doctrine in which the Jewish faith was strangely and grotesquely mixed with Babylonian myths, together with some Greek additions. The mysterious worship, the breaking up of Jewish particularism, the criticism of the Old Testament,—which for long had had great difficulty in retaining its authority in many circles, in consequence of the widened horizon and the deepening of religious feeling,—finally, the wild syncretism, whose aim, however, was a universal religion, all contributed to gain adherents for Simon.335 His enterprise appeared to the Christians as a diabolical caricature of their own religion, and the impression made by the success which Simonianism gained by a vigorous propaganda even beyond Palestine into the West, supported this idea.336 We can therefore understand how, afterwards, all heresies were traced back to Simon. To this must be added that we can actually trace in many Gnostic systems the same elements which were prominent in the religion proclaimed by Simon (the Babylonian and Syrian), and that the new religion of the Simonians, just like Christianity, had afterwards to submit to be transformed into a philosophic, scholastic doctrine.337 The formal parallel to the Gnostic doctrines was therewith established. But even apart from these attempts at founding new religions, Christianity in Syria, under the influence of foreign religions and speculation on the philosophy of religion, gave a powerful impulse to the criticism of the law and the prophets which had already been awakened. In consequence of this, there appeared, about the transition of the first century to the second, a series of teachers who, under the impression of the Gospel, sought to make the Old Testament capable of furthering the tendency to a universal religion, not by allegorical interpretation, but by a sifting criticism. These attempts were of very different kinds. Teachers such as Cerinthus clung to the notion that the universal religion revealed by Christ was identical with undefiled Mosaism, and therefore maintained even such articles as circumcision and the Sabbath commandment, as well as the earthly kingdom of the future. But they rejected certain parts of the law, especially, as a rule, the sacrificial precepts, which were no longer in keeping with the spiritual conception of religion. They conceived the creator of the world as a subordinate being distinct from the supreme God, which is always the mark of a syncretism with a dualistic tendency; introduced speculations about Æons and angelic powers, among whom they placed Christ, and recommended a strict asceticism. When, in their Christology,

335

It was a serious mistake of the critics to regard Simon Magus as a fiction, which, moreover, has been given up by Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte, p. 163 ff.), and Lipsius (Apocr. Apostelgesch. II. 1),—the latter, however, not decidedly. The whole figure as well as the doctrines attributed to Simon (see Acts of the Apostles, Justin, Irenæus, Hippolytus) not only have nothing improbable in them, but suit very well the religious circumstances which we must assume for Samaria. The main point in Simon is his endeavour to create a universal religion of the supreme God. This explains his success among the Samaritans and Greeks. He is really a counterpart to Jesus, whose activity can just as little have been unknown to him as that of Paul. At the same time it cannot be denied that the later tradition about Simon was the most confused and biassed imaginable, or that certain Jewish Christians at a later period may have attempted to endow the magician with the features of Paul in order to discredit the personality and teaching of the Apostle. But this last assumption requires a fresh investigation. 336 Justin. Apol. 1 26: Καὶ σχεδὸν πάντες μὲν Σαμαρεις, ὀλίγοι δὲ καὶ ἐν ἀλ ́ λοις ἐθ́ νεσιν, ὡς τὸν πρῶτον θεὸν Σίμωνα ὁμολογοῦντες, ἐκεῖνον καὶ προσκυνοῦσιν (besides the account in the Philos. and Orig. c. Cels. 1. 57: VI. II). The positive statement of Justin that Simon came even to Rome (under Claudius) can hardly be refuted from the account of the Apologist himself, and therefore not at all. (See Renan, “Antichrist”.) 337 We have it as such in the Μὲγάλη Ἀπόφασις which Hippolytus (Philosoph. VI. 19. 20) made use of. This Simonianism may perhaps have related to the original, as the doctrines of the Christian Gnostics to the Apostolic preaching.

151

History of Dogma - Volume I

248

Adolf Harnack

they denied the miraculous birth, and saw in Jesus a chosen man on whom the Christ, that is, the Holy Spirit, descended at the baptism, they were not creating any innovation, but only following the earliest Palestinian tradition. Their rejection of the authority of Paul is explained by their efforts to secure the Old Testament as far as possible for the universal religion.338 There were others who rejected all ceremonial commandments as proceeding from the devil, or from some intermediate being, but yet always held firmly that the God of the Jews was the supreme God. But alongside of these stood also decidedly anti-Jewish groups, who seem to have been influenced in part by the preaching of Paul. They advanced much further in the criticism of the Old Testament, and perceived the impossibility of saving it for the Christian universal religion. They rather connected this religion with the cultus-wisdom of Babylon and Syria, which seemed more adapted for allegorical interpretations, and opposed this formation to the Old Testament religion. The God of the Old Testament appears here at best as a subordinate Angel of limited power, wisdom and goodness. In so far as he was identified with the creator of the world, and the creation of the world itself was regarded as an imperfect or an abortive undertaking, expression was given both to the anti-Judaism and to that religious temper of the time which could only value spiritual blessing in contrast with the world and the sensuous. These systems appeared more or less strictly dualistic, in proportion as they did or did not accept a slight co-operation of the supreme God in the creation of man; and the way in which the character and power of the world-creating God of the Jews was conceived, serves as a measure of how far the several schools were from the Jewish religion and the Monism that ruled it. All possible conceptions of the God of the Jews, from the assumption that he is a being supported in his undertakings by the supreme God, to his identification with Satan, seem to have been exhausted in these schools. Accordingly, in the former case, the Old Testament was regarded as the revelation of a subordinate God, in the latter as the manifestation of Satan, and therefore the ethic—with occasional use of Pauline formulæ—always assumed an antinomian form compared with the Jewish law, in some cases antinomian even in the sense of libertinism. Correspondingly, the anthropology exhibits man as bipartite, or even tripartite, and the Christology is strictly docetic and anti-Jewish. The redemption by Christ is always, as a matter of course, related only to that element in humanity which has an affinity with the Godhead.339

338

The Heretics opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians may belong to these. On Cerinthus, see Polycarp in Iren. III. 3. 2, Irenæus (I. 26. 1: III. 11. I), Hippolytus and the redactions of the Syntagma, Cajus in Euseb. III. 28. 2, Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, p. 411 ff. To this category belong also the Ebionites and Elkasites of Epiphanius. (See Chap. 6.) 339 The two Syrian teachers, Saturninus and Cerdo, must in particular be mentioned here. The first (See Iren. I. 24. 1. 2, Hippolyt. and the redactions of the Syntagma) was not strictly speaking a dualist, and therefore allowed the God of the Old Testament to be regarded as an Angel of the supreme God, while at the same time he distinguished him from Satan. Accordingly, he assumed that the supreme God co-operated in the creation of man by angel powers—sending a ray of light, an image of light, that should be imitated as an example and enjoined as an ideal. But all men have not received the ray of light. Consequently, two classes of men stand in abrupt contrast with each other. History is the conflict of the two. Satan stands at the head of the one, the God of the Jews at the head of the other. The Old Testament is a collection of prophecies out of both camps. The truly good first appears in the Æon Christ, who assumed nothing cosmic, did not even submit to birth. He destroys the works of Satan (generation, eating of flesh), and delivers the men who have within them a spark of light. The Gnosis of Cerdo was much coarser. (Iren. I. 27. 1, Hippolyt. and the redactions.) He contrasted the good God and the God of the Old Testament as two primary beings. The latter he identified with the creator of the world. Consequently, he completely rejected the Old Testament and everything cosmic and taught that the good God was first revealed in Christ. Like Saturninus he preached a strict docetism; Christ had no body, was not born, and suffered in an unreal body. All else that the Fathers report of Cerdo’s teaching has probably been transferred to him from Marcion, and is therefore very doubtful.

152

History of Dogma - Volume I

249

250

Adolf Harnack

It is uncertain whether we should think of the spread of these doctrines in Syria in the form of a school, or of a cultus; probably it was both. From the great Gnostic systems as formed by Basilides and Valentinus they are distinguished by the fact that they lack the peculiar philosophic, that is Hellenic, element, the speculative conversion of angels and /Eons into real ideas, etc. We have almost no knowledge of their effect. This Gnosticism has never directly been a historical factor of striking importance, and the great question is whether it was so indirectly.340 That is to say, we do not know whether this Syrian Gnosticism was, in the strict sense, the preparatory stage of the great Gnostic schools, so that the schools should be regarded as an actual reconstruction of it. But there can be no doubt that the appearance of the great Gnostic schools in the Empire, from Egypt to Gaul, is contemporaneous with the vigorous projection of Syrian cults westwards, and therefore the assumption is suggested, that the Syrian Christian syncretism was also spread in connection with that projection, and underwent a change corresponding to the new conditions. We know definitely that the Syrian Gnostic, Cerdo, came to Rome, wrought there, and exercised an influence on Marcion. But no less probable is the assumption that the great Hellenic Gnostic schools arose spontaneously, in the sense of having been independently developed out of the elements to which undoubtedly the Asiatic cults also belonged, without being influenced in any way by Syrian syncretistic efforts. The conditions for the growth of such formations were nearly the same in all parts of the Empire. The great advance lies in the fact that the religious material as contained in the Gospel, the Old Testament, and the wisdom connected with the old cults, was philosophically, that is scientifically, manipulated by means of allegory, and the aggregate of mythological powers translated into an aggregate of ideas. The Pythagorean and Platonic, more rarely the Stoic philosophy, were compelled to do service here. Great Gnostic schools, which were at the same time unions for worship, first enter into the clear light of history in this form, (see previous section), and on the conflict with these, surrounded as they were by a multitude of dissimilar and related formations, depends the progress of the development.341 We are no longer able to form a perfectly clear picture of how these schools came into being, or how they were related to the Churches. It lay in the nature of the case that the heads of the schools, like the early itinerant heretical teachers, devoted attention chiefly, if not exclusively, to those who

340

This question might perhaps be answered if we had the Justinian Syntagma against all heresies; but in the present condition of our sources it remains wrapped in obscurity. What may be gathered from the fragments of Hegesippus, the Epistles of Ignatius, the Pastoral Epistles and other documents, such as, for example, the Epistle of Jude, is in itself so obscure, so detached and so ambiguous that it is of no value for historical construction. 341 There are, above all, the schools of the Basilideans, Valentinians and Ophites. To describe the systems in their full development lies, in my opinion, outside the business of the history of dogma and might easily lead to the mistake that the systems as such were controverted, and that their construction was peculiar to Christian Gnosticism. The construction, as remarked above, is rather that of the later Greek philosophy, though it cannot be mistaken that, for us, the full parallel to the Gnostic systems first appears in those of the Neoplatonists. But only particular doctrines and principles of the Gnostics were really called in question their critique of the world, of providence, of the resurrection, etc.; these therefore are to be adduced in the next section. The fundamental features of an inner development can only be exhibited in the case of the most important, viz., the Valentinian school. But even here we must distinguish an Eastern and a Western branch. (Tertull. adv. Valent. I.: “Valentiniani frequentissimum plane collegium inter hæreticos.” Iren. 1. I.; Hippol. Philos. VI. 35; Orig. Hom. II. 5 in Ezech. Lomm. XIV. p. 40: “Valentini robustissima secta”.)

153

History of Dogma - Volume I

251

252

Adolf Harnack

were already Christian, that is, to the Christian communities.342 From the Ignatian Epistles, the Shepherd of Hermas (Vis. III. 7. 1: Sim. VIII. 6. 5: IX. 19. and especially 22), and the Didache (XI. I. 2) we see that those teachers who boasted of a special knowledge and sought to introduce “strange” doctrines, aimed at gaining the entire churches. The beginning, as a rule, was necessarily the formation of conventicles. In the first period therefore, when there was no really fixed standard for warding off the foreign doctrines—Hermas is unable even to characterise the false doctrines—the warnings were commonly exhausted in the exhortation: κολλᾶσθε τοῖς ἁγίοις, ὅτι οἱ κολλώμενοι αὐτοῖς ἁγιασθήσονται, [“connect yourselves with the saints, because those who are connected with them shall be sanctified”]. As a rule, the doctrines may really have crept in unobserved, and those gained over to them may for long have taken part in a two-fold worship, the public worship of the churches, and the new consecration. Those teachers must of course have assumed a more aggressive attitude who rejected the Old Testament. The attitude of the Church, when it enjoyed competent guidance, was one of decided opposition towards unmasked or recognised false teachers. Yet Irenæus’ account of Cerdo in Rome shews us how difficult it was at the beginning to get rid of a false teacher.343 For Justin, about the year 150, the Marcionites, Valentinians, Basilideans and Saturninians are groups outside the communities, and undeserving of the name “Christians.”344 There must therefore have been at that time, in Rome and Asia Minor at least, a really perfect separation of those schools from the Churches (it was different in Alexandria). Notwithstanding, this continued to be the region from which those schools obtained their adherents. For the Valentinians recognised that the common Christians were much better than the heathen, that they occupied a middle position between the “pneumatic” and the “hylic,” and might look forward to a kind of salvation. This admission, as well as their conforming to the common Christian tradition, enabled them to spread their views in a remarkable way, and they may not have had any objection in many cases, to their converts remaining in the great Church. But can this community have perceived, everywhere and at once, that the Valentinian distinction of “psychic” and “pneumatic” is not identical with the scriptural distinction of children and men in understanding? Where the organisation of the school (the union for worship) required a long time of probation, where degrees of connection with it were distinguished, and a strict asceticism demanded of the perfect, it followed of course that those on the lower stage should not be urged to a speedy break with the Church.345 342

Tertull. de præscr. 42: “De verbi autem administratione quid dicam, cum hoc sit negotium illis, non ethnicos convertendi, sed nostros evertendi? Hanc magis gloriam captant, si stantibus ruinam, non si jacentibus elevationem operentur. Quoniam et ipsum opus eorum non de suo proprio ædificio venit, sed de veritatis destructione; nostra suffodiunt, ut sua ædificent. Adime illis legem Moysis et prophetas et creatorem deum, accusationem eloqui non habent.” (See adv. Valent. I. init.) This is hardly a malevolent accusation. The philosophic interpretation of a religion will always impress those only on whom the religion itself has already made an impression. 343 Iren. III. 4. 2: Κέρδων εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐλθῶν καὶ ἐξομολογούμενος, οὕτως διετέλεσε, ποτὲ μὲν λαθροδιδασκαλῶν ποτὲ δὲ πάλιν ἐξομολογούμενος, ποτὲ δὲ ἐλεγγόμενος ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐδίδασκε κακῶς, καὶ ἀφιστάμενος τῆς τῶν ἀδελφῶν συνοδίας; see besides the valuable account of Tertull. de præscr. 30. The account of Irenæus (I. 13) is very instructive as to the kind of propaganda of Marcus, and the relation of the women he deluded to the Church. Against actually recognised false teachers the fixed rule was to renounce all intercourse with them (2 Joh. 10. 11; Iren. ep. ad Florin on Polycarp’s procedure, in Euseb. H. E. V. 20. 7; Iren. III. 3. 4). But how were the heretics to be surely known? 344 Among those who justly bore this name he distinguishes those of οἱ ορθεγνώμενες κατὰ πάντα χριστανοί εἰσιν (Dial. 80). 345 Very important is the description which Irenæus (III. 15. 2) and Tertullian have given of the conduct of the Valentinians as observed by themselves (adv. Valent. 1). “Valentiniani nihil magis curant quam occultare, quod prædicant; si tamen prædicant qui occultant. Custodiæ officium conscientiæ officium est (a comparison with the Eleusinian mysteries follows). Si bona fide quæras, concreto vultu, suspenso supercilio, Altum est, aiunt. Si subtiliter temptes per ambiguitates bilingues communem fidem

154

History of Dogma - Volume I

253

Adolf Harnack

But after the creation of the catholic confederation of churches, existence was made more and more difficult for these schools. Some of them lived on somewhat like our freemason-unions; some, as in the East, became actual sects (confessions), in which the wise and the simple now found a place, as they were propagated by families. In both cases they ceased to be what they had been at the beginning. From about 210 they ceased to be a factor of the historical development, though the Church of Constantine and Theodosius was alone really able to suppress them. § 4. The most important Gnostic Doctrines. We have still to measure and compare with the earliest tradition those Gnostic doctrines which, partly at once and partly in the following period, became important. Once more, however, we must expressly refer to the fact that the epoch-making significance of Gnosticism for the history of dogma must not be sought chiefly in the particular doctrines, but rather in the whole way in which Christianity is here conceived and transformed. The decisive thing is the conversion of the Gospel into a doctrine, into an absolute philosophy of religion, the transforming of the disciplina Evangelii into an asceticism based on a dualistic conception, and into a practice of mysteries.346 We have now briefly to shew, with due regard to the earliest tradition, how far this transformation was of positive or negative significance for the following period, that is, in what respects the following development was anticipated by Gnosticism, and in what respects Gnosticism was disavowed by this development.347

254

adfirmant. Si scire to subostendas negant quidquid agnoscunt. Si cominus certes, tuam simplicitatem sua cæde dispergunt. Ne discipulis quidem propriis ante committunt quam suos fecerint. Habent artificium quo prius persuadeant quam edoceant.” At a later period Dionysius of Alex. in Euseb. H. E. VII. 7, speaks of Christians who maintain an apparent communion with the brethren, but resort to one of the false teachers (cf. as to this Euseb. H. E. VI. 2. 13). The teaching of Bardesanes influenced by Valentinus, who, moreover, was hostile to Marcionitism, was tolerated for a long time in Edessa (by the Christian kings), nay, was recognised. The Bardesanites and the “Palutians” (catholics) were differentiated only after the beginning of the third century. 346 There can be no doubt that the Gnostic propaganda was seriously hindered by the inability to organise and discipline Churches, which is characteristic of all philosophic systems of religion. The Gnostic organisation of schools and mysteries was not able to contend with the episcopal organisation of the Churches; see Ignat. ad Smyr. 6. 2; Tertull. de præscr. 41. Attempts at actual formation of Churches were not altogether wanting in the earliest period; at a later period they were forced on some schools. We have only to read Iren. III. 15. 2 in order to see that these associations could only exist by finding support in a Church. Irenæus expressly remarks that the Valentinians designated the Common Christians καθολικοί (communes) καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικοί, but that they, on the other hand, complained that “we kept away from their fellowship without cause, as they thought like ourselves.” 347 The differences between the Gnostic Christianity and that of the Church, that is, the later ecclesiastical theology, were fluid, if we observe the following points. (1) That even in the main body of the Church the element of knowledge was increasingly emphasised, and the Gospel began to be converted into a perfect knowledge of the world (increasing reception of Greek philosophy, development of πίστις to γνῶσις. (2) That the dramatic eschatology began to fade away. (3) That room was made for docetic views, and value put upon a strict asceticism. On the other hand we must note: (i) That all this existed only in germ or fragments within the great Church during the flourishing period of Gnosticism. (2) That the great Church held fast to the facts fixed in the baptismal formula (in the Kerygma) and to the eschatological expectations, further, to the creator of the world as the supreme God, to the unity of Jesus Christ, and to the Old Testament, and therefore rejected dualism. (3) That the great Church defended the unity and equality of the human race, and therefore the uniformity and universal aim of the Christian salvation. (4) That it rejected every introduction of new, especially of Oriental, Mythologies, guided in this by the early Christian consciousness and a sure intelligence. A deeper, more thorough distinction between the Church and the Gnostic parties hardly dawned on the consciousness of either. The Church developed herself instinctively into an imperial Church, in which office was to play the chief role. The Gnostics sought to establish or conserve associations in which the genius should rule, the genius in the way of

155

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

(1) Christianity, which is the only true and absolute religion, embraces a revealed system of doctrine (positive). (2) This doctrine contains mysterious powers, which are communicated to men by initiation (mysteries). (3) The revealer is Christ (positive), but Christ alone, and only in his historical appearance—no Old Testament Christ (negative); this appearance is itself redemption: the doctrine is the announcement of it and of its presuppositions (positive).348

255

(4) Christian doctrine is to be drawn from the Apostolic tradition, critically examined. This tradition lies before us in a series of Apostolic writings, and in a secret doctrine derived from the Apostles (positive).349 the old prophets or in the sense of Plato, or in the sense of a union of prophecy and philosophy. In the Gnostic conflict, at least at its close, the judicial priest fought with the virtuoso and overcame him. 348 The absolute significance of the person of Christ was very plainly expressed in Gnosticism (Christ is not only the teacher of the truth, but the manifestation of the truth), more plainly than where he was regarded as the subject of Old Testament revelation. The pre-existent Christ has significance in some Gnostic schools, but always a comparatively subordinate one. The isolating of the person of Christ, and quite as much the explaining away of his humanity, is manifestly out of harmony with the earliest tradition. But, on the other hand, it must not be denied that the Gnostics recognised redemption in the historical Christ: Christ personally procured it (see under 6. h.). 349 In this thesis, which may be directly corroborated by the most important Gnostic teachers, Gnosticism shews that it desires in thesi (in a way similar to Philo) to continue on the soil of Christianity as a positive religion. Conscious of being bound to tradition, it first definitely raised the question, What is Christianity? and criticised and sifted the sources for an answer to the question. The rejection of the Old Testament led it to that question and to this sifting. It may be maintained with the greatest probability, that the idea of a canonical collection of Christian writings first emerged among the Gnostics (see also Marcion). They really needed such a collection, while all those who recognised the Old Testament as a document of revelation, and gave it a Christian interpretation, did not at first need a new document, but simply joined on the new to the old, the Gospel to the Old Testament. From the numerous fragments of Gnostic commentaries on New Testament writings which have been preserved, we see that these writings then enjoyed canonical authority, while at the same period we hear nothing of such an authority nor of commentaries in the main body of Christendom (see Heinrici, “Die Valentinianische Gnosis, u. d. h. Schrift,” 1871). Undoubtedly sacred writings were selected according to the principle of apostolic origin. This is proved by the inclusion of the Pauline Epistles in the collections of books. There is evidence of such having been made by the Naassenes, Peratæ, Valentinians, Marcion, Tatian and the Gnostic Justin. The collection of the Valentinians and the Canon of Tatian must have really coincided with the main parts of the later Ecclesiastical Canon. The later Valentinians accommodated themselves to this Canon, that is, recognised the books that had been added (Tertull. de præscr. 38). The question as to who first conceived and realised the idea of a Canon of Christian writings, Basilides, or Valentinus, or Marcion, or whether this was done by several at the same time, will always remain obscure, though many things favour Marcion. If it should even be proved that Basilides (see Euseb. H. E. IV. 7. 7) and Valentinus himself regarded the Gospels only as authoritative, yet the full idea of the Canon lies already in the fact of their making these the foundation and interpreting them allegorically. The question as to the extent of the Canon afterwards became the subject of an important controversy between the Gnostics and the Catholic Church. The Catholics throughout took up the position that their Canon was the earlier, and the Gnostic collection the corrupt revision of it (they were unable to adduce proof, as is attested by Tertullian’s de præscr.). But the aim of the Gnostics to establish themselves on the uncorrupted apostolic tradition gathered from writings, was crossed by three tendencies, which, moreover, were all jointly operative in the Christian communities, and are therefore not peculiar to Gnosticism. (1) By faith in the continuance of prophecy, in which new things are always revealed by the Holy Spirit (the Basilidean and Marcionite prophets). (2) By the assumption of an esoteric secret tradition of the Apostles (see Clem. Strom. VII. 17. 106. 108; Hipp. Philos. VII. 20; Iren. I. 25. 5: III. 2. 1; Tertull. de præscr. 25. Cf. the Gnostic book, Πίστις Σοφία, which in great part is based on doctrines said to be imparted by Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection). (3) By the inability to oppose the continuous production of Evangelic writings, in other words, by the continuance of this kind of literature and the addition of Acts of the Apostles (Gospel of the Egyptians (?), other Gospels, Acts of John, Thomas, Philip, etc. We know absolutely nothing about the conditions under which these writings originated, the measure of authority which they enjoyed, or the way in which they gained that authority). In all these points which in Gnosticism hindered the development

156

History of Dogma - Volume I

256 257

Adolf Harnack

As exoteric it is comprehended in the regula fidei350 (positive), as esoteric it is propagated by chosen teachers.351 (5) The documents of revelation (Apostolic writings), just because they are such, must be interpreted by means of allegory, that is, their deeper meaning must be extracted in this way (positive).352 (6) The following may be noted as the main points in the Gnostic conception of the several parts of the regula fide:

of Christianity to the “religion of a new book,” the Gnostic schools shew that they stood precisely under the same conditions as the Christian communities in general (see above Chap. 3. § 2). If all things do not deceive us, the same inner development may be observed even in the Valentinian school as in the great Church, viz., the production of sacred Evangelic and Apostolic writings, prophecy and secret gnosis falling more and more into the background, and the completed Canon becoming the most important basis of the doctrine of religion. The later Valentinians (see Tertull. de præscr. and adv. Valent.) seem to have appealed chiefly to this Canon, and Tatian no less (about whose Canon, see my Texte u. Unters. I. 1. 2. pp. 213-218). But finally we must refer to the fact that it was the highest concern of the Gnostics to furnish the historical proof of the Apostolic origin of their doctrine by an exact reference to the links of the tradition (see Ritschl, Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. 2nd ed. p. 338 f.). Here again it appears that Gnosticism shared with Christendom the universal presupposition that the valuable thing is the Apostolic origin (see above p. 160 f.), but that it first created artificial chains of tradition, and that this is the first point in which it was followed by the Church: (see the appeals to the Apostolic Matthew, to Peter and Paul, through the mediation of “Glaukias” and “Theodas,” to James and the favourite disciples of the Lord, in the case of the Naassenes, Ophites, Basilideans and Valentinians, etc.; see, further, the close of the Epistle of Ptolemy to Flora in Epistle H. 33. 7: Μαθήσῃ ἑξῆς καὶ τὴν τούτου ἀρχήν τε καὶ γέννησιν, ἀξιουμένη τῆς ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως, ἣ ἐκ διαδοχῆς καὶ ἡμεῖς παρειλήφαμεν, μετὰ καιροῦ [sic] κανονίσαι πάντας τοὺς λόγους τῇ τοῦ σωτῆρος διδασκαλίᾳ, as well as the passages adduced under 2). From this it further follows that the Gnostics may have compiled their Canon solely according to the principle of Apostolic origin. Upon the whole we may see here how foolish it is to seek to dispose of Gnosticism with the phrase, “lawless fancies.” On the contrary, the Gnostics purposely took their stand on the tradition—nay, they were the first in Christendom who determined the range, contents and manner of propagating the tradition. They are thus the first Christian theologians. 350 Here also we have a point of unusual historical importance. As we first find a new Canon among the Gnostics, so also among them (and in Marcion) we first meet with the traditional complex of the Christian Kerygma as a doctrinal confession (regula fide), that is, as a confession which, because it is fundamental, needs a speculative exposition, but is set forth by this exposition as the summary of all wisdom. The hesitancy about the details of the Kerygma only shews the general uncertainty which at that time prevailed. But again we see that the later Valentinians completely accommodated themselves to the later development in the Church (Tertull. adv. Valent. I.: “communem fidem adfirmant”), that is, attached themselves, probably even from the first, to the existing forms; while in the Marcionite Church a peculiar regula was set up by a criticism of the tradition. The regula, as a matter of course, was regarded as Apostolic. On Gnostic regulæ, see Iren. I. 21. 5, 31. 3: II. præf.: II. 19. 8: III. 11. 3: III. 16. 1. 5: Ptolem. ap. Epiph. h. 33. 7; Tertull. adv. Valent. 1. 4: de præscr. 42: adv. Marc. I. 1: IV. 5. 17; Ep. Petri ad Jacob in Clem. Hom. c. 1. We still possess, in great part verbatim, the regula of Apelles, in Epiphan. h. 44. 2. Irenæus (I. 7. 2) and Tertull. (de carne, 20) state that the Valentinian regula contained the formula, “γεννηθέντα διὰ Μαρίας”; see on this, p. 205. In noting that the two points so decisive for Catholicism, the Canon of the New Testament and the Apostolic regula, were first, in the strict sense, set up by the Gnostics on the basis of a definite fixing and systematising of the oldest tradition, we may see that the weakness of Gnosticism here consisted in its inability to exhibit the publicity of tradition and to place its propagation in close connection with the organisation of the churches. 351 We do not know the relation in which the Valentinians placed the public Apostolic regula fide to the secret doctrine derived from one Apostle. The Church, in opposition to the Gnostics, strongly emphasised the publicity of all tradition. Yet afterwards, though with reservations, she gave a wide scope to the assumption of a secret tradition. 352 The Gnostics transferred to the Evangelic writings, and demanded as simply necessary, the methods which Barnabas and others used in expounding the Old Testament (see the samples of their exposition in Irenæus and Clement. Heinrici, l.c.). In this way, of course, all the specialities of the system may be found in the documents. The Church at first condemned this method (Tertull. de præcr. 17-19. 39; Iren. I. 8. 9), but applied it herself from the moment in which she had adopted a New Testament Canon of equal authority with that of the Old Testament. However, the distinction always remained, that in the confrontation of the two Testaments with the views of getting proofs from prophecy, the history of Jesus described in the Gospels was not at first allegorised. Yet afterwards the Christological dogmas of the third and following centuries demanded a docetic explanation of many points in that history.

157

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

(a) The difference between the supreme God and the creator of the world, and therewith the opposing of redemption and creation, and therefore the separation of the Mediator of revelation from the Mediator of creation.353 258

(b) The separation of the supreme God from the God of the Old Testament, and therewith the rejection of the Old Testament, or the assertion that the Old Testament contains no revelations of the supreme God, or at least only in certain parts.354 (c) The doctrine of the independence and eternity of matter. (d) The assertion that the present world sprang from a fall of man, or from an undertaking hostile to God, and is therefore the product of an evil or intermediate being.355 (e) The doctrine that evil is inherent in matter and therefore is a physical potence.356

259

(f) The assumption of Æons, that is, real powers and heavenly persons in whom is unfolded the absoluteness of the Godhead.357 353

In the Valentinian, as well as in all systems not coarsely dualistic, the Redeemer Christ has no doubt a certain share in the constitution of the highest class of men, but only through complicated mediations. The significance which is attributed to Christ in many systems for the production or organisation of the upper world may be mentioned. In the Valentinian system there are several mediators. It may be noted that the abstract conception of the divine primitive Being seldom called forth a real controversy. As a rule, offence was taken only at the expression. 354 The Epistle of Ptolemy to Flora is very instructive here. If we leave out of account the peculiar Gnostic conception, we have represented in Ptolemy’s criticism the later Catholic view of the Old Testament, as well as also the beginning of a historical conception of it. The Gnostics were the first critics of the Old Testament in Christendom. Their allegorical exposition of the Evangelic writings should be taken along with their attempts at interpreting the Old Testament literally and historically. It may be noted, for example, that the Gnostics were the first to call attention to the significance of the change of name for God in the Old Testament; see Iren. II. 35. 3. The early Christian tradition led to a procedure directly the opposite. Apelles, in particular, the disciple of Marcion, exercised an intelligent criticism on the Old Testament; see my treatise, “de Apellis gnosi,” p. 71 sq., and also Texte u. Unters. VI. 3, p. 111 ff. Marcion himself recognised the historical contents of the Old Testament as reliable and the criticism of most Gnostics only called in question its religious value. 355 Ecclesiastical opponents rightly put no value on the fact that some Gnostics advanced to Pan-Satanism with regard to the conception of the world, while others beheld a certain justitia civilis ruling in the world. For the standpoint which the Christian tradition had marked out, this distinction is just as much a matter of indifference as the other, whether the Old Testament proceeded from an evil, or from an intermediate being. The Gnostics attempted to correct the judgment of faith about the world and its relation to God, by an empiric view of the world. Here again they are by no means “visionaries”, however fantastic the means by which they have expressed their judgment about the condition of the world, and attempted to explain that condition. Those, rather, are “visionaries” who give themselves up to the belief that the world is the work of a good and omnipotent Deity, however apparently reasonable the arguments they adduce. The Gnostic (Hellenistic) philosophy of religion at this point comes into the sharpest opposition to the central point of the Old Testament Christian belief, and all else really depends on this. Gnosticism is antichristian so far as it takes away from Christianity its Old Testament foundation, and belief in the identity of the creator of the world with the supreme God. That was immediately felt and noted by its opponents. 356 The ecclesiastical opposition was long uncertain on this point. It is interesting to note that Basilides portrayed the sin inherent in the child from birth in a way that makes one feel as though he were listening to Augustine (see the fragment from the 23rd book of the Ἐξηγητικά, in Clem., Strom. VI. 12. 83). But it is of great importance to note how even very special later terminologies, dogmas, etc., of the Church, were in a certain way anticipated by the Gnostics. Some samples will be given below; but meanwhile we may here refer to a fragment from Apelles’ Syllogisms in Ambrosius (de Parad. V. 28): “Si hominem non perfectum fecit deus, unusquisque autem per industriam propriam perfectionem sibi virtutis adsciscit: non ne videtur plus sibi homo adquirere, quam ei deus contulit?” One seems here to be transferred into the fifth century. 357 The Gnostic teaching did not meet with a vigorous resistance even on this point, and could also appeal to the oldest tradition. The arbitrariness in the number, derivation and designation of the Æons was contested. The aversion to barbarism also co-operated here, in so far as Gnosticism delighted in mysterious words borrowed from the Semites. But the Semitic element attracted as well as repelled the Greeks and Romans of the second century. The Gnostic terminologies within the Æon speculations were

158

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

(g) The assertion that Christ revealed a God hitherto unknown.

260

261

(h) The doctrine that in the person of Jesus Christ—the Gnostics saw in it redemption, but they reduced the person to the physical nature—the heavenly Æon, Christ, and the human appearance of that Æon must be clearly distinguished, and a “distincte agere” ascribed to each. Accordingly, there were some, such as Basilides, who acknowledged no real union between Christ and the man Jesus, whom, besides, they regarded as an earthly man. Others, e.g., part of the Valentinians, among whom the greatest differences prevailed,—see Tertull. adv. Valent. 39—taught that the body of Jesus was a heavenly psychical formation, and sprang from the womb of Mary only in appearance. Finally, a third party, such as Saturninus, declared that the whole visible appearance of Christ was a phantom, and therefore denied the birth of Christ.358 Christ separates that which is unnaturally united, and thus leads everything back again to himself; in this redemption consists (full contrast to the notion of the ἀνακεφαλαίωσις. partly reproduced among the Catholic theologians of the third century; most important is it that the Gnostics have already made use of the concept “ὁμοούσιος”; see Iren., I. 5. I: ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν πνευματικὸν μὴ δεδυνῆσθαι αὐτὴν μορφῶσαι, ἐπειδὴ ὁμοούσιον ὑπῆρχέν αὐτῇ (said of the Sophia): L. 5. 4, καὶ τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν γεγονότα· κατ᾽ εἰκόνα μὲν τὸν ὑλικὸν ὑπάρχειν, παραπλήσιον μὲν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον τῷ θεῷ καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν δὲ τὸν ψυχικόν. I. 5. 5: τὸ δὲ κύημα τῆς μητρὸς τῆς “Ἀχαμώθ,” ὁμοούσιον ὑπάρχον τῇ μητρίς. In all these cases the word means “of one substance.” It is found in the same sense in Clem., Hom. 20. 7: see also Philos. VII. 22; Clem., Exc. Theod. 42. Other terms also which have acquired great significance in the Church since the days of Origen (e.g., ἀγέννητος) are found among the Gnostics, see Ep. Ptol. ad Floram, 5; and Bigg. (1. c. p. 58, note 3) calls attention to the appearance of τρίας in Excerpt. ex. Theod. § 80, perhaps the earliest passage. 358 The characteristic of the Gnostic Christology is not Docetism in the strict sense, but the doctrine of the two natures, that is, the distinction between Jesus and Christ, or the doctrine that the Redeemer as Redeemer was not a man. The Gnostics based this view on the inherent sinfulness of human nature, and it was shared by many teachers of the age without being based on any principle (see above, p. 196 f.). The most popular of the three Christologies briefly characterised above was undoubtedly that of the Valentinians. It is found, with great variety of details, in most of the nameless fragments of Gnostic literature that have been preserved, as well as in Apelles. This Christology might be accommodated to the accounts of the Gospels and the baptismal confession; (how far is shewn by the regula of Apelles, and that of the Valentinians may have run in similar terms). It was taught here that Christ had passed through Mary as a channel; from this doctrine followed very easily the notion of the Virginity of Mary, uninjured even after the birth—it was already known to Clem. Alex. (Strom. VII. 16. 93). The Church also, later on, accepted this view. It is very difficult to get a clear idea of the Christology of Basilides, as very diverse doctrines were afterwards set up in his school as is shewn by the accounts. Among them is the doctrine, likewise held by others, that Christ in descending from the highest heaven took to himself something from every sphere through which he passed. Something similar is found among the Valentinians, some of whose prominent leaders made a very complicated phenomenon of Christ, and gave him also a direct relation to the demiurge. There is further found here the doctrine of the heavenly humanity, which was afterwards accepted by ecclesiastical theologians. Along with the fragments of Basilides the account of Clem. Alex. seems to me the most reliable. According to this, Basilides taught that Christ descended on the man Jesus at the baptism. Some of the Valentinians taught something similar: the Christology of Ptolemy is characterised by the union of all conceivable Christology theories. The different early Christian conceptions may be found in him. Basilides did not admit a real union between Christ and Jesus; but it is interesting to see how the Pauline Epistles caused the theologians to view the sufferings of Christ as necessarily based on the assumption of sinful flesh, that is, to deduce from the sufferings that Christ has assumed sinful flesh. The Basilidean Christology will prove to be a peculiar preliminary stage of the later ecclesiastical Christology. The anniversary of the baptism of Christ was to the Basilideans as the day of the ἐπιφάνεια, a high festival day (see Clem., Strom. I. 21. 146): they fixed it for the 6th (2nd) January. And in this also the Catholic Church has followed the Gnosis. The real docetic Christology as represented by Saturninus (and Marcion) was radically opposed to the tradition, and struck out the birth of Jesus, as well as the first 30 years of his life. An accurate exposition of the Gnostic Christologies, which would carry us too far here, (see especially Tertull., de carne Christi,) would shew that a great part of the questions which occupy Church theologians till the present day were already raised by the Gnostics; for example, what happened to the body of Christ after the resurrection? (see the doctrines of Apelles and Hermogenes); what significance the appearance of Christ had for the heavenly and Satanic powers? what meaning belongs to his sufferings, although there was no real suffering for the heavenly Christ, but only for Jesus? etc. In no other point do the anticipations in the Gnostic dogmatic stand out so plainly; (see the system of Origen; many passages bearing on the subject will be found in the

159

History of Dogma - Volume I

262

Adolf Harnack

(i) The conversion of the ἐκκλησία (it was no innovation to regard the heavenly Church as an Æon) into the college of the pneumatic, who alone, in virtue of their psychological endowment, are capable of Gnosis and the divine life, while the others, likewise in virtue of their constitution, as hylic perish. The Valentinians, and probably many other Gnostics also, distinguished between pneumatic, psychic and hylic. They regarded the psychic as capable of a certain blessedness, and of a corresponding certain knowledge of the supersensible, the latter being obtained through Pistis, that is, through Christian faith.359 (k) The rejection of the entire early christian eschatology, especially the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the body, and Christ’s Kingdom of glory on the earth; and, in connection with this, the assertion that the deliverance of the spirit from the sensuous can be expected only from the future, while the spirit enlightened about itself already possesses immortality, and only awaits its introduction into the pneumatic pleroma.360 third and fourth volumes of this work, to which readers are referred). The Catholic Church has learned but little from the Gnostics, that is, from the earliest theologians in Christendom, in the doctrine of God and the world, but very much in Christology; and who can maintain that she has ever completely overcome the Gnostic doctrine of the two natures, nay, even Docetism? Redemption viewed in the historical person of Jesus, that is, in the appearance of a Divine being on the earth, but the person divided and the real history of Jesus explained away and made inoperative, is the signature of the Gnostic Christology—this, however, is also the danger of the system of Origen and those systems that are dependent on him (Docetism) as well as, in another way, the danger of the view of Tertullian and the Westerns (doctrine of two natures). Finally, it should be noted that the Gnosis always made a distinction between the supreme God and Christ, but that, from the religious position, it had no reason for emphasising that distinction. For to many Gnostics, Christ was in a certain way the manifestation of the supreme God himself, and therefore in the more popular writings of the Gnostics (see the Acta Johannis) expressions are applied to Christ which seem to identify him with God. The same thing is true of Marcion and also of Valentinus (see his Epistle in Clem., Strom. II. 20. 114: εἷς δὲ ἐστιν ἀγαθός, οὗ πάρουσία ἡ διὰ τοῦ ὑιοῦ φανέρωσις). This Gnostic estimate of Christ has undoubtedly had a mighty influence on the later Church development of Christology. We might say without hesitation that to most Gnostics Christ was a πνεῦμα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί. The details of the life, sufferings and resurrection of Jesus are found in many Gnostics transformed, complemented and arranged in the way in which Celsus (Orig., c. Cels. I. II.) required for an impressive and credible history. Celsus indicates how everything must have taken place if Christ had been a God in human form. The Gnostics in part actually narrate it so. What an instructive coincidence! How strongly the docetic view itself was expressed in the case of Valentinus, and how the exaltation of Jesus above the earthly was thereby to be traced hack to his moral struggle, is shewn in the remarkable fragment of a letter (in Clem., Strom. III. 7. 59): Πάντα ὑπομείνας ἣγκρατὴς τὴν θεότητα Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο. ἣσθιεν γὰρ καὶ ἔπιεν ἰδίως οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα, ποσαύτη ἦν αὐτῷ τῆς ἐγκρατείας δύναμις, ὥστε καὶ μὴ φθαρῆναι τὴν τροφὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπεὶ τὸ φθείρεσθαι αὐτὸς οῦκ εἶχεν. In this notion, however, there is more sense and historical meaning than in that of the later ecclesiastical aphtharto-docetism. 359 The Gnostic distinction of classes of men was connected with the old distinction of stages in spiritual understanding, but has its basis in a law of nature. There were again empirical and psychological views—they must have been regarded as very important, had not the Gnostics taken them from the traditions of the philosophic schools—which made the universalism of the Christian preaching of salvation appear unacceptable to the Gnostics. Moreover, the transformation of religion into a doctrine of the school, or into a mystery cult, always resulted in the distinction of the knowing from the profanum vulgus. But in the Valentinian assumption that the common Christians as psychical occupy an intermediate stage, and that they are saved by faith, we have a compromise which completely lowered the Gnosis to a scholastic doctrine within Christendom. Whether and in what way the Catholic Church maintained the significance of Pistis as contrasted with Gnosis, and in what way the distinction between the knowing (priests) and the laity was there reached will be examined in its proper place. It should be noted, however, that the Valentinian, Ptolemy, ascribes freedom of will to the psychic (which the pneumatic and hylic lack), and therefore has sketched by way of by-work a theology for the psychical beside that for the pneumatic, which exhibits striking harmonies with the exoteric system of Origen. The denial by Gnosticism of free will, and therewith of moral responsibility, called forth very decided contradiction. Gnosticism, that is, the acute hellenising of Christianity, was wrecked in the Church on free will, the Old Testament and eschatology. 360 The greatest deviation of Gnosticism from tradition appears in eschatology, along with the rejection of the Old Testament and the separation of the creator of the world from the supreme God. Upon the whole our sources say very little about the Gnostic

160

History of Dogma - Volume I

263

264

Adolf Harnack

In addition to what has been mentioned here, we must finally fix our attention on the ethics of Gnosticism. Like the ethics of all systems which are based on the contrast between the sensuous and spiritual elements of human nature, that of the Gnostics took a twofold direction. On the one hand, it sought to suppress and uproot the sensuous, and thus became strictly ascetic (imitation of Christ as motive of asceticism;361 Christ and the Apostles represented as ascetics);362 on the other hand, it treated the sensuous element as indifferent, and so became libertine, that is, conformed to the world. The former was undoubtedly the more common, though there are credible witnesses to the latter; the frequentissimum collegium in particular, the Valentinians, in the days of Irenæus and Tertullian, did not vigorously enough prohibit a lax and world-conforming morality;363 and among the Syrian and Egyptian Gnostics there were associations which celebrated the most revolting orgies.364 As the early Christian tradition summoned to a strict renunciation of the world and to self-control, the Gnostic asceticism could not but make an impression at the first; but the dualistic basis on which it rested could not fail to excite suspicion as soon as one was capable of examining it.365 eschatology. This, however, is not astonishing; for the Gnostics had not much to say on the matter, or what they had to say found expression in their doctrine of the genesis of the world, and that of redemption through Christ. We learn that the regula of Apelles closed with the words: ἀνέπτη εἰς οὐρανὸν ὅθεν καὶ ἧκε, instead of ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. We know that Marcion, who may already he mentioned here, referred the whole eschatological expectations of early Christian times to the province of the god of the Jews, and we hear that Gnostics (Valentinians) retained the words σαρκος ἀνάστασιν, but interpreted them to mean that one must rise in this life, that is perceive the truth (thus the “resurrectio a mortuis”, that is, exaltation above the earthly, took the place of the “resurrectio mortuorum”; see Iren. II. 31. 2: Tertull., de resurr. carnis, 19). While the Christian tradition placed a great drama at the close of history, the Gnostics regard the history itself as the drama, which virtually closes with the (first) appearing of Christ. It may not have been the opinion of all Gnostics that the resurrection has already taken place, yet for most of them the expectations of the future seem to have been quite faint, and above all without significance. The life is so much included in knowledge, that we nowhere in our sources find a strong expression of hope in a life beyond (it is different in the earliest Gnostic documents preserved in the Coptic language), and the introduction of the spirits into the Pleroma appears very vague and uncertain. But it is of great significance that those Gnostics who, according to their premises, required a real redemption from the world as the highest good, remained finally in the same uncertainty and religious despondency with regard to this redemption, as characterised the Greek philosophers. A religion which is a philosophy of religion remains at all times fixed to this life, however strongly it may emphasise the contrast between the spirit and its surroundings, and however ardently it may desire redemption. The desire for redemption is unconsciously replaced by the thinker’s joy in his knowledge, which allays the desire (Iren., III. 15. 2: “Inflatus est iste [scil. the Valentinian proud of knowledge] neque in cœlo, neque in terra putat se esse, sed intra Pleroma introisse et complexum jam angelum suum, cum institorio et supercilio incedit gallinacei elationem habens . . . . Plurimi, quasi jam perfecti, semetipsos spiritales vocant, et se nosse jam dicunt eum qui sit intra Pleroma ipsorum refrigerii locum”). As in every philosophy of religion, an element of free thinking appears very plainly here also. The eschatological hopes can only have been maintained in vigour by the conviction that the world is of God. But we must finally refer to the fact that, even in eschatology, Gnosticism only drew the inferences from views which were pressing into Christendom from all sides, and were in an increasing measure endangering its hopes of the future. Besides, in some Valentinian circles, the future life was viewed as a condition of education, as a progress through the series of the (seven) heavens; i.e., purgatorial experiences in the future were postulated. Both afterwards, from the time of Origen, forced their way into the doctrine of the Church (purgatory, different ranks in heaven). Clement and Origen being throughout strongly influenced by the Valentinian eschatology. 361 See the passage Clem., Strom. III. 6, 49, which is given above, p. 239. 362 Cf. the Apocryphal Acts of Apostles and diverse legends of Apostles (e.g., in Clem. Alex.). 363 More can hardly be said: the heads of schools were themselves earnest men. No doubt statements such as that of Heracleon seem to have led to laxity in the lower sections of the collegium: ὁμολογίαν εἶναι τὴν μὲν ἐν τῇ πίστει καὶ πολιτείᾳ, τὴν δὲ ἐν φωνῇ· ἡ μὲν οὐν ἐν φωνῇ ὁμολογια καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν γίνεται, ἥν μόνην ὁμολογίαν ἡγοῦνται εἶναι οἱ πολλοί, οὐχ ὑγιῶς δύνανται δὲ ταύτην τὴν ὁμολογίαν καὶ οἱ ὑποκρισαὶ ὁμολογεῖν. 364 See Epiph. h. 26, and the statements in the Coptic Gnostic works. (Schmidt, Texte u. Unters. VIII, I. 2, p. 566 ff.) 365 There arose in this way an extremely difficult theoretical problem, but practically a convenient occasion for throwing asceticism altogether overboard, with the Gnostic asceticism, or restricting it to easy exercises. This is not the place for entering into the details. Shibboleths, such as φεύγετε οὐ τὰς φύσεις ἀλλὰ τὰς γνώμας τῶν κακὧν, may have soon appeared. It may be noted

161

History of Dogma - Volume I

265

Adolf Harnack

Literature.—The writings of Justin (his syntagma against heresies has not been preserved), Irenæus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Epiphanius, Philastrius and Theodoret; cf. Volkmar, Die Quellen der Ketzergeschichte, 1885. Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, 1875; also Die Quellen der altesten Ketzergeschichte, 1875.

266

Harnack, Zur Quellenkritik d. Gesch. Gnostic, 1873 (continued i. D. Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol. 1874, and in Der Schrift de Apellis gnosi monarch. 1874). Of Gnostic writings we possess the book Pistis Sophia, the writings contained in the Coptic Cod. Brucianus, and the Epistle of Ptolemy to Flora; also numerous fragments, in connection with which Hilgenfeld especially deserves thanks, but which still require a more complete selecting and a more thorough discussion (see Grabe, Spicilegium T. I. II. 1700. Heinrici, Die Valentin. Gnosis, u. d. H. Schrift, 1871).

here, that the asceticism with gained the victory in Monasticism was not really that which sprang from early Christian, but from Greek impulses, without, of course, being based on the same principle. Gnosticism anticipated the future even here. That could be much more clearly proved in the history of the worship. A few points which are of importance for the history of dogma may be mentioned here: (1) The Gnostics viewed the traditional sacred actions (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) entirely as mysteries, and applied to them the terminology of the mysteries (some Gnostics set them aside as psychic); but in doing so they were only drawing the inference from changes which were then in process throughout Christendom. To what extent the later Gnosticism in particular was interested in sacraments may he studied especially in the Pistis Sophia and the other Coptic works of the Gnostics, which Carl Schmidt has edited; see, for example, Pistis Sophia, p. 233. “Dixit Jesus ad suos μαθήτας: ἀμην, dixi vobis, haud adduxi quidquam in κόσμον veniens nisi hunc ignem et hanc aquam et hoc vinum et hunc sanguinem.” (2) They increased the holy actions by the addition of new ones, repeated baptisms (expiations), anointing with oil, sacrament of confirmation (ἀπολύτρωσις); see, on Gnostic sacraments, Iren. I. 20, and Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. I. pp. 336–343, and cf. the πυκνῶς μετανοοῦσι in the delineation of the Shepherd of Hermas. Mand XI. (3) Marcus represented the wine in the Lord’s Supper as actual blood in consequence of the act of blessing: see Iren., I. 13. 2: ποτήρια οἴνῳ κακραμένα προσποιούμενος εὐχαριστεῖν. Καὶ ἐπί πλέον ἐκτείνων τὸν λόγον τῆς ἐπικλῆσεως, πορφύρεα καὶ ἐρυθρὰ ἀναφαίνεσθαι ποιεῖ, ὡς δοκεῖν τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπὸρ τὰ ὅλα χάριν τὸ αἷμα τὸ ἑαυτῆς στάζειν ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ ποτηρίῳ διὰ τῆς ἐπικλήσεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὑπεριμείρεσθαι τοὺς παρόντας ἐξ ἐκείν9;υ γεύσασθαι τοῦ πόματος, ἵνα καὶ εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐπομβρήσῃ ἡ διὰ τοῦ μάγου τούτου κληϊζομένη χάρις. Marcus was indeed a charlatan; but religious charlatanry afterwards became very earnest, and was certainly taken earnestly by many adherents of Marcus. The transubstantiation idea in reference to the elements in the mysteries is also plainly expressed in the Excerpt. ex. Theodot. § 82: καὶ ὁ ἄρτος καὶ τὸ ἔλαιον ἁγιάζεται τῇ δύναμει τοῦ ὀνόματος οὐ τὰ αὐτὰ όντα κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον οἷα ἐλήφθη, ἀλλὰ δυνάμει εἰς δύναμιν πνευματικήν μεταβέβληται (that is, not into a new super-terrestrial material, not into the real body of Christ, but into a spiritual power) οὕτως καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ ἐξορκιζόμενον καὶ τὸ βαπτίσμα γινόμενον οὐ μόνον χωρεῖ τὸ χεῖρον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀγιασμὸν πποσλαμβάνει. Irenæus possessed a liturgical handbook of the Marcionites, and communicates many sacramental formulæ from it (I. c. 13 sq.). In my treatise on the Pistis Sophia (Texte u. Unters. VII. 2. pp. 59–94) I think I have shewn (“The common Christian and the Catholic elements of the Pistis Sophia”) to what extent Gnosticism anticipated Catholicism as a system of doctrine and an institute of worship. These results have been strengthened by Carl Schmidt (Texte u. Unters. VIII. I. 2). Even purgatory, prayers for the dead, and many other things raised in speculative questions and definitely answered, are found in those Coptic Gnostic writings and are then met with again in Catholicism. One general remark may be permitted in conclusion. The Gnostics were not interested in apologetics, and that is a very significant fact. The πνεῦμα in man was regarded by them as a supernatural principle, and on that account they are free from all rationalism and moralistic dogmatism. For that very reason they are in earnest with the idea of revelation, and do not attempt to prove it or convert its contests into natural truths. They did endeavour to prove that their doctrines were Christian, but renounced all proof that revelation is the truth (proofs from antiquity). One will not easily find in the case of the Gnostics themselves the revealed truth described as philosophy, or morality as the philosophic life. If we compare, therefore, the first and fundamental system of Catholic doctrine, that of Origen, with the system of the Gnostics, we shall find that Origen, like Basilides and Valentinus, was a philosopher of revelation, but that he had besides a second element which had its origin in apologetics.

162

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

On the (Gnostic) Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, see Zahn, Acta Job. 1880, and the great work of Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, I. Vol., 1883; II. Vol., 1887. (See also Lipsius, Quellen d. röm. Petrussage, 1872.) Neander, Genet. Entw. d. vornehmsten gnostischen Systeme, 1818. Matter, Hist. crit. du gnosticisme, 2 Vols., 1828. Baur, Die Christl. Gnosis, 1835. Lipsius, Der Gnosticismus, in Ersch. und Gruber’s Allg. Encykl. 71 Bd. 1860. Moeller, Geschichte d. Kosmologie i. d. Griech. K. bis auf Origenes. 1860. King, The Gnostics and their remains, 1873. Mansel, The Gnostic heresies, 1875. Jacobi, Art. “Gnosis” in Herzog’s Real Encykl. 2nd Edit. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums, 1884, where the more recent special literature concerning individual Gnostics is quoted. Lipsius, Art. “Valentinus” in Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography. Harnack, Art. “Valentinus” in the Encykl. Brit. Harnack, Pistis Sophia in the Texte und Unters. VII. 2. Carl Schmidt, Gnostische Schriften in koptischer Sprache aus dem Codex Brucianus (Texte und Unters. VIII. 1. 2). Joël, Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des 2 Christl. Jahrhunderts, 2 parts, 188o, 1883. Renan, History of the Origins of Christianity. Vols. V. VI. VII. 270

CHAPTER V MARCION’S ATTEMPT TO SET ASIDE THE OLD TESTAMENT FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY, TO PURIFY TRADITION, AND TO REFORM CHRISTENDOM ON THE BASIS OF THE PAULINE GOSPEL.

163

History of Dogma - Volume I

268

Adolf Harnack

MARCION cannot be numbered among the Gnostics in the strict sense of the word.366 For (1) he was not guided by any speculatively scientific, or even by an apologetic, but by a soteriological interest.367 (2) He therefore put all emphasis on faith, not on Gnosis.368 (3) In the exposition of his ideas he neither applied the elements of any Semitic religious wisdom, nor the methods of the Greek philosophy of religion.369 (4) He never made the distinction between an esoteric and an exoteric form of religion. He rather clung to the publicity of the preaching, and endeavoured to reform

366

He belonged to Pontus and was a rich shipowner: about 139 he came to Rome already a Christian, and for a short time belonged to the church there. As he could not succeed in his attempt to reform it, he broke away from it about 144. He founded a church of his own and developed a very great activity. He spread his views by numerous journeys, and communities bearing his name very soon arose in every province of the Empire (Adamantius, de recta in deum fide, Origen, Opp. ed. Delarue I. p. 809: Epiph. h. 42. p. 668. ed. Oehler). They were ecclesiastically organised (Tertull., de præscr. 41, and adv. Marc. IV. 5) and possessed bishops, presbyters, etc. (Euseb. H. E. IV. 15. 46: de Mart. Palæst. X. 2: Les Bas and Waddington, Inscript. Grecq. et Latines rec. en Grêce et en Asie Min. Vol. III. No. 2558). Justin (Apol. 1. 26) about 150 tells us that Marcion’s preaching had spread κατὰ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων, and by the year 155, the Marcionites were already numerous in Rome (Iren. III. 34). Up to his death, however, Marcion did not give up the purpose of winning the whole of Christendom, and therefore again and again sought connection with it (Iren. I. c.; Tertull., de præscr. 30), likewise his disciples (see the conversation of Apelles with Rhodon in Euseb. H. E. V. 13. 5, and the dialogue of the Marcionites with Adamantius). It is very probable that Marcion had fixed the ground features of his doctrine, and had laboured for its propagation, even before he came to Rome. In Rome the Syrian Gnostic Cerdo had a great influence on him, so that we can even yet perceive, and clearly distinguish the Gnostic element in the form of the Marcionite doctrine transmitted to us. 367 “Sufficit,” said the Marcionites, “unicum opsus deo nostro, quod hominem liberavit summa et præcipua bonitate sua” (Tertull. adv. Marc. I. 17). 368 Apelles, the disciple of Marcion, declared (Euseb. H. E. V. 13. 5) σωθήσεσθαι τοὺς ἐπί τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ἡλπικότας, μόνον ἐὰν ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς εὐρίσκωνται. 369 This is an extremely important point. Marcion rejected all allegories. (See Tertull., adv. Marc. II. 19. 21. 22: III. 5. 6. 14. 19: IV. 15. 20: V. 1; Orig., Comment. in Matth. T. XV. 3 Opp. III. p. 655: in. ep. ad. Rom. Opp. IV. p. 494 sq.: Adamant., Sect. I, Orig. Opp. I. pp. 808. 817; Ephr. Syrus. hymn. 36 Edit. Benedict, p. 520 sq.) and describes this method as an arbitrary one. But that simply means that he perceived and avoided the transformation of the Gospel into Hellenic philosophy. No philosophic formulæ are found in any of his statements that have been handed down to us. But what is still more important, none-of his early opponents have attributed to Marcion a system, as they did to Basilides and Valentinus. There can be no doubt that Marcion did not set up any system (the Armenian, Esnik, first gives a Marcionite system, but that is a late production, see my essay in the Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1896. p. 80 f.). He was just as far from having any apologetic or rationalistic interest. Justin (Apol. I. 58) says of the Marcionites; ἀπόδειξιν μηδεμίαν περὶ ὧν λέγουσιν ἔχουσιν, ἀλλὰ ἀλόγως ὡς ὑπὸ λύκου ἄρνες συνηπρασμένοι κτλ. Tertullian again and again casts in the teeth of Marcion that he has adduced no proof. See I. 11 sq.: III. 2. 3. 4: IV. 11: “Subito Christus, subito et Johannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, quæ suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem.” Rhodon (Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 4) says of two prominent genuine disciples of Marcion: μὴ εὑρίοκοντες τὴν διαίρεσιν τῶν πραγμάτων, ὡς οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνος, δυὸ ἀρχὰς ἀπεφήναντο ψιλῶς καὶ ἀναποδείκτῶς. Of Apelles, the most important of Marcion’s disciples who laid aside the Gnostic, borrows of his master, we have the words (l. c.): μὴ δεῖν ὅλως ἐξετάζειν τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκαστον, ὡς πεπίστευκε, διαμένειν. Σωθήσεσθαι γὰρ τοὺς ἐτί τὸν ἐσταρωμένον ἡλπικότας ἀπεφαίνετο, μόνον ἐὰν ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς εὐρίσκωνται . . . . τὸ δὲ πῶς ἔστι μία ἀρχή, μὴ γινώσκειν ἔλεγεν, οὕτω δὲ κινεῖσθαι μόνον . . . . μὴ ἐπίστασθαι πῶς εἷς ἐστὶν ἀγέννητος θεός, τοῦτο δὲ πιστεύειν. It was Marcion’s purpose therefore to give all value to faith alone, to make it dependent on its own convincing power, and avoid all philosophic paraphrase and argument. The contrast in which he placed the Christian blessing of salvation, has in principle nothing in common with the contract in which Greek philosophy viewed the summum bonum. Finally, it may he pointed out that Marcion introduced no new elements Æons, Matter, etc.) into his evangelic views, and leant on no Oriental religious science. The later Marcionite speculations about matter (see the account of Esnik) should not be charged upon the master himself, as is manifest from the second book of Tertullian against Marcion. The assumption that the creator of the world created it out of a materia subjacens is certainly found in Marcion (see Tertull., 1. 15; Hippol., Philos. X. 19); but he speculated no further about it, and that assumption itself was not rejected, for example, by Clem. Alex. (Strom. II. 16. 74: Photius on Clement’s Hypotyposes). Marcion did not really speculate even about the good God; yet see Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 14. 15: IV. 7: “Mundus ille superior”—“cœlum tertium.”

164

History of Dogma - Volume I

269

270

Adolf Harnack

Christendom, in opposition to the attempts at founding schools for those who knew and mystery cults for such as were in quest of initiation. It was only after the failure of his attempts at reform that he founded churches of his own, in which brotherly equality, freedom from all ceremonies, and strict evangelical discipline were to rule.370 Completely carried away with the novelty, uniqueness and grandeur of the Pauline Gospel of the grace of God in Christ, Marcion felt that all other conceptions of the Gospel, and especially its union with the Old Testament religion, was opposed to, and a backsliding from, the truth.371 He accordingly supposed that it was necessary to make the sharp antitheses of Paul, law and gospel, wrath and grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit, sin and righteousness, death and life, that is the Pauline criticism of the Old Testament religion, the foundation of his religious views, and to refer them to two principles, the righteous and wrathful god of the Old Testament, who is at the same time identical with the creator of the world, and the God of the Gospel, quite unknown before Christ, who is only love and mercy.372 This Paulinism in its religious strength, but without dialectic, without the Jewish Christian view of history, and detached from the soil of the Old Testament, was to him the true Christianity. Marcion, like Paul, felt that the religious value of a statutory law with commandments and ceremonies, was very different from that of a uniform law of love.373 Accordingly, he had a capacity for appreciating the Pauline idea of faith; it is to him reliance on the unmerited grace of God which is revealed in Christ. But Marcion shewed himself to be a Greek influenced by the religious spirit of the time, by changing the ethical contrast of the good and legal into the contrast between the infinitely exalted spiritual and the sensible which is subject to the law of nature, by despairing of the triumph of good in the world and, consequently, correcting the traditional faith that the world and history belong to God, by an empirical view of the world and the course of events in it,374 a view to which he was no doubt also led by the severity of the early Christian estimate of the world. Yet to him systematic speculation about the final causes of the contrast actually observed, was by no means the main thing. So far as he himself ventured on such a speculation he seems to have been influenced by the Syrian Cerdo. The numerous contradictions which arise as soon as one attempts to reduce Marcion’s propositions to a system, and the fact that his disciples tried all possible conceptions of the doctrine of principles, and defined the relation of the two Gods very differently, are the clearest proof that Marcion was a religious character, that he had in general nothing to do with principles, but with living beings whose power he felt, and that what he ultimately saw in the Gospel was not an explanation of the world, but redemption from the world,375—redemption from a world which even in the best that it 370

Tertull., de præscr. 41. sq.; the delineation refers chiefly to the Marcionites (see Epiph. h. 42. c. 3. 4, and Esnik’s account) on the Church system of Marcion, see also Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 14, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29: III. 1, 22: IV. 5, 34: V. 7, 10, 15, 18. 371 Marcion himself originally belonged to the main body of the Church, as is expressly declared by Tertullian and Epiphanius, and attested by one of his own letters. 372 Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 2. 19: “Separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis . . . ex diversitate sententiarum utriusque instrumenti diversitatem quoque argumentatur deorum.” II. 28, 29: IV. 1. 1. 6: “Dispares deos, alterum, judicem, ferum, bellipotentem; alterum mitem, placidum et tantummodo bonum atque optimum.” Iren. I. 27. 2. 373 Marcion maintained that the good God is not to be feared. Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 27: “Atque adeo præ se ferunt Marcionitæ: quod deum suum omnino non timeant. Malus autem, inquiunt, timebitur; bonus autem diligitur.” To the question why they did not sin if they did not fear their God, the Marcionites answered in the words of Rom. VI. 1. 2. (l. c.). 374 Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 2: II. 5. 375 See the passage adduced, p. 267, note 2, and Tertull., I. 19: “Immo inquiunt Marcionitæ, deus poster, etsi non ab initio, etsi non per conditionem, sed per semetipsum revelatus est in Christi Jesu.” The very fact that different theological tendencies (schools) appeared within Marcionite Christianity and were mutually tolerant, proves that the Marcionite Church itself was not based on

165

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

can offer has nothing that can reach the height of the blessing bestowed in Christ.376 Special attention may be called to the following particulars. 271

272

1. Marcion explained the Old Testament in its literal sense and rejected every allegorical interpretation. He recognised it as the revelation of the creator of the world and the god of the Jews, but placed it, just on that account, in sharpest contrast to the Gospel. He demonstrated the contradictions between the Old Testament and the Gospel in a voluminous work (the ἀνσιθἑσεις).377 In the god of the former book he saw a being whose character was stern justice, and therefore anger, contentiousness and unmercifulness. The law which rules nature and man appeared to him to accord with the characteristics of this god and the kind of law revealed by him, and therefore it seemed credible to him that this god is the creator and lord of the world (κοτμοκράτωρ). As the law which governs the world is inflexible and yet, on the other hand, full of contradictions, just and again brutal, and as the law of the Old Testament exhibits the same features, so the god of creation was to Marcion a being who united in himself the whole gradations of attributes from justice to malevolence, from obstinacy to inconsistency.378 Into this conception of the creator of the world, the characteristic of which is that it cannot be systematised, could easily be fitted the Syrian Gnostic theory which regards him as an evil being, because he belongs to this world and to matter. Marcion did not accept it in principle,379 but touched it lightly and adopted certain inferences.380 On the basis of the Old Testament and of empirical observation, Marcion divided men into two classes, good and evil, though he regarded them all, body and soul, as creatures of the demiurge. The good are those who strive to fulfil the law of the demiurge. These are outwardly better than those who refuse him obedience. But the distinction found here is not the decisive one. To yield to the promptings of Divine grace is the only decisive distinction, and those just men will shew themselves less susceptible to the manifestation of the truly good than sinners. As Marcion held the Old Testament to be a book worthy of belief, though his disciple, Apelles, thought otherwise, he referred all its predictions to a Messiah whom the creator of the world is yet to send, and who, as a war-like hero, is to set up the earthly kingdom of the “just” God.381

a formulated system of faith. Apelles expressly conceded different forms of doctrine in Christendom, on the basis of faith in the Crucified and a common holy ideal of life (see p. 268). 376 Tertull. I. 13. “Narem contrahentes impudentissimi Marcionitæ convertuntur ad destructionem operum creatoris. Nimirum, inquiunt, grande opus et dignum deo mundus?” The Marcionites (Iren. IV. 34. 1) put the question to their ecclesiastical opponents: “Quid novi attulit dominus veniens?” and therewith caused them no small embarrassment. 377 On these see Tertull. I. 19: II. 28. 29: IV. I. 4. 6: Epiph.; Hippol. Philos. VII. 30; the book was used by other Gnostics also (it is very probable that 1 Tim. VI. 20, an addition to the Epistle—refers to Marcion’s Antitheses). Apelles, Marcion’s disciple, composed a similar work under the title of “Syllogismi.” Marcion’s Antitheses, which may still in part be reconstructed from Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius, Ephraem, etc., possessed canonical authority in the Marcionite church, and therefore took the place of the Old Testament. That is quite clear from Tertull., I. 19 (cf. IV. 1): Separatio legis et Evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis, nec poterunt negare discipuli ejus, quod in summo (suo) instrumento habent, quo denique initiantur et indurantur in hanc hæresim. 378 Tertullian has frequently pointed to the contradictions in the Marcionite conception of the god of creation. These contradictions, however, vanish as soon as we regard Marcion’s god from the point of view that he is like his revelation in the Old Testament. 379 The creator of the world is indeed to Marcion “malignus,” but not “malus.” 380 Marcion touched on it when he taught that the “visibilia” belonged to the god of creation, but the “invisibilia” to the good God (I. 16). He adopted the consequences, inasmuch as he taught docetically about Christ, and only assumed a deliverance of the human soul. 381 See especially the third book of Tertull. adv. Marcion.

166

History of Dogma - Volume I

273

274

Adolf Harnack

2. Marcion placed the good God of love in opposition to the creator of the world.382 This God has only been revealed in Christ. He was absolutely unknown before Christ,“Deus incognitus” was likewise a standing expression. They maintained against all attacks the religious position that, from the nature of the case, believers only can know God, and that this is quite sufficient (Tertull., I. 11.) and men were in every respect strange to him.383 Out of pure goodness and mercy, for these are the essential attributes of this God who judges not and is not wrathful, he espoused the cause of those beings who were foreign to him, as he could not bear to have them any longer tormented by their just and yet malevolent lord.384 The God of love appeared in Christ and proclaimed a new kingdom (Tertull., adv. Marc. III. 24. fin.). Christ called to himself the weary and heavy laden,385 and proclaimed to them that he would deliver them from the fetters of their lord and from the world. He shewed mercy to all while he sojourned on the earth, and did in every respect the opposite of what the creator of the world had done to men. They who believed in the creator of the world nailed him to the cross. But in doing so they were unconsciously serving his purpose, for his death was the price by which the God of love purchased men from the creator of the world.386 He who places his hope in the Crucified can now be sure of escaping from the power of the creator of the world, and of being translated into the kingdom of the good God. But experience shews that, like the Jews, men who are virtuous according to the law of the creator of the world, do not allow themselves to be converted by Christ; it is rather sinners who accept his message of redemption. Christ, therefore, rescued from the under-world, not the righteous men of the Old Testament (Iren. I. 27. 3), but the sinners who were disobedient to the creator of the world. If the determining thought of Marcion’s view of Christianity is here again very clearly shewn, the Gnostic woof cannot fail to be seen in the proposition that the good God delivers only the souls, not the bodies of believers. The antithesis of spirit and matter, appears here as the decisive one, and the good God of love becomes the God of the spirit, the Old Testament god the god of the flesh. In point of fact, Marcion seems to have given such a turn to the good God’s attributes of love and incapability of wrath, as to make Him the apathetic, infinitely exalted Being, free from all affections. The contradiction in which Marcion is here involved is evident, because he taught expressly that the spirit of man is in itself just as foreign to the good God as his body. But the strict asceticism which Marcion demanded as a Christian, could have had no motive without the Greek assumption of a metaphysical contrast of flesh and Spirit, which in fact was also apparently the doctrine of Paul.

382

“Solius bonitatis,” “deus melior,” were Marcion’s standing expressions for him. Marcion firmly emphasised this and appealed to passages in Paul; see Tertull. I. 11. 19. 23: “Scio dicturos, atqui hanc esse principalem et perfectam bonitatem, cum sine ullo debito familiaritatis in extraneos voluntaria et libera effunditur, secundum quam inimicos quoque nostros et hoc nomine jam extraneos deligere jubeamur.” The Church Fathers therefore declared that Marcion’s good God was a thief and a robber. See also Celsus, in Orig. VI. 53. 384 See Esnik’s account, which, however, is to be used cautiously. 385 Marcion has strongly emphasised the respective passages in Luke’s Gospel: see his Antitheses, and his comments on the Gospel as presented by Tertullian (1. IV). 386 That can be plainly read in Esnik, and must have been thought by Marcion himself, as he followed Paul (see Tertull., 1. V. and I. 11). Apelles also emphasised the death upon the cross. Marcion’s conception of the purchase can indeed no longer be ascertained in its details. But see Adamant., de recta in deum fide, sect. I. It is one of his theoretic contradictions that the good God who is exalted above righteousness should yet purchase men. 383

167

History of Dogma - Volume I

275

Adolf Harnack

3. The relation in which Marcion placed the two Gods, appears at first sight to be one of equal rank.387 Marcion himself, according to the most reliable witnesses, expressly asserted that both were uncreated, eternal, etc. But if we look more closely we shall see that in Marcion’s mind there can be no thought of equality. Not only did he himself expressly declare that the creator of the world is a self-contradictory being of limited knowledge and power, but the whole doctrine of redemption shews that he is a power subordinate to the good God. We need not stop to enquire about the details, but it is certain that the creator of the world formerly knew nothing of the existence of the good God, that he is in the end completely powerless against him, that he is overcome by him, and that history in its issue with regard to man is determined solely by its relation to the good God. The just god appears at the end of history, not as an independent being hostile to the good God, but as one subordinate to him,388 so that some scholars, such as Neander, have attempted to claim for Marcion a doctrine of one principle, and to deny that he ever held the complete independence of the creator of the world, the creator of the world being simply an angel of the good God. This inference may certainly be drawn with little trouble, as the result of various considerations, but it is forbidden by reliable testimony. The characteristic of Marcion’s teaching is just this, that as soon as we seek to raise his ideas from the sphere of practical considerations to that of a consistent theory, we come upon a tangled knot of contradictions. The theoretic contradictions are explained by the different interests which here cross each other in Marcion. In the first place, he was consciously dependent on the Pauline theology, and was resolved to defend everything which he held to be Pauline. Secondly, he was influenced by the contrast in which he saw the ethical powers involved. This contrast seemed to demand a metaphysical basis, and its actual solution seemed to forbid such a foundation. Finally, the theories of Gnosticism, the paradoxes of Paul, the recognition of the duty of strictly mortifying the flesh, suggested to Marcion the idea that the good God was the exalted God of the spirit, and the just god the god of the sensuous, of the flesh. This view, which involved the principle of a metaphysical dualism, had something very specious about it, and to its influence we must probably ascribe the fact that Marcion no longer attempted to derive the creator of the world from the good God. His disciples who had theoretical interests in the matter, no doubt noted the contradictions. In order to remove them, some of these disciples advanced to a doctrine of three principles, the good God, the just creator of the world, the evil god, by conceiving the creator of the world sometimes as an independent being, sometimes as one dependent on the good God. Others reverted to the common dualism, God of the spirit and God of matter. But Apelles, the most important of Marcion’s disciples, returned to the creed of the one God (μία ἀρχὴ), and conceived the creator of the world and Satan as his angels, without departing from the fundamental thought of the master, 387 388

Tertull. I. 6: “Marcion non negat creatorem deum esse.” Here Tertull., I. 27, 28, is of special importance; see also II. 28; IV. 29 (on Luke XII. 41–46): IV. 30. Marcion’s idea was this. The good God does not judge or punish; but He judges in so far as he keeps evil at a distance from Him: it remains foreign to Him. “Marcionitæ interrogati quid fiet peccatori cuique die illo? respondent abici ilium quasi ab oculis”. “Tranquilitas est et mansuetudinis segregare solummodo et partem ejus cum infidelibus ponere”. But what is the end of him who is thus rejected? “Ab igne, inquiunt, creatoris deprehendetur”. We might think with Tertullian that the creator of the world would receive sinners with joy: but this is the god of the law who punishes sinners. The issue is twofold: the heaven of the good God, and the hell of the creator of the world. Either Marcion assumed with Paul that no one can keep the law, or he was silent about the end of the “righteous” because he had no interest in it. At any rate, the teaching of Marcion closes with an outlook in which the creator of the world can no longer be regarded as an independent god. Marcion’s disciples (see Esnik) here developed a consistent theory: the creator of the world violated his own law by killing the righteous Christ, and was therefore deprived of all his power by Christ.

168

History of Dogma - Volume I

276

277

Adolf Harnack

but rather following suggestions which he himself had given.389 Apart from Apelles, who founded a Church of his own, we hear nothing of the controversies of disciples breaking up the Marcionite church. All those who lived in the faith for which the master had worked—viz., that the laws ruling in nature and history, as well as the course of common legality and righteousness, are the antitheses of the act of Divine mercy in Christ, and that cordial love and believing confidence have their proper contrasts in self-righteous pride and the natural religion of the heart,—those who rejected the Old Testament and clung solely to the Gospel proclaimed by Paul, and finally, those who considered that a strict mortification of the flesh and an earnest renunciation of the world were demanded in the name of the Gospel, felt themselves members of the same community, and to all appearance allowed perfect liberty to speculations about final causes. 4. Marcion had no interest in specially emphasising the distinction between the good God and Christ, which according to the Pauline Epistles could not be denied. To him Christ is the manifestation of the good God himself.390 But Marcion taught that Christ assumed absolutely nothing from the creation of the Demiurge, but came down from heaven in the 15th year of the Emperor Tiberius, and after the assumption of an apparent body, began his preaching in the synagogue of Capernaum.391 This pronounced docetism which denies that Jesus was born, or subjected to any human process of development,392 is the strongest expression of Marcion’s abhorrence of the world. This aversion may have sprung from the severe attitude of the early Christians toward the world, but the inference which Marcion here draws, shews that this feeling was, in his case, united with the Greek estimate of spirit and matter. But Marcion’s docetism is all the more remarkable that, under Paul’s guidance, he put a high value on the fact of Christ’s death upon the cross. Here also is a glaring contradiction which his later disciples laboured to remove. This much, however, is unmistakable, that Marcion succeeded in placing the greatness and uniqueness of redemption

389

Schools soon arose in the Marcionite church, just as they did later on in the main body of Christendom (see Rhodon in Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 2-4). The different doctrines of principles which were here developed (two, three, four principles; the Marcionite Marcus’s doctrine of two principles in which the creator of the world is an evil being, diverges furthest from the Master) explain the different accounts of the Church Fathers about Marcion’s teaching. The only one of the disciples who really seceded from the Master was Appelles (Tertull., de præscr. 30). His teaching is therefore the more important, as it shews that it was possible to retain the fundamental ideas of Marcion without embracing dualism. The attitude of Apelles to the Old Testament is that of Marcion in so far as he rejects the book. But perhaps he somewhat modified the strictness of the Master. On the other hand, he certainly designated much in it as untrue and fabulous. It is remarkable that we meet with a highly honoured prophetess in the environment of Apelles: in Marcion’s church we hear nothing of such, nay, it is extremely important as regards Marcion that he has never appealed to the Spirit and to prophets. The “sanctiores feminæ” (Tertull. V. 8) are not of this nature, nor can we appeals even to V. 15. Moreover, it is hardly likely that Jerome ad Eph. III. 5, refers to Marcionites. In this complete disregard of early Christian prophecy, and in his exclusive reliance on literary documents, we see in Marcion a process of despiritualising, that is, a form of secularisation peculiar to himself. Marcion no longer possessed the early Christian enthusiasm as, for example, Hermas did. 390 Marcion was fond of calling Christ “Spiritus salutaris.” From the treatise of Tertullian we can prove both that Marcion distinguished Christ from God, and that he made no distinction (see, for example, I. 11, 14: II. 27: III. 8, 9, 11: IV. 7). Here again Marcion did not think theologically. What he regarded as specially important was that God has revealed himself in Christ, “per semetipsum.” Later Marcionites expressly taught Patripassianism, and have on that account been often grouped with the Sabellians. But other Christologies also arose in Marcion’s church, which is again a proof that it was not dependent on scholastic teaching, and therefore could take part in the later development of doctrines. 391 See the beginning of the Marcionite Gospel. 392 Tertullian informs us sufficiently about this. The body of Christ was regarded by Marcion merely as an “umbra”, a “phantasma.” His disciples adhered to this, but Apelles first constructed a “doctrine” of the body of Christ.

169

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

through Christ in the clearest light, and in beholding this redemption in the person of Christ, but chiefly in his death upon the cross.

278

279

5. Marcion’s eschatology is also quite rudimentary. Yet he assumed with Paul that violent attacks were yet in store for the Church of the good God on the part of the Jewish Christ of the future, the Antichrist. He does not seem to have taught a visible return of Christ, but, in spite of the omnipotence and goodness of God, he did teach a twofold issue of history. The idea of a deliverance of all men, which seems to follow from his doctrine of boundless grace, was quite foreign to him. For this very reason he could not help actually making the good God the judge, though in theory he rejected the idea, in order not to measure the will and acts of God by a human standard. Along with the fundamental proposition of Marcion, that God should be conceived only as goodness and grace, we must take into account the strict asceticism which he prescribed for the Christian communities, in order to see that that idea of God was not obtained from antinomianism. We know of no Christian community in the second century which insisted so strictly on renunciation of the world as the Marcionites. No union of the sexes was permitted. Those who were married had to separate ere they could be received by baptism into the community. The sternest precepts were laid down in the matter of food and drink. Martyrdom was enjoined; and from the fact that they were ταλαίπωροι καὶ μισούμενοι in the world, the members were to know that they were disciples of Christ.393 With all that, the early Christian enthusiasm was wanting. 6. Marcion defined his position in theory and practice towards the prevailing form of Christianity, which, on the one hand, shewed throughout its connection with the Old Testament, and, on the other, left room for a secular ethical code, by assuming that it had been corrupted by Judaism, and therefore needed a reformation.394 But he could not fail to note that this corruption was not of recent date, but belonged to the oldest tradition itself. The consciousness of this moved him to a historical criticism of the whole Christian tradition.395 Marcion was the first Christian who undertook such a task. Those writings to which he owed his religious convictions, viz., the Pauline Epistles, furnished the basis for it. He found nothing in the rest of Christian literature that harmonised with the Gospel of Paul. But he found in the Pauline Epistles hints which explained to him this result of his observations. The twelve Apostles whom Christ chose did not understand him, but regarded him as the Messiah of the god of creation.396 And therefore Christ inspired Paul by a special revelation, 393

The strict asceticism of Marcion and the Marcionites is reluctantly acknowledged by the Church Fathers; see Tertull., de præscr. 30: “Sanctissimus magister”; I. 28, “carni imponit sanctitem.” The strict prohibition of marriage: I. 29: IV. 11, 17, 29, 34, 38: V. 7, 8, 15, 18; prohibition of food: 1. 14; cynical life: Hippol., Philos. VII. 29; numerous martyrs: Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 21, and frequently elsewhere. Marcion named his adherents (Tertull. IV. 9 36) “συνταλαίπωροι καὶ συμμισούμενοι.” It is questionable whether Marcion himself allowed the repetition of baptism; it arose in his church. But this repetition is a proof that the prevailing conception of baptism was not sufficient for a vigorous religious temper. 394 Tertull. I. 20. “Aiunt, Marcionem non tam innovasse regulam separatione legis et evangelii quam retro adulteratam recurasse”; see the account of Epiphanius, taken from Hippolytus, about the appearance of Marcion in Rome (h. 42. 1. 2). 395 Here again we must remember that Marcion appealed neither to a secret tradition nor to the “Spirit,” in order to appreciate the epoch-making nature of his undertaking. 396 In his estimate of the twelve Apostles Marcion took as his standpoint Gal. II. See Tertull. I. 20: IV. 3 (generally IV. 1-6), V. 3; de præscr. 22, 23. He endeavoured to prove from this chapter that from a misunderstanding of the words of Christ, the twelve Apostles had proclaimed a different Gospel than that of Paul; they had wrongly taken the Father of Jesus Christ for the god of creation. It is not quite clear how Marcion conceived the inward condition of the Apostles during the lifetime of Jesus (see Tertull. III. 22: IV. 3, 39). He assumed that they were persecuted by the Jews as the preachers of a new God. It is probable,

170

History of Dogma - Volume I

280

Adolf Harnack

lest the Gospel of the grace of God should be lost through falsifications.397 But even Paul had been understood only by few (by none?). His Gospel had also been misunderstood—nay, his Epistles had been falsified in many passages,398 in order to make them teach the identity of the god of creation and the God of redemption. A new reformation was therefore necessary. Marcion felt himself entrusted with this commission, and the church which he gathered recognised this vocation of his to be the reformer.399 He did not appeal to a new revelation such as he presupposed for Paul. As the Pauline Epistles and an authentic εὐαγγέλιον κυρίου were in existence, it was only necessary to purify these from interpolations, and restore the genuine Paulinism which was just the Gospel itself. But it was also necessary to secure and preserve this true Christianity for the future. Marcion, in all probability, was the first to conceive and, in great measure, to realise the idea of placing Christendom on the firm foundation of a definite theory of what is Christian—but not of basing it on a theological doctrine—and of establishing this theory by a fixed collection of Christian writings

281

therefore, that he thought of a gradual obscuring of the preaching of Jesus in the case of the primitive Apostles. They fell hack into Judaism; see Iren. III. 2. 2. “Apostolos admiscuisse ea quæ sunt legalia salvatoris verbis”; III, 12. 12: “Apostoli quæ sunt Judæorum sentientes scripserunt” etc.; Tertull. V. 3: “Apostolos vultis Judaismi magis adfines subintelligi.” The expositions of Marcion in Tertull. IV. 9. 11, 13, 21, 24, 39: V. 13, shew that he regarded the primitive Apostles as out and out real Apostles of Christ. 397 The call of Paul was viewed by Marcion as a manifestation of Christ, of equal value with His first appearance and ministry; see the account of Esnik. “Then for the second time Jesus came down to the lord of the creatures in the form of his Godhead, and entered into judgment with him on account of his death . . . . And Jesus said to him: ‘Judgment is between me and thee, let no one be judge but thine own laws . . . . hast thou not written in this thy law, that he who killeth shall die?’ And he answered, ‘I have so written’ . . . . Jesus said to him, ‘Deliver thyself therefore into my hands’ . . . . The creator of the world said, ‘Because I have slain thee I give thee a compensation, all those who shall believe on thee, that thou mayest do with them what thou pleasest.’ Then Jesus left him and carried away Paul, and shewed him the price, and sent him to preach that we are bought with this price, and that all who believe in Jesus are sold by this just god to the good one.” This is a most instructive account; for it shews that in the Marcionite schools the Pauline doctrine of reconciliation was transformed into a drama, and placed between the death of Christ and the call of Paul, and that the Pauline Gospel was based, not directly on the death of Christ upon the cross, but a theory of it converted into history. On Paul as the one apostle of the truth, see Tertull. I. 20: III. 5, 14: IV. 2 sq.: IV. 34: V. I. As to the Marcionite theory that the promise to send the Spirit was fulfilled in the mission of Paul, an indication of the want of enthusiasm among the Marcionites, see the following page, note 2. 398 Marcion must have spoken ex professo in his Antitheses about the Judaistic corruptions of Paul’s Epistles and the Gospel. He must also have known Evangelic writings bearing the names of the original Apostles, and have expressed himself about them (Tertull. IV. 1-6). 399 Marcion’s self-consciousness of being a reformer, and the recognition of this in his church is still not understood, although his undertaking itself and the facts speak loud enough. (1) The great Marcionite church called itself after Marcion (Adamant., de recta in deum fide. I. 809; Epiph. h. 42, p. 668, ed. Oehler: Μαρκίων σοῦ τὸ ὄνομα ἐπικέκληνται οἱ ὑπο σοῦ ἡπατημένοι ὡς σεαυτὸν κηρύξαντος καὶ οὐχί Χριστόν. We possess a Marcionite inscription which begins: συναγωγὴ Μαρκιωνιστῶν). As the Marcionites did not form a school, but a church, it is of the greatest value for shewing the estimate of the master in this church, that its members called themselves by his name. (2) The Antitheses of Marcion had a place in the Marcionite canon (see above, p. 272). This canon therefore embraced a book of Christ, Epistles of Paul, and a book of Marcion, and for that reason the Antitheses were always circulated with the canon of Marcion. (3) Origen (in Luc. hom. 25. T. III. p. 962) reports as follows: “Denique in tantam quidam dilectionis audaciam proruperunt, ut nova quædam et inaudita super Paulo monstra confingerent. Alli enim aiunt, hoc quod scriptum est, sedere a dextris salvatoris et sinistris, de Paulo et de Marcione dici, quod Paulus sedet a dextris, Marcion sedet a sinistris. Porro alii legentes: Mittam vobis advocatum Spiritum veritatis, nolunt intelligere tertiam personam a patre et filio, sed Apostolum Paulum.” The estimate of Marcion which appears here is exceedingly instructive. (4) An Arabian writer, who, it is true, belongs to a later period, reports that Marcionites called their founder “Apostolorum principem.” (5) Justin, the first opponent of Marcion, classed him with Simon Magus and Menander; that is, with demonic founders of religion. These testimonies may suffice.

171

History of Dogma - Volume I

282

Adolf Harnack

with canonical authority.400 He was not a systematic thinker, but he was more; for he was not only a religious character, but at the same time a man with an organising talent, such as has no peer in the early Church. If we think of the lofty demands he made on Christians, and, on the other hand, ponder the results that accompanied his activity, we cannot fail to wonder. Wherever Christians were numerous about the year 160, there must have been Marcionite communities with the same fixed but free organisation, with the same canon and the same conception of the essence of Christianity, pre-eminent for the strictness of their morals and their joy in martyrdom.401 The Catholic Church was then only in process of growth, and it was long ere it reached the solidity won by the Marcionite church through the activity of one man, who was animated by a faith so strong that he was able to oppose his conception of Christianity to all others as the only right one, and who did not shrink from making selections from tradition instead of explaining it away. He was the first who laid the firm foundation for establishing what is Christian, because, in view of the absoluteness of his faith,402 he had no desire to appeal either to a secret evangelic tradition, or to prophecy, or to natural religion. Remarks.—The innovations of Marcion are unmistakable. The way in which he attempted to sever Christianity from the Old Testament was a bold stroke which demanded the sacrifice of the dearest possession of Christianity as a religion, viz., the belief that the God of creation is also the God of redemption. And yet this innovation was partly caused by a religious conviction, the origin of which must be sought not in heathenism, but on Old Testament and Christian soil. For the bold Anti-judaist was the disciple of a Jewish thinker, Paul, and the origin of Marcion’s antinomianism may be ultimately found in the prophets. It will always be the glory of Marcion in the early history of the Church that he, the born heathen, could appreciate the religious criticism of the Old Testament religion as formerly exercised by Paul. The antinomianism of Marcion was ultimately based on the strength of his religious feeling, on his personal religion as contrasted with all statutory religion. That was also its basis in the case of the prophets and of Paul, only the statutory religion, which was felt to be a burden and a fetter, was different in each case. As regards the prophets, it was the

400

On Marcion’s Gospel see the Introductions to the New Testament and Zahn’s Kanonsgeschichte, Bd. I., p. 585 ff. and II., p. 409. Marcion attached no name to his Gospel, which, according to his own testimony, he produced from the third one of our Canon (Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 2. 3. 4). He called it simply εὐαγγέλιον (κυρίον), but held that it was the Gospel which Paul had in his mind when he spoke of his Gospel. The later Marcionites ascribed the authorship of the Gospel partly to Paul, partly to Christ himself, and made further changes in it. That Marcion chose the Gospel called after Luke should be regarded as a make-shift; for this Gospel, which is undoubtedly the most Hellenistic of the four Canonical Gospels, and therefore comes nearest to the Catholic conception of Christianity, accommodated itself in its traditional form but little better than the other three to Marcionite Christianity. Whether Marcion took it for a basis because in his time it had already been connected with Paul (or really had a connection with Paul), or whether the numerous narratives about Jesus as the Saviour of sinners led him to recognise in this Gospel alone a genuine kernel, we do not know. 401 The associations of the Encratites and the community founded by Apelles stood between the main body of Christendom and the Marcionite church. The description of Celsus (especially V. 61-64 in Orig.) shews the motley appearance which Christendom presented soon after the middle of the second century. He there mentions the Marcionites, and a little before (V. 59), the “great Church.” It is very important that Celsus makes the main distinction consist in this, that some regarded their God as identical with the God of the Jews, whilst others again declared that “theirs was a different Deity, who is hostile to that of the Jews, and that it was he who had sent the Son.” (V. 61.) 402 One might be tempted to comprise the character of Marcion’s religion in the words, “The God who dwells in my breast can profoundly excite my inmost being. He who is throned above all my powers can move nothing outwardly.” But Marcion had the firm assurance that God has done something much greater than move the world: he has redeemed men from the world, and given them the assurance of this redemption, in the midst of all oppression and enmity which do not cease.

172

History of Dogma - Volume I

283

284

Adolf Harnack

outer sacrificial worship, and the deliverance was the idea of Jehovah’s righteousness. In the case of Paul, it was the pharisaic treatment of the law, and the deliverance was righteousness by faith. To Marcion it was the sum of all that the past had described as a revelation of God: only what Christ had given him was of real value to him. In this conviction he founded a Church. Before him there was no such thing in the sense of a community firmly united by a fixed conviction, harmoniously organised, and spread over the whole world. Such a Church the Apostle Paul had in his mind’s eye, but he was not able to realise it. That in the century of the great mixture of religion the greatest apparent paradox was actually realised—namely, a Paulinism with two Gods and without the Old Testament; and that this form of Christianity first resulted in a church which was based not only on intelligible words, but on a definite conception of the essence of Christianity as a religion, seems to be the greatest riddle which the earliest history of Christianity presents. But it only seems so. The Greek, whose mind was filled with certain fundamental features of the Pauline Gospel (law and grace), who was therefore convinced that in all respects the truth was there, and who on that account took pains to comprehend the real sense of Paul’s statements, could hardly reach any other results than those of Marcion. The history of Pauline theology in the Church, a history first of silence, then of artificial interpretation, speaks loudly enough. And had not Paul really separated Christianity as religion from Judaism and the Old Testament? Must it not have seemed an inconceivable inconsistency, if he had clung to the special national relation of Christianity to the Jewish people, and if he had taught a view of history in which for pædagogic reasons indeed, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort had appeared as one so entirely different? He who was not capable of translating himself into the consciousness of a Jew, and had not yet learned the method of special interpretation, had only the alternative, if he was convinced of the truth of the Gospel of Christ as Paul had proclaimed it, of either giving up this Gospel against the dictates of his conscience, or striking out of the Epistles whatever seemed Jewish. But in this case the god of creation also disappeared, and the fact that Marcion could make this sacrifice proves that this religious spirit, with all his energy, was not able to rise to the height of the religious faith which we find in the preaching of Jesus. In basing his own position and that of his church on Paulinism, as he conceived and remodelled it, Marcion connected himself with that part of the earliest tradition of Christianity which is best known to us, and has enabled us to understand his undertaking historically as we do no other. Here we have the means of accurately indicating what part of this structure of the second century has come down from the Apostolic age and is really based on tradition, and what has not. Where else could we do that? But Marcion has taught us far more. He does not impart a correct understanding of early Christianity, as was once supposed, for his explanation of that is undoubtedly incorrect, but a correct estimate of the reliability of the traditions that were current in his day alongside of the Pauline. There can be no doubt that Marcion criticised tradition from a dogmatic stand-point. But would his undertaking have been at all possible if at that time a reliable tradition of the twelve Apostles and their teaching had existed and been operative in wide circles? We may venture to say no. Consequently, Marcion gives important testimony against the historical reliability of the notion that the common Christianity was really based on the tradition of the twelve Apostles. It is not surprising that the first man who clearly put and answered the question, “What is Christian?” adhered exclusively to the Pauline Epistles, and therefore found a very imperfect solution. When more than 1600 years later the same question emerged for the first time in scientific form, its solution 173

History of Dogma - Volume I

285

286

Adolf Harnack

had likewise to be first attempted from the Pauline Epistles, and therefore led at the outset to a one-sidedness similar to that of Marcion. The situation of Christendom in the middle of the second century was not really more favourable to a historical knowledge of early Christianity than that of the 18th century, but in many respects more unfavourable. Even at that time, as attested by the enterprise of Marcion, its results, and the character of the polemic against him, there were besides the Pauline Epistles no reliable documents from which the teaching of the twelve Apostles could have been gathered. The position which the Pauline Epistles occupy in the history of the world is, however, described by the fact that every tendency in the Church which was unwilling to introduce into Christianity the power of Greek mysticism, and was yet no longer influenced by the early Christian eschatology, learned from the Pauline Epistles a Christianity which, as a religion, was peculiarly vigorous. But that position is further described by the fact that every tendency which courageously disregards spurious traditions is compelled to turn to the Pauline Epistles, which, on the one hand, present such a profound type of Christianity, and on the other darken and narrow the judgment about the preaching of Christ himself by their complicated theology. Marcion was the first, and for a long time the only Gentile Christian who took his stand on Paul. He was no moralist, no Greek mystic, no Apocalyptic enthusiast, but a religious character, nay, one of the few pronouncedly typical religious characters whom we know in the early Church before Augustine. But his attempt to resuscitate Paulinism is the first great proof that the conditions under which this Christianity originated do not repeat themselves, and that therefore Paulinism itself must receive a new construction if one desires to make it the basis of a Church. His attempt is a further proof of the unique value of the Old Testament to early Christendom, as the only means at that time of defending Christian monotheism. Finally, his attempt confirms the experience that a religious community can only be founded by a religious spirit who expects nothing from the world. Nearly all ecclesiastical writers, from Justin to Origen, opposed Marcion. He appeared already to Justin as the most wicked enemy. We can understand this, and we can quite as well understand how the Church Fathers put him on a level with Basilides and Valentinus, and could not see the difference between them. Because Marcion elevated a better God above the god of creation, and consequently robbed the Christian God of his honour, he appeared to be worse than a heathen (Sentent. episc. LXXXVII., in Hartel’s edition of Cyprian, I. p. 454; “Gentiles quamvis idola colant, tamen summum deum patrem creatorem cognoscunt et confitentur [!]; in hunc Marcion, blasphemat, etc.”), as a blaspheming emissary of demons, as the first-born of Satan (Polyc., Justin, Irenæus). Because he rejected the allegoric interpretation of the Old Testament, and explained its predictions as referring to a Messiah of the Jews who was yet to come, he seemed to be a Jew (Tertull., adv. Marc. III.). Because he deprived Christianity of the apologetic proof (the proof from antiquity) he seemed to be a heathen and a Jew at the same time (see my Texte u. Unters. I. 3, p. 68; the antitheses of Marcion became very important for the heathen and Manichæan assaults on Christianity). Because he represented the twelve Apostles as unreliable witnesses, he appeared to be the most wicked and shameless of all heretics. Finally, because he gained so many adherents, and actually founded a church, he appeared to be the ravening wolf (Justin, Rhodon), and his church as the spurious church. (Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 5.) In Marcion the Church Fathers chiefly attacked what they attacked in all Gnostic heretics, but here error shewed itself in its worst form. They learned much in opposing Marcion (see Bk. II.). For instance, their interpretation of the regula fidei and of the New Testament received a directly Antimarcionite expression in the Church. One thing, however, they could not 174

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

learn from him, and that was how to make Christianity into a philosophic system. He formed no such system, but he has given a clearly outlined conception, based on historic documents, of Christianity as the religion which redeems the world. Literature.—All anti-heretical writings of the early Church, but especially Justin, Apol. I. 26, 58; Iren. I. 27; Tertull., adv. Marc. I-V.; de præscr.; Hippol., Philos.; Adamant., de recta in deum fidei; Epiph. h. 42; Ephr. Syr.; Esnik. The older attempts to restore the Marcionite Gospel and Apostolicum have been antiquated by Zahn’s Kanonsgeschichte, l. c. Hahn (Regimonti, 1823) has attempted to restore the Antitheses. We are still in want of a German monograph on Marcion (see the whole presentation of Gnosticism by Zahn, with his Excursus, l. c.). Hilgenfeld, Ketzergesch. p. 316 f. 522 f.; cf. my work, Zur Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus, 1873; de Apelles Gnosis Monarchia, 1874; Beiträge z. Gesch. der Marcionitischen Kirchen (Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1876). Marcion’s Commentar zum Evangelium (Ztschr. f. K. G. Bd. IV. 4). Apelles Syllogismen in the Texte u. Unters. VI. H. 3. Zahn, die Dialoge des Adamantius in the Ztschr. f. K-Gesch. IX. p. 193 ff. Meyboom, Marcion en de Marcionieten, Leiden, 1888. 287

CHAPTER VI APPENDIX: THE CHRISTIANITY OF THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS. I. ORIGINAL Christianity was in appearance Christian Judaism, the creation of a universal religion on Old Testament soil. It retained, therefore, so far as it was not hellenised, which never altogether took place, its original Jewish features. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was regarded as the Father of Jesus Christ, the Old Testament was the authoritative source of revelation, and the hopes of the future were based on the Jewish ones. The heritage which Christianity took over from Judaism shews itself on Gentile Christian soil, in fainter or distincter form, in proportion as the philosophic mode of thought already prevails, or recedes into the background.403 To describe the appearance of

403

The attitude of the recently discovered “Teaching of the twelve Apostles” is strictly universalistic, and hostile to Judaism as a nation, but shews us a Christianity still essentially uninfluenced by philosophic elements. The impression made by this fact has caused some scholars to describe the treatise as a document of Jewish Christianity. But the attitude of the Didache is rather the ordinary one of universalistic early Christianity on the soil of the Græco-Roman world. If we describe this as Jewish Christian, then from the meaning which we must give to the words “Christian” and “Gentile Christian,” we tacitly legitimise an undefined and undefinable aggregate of Greek ideas, along with a specifically Pauline element, as primitive Christianity, and this is perhaps not the intended, but yet desired, result of the false terminology. Now, if we describe even such writings as the Epistle of James and the Shepherd of Hermas as Jewish Christian, we therewith reduce the entire early Christianity, which is the creation of a universal religion on the soil of Judaism, to the special case of an indefinable religion. The same now appears as one of the particular values of a completely indeterminate magnitude. Hilgenfeld (Judenthum und Judenchristenthum, 1886; cf. also Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1886 H. 4.) advocates another conception of Jewish Christianity in opposition to the following account. Zahn. Gesch. des N.T.-lich. Kanons, II. p. 668 ff. has a different view still.

175

History of Dogma - Volume I

288

289

Adolf Harnack

the Jewish, Old Testament, heritage in the Christian faith, so far as it is a religious one, by the name Jewish Christianity, beginning at a certain point quite arbitrarily chosen, and changeable at will, must therefore necessarily lead to error, and it has done so to a very great extent. For this designation makes it appear as though the Jewish element in the Christian religion were something accidental, while it is rather the case that all Christianity, in so far as something alien is not foisted into it, appears as the religion of Israel perfected and spiritualised. We are therefore not justified in speaking of Jewish Christianity where a Christian community, even one of Gentile birth, calls itself the true Israel, the people of the twelve tribes, the posterity of Abraham; for this transfer is based on the original claim of Christianity and can only be forbidden by a view that is alien to it. Just as little may we designate Jewish Christian the mighty and realistic hopes of the future which were gradually repressed in the second and third centuries. They may be described as Jewish, or as Christian; but the designation Jewish Christian must be rejected; for it gives a wrong impression as to the historic right of these hopes in Christianity. The eschatological ideas of Papias were not Jewish Christian, but Christian; while, on the other hand, the eschatological speculations of Origen were not Gentile Christian, but essentially Greek. Those Christians who saw in Jesus the man chosen by God and endowed with the Spirit, thought about the Redeemer not in a Jewish Christian, but in a Christian manner. Those of Asia Minor who held strictly to the 14th of Nisan as the term of the Easter festival, were not influenced by Jewish Christian, but by Christian or Old Testament considerations. The author of the “Teaching of the Apostles,” who has transferred the rights of the Old Testament priests with respect to the first fruits to the Christian prophets, shews himself by such transference not as a Jewish Christian, but as a Christian. There is no boundary here; for Christianity took possession of the whole of Judaism as religion, and it is therefore a most arbitrary view of history which looks upon the Christian appropriation of the Old Testament religion, after any point, as no longer Christian, but only Jewish Christian. Wherever the universalism of Christianity is not violated in favour of the Jewish nation, we have to recognise every appropriation of the Old Testament as Christian. Hence this proceeding could be spontaneously undertaken in Christianity, as was in fact done. 2. But the Jewish religion is a national religion, and Christianity burst the bonds of nationality, though not for all who recognised Jesus as Messiah. This gives the point at which the introduction of the term “Jewish Christianity” is appropriate.404 It should be applied exclusively to those Christians who really maintained in their whole extent, or in some measure, even if it were to a minimum degree, the national and political forms of Judaism and the observance of the Mosaic law in its literal sense, as essential to Christianity, at least to the Christianity of born Jews, or who, though rejecting these forms, nevertheless assumed a prerogative of the Jewish people even in Christianity (Clem., Homil. XI. 26: ἐὰν ὁ ἀλλόφυλος τὸν νόμον πράξῃ, Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν, μὴ πράξας δέ Ἕλλην; “If the foreigner observe the law he is a Jew, but if not he is a Greek”).405 To this Jewish Christianity is opposed, not Gentile Christianity, but the Christian religion, in so far as it is conceived as

404 405

Or even Ebionitism; the designations are to be used as synonymous. The more rarely the right standard has been set up in the literature of Church history for the distinction of Jewish Christianity, the more valuable are those writings in which it is found. We must refer, above all, to Diestel, Geschichte des A. T. in der Christl. Kirche, p. 44, note 7.

176

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

universalistic and anti-national in the strict sense of the term (Presupp. § 3), that is, the main body of Christendom in so far as it has freed itself from Judaism as a nation.406

290

It is not strange that this Jewish Christianity was subject to all the conditions which arose from the internal and external position of the Judaism of the time; that is, different tendencies were necessarily developed in it, according to the measure of the tendencies (or the disintegrations) which asserted themselves in the Judaism of that time. It lies also in the nature of the case that, with one exception, that of Pharisaic Jewish Christianity, all other tendencies were accurately parallelled in the systems which appeared in the great, that is, anti-Jewish Christendom. They were distinguished from these, simply by a social and political, that is, a national element. Moreover, they were exposed to the same influences from without as the synagogue and as the larger Christendom, till the isolation to which Judaism as a nation, after severe reverses condemned itself, became fatal to them also. Consequently, there were besides Pharisaic Jewish Christians, ascetics of all kinds who were joined by all those over whom Oriental religious wisdom and Greek philosophy had won a commanding influence. (See above, p. 242 f.) In the first century these Jewish Christians formed the majority in Palestine, and perhaps also in some neighbouring provinces. But they were also found here and there in the West. Now the great question is whether this Jewish Christianity as a whole, or in certain of its tendencies, was a factor in the development of Christianity to Catholicism. This question is to be answered in the negative, and quite as much with regard to the history of dogma as with regard to the political history of the Church. From the stand-point of the universal history of Christianity, these Jewish Christian communities appear as rudimentary structures which now and again, as objects of curiosity, engaged the attention of the main body of Christendom in the East, but could not exert any important influence on it, just because they contained a national element.

291

The Jewish Christians took no considerable part in the Gnostic controversy, the epoch-making conflict which was raised within the pale of the larger Christendom about the decisive question, whether and to what extent the Old Testament should remain a basis of Christianity, although they themselves were no less occupied with the question.407 The issue of this conflict in favour of that party which recognised the Old Testament in its full extent as a revelation of the Christian God, and asserted the closest connection between Christianity and the Old Testament religion, was so little the result of any influence of Jewish Christianity, that the existence of the latter would only have rendered that victory more difficult unless it had already fallen into the background as a

406

See Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1883. Col. 409 f. as to the attempt of Joel to make out that the whole of Christendom up to the end of the first century was strictly Jewish Christian, and to exhibit the complete friendship of Jews and Christians in that period (“Blicke in die Religionsgesch.” 2 Abth. 1883). It is not improbable that Christians like James, living in strict accordance with the law, were for the time being respected even by the Pharisees in the period preceding the destruction of Jerusalem But that can in no case have been the rule. We see from Epiph. h. 29. 9. and from the Talmud what was the custom at a later period. 407 There were Jewish Christians who represented the position of the great Church with reference to the Old Testament religion, and there were some who criticised the Old Testament like the Gnostics. Their contention may have remained as much an internal one as that between the Church Fathers and Gnostics (Marcion) did, so far as Jewish Christianity is concerned. Their may have been relations between Gnostic Jewish Christians and Gnostics not of a national Jewish type, in Syria and Asia Minor, though we are completely in the dark on the matter.

177

History of Dogma - Volume I

292

Adolf Harnack

phenomenon of no importance.408 How completely insignificant it was is shewn not only by the limited polemics of the Church Fathers, but perhaps still more by their silence, and the new import which the reproach of Judaising obtained in Christendom after the middle of the second century. In proportion as the Old Testament, in opposition to Gnosticism, became a more conscious and accredited possession in the Church, and at the same time, in consequence of the naturalising of Christianity in the world, the need of regulations, fixed rules, statutory enactments etc., appeared as indispensable, it must have been natural to use the Old Testament as a holy code of such enactments. This procedure was no falling away from the original anti-Judaic attitude, provided nothing national was taken from the book, and some kind of spiritual interpretation given to what had been borrowed. The “apostasy” rather lay simply in the changed needs. But one now sees how those parties in the Church, to which for any reason this progressive legislation was distasteful, raised the reproach of “Judaising,”409 and further, how conversely the same reproach was hurled at those Christians who resisted the advancing hellenising of Christianity, with regard, for example, to the doctrine of God, eschatology, Christology, etc.410 But while this reproach is raised, there is nowhere shewn any connection between those described as Judaising Christians and the Ebionites. That they were identified off-hand is only a proof that “Ebionitism” was no longer known. That “Judaising” within Catholicism which appears, on the one hand, in the setting up of a Catholic ceremonial law (worship, constitution, etc.), and on the other, in a tenacious clinging to less hellenised forms of faith and hopes of faith, has nothing in common with Jewish Christianity, which desired somehow to confine Christianity to the Jewish nation.411 Speculations that take no account of history may make out that Catholicism became more and more Jewish Christian. But historical observation, which reckons only with concrete quantities, can discover in Catholicism, besides Christianity, no element which it would have to describe as Jewish Christian. It observes only a

408

From the mere existence of Jewish Christians, those Christians who rejected the Old Testament might have argued against the main body of Christendom and put before it the dilemma: either Jewish Christian or Marcionite. Still more logical indeed was the dilemma: either Jewish, or Marcionite Christian. 409 So did the Montanists and Antimontanists mutually reproach each other with Judaising (see the Montanist writings of Tertullian). Just in the same way the arrangements as to worship and organisation, which were ever being more richly developed, were described by the freer parties as Judaising, because they made appeal to the Old Testament, though, as regards their contents, they had little in common with Judaism. But is not the method of claiming Old Testament authority for the regulations rendered necessary by circumstances nearly as old as Christianity itself? Against whom the lost treatise of Clement of Alexandria “κανών ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἣ προς τοὺς Ἰουδαίζοντας” (Euseb. H. E. VI. 13. 3.) was directed, we cannot tell. But as we read, Strom., VI. 15. 125, that the Holy Scriptures are to be expounded according to the ἐκκλησιαστικὸς κανὼν, and then find the following definition of the Canon: κανὼν δὲ ἐκκλησιαστικός ἡ συνωδία καὶ συμφωνία νόμου τε καὶ προφητῶν τῆ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου παρουσίαν παραδιδομένῃ διαθήκῃ, we may conjecture that the Judaisers were those Christians who, in principle or to some extent, objected to the allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament. We have then to think either of Marcionite Christians or of “Chiliasts,” that is, the old Christians who were still numerous in Egypt about the middle of the third century (see Dionys. Alex. in Euseb., H. E. VII. 24). In the first case, the title of the treatise would be paradoxical. But perhaps the treatise refers to the Quarto-decimans, although the expression κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός seems too ponderous for them (see, however, Orig., Comm. in Matth. n. 76, ed. Delarue III., p. 895). Clement may possibly have had Jewish Christians before him. See Zahn, Forschungen, vol. III., p. 37 f. 410 Cases of this kind are everywhere, up to the fifth century, so numerous that they need not be cited. We may only remind the reader that the Nestorian Christology was described by its earliest and its latest opponents as Ebionitic. 411 Or were those western Christians Ebionitic who, in the fourth century, still clung to very realistic Chiliastic hopes, who, in fact, regarded their Christianity as consisting in these?

178

History of Dogma - Volume I

293

294

Adolf Harnack

progressive hellenising, and in consequence of this, a progressive spiritual legislation which utilizes the Old Testament, a process which went on for centuries according to the same methods which had been employed in the larger Christendom from the beginning.412 Baur’s brilliant attempt to explain Catholicism as a product of the mutual conflict and neutralising of Jewish and Gentile Christianity, (the latter, according to Baur, being equivalent to Paulinism) reckons with two factors, of which the one had no significance at all, and the other only an indirect effect, as regards the formation of the Catholic Church. The influence of Paul in this direction is exhausted in working out the universalism of the Christian religion, for a Greater than he had laid the foundation for this movement, and Paul did not realise it by himself alone. Placed on this height Catholicism was certainly developed by means of conflicts and compromises, not, however, by conflicts with Ebionitism, which was to all intents and purposes discarded as early as the first century, but as the result of the conflict of Christianity with the united powers of the world in which it existed, on behalf of its own peculiar nature as the universal religion based on the Old Testament. Here were fought triumphant battles, but here also compromises were made which characterise the essence of Catholicism as Church and as doctrine.413 412

The hellenising of Christianity went hand in hand with a more extensive use of the Old Testament; for, according to the principles of Catholicism, every new article of the Church system must be able to legitimise itself as springing from revelation. But, as a rule, the attestation could only be gathered from the Old Testament, since religion here appears in the fixed form of a secular community. Now the needs of a secular community for outward regulations gradually became so strong in the Church as to require palpable ceremonial rules. But it cannot be denied that from a certain point of time, first by means of the fiction of Apostolic constitutions (see my edition of the Didache, Prolegg. p. 239 ff.), and then without this fiction, not, however, as a rule, without reservations, ceremonial regulations were simply taken over from the Old Testament. But this transference (see Bk. II.) takes place at a time when there can be absolutely no question of an influence of Jewish Christianity. Moreover, it always proves itself to be catholic by the fact that it did not in the least soften the traditional anti-Judaism. On the contrary, it attained its full growth in the age of Constantine. Finally, it should not be overlooked that at all times in antiquity certain provincial churches were exposed to Jewish influences, especially in the East and in Arabia, that they were therefore threatened with being Judaised, or with apostasy to Judaism, and that even at the present day certain Oriental Churches shew tokens of having once been subject to Jewish influences (see Serapion in Euseb. H. E. VI. 12. 1, Martyr. Pion., Epiph. de mens. et pond 15. 18; my Texte u. Unters. I. 3. p. 73 f., and Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, Part. 3. p. 197 ff.; actual disputations with Jews do not seem to have been common, though see Tertull., adv. Jud. and Orig. c. Cels. I. 45, 49, 55: II. 31. Clement also keeps in view Jewish objections). This Jewish Christianity, if we like to call it so, which in some regions of the East was developed through an immediate influence of Judaism on Catholicism, should not, however, be confounded with the Jewish Christianity which is the most original form in which Christianity realised itself. This was no longer able to influence the Christianity which had shaken itself free from the Jewish nation (as to futile attempts, see below), any more than the protecting covering stripped from the new shoot can ever again acquire significance for the latter. 413 What is called the ever-increasing “legal” feature of Gentile Christianity and the Catholic Church is conditioned by its origin, in so far as its theory is rooted in that of Judaism spiritualised and influenced by Hellenism. As the Pauline conception of, the law never took effect, and a criticism of the Old Testament religion which is just law, neither understood nor ventured upon in the larger Christendom—the forms were not criticised, but the contents spiritualised—so the theory that Christianity is promise and spiritual law is to be regarded as the primitive one. Between the spiritual law and the national law there stand indeed ceremonial laws which, without being spiritually interpreted, could yet be freed from the national application. It cannot be denied that the Gentile Christian communities and the incipient Catholic Church were very careful and reserved in their adoption of such laws from the Old Testament, and that the later Church no longer observed this caution. But still it is only a question of degree, for there are many examples of that adoption in the earliest period of Christendom. The latter had no cause for hurry in utilizing the Old Testament so long as there was no external or internal policy, or so long as it was still in embryo. The decisive factor lies here again in enthusiasm and not in changing theories. The basis for these was supplied from the beginning. But a community of individuals under spiritual excitement builds on this foundation something different from an association which wishes to organise and assert itself as such on earth. (The history of Sunday is specially instructive here; see Zahn, Gesch. des Sonntags, 1878, as well as the history of the discipline of fasting, see Linsenmayr, Entwickelung der Kirchl. Fastendisciplin. 1877, and Die Abgabe des Zehnten. In general, cf. Ritschl., Entstehung der Altkath. Kirche, 2 edit. pp. 312 ff. 331 ff. 1 Cor. IX. 9, may be noted).

179

History of Dogma - Volume I

295

Adolf Harnack

A history of Jewish Christianity and its doctrines does not therefore, strictly speaking, belong to the history of dogma, especially as the original distinction between Jewish Christianity and the main body of the Church lay, as regards its principle, not in doctrine, but in policy. But seeing that the opinions of the teachers in this Church regarding Jewish Christianity throw light upon their own stand-point, also that up till about the middle of the second century Jewish Christians were still numerous and undoubtedly formed the great majority of believers in Palestine,414 and finally, that attempts—unsuccessful ones indeed—on the part of Jewish Christianity to bring Gentile Christians under its sway did not cease till about the middle of the third century, a short sketch may be appropriate here.415 414

Justin, Apol. I. 53, Dial. 47; Euseb., H. E. IV. 5; Sulpic. Sev., Hist. Sacr. II. 31; Cyrill, Catech. XIV. 15. Important testimonies in Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius and Jerome. 415 No Jewish Christian writings have been transmitted to us, even from the earliest period; for the Apocalypse of John which describes the Jews as a synagogue of Satan is not a Jewish Christian book (III. 9 especially, shews that the author knows of only one covenant of God, viz., that with the Christians). Jewish Christian sources lie at the basis of our synoptic Gospels, but none of them in their present form is a Jewish Christian writing. The Acts of the Apostles is so little Jewish Christian, its author seemingly so ignorant of Jewish Christianity, at least so unconcerned with regard to it that to him the spiritualised Jewish law, or Judaism as a religion which he connects as closely as possible with Christianity, is a factor already completely detached from the Jewish people (see Overbeck’s Commentar z. Apostelgesch. and his discussion in the Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1872. p. 305 ff.). Measured by the Pauline theology we may indeed, with Overbeck, say of the Gentile Christianity, as represented by the Author of the Acts of the Apostles, that it already has germs of Judaism and represents a falling off from Paulinism; but these expressions are not correct, because they have at least the appearance of making Paulinism the original form of Gentile Christianity. But as this can neither be proved nor believed, the religious attitude of the Author of the Acts of the Apostles must have been a very old one in Christendom. The Judaistic element was not first introduced into Gentile Christianity by the opponents of Paul, who indeed wrought in the national sense, and there is even nothing to lead to the hypothesis that the common Gentile Christian view of the Old Testament and of the law should be conceived as resulting from the efforts of Paul and his opponents, for the consequent effect here would either have been null, or a strengthening of the Jewish Christian thesis. The Jewish element, that is the total acceptance of the Jewish religion sub specie aternitatis et Christi, is simply the original Christianity of the Gentile Christians itself considered as theory. Contrary to his own intention, Paul was compelled to lead his converts to this Christianity, for only for such Christianity was “the time fulfilled” within the empire of the world. The Acts of the Apostles gives eloquent testimony to the pressing difficulties which under such circumstances stand in the way of a historical understanding of the Gentile Christians in view of the work and the theology of Paul. Even the Epistle to the Hebrews is not a Jewish Christian writing; but there is certainly a peculiar state of things connected with this document. For, on the one hand, the author and his readers are free from the law, a spiritual interpretation is given to the Old Testament religion which makes it appear to be glorified and fulfilled in the work of Christ, and there is no mention of any prerogative of the people of Israel. But, on the other hand, because the spiritual interpretation, as in Paul, is here teleological, the author allows a temporary significance to the cultus as literally understood, and therefore by his criticism he conserves the Old Testament religion for the past, while declaring that it was set aside as regards the present by the fulfilment of Christ. The teleology of the author, however, looks at everything only from the point of view of shadow and reality, an antithesis which is at the service of Paul also, but which in his case vanishes behind the antithesis of law and grace. This scheme of thought which is to be traced back to a way of looking at things which arose in Christian Judaism, seeing that it really distinguishes between old and new, stands midway between the conception of the Old Testament religion entertained by Paul, and that of the common Gentile Christian as it is represented by Barnabas. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews undoubtedly knows of a twofold convenant of God. But the two are represented as stages, so that the second is completely based on the first. This view was more likely to be understood by the Gentile Christians than the Pauline, that is, with some seemingly slight changes, to be recognised as their own. But even it at first fell to the ground, and it was only in the conflict with the Marcionites that some Church Fathers advanced to views which seem to be related to those of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Whether the author of this Epistle was a born Jew or a Gentile—in the former case he would far surpass the Apostle Paul in his freedom from the national claims—we cannot, at any rate, recognise in it a document containing a conception which still prizes the Jewish nationality in Christianity, nay, not even a document to prove that such a conception was still dangerous. Consequently, we have no Jewish Christian memorial in the New Testament at all, unless it be in the Pauline Epistles. But as concerns the early Christian literature outside the Canon, the fragments of the great work of Hegesippus are even yet by some investigators claimed for Jewish Christianity. Weizsäcker (Art. “Hegesippus” in Herzog’s R. E. 2 edit.) has shewn how groundless this assumption is. That Hegesippus occupied the common Gentile Christian position is certain from unequivocal testimony of his own. If, as is very improbable, we were obliged to ascribe to him a rejection of Paul, we should have to refer

180

History of Dogma - Volume I

296

297

298

Adolf Harnack

Justin vouches for the existence of Jewish Christians, and distinguishes between those who would force the law even on Gentile Christians and would have no fellowship with such as did not observe it, and those who considered that the law was binding only on people of Jewish birth and did not shrink from fellowship with Gentile Christians who were living without the law. How the latter could observe the law and yet enter into intercourse with those who were not Jews is involved in obscurity, but these he recognises as partakers of the Christian salvation and therefore as Christian brethren, though he declares that there are Christians who do not possess this large-heartedness. He also speaks of Gentile Christians who allowed themselves to be persuaded by Jewish Christians into the observance of the Mosaic law, and confesses that he is not quite sure of the salvation of these. This is all we learn from Justin,416 but it is instructive enough. In the first place, we can see that the question is no longer a burning one: “Justin here represents only the interests of a Gentile Christianity whose stability has been secured.” This has all the more meaning that in the Dialogue Justin has not in view an individual Christian community, or the communities of a province, but speaks as one who surveys the whole situation of Christendom.417 The very fact that Justin has devoted to the whole question only one chapter of a work containing 142, and the magmanimous way in which he speaks, shew that the phenomena in question have no longer any importance for the main body of Christendom. Secondly, it is worthy of notice that Justin distinguishes two tendencies in Jewish Christianity. We observe these two tendencies in the Apostolic age (Presupp. § 3); they had therefore maintained themselves to his time. Finally, we must not overlook the circumstance that he adduces only the ἔννομος πολιτεία, “legal polity,” as characteristic of this Jewish Christianity. He speaks only incidentally of a difference in doctrine, nay, he manifestly presupposes that the διδάγματα Χριστοῦ, “teachings of Christ,” are essentially found among them just as among the Gentile Christians; for he regards the more liberal among them as friends and brethren.418 The fact that even then there were Jewish Christians here and there who sought to spread the ἐν́ νομος πολιτεία among Gentile Christians has been attested by Justin and also by other contemporary

to Euseb. H. E. IV. 29. 5. (Σευηριανοὶ βλασφημοῦντες Παῦλον τὸν ἀπόστολον ἀθετοῦσιν αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐπιστολὰς μηδὲ τὰς πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων καταδεχόμενοι, but probably the Gospels; these Severians therefore, like Marcion, recognised the Gospel of Luke, but rejected the Acts of the Apostles), and Orig. c. Cels. V. 65: (εἰσὶ γὰρ τινες αἱρέσεις τὰς Παύλου ἐπιστολὰς τοῦ ἀποστόλου μὴ προσιέμεναι ὥσπερ Ἐβιωναῖοι ἀμφότεροι καὶ οἱ καλούμενοι ̕Σγκρατηταί). Consequently, our only sources of knowledge of Jewish Christianity in the post-Pauline period are merely the accounts of the Church Fathers and some additional fragments (see the collection of fragments of the Ebionite Gospel and that to the Hebrews in Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra can. rec. fasc. IV. Ed. 2, and in Zahn, l. c. II. p. 642 ff.). We know better, but still very imperfectly, certain forms of the syncretistic Jewish Christianity, from the Philosoph. of Hippolytus and the accounts of Epiphanius, who is certainly nowhere more incoherent than in the delineation of the Jewish Christians, because he could not copy original documents here, but was forced to piece together confused traditions with his own observations. See below on the extensive documents which are even yet, as they stand, treated as records of Jewish Christianity, viz., the Pseudo-Clementines. Of the pieces of writing whose Jewish Christian origin is controverted, in so far as they may be simply Jewish, I say nothing. 416 As to the chief localities where Jewish Christians were found, see Zahn, Kanonsgesch. II. p. 648 ff. 417 Dialogue 47. 418 Yet it should be noted that the Christians who, according to Dial. 48, denied the pre-existence of Christ and held him to be a man are described as Jewish Christians. We should read in the passage in question, as my recent comparison of the Parisian codex shews, ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑμετέρου γένους. Yet Justin did not make this a controversial point of great moment.

181

History of Dogma - Volume I

299

Adolf Harnack

writers.419 But there is no evidence of this propaganda having acquired any great importance. Celsus also knows Christians who desire to live as Jews according to the Mosaic law (V. 61), but he mentions them only once, and otherwise takes no notice of them in his delineation of, and attack on, Christianity. We may perhaps infer that he knew of them only from hearsay, for he simply enumerates them along with the numerous Gnostic sects. Had this keen observer really known them he would hardly have passed them over, even though he had met with only a small number of them.420 Irenæus placed the Ebionites among the heretical schools,421 but we can see from his work that in his day they must have been all but forgotten in the West.422 This was not yet the case in the East. Origen knows of them. He knows also of some who recognise the birth from the Virgin. He is sufficiently intelligent and acquainted with history to judge that the Ebionites are no school, but, as believing Jews, are the descendants of the earliest Christians, in fact he seems to suppose that all converted Jews have at all times observed the law of their fathers. But he is far from judging of them favourably. He regards them as little better than the Jews (Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οἱ ὀλίγῳ διαφέροντες

419

The so-called Barnabas is considerably older than Justin. In his Epistle (4. 6) he has in view Gentile Christians who have been converted by Jewish Christians, when he utters a warning against those who say ὅτι α διαθήκη ἐκείνων (the Jews) καὶ ἡμῶν (ἐστιν). But how great the actual danger was cannot be gathered from the Epistle. Ignatius in two Epistles (ad Magn. 8–10: ad Philad. 6. 9) opposes Jewish Christian intrigues, and characterises them solely from the point of view that they mean to introduce the Jewish observance of the law. He opposes them with a Pauline idea (Magn. 8. 1: εἰ γὰρ μέχρι νῦν κατὰ νόμον, Ἰουδαϊσμὸν ζῶμεν ὁμολογοῦμεν χάριν μὴ εἰληφέναι), as well as with the common Gentile Christian assumption that the prophets themselves had already lived κατὰ Χριστόν. These Judaists must be strictly distinguished from the Gnostics whom Ignatius elsewhere opposes (against Zahn, Ignat. v. Ant. p. 356 f.). The dangers from this Jewish Christianity cannot have been very serious, even if we take Magn. 11. 1, as a phrase. There was an active Jewish community in Philadelphia (Rev. III. 9), and so Jewish Christian plots may have continued longer there. At the first look it seems very promising that in the old dialogue of Aristo of Pella a Hebrew Christian, Jason, is put in opposition to the Alexandrian Jew, Papiscus. But as the history of the little book proves, this Jason must have essentially represented the common Christian and not the Ebionite conception of the Old Testament and its relation to the Gospel, etc.; see my Texte u. Unters. I. 1. 2. p. 115 ff.; I. 3. pp. 115-130. Testimony as to an apostasy to Judaism is occasionally though rarely given; see Serapion in Euseb., H. E. VI. 12, who addresses a book to one Domninus, ἐκπεπτωκότα παρὰ τὸν τοῦ διῶγμοὐ καιρὸν ἀπὸ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ἐπί τὴν Ἰουδαϊκὴν ἐθελοθρησκείαν; see also Acta Pionii, 13. 14. According to Epiphanius, de mens et pond. 14. 15, Acquila, the translator of the Bible, was first a Christian and then a Jew. This account is perhaps derived from Origen, and is probably reliable. Likewise according to Epiphanius (l. c. 17. 18), Theodotion was first a Marcionite and then a Jew. The transition from Marcionitism to Judaism (for extremes meet) is not in itself incredible. 420 It follows from c. Cels. II. 1-3, that Celsus could hardly have known Jewish Christians. 421 Iren. 26. 2: III. 11. 7: III. 15. 1, 21. 1: IV. 33. 4: V. 1. 3. We first find the name Ebionti, the poor, in Irenæus. We are probably entitled to assume that this name was given to the Christians in Jerusalem as early as the Apostolic age, that is, they applied it to themselves (poor in the sense of the prophets and of Christ, fit to be received into the Messianic kingdom). It is very questionable whether we should put any value on Epiph. h. 30. 17. 422 When Irenæus adduces as the points of distinction between the Church and the Ebionites, that besides observing the law and repudiating the Apostle Paul, the latter deny the Divinity of Christ and his birth from the Virgin and reject the New Testament Canon (except the Gospel of Matthew), that only proves that the formation of dogma has made progress in the Church. The less was known of the Ebionites from personal observation, the more confidently they were made out to be heretics who denied the Divinity of Christ and rejected the Canon. The denial of the Divinity of Christ and the birth from the Virgin was, from the end of the second century, regarded as the Ebionite heresy par excellence, and the Ebionites themselves appeared to the Western Christians, who obtained their information solely from the East, to be a school like those of the Gnostics, founded by a scoundrel named Ebion for the purpose of dragging down the person of Jesus to the common level. It is also mentioned incidentally, that this Ebion had commanded the observance of circumcision and the Sabbath; but that is no longer the main thing (see Tertull, de carne 14, 18, 24: de virg. vel. 6: de præscr. 10. 33; Hippol., Syntagma, [Pseudo-Tertull, 11; Philastr. 37; Epiph. h. 30]; Hippol., Philos. VII. 34. The latter passage contains the instructive statement that Jesus by his perfect keeping of the law became the Christ). This attitude of the Western Christians proves that they no longer knew Jewish Christian communities Hence it is all the more strange that Hilgenfeld (Ketzergesch. p. 422 ff.) has in all earnestness endeavoured to revive the Ebion of the Western Church Fathers.

182

History of Dogma - Volume I

300

301

Adolf Harnack

αὐτῶν Ἐβιωναῖοι, “Jews and Ebionites who differ little from them”). Their rejection of Paul destroys the value of their recognition of Jesus as Messiah. They appear only to have assumed Christ’s name, and their literal exposition of the Scripture is meagre and full of error. It is possible that such Jewish Christians may have existed in Alexandria, but it is not certain. Origen knows nothing of an inner development in this Jewish Christianity.423 Even in Palestine, Origen seems to have occupied himself personally with these Jewish Christians, just as little as Eusebius.424 They lived apart by themselves and were not aggressive. Jerome is the last who gives us a clear and certain account of them.425 He, who associated with them, assures us that their attitude was the same as in the second century, only they seem to have made progress in the recognition of the birth from the Virgin and in their more friendly position towards the Church.426 Jerome at one time calls them Ebionites and at another Nazarenes, thereby proving that these names were used synonymously.427 There is not the least ground for distinguishing two clearly marked groups of Jewish Christians, or even for reckoning the distinction of Origen and the Church Fathers to the account of Jewish Christians themselves, so as to describe as Nazarenes those who recognised the birth from the Virgin and who had no wish to compel the Gentile Christians to observe the law, and the others as Ebionites. Apart from syncretistic or Gnostic Jewish Christianity, there is but one group of Jewish Christians holding various shades of opinion, and these from the beginning called themselves Nazarenes as well as Ebionites. From the beginning, likewise, one portion of them was influenced by the existence of a great Gentile Church which did not observe the law. They acknowledged the work of Paul and

423

See Orig. c. Cels. II. 1: V. 61, 65: de princip. IV. 22; hom. in Genes. III. 15 (Opp. II, p. 65): hom. in Jerem. XVII. 12 (III. p. 254): in Matth. T. XVI. 12 (III. p. 494), T. XVII. 12 (III. p. 733); cf. Opp. III. p. 895: hom. in Lc. XVII. (III. p. 952). That a portion of the Ebionites recognised the birth from the Virgin was according to Origen frequently attested. That was partly reckoned to them for righteousness and partly not, because they would not admit the pre-existence of Christ. The name “Ebionites” is interpreted as a nickname given them by the Church “beggarly” in the knowledge of scripture, and particularly of Christology. 424 Eusebius knows no more than Origen (H. E. III. 27) unless we specially credit him with the information that the Ebionites keep along with the Sabbath also the Sunday. What he says of Symmachus, the translator of the Bible, and an Ebionite, is derived from Origen (H. E. VI. 17). The report is interesting, because it declares that Symmachus wrote against Catholic Christianity, especially against the Catholic Gospel of Matthew (about the year 200). But Symmachus is to be classed with the Gnostics, and not with the common type of Jewish Christianity (see below). We have also to thank Eusebius (H. E. III. 5. 3) for the information that the Christians of Jerusalem fled to Pella, in Peræa, before the destruction of that city. In the following period the most important settlements of the Ebionites must have been in the countries east of the Jordan, and in the heart of Syria (see Jul. Afric. in Euseb., H. E. I. 7. 14: Euseb., de loc. hebr. in Lagarde, Onomast. p. 301; Epiph., h. 29. 7: h. 30. 2). This fact explains how the bishops in Jerusalem and the coast towns of Palestine came to see very little of them. There was a Jewish Christian community in Beroea with which Jerome had relations (Jerom., de Vir. inl. 3). 425 Jerome correctly declares (Ep. ad. August. 122. C. 13, Opp. I. p. 746), “(Ebionitæ) credentes in Christo propter hoc solum a patribus anathematizati sunt, quod legis cæremonias Christi evangelio miscuerunt, et sic nova confessa sunt, ut vetera non omitterent.” 426 Ep. ad August. l. c.; Quid dicam de Hebionitis, qui Christianos esse se simulant? usque hodie per totas orientis synagogas inter Judæos (!) hæresis est, que dicitur Minæorum et a Pharisæis nunc usque damnatur, quos vulgo Nazaræos nuncupant, qui credunt in Christum filium dei natum de Virgine Maria et eum dicunt esse, qui sub pontio Pilato passus est et resurrexit, in quem et nos credimus; sed dum volunt et Judæi esse et Christiani, nec Judæi sunt nec Christiani.” The approximation of the Jewish Christian conception to that of the Catholics shews itself also in their exposition of Isaiah IX. 1. f. (see Jerome on the passage). Bert we must not forget that there were such Jewish Christians from the earliest times. It is worthy of note that the name Nazarenes, as applied to Jewish Christians, is found in the Acts of the Apostles XXIV. 5, in the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus, and then first again in Jerome. 427 Zahn, l. c. p. 648 ff. 668 ff. has not convinced me of the contrary, but I confess that Jerome’s style of expression is not everywhere clear.

183

History of Dogma - Volume I

302

303

Adolf Harnack

experienced in a slight degree influences emanating from the great Church.428 But the gulf which separated them from that Church did not thereby become narrower. That gulf was caused by the social and political separation of these Jewish Christians, whatever mental attitude, hostile or friendly, they might take up to the great Church. This Church stalked over them with iron feet, as over a structure which in her opinion was full of contradictions throughout (“Semi-christiani”), and was disconcerted neither by the gospel of these Jewish Christians nor by anything else about them.429 But as the Synagogue also vigorously condemned them, their position up to their extinction was a most tragic one. These Jewish Christians, more than any other Christian party, bore the reproach of Christ. The Gospel, at the time when it was proclaimed among the Jews, was not only law, but theology, and indeed syncretistic theology. On the other hand, the temple service and the sacrificial system had begun to lose their hold in certain influential circles.430 We have pointed out above (Presupp. §§ I. 2. 5) how great were the diversities of Jewish sects, and that there was in the Diaspora, as well as in Palestine itself, a Judaism which, on the one hand, followed ascetic impulses, arid on the other, advanced to a criticism of the religious tradition without giving up the national claims. It may even be said that in theology the boundaries between the orthodox Judaism of the Pharisees and a syncretistic Judaism were of an elastic kind. Although religion, in those circles, seemed to be fixed in its legal aspect, yet on its theological side it was ready to admit very diverse speculations, in which angelic powers especially played a great rôle.431 That introduced into Jewish monotheism an element of differentiation, the results of which were far-reaching. The field was prepared for the formation of syncretistic sects. They present themselves to us on the soil of the earliest Christianity, in the speculations of those Jewish Christian teachers who are opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians, and in the Gnosis of Cerinthus (see above, p. 247). Here cosmological ideas and myths were turned to profit. The idea of God was sublimated by both. In consequence of this, the Old Testament records were subjected to criticism, because they could not in all respects be 428

Zahn, (1. c.) makes a sharp distinction between the Nazarenes, on the one side, who used the Gospel of the Hebrews, acknowledged the With from the Virgin, and in fact the higher Christology to some extent, did not repudiate Paul, etc., and the Ebionites on the other, whom he simply identifies with the Gnostic Jewish Christians, if I am not mistaken. In opposition to this, I think I must adhere to the distinction as given above in the text and in the following: (1) Non-Gnostic, Jewish Christians (Nazarenes, Ebionites), who appeared in various shades, according to their doctrine and attitude to the Gentile Church, and whom, with the Church Fathers, we may appropriately classify as strict or tolerant (exclusive or liberal). (2) Gnostic or syncretistic Judæo-Christians who are also termed Ebionites. 429 This Gospel no doubt greatly interested the scholars of the Catholic Church from Clement of Alexandria onwards. But they have almost all contrived to evade the hard problem which it presented. It may be noted, incidentally, that the Gospel of the Hebrews, to judge from the remains preserved to us, can neither have been the model nor the translation of our Matthew, but a work independent of this, though drawing from the same sources, representing perhaps to some extent an earlier stage of the tradition. Jerome also knew very well that the Gospel of the Hebrews was not the original of the canonical Matthew, but he took care not to correct the old prejudice. Ebionitic conceptions, such as that of the female nature of the Holy Spirit, were of course least likely to convince the Church Fathers. Moreover, the common Jewish Christians hardly possessed a Church theology, because for them Christianity was something entirely different from the doctrine of a school. On the Gospel of the Hebrews, see Handmann (Texte u. Unters V. 3), Resch, Agrapha (1. c. V. 4), and Zahn, l. c. p. 642 ff. 430 We have as yet no history of the sacrificial system and the views as to sacrifice in the Græco-Roman epoch of the Jewish Nation. It is urgently needed. 431 We may remind readers of the assumptions, that the world was created by angels, that the law was given by angels, and similar ones which are found in the theology of the Pharisees. Celsus (in Orig. I. 26: V. 6) asserts generally that the Jews worshipped angels, so does the author of the Prædicatio Petri, as well as the apologist Aristides. Cf. Joël, Blicke in die Religionsgesch. I Abth., a book which is certainly to be used with caution (see Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1881. Coll. 184 ff.).

184

History of Dogma - Volume I

304

Adolf Harnack

reconciled with the universal religion which hovered before men’s minds. This criticism was opposed to the Pauline in so far as it maintained, with the common Jewish Christians and Christendom as a whole, that the genuine Old Testament religion was essentially identical with the Christian. But while those common Jewish Christians drew from this the inference that the whole of the Old Testament must be adhered to in its traditional sense and in all its ordinances, and while the larger Christendom secured for itself the whole of the Old Testament by deviating from the ordinary interpretation, those syncretistic Jewish Christians separated from the Old Testament, as interpolations, whatever did not agree with their purer moral conceptions and borrowed speculations. Thus, in particular, they got rid of the sacrificial ritual and all that was connected with it by putting ablutions in their place. First the profanation, and afterwards the abolition of the temple worship after the destruction of Jerusalem, may have given another new and welcome impulse to this by coming to be regarded as its Divine confirmation (Presupp. § 2). Christianity now appeared as purified Mosaism. In these Jewish Christian undertakings we have undoubtedly before us a series of peculiar attempts to elevate the Old Testament religion into the universal one, under the impression of the person of Jesus; attempts, however, in which the Jewish religion, and not the Jewish people, was to bear the costs by curtailment of its distinctive features. The great inner affinity of these attempts with the Gentile Christian Gnostics has already been set forth. The firm partition wall between them, however, lies in the claim of these Jewish Christians to set forth the pure Old Testament religion, as well as in the national Jewish colouring which the constructed universal religion was always to preserve. This national colouring is shewn in the insistance upon a definite measure of Jewish national ceremonies as necessary to salvation, and in the opposition to the Apostle Paul, which united the Gnostic Judæo-Christians with the common type, those of the strict observance. How the latter were related to the former, we do not know, for the inner relations here are almost completely unknown to us.432 Apart from the false doctrines opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians, and from Cerinthus, this syncretistic Jewish Christianity which aimed at making itself a universal religion meets us in tangible form only in three phenomena:433 in the Elkesaites of Hippolytus and Origen; in the Ebionites with their associates of Epiphanius, sects very closely connected, in fact to be viewed as one party of

432

No reliance can be placed on Jewish sources, or on Jewish scholars, as a rule. What we find in Joël, l. c. I. Abth. p. 101 ff. is instructive. We may mention Grätz, Gnosticismus und Judenthum (Krotoschin, 1846), who has called attention to the Gnostic elements in the Talmud, and dealt with several Jewish Gnostics and Antignostics, as well as with the book of Jezira. Grätz assumes that the four main dogmatic points in the book Jezira, viz., the strict unity of the deity, and, at the same time, the negation of the demiurgic dualism, the creation out of nothing with the negation of matter, the systematic unity of the world and the balancing of opposites, were directed against prevailing Gnostic ideas. 433 We may pass over the false teachers of the Pastoral Epistles, as they cannot be with certainty determined, and the possibility is not excluded that we have here to do with an arbitrary construction; see Holtzman, Pastoralbriefe, p. 150 f.

185

History of Dogma - Volume I

305

306

Adolf Harnack

manifold shades;434 and in the activity of Symmachus.435 We observe here a form of religion as far removed from that of the Old Testament as from the Gospel, subject to strong heathen influences, not Greek, but Asiatic, and scarcely deserving the name “Christian,” because it appeals to a new revelation of God which is to complete that given in Christ. We should take particular note of this in judging of the whole remarkable phenomenon. The question in this Jewish Christianity is not the formation of a philosophic school, but to some extent the establishment of a kind of new religion, that is, the completion of that founded by Christ, undertaken by a particular person basing his claims on a revealed book which was delivered to him from heaven. This book which was to form the complement of the Gospel, possessed, from the third century, importance for all sections of Jewish Christians so far as they, in the phraseology of Epiphanius, were not Nazarenes.436 The whole system reminds one of Samaritan Christian syncretism;437 but we must be on our guard against identifying the two phenomena, or even regarding them as similar. These Elkesaite Jewish Christians held fast by the belief that Jesus was the Son of God, and saw in the “book” a revelation which proceeded from him. They did not offer any worship to their founder,438 that is, to the receiver of the “book,” and they were, as will be shewn, the most ardent opponents of Simonianism.439 Alcibiades of Apamea, one of their disciples, came from the East to Rome about 220-230, and endeavoured to spread the doctrines of the sect in the Roman Church. He found the soil prepared, inasmuch as he could announce from the “book” forgiveness of sins to all sinful Christians, even 434

Orig. in Euseb. VI. 38; Hippol., Philos. IX. 13 ff., X. 29; Epiph., h. 30, also h. 19. 53; Method., Conviv. VIII. to. From the confused account of Epiphanius, who called the common Jewish Christians Nazarenes, the Gnostic type Ebionites and Sampsmi, and their Jewish forerunners Osseni, we may conclude, that in many regions where there were Jewish Christians they yielded to the propaganda of the Elkesaite doctrines, and that in the fourth century there was no other syncretistic Jewish Christianity besides the various shades of Elkesaites. 435 I formerly reckoned Symmachus, the translator of the Bible, among the common Jewish Christians; but the statements of Victorinus Rhetor on Gal. I. 19. II. 26 (Migne T. VIII. Col. 1155. 1162) shew that he has a close affinity with the Pseudo-Clementines, and is also to be classed with the Elkesaite Alcibiades. “Nam Jacobum apostolum Symmachiani faciunt quasi duodecimum et hunc secuntur, qui ad dominum nostrum Jesum Christum adjungunt Judaismi observationem, quamquam etiam Jesum Christum fatentur; dicunt enim eum ipsum Adam esse et esse animam generalem, et aliæ hujusmodi blasphemiæ.” The account given by Eusebius, H. E. VI. 17 (probably on the authority of Origen, see also Demonstr. VII. 1) is important: Τῶν γε μὲν ἑρμηχευτῶν αὐτῶν δὴ τούτων ἰστέον, Ἐβιωναίον τὸν Σύμμαχον γεγονέναι . . . . καὶ ὑπομνήματα δὲ τοῦ Συμμάχου εἰσέτι νῦν φερεται, ἐν οἶς δοκεῖ πρὸς τὸ κατὺ Ματθαῖον ἀποτεινόμενος εὐαγγέλιον τὴν δεδηλωμένην αἱρ́ εσιν κρατύνειν. Symmachus therefore adopted an aggressive attitude towards the great Church, and hence we may probably class him with Alcibiades who lived a little later. Common Jewish Christianity was no longer aggressive in the second century. 436 Wellhausen (l. c. Part III. p. 206) supposes that Elkesai is equivalent to Alexius. That the receiver of the “book” was a historical person is manifest from Epiphanius’ account of his descendants (h. 19 2: 53. 1). From Hipp. Philosoph. IX. 16, p. 468, it is certainly probable, though not certain, that the book was produced by the unknown author as early as the time of Trajan. On the other hand, the existence of the sect itself can be proved only at the beginning of the third century, and therefore we have the possibility of an ante-dating of the “book”. This seems to have been Origen’s opinion. 437 Epiph. (h. 53. 1) says of the Elkesaites: οὐτ ́ ε χριστιανοὶ ὑπάρχοντει οὐτ́ ε Ἰουδαῖοι οὐτ́ ε Ἑλ ́ ληνες, ἀλλὰ μέσον ἀπλῶς ὑπάρχοντες. He pronounces a similar judgment as to the Samaritan sects (Simonians), and expressly (h. 30. 1) connects the Elkesaites with them. 438 The worship paid to the descendants of this Elkesai, spoken of by Epiphanius, does not, if we allow for exaggerations, go beyond the measure of honour which was regularly paid to the descendants of prophets and men of God in the East. Cf. the respect enjoyed by the blood relations of Jesus and Mohammed. 439 It the “book” really originated in the time of Trajan, then its production keeps within the frame-work of common Christianity, for at that time there were appearing everywhere in Christendom revealed books which contained new instructions and communications of grace. The reader may be reminded, for example, of the Shepherd of Hermas. When the sect declared that the “book” was delivered to Elkesai by a male and a female angel, each as large as a mountain, that these angels were the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, etc., we have, apart from the fantastic colouring, nothing extraordinary.

186

History of Dogma - Volume I

307

308

Adolf Harnack

the grossest transgressors, and such forgiveness was very much needed. Hippolytus opposed him, and had an opportunity of seeing the book and becoming acquainted with its contents. From his account and that of Origen we gather the following: (1) The sect is a Jewish Christian one, for it requires the νόμου πολιτεία (circumcision and the keeping of the Sabbath), and repudiates the Apostle Paul; but it criticises the Old Testament and rejects a part of it. (2) The objects of its faith are the “Great and most High God,” the Son of God (the “Great King”), and the Holy Spirit (thought of as female); Son and Spirit appear as angelic powers. Considered outwardly, and according to his birth, Christ is a mere man, but with this peculiarity, that he has already been frequently born and manifested (πολλάκις γεννηθέντα καὶ γεννώμενον πεφηνέναι καὶ φύεσθαι, ἀλλάσσοντα γενέσεις καὶ μετενσωματούμενον, cf. the testimony of Victorinus as to Symmachus). From the statements of Hippolytus we cannot be sure whether he was identified with the Son of God,440 at any rate the assumption of repeated births of Christ shews how completely Christianity was meant to be identified with what was supposed to be the pure Old Testament religion. (3) The “book” proclaimed a new forgiveness of sin, which, on condition of faith in the “book” and a real change of mind, was to be bestowed on every one, through the medium of washings, accompanied by definite prayers which are strictly prescribed. In these prayers appear peculiar Semitic speculations about nature (“the seven witnesses: heaven, water, the holy spirits, the angels of prayer, oil, salt, earth”). The old Jewish way of thinking appears in the assumption that all kinds of sickness and misfortune are punishments for sin, and that these penalties must therefore be removed by atonement. The book contains also astrological and geometrical speculations in a religious garb. The main thing, however, was the possibility of a forgiveness of sin, ever requiring to be repeated, though Hippolytus himself was unable to point to any gross laxity. Still, the appearance of this sect represents the attempt to make the religion of Christian Judaism palatable to the world. The possibility of repeated forgiveness of sin, the speculations about numbers, elements, and stars, the halo of mystery, the adaptation to the forms of worship employed in the “mysteries,” are worldly means of attraction which shew that this Jewish Christianity was subject to the process of acute secularization. The Jewish mode of life was to be adopted in return for these concessions. Yet its success in the West was of small extent and short-lived. Epiphanius confirms all these features, and adds a series of new ones. In his description, the new forgiveness of sin is not so prominent as in that of Hippolytus, but it is there. From the account of Epiphanius we can see that these syncretistic Judæo-Christian sects were at first strictly ascetic and rejected marriage as well as the eating of flesh, but that they gradually became more lax. We learn here that the whole sacrificial service was removed from the Old Testament by the Elkesaites and declared to be non-Divine, that is non-Mosaic, and that fire was consequently regarded as the impure

440

It may be assumed from Philos. X. 29 that, in the opinion of Hyppolytus, the Elkesaites identified the Christ from above with the Son of God, and assumed that this Christ appeared on earth in changing and purely human forms, and will appear again (αὐτὸν δὲ μεταγγιζόμενον ἐν σώμασι πολλοῖς πολλάκις καὶ νῦν δὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὁμοίως ποτὲ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, ποτὲ δὲ πνεῦμα γεγονέναι, ποτὲ δὲ ἐκ παρθένου, ποτὲ δὲ οὔ καὶ τοῦτον δὲ μετέπειτα ἀεὶ ἐν σώματι μεταγγίζεσθαι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς κατὰ καιροὺς δείκνυσθαι). As the Elkesaites (see the account by Epiphanius) traced back the incarnations of Christ to Adam, and not merely to Abraham, we may see in this view of history the attempt to transform Mosaism into the universal religion. But the Pharisaic theology had already begun with these Adam speculations, which are always a sign that the religion in Judaism is feeling its limits too narrow. The Jews in Alexandria were also acquainted with these speculations.

187

History of Dogma - Volume I

309

310

Adolf Harnack

and dangerous element, and water as the good one.441 We learn further, that these sects acknowledged no prophets and men of God between Aaron and Christ, and that they completely adapted the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew to their own views.442 In addition to this book, however, (the Gospel of the 12 Apostles), other writings, such as Περίοδοι Πέτρου διὰ Κλήμεντος Ἀναβαθμοὶ Ἰακώβου and similar histories of Apostles, were held in esteem by them. In these writings the Apostles were represented as zealous ascetics, and, above all, as vegetarians, while the Apostle Paul was most bitterly opposed. They called him a Tarsene, said he was a Greek, and heaped on him gross abuse. Epiphanius also dwells strongly upon their Jewish mode of life (circumcision, Sabbath), as well as their daily washings,443 and gives some information about the constitution and form of worship of these sects (use of baptism: Lord’s Supper with bread and water). Finally, Epiphanius gives particulars about their Christology. On this point there were differences of opinion, and these differences prove that there was no Christological dogma. As among the common Jewish Christians, the birth of Jesus from the Virgin was a matter of dispute. Further, some identified Christ with Adam, others saw in him a heavenly being (ἄνωθεν ὄν), a spiritual being, who was created before all, who was higher than all angels and Lord of all things, but who chose for himself the upper world; yet this Christ from above came down to this lower world as often as he pleased. He came in Adam, he appeared in human form to the patriarchs, and at last appeared on earth as a man with the body of Adam, suffered, etc. Others again, as it appears, would have nothing to do with these speculations, but stood by the belief that Jesus was the man chosen by God, on whom, on account of his virtue, the Holy Spirit—ὃπερ ἐστίν ὁ Χριστός—descended at the baptism.444 (Epiph. h. 30. 3, 14, 16). The account which Epiphanius gives of the doctrine held by these Jewish Christians regarding the Devil, is specially instructive (h. 30. 16): Δύο δὲ τινας συνιστῶσιν ἐκ θεοῦ τεταγμένους, ἑν́ α μὲν τὸν Χριστὸν, ἑν́ α δὲ τὸν διάβολον. καὶ τὸν μὲν Χριστὸν λέγουσι τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος εἰληφέναι τὸν κλῆρον, τὸν δὲ διάβολον τοῦτον πεπιστεῦσθαι ὀν αἰῶνα, ἐκ προσταγῆς δῆθεν τοῦ παντοκράτορος κατὰ αἰτ́ ησιν ἑκατέρων αὑτῶν. Here we have a very old Semitico-Hebraic idea preserved in a very striking way, and therefore we may probably assume that in other respects also, these Gnostic Ebionites preserved that which was ancient. Whether they did so in their criticism of the Old Testament, is a point on which we must not pronounce judgment. We might conclude by referring to the fact that this syncretistic Jewish Christianity, apart from a well-known missionary effort at Rome, was confined to Palestine and the neighbouring countries, and might consider it proved that this movement had no effect on the history and development of

441

In the Gospel of these Jewish Christians Jesus is made to say (Epiph. h. 30. 16) ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὰς θυσιας, καὶ ἐαν ̀ μὴ ταύσησθε τοῦ θύεὶν, οὐ παύσεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἡ ὁργὴ. We see the essential progress of this Jewish Christianity within Judaism in the opposition in principle to the whole sacrificial service (vid. also Epiph., h. 19. 3). 442 On this new Gospel see Zahn, Kanongesch. II. p. 724. 443 It is incorrect to suppose that the lustrations were meant to take the place of baptism, or were conceived by these Jewish Christians as repeated baptisms. Their effect was certainly equal to that of baptism. But it is nowhere hinted in our authorities that they were on that account made equivalent to the regular baptism. 444 The characteristic here, as in the Gentile Christian Gnosis, is the division of the person of Jesus into a more or less indifferent medium, and into the Christ. Here the factor constituting his personality could sometimes be placed in that medium, and sometimes in the Christ spirit, and thus contradictory formulæ could not but arise. It is therefore easy to conceive how Epiphanius reproaches these Jewish Christians with a denial, sometimes of the Divinity, and sometimes of the humanity of Christ (see h. 30 14).

188

History of Dogma - Volume I

311

Adolf Harnack

Catholicism445 were it not for two voluminous writings which still continue to be regarded as monuments of the earliest epoch of syncretistic Jewish Christianity. Not only did Baur suppose that he could prove his hypothesis about the origin of Catholicism by the help of these writings, but the attempt has recently been made on the basis of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, for these are the writings in question, to go still further and claim for Jewish Christianity the glory of having developed by itself the whole doctrine, worship and constitution of Catholicism, and of having transmitted it to Gentile Christianity as a finished product which only required to be divested of a few Jewish husks.446 It is therefore necessary to subject these writings to a brief examination. Every-thing depends on the time of their origin, and the tendencies they follow. But these are just the two questions that are still unanswered. Without depreciating those worthy men who have earnestly occupied themselves with the Pseudo-Clementines,447 it may be asserted, that in this region everything is as yet in darkness, especially as no agreement has been reached even in the question of their composition. No doubt such a result appears to have been pretty nearly arrived at as far as the time of composition is concerned, but that estimate (150-170, or the latter half of the second century) not only awakens the greatest suspicion, but can be proved to be wrong. The importance of the question for the history of dogma does not permit the historian to set it aside, while, on the other hand, the compass of a manual does not allow us to enter into an exhaustive investigation. The only course open in such circumstances is briefly to define one’s own position. 1. The Recognitions and Homilies, in the form in which we have them, do not belong to the second century, but at the very earliest to the first half of the third. There is nothing, however, to prevent our putting them a few decades later.448 445

This syncretistic Judaism had indeed a significance for the history of the world, not, however, in the history of Christianity, but for the origin of Islam. Islam, as a religious system, is based partly on syncretistic Judaism (including the Zabians, so enigmatic in their origin), and, without questioning Mohammed’s originality, can only be historically understood by taking this into account. I have endeavoured to establish this hypothesis in a lecture printed in MS. form, 1877. Cf. now the conclusive proofs in Wellhausen, 1. c. Part III. p. 197-212. On the Mandeans, see Brandt, Die Mandäische Religion, 1889; (also Wellhausen in d. deutschen Lit. Ztg., 1890 No. I. Lagarde i. d. Gött. Gel. Anz., 1890, No. 10). 446 See Bestmann, Gesch. der Christ]. Sitte, Bd. II. 1 Part: Die judenchristliche Sitte, 1883; also, Theol. Lit. Ztg., 1883. Col. 269 ff. The same author, Der Ursprung der Katholischen Christenthums und des Islams, 1884; also Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1884, Col. 291 ff. 447 See Schliemann, Die Clementinen, etc., 1844; Hilgenfeld, Die Clementinischen Recogn. u. Homil, 1848; Ritschl, in d. Allg. Monatschrift f. Wissensch. u. Litt., 1852. Uhlhorn, Die Homil. u. Recogn., 1854, Lehmann, Die Clement. Schriften, 1869; Lipsius, in d. Protest. K. Ztg., 1869, p. 477 ff.; Quellen der Romische Petrussage, 1872. Uhlhorn, in Herzog’s R. Encykl. (Clementinen) 2 Edit. III. p. 286, admits: “There can be no doubt that the Clementine question still requires further discussion. It can hardly make any progress worth mentioning until we have collected better the material, and especially till we have got a corrected edition with an exhaustive commentary. The theory of the genesis, contents and aim of the pseudo-Clementine writings unfolded by Renan (Orig. T. VII. p. 74-l01) is essentially identical with that of German scholars. Langen (die Clemensromane, 1890) has set up very bold hypotheses, which are based on the assumption that Jewish Christianity was an important church factor in the second century, and that the pseudo-Clementines are comparatively old writings. 448 There is no external evidence for placing the pseudo-Clementine writings in the second century. The oldest witness is Origen (IV. p. 401, Lommatzsch); but the quotation: “Quoniam opera bona, quæ fiunt ab infidelibus, in hoc sæculo its prosunt,” etc., is not found in our Clementines, so that Origen appears to have used a still older version. The internal evidence all points to the third century (canon, composition, theological attitude, etc.). Moreover, Zahn, (Gött. Gel. Anz. 1876. No. 45) and Lagarde have declared themselves in favour of this date; while Lipsius (Apokr. Apostelgesch. II. 1) and Weingarten (Zeittafeln, 3 Edit. p. 23) have recently expressed the same opinion. The Homilies presuppose (1) Marcion’s Antitheses, (2) Apelles’ Syllogisms, (3) perhaps Callistus’ edict about penance (see III. 70) and writings of Hippolytus (see also the expression ἐπὶσκοπος ἐπισκόπων. Clem. ep. ad Jacob I., which is first found in Tertull., de pudic. I.). (4) The most highly developed form of polemic against heathen mythology. (5) The complete development of church apologetics, as well as the conviction that Christianity is identical with correct and absolute knowledge. They further presuppose a time when there was a lull in the persecution of Christians, for

189

History of Dogma - Volume I

312

Adolf Harnack

2. They were not composed in their present form by heretical Christians, but most probably by Catholics. Nor do they aim at forming a theological system,449 or spreading the views of a sect. Their primary object is to oppose Greek polytheism, immoral mythology, and false philosophy, and thus to promote edification.450 3. In describing the authors as Catholic, we do not mean that they were adherents of the theology of Irenæus or Origen. The instructive point here, rather, is that they had as yet no fixed theology, and therefore could without hesitation regard and use all possible material as means of edification. In like manner, they had no fixed conception of the Apostolic age, and could therefore appropriate motley and dangerous material. Such Christians, highly educated and correctly trained too, were still to be found, not only in the third century, but even later. But the authors do not seem to have been free from a bias, inasmuch as they did not favour the Catholic, that is the Alexandrian, apologetic theology which was in process of formation 4. The description of the Pseudo-Clementine writings, naturally derived from their very form, as “edifying, didactic romances for the refutation of paganism,” is not inconsistent with the idea that the authors at the same time did their utmost to oppose heretical phenomena, especially the Marcionite church and Apelles, together with heresy and heathenism in general, as represented by Simon Magus.

313

5. The objectionable materials which the authors made use of were edifying for them, because of the position assigned therein to Peter, because of the ascetic and mysterious elements they contained, and the opposition offered to Simon, etc. The offensive features, so far as they were still contained in these sources, had already become unintelligible and harmless. They were partly conserved as such and partly removed. 6. The authors are to be sought for perhaps in Rome, perhaps in Syria, perhaps in both places, certainly not in Alexandria. 7. The main ideas are: (1) The monarchy of God. (2) the syzygies (weak and strong). (3) Prophecy (the true Prophet). (4) Stoical rationalism, belief in providence, good works, φιλανθρωπία, etc. = Mosaism. The Homilies are completely saturated with stoicism, both in their ethical and metaphysical systems, and are opposed to Platonism, though Plato is quoted in Hom. XV. 8, as Ἑλλήνων τοφός τις (a wise man of the Greeks). In addition to these ideas we have also a strong hierarchical tendency.

the Emperor, though pretty often referred to, is never spoken of as a persecutor, and when the cultured heathen world was entirely disposed in favour of a eclectic monotheism. Moreover, the remarkable Christological statement in Hom. XVI. 15. 16. points to the third century, in fact probably even presupposes the theology of Origen; Cf. the sentence: τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ μή γεγεννῆσθαι ἐστιν, ὑιοῦ δὲ τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι λεννητὸν δὲ ἀγεννήτῳ ἤ καὶ αὐτυγεννήτῳ οὐ συνκρίνεται. Finally, the decided repudiation of the awakening of Christian faith by visions and dreams, and the polemic against these is also no doubt of importance for determining the date; see XVII. 14-19. Peter says, § 18: τὸ ἀδιδάκτως ἄνευ ὀπτασίας καὶ ὀνείρων μαθεῖν ἀποκάλυψίς ἐστιν, he had already learned that at his confession (Matt. XVI). The question, ἐί τις δἰ ὀπτασίαν πρὸς διδασκαλίαν σοφισθῆναι δύναται, is answered in the negative, § 19. 449 This is also acknowledged in Koffmane, Die Gnosis, etc., p. 33. 450 The Homilies, as we have them, are mainly composed of the speeches of Peter and others. These speeches oppose polytheism, mythology and the doctrine of demons, and advocate monotheism, ascetic morality and rationalism. The polemic against Simon Magus almost appears as a mere accessory.

190

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

The material which the authors made use of was in great part derived from syncretistic Jewish Christian tradition, in other words, those histories of the Apostles were here utilised which Epiphanius reports to have been used by the Ebionites (see above). It is not probable, however, that these writings in their original form were in the hands of the narrators; the likelihood is that they made use of them in revised forms. 8. It must be reserved for an accurate investigation to ascertain whether those modified versions which betray clear marks of Hellenic origin were made within syncretistic Judaism itself, or whether they are to be traced back to Catholic writers. In either case, they should not be placed earlier than about the beginning of the third century, but in all probability one or two generations later still.

314

315

9. If we adopt the first assumption, it is most natural to think of that propaganda which, according to the testimony of Hippolytus and Origen, Jewish Christianity attempted in Rome in the age of Caracalla and Heliogabalus, through the medium of the Syrian, Alcibiades. This coincides with the last great advance of Syrian cults into the west, and is at the same time the only one known to us historically. But it is further pretty generally admitted that the immediate sources of the Pseudo-Clementines already presuppose the existence of Elkesaite Christianity. We should accordingly have to assume that in the West this Christianity made greater concessions to the prevailing type, that it gave up circumcision and accommodated itself to the Church system of Gentile Christianity, at the same time withdrawing its polemic against Paul. 10. Meanwhile the existence of such a Jewish Christianity is not as yet proved, and therefore we must reckon with the possibility that the remodelled form of the Jewish Christian sources, already found in existence by the revisers of the Pseudo-Clementine Romances, was solely a Catholic literary product. In this assumption, which commends itself both as regards the aim of the composition and its presupposed conditions, we must remember that, from the third century onwards, Catholic writers systematically corrected, and to a great extent reconstructed, the heretical histories which were in circulation in the churches as interesting reading, and that the extent and degree of this reconstruction varied exceedingly, according to the theological and historical insight of the writer. The identifying of pure Mosaism with Christianity was in itself by no means offensive when there was no further question of circumcision. The clear distinction between the ceremonial and moral parts of the Old Testament, could no longer prove an offence after the great struggle with Gnosticism.451 The strong insistance upon the unity of God, and the rejection of the doctrine of the Logos, were by no means uncommon in the beginning of the third century; and in the speculations about Adam and Christ, in the views about God and the world and such like, as set before us in the immediate sources of the Romances, the correct and edifying elements must have seemed to outweigh the objectionable. At any rate, the historian who, until further advised, denies the existence of a Jewish Christianity composed of the most contradictory elements, lacking circumcision and national

451

This distinction can also be shewn elsewhere in the Church of the third century. But I confess I do not know how Catholic circles got over the fact that, for example, in the third book of the Homilies many passages of the old Testament are simply characterised as untrue, immoral and lying. Here the Homilies remind one strongly of the Syllogisms of Apelles, the author of which, in other respects, opposed them in the interest of his doctrine of creating angels. In some passages the Christianity of the Homilies really looks like a syncretism composed of the common Christianity, the Jewish Christian Gnosticism, and the criticism of Apelles. Hom. VIII. 6-8 is also highly objectionable.

191

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

hopes, and bearing marks of Catholic and therefore of Hellenic influence, judges more prudently than he who asserts, solely on the basis of Romances which are accompanied by no tradition and have never been the objects of assault, the existence of a Jewish Christianity accommodating itself to Catholicism which is entirely unattested. 11. Be that as it may, it may at least be regarded as certain that the Pseudo-Clementines contribute absolutely nothing to our knowledge of the origin of the Catholic Church and doctrine, as they shew at best in their immediate sources a Jewish Christianity strongly influenced by Catholicism and Hellenism.

316

12. They must be used with great caution even in seeking to determine the tendencies and inner history of syncretistic Jewish Christianity. It cannot be made out with certainty, how far back the first sources of the Pseudo-Clementines date, or what their original form and tendency were. As to the first point, it has indeed been said that Justin, nay, even the author of the Acts of the Apostles, presupposes them, and that the Catholic tradition of Peter in Rome and of Simon Magus are dependent on them (as is still held by Lipsius); but there is so little proof of this adduced that in Christian literature up to the end of the second century (Hegesippus?) we can only discover very uncertain traces of acquaintance with Jewish Christian historical narrative. Such indications can only be found to any considerable extent in the third century, and I do not mean to deny that the contents of the Jewish Christian histories of the Apostles contributed materially to the formation of the ecclesiastical legends about Peter. As is shewn in the Pseudo-Clementines, these histories of the Apostles especially opposed Simon Magus and his adherents (the new Samaritan attempt at a universal religion), and placed the authority of the Apostle Peter against them. But they also opposed the Apostle Paul, and seem to have transferred Simonian features to Paul, and Pauline features to Simon. Yet it is also possible that the Pauline traits found in the magician were the outcome of the redaction, in so far as the whole polemic against Paul is here struck out, though certain parts of it have been woven into the polemic against Simon. But probably the Pauline features of the magician are merely an appearance. The Pseudo-Clementines may to some extent be used, though with caution, in determining the doctrines of syncretistic Jewish Christianity. In connection with this we must take what Epiphanius says as our standard. The Pantheistic and Stoic elements which are found here and there must of course be eliminated. But the theory of the genesis of the world from a change in God himself (that is from a προβολή), the assumption that all things emanated from God in antitheses (Son of God—Devil; heaven—earth; male—female; male and female prophecy), nay, that these antitheses are found in God himself (goodness, to which corresponds the Son of God—punitive justice, to which corresponds the Devil), the speculations about the elements which have proceeded from the one substance, the ignoring of freedom in the question about the origin of evil, the strict adherence to the unity and absolute causality of God, in spite of the dualism, and in spite of the lofty predicates applied to the Son of God—all this plainly bears the Semitic Jewish stamp. We must here content ourselves with these indications. They were meant to set forth briefly the reasons which forbid our assigning to syncretistic Jewish Christianity, on the basis of the Pseudo-Clementines, a place in the history of the genesis of the Catholic Church and its doctrine.

192

History of Dogma - Volume I

317

Adolf Harnack

Bigg, The Clementine Homilies (Studia Biblica et Eccles. II., p. 157 ff.), has propounded the hypothesis that the Homilies are an Ebionitic revision of an older Catholic original (see p. 184: “The Homilies as we have it, is a recast of an orthodox work by a highly unorthodox editor.” P. 175: “The Homilies are surely the work of a Catholic convert to Ebionitism, who thought he saw in the doctrine of the two powers the only tenable answer to Gnosticism. We can separate his Catholicism from his Ebionitism just as surely as his Stoicism”). This is the opposite of the view expressed by me in the text. I consider Bigg’s hypothesis well worth examining, and at first sight not improbable; but I am not able to enter into it here.

318

APPENDIX I. On the Conception of Pre-existence. ON account of the importance of the question, we may be here permitted to amplify a few hints given in Chap. II., § 4, and elsewhere, and to draw a clearer distinction between the Jewish and Hellenic conceptions of pre-existence. According to the theory held by the ancient Jews and by the whole of the Semitic nations, everything of real value that from time to time appears on earth has its existence in heaven. In other words, it exists with God, that is God possesses a knowledge of it; and for that reason it has a real being. But it exists beforehand with God in the same way as it appears on earth, that is with all the material attributes belonging to its essence. Its manifestation on earth is merely a transition from concealment to publicity (φανεροῦσθαι). In becoming visible to the senses, the object in question assumes no attribute that it did not already possess with God. Hence its material nature is by no means an inadequate expression of it, nor is it a second nature added to the first. The truth rather is that what was in heaven before is now revealing itself upon earth, without any sort of alteration taking place in the process. There is no assumptio naturæ novæ, and no change or mixture. The old Jewish theory of pre-existence is founded on the religious idea of the omniscience and omni-potence of God, that God to whom the events of history do not come as a surprise, but who guides their course. As the whole history of the world and the destiny of each individual are recorded on his tablets or books, so also each thing is ever present before him. The decisive contrast is between God and the creature. In designating the latter as “foreknown” by God, the primary idea is not to ennoble the creature, but rather to bring to light the wisdom and power of God. The ennobling of created things by attributing to them a pre-existence is a secondary result (see below). 319

According to the Hellenic conception, which has become associated with Platonism, the idea of pre-existence is independent of the idea of God; it is based on the conception of the contrast between spirit and matter, between the infinite and finite, found in the cosmos itself. In the case of all spiritual beings, life in the body or flesh is at bottom an inadequate and unsuitable condition, for the spirit is eternal, the flesh perishable. But the pre-temporal existence, which was only a doubtful assumption as regards ordinary spirits, was a matter of certainty in the case of the higher and purer ones. They

193

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

lived in an upper world long before this earth was created, and they lived there as spirits without the “polluted garment of the flesh.” Now if they resolved for some reason or other to appear in this finite world, they cannot simply become visible, for they have no “visible form.” They must rather “assume flesh,” whether they throw it about them as a covering, or really make it their own by a process of transformation or mixture. In all cases—and here the speculation gave rise to the most exciting problems—the body is to them something inadequate which they cannot appropriate without adopting certain measures of precaution, but this process may indeed pass through all stages, from a mere seeming appropriation to complete union. The characteristics of the Greek ideas of pre-existence may consequently be thus expressed. First, the objects in question to which pre-existence is ascribed are meant to be ennobled by this attribute. Secondly, these ideas have no relation to God. Thirdly, the material appearance is regarded as something inadequate. Fourthly, speculations about phantasma, assumptio naturæ humanæ, transmutatio, mixtura, duæ naturæ, etc., were necessarily associated with these notions. We see that these two conceptions are as wide apart as the poles. The first has a religious origin, the second a cosmological and psychological; the first glorifies God, the second the created spirit. 320

However, not only does a certain relationship in point of form exist between these speculations, but the Jewish conception is also found in a shape which seems to approximate still more to the Greek one. Earthly occurrences and objects are not only regarded as “foreknown” by God before being seen in this world, but the latter manifestation is frequently considered as the copy of the existence and nature which they possess in heaven, and which remains unalterably the same, whether they appear upon earth or not. That which is before God experiences no change. As the destinies of the world are recorded in the books, and God reads them there, it being at the same time a matter of indifference, as regards this knowledge of his, when and how they are accomplished upon earth, so the Tabernacle and its furniture, the Temple, Jerusalem, etc., are before God and continue to exist before him in heaven, even during their appearance on earth and after it. This conception seems really to have been the oldest one. Moses is to fashion the Temple and its furniture according to the pattern he saw on the Mount (Exod. XXV. 9. 40: XXVI. 30: XXVII. 8: Num. VIII. 4). The Temple and Jerusalem exist in heaven, and they are to be distinguished from the earthly Temple and the earthly Jerusalem; yet the ideas of a φανεροῦσθαι of the thing which is in heaven and of its copy appearing on earth, shade into one another and are not always clearly separated. The classing of things as original and copy was at first no more meant to glorify them than was the conception of a pre-existence they possessed within the knowledge of God. But since the view which in theory was true of everything earthly, was, as is naturally to be expected, applied in practice to nothing but valuable objects—for things common and ever recurring give no impulse to such speculations—the objects thus contemplated were ennobled, because they were raised above the multitude of the commonplace. At the same time the theory of original and copy could not fail to become a starting point for new speculations, as soon as the contrast between the spiritual and material began to assume importance among the Jewish people. 194

History of Dogma - Volume I

321

Adolf Harnack

That took place under the influence of the Greek spirit; and was perhaps also the simultaneous result of an intellectual or moral development which arose independently of that spirit. Accordingly, a highly important advance in the old ideas of pre-existence appeared in the Jewish theological literature belonging to the time of the Maccabees and the following decades. To begin with, these conceptions are now applied to persons, which, so far as I know, was not the case before this (individualism). Secondly, the old distinction of original and copy is now interpreted to mean that the copy is the inferior and more imperfect, that in the present æon of the transient it cannot be equivalent to the original, and that we must therefore look forward to the time when the original itself will make its appearance, (contrast of the material and finite and the spiritual). With regard to the first point, we have not only to consider passages in Apocalypses and other writings in which pre-existence is attributed to Moses, the patriarchs, etc., (see above, p. 102), but we must, above all, bear in mind utterances like Ps. CXXXIX. 15, 16. The individual saint soars upward to the thought that the days of his life are in the book of God, and that he himself was before God, whilst he was still unperfect. But, and this must not be overlooked, it was not merely his spiritual part that was before God, for there is not the remotest idea of such a distinction, but the whole man, although he is ‫בָּשָׂר‬.

322

As regards the second point, the distinction between a heavenly and an earthly Jerusalem, a heavenly and an earthly Temple, etc., is sufficiently known from the Apocalypses and the New Testament. But the important consideration is that the sacred things of earth were regarded as objects of less value, instalments, as it were, pending the fulfilment of the whole promise. The desecration and subsequent destruction of sacred things must have greatly strengthened this idea. The hope of the heavenly Jerusalem comforted men for the desecration or loss of the earthly one. But this gave at the same time the most powerful impulse to reflect whether it was not an essential feature of this temporal state, that everything high and holy in it could only appear in a meagre and inadequate form. Thus the transition to Greek ideas was brought about. The fulness of the time had come when the old Jewish ideas, with a slightly mythological colouring, could amalgamate with the ideal creations of Hellenic philosophers. These, however, are also the general conditions which gave rise to the earliest Jewish speculations about a personal Messiah, except that, in the case of the Messianic ideas within Judaism itself, the adoption of specifically Greek thoughts, so far as I am able to see, cannot be made out. Most Jews, as Trypho testifies in Justin’s Dialogue 49, conceived the Messiah as a man. We may indeed go a step further and say that no Jew at bottom imagined him otherwise; for even those who attached ideas of pre-existence to him, and gave the Messiah a supernatural background, never advanced to speculations about assumption of the flesh, incarnation, two natures and the like. They only transferred in a specific manner to the Messiah the old idea of pre-terrestrial existence with God, universally current among the Jews. Before the creation of the world the Messiah was hidden with God, and, when the time is fulfilled, he makes his appearance. This is neither an incarnation nor a humiliation, but he appears on earth as he exists before God, viz., as a mighty and just king, equipped with all gifts. The writings in which this thought appears most clearly are the Apocalypse of Enoch (Book of Similitudes, Chap. 46-49) and the Apocalypse of Esra (Chap. 12-14). Support

195

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

to this idea, if anything more of the kind had been required, was lent by passages like Daniel VII. 13 f. and Micah, V. 1. Nowhere do we find in Jewish writings a conception which advances beyond the notion that the Messiah is the man who is with God in heaven; and who will make his appearance at his own time. We are merely entitled to say that, as the same idea was not applied to all persons with the same certainty, it was almost unavoidable that men’s minds should have been led to designate the Messiah as the man from heaven. This thought was adopted by Paul (see below), but I know of no Jewish writing which gave clear expression to it. 323

324

Jesus Christ designated himself as the Messiah, and the first of his disciples who recognised him as such were native Jews. The Jewish conceptions of the Messiah consequently passed over into the Christian community. But they received an impulse to important modifications from the living impression conveyed by the person and destiny of Jesus. Three facts were here of pre-eminent importance. First, Jesus appeared in lowliness, and even suffered death. Secondly, he was believed to be exalted through the resurrection to the right hand of God, and his return in glory was awaited with certainty. Thirdly, the strength of a new life and of an indissoluble union with God was felt issuing from him, and therefore his people were connected with him in the closest way. In some old Christian writings found in the New Testament and emanating from the pen of native Jews, there are no speculations at all about the pre-temporal existence of Jesus as the Messiah, or they are found expressed in a manner which simply embodies the old Jewish theory and is merely distinguished from it by the emphasis laid on the exaltation of Jesus after death through the resurrection. 1. Pet. I. 18 ff. is a classic passage: ἐλυτρώθητε τιμίῳ αἵματι ὼς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ, προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων δι᾽ ὑμᾶς τοὺς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ πιστοὺς εἰς θεὸν τὸν ἐγείραντα αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ δόξαν αὐτῷ δόντα, ὥστε τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα εἶναι εἰς θεόν. Here we find a conception of the pre-existence of Christ which is not yet affected by cosmological or psychological speculation, which does not overstep the boundaries of a purely religious contemplation, and which arose from the Old Testament way of thinking, and the living impression derived from the person of Jesus. He is “fore-known (by God) before the creation of the world,” not as a spiritual being without a body, but as a Lamb without blemish and without spot; in other words, his whole personality together with the work which it was to carry out, was within God’s eternal knowledge. He “was manifested in these last days for our sake,” that is, he is now visibly what he already was before God. What is meant here is not an incarnation, but a revelatio. Finally, he appeared in order that our faith and hope should now be firmly directed to the living God, that God who raised him from the dead and gave him honour. In the last clause expression is given to the specifically Christian thought, that the Messiah Jesus was exalted after crucifixion and death; from this, however, no further conclusions are drawn. But it was impossible that men should everywhere rest satisfied with these utterances, for the age was a theological one. Hence the paradox of the suffering Messiah, the certainty of his glorification through the resurrection, the conviction of his specific relationship to God, and the belief in the real union of his Church with him did not seem adequately expressed by the simple formulæ προεγνωσμένος, φανερωθείς. In reference to all these points, we see even in the oldest Christian writings, the appearance of formulæ which fix more precisely the nature of his pre-existence, or in 196

History of Dogma - Volume I

325

Adolf Harnack

other words his heavenly existence. With regard to the first and second points there arose the view of humiliation and exaltation, such as we find in Paul and in numerous writings after him. In connection with the third point the concept “Son of God” was thrust into the fore-ground, and gave rise to the idea of the image of God (2 Cor. IV. 4; Col. I. 15; Heb. I. 2; Phil. II. 6). The fourth point gave occasion to the formation of theses, such as we find in Rom. VIII. 29: πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖσ, Col. I. 18: πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν (Rev. I. 5), Eph. II. 6: συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, I. 4: ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν Χριστῷ πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, I. 22: ὁ θεὸς ἔδωκεν τὸν Χριστὸν κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἥτις ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, etc. This purely religious view of the Church, according to which all that is predicated of Christ is also applied to his followers, continued a considerable time. Hermas declares that the Church is older than the world, and that the world was created for its sake (see above, p. 103), and the author of the so-called 2nd Epistle of Clement declares (Chap. 14) . . . . . . . ἔσομεθα ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς πρώτης τῆς πνευματικῆς, τῆς πρὸ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης ἐκτισμένης . . . . , οὐκ οἰό μαι δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ὅτι ἐκκλησία ζῶσα σῶμά ἐστιν Χριστοῦ. λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή. Ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ. τὸ ἀρ́ σεν ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός τὸ θῆλυ ἡ ἐκκλησία. Thus Christ and his Church are inseparably connected. The latter is to be conceived as pre-existent quite as much as the former; the Church was also created before the sun and the moon, for the world was created for its sake. This conception of the Church illustrates a final group of utterances about the pre-existent Christ, the origin of which might easily be misinterpreted unless we bear in mind their reference to the Church. In so far as he is προεγνωσμένος πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, he is the ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ (Rev. III. 14), the πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, etc. According to the current conception of the time, these expressions mean exactly the same as the simple προεγνωσμένος πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, as is proved by the parallel formulæ referring to the Church. Nay, even the further advance to the idea that the world was created by him (Cor. Col. Eph. Heb.) need not yet necessarily be a μετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος; for the beginning of things (ἀρχή) and their purpose form the real force to which their origin is due (principle ἀρχή). Hermas indeed calls the Church older than the world simply because “the world was created for its sake.” All these further theories which we have quoted up to this time need in no sense alter the original conception, so long as they appear in an isolated form and do not form the basis of fresh speculations. They may be regarded as the working out of the original conception attaching to Jesus Christ προεγνωσμένος πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθείς κ.τ.λ.; and do not really modify this religious view of the matter. Above all, we find in them as yet no certain transition to the Greek view which splits up his personality into a heavenly and an earthly portion; it still continues to be the complete Christ to whom all the utterances apply. But, beyond doubt, they already reveal the strong impulse to conceive the Christ that had appeared as a divine being. He had not been a transitory phenomenon, but has ascended into heaven and still continues to live. This post-existence of his gave to the ideas of his pre-existence a support and a concrete complexion which the earlier Jewish theories lacked.

197

History of Dogma - Volume I

326

Adolf Harnack

We find the transition to a new conception in the writings of Paul. But it is important to begin by determining the relationship between his Christology and the views we have been hitherto considering. In the Apostle’s clearest trains of thought everything that he has to say of Christ hinges on his death and resurrection. For this we need no proofs, but see, more especially Rom. I. 3 f.: περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἀγιωςύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. What Christ became and his significance for us now are due to his death on the cross and his resurrection. He condemned sin in the flesh and was obedient unto death. Therefore he now shares in the δόξα of God. The exposition in 1 Cor. XV. 45, also (ὁ ἐσ́ χατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πρῶτον τὸ πνευματικὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ψυχικόν, ἔπειτα τὸ πνευματικόν. ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ) is still capable of being understood as to its fundamental features, in a sense which agrees with the conception of the Messiah, as κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the man from heaven who was hidden with God. There can be no doubt, however, that this conception, as already shewn by the formulæ in the passage just quoted, formed to Paul the starting-point of a speculation, in which the original theory assumed a completely new shape. The decisive factors in this transformation were the Apostle’s doctrine of “spirit and flesh,” and the corresponding conviction that the Christ who is not be known “after the flesh,” is a spirit, namely, the mighty spiritual being (πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν), who has condemned sin in the flesh, and thereby enabled man to walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. According to one of the Apostle’s ways of regarding the matter, Christ, after the accomplishment of his work, became the πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν through the resurrection. But the belief that Jesus always stood before God as the heavenly man, suggested to Paul the other view, that Christ was always a “spirit,” that he was sent down by God, that the flesh is consequently something inadequate and indeed hostile to him, that he nevertheless assumed it in order to extirpate the sin dwelling in the flesh, that he therefore humbled himself by appearing, and that this humiliation was the deed he performed.

327

This view is found in 2 Cor. VIII. 9: Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς δι᾽ ὑμᾶς ἐπτώχευσεν πλούσιος ὤν; in Rom. VIII. 3: ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ὑιὸν πόμψας ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας κατέκρινεν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῆ σαρκί; and in Phil. II. 5 f.: Χριστος Ἰησοῦς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων . . . . . ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μόρφην δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, καὶ σχήματι εὐρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν κ.τ.λ. In both forms of thought Paul presupposes a real exaltation of Christ. Christ receives after the resurrection more than he ever possessed (τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα). In this view Paul retains a historical interpretation of Christ, even in the conception of the πνεῦμα Χριστός. But whilst many passages seem to imply that the work of Christ began with suffering and death, Paul shews in the verses cited, that he already conceives the appearance of Christ on earth as his moral act, as a humiliation, purposely brought about by God and Christ himself, which reaches its culminating point in the death on the cross. Christ, the divine spiritual being, is sent by the Father from heaven to earth, and of his own free will he obediently takes this mission upon himself. He appears in the ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, dies the death of the cross, and then, raised by the Father, ascends again into heaven in order henceforth to act as 198

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

the κύριος ζώντων and νεκρῶν, and to become to his own people the principle of a new life in the spirit. Whatever we may think about the admissibility and justification of this view, to whatever source we may trace its origin and however strongly we may emphasise its divergencies from the contemporaneous Hellenic ideas, it is certain that it approaches very closely to the latter; for the distinction of spirit and flesh is here introduced into the concept of pre-existence, and this combination is not found in the Jewish notions of the Messiah. Paul was the first who limited the idea of pre-existence by referring it solely to the spiritual part of Jesus Christ, but at the same time gave life to it by making the pre-existing Christ (the spirit) a being who, even during his pre-existence, stands independently side by side with God.

328

He was also the first to designate Christ’s σάρξ as “assumpta,” and to recognise its assumption as in itself a humiliation. To him the appearance of Christ was no mere φανεροῦσθαι, but a κενοῦσθαι, ταπεινοῦσθαι, πτωχεύειν. These outstanding features of the Pauline Christology must have been intelligible to the Greeks, but, whilst embracing these, they put everything else in the system aside, Χριστὸς ὁ κύριος ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς, ὣν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα, ἐγένετο σάρξ καὶ οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν, says 2 Clem. (9. 5), and that is also the Christology of 1 Clement, Barnabas and many other Greeks. From the sum total of Judæo-Christian speculations they only borrowed, in addition, the one which has been already mentioned: the Messiah as προεγνωσμένος πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου is for that very reason also ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, that is the beginning, purpose and principle of the creation The Greeks, as the result of their cosmological interest, embraced this thought as a fundamental proposition. The complete Greek Christology then is expressed as follows: Χριστὸς, ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς, ὣν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα καὶ πάσης κτίσεως ἀρχὴ, ἐγένετο σάρξ καὶ οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν. That is the fundamental, theological and philosophical creed on which the whole Trinitarian and Christological speculations of the Church of the succeeding centuries are built, and it is thus the root of the orthodox system of dogmatics; for the notion that Christ was the ἀρχὴ πάσης κτίσεως necessarily led in some measure to the conception of Christ as the Logos. For the Logos had long been regarded by cultured men as the beginning and principle of the creation.452 452

These hints will have shewn that Paul’s theory occupies a middle position between the Jewish and Greek ideas of pre-existence. In the canon, however, we have another group of writings which likewise gives evidence of a middle position with regard to the matter, I mean the Johannine writings. If we only possessed the prologue to the Gospel of John with its “ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος” the “πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο” and the “ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο” we could indeed point to nothing but Hellenic ideas. But the Gospel itself, as is well known, contains very much that must have astonished a Greek, and is opposed to the philosophical idea of the Logos. This occurs even in the thought, “ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο,” which in itself is foreign to the Logos conception. Just fancy a proposition like the one in VI. 44, οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρὸς με, εἄν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύση αὐτὸν, or in V. 17. 21, engrafted on Philo’s system, and consider the revolution it would have caused there. No doubt the prologue to some extent contains the themes set forth in the presentation that follows, but they are worded in such a way that one cannot help thinking the author wished to prepare Greek readers for the paradox he had to communicate to them, by adapting his prologue to their mode of thought. Under the altered conditions of thought which now prevail, the prologue appears to us the mysterious part, and the narrative that follows seems the portion that is relatively more intelligible. But to the original readers, if they were educated Greeks, the prologue must have been the part most easily understood. As nowadays a section on the nature of the Christian religion is usually prefixed to a treatise on dogmatics, in order to prepare and introduce the reader, so also the Johannine

199

History of Dogma - Volume I

329

330

Adolf Harnack

With this transition the theories concerning Christ are removed from Jewish and Old Testament soil, and also that of religion (in the strict sense of the word), and transplanted to the Greek one. Even in his pre-existent state Christ is an independent power existing side by side with God. The pre-existence does not refer to his whole appearance, but only to a part of his essence; it does not primarily serve to glorify the wisdom and power of the God who guides history, but only glorifies Christ, and thereby threatens the monarchy of God.453 The appearance of Christ is now an “assumption of flesh,” and immediately the intricate questions about the connection of the heavenly and spiritual being with the flesh simultaneously arise and are at first settled by the theories of a naive docetism. But the flesh, that is the human nature created by God, appears depreciated, because it was reckoned as something unsuitable for Christ, and foreign to him as a spiritual being. Thus the Christian religion was mixed up with the refined asceticism of a perishing civilization, and a foreign substructure given to its system of morality, so earnest in its simplicity.454 But the most questionable result was the following. Since the predicate “Logos,” which at first, and for a long time, coincided with the idea of the reason ruling in the cosmos, was considered as the highest that could be given to Christ, the holy and divine element, namely, the power of a new life, a power to be viewed and laid hold of in Christ, was transformed into a cosmic force and thereby secularised. In the present work I have endeavoured to explain fully how the doctrine of the Church developed from these premises into the doctrine of the Trinity and of the two natures. I have also shewn that the imperfect beginnings of Church doctrine, especially as they appear in the Logos theory derived from cosmology, were subjected to wholesome corrections—by the Monarchians, by Athanasius,

prologue seems to be intended as an introduction of this kind. It brings in conceptions which were familiar to the Greeks, in fact it enters into these more deeply than is justified by the presentation which follows; for the notion of the incarnate Logos is by no means the dominant one here. Though faint echoes of this idea may possibly be met with here and there in the Gospel—I confess I do not notice them—the predominating thought is essentially the conception of Christ as the Son of God, who obediently executes what the Father has shewn and appointed him. The works which he does are allotted to him, and he performs them in the strength of the Father. The whole of Christ’s farewell discourses and the intercessory prayer evince no Hellenic influence and no cosmological speculation whatever, but shew the inner life of a man who knows himself to be one with God to a greater extent than any before him, and who feels the leading of men to God to be the task he had received and accomplished. In this consciousness he speaks of the glory he had with the Father before the world was (XVII. 4 f.: ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὸ ἔργον τελειώσας ὁ δέδωκας μοι ἵνα ποιήσω· καὶ νῦν δόξασον με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σέαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ῇ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοι). With this we must compare verses like III. 13: οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, and III. 31: ὁ ἄνωθεν ὲρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστιν. ὁ ὤν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλεῖ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστιν (see also I. 30: VI. 33, 38, 41 f. 50 f. 58, 62: VIII. 14, 58; XVII. 24). But though the pre-existence is strongly expressed in these passages, a separation of τνεῦμα (λόγος) and σάρξ in Christ is nowhere assumed in the Gospel except in the prologue. It is always Christ’s whole personality to which every sublime attribute is ascribed. The same one who “can do nothing of himself” is also the one who was once glorious and will yet be glorified. This idea, however, can still be referred to the προεγνωσμένος πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, although it gives a peculiar      with God to him who was foreknown of God, and the oldest conception is yet to be traced in many expressions, as, for example, I. 31: κάγὼ οὐκ ἤδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθή τῷ Ἰσρὰηλ διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον, V. 19: οὐ δύναται ὁ ὐιὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ᾽ εἀυτοῦ οὐδὲν ἄν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα, V. 36: VIII. 38: ἅ ἐγὼ ἕωρακα παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ λαλῷ, VIII. 40: τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα ἥν ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, XII. 49: XV. 15: πάντα ἅ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἔγνώρισα ὐμῖν. 453 This is indeed counterbalanced in the fourth Gospel by the thought of the complete community of love between the Father and the Son, and the pre-existence and descent of the latter here also tend to the glory of God. In the sentence “God so loved the world,” etc., that which Paul describes in Phil. II. becomes at the same time an act of God, in fact the act of God. The sentence “God is love” sums up again all individual speculations, and raises them into a new and most exalted sphere. 454 If it had been possible for speculation to maintain the level of the Fourth Gospel, nothing of that would have happened; but where were there theologians capable of this?

200

History of Dogma - Volume I

331

Adolf Harnack

and by the influence of biblical passages which pointed in another direction. Finally, the Logos doctrine received a form in which the idea was deprived of nearly all cosmical content. Nor could the Hellenic contrast of “spirit” and “flesh” become completely developed in Christianity, because the belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ, and in the admission of the flesh into heaven, opposed to the principle of dualism a barrier which Paul as yet neither knew nor felt to be necessary. The conviction as to the resurrection of the flesh proved the hard rock which shattered the energetic attempts to give a completely Hellenic complexion to the Christian religion. The history of the development of the ideas of pre-existence is at the same time the criticism of them, so that we need not have recourse to our present theory of knowledge which no longer allows such speculations. The problem of determining the significance of Christ through a speculation concerning his natures, and of associating with these the concrete features of the historical Christ, was originated by Hellenism. But even the New Testament writers, who appear in this respect to be influenced in some way by Hellenism, did not really speculate concerning the different natures, but, taking Christ’s spiritual nature for granted, determined his religious significance by his moral qualities—Paul by the moral act of humiliation and obedience unto death, John by the complete dependence of Christ upon God and hence also by his obedience, as well as the unity of the love of Father and Son. There is only one idea of pre-existence which no empiric contemplation of history and no reason can uproot. This is identical with the most ancient idea found in the Old Testament, as well as that prevalent among the early Christians, and consists in the religious thought that God the Lord directs history. In its application to Jesus Christ, it is contained in the words we read in 1 Pet. I. 20: προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθεὶς δὲ δι᾽ ὑμᾶς τοὺς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ πιστοὺς εἰς θεὸν τὸν ἐγείραντα αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ δόξαν αὐτῷ δόντα, ὥστε τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα εἶναι εἰς θεόν.

332

APPENDIX II. Liturgy and the Origin of Dogma. THE reader has perhaps wondered why I have made so little reference to Liturgy in my description of the origin of dogma. For according to the most modern ideas about the history of religion and the origin of theology, the development of both may be traced in the ritual. Without any desire to criticise these notions, I think I am justified in asserting that this is another instance of the exceptional nature of Christianity. For a considerable period it possessed no ritual at all, and the process of development in this direction had been going on, or been completed, a long time before ritual came to furnish material for dogmatic discussion. The worship in Christian Churches grew out of that in the synagogues, whereas there is no trace of its being influenced by the Jewish Temple service (Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chrétien, p. 45 ff.). Its oldest constituents are accordingly prayer, reading of the scriptures, application of scripture texts, and sacred song. In addition to these we have, as specifically Christian elements, the celebration 201

History of Dogma - Volume I

333

Adolf Harnack

of the Lord’s Supper, and the utterances of persons inspired by the Spirit. The latter manifestations, however, ceased in the course of the second century, and to some extent as early as its first half. The religious services in which a ritual became developed were prayer, the Lord’s Supper and sacred song. The Didache had already prescribed stated formulæ for prayer. The ritual of the Lord’s Supper was determined in its main features by the memory of its institution. The sphere of sacred song remained the most unfettered, though here also, even at an early period—no later in fact than the end of the first and beginning of the second century—a fixed and a variable element were distinguished; for responsory hymns, as is testified by the Epistle of Pliny and the still earlier Book of Revelation, require to follow a definite arrangement. But the whole, though perhaps already fixed during the course of the second century, still bore the stamp of spirituality and freedom. It was really worship in spirit and in truth, and this and no other was the light in which the Apologists, for instance, regarded it. Ritualism did not begin to be a power in the Church till the end of the second century; though it had been cultivated by the “Gnostics” long before, and traces of it are found at an earlier period in some of the older Fathers, such as Ignatius. Among the liturgical fragments still preserved to us from the first three centuries two strata may de distinguished. Apart from the responsory hymns in the Book of Revelation, which can hardly represent fixed liturgical pieces, the only portions of the older stratum in our possession are the Lord’s Prayer, originating with Jesus himself and used as a liturgy, together with the sacramental prayers of the Didache. These prayers exhibit a style unlike any of the liturgical formulæ of later times; the prayer is exclusively addressed to God, it returns thanks for knowledge and life; it speaks of Jesus the παῖς θεοῦ (Son of God) as the mediator; the intercession refers exclusively to the Church, and the supplication is for the gathering together of the Church, the hastening of the coming of the kingdom and the destruction of the world. No direct mention is made of the death and resurrection of Christ. These prayers are the peculiar property of the Christian Church. It cannot, however, be said that they exercised any important influence on the history of dogma. The thoughts contained in them perished in their specific shape; the measure of permanent importance they attained in a more general form, was not preserved to them through these prayers.

334

The second stratum of liturgical pieces dates back to the great prayer with which the first Epistle of Clement ends, for in many respects this prayer, though some expressions in it remind us of the older type διά τοῦ ἡγαπημένου παιδός σου Ἰησοῦν Χριστοῦ, “through thy beloved son Jesus Christ”), already exhibits the characteristics of the later liturgy, as is shewn, for example, by a comparison of the liturgical prayer in the Constitutions of the Apostles (see Lightfoot’s edition and my own). But this piece shews at the same time that the liturgical prayers, and consequently the liturgy also, sprang from those in the synagogue, for the similarity is striking. Here we find a connection resembling that which exists between the Jewish “Two Ways” and the Christian instruction of catechumens. If this observation is correct, it clearly explains the cautious use of historical and dogmatic material in the oldest liturgies—a precaution not to their disadvantage. As in the prayers of the synagogue, so also in Christian Churches, all sorts of matters were not submitted to God or laid bare before Him, but the prayers serve as a religious ceremony, that is, as adoration, petition and intercession. Σὺ εἶ ὁ θεὸς μόνος καὶ Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ παῖς σου καὶ ἡμεῖς λαός σου καὶ πρόβατα τῆς νομῆς σου, (thou art God alone and Jesus Christ is thy son, and we are thy people and the sheep of thy pasture). In this confession, and expressive Christian modification of that of the synagogue, 202

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

the whole liturgical ceremony is epitomised. So far as we can assume and conjecture from the scanty remains of Ante-Nicene liturgy, the character of the ceremony was not essentially altered in this respect. Nothing containing a specific dogma or theological speculation was admitted. The number of sacred ceremonies, already considerable in the second century, (how did they arise?) was still further increased in the third; but the accompanying words, so far as we know, expressed nothing but adoration, gratitude, supplication and intercession. The relations expressed in the liturgy became more comprehensive, copious and detailed; but its fundamental character was not changed. The history of dogma in the first three centuries is not reflected in their liturgy. 335

APPENDIX III. NEOPLATONISM. The Historical Significance and Position of Neoplatonism.

336

THE political history of the ancient world ends with the Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, which has not only Roman and Greek, but also Oriental features. The history of ancient philosophy ends with the universal philosophy of Neoplatonism, which assimilated the elements of most of the previous systems, and embodied the result of the history of religion and civilisation in East and West. But as the Roman Byzantine Empire is at one and the same time a product of the final effort and the exhaustion of the ancient world, so also Neoplatonism is, on one side, the completion of ancient philosophy, and, on another, its abolition. Never before in the Greek and Roman theory of the world did the conviction of the dignity of man and his elevation above nature attain so certain an expression as in Neoplatonism; and never before in the history of civilisation did its highest exponents, notwithstanding all their progress in inner observation, so much undervalue the sovereign significance of real science and pure knowledge as the later Neoplatonists did. Judged from the stand-point of pure science, of empirical knowledge of the world, the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle marks a momentous turning-point, the post-Aristotelian a retrogression, the Neoplatonic a complete declension. But judging from the stand-point of religion and morality, it must be admitted that the ethical temper which Neoplatonism sought to beget and confirm was the highest and purest which the culture of the ancient world produced. This necessarily took place at the expense of science: for on the soil of polytheistic natural religions, the knowledge of nature must either fetter and finally abolish religion, or be fettered and abolished by religion. Religion and ethic, however, proved the stronger powers. Placed between these and the knowledge of nature, philosophy, after a period of fluctuation finally follows the stronger force. Since the ethical itself, in the sphere of natural religions, is unhesitatingly conceived as a higher kind of “nature,” conflict with the empirical knowledge of the world is unavoidable. The higher “physics,” for that is what religious ethics is here, must displace the lower or be itself displaced. Philosophy must renounce its scientific aspect, in order that man’s claim to a supernatural value of his person and life may be legitimised.

203

History of Dogma - Volume I

337

338

Adolf Harnack

It is an evidence of the vigour of man’s moral endowments that the only epoch of culture which we are able to survey in its beginnings, its progress, and its close, ended not with materialism, but with the most decided idealism. It is true that in its way this idealism also denotes a bankruptcy; as the contempt for reason and science, and these are contemned when relegated to the second place, finally leads to barbarism, because it results in the crassest superstition, and is exposed to all manner of imposture. And, as a matter of fact, barbarism succeeded the flourishing period of Neoplatonism. Philosophers themselves no doubt found their mental food in the knowledge which they thought themselves able to surpass; but the masses grew up in superstition, and the Christian Church, which entered on the inheritance of Neoplatonism, was compelled to reckon with that and come to terms with it. Just when the bankruptcy of the ancient civilisation and its lapse into barbarism could not have failed to reveal themselves, a kindly destiny placed on the stage of history barbarian nations, for whom the work of a thousand years had as yet no existence. Thus the fact is concealed, which, however, does not escape the eye of one who looks below the surface, that the inner history of the ancient world must necessarily have degenerated into barbarism of its own accord, because it ended with the renunciation of this world. There is no desire either to enjoy it, to master it, or to know it as it really is. A new world is disclosed for which everything is given up, and men are ready to sacrifice insight and understanding, in order to possess this world with certainty; and, in the light which radiates from the world to come, that which in this world appears absurd becomes wisdom, and wisdom becomes folly. Such is Neoplatonism. The pre-Socratic philosophers, declared by the followers of Socrates to be childish, had freed themselves from theology, that is the mythology of the poets, and constructed a philosophy from the observation of nature, without troubling themselves about ethics and religion. In the systems of Plato and Aristotle physics and ethics were to attain to their rights, though the latter no doubt already occupied the first place; theology, that is popular religion, continues to be thrust aside. The post-Aristotelian philosophers of all parties were already beginning to withdraw from the objective world. Stoicism, indeed, seems to fall back into the materialism that prevailed before Plato and Aristotle; but the ethical dualism which dominated the mood of the Stoic philosophers did not in the long run tolerate the materialistic physics; it sought and found help in the metaphysical dualism of the Platonists, and at the same time reconciled itself to the popular religion by means of allegorism, that is it formed a new theology. But it did not result in permanent philosophic creations. A one-sided development of Platonism produced the various forms of scepticism which sought to abolish confidence in empirical knowledge. Neoplatonism, which came last, learned from all schools. In the first place, it belongs to the series of post-Aristotelian systems and, as the philosophy of the subjective, it is the logical completion of them. In the second place, it rests on scepticism; for it also, though not at the very beginning, gave up both confidence and pure interest in empirical knowledge. Thirdly, it can boast of the name and authority of Plato; for in metaphysics it consciously went back to him and expressly opposed the metaphysics of the Stoics. Yet on this very point it also learned something from the Stoics; for the Neoplatonic conception of the action of God on the world, and of the nature and origin of matter, can only be explained by reference to the dynamic pantheism of the Stoics. In other respects, especially in psychology, it is diametrically opposed to the Stoa, though superior. Fourthly, the study of Aristotle also had an influence on Neoplatonism. That is shewn not only in the philosophic methods of the Neoplatonists, but also, though in a subordinate way, in their metaphysics. Fifthly, the ethic of the 204

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

Stoics was adopted by Neoplatonism, but this ethic necessarily gave way to a still higher view of the conditions of the spirit. Sixthly and finally, Christianity also, which Neoplatonism opposed in every form (especially in that of the Gnostic philosophy of religion), seems not to have been entirely without influence. On this point we have as yet no details, and these can only be ascertained by a thorough examination of the polemic of Plotinus against the Gnostics.

339

Hence, with the exception of Epicureanism, which Neoplatonism dreaded as its mortal enemy, every important system of former times was drawn upon by the new philosophy. But we should not on that account call Neoplatonism an eclectic system in the usual sense of the word. For in the first place, it had one pervading and all-predominating interest, the religious; and in the second place, it introduced into philosophy a new supreme principle, the super-rational, or the super-essential. This principle should not be identified with the “Ideas” of Plato or the “Form” of Aristotle. For as Zeller rightly says: “In Plato and Aristotle the distinction of the sensuous and the intelligible is the strongest expression for belief in the truth of thought; it is only sensuous perception and sensuous existence whose relative falsehood they presuppose; but of a higher stage of spiritual life lying beyond idea and thought, there is no mention. In Neoplatonism, on the other hand, it is just this super-rational element which is regarded as the final goal of all effort, and the highest ground of all existence; the knowledge gained by thought is only an intermediate stage between sensuous perception and the super-rational intuition; the intelligible forms are not that which is highest and last, but only the media by which the influences of the formless original essence are communicated to the world. This view therefore presupposes not merely doubt of the reality of sensuous existence and sensuous notions, but absolute doubt, aspiration beyond all reality. The highest intelligible is not that which constitutes the real content of thought, but only that which is presupposed and earnestly desired by man as the unknowable ground of his thought.” Neoplatonism recognised that a religious ethic can be built neither on sense-perception nor on knowledge gained by the understanding, and that it cannot be justified by these; it therefore broke both with intellectual ethics and with utilitarian morality. But for that very reason, having as it were parted with perception and understanding in relation to the ascertaining of the highest truth, it was compelled to seek for a new world and a new function in the human spirit, in order to ascertain the existence of what it desired, and to comprehend and describe that of which it had ascertained the existence. But man cannot transcend his psychological endowment. An iron ring incloses him. He who does not allow his thought to be determined by experience falls a prey to fancy, that is thought which cannot be suppressed assumes a mythological aspect: superstition takes the place of reason, dull gazing at something incomprehensible is regarded as the highest goal of the spirit’s efforts, and every conscious activity of the spirit is subordinated to visionary conditions artificially brought about. But that every conceit may not be allowed to assert itself, the gradual exploration of every region of knowledge according to every method of acquiring it, is demanded as a preliminary—the Neoplatonists did not make matters easy for themselves,—and a new and mighty principle is set up which is to bridle fancy, viz., the authority of a sure tradition. This authority must be superhuman, otherwise it would not come under consideration; it must therefore be divine. On divine disclosures, that is revelations, must rest both the highest super-rational region of knowledge and the possibility of knowledge itself. In a word, the philosophy which Neoplatonism represents, whose final interest is the religious, and whose highest object is the super-rational, must be a philosophy of revelation.

205

History of Dogma - Volume I

340

341

Adolf Harnack

In the case of Plotinus himself and his immediate disciples, this does not yet appear plainly. They still shew confidence in the objective presuppositions of their philosophy; and have, especially in psychology, done great work and created something new. But this confidence vanishes in the later Neoplatonists. Porphyry, be-fore he became a disciple of Plotinus, wrote a book περὶ τῆς ἐκλογίων φιλοσοφίας; as a philosopher he no longer required the “λόγια”. But the later representatives of the system sought for their philosophy revelations of the Godhead. They found them in the religious traditions and cults of all nations. Neoplatonism learned from the Stoics to rise above the political limits of nations and states, and to widen the Hellenic consciousness to a universally human one. The spirit of God has breathed throughout the whole history of the nations, and the traces of divine revelation are to be found everywhere. The older a religious tradition or cultus is, the more worthy of honour, the more rich in thoughts of God it is. Therefore the old Oriental religions are of special value to the Neoplatonists. The allegorical method of interpreting myths, which was practised by the Stoics in particular, was accepted by Neoplatonism also. But the myths, spiritually explained, have for this system an entirely different value from what they had for the Stoic philosophers. The latter adjusted themselves to the myths by the aid of allegorical explanation; the later Neoplatonists, on the other hand, (after a selection in which the immoral myths were sacrificed, see, e.g., Julian) regarded them as the proper material and sure foundation of philosophy. Neoplatonism claims to be not only the absolute philosophy, completing all systems, but at the same time the absolute religion, confirming and explaining all earlier religions. A rehabilitation of all ancient religions is aimed at (see the philosophic teachers of Julian and compare his great religious experiment); each was to continue in its traditional form, but at the same time each was to communicate the religious temper and the religious knowledge which Neoplatonism had attained, and each cultus is to lead to the high morality which it behoves man to maintain. In Neoplatonism the psychological fact of the longing of man for something higher, is exalted to the all-predominating principle which ex-plains the world. Therefore the religions, though they are to be purified and spiritualised, become the foundation of philosophy. The Neoplatonic philosophy therefore presupposes the religious syncretism of the third century, and cannot be understood without it. The great forces which were half unconsciously at work in this syncretism, were reflectively grasped by Neoplatonism. It is the final fruit of the developments resulting from the political, national and religious syncretism which arose from the undertakings of Alexander the Greek and the Romans. Neoplatonism is consequently a stage in the history of religion; nay, its significance in the history of the world lies in the fact that it is so. In the history of science and enlightenment it has a position of significance only in so far as it was the necessary transition stage through which humanity had to pass, in order to free itself from the religion of nature and the depreciation of the spiritual life, which oppose an insurmountable barrier to the highest advance of human knowledge. But as Neoplatonism in its philosophical aspect means the abolition of ancient philosophy, which, however, it desired to complete, so also in its religious aspect it means the abolition of the ancient religions which it aimed at restoring. For in requiring these religions to mediate a definite religious knowledge, and to lead to the highest moral disposition, it burdened them with tasks to which they were not equal, and under which they could not but break down. And in requiring them to loosen, if not completely destroy, the bond which was their only stay, namely, the political bond, it took from them the foundation on which they were built. But could it not place them on a greater and firmer

206

History of Dogma - Volume I

342

343

Adolf Harnack

foundation? Was not the Roman Empire in existence, and could the new religion not become dependent on this in the same way as the earlier religions had been dependent on the lesser states and nations? It might be thought so, but it was no longer possible. No doubt the political history of the nations round the Mediterranean, in their development into the universal Roman monarchy, was parallel to the spiritual history of these nations in their development into monotheism and a universal system of morals; but the spiritual development in the end far outstripped the political: even the Stoics attained to a height which the political development could only partially reach. Neoplatonism did indeed attempt to gain a connection with the Byzantine Roman Empire: one noble monarch, Julian, actually perished as a result of this endeavour: but even before this the profounder Neoplatonists discerned that their lofty religious philosophy would not bear contact with the despotic Empire, because it would not bear any contact with the “world” (plan of the founding of Platonopolis). Political affairs are at bottom as much a matter of indifference to Neoplatonism as material things in general. The idealism of the new philosophy was too high to admit of its being naturalised in the despiritualised, tyrannical and barren creation of the Byzantine Empire, and this Empire itself needed unscrupulous and despotic police officials, not noble philosophers. Important and instructive, therefore, as the experiments are, which were made from time to time by the state and by individual philosophers, to unite the monarchy of the world with Neoplatonism, they could not but be ineffectual. But, and this is the last question which one is justified in raising here, why did not Neoplatonism create an independent religious community? Since it had already changed the ancient religions so fundamentally, in its purpose to restore them; since it had attempted to fill the old naive cults with profound philosophic ideas, and to make them exponents of a high morality; why did it not take the further step and create a religious fellowship of its own? Why did it not complete and confirm the union of gods by the founding of a church which was destined to embrace the whole of humanity, and in which, beside the one ineffable Godhead, the gods of all nations could have been worshipped? Why not? The answer to this question is at the same time the reply to another, viz., Why did the christian church supplant Neoplatonism? Neoplatonism lacked three elements to give it the significance of a new and permanent religious system. Augustine in his confessions (Bk. VII. 18-21) has excellently described these three elements. First and above all, it lacked a religious founder; secondly, it was unable to give any answer to the question, how one could permanently maintain the mood of blessedness and peace; thirdly, it lacked the means of winning those who could not speculate. The “people” could not learn the philosophic exercises which it recommended as the condition of attaining the enjoyment of the highest good; and the way by which even the “people” can attain to the highest good was hidden from it. Hence these “wise and prudent” remained a school. When Julian attempted to interest the common uncultured man in the doctrines and worship of this school, his reward was mockery and scorn. Not as philosophy and not as a new religion did Neoplatonism become a decisive factor in history, but, if I may say so, as a frame of mind.455 The feeling that there is an eternal highest good which 455

Excellent remarks on the nature of Neoplatonism may be found in Eucken, Gött. Gel. Anz., 1 März, 1884. p. 176 ff.: this sketch was already written before I saw them. “We find the characteristic of the Neoplatonic epoch in the effort to make the inward, which till then had had alongside of it an independent outer world as a contrast, the exclusive and all-determining element. The

207

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

lies beyond all outer experience and is not even the intelligible, this feeling, with which was united the conviction of the entire worthlessness of everything earthly, was produced and fostered by Neoplatonism. But it was unable to describe the contents of that highest being and highest good, and therefore it was here compelled to give itself entirely up to fancy and aesthetic feeling. Therefore it was forced to trace out “mysterious ways to that which is within,” which, however, led no-where. It transformed thought into a dream of feeling; it immersed itself in the sea of emotions; it viewed the old fabled world of the nations as the reflection of a higher reality, and transformed reality into poetry; but in spite of all these efforts it was only able, to use the words of Augustine, to see from afar the land which it desired. It broke this world into fragments; but nothing remained to it, save a ray from a world beyond, which was only an indescribable “something.” 344

And yet the significance of Neoplatonism in the history of our moral culture has been, and still is, immeasurable. Not only because it refined and strengthened man’s life of feeling and sensation, not only because it, more than anything else, wove the delicate veil which even to-day, whether we be religious or irreligious, we ever and again cast over the offensive impression of the brutal reality, but, above all, because it begat the consciousness that the blessedness which alone can satisfy man is to be found somewhere else than in the sphere of knowledge. That man does not live by bread alone is a truth that was known before Neoplatonism; but it proclaimed the profounder truth, which the earlier philosophy had failed to recognise, that man does not live by knowledge alone. Neoplatonism not only had a propadeutic significance in the past, but continues to be, even now, the source of all the moods which deny the world and strive after an ideal, but have not power to raise themselves above esthetic feeling, and see no means of getting a clear notion of the impulse of their own heart and the land of their desire. Historical Origin of Neoplatonism. The forerunners of Neoplatonism were, on the one hand, those Stoics who recognise the Platonic distinction of the sensible and supersensible world, and on the other, the so-called Neopythagoreans and religious philosophers, such as Posidonius, Plutarch of Chæronea, and especially Numenius of Apamea.456 Nevertheless, these cannot be regarded as the actual Fathers of Neoplatonism; for the philosophic method was still very imperfect in comparison with the Neoplatonic, their principles were uncertain, and the authority of Plato was not yet regarded as placed on an unapproachable height. The Jewish and Christian philosophers of the first and second centuries stand very much nearer the later Neoplatonism than Numenius. We would probably see this more clearly if we knew

movement which makes itself felt here, outlasts antiquity and prepares the way for the modern period; it brings about the dissolution of that which marked the culminating point of ancient life, that which we are wont to call specifically classic. The life of the spirit, till then conceived as a member of an ordered world and subject to its laws, now freely passes beyond these bounds, and attempts to mould, and even to create, the universe from itself. No doubt the different attempts to realise this desire reveal, for the most part, a deep gulf between will and deed; usually ethical and religious requirements of the naive human consciousness must replace universally creative spiritual power, but all the insufficient and unsatisfactory elements of this period should not obscure the fact that, in one instance, it reached the height of a great philosophic achievement, in the case of Plotinus.” 456 Plotinus, even in his lifetime, was reproached with having borrowed most of his system from Numenius. Porphyry, in his “Vita Plotini,” defended him against this reproach.

208

History of Dogma - Volume I

345

346

Adolf Harnack

the development of Christianity in Alexandria in the second century, But, unfortunately, we have only very meagre fragments to tell us of this. First and above all, we must mention Philo. This philosopher who interpreted the Old Testament religion in terms of Hellenism had, in accordance with his idea of revelation, already maintained that the Divine Original Essence is supra-rational, that only ecstasy leads to Him, and that the materials for religious and moral knowledge are contained in the oracles of the Deity. The religious ethic of Philo, a combination of Stoic, Platonic, Neopythagorean and Old Testament gnomic wisdom, already bears the marks which we recognise in Neoplatonism. The acknowledgment that God was exalted above all thought was a sort of tribute which Greek philosophy was compelled to pay to the national religion of Israel, in return for the supremacy which was here granted to the former. The claim of positive religion to be something more than an intellectual conception of the universal reason was thereby justified. Even religious syncretism is already found in Philo; but it is something essentially different from the later Neoplatonic, since Philo regarded the Jewish cult as the only valuable one, and traced back all elements of truth in the Greeks and Romans to borrowings from the books of Moses. The earliest Christian philosophers, especially Justin and Athenagoras, likewise prepared the way for the speculations of the later Neoplatonists by their attempts, on the one hand, to connect Christianity with Stoicism and Platonism, and on the other, to exhibit it as supra-Platonic. The method by which Justin, in the introduction to the Dialogue with Trypho, attempts to establish the Christian knowledge of God, that is the knowledge of the truth, on Platonism, Scepticism and “Revelation,” strikingly reminds us of the later methods of the Neoplatonists. Still more is one reminded of Neoplatonism by the speculations of the Alexandrian Christian Gnostics, especially of Valentinus and the followers of Basilides. The doctrines of the Basilidians(?) communicated by Hippolytus (Philosoph. VII. c. 20 sq.), read like fragments from the didactic writings of the Neoplatonists: Ἐπεὶ οὐδὲν ἦν οὐκ ὕλήm οὐκ οὐσία, οὐκ ἀούσιον, οὐκ ἀπλοῦν, οὐκ σύνθετον, οὐκ ἀνόητον, οὐκ ἀναίσθητον, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος . . . . . . οὐκ ὣν θεὸς ἀνοήτως, ἀναισθήτως ἀβούλως ἀπροαιρέτως, ἀπαθῶς, ἀνεπιθυμήτιος κόσμον ἡθέλησε ποιῆσαι . . . . . . Οὑτ́ ως οὐκ ὡν ̀ θεὸς ἀποὶησε κόσμον οὐκ ὄντα ἐξ οὐκ ὅντων, καταβαλόμενος καὶ ὑποστήσας σπερμα τι ἓν ἔχον πᾶσαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου πανστερμίαν. Like the Neoplatonists, these Basilidians did not teach an emanation from the Godhead, but a dynamic mode of action of the Supreme Being. The same can be asserted of Valentinus who also places an unnamable being above all, and views matter not as a second principle, but as a derived product. The dependence of Basilides and Valentinus on Zeno and Plato is, besides, un-doubted. But the method of these Gnostics in constructing their mental picture of the world and its history was still an uncertain one. Crude primitive myths are here received, and naively realistic elements alternate with bold attempts at spiritualising. While therefore, philosophically considered, the Gnostic systems are very unlike the finished Neoplatonic ones, it is certain that they contained almost all the elements of the religious view of the world which we find in Neoplatonism. But were the earliest Neoplatonists really acquainted with the speculations of men like Philo, Justin, Valentinus and Basilides? Were they familiar with the Oriental religions, especially with the Jewish and the Christian? And, if we must answer these questions in the affirmative, did they really learn from these sources?

209

History of Dogma - Volume I

347

Adolf Harnack

Unfortunately, we cannot at present give certain, and still less detailed, answers to these questions. But, as Neoplatonism originated in Alexandria, as Oriental cults confronted every one there, as the Jewish philosophy was prominent in the literary market of Alexandria, and that was the very place where scientific Christianity had its headquarters, there can, generally speaking, be no doubt that the earliest Neoplatonists had some acquaintance with Judaism and Christianity. In addition to that, we have the certain fact that the earliest Neoplatonists had discussions with (Roman) Gnostics (see Carl Schmidt, Gnostische Schriften in koptischer Sprache, pp. 603-665, and that Porphyry entered into elaborate controversy with Christianity. In comparison with the Neoplatonic philosophy, the system of Philo and the Gnostics appears in many respects an anticipation which had a certain influence on the former, the precise nature of which has still to be ascertained. But the anticipation is not wonderful, for the religious and philosophic temper which was only gradually produced on Greek soil, existed from the first in such philosophers as took their stand on the ground of a revealed religion of redemption. Iamblichus and his followers first answer completely to the Christian Gnostic schools of the second century; that is to say, Greek philosophy, in its immanent development, did not attain till the fourth century the position which some Greek philosophers who had accepted Christianity, had already reached in the second. The influence of Christianity—both Gnostic and Catholic—on Neoplatonism was perhaps very little at any time, though individual Neoplatonists since the time of Amelius employed Christian sayings as oracles, and testified their high esteem for Christ. Sketch of the History and Doctrines of Neoplatonism. Ammonius Saccas (died about 245), who is said to have been born a Christian, but to have lapsed into heathenism, is regarded as the founder of the Neoplatonic school in Alexandria. As he has left no writings, no judgment can be formed as to his teaching. His disciples inherited from him the prominence which they gave to Plato and the attempts to prove the harmony between the latter and Aristotle. His most important disciples were Origen the Christian, a second heathen Origen, Longinus, Herennius, and, above all, Plotinus. The latter was born in the year 205, at Lycopolis in Egypt, laboured from 224 in Rome, and found numerous adherents and admirers, among others the Emperor Galienus and his consort, and died in lower Italy about 270. His writings were arranged by his disciple Porphyry, and edited in six Enneads.

348

The Enneads of Plotinus are the fundamental documents of Neoplatonism. The teaching of this philosopher is mystical, and, like all mysticism, it falls into two main portions. The first and theoretic part shews the high origin of the soul, and how it has departed from this its origin. The second and practical part points out the way by which the soul can again be raised to the Eternal and the Highest. As the soul with its longings aspires beyond all sensible things and even beyond the world of ideas, the Highest must be something above reason. The system therefore has three parts. I. The Original Essence. II. The world of ideas and the soul. III. The world of phenomena. We may also, in conformity with the thought of Plotinus, divide the system thus: A. The supersensible world (1. The Original Essence; 2. the world of ideas; 3. the soul). B. The world of phenomena. The Original Essence is the One in contrast to the many; it. is the Infinite and Unlimited in contrast to the finite; it is the source of all being, therefore the absolute causality and the only truly existing; but it is also the Good, in so far as everything finite is to find its aim in it and to flow back to it. Yet moral

210

History of Dogma - Volume I

349

Adolf Harnack

attributes cannot be ascribed to this Original Essence, for these would limit it. It has no attributes at all: it is a being without magnitude, without life, without thought; nay, one should not, properly speaking, even call it an existence; it is something above existence, above goodness, and at the same time the operative force without any substratum. As operative force the Original Essence is continually begetting something else, without itself being changed or moved or diminished. This creation is not a physical process, but an emanation of force; and because that which is produced has any existence only in so far as the originally Existent works in it, it may be said that Neoplatonism is dynamical Pantheism. Everything that has being is directly or indirectly a production of the “One.” In this “One” everything so far as it has being, is Divine, and God is all in all. But that which is derived is not like the Original Essence itself. On the contrary, the law of decreasing perfection prevails in the derived. The latter is indeed an image and reflection of the Original Essence, but the wider the circle of creations extends the less their share in the Original Essence. Hence the totality of being forms a gradation of concentric circles which finally lose themselves almost completely in non-being, in so far as in the last circle the force of the Original Essence is a vanishing one. Each lower stage of being is connected with the Original Essence only by means of the higher stages; that which is inferior receives a share in the Original Essence only through the medium of these. But everything derived has one feature, viz., a longing for the higher; it turns itself to this so far as its nature allows it. The first emanation of the Original Essence is the Νοῦς it is a complete image of the Original Essence and archetype of all existing things; it is being and thought at the same time, World of ideas and Idea. As image the Nov; is equal to the Original Essence, as derived it is completely different from it. What Plotinus understands by Νοῦς is the highest sphere which the human spirit can reach (κόσμος νοητός) and at the same time pure thought itself. The soul which, according to Plotinus, is an immaterial substance like the Νοῦς,457 is an image and product of the immovable Νοῦς. It is related to the Νοῦς as the latter is to the Original Essence. It stands between the Νοῦς and the world of phenomena. The Νοῦς penetrates and enlightens it, but it itself already touches the world of phenomena. The Νοῦς is undivided, the soul can also preserve its unity and abide in the Νοῦς; but it has at the same time the power to unite itself with the material world and thereby to be divided. Hence it occupies a middle position. In virtue of its nature and destiny it belongs, as the single soul (soul of the world), to the supersensible world; but it embraces at the same time the many individual souls; these may allow themselves to be ruled by the Νοῦς, or they may turn to the sensible and be lost in the finite. The soul, an active essence, begets the corporeal or the world of phenomena. This should allow itself to be so ruled by the soul that the manifold of which it consists may abide in fullest harmony. Plotinus is not a dualist like the majority of Christian Gnostics. He praises the beauty and glory of the world. When in it the idea really has dominion over matter, the soul over the body, the world is beautiful and good. It is the image of the upper world, though a shadowy one, and the gradations of better or worse in it are necessary to the harmony of the whole. But, in point of fact, the unity

457

On this sort of Trinity, see Bigg, “The Christian Platonists of Alexandria,” p. 248 f.

211

History of Dogma - Volume I

350

Adolf Harnack

and harmony in the world of phenomena disappear in strife and opposition. The result is a conflict, a growth and decay, a seeming existence. The original cause of this lies in the fact that a substratum, viz., matter, lies at the basis of bodies. Matter is the foundation of each (τὸ βάθος ἑκάστου ἡ ὕλη); it is the obscure, the indefinite, that which is without qualities, the μὴ ὄν. As devoid of form and idea it is the evil, as capable of form the intermediate. The human souls that are sunk in the material have been ensnared by the sensuous, and have allowed themselves to be ruled by desire. They now seek to detach themselves entirely from true being, and striving after independence fall into an unreal existence. Conversion therefore is needed, and this is possible, for freedom is not lost.

351

Now here begins the practical philosophy. The soul must rise again to the highest on the same path by which it descended: it must first of all return to itself. This takes place through virtue, which aspires to assimilation with God and leads to Him. In the ethics of Plotinus all earlier philosophic systems of virtue are united and arranged in graduated order. Civic virtues stand lowest, then follow the purifying, and finally the deifying virtues. Civic virtues only adorn the life, but do not elevate the soul as the purifying virtues do; they free the soul from the sensuous and lead it back to itself and thereby to the Νοῦς. Man becomes again a spiritual and permanent being, and frees himself from every sin, through asceticism. But he is to reach still higher; he is not only to be without sin, but he is to be “God.” That takes place through the contemplation of the Original Essence, the One, that is through ecstatic elevation to Him. This is not mediated by thought, for thought reaches only to the Νοῦς, and is itself only a movement. Thought is only a preliminary stage towards union with God. The soul can only see and touch the Original Essence in a condition of complete passivity and rest. Hence, in order to attain to this highest, the soul must subject itself to a spiritual “Exercise.” It must begin with the contemplation of material things, their diversity and harmony, then retire into itself and sink itself in its own essence, and thence mount up to the Νοῦς, to the world of ideas; but, as it still does not find the One and Highest Essence there, as the call always comes to it from there: “We have not made ourselves” (Augustine in the sublime description of Christian, that is Neoplatonic, exercises), it must, at it were, lose sight of itself in a state of intense concentration, in mute contemplation and complete forgetfulness of all things. It can then see God, the source of life, the principle of being, the first cause of all good, the root of the soul. In that moment it enjoys the highest and indescribable blessedness; it is itself, as it were, swallowed up by the deity and bathed in the light of eternity. Plotinus, as Porphyry relates, attained to this ecstatic union with God four times during the six years he was with him. To Plotinus this religious philosophy was sufficient; he did not require the popular religion and worship. But yet he sought their support. The Deity is indeed in the last resort only the Original Essence, but it manifests itself in a fulness of emanations and phenomena. The Νοῦς is, as it were, the second God; the λόγοι which are included in it are gods; the stars are gods etc. A strict monotheism appeared to Plotinus a poor thing. The myths of the popular religion were interpreted by him in a particular sense, and he could justify even magic, soothsaying and prayer. He brought forward reasons for the worship of images, which the Christian worshippers of images subsequently adopted. Yet, in comparison with the later Neoplatonists, he was free from gross superstition and wild fanaticism. He cannot, in the remotest sense, be reckoned among the “deceivers 212

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

who were themselves deceived,” and the restoration of the ancient worship of the Gods was not his chief aim.

352

353

Among his disciples the most important were Amelius and Porphyry. Amelius changed the doctrine of Plotinus in some points, and even made use of the prologue of the Gospel of John. Porphyry has the merit of having systematized and spread the teaching of his master, Plotinus. He was born at Tyre, in the year 233; whether he was for some time a Christian is uncertain; from 263-268 he was a pupil of Plotinus at Rome; before that he wrote the work περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας, which shews that he wished to base philosophy on revelation; he lived a few years in Sicily, (about 270) where he wrote his “fifteen books against the Christians”; he then returned to Rome, where he laboured as a teacher, edited the works of Plotinus, wrote himself a series of treatises, married in his old age, the Roman Lady Marcella, and died about the year 303. Porphyry was not an original, productive thinker, but a diligent and thorough investigator, characterized by great learning, by the gift of an acute faculty for philological and historical criticism, and by an earnest desire to spread the true philosophy of life, to refute false doctrines, especially those of the Christians, to ennoble man and draw him to that which is good. That a mind so free and noble surrendered itself entirely to the philosophy of Plotinus and to polytheistic mysticism, is a proof that the spirit of the age works almost irresistibly, and that religious mysticism was the highest possession of the time. The teaching of Porphyry is distinguished from that of Plotinus by the fact that it is still more practical and religious. The aim of philosophy, according to Porphyry, is the salvation of the soul. The origin and the guilt of evil lie not in the body, but in the desires of the soul. The strictest asceticism (abstinence from cohabitation, flesh and wine) is therefore required in addition to the knowledge of God. During the course of his life Porphyry warned men more and more decidedly against crude popular beliefs and immoral cults. “The ordinary notions of the Deity are of such a kind that it is more godless to share them than to neglect the images of the gods.” But freely as he criticised the popular religions, he did not wish to give them up. He contended for a pure worship of the many gods, and recognised the right of every old national religion, and the religious duties of their professors. His work against the Christians is not directed against Christ, or what he regarded as the teaching of Christ, but against the Christians of his day, and against the sacred books which, according to Porphyry, were written by impostors and ignorant people. In his acute criticism of the genesis or what was regarded as Christianity in his day, he spoke bitter and earnest truths, and therefore acquired the name of the fiercest and most formidable of all the enemies of Christians. His work was destroyed (condemned by an edict of Theodosius II. and Valentinian, of the year 448), and even the writings in reply (by Methodius, Eusebius, Apollinaris, Philostorgius, etc.,) have not been preserved. Yet we possess fragments in Lactantius, Augustine, Macarius Magnes and others, which attest how thoroughly Porphyry studied the Christian writings and how great his faculty was for true historical criticism. Porphyry marks the transition to the Neoplatonism which subordinated itself entirely to the polytheistic cults, and which strove, above all, to defend the old Greek and Oriental religions against the formidable assaults of Christianity. Iamblichus, the disciple of Porphyry (died 330), transformed Neoplatonism “from a philosophic theorem into a theological doctrine.” The doctrines peculiar to Iamblichus can no longer be deduced from scientific, but only from practical motives. In order to justify superstition and the ancient cults, philosophy in Iamblichus becomes a theurgic mysteriosophy, 213

History of Dogma - Volume I

354

Adolf Harnack

spiritualism. Now appears that series of “Philosophers” in whose case one is frequently unable to decide whether they are deceivers or deceived, “decepti deceptores,” as Augustine says. A mysterious mysticism of numbers plays a great role. That which is absurd and mechanical is surrounded with the halo of the sacramental; myths are proved by pious fancies and pietistic considerations with a spiritual sound; miracles, even the most foolish, are believed in and are performed. The philosopher becomes the priest of magic, and philosophy an instrument of magic. At the same time the number of Divine Beings is infinitely increased by the further action of unlimited speculation. But this fantastic addition which Iamblichus makes to the inhabitants of Olympus is the very fact which proves that Greek philosophy has here returned to mythology, and that the religion of nature was still a power. And yet no one can deny that, in the fourth century, even the noblest and choicest minds were found among the Neoplatonists. So great was the declension that this Neoplatonic philosophy was still the protecting roof for many influential and earnest thinkers, although swindlers and hypocrites also concealed themselves under this roof. In relation to some points of doctrine, at any rate, the dogmatic of Iamblichus marks an advance. Thus, the emphasis he lays on the idea that evil has its seat in the will, is an important fact; and in general the significance he assigns to the will is perhaps the most important advance in psychology, and one which could not fail to have great influence on dogmatic also (Augustine). It likewise deserves to be noted that Iamblichus disputed Plotinus’ doctrine of the divinity of the human soul. The numerous disciples of Iamblichus (Aedesius, Chrysantius, Eusebius, Priscus, Sopater, Sallust and especially Maximus, the most celebrated) did little to further speculation; they occupied themselves partly with commenting on the writings of the earlier philosophers (particularly Themistius), partly as missionaries of their mysticism. The interests and aims of these philosophers are best shewn in the treatise “De mysteriis Ægyptiorum.” Their hopes were strengthened when their disciple Julian, a man enthusiastic and noble, but lacking in intellectual originality, ascended the imperial throne, 361 to 363. This emperor’s romantic policy of restoration, as he himself must have seen, had, however, no result, and his early death destroyed every hope of supplanting Christianity.

355

But the victory of the Church in the age of Valentinian and Theodosius, unquestionably purified Neoplatonism. The struggle for dominion had led philosophers to grasp at and unite themselves with everything that was hostile to Christianity. But now Neoplatonism was driven out of the great arena of history. The Church and its dogmatic, which inherited its estate, received along with the latter superstition, polytheism, magic, myths and the apparatus of religious magic. The more firmly all this established itself in the Church and succeeded there, though not without finding resistance, the freer Neoplatonism becomes. It does not by any means give up its religious attitude or its theory of knowledge, but it applies itself with fresh zeal to scientific investigations and especially to the study of the earlier philosophers. Though Plato remains the divine philosopher, yet it may be noticed how, from about 400, the writings of Aristotle were increasingly read and prized. Neoplatonic schools continue to flourish in the chief cities of the empire up to the beginning of the fifth century, and in this period they are at the same time the places where the theologians of the Church are formed. The noble Hypatia, to whom Synesius, her enthusiastic disciple, who was afterwards a bishop, raised a splendid monument, taught in Alexandria. But from the beginning of the fifth century ecclesiastical fanaticism ceased to tolerate heathenism. The murder of Hypatia put an end 214

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

to philosophy in Alexandria, though the Alexandrian school maintained itself in a feeble form till the middle of the sixth century. But in one city of the East, removed from the great highways of the world, which had become a provincial city and possessed memories which the Church of the fifth century felt itself too weak to destroy, viz., in Athens, a Neoplatonic school continued to flourish. There, among the monuments of a past time, Hellenism found its last asylum. The school of Athens returned to a more strict philosophic method and to learned studies. But as it clung to religious philosophy and undertook to reduce the whole Greek tradition, viewed in the light of Plotinus’ theory, to a comprehensive and strictly articulated system, a philosophy arose here which may be called scholastic. For every philosophy is scholastic which considers fantastic and mythological material as a noli me tangere, and treats it in logical categories and distinctions by means of a complete set of formulæ. But to these Neoplatonists the writings of Plato, certain divine oracles, the Orphic poems, and much else which were dated back to the dim and distant past, were documents of standard authority and inspired divine writings. They took from them the material of philosophy, which they then treated with all the instruments of dialectic.

356

The most prominent teachers at Athens were Plutarch (died 433), his disciple Syrian (who, as an exegete of Plato and Aristotle, is said to have done important work, and who deserves notice also because he very vigorously emphasised the freedom of the will), but, above all, Proclus (411-485). Proclus is the great scholastic of Neoplatonism. It was he “who fashioned the whole traditional material into a powerful system with religious warmth and formal clearness, filling up the gaps and reconciling the contradictions by distinctions and speculations.” “Proclus,” says Zeller, “was the first who, by the strict logic of his system, formally completed the Neoplatonic philosophy and gave it, with due regard to all the changes it had undergone since the second century, that form in which it passed over to the Christian and Mohammedan middle ages. Forty-four years after the death of Proclus the school of Athens was closed by Justinian (in the year 529); but in the labours of Proclus it had completed its work, and could now really retire from the scene. It had nothing new to say; it was ripe for death, and an honourable end was prepared for it. The words of Proclus, the legacy of Hellenism to the Church and to the middle ages, attained an immeasurable importance in the thousand years which followed. They were not only one of the bridges by which the philosophy of the middle ages returned to Plato and Aristotle, but they determined the scientific method of the next thirty generations, and they partly produced, partly strengthened and brought to maturity the medieval Christian mysticism in East and West. The disciples of Proclus—Marinus, Asclepiodotus, Ammonius, Zenodotus, Isidorus, Hegias, Damascius—are not regarded as prominent. Damascius was the last head of the school at Athens. He, Simplicius, the masterly commentator on Aristotle, and five other Neoplatonists migrated to Persia after Justinian had issued the edict closing the school. They lived in the illusion that Persia, the land of the East, was the seat of wisdom, righteousness and piety. After a few years they returned with blasted hopes to the Byzantine kingdom. At the beginning of the sixth century Neoplatonism died out as an independent philosophy in the East; but almost at the same time, and this is no accident, it conquered new regions in the dogmatic of the Church through the spread of the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius; it began to fertilize Christian mysticism, and filled the worship with a new charm.

215

History of Dogma - Volume I

357

Adolf Harnack

In the West, where, from the second century, we meet with few attempts at philosophic speculation, and where the necessary conditions for mystical contemplation were wanting, Neoplatonism only gained a few adherents here and there. We know that the rhetorician, Marius Victorinus, (about 350) translated the writings of Plotinus. This translation exercised decisive influence on the mental history of Augustine, who borrowed from Neoplatonism the best it had, its psychology, introduced it into the dogmatic of the Church, and developed it still further. It may be said that Neoplatonism influenced the West at first only through the medium or under the cloak of ecclesiastical theology. Even Boethius—we can now regard this as certain—was a Catholic Christian. But in his mode of thought he was certainly a Neoplatonist. His violent death in the year 525, marks the end of independent philosophic effort in the West. This last Roman philosopher stood indeed almost completely alone in his century, and the philosophy for which he lived was neither original nor firmly grounded and methodically carried out. Neoplatonism and Ecclesiastical Dogmatic.

358

The question as to the influence which Neoplatonism had on the history of the development of Christianity is not easy to answer; it is hardly possible to get a clear view of the relation between them. Above all, the answers will diverge according as we take a wider or a narrower view of so-called “Neoplatonism.” If we view Neoplatonism as the highest and only appropriate expression for the religious hopes and moods which moved the nations of Græco-Roman Empire from the second to the fifth centuries, the ecclesiastical dogmatic which was developed in the same period may appear as a younger sister of Neoplatonism which was fostered by the elder one, but which fought and finally conquered her. The Neoplatonists themselves described the ecclesiastical theologians as intruders who appropriated Greek philosophy, but mixed it with foreign fables. Hence Porphyry said of Origen (in Euseb., H. E. VI. 19): “The outer life of Origen was that of a Christian and opposed to the law; but, in regard to his views of things and of the Deity, he thought like the Greeks, inasmuch as he introduced their ideas into the myths of other peoples.” This judgment of Porphyry is at any rate more just and appropriate than that of the Church theologians about Greek philosophy, that it had stolen all its really valuable doctrines from the ancient sacred writings of the Christians. It is, above all, important that the affinity of the two sides was noted. So far, then, as both ecclesiastical dogmatic and Neoplatonism start from the feeling of the need of redemption, so far as both desire to free the soul from the sensuous, so far as they recognise the inability of man to attain to blessedness and a certain knowledge of the truth without divine help and without a revelation, they are fundamentally related. It must no doubt be admitted that Christianity itself was already profoundly affected by the influence of Hellenism when it began to outline a theology; but this influence must be traced back less to philosophy than to the collective culture and to all the conditions under which the spiritual life was enacted. When Neoplatonism arose ecclesiastical Christianity already possessed the fundamental features of its theology, that is, it had developed these, not by accident, contemporaneously and independent of Neoplatonism. Only by identifying itself with the whole history of Greek philosophy, or claiming to be the restoration of pure Platonism, was Neoplatonism able to maintain that it had been robbed by the church theology of Alexandria. But that was an illusion. Ecclesiastical theology appears, though our sources here are unfortunately very meagre, to have learned but little from Neoplatonism even in the third century, partly because the latter itself had not yet developed into the form in which 216

History of Dogma - Volume I

359

360

Adolf Harnack

the dogmatic of the church could assume its doctrines, partly because ecclesiastical theology had first to succeed in its own region, to fight for its own position and to conquer older notions intolerable to it. Origen was quite as independent a thinker as Plotinus; but both drew from the same tradition. On the other hand, the influence of Neoplatonism on the Oriental theologians was very great from the fourth century. The more the Church expressed its peculiar ideas in doctrines which, though worked out by means of philosophy, were yet unacceptable to Neoplatonism (the christological doctrines), the more readily did theologians in all other questions resign themselves to the influence of the latter system. The doctrines of the incarnation, of the resurrection of the body, and of the creation of the word, in time formed the boundary lines between the dogmatic of the Church and Neoplatonism; in all else ecclesiastical theologians and Neoplatonists approximated so closely that many among them were completely at one. Nay, there were Christian men, such as Synesius, for example, who in certain circumstances were not found fault with for giving a speculative interpretation of the specifically Christian doctrines. If in any writing the doctrines just named are not referred to, it is often doubtful whether it was composed by a Christian or a Neoplatonist. Above all, the ethical rules, the precepts of the right life, that is asceticism, were always similar. Here Neoplatonism in the end celebrated its greatest triumph. It introduced into the Church its entire mysticism, its mystic exercises, and even the magical ceremonies as expounded by Iamblichus. The writings of the pseudo-Dionysius contain a Gnosis in which, by means of the doctrines of lamblichus and doctrines like those of Proclus, the dogmatic of the Church is changed into a scholastic mysticism with directions for practical life and worship. As the writings of this pseudo-Dionysius were regarded as those of Dionysius the disciple of the Apostle, the scholastic mysticism which they taught was regarded as apostolic, almost as a divine science. The importance which these writings obtained first in the East, then from the ninth or the twelfth century also in the West, cannot be too highly estimated. It is impossible to explain them here. This much only may be said, that the mystical and pietistic devotion of to-day, even in the Protestant Church, draws its nourishment from writings whose connection with those of the pseudo-Areopagitic can still be traced through its various intermediate stages. In antiquity itself Neoplatonism influenced with special directness one Western theologian, and that the most important, viz., Augustine. By the aid of this system Augustine was freed from Manichaeism, though not completely, as well as from scepticism. In the seventh Book of his confessions he has acknowledged his indebtedness to the reading of Neoplatonic writings. In the most essential doctrines, viz., those about God, matter, the relation of God to the world, freedom and evil, Augustine always remained dependent on Neoplatonism; but, at the same time, of all theologians in antiquity he is the one who saw most clearly and shewed most plainly wherein Christianity and Neoplatonism are distinguished. The best that has been written by a Father of the Church on this subject, is contained in Chapters 9-21 of the seventh Book of his confessions. The question why Neoplatonism was defeated in the conflict with Christianity, has not as yet been satisfactorily answered by historians. Usually the question is wrongly stated. The point here is not about a Christianity arbitrarily fashioned, but only about Catholic Christianity and Catholic theology. This conquered Neoplatonism after it had assimilated nearly everything it possessed. Further, we must note the place where the victory was gained. The battle-field was the empire of Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian. Only when we have considered these and all other conditions are we 217

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

entitled to enquire in what degree the specific doctrines of Christianity contributed to the victory, and what share the organisation of the Church had in it. Undoubtedly, however, we must always give the chief prominence to the fact that the Catholic dogmatic excluded polytheism in principle, and at the same time found a means by which it could represent the faith of the cultured mediated by science as identical with the faith of the multitude resting on authority. In the theology and philosophy of the middle ages mysticism was the strong opponent of rationalistic dogmatism; and, in fact, Platonism and Neoplatonism were the sources from which, in the age of the Renaissance and in the following two centuries, empiric science developed itself in opposition to the rationalistic dogmatism which disregarded experience. Magic, astrology, alchemy, all of which were closely connected with Neoplatonism, gave an effective impulse to the observation of nature and consequently to natural science, and finally prevailed over formal and barren rationalism. Consequently, in the history of science, Neoplatonism has attained a significance and performed services of which men like Iamblichus and Proclus never ventured to dream. In point of fact, actual history is often more wonderful and capricious than legends and fables. 361

362

Literature.—The best and fullest account of Neoplatonism, to which I have been much indebted in preparing this sketch, is Zeller’s Die Philosophie der Griechen, III. Theil, 2 Abtheilung (3 Auflage, 1881) pp. 419-865. Cf. also Hegel, Gesch. d. Philos. III. 3 ff. Ritter, IV. pp. 571-728: Ritter et Preller, Hist. phil. græc. et rom. § 531 ff. The Histories of Philosophy by Schwegler, Brandis, Brucker, Thilo, Strümpell, Ueberweg (the most complete survey of the literature is found here), Erdmann, Cousin, Prantl. Lewes. Further: Vacherot, Hist. de l’école d’Alexandria, 1846, 1851. Simon, Hist. de l’école d’Alexandria, 1845. Steinhart, articles “Neuplatonismus,” “Plotin,” “Porphyrius,” “Proklus “ in Pauly, Realencyclop. des klass. Alterthums. Wagenmann, article “Neuplatonismus” in Herzog, Realencyklopädie f. protest. Theol. T. X. (2 Aufl.) pp. 519-529. Heinze, Lehre vom Logos, 1872, p. 298 f. Richter, Neuplatonische Studien, 4 Hefte. Heigl, Der Bericht des Porphyrios über Origenes, 1835. Redepenning, Origenes I. p. 421 f. Dehaut, Essai historique sur la vie et la doctrine d’Ammonius Saccas, 1836. Kirchner, Die Philosophie des Plotin, 1854. (For the biography of Plotinus, cf. Porphyry, Eunapius, Suidas; the latter also in particular for the later Neoplatonists.) Steinhart, De dialectica Plotini ratione, 1829, and Meletemata ten ten Plotiniana, 1840. Neander, Ueber die welthistorische Bedeutung des 9 Buchs in der 2 Enneade des Plotinos, in the Adhandl. der Berliner Akademie, 1843. p. 299 f. Valentiner, Plotin u. s. Enneaden, in the Theol. Stud. u. Kritiken, 1864, H. 1. On Porphyrius, see Fabricius, Bibl. gr. V. p. 725 f. Wolff, Porph. de philosophia ex oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiæ, 1856. Müller, Fragmenta hist. gr. III. 688 f. Mai, Ep. ad Marcellam, 1816. Bernays, Theophrast. 1866. Wagenmann, Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theol. Th. XXIII. (1878) p. 269 f. Richter, Zeitschr. f. Philos. Th. LII. (1867) p. 30 f. Hebenstreit, de Iamblichi doctrina, 1764. Harless, Das Buch von den ägyptischen Mysterien, 1858. Meiners, Comment. Societ. Götting. IV. p. 50 f. On Julian, see the catalogue of the rich literature in the Realencyklop. f. prot. Theol. Th. VII. (2 Aufl.) p. 287; and Neumann, Juliani libr. c. Christ. quæ supersunt, 1880. Hoche, Hypatia, in “Philologus,” Th. XV. (1860) p. 435 f. Bach, De Syriano philosopho, 1862. On Proclus, see the Biography of Marinus and Freudenthal in “Hermes” Th. XVI. p. 214 f. On Boethius, cf. Nitzsch, Das System des Boëthius, 1860. Usener, Anecdoton Holderi, 1877. 218

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

On the relation of Neoplatonism to Christianity and its significance in the history of the world, cf. the Church Histories of Mosheim, Gieseler, Neander, Baur; also the Histories of Dogma by Baur and Nitzsch. Also Löffler, Der Platonismus, der Kirchenväter, 1782. Huber, Die Philosophie der Kirchenväter, 1859. Tzschirner, Fall des Heidenthums, 1829. Burckhardt, Die Zeit Constantin’s des Grossen, p. 155 f. Chastel, Hist. de la destruction du Paganisme dans l’empire d’Orient, 1850. Beugnot, Hist. de la destruction du Paganisme en Occident. 1835. E. v. Lasaulx, Der Untergang des Hellenismus, 1854. Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 1886. Réville, La réligion à Rome sous les Sévères, 1886. Vogt, Neuplatonismus und Christenthum, 1836. Ullmann, Einfluss des Christenthums auf Porphyrius, in Stud. und Krit., 1832. On the relation of Neoplatonism to Monasticism, cf. Keim, Aus dem Urchristenthum, 1178, p. 204 f. Carl Schmidt, Gnostische Schriften in Koptischer Sprache, 1892 (Texte u. Unters., VIII. 1. 2). See, further, the Monographs on Origen, the later Alexandrians, the three Cappadocians, Theodoret, Synesius, Marius Victorinus, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus, Scotus Erigena and the Mediæval Mystics. Special prominence is due to Jahn, Basilius Plotinizans, 1838. Dorner, Augustinus, 1875. Bestmann, Qua ratione Augustinus notiones philos. Græcæ adhibuerit, 1877. Loesche, Augustinus Plotinizans, 1881. Volkmann, Synesios, 1869. On the after effects of Neoplatonism on Christian Dogmatic, see Ritschl, Theologie und Metaphysik. 2 Aufl. 1887.

219

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

Indexes Index of Scripture References Genesis 1   1:1 Exodus 24:3   25:9   25:40   26:30   27:8 Numbers 8:4 1 Samuel 27:1-12 Job 1880 Psalms 2:2   45:8   51:19   96:1-13   110:1   110:4   139:15   139:16 Isaiah 7:1-25   7:14   7:14   9:1   29:13   53:1-12 Daniel 7:1-28   7:13 Micah 5:1 Malachi 1:11 Matthew 1:1-2:23   5:1-48   9:13   16:1-28   16:18   18:17   19:17   22:31   24:36   28:19   28:19 Mark 1:15   5:18-19   8:29   10:45   12:32-34   13:32 Luke 1:4   1:34   1:35   8:45   10:27   10:28   12:41-46   24:26   24:34   24:34   24:51 John 1:1-51   1:18   1:30   1:31   3:13   3:13   3:31   4:2   4:22   4:24   4:62   5:17   5:21   5:36   6:1-71   6:27-58   6:33   6:38   6:41   6:44   6:50   6:58   6:62   8:14   8:38   8:40   8:58   12:49   15:15   17:1-26   17:4   17:24   20:17   20:28   20:29   32:9   88 Acts 2:14   2:32   3:13   10:42   14:11   15:22   19:5   20:28   24:5   28:6   28:31 Romans 1:3   1:3   2:4   3:1-8:39   4   4   5:1-21   6   6:1   6:2   6:3   6:3   7   7:1-25   8:1-39   8:1-39   8:3   8:29   9:5   10:6   10:9   13:1 1 Corinthians

220

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

1:2   1:12   1:13   3:2   4:15   9:5   9:9   9:9   10:4   11:1   11:10   11:23   12:3   12:3   13:1-13   15:1-11   15:1-58   15:3   15:5   15:5   15:5   15:45 2 Corinthians 4:4   5:17   8:9   13:13 Galatians 1:15   1:15   1:16   1:18   1:22   2:1-21   2:1-21   2:8   2:11   3:16   3:19   4:22-31   4:26   5:22 Ephesians 1   1:1   1:1   1:4   1:20   1:22   2   2   2   2   2:6   3   3   3:5   4   4   4:9   7   7   7   7   7   7   7   7:2   9   9   10   12   14   14:2   17   18   19   20   20:1   20:2   31   63   73 Philippians 1:18   2:5   2:6   2:9 Colossians 1:15   1:18   269   291   409   415   1155 1 Timothy 2:5   3:16   3:16   3:16   6:20 2 Timothy 4:1 Titus 2:13   2:13 Hebrews 1:2   10:25   12:22   13:16 James 1:25   1:27 1 Peter 1:18   1:20   3:19 2 Peter 1:1   1:1   3:2 2 John 10:11 Revelation 1:5   2:3   2:9   2:9   3:9   3:9   3:14   21:2 4 Maccabees 5:24

Index of Greek Words and Phrases •                                            μ      •                                                            •        •         •

221

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•                        ,                                                                                                                                                              μ ,                                         μ    μ               μ       μ  ,   μ  μ                          μ  . •                           ,            μ                        ,                      μ             •                  μ                 μ                  μ                                        . •“     ” •“                  ” •                                     •         ,             μ                       ,               ,                                      •                •                                                              ,                              μ                         ,                                           ,                                   μ              μ  ,                  μ        μ         ,            μ             ,                                                 . •                   •                       •    •        •                                         •                        •        •                                        μ      ,       μ                 ,                         .           μ                          μ                                         ,                                                  ,                                                                          •                            μ    μ             μ   ,                                  μ . •      μ                                                                   •            •         μ     μ          μ       , . . . •            •                             m             ,               ,             ,               ,               ,                  ,                 . . . . . .                          ,                                     ,        ,         μ       •          ,                     ,                                                         μ                       μ    ,                                  ,   μ   ,   μ    , μ       ,       μ                         ,                                                          μ                                                 ,                                        μ             . •                     •    ,                                       μ       ,                           ,                 μ          ,                           ,                               ,                                                                  μ  . •  μ                                            μ               ,     μ                                      μ                       ;                                            μ        ,      μ                                                                                                      ,                                      ,                                                                           μ         ,                                                                μ                                                           μ                        μμ                  . •      •        •                       μ                               •                        μ    ,       . . . .   μ           μ                                      μ                  . •                                                          •  .   .                       μ            222

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•                     μ      μ     ,                                         ,                          μ      μ          ,                            •                                              μ       μ    ,                   ,       μ                                         μ       μ    ,                   μ                              ,              μ                                •                                                         ,       μ                                 ,                         μ              μ  , μ            [sic]                                                             •                      μ                                   μ                                                    •                    •           •     •                                    μ                                                                                                            ,                                      μ                                            μ                     μ                                                         ;                                                ,           μ  ,              μ                         μ          μ           μ              . •      μ                                      ,                        μ    ,          μ                                           ,                μ •     ,       ,                                               ,                          μ              . •                                           μ         μ     μ  ,                                                                                μ                       μ                   μ          ,                                                                             ,           μ                    μ                       μ  ,                                                          μ          μ         •           μ                                                    .                                                             μ   ,                                         μ  ,             μ                                                                           . •     •             •                           μ             μ              •               •                                                                    (    )                    μ        •                  •                  μ                                                                  μ                                            μ     •                μ                                               μ                                  μ       •       μ       μ                                   ,                     μμ                . . . .          μ   μ              μμ                          ,                                                  μ                             μ                           •               μ                   μ             μ                  μ         ,                •                                         . . . . μ                        μ                                   ,      μ                           . . . .                                             . •        μ          μ                                              μ  .                               , μ        μ   ,               μ                          μ                                          μ        μ   .                                                          μ                       ,                     μ  . •         μ                                μ                                              •                                μ        μ                   μ                                μ              •                                μ  ,      μ                   μ ,                                μ              •                                        •        ,             μ  ,      μ                   μ                            ,                                μ             . •                    μ                    . . . . .                     μ                     ,       μ    μ                    μ    ,          μ                                                     . . . •        •           223

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•                            •              •                          •           μ      ,         •           μ       •        •                  . •            •            •           •           (              ) •                      •                   μ            μ                           . •           μ        μ        μ                      μ       ,            μ                         •            •                    •           ,                •                          μ         •                 •             •            •                         μ          . •                                       , instead of                                             . •       μ              •             •                                                    •            μ                                                     μ                               .                                                 μ                   μ       . . . or the exhortation:                       ,                 μ                             •                              •                    μ   •            μ                •           ,          •            μ   μ                                 ,                                                  μ         . •              •                 μ     μ             μ                    ,                                        μ                  μ       . •                       •       •                             •           •                                        •        •   μ                                    μ                 ,                                    μ         ,          μ                    •  μ      .                                          μ    . •  μ      224

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•                      •         ,            •            μ         μ            μ                                                ,   μ            μ                           ,               μ           ,                        ,                                μ                       μ    μ                                                          •                                                                           •                                                                                  ,                                          ,      μ     ,                                                                                                    μ     ,           ,             ,                                                •                         μ                •       •       μ        μ                                  μ     , apart from the     μ      •                   •                   (       ) •                                          •       μ                                                                            . •                         •                 •                                                                ,                                •       •                 •       (         )                    •        •                  •                  •                 •       •    ,            •          •  μ                                 •     •     •                             μ               •               μ                                  •          •                               •             •                     •                           •      μ            •      μ                •            •            •                                                    •                                                       225

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•       , (      )        ,         (      μ )                 •                       . •                μ                          μ                     ,               ,                              ,                   μ            μ           •         •      •                      •                 μ                     μ   •       •                                                               •                                       μ         •      μ             •           (           )           •     μ                                            μ      ,                                      μ      . . . . ,           μ         μ           ,                         μ                 .                      .                                                      .                                     •                                    μ                                   μ                                                      ,                                      •                             μ         ,                  , μ                       •            •                                       ,                      μ   . . . •                                                                    μ                ·                   μ    ,       ,                                                μ                   •    •                         μ                    μ                       μ   (      μ          •             ,              μ               ,               ,            μ              ; •                   μ μ      ;      •           •                    •                        •        μ                                          •                                 μ                                                                                     •               μ        μ          μ      μ  μ                         ,         μ      μ                       μ  ,                                                    μ                                                                                                    ,                       μ                                 . •                      •                      ” the “                           ” and the “                          •                          μ               .   .   . •       μ                •    μ          •                                •         (      ) •

226

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•           μ           μ                            ,               μ                                                                   μ               μ                              μ           ,            μ                           μ  ,                                               ,                        μ           μ       ,       μ                           ,         μ                     ,                                           ,                                                                μ               μ             —                 μ   ,              μ                        —                  μ                                                                                                                                              μ                          . •        (       μ   ) •            (             )        (         )    μ   (            ) •           ,       ,    μ   •                              •                         μ                                  μ          •                        •            •                μ     •            •           •              μ   μ μ                                μ   •            •                                      μ                ,                 μ                                                        . •        μ                          μ           ,                          μ               μ              μ         μ                 •                              ,   μ      ,                     ,                 •                       ,                                            •         ,        μ  , μ            •         μ                   μ  ,         μ      μ     μ      μ          μ               •         μ                  ,                                                                         μ         μ                   μ                                                                μ     •                                                 μ    μ     ,                                      μ    •                       μ       μ  ,                         μ                                                           •                μ       •                μ                        •                    μ       •              μ •              μ •              μ            ,               ,                       μ     •                                                                      μ          μ                          μ                        μ                  •                         •                     •             (       ) •             •                     •                                                  μ     μ       ,                                               μ                 ,                   μ         μ           . •           μ                                                         .

227

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•           μ       ,              ,                        μ         ,                                     μ                                                         ,                  μ                              •           μ       ,          μ                                                 μ                               •                                 μ               •               •                •                                •                   •       μ             •         ,             •               μ                       μ                          μ                                                                   μ   •                          •                          •              •                       •             —                      —                          or                 —          —                       — •                                 μ                •               μ        μ  ,                              μ                       . •      μ      •      μ     •  μ             ,                                   •  μ                 μ                                                 •  μ   •  μ                 μ μ             ,                                    ,                  μ                         μ  μ                    •  μ                                                           μ                 •  μ                                    μ  ,                                                                             . •  μ             μ             μ   •  μ                                μ                 •  μ                ,         ,     μ                                                                      •                   •        μ       μ           .   .—                 .    •                    •                            •                    •                                 μ                                  μ  ,                                                       μ      μ   •      •                 •                     μ          •                                                 μ             μ   •                        •      μ          •             •      .            •             μ                      228

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•                                     , •      •                       •               •     —       —                       —            •     ,” •      •            •            •            •     •        •                         μ                                                ,                                                              •       •       •              •                    ,                                                ,                                  •       ,             •                          ,                     μ      μ  μ    ,                                 ,      μ             μ                                          . •                           ,                                                   , V. 19:                                                         μ                                   •           •                                                 μ       μ                                                                                 μ  . •                    μ                          )                                                    •                                                              ,                                     .                                                                                       .                                                    ,                                      ,                     μ                                                                        μ                                                                       •                      •       μ   (      ) •     μ                 μ                                                         . •                                                      μ            μ                                          μ                 ,             μ             μ       μ        μ             •                    ;                  •               μ   μ                                    μ                          μ   μ                  , μ                  μ          •                                                   μ                         ,                  μ      ,               μ     ,                μ                                 μ                 .             μ   ,                           ,                                      ,        μ                   μ . •                                            μ                                 μ                            ,              μ   ,              μ                       μ                         . •                    , he says,             μ                  μ                                 ,                                    μ               μ    ,                 μ   •                                        μ   . •                                               μ          μ                                                                 μ              229

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•                        •                       •                                                      •                                                                           ,                                               ,                  ,                                                                                                      μ             μ                    ). •                •              •               •          μ   or              •                               μ  , .  . . •                            •          μ •          μ and              •            ,           μ •             •            —          μ •          μ •            •        -         •     μ                       μ ,                             . •     μ                       μ ,                             •         ,             ,           . •                                   ,                                                     . •       •                       , and the                       •                       . •    μ   •    μ   •    μ                     . . . . . .                                       μ                               ,          μ                          μ                                             μ          μ    . •    μ   •    μ           •                •                      ,                 μ                             •   μ         •              μ       μ           μ                     ,           μ                     μ  μ     . •                            •        ,               ,                       •        •                •        =          •       ,          ,            ,            ,       •       ,        •                      230

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•                   μ               μ                         •                •       •                                                    . •       •       •       •                •                    •            and                •           ,                ,       μ                         •              •       μ                     •                    •                •       •μ        •μ       :   μ   •μ        •μ                               •μ        •μ                             •μ         •μ                                              ,                                                                            μ                                              •μ                                      ,               ,                ,    μ      .                                          μ                              , μ                                                . . . .                    μ          , μ                      ,                      μ      . . . . μ                                                 ,                     . •μ                                         μ     ,                    ,                                                     •μ        •μ                                                    μ           μ                                             ,                                           , μ                 ,            μ               ,                                 μ           ,           μ                ,             μ ,                ,        μ          μ     . •μ           •μ                                                                                         ; •μ  μ                                         •μ                 •μ   •μ                •μ           •μ          •       •          •                 231

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•   μ   •   μ                          •   μ       μ        •   μ   .              •   μ             •     •  μ                                                                             ,            μ                               ,                                                                      •                          •                μ            , . . . •                                                   μ     μ                              . •                  μ                           .                                                                                         μ                            •              μ                         ,          μ  ,           ,            ,      μ       ,    μ     ,       ,      μ          ,                ,            ,    μ           μ    ,            μ       μ              μ                                                  μ                 •                   •           μ                                μ            •                                        μ    “                                     ,   μ       “                                  ”          .                                μ   “                              μ  ”               μ      , “μ                    ,                                              ,                        ,   μ            μ    ”        μ                                   μ         μμ   . •                      μ  ,                           ,                   μ                  μ                       μ                                               ,                   . . . .                                   μ                .” •                  —          μ —          μ               —          —    μ    μ   , or     μ    μ •                  μ          μ          ,                          μ                           ,                  μ       .                                                                            •           μ       μ                          ,          μ      μ                   μ           ,                                        •     μ                                                μ                . •                                      μ                                                μ                        μ      •                                                                                          μ        •                       μ                                 μ   •           μ   •                                                •                                μ          μ    μ              μ                     μ                           μ                      •           μ                                       μ              . . . .                              μ                       μ   •         (       )       . •        ,            μ                                          μ                                        . . . . •         •                •           μ   •         μ   •           •                              μ         •           (  μ  ) •                    μ                 μ           . 232

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•                          •   μ               •                               μ           μ   •            μ   •                           •                                μ                           μ    ,                 . •                 μ                μ μ                                         μ                             μ                                      μ                                   . •                            •                                                                                                              μ   μ              μ ,                          the women)            μ   . . . .                         μ,                     μ        .                                . •                                         •                                                                 μ    •                                                                  μ    •                         •               μ             , μ            μ                               •  μ    μ              μ        •  μ                    μ                                 ,                       μ                    μ                                        ,      μ        μ                                    ,                                          μ                                μ       . •  μ         •    •      ,                        ,                                   ,                                μ        ,                                              μ     μ     ,                                                    ,     μ     •                •       μ                                                  •                  μ                                                    ,                                          μ   .                               ,                                                          μ                            μ          . . . •                                 μ                                  •                            •            •            μ                                    •                       •                                            •            ,                                       ,                            . •                                  μ   •                                                                 ,        μ                          •                                                                                                                   •                                              μ                               ,                          •                                μ ,       μ                   μ    μ                  •                            μ       μ         •                                                                                  •                             :                ,                                 •             μ                              μ                 ,        μ                                           μ        •                                           μ                     μ      μ         μ                      ,                   μ          μ      . 233

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•                                                                     , . . . .      μ         μ                                                                                                •       •       (  μ ,         ) •                                      μ                 μ   •          •          •     μ             •               μ           •             •                   •            μ               ,                   ,                                        μ         μ   •                       •                                                            · μ                                             •                  —                     —       —                                        •                                  •                                 •                          μ             μ                                                             . Præd. Petri ap. Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 48:                          μ              μ                           ,                  μ         ,                                 μ     μ   . •                                    μ   •                      ,         μ               μ                         ,                                      μ             μ                                    ,                              μ   •                                        •                      •        •                                        •                                         . •    μ •    μ          •    μ           •    μ      •    μ         ,                                           μ                                  •    μ ,      •    μ ,   μ                   •                   μ               μ        μ                                            μ      ,                                      μ      . . . .                   μ                                                                                              .                                ,                       . •       •                μ              •                    μ •                                 μ                             ,                             μ      μ     μ     •                                                     μ ,      μ                        . . .

234

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•                     μ               μ                 .                                                         ,                                             ,                                                         μ                                                                           ,            μ                                     9;                   μ    ,                              μ                   μ                    μ           . •                         ,                           ,                                       , . . •             •         •          ,                  •        μ                         μ   •        μ                         μ  ,             . . . •        μ                         μ  , he is the                              •        μ     ,             •        μ      μ                       μ  ,                       μ                                                                                                    ,                       μ                                 . •         •                                           μ   •         μ          μ                                                   μ                            μ                  •                                       , and as                             μ   •                     •                                     μ            ,                                                         μ  μ                      μ                                                                                                        . •         ,      •          •           •        μ                     •                                  •                           •                            •       μ          •              •      •                    ,                 μ         μ           •                •              •                    •                   •      ,         ,         μ ,        (          μ     ), from the                          •                       •         ,       μ ,          ,                            , •                                                                       •                      μμ     μ     •       μ                     . •         •       235

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•                                     μ                 , μ                                               . •         •       •       •        ,               •                     •               μ                                   μ    ,           μμ          μ   μ      μ                              μ                                 ,                                 ,         ,         μ ,        •   μ                 ,                      ,                       μ                                             ,                            μ                                               ,               . •                                  •        μ  μ     μ    .             •         μ           •           (        ) •                                 •                •                  μ               •                 μ     μ     •                  μ                                          •                                                           •    μ (      ) •                                                 μ                           •      μ                          μ                    . . .                                       μ                                        μ  . •                              •           μ   μ   μ                  •            μ     μ           “    μ   ,”   μ                      μ       •                                    •         μ                     μ •                    μ  ; Eph. 7 •                 μ                     •                    μ          •            μ          μ                                              μ   . . . •                          ,                          ,                                μ •               μ                             μ                                       ,                                                       ;             μ                           ,                                 ,      μ                          ,                                                             μ        ,                    ,            μ                          ,   μ   . •                     ,                         μ                        —        and           •                       , with                              ,                   •                μ                     ,                                                                                            •              •       •                       •           μ

236

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•                                                                    μ                       , or                              , and 1 Clem. 36. 2:                                                               μ              •                                         μ         , μ μ                       μ                              μ        μ    , μ                   μ       μ     μ                                                              μ     •                                                                                μ                                μ             μ                            •            •                       •            μ                                                                                                  ,                       ,                                          μ     μ                                . . .                                                                          . •                                          μ             •             •           •                                    •     μ    •       μ          •      μ    •        ” •                   •                 .                         ,                     μ . •         μ                                               •                                                ,                                                •                                ,      μ                  μ           μ                        μ  ,                          .                                                                    μ              μ   ,                  μ       μ         ? •               •. . .                                                            μ                 •. . . .    ,                                         ,                     μ                                                                                           μ                                    ,                                     μ                   , . . . •. . . .                              ,

Index of Latin Words and Phrases •“Sufficit,” said the Marcionites, “unicum opsus deo nostro, quod hominem liberavit summa et præcipua bonitate sua” •(Ebionitæ) credentes in Christo propter hoc solum a patribus anathematizati sunt, quod legis cæremonias Christi evangelio miscuerunt, et sic nova confessa sunt, ut vetera non omitterent. •Ab igne, inquiunt, creatoris deprehendetur •Aiunt, Marcionem non tam innovasse regulam separatione legis et evangelii quam retro adulteratam recurasse •Apostoli et discentes ipsorum •Apostoli non diversa inter se docuerent

237

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•Apostoli quæ sunt Judæorum sentientes scripserunt •Apostolorum principem •Apostolos admiscuisse ea quæ sunt legalia salvatoris verbis •Apostolos vultis Judaismi magis adfines subintelligi. •Atque adeo præ se ferunt Marcionitæ: quod deum suum omnino non timeant. Malus autem, inquiunt, timebitur; bonus autem diligitur. •Carmen dicere Christo quasi deo •Cessatio delicti radix est veniæ, ut venia sit pænitentiæ fructus •Christiani rudes •Consensus repetitus •Corpus sumus •De verbi autem administratione quid dicam, cum hoc sit negotium illis, non ethnicos convertendi, sed nostros evertendi? Hanc magis gloriam captant, si stantibus ruinam, non si jacentibus elevationem operentur. Quoniam et ipsum opus eorum non de suo proprio ædificio venit, sed de veritatis destructione; nostra suffodiunt, ut sua ædificent. Adime illis legem Moysis et prophetas et creatorem deum, accusationem eloqui non habent. •Denique in tantam quidam dilectionis audaciam proruperunt, ut nova quædam et inaudita super Paulo monstra confingerent. Alli enim aiunt, hoc quod scriptum est, sedere a dextris salvatoris et sinistris, de Paulo et de Marcione dici, quod Paulus sedet a dextris, Marcion sedet a sinistris. Porro alii legentes: Mittam vobis advocatum Spiritum veritatis, nolunt intelligere tertiam personam a patre et filio, sed Apostolum Paulum. •Deus incognitus •Diabolus ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis æmulatur. Tingit et ipse quosdam, utique credentes et fideles suos; expositionem delictorum de lavacro repromittit, et si adhuc memini, Mithras signat illic in frontibus milites suos, celebrat et panis oblationem et imaginem resurrectionis inducit . . . . summum pontificem in unius nuptiis statuit, habet et virgines, habet et continentes. •Dispares deos, alterum, judicem, ferum, bellipotentem; alterum mitem, placidum et tantummodo bonum atque optimum. •Dixit Jesus ad suos μ       :   μ   •Dominus •Dominus invenit me, qui ab initio orbis terrarum præparatus sum, ut sim arbiter (μ        •Es quo fit, ut nullo modo in theologicis, quæ omnia e libris antiquis hebraicis, græcis, latinis ducuntur, possit aliquis bene in definiendo versari et a peccatis multis et magnis sibi cavere, nisi litteras et historiam assumat. •Et hoc est, quod schismata apud hæreticos fere non sunt, quia cum Sint, non parent. Schisma est enim unitas ipsa. •Et in primis illud retorquendum in istos, qui duorum nobis deorum controversiam facere præsumunt. Scriptum est, quod negare non possunt: “Quoniam unus est dominus.” De Christo ergo quid sentiunt? Dominum esse, aut ilium omnino non esse? Sed dominum illum omnino non dubitant. Ergo si vera est illorum ratiocinatio, jam duo sunt domini. •Felix aqua quæ semel abluit, qum ludibrio pecatoribus non est.

238

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•Fertur ergo in traditionibus, quoniam Johannes ipsum corpus, quod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui præbuisse discipuli. •Gentiles quamvis idola colant, tamen summum deum patrem creatorem cognoscunt et confitentur [!]; in hunc Marcion, blasphemat, etc. •Gnosticos autem se vocant, etiam imagines, quasdam quidem depictas, quasdam autem et de reliqua materia fabricatas habent et eas coronant, et proponent eas cum imaginibus mundi philosophorum, videlicet cum imagine Pythagoræ et Platonis et Aristotelis et reliquorum, et reliquam observationem circa eas similiter ut gentes faciunt. •Hoc sentire et facere omnem servum dei oportet, etiam minor’s loci, ut maioris fieri possit, si quern gradum in persecutionis tolerantia ascenderit •Hominum plerique orationem demonstrativam continuam mente assequi nequeunt, quare indigent, ut instituantur parabolis. Veluti nostro tempore videmus, homines illos, qui Christiani vocantur, fidem suam e parabolis petiisse. Hi tamen interdum talia faciunt, qualia qui vere philosophantur. Nam quod mortem contemnunt, id quidem omnes ante oculos habemus; item quod verecundia quadam ducti ab usu rerum venerearam abhorrent. Sunt enim inter eos feminas et viri, qui per totam vitam a concubitu abstinuerint; sunt etiam qui in animis regendis coërcendisque et in accerrimo honestatis studio eo progressi sint, ut nihil cedant vere philosophantibus. •Immo inquiunt Marcionitæ, deus poster, etsi non ab initio, etsi non per conditionem, sed per semetipsum revelatus est in Christi Jesu. •Inflatus est iste [scil. the Valentinian proud of knowledge] neque in cœlo, neque in terra putat se esse, sed intra Pleroma introisse et complexum jam angelum suum, cum institorio et supercilio incedit gallinacei elationem habens . . . . Plurimi, quasi jam perfecti, semetipsos spiritales vocant, et se nosse jam dicunt eum qui sit intra Pleroma ipsorum refrigerii locum •Major pæne vis hominum e visionibus deum discunt. •Major pars imperitorum apud gloriosissimam multitudinem psychicorum. •Marcion non negat creatorem deum esse. •Marcionitæ interrogati quid fiet peccatori cuique die illo? respondent abici ilium quasi ab oculis •Mariccus . . . . iamque adsertor Galliarum et deus, nomen id sibi indiderat •Mundus ille superior •Nam Jacobum apostolum Symmachiani faciunt quasi duodecimum et hunc secuntur, qui ad dominum nostrum Jesum Christum adjungunt Judaismi observationem, quamquam etiam Jesum Christum fatentur; dicunt enim eum ipsum Adam esse et esse animam generalem, et aliæ hujusmodi blasphemiæ. •Narem contrahentes impudentissimi Marcionitæ convertuntur ad destructionem operum creatoris. Nimirum, inquiunt, grande opus et dignum deo mundus? •Naturam si expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. •Nihil veritas erubescit nisi solummodo abscondi. •Nullus potest hæresim struere, nisi qui ardens ingenii est et habet dona naturæ quæ a deo artifice sunt creata: talis fait Valentinus, talis Marcion, quos doctissimos legimus, talis Bardesanes, cujus etiam philosophi admirantur ingenium. •Oportet me magis deo vivo et vero, regi sæculorum omnium Christo, sacrificium offerre. •Prius est prædicare posterius tinguere

239

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•Ptolemæus nomina et numeros Æonum distinxit in personales substantias, sed extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat. •Quem deum colis? Respondit: Christum. Polemon (judex): Quid ergo? iste alter est? [the co-defendant Christians had immediately before confessed God the Creator]. Respondit: Non; sed ipse quem et ipsi paullo ante confessi sunt •Quid dicam de Hebionitis, qui Christianos esse se simulant? usque hodie per totas orientis synagogas inter Judæos (!) hæresis est, que dicitur Minæorum et a Pharisæis nunc usque damnatur, quos vulgo Nazaræos nuncupant, qui credunt in Christum filium dei natum de Virgine Maria et eum dicunt esse, qui sub pontio Pilato passus est et resurrexit, in quem et nos credimus; sed dum volunt et Judæi esse et Christiani, nec Judæi sunt nec Christiani. •Quid novi attulit dominus veniens? •Quoniam opera bona, quæ fiunt ab infidelibus, in hoc sæculo its prosunt •Sæculum •Sacrorum pleraque initia in Græcia participavi. Eorum quædam signa et monumenta tradita mihi a sacerdotibus sedulo conservo. •Scio dicturos, atqui hanc esse principalem et perfectam bonitatem, cum sine ullo debito familiaritatis in extraneos voluntaria et libera effunditur, secundum quam inimicos quoque nostros et hoc nomine jam extraneos deligere jubeamur. •Scio scripturam Enoch, quæ hunc ordinem angelis dedit, non recipi a quibusdam, quia nec in armorium Judaicum admittitur . . . sed cum Enoch eadem scriptura etiam de domino prædicarit, a nobis quidem nihil omnino reiciendum est quod pertinet ad nos. Et legimus omnem scripturam ædificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. A Judæis potest jam videri propterea reiecta, sicut et cetera fera quæ Christum sonant. . . . . Eo accedit quod Enoch apud Judam apostolum testimonium possidet. •Sed enim nationes extraneæ, ab omni intellectu spiritalium potestatum eadem efficacia idolis suis subministrant. Sed viduis aquis sibi mentiuntur. Nam et sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur, Isidis alicujus aut Mithræ; ipsos etiam deos suos lavationibus efferunt. Ceterum villas, domos, templa totasque urbes aspergine circumlatæ aqua expiant passim. Certe ludis Apollinaribus et Eleusiniis tinguuntur, idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem periuriorum suorum agere præsumunt. Item penes veteres, quisquis se homicidio infecerat, purgatrices aquas explorabat. •Sensus, motus, affectus dei •Separatio legis et Evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis, nec poterunt negare discipuli ejus, quod in summo (suo) instrumento habent, quo denique initiantur et indurantur in hanc hæresim. •Separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis . . . ex diversitate sententiarum utriusque instrumenti diversitatem quoque argumentatur deorum. •Si bona fide quæras, concreto vultu, suspenso supercilio, Altum est, aiunt. Si subtiliter temptes per ambiguitates bilingues communem fidem adfirmant. Si scire to subostendas negant quidquid agnoscunt. Si cominus certes, tuam simplicitatem sua cæde dispergunt. Ne discipulis quidem propriis ante committunt quam suos fecerint. Habent artificium quo prius persuadeant quam edoceant. •Si hominem non perfectum fecit deus, unusquisque autem per industriam propriam perfectionem sibi virtutis adsciscit: non ne videtur plus sibi homo adquirere, quam ei deus contulit? •Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur homo in orationibus mediator invocatur, cum invocatio hominis ad præstandam salutem inefficax judicetur. 240

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•Sicut ex lege ac prophetis et a domino nostro Jesu Christo didicimus. •Simplices quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est •Solius bonitatis •Speraverat Episcopatum Valentinus, quia et ingenio poterat et eloquio. Sed alium ex martyrii prærogativa loci potitum indignatus de ecclesia authenticæ regulæ abrupit •Spiritus salutaris •Subito Christus, subito et Johannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, quæ suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem. •Tranquilitas est et mansuetudinis segregare solummodo et partem ejus cum infidelibus ponere •Valentini robustissima secta •Valentiniani frequentissimum plane collegium inter hæreticos. •Valentiniani nihil magis curant quam occultare, quod prædicant; si tamen prædicant qui occultant. Custodiæ officium conscientiæ officium est •a ligno •a priori •analogia fidei •articuli fide •articulus constitutivus ecclesia •ascensus in cœlum •assumpta •assumptio •assumptio naturæ novæ •cœlum tertium •carmen dicere Christo quasi deo •collegia tenuiorum •communem fidem adfirmant •consensus patrum et doctorum •corpus permixtum •de cœlo •de conscientia religionis et disciplinæ unitate et spei foedere. •decepti deceptores •dei filius •delicta pristinæ cæcitatis •demonstratio veræ carnis post resurrectionem •descensus ad inferna •descensus de cœlo, ascensus in cœlum; ascensus in cœlum, descensus ad inferna •deus •deus Jesus Christus •deus melior •disciplina Evangelii •distincte agere •dominus ac deus •dominus ac deus noster •dominus regnavit 241

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•ex errare per veritatem ad errorem •ex necessitate salutis •ex professo •factiuncula, congregatio, conciliabulum, conventiculum •fides implicita •finis religionis •frequentissimum collegium •hæc fere summa est doctrina apud suos, in qua cerni potest nihil inesse, quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia Catholica vel ab ecclesia Romana . . . . sed dissensio est de quibusdam abusibus •hic igitur a multis quasi deus glorificatus est, et docuit semetipsunr esse qui inter Judæos quidem quasi filius apparuerit, in Samaria autem quasi pater descenderit in reliquis vero gentibus quasi Spiritus Sanctus adventaverit. •in abstracto •invisibilia •justitia civilis •lex •malignus •malus •materia subjacens •minori ad majus •mutatis mutandis •ne quid nimis •numen supremum •passiones dei •per semetipsum •personalis substantia •phantasma •phantasma, assumptio naturæ humanæ, transmutatio, mixtura, duæ naturæ •plerique nec Ecclesias habent •præsens et corporalis deus •præsens numen •præter nocturnas visiones per dies quoque impletur apud nos spiritu sancto puerorum innocens ætas, quæ in ecstasi videt •primo per mantis impositionem in exorcismo, secundo per baptismi regenerationem •profanum vulgus •quæ sine scelere prodi non poterit •quamquam sciam somnia ridicula et visiones ineptas quibusdam videri, sed utique illis, qui malunt contra sacerdotes credere quam sacerdoti, sed nihil mirum, quando de Joseph fratres sui dixerunt: ecce somniator ille •qui est super omnia •qui est super omnia et originem nescit •qui vitam æternam habet •regulæ •regulæ fide 242

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

•regula •regula fide •regula fidei •renatus in æternum taurobolio •restitutio in integrum •revelatio •salus legitima •sanctiores feminæ •sanguine dei •secundum motum animi mei et spiritus Sancti •secundum motum animi mei et spiritus sancti •semper idem •sub specie aternitatis et Christi •summum bonum •termini technici •tertium genus •theologia Christi •theologia patristica •umbra •unum •visibilia •vita beata •vulgus

Index of Pages of the Print Edition iv v vi vii viii xix x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi xvii xviii xix xx xxi xxii xxiii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 270 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362

243

History of Dogma by

Adolf Harnack

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

Table of Contents About This Book. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. ii Title Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 1 Volume II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 2 Prefatory Material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 2 Historical Survey.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 14 Chapter I. Historical Survey.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 14 I. Fixing and Gradual Secularising of Christianity as a Church.. . . . . . . p. 24 Chapter II. The Setting Up of the Apostolic Standards for Ecclesiastical Christianity. The Catholic Church.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 24 The Transformation of the Baptismal Confession into the Apostolic Rule of Faith.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 25 The designation of selected writings read in the Churches as New Testament Scriptures or, in other words, as a collection of Apostolic Writings.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 36 The transformation of the Episcopal Office in the Church into an Apostolic Office. The History of the remodeling of the conception of the Church.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 52 Appendix I. Cyprian’s idea of the Church and the actual circumstances.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 66 Appendix II. Church and Heresy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 66 Appendix III. Uncertainties regarding the consequences of the new idea of the Church.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 68 Chapter III. Continuation. The Old Christianity and the New Church.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 68 II. Fixing and Gradual Hellenising of Christianity as a System of Doctrine.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 111 Chapter IV. Ecclesiastical Christianity and Philosophy. The Apologists.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 111 1. Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 111 2. Christianity as Philosophy and as Revelation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 116 3. The doctrines of Christianity as the revealed and rational religion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 130 Chapter V. The Beginnings of an Ecclesiastico-Theological Interpretation and Revision of the Rule of Faith in Oppoisition to Gnosticism on the thep. 147

iii

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

Basis of the New Testament and the Christian Philosophy of the Apologists: Melito, Irenæus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian.. . . . . . . 1. The theological position of Irenæus and the later contemporary Church teachers.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 147 2. The Old Catholic Fathers’ doctrine of the Church.. . . . . . . . . . . . p. 157 3. Results to Ecclesiastical Christianity, chiefly in the West, (Cyprian, Novatian).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 194 Chapter VI. The Transformation of the Ecclesiastical Tradition into a Philosophy of Religion, or the Origin of the Scientific Theology and Dogmatic of the Church.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 198 (1) The Alexandrian Catechetical School and Clement of Alexandria.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 198 (2) The system of Origen.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 206 I. The Doctrine of God and its unfolding.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 216 II. Doctrine of the Fall and its consequences.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 223 III. Doctrine of Redemption and Restoration.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 225 Indexes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 235 Index of Scripture References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 235 Greek Words and Phrases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 236 Latin Words and Phrases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 253 Index of Pages of the Print Edition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 280

iv

History of Dogma - Volume II

iii

Adolf Harnack

HISTORY OF DOGMA BY

DR. ADOLPH HARNACK ORDINARY PROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, BERLIN

TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION

BY

NEIL BUCHANAN VOLUME II

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

CONTENTS.

vii

Page CHAPTER 1. — Historical Survey

1-18 The Old and New 2 Elements in the formation of the Catholic Church The fixing of that which 5 is Apostolic (Rule of Faith, Collection of W r i t i n g s , Organization, Cultus) The Stages in the 7 Genesis of the Catholic Rule of Faith, the Apologists Irenæus, Tertullian, 9 Hippolytus Clement and Origen

11

Obscurities in reference 15 to the origin of the most important Institutions Difficulties i n 16 determining the importance of individual Personalities Differences o f 17 development in the Churches of different countries I.

FIXING AND GRADUAL SECULARISING OF CHRISTIANITY 18-168 AS A CHURCH

CHAPTER II. — The setting up of the Apostolic Standards for 18-93 Ecclesiastical Christianity. The Catholic Church

A.

The transformation of 20-38 the Baptismal

2

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

Confession into the Apostolic Rule of Faith Necessities for setting 21 up the Apostolic Rule of Faith The Rule of Faith is the 24 Baptismal Confession definitely interpreted Estimate of transformation

viii

this 27

Irenæus

27

Tertullian

29

Results of transformation

t h e 31

Slower development in 32 Alexandria: Clement and Origen B.

The designation of 38-67 selected writings read in the Churches as New Testament Scriptures or, in other words, as a collection of Apostolic Writings Plausible arguments 38 against the statement that up to the year 150 there was no New Testament in the Church. Sudden emergence of 43 the New Testament in the Muratorian Fragment, in (Melito) Irenæus and Tertullian. Conditions under which 45 the New Testament originated. Relation of the New 47 Testament to the 3

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

earlier writings that were read in the Churches Causes and motives for 51 the formation of the Canon, manner of using and results of the New Testament The A p o s t o l i c 56 collection of writings can be proved at first only in those Churches in which we find the Apostolic Rule of Faith; probably there was no New Testament in Antioch about the year 200, nor in Alexandria (Clement) Probable history of the 60 genesis of the New Testament in Alexandria up to the time of Origen ADDENDUM. The 62 results which the creation of the New Testament produced in the following period C.

The transformation of 67-94 the Episcopal Office in the Church into an Apostolic Office. The History of the remodelling of the conception of the Church The legitimising of the 67 Rule of Faith by the Communities which were founded by the Apostles 4

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

By the “Elders”

68

By the Bishops of 69 Apostolic Churches (disciples of Apostles) By the Bishops as such, 70 who have received the Apostolic Charisma veritatis Excursus on conceptions of Alexandrians

the 70 the

The Bishops successors of Apostles

as 70 the

Original idea of the 73 Church as the Holy Community that comes from Heaven and is destined for it The Church as the 74 empiric Catholic Communion resting on the Law of Faith

ix

Obscurities in the idea 77 of the Church as held by Irenmus and Tertullian By Clement and Origen 80 Transition to the 83 Hierarchical Idea of the Church The Hierarchical idea of 84 the Church: Calixtus and Cyprian Appendix I. Cyprian’s 90 idea of the Church and the actual circumstances Appendix II. Church 90 and Heresy

5

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

Appendix I I I . 93 Uncertainties regarding the consequences of the new idea of the Church CHAPTER III. — Continuation. — The Old Christianity and the New 94-169 Church

Introduction

94

The O r i g i n a l 95 Montanism The later Montanism as 100 the dregs of the movement and as the product of a compromise The opposition to the 104 demands of the Montanists by the Catholic Bishops: importance of the victory for the Church History of penance: the 109 old practice The laxer practice in the 110 days of Tertullian and Hippolytus The abolition of the old 111 practice in the days of Cyprian Significance of the new 113 kind of penance for the idea of the Church; the Church no longer a Communion of Salvation and of Saints, but a condition of Salvation and a Holy Institution and thereby a corpus permixtum

6

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

After effect of the old 115 idea of the Church in Cyprian Origen’s idea of the 116 Church Novatian’s idea of the 118 Church and of penance, the Church of the Catharists Conclusion: the Catholic Church as capable of 122 being a support to society and the state Addenda I. The Priesthood

128

        ”      II. Sacrifice

131

        ”      III. Means of Grace. baptism and the 138 Eucharist Excursus to Chapters II. and III. — Catholic and 149-169 Roman II. FIXING AND GRADUAL HELLENISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS A SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE. x

CHAPTER IV. — Ecclesiastical Christianity and Philosophy.

The Apologists

169-230

1.

Introduction

169

The historical position 169 of the Apologists Apologists and Gnostics 170 Nature and importance 172 of the Apologists’ theology 2.

Christianity Philosophy and Revelation

as 177 as

Aristides

179

Justin

179

Athenagoras

188

Miltiades, Melito

190

Tatian

190

7

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

Pseudo Justin, Orat. ad 193 Gr. Theophilus Pseudo Resurr.

194

Justin,

de 195

Tertullian and Minucius 196 Pseudo-Justin, Monarch

de 199

Results 3.

199

The doctrines of 202 Christianity as the revealed and rational religion Arrangement

202

The Monotheistic 204 Cosmology Theology

205

Doctrine of the Logos 206 Doctrine of the World 212 and of Man Doctrine of Freedom 214 and Morality Doctrine of Revelation 215 (Proofs from Prophecy) Significance of History of Jesus

the 217

Christology of Justin

220

Interpretation and 225 Criticism, especially of Justin’s doctrines CHAPTER V. — The Beginnings of an Ecclesiastico-theological 231-319 interpretation and revision of the Rule of Faith in opposition to Gnosticism, on the basis of the New Testament and the Christian Philosophy of the Apologists; Melito, Irenæus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian

8

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

1. xi

The theological position 231 of Irenæus and of the later contemporary Church teachers Characteristics of the 231 theology of the Old Catholic Fathers, their wavering between Reason and Tradition Loose structure of their 234 Dogmas Irenæus’ attempt to 236 construct a systematic theology and his fundamental theological convictions Gnostic a n d 237 anti-Gnostic features of his theology Christianity conceived 239 as a real redemption by Christ (recapitulatio) His conception of a 244 history of salvation His h i s t o r i c a l 244 significance: conserving of tradition and gradual hellenising of the Rule of Faith

2.

The Old Catholic 247 Fathers’ doctrine of the Church The Antithesis Gnosticism

to 247

The “Scripture 250 theology” as a sign of the dependence on “Gnosticism” and as a means of conserving tradition

9

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

The Doctrine of God

253

The Logos Doctrine of 256 Tertullian and Hippolytus (Conceptions regarding 261 the Holy Spirit) Irenæus’ doctrine of the 262 Logos (Conceptions regarding 266 the Holy Spirit) The views of Irenæus 267 regarding the destination of man, the original state, the fall and the doom of death (the disparate series of ideas in Irenæus; rudiments of the doctrine of original sin in Tertullian) The doctrine of Jesus 275 Christ as the incarnate son of God Assertion of the 275 complete mixture and unity of the divine and human elements Significance of Mary

277

Tertullian’s doctrine of 279 the two natures and its origin Rudiments of this 283 doctrine in Irenæus The Gnostic character 286 of this doctrine Christology Hippolytus

of 286

Views as to Christ’s 288 work Redemption, Perfection 289 10

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

Reconciliation

292

Categories for the fruit 292 of Christ’s work xii

Things peculiar Tertullian Satisfacere Deo

to 293 294

The Soul as the Bride of 294 Christ The Eschatology

294

Its archaic nature, its 297 incompatibility with speculation and the advantage of connection with that Conflict with Chiliasm 299 in the East The doctrine of the two 300 Testaments The influence of 301 Gnosticism on the estimate of the two Testaments, the c o m p l e x u s oppositorum; the Old Testament a uniform Christian Book as in the Apologists The Old Testament a 304 preliminary stage of the New Testament and a compound Book The stages in the history 305 of salvation The law of freedom the 309 climax of the revelation in Christ 3.

Results to Ecclesiastical 312 Christianity, chiefly in

11

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

the West, (Cyprian, Novatian) CHAPTER VI. — The Transformation of the Ecclesiastical Tradition into 319 a Philosophy of Religion, or the Origin of the Scientific Theology and Dogmatic of the Church: Clement and Origen

(1)

The Alexandrian 319 Catechetical School and Clement of Alexandria Schools and Teachers in 320 the Church at the end of the second and the beginning of the third century; scientific efforts (Alogi in Asia Minor, Cappadocian Scholars, Bardesanes of Edessa, Julius Africanus, Scholars in Palestine, Rome and Carthage) The Alexandrian 323 Catechetical School. Clement The temper of Clement 324 and his importance in the History of Dogma; his relation to Irenus, to the Gnostics and to primitive Christianity; his philosophyof Religion

(2)

Clement and Origen

331

The system of Origen

332

Introductory: The 332 personality and importance of Origen The Elements of 334 Origen’s theology; its Gnostic features The relative view of 334, 336 Origen 12

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

His temper and final 335 aim: relation to Greek Philosophy xiii

Theology as Philosophy Revelation, and cosmologic speculation

a 340 of a al

Porphyry on Origen

341

The neutralising of 342 History, esoteric and exoteric Christianity Fundamental ideas and 343 arrangement of his system Sources of truth, 346 doctrine of Scripture I.

The Doctrine of God 349 and its unfolding Doctrine of God

349

Doctrine of the Logos 352 Clement’s doctrine of 352 the Logos Doctrine of the Holy 357 Spirit Doctrine of Spirits II.

Doctrine of the Fall and 361 its consequences Doctrine of Man

III.

359

363

Doctrine of Redemption 365 and Restoration The notions necessary 367 to the Psychical The Christology

369

The Appropriation of 375 Salvation The Eschatology

13

377

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

Concluding Remarks: 378 The importance of this system to the following period xiv

DIVISION I.

xv

BOOK II. THE LAYING OF THE FOUNDATIONS

CHAPTER I.

xvi 1

HISTORICAL SURVEY.

2

THE second century of the existence of Gentile-Christian communities was characterised by the victorious conflict with Gnosticism and the Marcionite Church, by the gradual development of an ecclesiastical doctrine, and by the decay of the early Christian enthusiasm. The general result was the establishment of a great ecclesiastical association, which, forming at one and the same time a political commonwealth, school and union for worship, was based on the firm foundation of an “apostolic” law of faith, a collection of “apostolic” writings, and finally, an “apostolic” organisation. This institution was the Catholic Church.1 In opposition to Gnosticism and Marcionitism, the main articles forming the estate and possession of orthodox Christianity were raised to the rank of apostolic regulations and laws, and thereby placed beyond all discussion and assault. At first the innovations introduced by this were not of a material, but of a formal, character. Hence they were not noticed by any of those who had never, or only in a vague fashion, been elevated to the feeling and idea of freedom and independence in religion. How great the innovations actually were, however, may be measured by the fact that they signified a scholastic tutelage of the faith of the individual Christian, and restricted the immediateness of religious feelings and ideas to the narrowest limits. But the conflict with the so-called Montanism showed that there were still a considerable number of Christians who valued that immediateness and freedom; these were, however, defeated. The fixing of the tradition under the title of apostolic necessarily led to the assumption that whoever held the 1

Aubé (Histoire des Persécutions de l’Eglise, Vol. II. 1878, pp. 1-68) has given a survey of the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma. The disquisitions of Renan in the last volumes of his great historical work are excellent, though not seldom exaggerated in particular points. See especially the concluding observations in Vol. VII. cc. 28-34. Since the appearance of Ritschl’s monograph on the genesis of the old Catholic Church, a treatise which, however, forms too narrow a conception of the problem, German science can point to no work of equal rank with the French. Cf. Sohm’s Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. which, however, in a very one-sided manner, makes the adoption of the legal and constitutional arrangements responsible for all the evil in the Church.

14

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

apostolic doctrine was also essentially a Christian in the apostolic sense. This assumption, quite apart from the innovations which were legitimised by tracing them to the Apostles, meant the separation of doctrine and conduct, the preference of the former to the latter, and the transformation of a fellowship of faith, hope, and discipline into a communion “eiusdem sacramenti”, that is, into a union which, like the philosophical schools, rested on a doctrinal law, and which was subject to a legal code of divine institution.2

3

The movement which resulted in the Catholic Church owes its right to a place in the history of Christianity to the victory over Gnosticism and to the preservation of an important part of early Christian tradition. If Gnosticism in all its phases was the violent attempt to drag Christianity down to the level of the Greek world, and to rob it of its dearest possession, belief in the Almighty God of creation and redemption, then Catholicism, inasmuch as it secured this belief for the Greeks, preserved the Old Testament, and supplemented it with early Christian writings, thereby saving — as far as documents, at least, were concerned — and proclaiming the authority of an important part of primitive Christianity, must in one respect be acknowledged as a conservative force born from

2

Sohm (p. 160) declares: “The foundation of Catholicism is the divine Church law to which it lays claim.” In many other passages he even seems to express the opinion that the Church law of itself, even when not represented as divine, is the hereditary enemy of the true Church and at the same time denotes the essence of Catholicism. See, e.g., p. 2: “The whole essence of Catholicism consists in its declaring legal institutions to be necessary to the Church.” Page 700: “The essence of Church law is incompatible with the essence of the Church.” This thesis really characterises Catholicism well and contains a great truth, if expressed in more careful terms, somewhat as follows: The assertion that there is a divine Church law (emanating from Christ, or, in other words, from the Apostles), which is necessary to the spiritual character of the Church and which in fact is a token of this very attribute, is incompatible with the essence of the Gospel and is the mark of a pseudo-Catholicism.” But the thesis contains too narrow a view of the case. For the divine Church law is only one feature of the essence of the Catholic Church, though a very important element, which Sohm, as a jurist, was peculiarly capable of recognising. The whole essence of Catholicism, however, consists in the deification of tradition generally. The declaration that the empirical institutions of the Church, created for and necessary to this purpose, are apostolic, a declaration which amalgamates them with the essence and content of the Gospel and places them beyond all criticism, is the peculiarly “Catholic” feature. Now, as a great part of these institutions cannot be inwardly appropriated and cannot really amalgamate with faith and piety, it is self-evident that such portions become legal ordinances, to which obedience must be rendered. For no other relation to these ordinances can be conceived. Hence the legal regulations and the corresponding slavish devotion come to have such immense scope in Catholicism, and well-nigh express its essence. But behind this is found the more general conviction that the empirical Church, as it actually exists, is the authentic, pure, and infallible creation: its doctrine, its regulations, its religious ceremonial are apostolic. Whoever doubts that renounces Christ. Now, if, as in the case of the Reformers, this conception be recognised as erroneous and unevangelical, the result must certainly be a strong detestation of “the divine Church law.” Indeed, the inclination to sweep away all Church law is quite intelligible, for when you give the devil your little finger he takes the whole hand. But, on the other hand, it cannot be imagined how communities are to exist on earth, propagate themselves, and train men without regulations; and how regulations are to exist without resulting in the formation of a code of laws. In truth, such regulations have at no time been wanting in Christian communities, and have always possessed the character of a legal code. Sohm’s distinction, that in the oldest period there was no “law”, but only a “regulation”, is artificial, though possessed of a certain degree of truth; for the regulation has one aspect in a circle of like-minded enthusiasts, and a different one in a community where all stages of moral and religious culture are represented, and which has therefore to train its members. Or should it not do so? And, on the other hand, had the oldest Churches not the Old Testament and the διατάξεις of the Apostles? Were these no code of laws? Sohm’s proposition: “The essence of Church law is incompatible with the essence of the Church,” does not rise to evangelical clearness and freedom, but has been formed under the shadow and ban of Catholicism. I am inclined to call it an Anabaptist thesis. The Anabaptists were also in the shadow and ban of Catholicism; hence their only course was either the attempt to wreck the Church and Church history and found a new empire, or a return to Catholicism. Hermann Bockelson or the Pope! But the Gospel is above the question of Jew or Greek, and therefore also above the question of a legal code. It is reconcilable with everything that is not sin, even with the philosophy of the Greeks. Why should it not be also compatible with the monarchical bishop, with the legal code of the Romans, and even with the Pope, provided these are not made part of the Gospel.

15

History of Dogma - Volume II

4

5

Adolf Harnack

the vigour of Christianity. If we put aside abstract considerations and merely look at the facts of the given situation, we cannot but admire a creation which first broke up the various outside forces assailing Christianity, and in which the highest blessings of this faith have always continued to be accessible. If the founder of the Christian religion had deemed belief in the Gospel and a life in accordance with it to be compatible with membership of the Synagogue and observance of the Jewish law, there could at least be no impossibility of adhering to the Gospel within the Catholic Church. Still, that is only one side of the case. The older Catholicism never clearly put the question, “What is Christian?” Instead of answering that question it rather laid down rules, the recognition of which was to be the guarantee of Christianism. This solution of the problem seems to be on the one hand too narrow and on the other too broad. Too narrow, because it bound Christianity to rules under which it necessarily languished; too broad, because it did not in any way exclude the introduction of new and foreign conceptions. In throwing a protective covering round the Gospel, Catholicism also obscured it. It preserved Christianity from being hellenised to the most extreme extent, but, as time went on, it was forced to admit into this religion an ever greater measure of secularisation. In the interests of its world-wide mission it did not indeed directly disguise the terrible seriousness of religion, but, by tolerating a less strict ideal of life, it made it possible for those less in earnest to be considered Christians, and to regard themselves as such. It permitted the genesis of a Church, which was no longer a communion of faith, hope, and discipline, but a political commonwealth in which the Gospel merely had a place beside other things.3 In ever increasing measure it invested all the forms which this secular commonwealth required with apostolic, that is, indirectly, with divine authority. This course disfigured Christianity and made a knowledge of what is Christian an obscure and difficult matter. But, in Catholicism, religion for the first time obtained a formal dogmatic system. Catholic Christianity discovered the formula which reconciled faith and knowledge. This formula satisfied humanity for centuries, and the blessed effects which it accomplished continued to operate even after it had itself already become a fetter. Catholic Christianity grew out of two converging series of developments. In the one were set up fixed outer standards for determining what is Christian, and these standards were proclaimed to be apostolic institutions. The baptismal confession was exalted to an apostolic rule of faith, that is, to an apostolic law of faith. A collection of apostolic writings was formed from those read in the Churches, and this compilation was placed on an equal footing with the Old Testament. The episcopal and monarchical constitution was declared to be apostolic, and the attribute of successor of the Apostles was conferred on the bishop. Finally, the religious ceremonial developed into a celebration of mysteries, which was in like manner traced back to the Apostles. The result of these institutions was a strictly exclusive Church in the form of a communion of doctrine, ceremonial, and law, a confederation which more and more gathered the various communities within its pale, and brought about the decline of all nonconforming sects. The confederation was primarily based on a common confession, which, however, was not only conceived as “law,” but was also very soon supplemented by new standards. One of the most important problems to be investigated in 3

In the formation of the Marcionite Church we have, on the other hand, the attempt to create a rigid œcumenical community, held together solely by religion. The Marcionite Church therefore had a founder, the Catholic has none.

16

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

the history of dogma, and one which unfortunately cannot be completely solved, is to show what necessities led to the setting up of a new canon of Scripture, what circumstances required the appearance of living authorities in the communities, and what relation was established between the apostolic rule of faith, the apostolic canon of Scripture, and the apostolic office. The development ended with the formation of a clerical class, at whose head stood the bishop, who united in himself all conceivable powers, as teacher, priest, and judge. He disposed of the powers of Christianity, guaranteed its purity, and therefore in every respect held the Christian laity in tutelage.

6

But even apart from the content which Christianity here received, this process in itself represents a progressive secularising of the Church. This would be self-evident enough, even if it were not confirmed by noting the fact that the process had already been to some extent anticipated in the so-called Gnosticism (See vol. I. p. 253 and Tertullian, de præscr. 35). But the element which the latter lacked, namely, a firmly welded, suitably regulated constitution, must by no means be regarded as one originally belonging and essential to Christianity. The depotentiation to which Christianity was here subjected appears still more plainly in the facts, that the Christian hopes were deadened, that the secularising of the Christian life was tolerated and even legitimised, and that the manifestations of an unconditional devotion to the heavenly excited suspicion or were compelled to confine themselves to very narrow limits. But these considerations are scarcely needed as soon as we turn our attention to the second series of developments that make up the history of this period. The Church did not merely set up dykes and walls against Gnosticism in order to ward it off externally, nor was she satisfied with defending against it the facts which were the objects of her belief and hope; but, taking the creed for granted, she began to follow this heresy into its own special territory and to combat it with a scientific theology. That was a necessity which did not first spring from Christianity’s own internal struggles. It was already involved in the fact that the Christian Church had been joined by cultured Greeks, who felt the need of justifying their Christianity to themselves and the world, and of presenting it as the desired and certain answer to all the pressing questions which then occupied men’s minds.

7

The beginning of a development which a century later reached its provisional completion in the theology of Origen, that is, in the transformation of the Gospel into a scientific system of ecclesiastical doctrine, appears in the Christian Apologetic, as we already find it before the middle of the second century. As regards its content, this system of doctrine meant the legitimising of Greek philosophy within the sphere of the rule of faith. The theology of Origen bears the same relation to the New Testament as that of Philo does to the Old. What is here presented as Christianity is in fact the idealistic religious philosophy of the age, attested by divine revelation, made accessible to all by the incarnation of the Logos, and purified from any connection with Greek mythology and gross polytheism.4 A motley multitude of primitive Christian ideas and hopes, derived from both Testaments, and too brittle to be completely recast, as yet enclosed the kernel. But the majority of 4

The historian who wishes to determine the advance made by Græco-Roman humanity in the third and fourth centuries, under the influence of Catholicism and its theology, must above all keep in view the fact that gross polytheism and immoral mythology

17

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

these were successfully manipulated by theological art, and the traditional rule of faith was transformed into a system of doctrine, in which, to some extent, the old articles found only a nominal place.5

8

This hellenising of ecclesiastical Christianity, by which we do not mean the Gospel, was not a gradual process; for the truth rather is that it was already accomplished the moment that the reflective Greek confronted the new religion which he had accepted. The Christianity of men like Justin, Athenagoras, and Minucius is not a whit less Hellenistic than that of Origen. But yet an important distinction obtains here. It is twofold. In the first place, those Apologists did not yet find themselves face to face with a fixed collection of writings having a title to be reverenced as Christian; they have to do with the Old Testament and the “Teachings of Christ” (διδάγματα Χριστοῦ). In the second place, they do not yet regard the scientific presentation of Christianity as the main task and as one which this religion itself demands. As they really never enquired what was meant by “Christian,” or at least never put the question clearly to themselves, they never claimed that their scientific presentation of Christianity was the first proper expression of it that had been given. Justin and his contemporaries make it perfectly clear that they consider the traditional faith existing in the churches to be complete and pure and in itself requiring no scientific revision. In a word, the gulf which existed between the religious thought of philosophers and the sum of Christian tradition is still altogether unperceived, because that tradition was not yet fixed in rigid forms, because no religious utterance testifying to monotheism, virtue, and reward was as yet threatened by any control, and finally, because the speech of philosophy was only understood by a small minority in the Church, though its interests and aims were not unknown to most. Christian thinkers were therefore still free to divest of their direct religious value all realistic and historical elements of the tradition, while still retaining them as parts of a huge apparatus of proof, which accomplished what was really the only thing that many sought in Christianity, viz., the assurance that the theory of the world obtained from other sources was the truth. The danger which here threatened Christianity as a religion was scarcely less serious than that which had been caused to it by the Gnostics. These remodelled tradition, the Apologists made it to some extent inoperative without attacking it. The latter were not disowned, but rather laid the foundation of Church theology, and determined the circle of interests within which it was to move in the future.6 But the problem which the Apologists solved almost offhand, namely, the task of showing that Christianity was the perfect and certain philosophy, because it rested on revelation, and that it was the highest scientific knowledge of God and the world, was to be rendered more difficult. To these difficulties all that primitive Christianity has up to the present transmitted to the Church of succeeding times contributes its share. The conflict with Gnosticism made it necessary to find some sort of

5

6

were swept away, spiritual monotheism brought near to all, and the ideal of a divine life and the hope of an eternal one made certain. Philosophy also aimed at that, but it was not able to establish a community of men on these foundations. Luther, as is well known, had a very profound impression of the distinction between Biblical Christianity and the theology of the Fathers, who followed the theories of Origen. See, for example, Werke, Vol. LXII. p. 49, quoting Proles: “When the word of God comes to the Fathers, me thinks it is as if milk were filtered through a coal sack, where the milk must become black and spoiled.” They were not the first to determine this circle of interests. So far as we can demonstrate traces of independent religious knowledge among the so-called Apostolic Fathers of the post-apostolic age, they are in thorough harmony with the theories of the Apologists, which are merely expressed with precision and divested of Old Testament language.

18

History of Dogma - Volume II

9

10

Adolf Harnack

solution to the question, “What is Christian?” and to fix this answer. But indeed the Fathers were not able to answer the question confidently and definitely. They therefore made a selection from tradition and contented themselves with making it binding on Christians. Whatever was to lay claim to authority in the Church had henceforth to be in harmony with the rule of faith and the canon of New Testament Scriptures. That created an entirely new situation for Christian thinkers, that is, for those trying to solve the problem of subordinating Christianity to the Hellenic spirit. That spirit never became quite master of the situation; it was obliged to accommodate itself to it.7 The work first began with the scientific treatment of individual articles contained in the rule of faith, partly with the view of disproving Gnostic conceptions, partly for the purpose of satisfying the Church’s own needs. The framework in which these articles were placed virtually continued to be the apologetic theology, for this maintained a doctrine of God and the world, which seemed to correspond to the earliest tradition as much as it ran counter to the Gnostic theses. (Melito), Irenæus, Tertullian and Hippolytus, aided more or less by tradition on the one hand and by philosophy on the other, opposed to the Gnostic dogmas about Christianity the articles of the baptismal confession interpreted as a rule of faith, these articles being developed into doctrines. Here they undoubtedly learned very much from the Gnostics and Marcion. If we define ecclesiastical dogmas as propositions handed down in the creed of the Church, shown to exist in the Holy Scriptures of both Testaments, and rationally reproduced and formulated, then the men we have just mentioned were the first to set up dogmas8 — dogmas but no system of dogmatics. As yet the difficulty of the problem was by no means perceived by these men either. Their peculiar capacity for sympathising with and understanding the traditional and the old still left them in a happy blindness. So far as they had a theology they supposed it to be nothing more than the explanation of the faith of the Christian multitude (yet Tertullian already noted the difference in one point, certainly a very characteristic one, viz., the Logos doctrine). They still lived in the belief that the Christianity which filled their minds required no scientific remodelling in order to be an expression of the highest knowledge, and that it was in all respects identical with the Christianity which even the most uncultivated could grasp. That this was an illusion is proved by many considerations, but most convincingly by the fact that Tertullian and Hippolytus had the main share in introducing into the doctrine of faith a philosophically formulated dogma, viz., that the Son of God is the Logos, and in having it made the articulus constitutivus ecclesiæ. The effects of this undertaking can never be too highly estimated, for the Logos doctrine is Greek philosophy in nuce, though primitive Christian views may have been subsequently incorporated with it. Its introduction into the creed of Christendom, which was, 7

8

It was only after the apostolic tradition, fixed in the form of a comprehensive collection, seemed to guarantee the admissibility of every form of Christianity that reverenced that collection, that the hellenising of Christianity within the Church began in serious fashion. The fixing of tradition had had a twofold result. On the one hand, it opened the way more than ever before for a free and unhesitating introduction of foreign ideas into Christianity, and, on the other hand, so far as it really also included the documents and convictions of primitive Christianity, it preserved this religion to the future and led to a return to it, either from scientific or religious considerations. That we know anything at all of original Christianity is entirely due to the fixing of the tradition, as found at the basis of Catholicism. On the supposition — which is indeed an academic consideration — that this fixing had not taken place because of the non-appearance of the Gnosticism which occasioned it, and on the further supposition that the original enthusiasm had continued, we would in all probability know next to nothing of original Christianity to-day. How much we would have known may be seen from the Shepherd of Hermas. So far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the idea of dogmas, as individual theorems characteristic of Christianity, and capable of being scholastically proved, originated with the Apologists. Even as early as Justin we find tendencies to amalgamate historical material and natural theology.

19

History of Dogma - Volume II

11

12

Adolf Harnack

strictly speaking, the setting up of the first dogma in the Church, meant the future conversion of the rule of faith into a philosophic system. But in yet another respect Irenæus and Hippolytus denote an immense advance beyond the Apologists, which, paradoxically enough, results both from the progress of Christian Hellenism and from a deeper study of the Pauline theology, that is, emanates from the controversy with Gnosticism. In them a religious and realistic idea takes the place of the moralism of the Apologists, namely, the deifying of the human race through the incarnation of the Son of God. The apotheosis of mortal man through his acquisition of immortality (divine life) is the idea of salvation which was taught in the ancient mysteries. It is here adopted as a Christian one, supported by the Pauline theology (especially as contained in the Epistle to the Ephesians), and brought into the closest connection with the historical Christ, the Son of God and Son of man (filius dei et filius hominis). What the heathen faintly hoped for as a possibility was here announced as certain, and indeed as having already taken place. What a message! This conception was to become the central Christian idea of the future. A long time, however, elapsed before it made its way into the dogmatic system of the Church.9 But meanwhile the huge gulf which existed between both Testaments and the rule of faith on the one hand, and the current ideas of the time on the other, had been recognized in Alexandria. It was not indeed felt as a gulf, for then either the one or the other would have had to be given up, but as a problem. If the Church tradition contained the assurance, not to be obtained elsewhere, of all that Greek culture knew, hoped for, and prized, and if for that very reason it was regarded as in every respect inviolable, then the absolutely indissoluble union of Christian tradition with the Greek philosophy of religion was placed beyond all doubt. But an immense number of problems were at the same time raised, especially when, as in the case of the Alexandrians, heathen syncretism in the entire breadth of its development was united with the doctrine of the Church. The task, which had been begun by Philo and carried on by Valentinus and his school, was now undertaken in the Church. Clement led the way in attempting a solution of the problem, but the huge task proved too much for him. Origen took it up under more difficult circumstances, and in a certain fashion brought it to a conclusion. He, the rival of the Neoplatonic philosophers, the Christian Philo, wrote the first Christian dogmatic, which competed with the philosophic systems of the time, and which, founded on the Scriptures of both Testaments, presents a peculiar union of the apologetic theology of a Justin and the Gnostic theology of a Valentinus, while keeping steadily in view a simple and highly practical aim. In this dogmatic the rule of faith is recast and that quite consciously. Origen did not conceal his conviction that Christianity finds its correct expression only in scientific knowledge, and that every form of Christianity that lacks theology is but a meagre kind with no clear consciousness of its own content. This conviction plainly shows that Origen was dealing with a different kind of Christianity, though his view that a mere relative distinction existed here may have its justification in the fact, that the untheological Christianity of the age with which he compared

9

It is almost completely wanting in Tertullian. That is explained by the fact that this remarkable man was in his inmost soul an old-fashioned Christian, to whom the Gospel was conscientia religionis, disciplina vitæ and spes fidei, and who found no sort of edification in Neoplatonic notions, but rather dwelt on the ideas “command”, “performance”, “error”, “forgiveness”. In Irenæus also, moreover, the ancient idea of salvation, supplemented by elements derived from the Pauline theology, is united with the primitive Christian eschatology.

20

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

his own was already permeated by Hellenic elements and in a very great measure secularised.10 But Origen, as well as Clement before him, had really a right to the conviction that the true essence of Christianity, or, in other words, the Gospel, is only arrived at by the aid of critical speculation; for was not the Gospel veiled and hidden in the canon of both Testaments, was it not displaced by the rule of faith, was it not crushed down, depotentiated, and disfigured in the Church which identified itself with the people of Christ? Clement and Origen found freedom and independence in what they recognized to be the essence of the matter and what they contrived with masterly skill to determine as its proper aim, after an examination of the huge apparatus of tradition. But was not that the ideal of Greek sages and philosophers? This question can by no means be flatly answered in the negative, and still less decidedly in the affirmative, for a new significance was here given to the ideal by representing it as assured beyond all doubt, already realised in the person of Christ and incompatible with polytheism. If, as is manifestly the case, they found joy and peace in their faith and in the theory of the universe connected with it, if they prepared themselves for an eternal life and expected it with certainty, if they felt themselves to be perfect only through dependence on God, then, in spite of their Hellenism, they unquestionably came nearer to the Gospel than Irenæus with his slavish dependence on authority.

13

The setting up of a scientific system of Christian dogmatics, which was still something different from the rule of faith, interpreted in an Antignostic sense, philosophically wrought out, and in some parts proved from the Bible, was a private undertaking of Origen, and at first only approved in limited circles. As yet, not only were certain bold changes of interpretation disputed in the Church, but the undertaking itself, as a whole, was disapproved.11 The circumstances of the several provincial churches in the first half of the third century were still very diverse. Many communities had yet to adopt the basis that made them into Catholic ones; and in most, if not in all, the education of the clergy — not to speak of the laity — was not high enough to enable them to appreciate systematic theology. But the schools in which Origen taught carried on his work, similar ones were established, and these produced a number of the bishops and presbyters of the East in the last half of the third century. They had in their hands the means of culture afforded by the age, and this was all the more a guarantee of victory because the laity no longer took any part in deciding the form of religion. Wherever the Logos Christology had been adopted the future of Christian Hellenism was certain. At the beginning of the fourth century there was no community in Christendom which, apart from the Logos doctrine, possessed a purely philosophical theory that was regarded as an ecclesiastical dogma, to say nothing of an official scientific theology. But the system of Origen was a prophecy of the future. The Logos doctrine started the crystallising process which resulted in further deposits. Symbols of faith were already drawn up which contained a peculiar mixture of Origen’s theology with the inflexible Antignostic regula fidei. One celebrated theologian, Methodius, endeavoured to unite the theology of Irenæus and Origen, ecclesiastical realism and philosophic spiritualism, under the badge of monastic mysticism. The developments of the following period therefore no longer appear surprising in any respect.

10

11

On the significance of Clement and Origen see Overbeck, “Über die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur” in d. Hist. Ztschr. N. F., Vol. XII. p. 417 ff. Information on this point may be got not only from the writings of Origen (see especially his work against Celsus), but also and above all from his history. The controversy between Dionysius of Alexandria and the Chiliasts is also instructive on the matter.

21

History of Dogma - Volume II

14

Adolf Harnack

As Catholicism, from every point of view, is the result of the blending of Christianity with the ideas of antiquity,12 so the Catholic dogmatic, as it was developed after the second or third century on the basis of the Logos doctrine, is Christianity conceived and formulated from the standpoint of the Greek philosophy of religion.13 This Christianity conquered the old world, and became the foundation of a new phase of history in the Middle Ages. The union of the Christian religion with a definite historical phase of human knowledge and culture may be lamented in the interest of the Christian religion, which was thereby secularised, and in the interest of the development of culture which was thereby retarded (?). But lamentations become here ill-founded assumptions, as absolutely everything that we have and value is due to the alliance that Christianity and antiquity concluded in such a way that neither was able to prevail over the other. Our inward and spiritual life, which owes the least part of its content to the empiric knowledge which we have acquired, is based up to the present moment on the discords resulting from that union. These hints are meant among other things to explain and justify14 the arrangement chosen for the following presentation, which embraces the fundamental section of the history of Christian dogma.15 A few more remarks are, however, necessary.

15

1. One special difficulty in ascertaining the genesis of the Catholic rules is that the churches, though on terms of close connection and mutual intercourse, had no real forum publicum, though indeed, in a certain sense, each bishop was in foro publico. As a rule, therefore, we can only see the advance in the establishment of fixed forms in the shape of results, without being able to state precisely the ways and means which led to them. We do indeed know the factors, and can therefore theoretically construct the development; but the real course of things is frequently hidden from us. The genesis of a harmonious Church, firmly welded together in doctrine and constitution, can no more have been the natural unpremeditated product of the conditions of the time than were the genesis and adoption of the New Testament canon of Scripture. But we have no direct evidence as to what communities had a special share in the development, although we know that the Roman Church played a leading part. Moreover, we can only conjecture that conferences, common measures, and synodical decisions were not wanting. It is certain that, beginning with the last quarter of the second century, there were held in the different provinces, mostly in the East, but later also in the

12

13 14

15

The three or (reckoning Methodius) four steps of the development of church doctrine (Apologists, Old Catholic Fathers, Alexandrians) correspond to the progressive religious and philosophical development of heathendom at that period: philosophic moralism, ideas of salvation (theology and practice of mysteries), Neoplatonic philosophy, and complete syncretism. “Virtus omnis ex his causam accipit, a quibus provocatur (Tertull., de bapt. 2.) The plan of placing the apologetic theology before everything else would have much to recommend it, but I adhere to the arrangement here chosen, because the advantage of being able to represent and survey the outer ecclesiastical development and the inner theological one, each being viewed as a unity, seems to me to be very great. We must then of course understand the two developments as proceeding on parallel lines. But the placing of the former parallel before the latter in my presentation is justified by the fact that what was gained in the former passed over much more directly and swiftly into the general life of the Church, than what was reached in the latter. Decades elapsed, for instance, before the apologetic theology came to be generally known and accepted in the Church, as is shown by the long continued conflict against Monarchianism. The origin of Catholicism can only be very imperfectly described within the framework of the history of dogma, for the political situation of the Christian communities in the Roman Empire had quite as important an influence on the development of the Catholic Church as its internal conflicts. But inasmuch as that situation and these struggles are ultimately connected in the closest way, the history of dogma cannot even furnish a complete picture of this development within definite limits.

22

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

West, Synods in which an understanding was arrived at on all questions of importance to Christianity, including, e.g., the extent of the canon.16

16

17

2. The degree of influence exercised by particular ecclesiastics on the development of the Church and its doctrines is also obscure and difficult to determine. As they were compelled to claim the sanction of tradition for every innovation they introduced, and did in fact do so, and as every fresh step they took appeared to themselves necessary only as an explanation, it is in many cases quite impossible to distinguish between what they received from tradition and what they added to it of their own. Yet an investigation from the point of view of the historian of literature shows that Tertullian and Hippolytus were to a great extent dependent on Irenæus. What amount of innovation these men independently contributed can therefore still be ascertained. Both are men of the second generation. Tertullian is related to Irenæus pretty much as Calvin to Luther. This parallel holds good in more than one respect. First, Tertullian drew up a series of plain dogmatic formulæ which are not found in Irenæus and which proved of the greatest importance in succeeding times. Secondly, he did not attain the power, vividness, and unity of religious intuition which distinguish Irenæus. The truth rather is that, just because of his forms, he partly destroyed the unity of the matter and partly led it into a false path of development. Thirdly, he everywhere endeavoured to give a conception of Christianity which represented it as the divine law, whereas in Irenæus this idea is overshadowed by the conception of the Gospel as real redemption. The main problem therefore resolves itself into the question as to the position of Irenæus in the history of the Church. To what extent were his expositions new, to what extent were the standards he formulated already employed in the Churches, and in which of them? We cannot form to ourselves a sufficiently vivid picture of the interchange of Christian writings in the Church after the last quarter of the second century.17 Every important work speedily found its way into the churches of the chief cities in the Empire. The diffusion was not merely from East to West, though this was the general rule. At the beginning of the fourth century there was in Cæsarea a Greek translation of Tertullian’s Apology and a collection of Cyprian’s epistles.18 The influence of the Roman Church extended over the greater part of Christendom. Up till about the year 260 the Churches in East and West had still in some degree a common history. 3. The developments in the history of dogma within the period extending from about 150 to about 300 were by no means brought about in the different communities at the same time and in a completely analogous fashion. This fact is in great measure concealed from us, because our authorities are almost completely derived from those leading Churches that were connected with each other by constant intercourse. Yet the difference can still be clearly proved by the ratio of 16

17

18

See Tertullian, de pudic. 10: “Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura Pastoris, quæ sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter aprocrypha et falsa iudicaretur;” de ieiun. 13: “Aguntur præterea per Græcias certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quæ et altiora quæque in commune tractantur, et ipsa repræsentatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur.” We must also take into account here the intercourse by letter, in which connection I may specially remind the reader of the correspondence between Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Euseb., H.E. IV. 23, and journeys such as those of Polycarp and Abercius to Rome. Cf. generally Zahn, Weltverkehr und Kirche während der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1877. See my studies respecting the tradition of the Greek Apologists of the second century in the early Church in the Texte und Unters. z. Gesch. der alt christl. Litteratur, Vol. I. Part I. 2. See Euseb., H.E. II. 2; VI. 43.

23

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

development in Rome, Lyons, and Carthage on the one hand, and in Alexandria on the other. Besides, we have several valuable accounts showing that in more remote provinces and communities the development was slower, and a primitive and freer condition of things much longer preserved.19 4. From the time that the clergy acquired complete sway over the Churches, that is, from the beginning of the second third of the third century, the development of the history of dogma practically took place within the ranks of that class, and was carried on by its learned men. Every mystery they set up therefore became doubly mysterious to the laity, for these did not even understand the terms, and hence it formed another new fetter.

18

I. FIXING AND GRADUAL SECULARISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS A CHURCH. CHAPTER II. THE SETTING UP OF THE APOSTOLIC STANDARDS FOR ECCLESIASTICAL CHRISTIANITY. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.20

19

We may take as preface to this chapter three celebrated passages from Tertullian’s “de præscriptione hæreticorum.” In chap. 21 we find: “It is plain that all teaching that agrees with those apostolic Churches which are the wombs and origins of the faith must be set down as truth, it being certain that such doctrine contains that which the Church received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God.” In chap. 36 we read: “Let us see what it (the Roman Church) has learned, what it has taught, and what fellowship it has likewise had with the African Churches. It acknowledges one God the Lord, the creator of the universe, and Jesus Christ, the Son of God the creator, born of the Virgin Mary, as well as the resurrection of the flesh. It unites the Law and the Prophets with the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles. From these it draws its faith, and by their authority it seals this faith with water, clothes it with the Holy Spirit, feeds it with the

19

20

See the accounts of Christianity in Edessa and the far East generally The Acta Archelai and the Homilies of Aphraates should also be specially examined. Cf. further Euseb., H. E. VI. 12, and finally the remains of the Latin-Christian literature of the third century — apart from Tertullian, Cyprian and Novatian — as found partly under the name of Cyprian, partly under other titles. Commodian, Arnobius, and Lactantius are also instructive here. This literature has been but little utilised with respect to the history of dogma and of the Church. In itself the predicate “Catholic” contains no element that signifies a secularising of the Church. “Catholic” originally means Christianity in its totality as contrasted with single congregations. Hence the concepts “all communities” and the “universal Church” are identical. But from the beginning there was a dogmatic element in the concept of the universal Church, in so far as the latter was conceived to have been spread over the whole earth by the Apostles; an idea which involved the conviction that only that could be true which was found everywhere in Christendom. Consequently, “entire or universal Christendom,” “the Church spread over the whole earth,” and “the true Church” were regarded as identical conceptions. In this way the concept “Catholic” became a pregnant one, and finally received a dogmatic and political content. As this result actually took place, it is not inappropriate to speak of pre-Catholic and Catholic Christianity.

24

History of Dogma - Volume II

20

Adolf Harnack

eucharist, and encourages martyrdom. Hence it receives no one who rejects this institution.” In chap. 32 the following challenge is addressed to the heretics: “Let them unfold a series of their bishops proceeding by succession from the beginning in such a way that this first bishop of theirs had as his authority and predecessor some one of the Apostles or one of the apostolic men, who, however, associated with the Apostles.”21 From the consideration of these three passages it directly follows that three standards are to be kept in view, viz., the apostolic doctrine, the apostolic canon of Scripture, and the guarantee of apostolic authority, afforded by the organisation of the Church, that is, by the episcopate, and traced back to apostolic institution. It will be seen that the Church always adopted these three standards together, that is simultaneously.22 As a matter of fact they originated in Rome and gradually made their way in the other Churches. That Asia Minor had a share in this is probable, though the question is involved in obscurity. The three Catholic standards had their preparatory stages, (1) in short kerygmatic creeds; (2) in the authority of the Lord and the formless apostolic tradition as well as in the writings read in the Churches; (3) in the veneration paid to apostles, prophets, and teachers, or the “elders” and leaders of the individual communities. A. The Transformation of the Baptismal Confession into the Apostolic Rule of Faith. It has been explained (vol. I. p. 157) that the idea of the complete identity of what the Churches possessed as Christian communities with the doctrine or regulations of the twelve Apostles can already be shown in the earliest Gentile-Christian literature. In the widest sense the expression, κανὼν τῆς παραδόσεως (canon of tradition), originally included all that was traced back to Christ himself through the medium of the Apostles and was of value for the faith and life of the Church, together with everything that was or seemed her inalienable possession, as, for instance, the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. In the narrower sense that canon consisted of the history and words of Jesus. In so far as they formed the content of faith they were the faith itself, that is, the Christian truth; in so far as this faith was to determine the essence of everything Christian, it might be termed κανὼν τῆς πίστεως, κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας (canon of the faith, canon of the truth).23 But the very fact that the extent of what was regarded as tradition of the Apostles was quite undetermined

21

22

23

Translator’s note. The following is Tertullian’s Latin as given by Professor Harnack: Cap. 21: “Constat omnem doctrinam quæ cum ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiæ ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a deo accepit.” Cap. 36: “Videamus quid (ecclesia Romanensis) didicerit, quid docuerit, cum Africanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit. Unum deum dominum novit, creatorem universitatis, et Christum Iesum ex virgine Maria filium dei creatoris, et carnis resurrectionem; legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet; inde potat fidem, eam aqua signat, sancto spiritu vestit, eucharistia pascit, martyrium exhortatur, et ita adversus hanc institutionem neminem recipit.” Chap. 32: “Evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successionem ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveravit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem.” None of the three standards, for instance, were in the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, which belong to the third century and are of Syrian origin; but instead of them the Old Testament and Gospel on the one hand, and the bishop, as the God of the community, on the other, are taken as authorities. See Zahn, Glaubensregel und Taufbekenntniss in der alten Kirche in the Zeitschrift f. Kirchl. Wissensch. u. Kirchl. Leben, 1881, Part 6, p. 302 ff., especially p. 314 ff. In the Epistle of Jude, v. 3, mention is made of the ἅπαξ παραδοθεῖσα τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστις and in v. 20 of “building yourselves up in your most holy faith.” See Polycarp, ep. III. 2 (also VII. 2; II. 1). In either case the expressions κανὼν τῆς πίστεως, κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας, or the like, might stand for πίστις, for the faith itself is primarily the canon; but it is the canon only in so far as it is comprehensible and plainly defined. Here lies the transition to a new interpretation of the conception of a standard in its relation to the faith. Voigt has published an excellent investigation of the concept ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας cum synonymis. (Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimont. Kampfes, 1891, pp. 184-205).

25

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

ensured the possibility of the highest degree of freedom; it was also still allowable to give expression to Christian inspiration and to the intuition of enthusiasm without any regard to tradition. 21

22

We now know that before the violent conflict with Gnosticism short formulated summaries of the faith had already grown out of the missionary practice of the Church (catechising). The shortest formula was that which defined the Christian faith as belief in the Father, Son, and Spirit.24 It appears to have been universally current in Christendom about the year 150. In the solemn transactions of the Church, therefore especially in baptism, in the great prayer of the Lord’s Supper, as well as in the exorcism of demons,25 fixed formulæ were used. They embraced also such articles as contained the most important facts in the history of Jesus.26 We know definitely that not later than about the middle of the second century (about 140 A.D.) the Roman Church possessed a fixed creed, which every candidate for baptism had to profess;27 and something similar must also have existed in Smyrna and other Churches of Asia Minor about the year 150, in some cases, even rather earlier. We may suppose that formulæ of similar plan and extent were also found in other provincial Churches about this time.28 Still it is neither probable that all the then existing communities possessed such creeds, nor that those who used them had formulated them in such a rigid way as the Roman Church had done. The proclamation of the history of Christ predicted in the Old Testament, the κήρυγμα τῆς ἀληθέιας, also accompanied the short baptismal formula without being expressed in set terms.29 Words of Jesus and, in general, directions for the Christian life were not, as a rule, admitted into the short formulated creed. In the recently discovered “Teaching of the Apostles” (Διδαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων) we have no doubt a notable attempt to fix the rules of Christian life as traced back to Jesus through the medium of the Apostles, and to elevate them into the foundation of the confederation of Christian Churches; but this undertaking, which could not but have led the development of Christianity into other paths, did not succeed. That the formulated creeds did not 24

25

26 27

28

29

In Hermas, Mand. I., we find a still shorter formula which only contains the confession of the monarchy of God, who created the world, that is the formula πιστέυω εἰς ἕνα θεὸν παντακράτορα, which did not originate with the baptismal ceremony. But though at first the monarchy may have been the only dogma in the strict sense, the mission of Jesus Christ beyond doubt occupied a place alongside of it from the beginning; and the new religion was inconceivable without this. See on this point Justin, index to Otto’s edition. It is not surprising that formulæ similar to those used at baptism were employed in the exorcism of demons. However, we cannot immediately infer from the latter what was the wording of the baptismal confession. Though, for example, it is an established fact that in Justin’s time demons were exorcised with the words: “In the name of Jesus Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate,” it does not necessarily follow from this that these words were also found in the baptismal confession. The sign of the cross was made over those possessed by demons; hence nothing was more natural than that these words should be spoken. Hence they are not necessarily borrowed from a baptismal confession. These facts were known to every Christian. They are probably also alluded to in Luke I. 4. The most important result of Caspari’s extensive and exact studies is the establishment of this fact and the fixing of the wording of the Romish Confession. (Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und wenig beachtete Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols u d. Glaubensregels. 3 Vols. 1866-1875. Alte u. neue Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols u. d. Glaubensregel, 1879). After this Hahn, Bibliothek d. Symbole u. Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche. 2 Aufl. 1877; see also my article “Apostol. Symbol” in Herzog’s R.E., 2nd. ed., as well as Book I. of the present work, Chap. III. § 2. This supposition is based on observation of the fact that particular statements of the Roman Symbol, in exactly the same form or nearly so, are found in many early Christian writings. See Patr. App. Opp. I. 2, ed. 2, pp. 115-42. The investigations which lead to this result are of a very complicated nature and cannot therefore be given here. We must content ourselves with remarking that all Western baptismal formulæ (creeds) may be traced back to the Roman, and that there was no universal Eastern creed on parallel lines with the latter. There is no mistaking the importance which, in these circumstances, is to be attributed to the Roman symbol and Church as regards the development of Catholicism.

26

History of Dogma - Volume II

23

24

Adolf Harnack

express the principles of conduct, but the facts on which Christians based their faith, was an unavoidable necessity. Besides, the universal agreement of all earnest and thoughtful minds on the question of Christian morals was practically assured.30 Objection was not taken to the principles of morality — at least this was not a primary consideration — for there were many Greeks to whom they did not seem foolishness, but to the adoration of Christ as he was represented in tradition and to the Church’s worship of a God, who, as creator of the world and as a speaking and visible being, appeared to the Greeks, with their ideas of a purely spiritual deity, to be interwoven with the world, and who, as the God worshipped by the Jews also, seemed clearly distinct from the Supreme Being. This gave rise to the mockery of the heathen, the theological art of the Gnostics, and the radical reconstruction of tradition as attempted by Marcion. With the freedom that still prevailed Christianity was in danger of being resolved into a motley mass of philosophic speculations or of being completely detached from its original conditions. “It was admitted on all sides that Christianity had its starting-point in certain facts and sayings; but if any and every interpretation of those facts and sayings was possible, if any system of philosophy might be taught into which the words that expressed them might be woven, it is clear that there could be but little cohesion between the members of the Christian communities. The problem arose and pressed for an answer: What should be the basis of Christian union? But the problem was for a time insoluble. For there was no standard and no court of appeal.” From the very beginning, when the differences in the various Churches began to threaten their unity, appeal was probably made to the Apostles’ doctrine, the words of the Lord, tradition, “sound doctrine”, definite facts, such as the reality of the human nature (flesh) of Christ, and the reality of his death and resurrection.31 In instruction, in exhortations, and above all in opposing erroneous doctrines and moral aberrations, this precept was inculcated from the beginning: ἀπολίπωμεν τὰς κενὰς καὶ ματαίας φροντίδας, καὶ ἔλθωμεν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐυκλεῆ καὶ σεμνὸν τῆς παραδόσεως ἡμῶν κανόνα (“Let us leave off vain and foolish thoughts and betake ourselves to the glorious and august canon of our tradition”). But the very question was: What is sound doctrine? What is the content of tradition? Was the flesh of Christ a reality? etc. There is no doubt that Justin, in opposition to those whom he viewed as pseudo-Christians, insisted on the absolute necessity of acknowledging certain definite traditional facts and made this recognition the standard of orthodoxy. To all appearance it was he who began the great literary struggle for the expulsion of heterodoxy (see his σύνταγμα κατὰ πασῶν τῶν γεγενημένων ἁιρέσεων); but, judging from those writings of his that have been preserved to us, it seems very unlikely that he was already successful in finding a fixed standard for determining orthodox Christianity.32 30

31

32

This caused the pronounced tendency of the Church to the formation of dogma, a movement for which Paul had already paved the way. The development of Christianity, as attested, for example, by the Διδαχή, received an additional factor in the dogmatic tradition, which soon gained the upper hand. The great reaction is then found in monasticism. Here again the rules of morality become the prevailing feature, and therefore the old Christian gnomic literature attains in this movement a second period of vigour. In it again dogmatics only form the background for the strict regulation of life. In the instruction given as a preparation for baptism the Christian moral commandments were of course always inculcated, and the obligation to observe these was expressed in the renunciation of Satan and all his works. In consequence of this, there were also fixed formulæ in these cases. See the Pastoral Epistles, those of John and of Ignatius; also the epistle of Jude, 1 Clem. VII., Polycarp, ad Philipp. VII., II. 1, VI. 3, Justin. In the apologetic writings of Justin the courts of appeal invariably continue to be the Old Testament, the words of the Lord, and the communications of prophets; hence he has hardly insisted on any other in his anti-heretical work. On the other hand we cannot appeal to the observed fact that Tertullian also, in his apologetic writings, did not reveal his standpoint as a churchman and opponent of heresy; for, with one exception, he did not discuss heretics in these tractates at all. On the contrary Justin

27

History of Dogma - Volume II

25

26

Adolf Harnack

The permanence of the communities, however, depended on the discovery of such a standard. They were no longer held together by the conscientia religionis, the unitas disciplinæ, and the fœdus spei. The Gnostics were not solely to blame for that. They rather show us merely the excess of a continuous trans-formation which no community could escape. The gnosis which subjected religion to a critical examination awoke in proportion as religious life from generation to generation lost its warmth and spontaneity. There was a time when the majority of Christians knew themselves to be such, (1) because they had the “Spirit” and found in that an indestructible guarantee of their Christian position, (2) because they observed all the commandments of Jesus (εντολαὶ Ἰησοῦ). But when these guarantees died away, and when at the same time the most diverse doctrines that were threatening to break up the Church were preached in the name of Christianity, the fixing of tradition necessarily became the supreme task. Here, as in every other case, the tradition was not fixed till after it had been to some extent departed from. It was just the Gnostics themselves who took the lead in a fixing process, a plain proof that the setting up of dogmatic formulæ has always been the support of new formations. But the example set by the Gnostics was the very thing that rendered the problem difficult. Where was a beginning to be made? “There is a kind of unconscious logic in the minds of masses of men when great questions are abroad, which some one thinker throws into suitable form.”33 There could be no doubt that the needful thing was to fix what was “apostolic”, for the one certain thing was that Christianity was based on a divine revelation which had been transmitted through the medium of the Apostles to the Churches of the whole earth. It certainly was not a single individual who hit on the expedient of affirming the fixed forms employed by the Churches in their solemn transactions to be apostolic in the strict sense. It must have come about by a natural process. But the confession of the Father, Son, and Spirit and the kerygma of Jesus Christ had the most prominent place among these forms. The special emphasising of these articles, in opposition to the Gnostic and Marcionite undertakings, may also be viewed as the result of the “common sense” of all those who clung to the belief that the Father of Jesus Christ was the creator of the world, and that the Son of God really appeared in the flesh. But that was not everywhere sufficient, for, even admitting that about the period between 150 and 180 A.D. all the Churches had a fixed creed which they regarded as apostolic in the strict sense — and this cannot be proved, — the most dangerous of all Gnostic schools, viz., those of Valentinus, could recognise this creed, since they already possessed the art of explaining a given text in whatever way they chose. What was needed was an apostolic creed definitely interpreted; for it was only by the aid of a definite interpretation that the creed could be used to repel the Gnostic speculations and the Marcionite conception of Christianity.

33

discussed their position even in his apologetic writings; but nowhere, for instance, wrote anything similar to Theophilus’ remarks in “ad Autol.,” II. 14. Justin was acquainted with and frequently alluded to fixed formulæ and perhaps a baptismal symbol related to the Roman, if not essentially identical with it. (See Bornemann. Das Taufsymbol Justins in the Ztschr. f. K. G. Vol. III. p. 1 ff.), but we cannot prove that he utilised these formulæ in the sense of Irenæus and Tertullian. We find him using the expression ὀρθογνώμονες in Dial. 80. The resurrection of the flesh and the thousand years’ kingdom (at Jerusalem) are there reckoned among the beliefs held by the ὀρθεγνώμονες κατὰ πάντα Χριστιανοί. But it is very characteristic of the standpoint taken up by Justin that he places between the heretics inspired by demons and the orthodox a class of Christians to whom he gives the general testimony that they are τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ ἐυσεβοῦς γνώμης, though they are not fully orthodox in so far as they reject one important doctrine. Such an estimate would have been impossible to Irenæus and Tertullian. They have advanced to the principle that he who violates the law of faith in one point is guilty of breaking it all. Hatch, “Organisation of the Church”, p. 96.

28

History of Dogma - Volume II

27

Adolf Harnack

In this state of matters the Church of Rome, the proceedings of which are known to us through Irenæus and Tertullian, took, with regard to the fixed Roman baptismal confession ascribed to the Apostles, the following step: The Antignostic interpretation required by the necessities of the times was proclaimed as its self-evident content; the confession, thus explained, was designated as the “Catholic faith” (“fides catholica”), that is the rule of truth for the faith; and its acceptance was made the test of adherence to the Roman Church as well as to the general confederation of Christendom. Irenæus was not the author of this proceeding. How far Rome acted with the cooperation or under the influence of the Church of Asia Minor is a matter that is still obscure,34 and will probably never be determined with certainty. What the Roman community accomplished practically was theoretically established by Irenæus35 and Tertullian. The former proclaimed the baptismal confession, definitely interpreted and expressed in an Antignostic form, to be the apostolic rule of truth (regula veritatis), and tried to prove it so. He based his demonstration on the theory that this series of doctrines embodied the faith of the churches founded by the Apostles, and that these communities had always preserved the apostolic teaching unchanged (see under C). Viewed historically, this thesis, which preserved Christianity from complete dissolution, is based on two unproved assumptions and on a confusion of ideas. It is not demonstrated that any creed emanated from the Apostles, nor that the Churches they founded always preserved their teaching in its original form; the creed itself, moreover, is confused with its interpretation. Finally, the existence of a fides catholica, in the strict sense of the word, cannot be justly inferred from the essential agreement found in the doctrine of a series of communities.36 But, on the other hand, the course taken by Irenæus was the only one capable of saving what yet remained of primitive Christianity, and that is its historical justification. A fides apostolica had to be set up and declared identical with the already existing fides catholica. It had to be made the standard for judging all particular doctrinal opinions, that it might be determined whether they were admissible or not.

28

The persuasive power with which Irenæus set up the principle of the apostolic “rule of truth,” or of “tradition” or simply of “faith,” was undoubtedly, as far as he himself was concerned, based on the facts that he had already a rigidly formulated creed before him and that he had no doubt as to its interpretation.37 The rule of truth (also ἡ ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κηρυσσομένη ἀλήθεια “the truth proclaimed by the Church;” and τὸ τῆς ἀληθέιας σωμάτιον, “the body of the truth”) is the old baptismal confession well known to the communities for which he immediately writes. (See I. 9. 34

35

36

37

We can only conjecture that some teachers in Asia Minor contemporary with Irenæus, or even of older date, and especially Melito, proceeded in like manner, adhering to Polycarp’s exclusive attitude. Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, H. E. IV. 23. 2, 4) may perhaps be also mentioned. Irenæus set forth his theory in a great work, adv. hæres., especially in the third book. Unfortunately his treatise, λόγος εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγματος”, probably the oldest treatise on the rule of faith, has not been preserved Euseb., H. E. V. 26.) Irenæus indeed asserts in several passages that all Churches — those in Germany, Iberia, among the Celts, in the East, in Egypt, in Lybia and Italy; see I. 10. 2; III. 3. 1; III. 4. 1 sq. — possess the same apostolic kerygma; but “qui nimis probat nihil probat.” The extravagance of the expressions shows that a dogmatic theory is here at work. Nevertheless this is based on the correct view that the Gnostic speculations are foreign to Christianity and of later date. We must further point out here that Irenæus not only knew the tradition of the Churches of Asia Minor and Rome, but that he had sat at the feet of Polycarp and associated in his youth with many of the “elders” in Asia. Of these he knew for certain that they in part did not approve of the Gnostic doctrines and in part would not have done so. The confidence with which he represented his antignostic interpretation of the creed as that of the Church of the Apostles was no doubt owing to this sure historical

29

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

4; οὕτω δέ καὶ ὁ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκλινῆ ἐν ἑαυτῷ κατέχων ὃν διὰ τοῦ βαπτρίσματος εἴληφε, “in like manner he also who retains immovably in his heart the rule of truth which he received through baptism”); because it is this, it is apostolic, firm and immovable.38

29

By the fixing of the rule of truth, the formulation of which in the case of Irenæus (I. l0. 1, 2) naturally follows the arrangement of the (Roman) baptismal confession, the most important Gnostic theses were at once set aside and their antitheses established as apostolic. In his apostolic rule of truth Irenæus himself already gave prominence to the following doctrines:39 the unity of God; the identity of the supreme God with the Creator; the identity of the supreme God with the God of the Old Testament; the unity of Jesus Christ as the Son of the God who created the world; the essential divinity of Christ; the incarnation of the Son of God; the prediction of the entire history of Jesus through the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament; the reality of that history; the bodily reception (ἔνσαρκος ἀνάληψις) of Christ into heaven; the visible return of Christ; the resurrection of all flesh (ἀνάστασις πάσης σαρκὸς, πάσης ἀνθρωπότητος), the universal judgment. These dogmas, the antitheses of the Gnostic regulæ,40 were consequently, as apostolic and therefore also as Catholic, removed beyond all discussion. Tertullian followed Irenæus in every particular. He also interpreted the (Romish) baptismal confession, represented it, thus explained, as the regula fidei,41 and transferred to the latter the attributes of the confession, viz., its apostolic origin (or origin from Christ), as well as its fixedness and completeness.42 Like Irenæus, though still more stringently, he also endeavoured to prove that the formula had descended from Christ, that is, from the Apostles, and was incorrupt. He based his demonstration on the alleged incontestable facts that it contained the faith of those Churches founded

38

39

40 41 42

recollection. See his epistle to Florinus in Euseb., H. E. V. 20 and his numerous references to the “elders” in his great work. (A collection of these may be found in Patr. App. Opp. I. 3, p. 105 sq.) Caspari’s investigations leave no room for doubt as to the relation of the rule of faith to the baptismal confession. The baptismal confession was not a deposit resulting from fluctuating anti-heretical rules of faith; but the latter were the explanations of the baptismal confession. The full authority of the confession itself was transferred to every elucidation that appeared necessary, in so far as the needful explanation was regarded as given with authority. Each momentary formula employed to defend the Church against heresy has therefore the full value of the creed. This explains the fact that, beginning with Irenæus’ time, we meet with differently formulated rules of faith, partly in the same writer, and yet each is declared to be the rule of faith. Zahn is virtually right when he says, in his essay quoted above, that the rule of faith is the baptismal confession. But, so far as I can judge, he has not discerned the dilemma in which the Old Catholic Fathers were placed, and which they were not able to conceal. This dilemma arose from the fact that the Church needed an apostolic creed, expressed in fixed formulæ and at the same time definitely interpreted in an anti-heretical sense; whereas she only possessed, and this not in all churches, a baptismal confession, contained in fixed formulæ but not interpreted, along with an ecclesiastical tradition which was not formulated, although it no doubt excluded the most offensive Gnostic doctrines. It was not yet possible for the Old Catholic Fathers to frame and formulate that doctrinal confession, and they did not attempt it. The only course therefore was to assert that an elastic collection of doctrines which were ever being formulated anew, was a fixed standard in so far as it was based on a fixed creed. But this dilemma — we do not know how it was viewed by opponents — proved an advantage in the end, for it enabled churchmen to make continual additions to the rule of faith, whilst at the same time continuing to assert its identity with the baptismal confession. We must make the reservation, however, that not only the baptismal confession, but other fixed propositions as well, formed the basis on which particular rules of faith were formulated. Besides Irenæus I. 10. 1, 2, cf. 9. 1-5; 22. 1: II. 1. 1; 9. 1; 28. 1; 32. 3, 4: III. I-4; 11. 1; 12. 9; 15. 1; 16. 5 sq.; 18. 3; 24. 1: IV. 1. 2; 9. 2; 20. 6; 33. 7 sq.: V. Præf. 12. 5; 20. 1. See Iren. I. 31. 3: II. Præf. 19. 8. This expression is not found in Irenæus, but is very common in Tertullian. See de præscr. 13: “Hæc regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos quæstiones.”

30

History of Dogma - Volume II

30

31

Adolf Harnack

by the Apostles, that in these communities a corruption of doctrine was inconceivable, because in them, as could be proved, the Apostles had always had successors, and that the other Churches were in communion with them (see under C). In a more definite way than Irenæus, Tertullian conceives the rule of faith as a rule for the faith,43 as the law given to faith,44 also as a “regula doctrinæ” or “doctrina regulæ” (here the creed itself is quite plainly the regula), and even simply as “doctrina” or “institutio”.45 As to the content of the regula, it was set forth by Tertullian in three passages.46 It is essentially the same as in Irenæus. But Tertullian already gives prominence within the regula to the creation of the universe out of nothing,47 the creative instrumentality of the Logos,48 his origin before all creatures,49 a definite theory of the Incarnation,50 the preaching by Christ of a nova lex and a nova promissio regni cœlorum,51 and finally also the Trinitarian economy of God.52 Materially, therefore, the advance beyond Irenæus is already very significant. Tertullian’s regula is in point of fact a doctrina. In attempting to bind the communities to this he represents them as schools.53 The apostolic “lex et doctrina” is to be regarded as inviolable by every Christian. Assent to it decides the Christian character of the individual. Thus the Christian disposition and life come

43 44 45

46

47 48 49 50

51 52

53

See l. c. 14: “Ceterum manente forma regulæ in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras at tractes.” See de virg. vol. 1. See 1. c. 14: “Fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis,” and de vir. vol. 1. See de præscr. 21: “Si hæc ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, quæ cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum . . . Superest ergo ut demonstremus an hæc nostra doctrina, cujus regulam supra edidimus, de apostolorum traditione censeatur . . . Communicamus cum ecclesiis catholicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa.” De præscr. 32: “Ecclesiæ, quæ licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicæ deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinæ.” That Tertullian regards the baptismal confession as identical with the regula fidei, just as Irenæus does, is shown by the fact that in de spectac. 4 (“Cum aquam ingressi Christianam fidem in legis suæ verba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et pompæ et angelis eius ore nostro contestamur.”) the baptismal confession is the lex. He also calls it “sacramentum” (military oath) in ad mart. 3; de idolol. 6; de corona 11; Scorp. 4. But he likewise gives the same designation to the interpreted baptismal confession (de præscr. 20, 32; adv. Marc. IV. 5); for we must regard the passages cited as referring to this. Adv. Marc. I. 21: “regula sacramenti”; likewise V. 20, a passage specially instructive as to the fact that there can be only one regula. The baptismal confession itself had a fixed and short form (see de spectac. 4; de corona, 3: “amplius aliquid respondentes quam dominus in evangelio determinavit”; de bapt. 2: “homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus”; de bapt. 6, 11; de orat. 2 etc.). We can still prove that, apart from a subsequent alteration, it was the Roman confession that was used in Carthage in the days of Tertullian. In de præscr. 26 Tertullian admits that the Apostles may have spoken some things “inter domesticos”, but declares that they could not be communications “quæ aliam regulam fidei superducerent.” De præscr. 13; de virg. vol.1; adv. Prax. 2. The latter passage is thus worded: “Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam ὀικονομίαν dicimus, ut unici dei sit et filius sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt et sine quo factum est nihil, hunc missum a patre in virginem et ex ea natum, hominem et deum, filium hominis et filium dei et cognominatum Iesum Christum, hunc passum, hunc mortuum et sepultum secundum scripturas et resuscitatum a patre et in cœlo resumptum sedere ad dextram patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos; qui exinde miserit secundum promissionem suam a patre spiritum s. paracletum sanctificatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in patrem et filium et spiritum s. Hanc regulam ab initio evangelii decucurrisse.” De præscr. 13. L. c. L. c. L. c.: “id verbum filium eius appellatum, in nomine dei varie visum a patriarchis, in prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spiritu patris dei et virtute in virginem Mariam, carnem factum,” etc. L. c. Adv. Prax. 2: “Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam ὀικονομίαν dicimus, ut unici dei sit et filius sermo ipsius,” etc. But Tertullian also knows of a “regula disciplinæ” (according to the New Testament) on which he puts great value, and thereby shows that he has by no means forgotten that Christianity is a matter of conduct. We cannot enter more particularly into this rule here.

31

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

to be a matter which is separate from this and subject to particular conditions. In this way the essence of religion was split up — the most fatal turning-point in the history of Christianity.

32

33

But we are not of course to suppose that at the beginning of the third century the actual bond of union between all the Churches was a fixed confession developed into a doctrine, that is, definitely interpreted. This much was gained, as is clear from the treatise de præscriptione and from other evidence, that in the communities with which Tertullian was acquainted, mutual recognition and brotherly intercourse were made to depend on assent to formulæ which virtually coincided with the Roman baptismal confession. Whoever assented to such a formula was regarded as a Christian brother, and was entitled to the salutation of peace, the name of brother, and hospitality.54 In so far as Christians confined themselves to a doctrinal formula which they, however, strictly applied, the adoption of this practice betokened an advance. The scattered communities now possessed a “lex” to bind them together, quite as certainly as the philosophic schools possessed a bond of union of a real and practical character55 in the shape of certain briefly formulated doctrines. In virtue of the common apostolic lex of Christians the Catholic Church became a reality, and was at the same time clearly marked off from the heretic sects. But more than this was gained, in so far as the Antignostic interpretation of the formula, and consequently a “doctrine”, was indeed in some measure involved in the lex. The extent to which this was the case depended, of course, on the individual community or its leaders. All Gnostics could not be excluded by the wording of the confession; and, on the other hand, every formulated faith leads to a formulated doctrine, as soon as it is set up as a critical canon. What we observe in Irenæus and Tertullian must have everywhere taken place in a greater or less degree; that is to say, the authority of the confessional formula must have been extended to statements not found in the formula itself. We can still prove from the works of Clement of Alexandria that a confession claiming to be an apostolic law of faith,56 ostensibly comprehending the whole essence of Christianity, was not set up in the different provincial Churches at one and the same time.57 From this it is clearly manifest that at this period the Alexandrian Church neither possessed a baptismal confession similar to that of Rome, nor understood by “regula fidei” and synonymous expressions a collection of beliefs 54

55

56

57

Note here the use of “contesserare” in Tertullian. See de prascr.2o: “Itaque tot ac tantæ ecclesiæ una est ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes prima et omnes apostolicæ, dum una omnes. Probant unitatem communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio hospitalitatis, quæ iura non alia ratio regit quam eiusdem sacramenti una traditio.” De præscr. 36: “Videamus, quid ecclesia Romanensis cum Africanis ecclesiis contesserarit.” We need not here discuss whether and in what way the model of the philosophic schools was taken as a standard. But we may refer to the fact that from the middle of the second century the Apologists, that is the Christian philosophers, had exercised a very great influence on the Old Catholic Fathers. But we cannot say that 2. John 7-11 and Didache XI. 1 f. attest the practice to be a very old one. These passages only show that it had preparatory stages; the main element, namely, the formulated summary of the faith, is there sought for in vain. Herein lay the defect, even if the content of the law of faith had coincided completely with the earliest tradition. A man like Tertullian knew how to protect himself in his own way from this defect, but his attitude is not typical. Hegesippus, who wrote about the time of Eleutherus, and was in Rome about the middle of the second century (probably somewhat earlier than Irenæus), already set up the apostolic rule of faith as a standard. This is clear from the description of his work in Euseb., H. E. IV. 8. 2 (ἐν πέντε συγγράμμασιν τὴν ἀπλανῆ παράδοσιν τ9;ῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγματος ὑπομνηματισάμενος) as well as from the fragments of this work (l.c. IV. 22. 2, 3: ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος and § 5 ἐμέρισαν τὴν ἕνωσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας φθοριμαίοις λόγοις κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ; see also § 4). Hegesippus already regarded the unity of the Church as dependent on the correct doctrine. Polycrates (Euseb., H. E. V. 24. 6) used the expression ὁ κανὼν τῆς πίστεως in a very wide sense. But we may beyond doubt

32

History of Dogma - Volume II

34

Adolf Harnack

fixed in some fashion and derived from the apostles.58 Clement of Alexandria in his Stromateis appeals to the holy (divine) Scriptures, to the teaching of the Lord,59 and to the standard tradition which he designates by a great variety of names, though he never gives its content, because he regards the whole of Christianity in its present condition as needing to be reconstructed by gnosis, and therefore as coming under the head of tradition.60 In one respect therefore, as compared with Irenæus and Tertullian, he to some extent represents an earlier stand-point; he stands midway between them and Justin. From this author he is chiefly distinguished by the fact that he employs sacred Christian writings as well as the Old Testament, makes the true Gnostic quite as dependent on the former as on the latter and has lost that naïve view of tradition, that is, the complete content of Christianity, which Irenæus and Tertullian still had. As is to be expected, Clement too assigns the ultimate authorship of the tradition to the Apostles; but it is characteristic that he neither does this of such set purpose as Irenæus and Tertullian, nor thinks it necessary to prove that the Church had presented the apostolic tradition intact. But as he did not extract from the tradition a fixed complex of fundamental propositions, so also he failed to recognise the importance of its publicity and catholicity, and rather placed an esoteric alongside of an exoteric tradition. Although, like Irenæus and Tertullian, his attitude is throughout determined by opposition to the Gnostics and Marcion, he supposes it possible to refute them by giving to the Holy Scriptures a scientific exposition which must not oppose the κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας, that is, the Christian common sense, but receives from it only certain guiding rules. But this attitude of Clement would be simply inconceivable if the Alexandrian Church of his time had already employed the fixed standard

58

59 60

attribute to him the same conception with regard to the significance of the rule of faith as was held by his opponent Victor The Antimontanist (in Euseb. H. E. V. 16. 22.) will only allow that the martyrs who went to death for the κατὰ ἀλήθειαν πίστις were those belonging to the Church. The regula fidei is not here meant, as in this case it was not a subject of dispute. On the other hand, the anonymous writer in Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 6, 13 understood by τὸ ἐκκλησιαστικὸν φρόνημα or ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀρχαίας πίστεως the interpreted baptismal confession, just as Irenæus and Tertullian did. Hippolytus entirely agrees with these (see Philosoph. Præf., p. 4. V. 50 sq. and X. 32-34). Whether we are to ascribe the theory of Irenæus to Theophilus is uncertain. His idea of the Church is that of Irenæus (ad Autol. II. 14): δέδωκεν ὁ Θεὸς τῷ κόσμῳ κυμαινομένῳ καὶ χειμαζομένῳ ὑπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων τὰς συναγωγάς, λεγομένας δὲ ἐκκλησίας ἁγίας, ἐν αἷς καθάπερ λιμέσιν εὐόρμοις ἐν νήσοις ἁι διδασκαλίαι τῆς αληθείας ἐισίν . . . Καὶ ὥσπερ αὖ νῆσοι εἰσιν ἕτεραι πετρώδεις καὶ ἄνυδροι καὶ ἔκαρποι καὶ θηριώδεις καὶ ἀοίκητοι ἐπὶ βλάβῃ τῶν πλεόντων . . . οὕτως εἰσὶν αἱ διδασκαλίαι τῆς πλάνης, λέγω δὲ τῶν αἱρέσεων αἳ ἐξαπολλύουσιν τοὺς προσίοντας αὐταῖς. This has been contested by Caspari (Ztschr. f. Kirchl. Wissensch. 1886, Part. 7, p. 352 ff.: “Did the Alexandrian Church in Clement’s time possess a baptismal confession or not”?); but his arguments have not convinced me. Caspari correctly shows that in Clement the expression “ecclesiastical canon” denotes the summary of the Catholic faith and of the Catholic rule of conduct; but he goes on to trace the baptismal confession, and that in a fixed form, in the expression ἡ περὶ τῶν μεγίστων ὁμολογία, Strom. VII. 15. 90 (see remarks on this passage below), and is supported in this view by Voigt, l. c. p. 196 ff. I also regard this as a baptismal confession; but it is questionable if it was definitely formulated, and the passage is not conclusive on the point. But, supposing it to be definitely formulated, who can prove that it went further than the formula in Hermas, Mand. I. with the addition of a mere mention of the Son and Holy Spirit. That a free kerygma of Christ and some other matter were added to Hermas, Mand. I. may still be proved by a reference to Orig., Comm. in Joh. XXXII. 9 (see the passage in vol. I. p. 155.). Ἡ κυριακὴ διδασκαλία, e.g., VI. 15. 124; VI. 18. 165; VII. 10. 57; VII. 15. 90; VII. 18. 165, etc. We do not find in Clement the slightest traces of a baptismal confession related to the Roman, unless we reckon the Θεὸς παντοκράτωρ or εἷς Θ. π. as such. But this designation of God is found everywhere and is not characteristic of the baptismal confession. In the lost treatise on the Passover Clement expounded the “παραδόσεις τῶν ἀρχάιων πρεσβυτέρων” which had been transmitted to him.

33

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

applied in those of Rome, Carthage and Lyons.61 Such a standard did not exist; but Clement made no distinction in the yet unsystematised tradition, even between faith and discipline, because as a 35

61

Considering the importance of the matter it is necessary to quote as copiously as possible from original sources. In Strom. IV. 15. 98, we find the expression ὁ κανὼν τῆς πίστεως; but the context shows that it is used here in a quite general sense. With regard to the statement of Paul: “whatever you do, do it to the glory of God,” Clement remarks ὅσα ὑπὸ τὸν κανόνα τῆς πίστεως ποιεῖν ἐπιτέτραπται. In Strom. I. 19. 96; VI. 15. 125; VI. 18. 165; VII. 7. 41; VII. 15. 90; VII. 16. 105 we find ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας (ἐκκλησιαστικός). In the first passage that canon is the rule for the right observance of the Lord’s Supper. In the other passages it describes no doubt the correct doctrine, that is, the rule by which the orthodox Gnostic has to be guided in contrast with the heretics who are guided by their own desires (it is therefore parallel to the διδασκαλία τοῦ κυρίου); but Clement feels absolutely no need to mention wherein this ecclesiastical canon consists. In Strom IV. 1.3; VI. 15. 124; VI. 15. 131; VII. 16. 94; we find the expression ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθέιας. In the first passage it is said: ἡ γοῦν κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα γνωστικῆς παραδόσεως φυσιολογία, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐποπτεία, ἐκ τοῦ περὶ κοσμογονίας ἤρτηται λόγου. ἐνθένδε ἀναβαίνουσα ἐπὶ τὸ θεολογικὸν εἶδος. Here no one can understand by the rule of truth what Tertullian understood by it. Very instructive is the second passage in which Clement is dealing with the right and wrong exposition of Scripture. He says first: παρακαταθήκη ἀποδιδομένη Θεῷ ἡ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου διδασκαλίαν διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀυτοῦ τῆς θεοσεβοῦς παραδόσεως σύνεσίς τε καὶ συνάσκησις; then he demands that the Scriptures be interpreted κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα, or τ. ἐκκλησ. καν.; and continues (125): κανὼν δὲ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἡ συνῳδία καὶ ἡ συμφωνία νόμου τε καὶ προφητῶν τῇ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου παρουσίαν παραδιδομένῃ διαθήκῃ. Here then the agreement of the Old Testament with the Testament of Christ is described as the ecclesiastical canon. Apart from the question as to whether Clement is here already referring to a New Testament canon of Scripture, his rule agrees with Tertullian’s testimony about the Roman Church: “legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet.” But at any rate the passage shows the broad sense in which Clement used the term “ecclesiastical canon.” The following expressions are also found in Clement: ἡ ἀληθὴς τῆς μακαρίας διδασκαλίασ παράδοσις (I. 1. 11), ἁι ἅγιαι παραδόσεις (VII. 18. 110), ἡ εὐκλεὴς καὶ σεμνὸς τῆς παραδόσεως κανών (all gnosis is to be guided by this, see also ἡ κατὰ τὴν θείαν παράδοσιν φιλοσοφία, I, 1. 15. I: 11. 52., also the expression ἡ θεία παράδοσις (VII. 16. 103), ἡ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ παράδοσις (VII. 16. 95), ἁι τοῦ Χριστοῦ παραδνσεις (VII. 16. 99), ἡ τοῦ κυρίου παράδοσις (VII. 17. 106: VII. 16. 104), ἡ θεοσεβὴς παράδοσις (VI. 15. 124). Its content is not more precisely defined, and, as a rule, nothing more can be gathered from the context than what Clement once calls τὸ κοινὸν τῆς πίστεως (VII. 16. 97). Where Clement wishes to determine the content more accurately he makes use of supplementary terms. He speaks, e.g., in III. 10. 66 of the κατὰ ἀληθείαν εὐαγγελικὸς κανών, and means by that the tradition contained in the Gospels recognised by the Church in contradistinction to that found in other gospels (IV. 4. 15: κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου = κατὰ τ. εὐαγγ.). In none of these formulæ is any notice taken of the Apostles. That Clement (like Justin) traced back the public tradition to the Apostles is a matter of course and manifest from I. 1. 11, where he gives an account of his early teachers (οἱ μὲν τὴν ἀληθῆ τῆς μακαρίας σώζοντες διδασκαλίας παράδοσιν εὐθὺς ἀπὸ Πέτρου τε καὶ Ἰακώβου, Ἰωάννου τε καὶ Παύλου τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων, παῖς παρὰ πατρὸς ἐκδεχόμενος ἧκον δὴ σὺν θεῷ καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς τὰ προγονικὰ ἐκεῖνα καὶ ἀποστολικὰ καταθησόμενοι σπέρματα). Clement does not yet appeal to a hierarchical tradition through the bishops, but adheres to the natural one through the teachers, though he indeed admits an esoteric tradition alongside of it. On one occasion he also says that the true Gnostic keeps the ἀποστολικὴ καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ὀρθοτομία τῶν δογμάτων (VII. 16. 104). He has no doubt that: μία ἡ πάντων γέγονε τῶν ἀποστόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις (VII. 17. 108). But all that might just as well have been written in the first half of the second century. On the tracing back of the Gnosis, the esoteric tradition, to the Apostles see Hypotyp. in Euseb., H. E. II. 1. 4, Strom. VI. 15. 131: αὐτίκα διδάξαντος τοῦ σωτῆρος τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἡ τῆς ἐγγράφου ἄγραφος ἤδη καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς διαδίδοται παράδοσις. VI. 7. 61: ἡ γνωσις δὲ αὐτὴ ἡ κατὰ διαδοχὰς (this is the only place where I find this expression) εἰς ὀλίγους ἐκ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀγράφως παραδοθεῖσα κατελήλυθεν, ibid ἡ γνωστικὴ παράδοσις; VII. 10. 55: ἡ γνῶσις ἐκ παραδόσεως διαδιδομένη τοῖς ἀξίους σφᾶς ἀυτοὺς τῆς διδασκαλίας παρεχομένοις οἷον παρακαταθήκη ἐγχειρίζεται. In VII. 17. 106 Clement has briefly recorded the theories of the Gnostic heretics with regard to the apostolic origin of their teaching, and expressed his doubts. That the tradition of the “Old Church”, for so Clement designates the orthodox Church as distinguished from the “human congregation” of the heretics of his day, is throughout derived from the Apostles, he regards as so certain and self-evident that, as a rule, he never specially mentions it, or gives prominence to any particular article as apostolic. But the conclusion that he had no knowledge of any apostolic or fixed confession might seem to be disproved by one passage. It is said in Strom. VII. 15. 90: Μή τι οὖν, εἰ καὶ παραβαίη τις συνθήκας καὶ τὴν ὁμολογίαν παρέλθοι τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, διὰ τὸν ψευσάμενον τὴν ὁμολογίαν ἀφεξόμεθα τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ἡμεῖς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἀψευδεῖν χρὴ τὸν ἐπιεικῆ καὶ μηδὲν ὧν ὑπέσχηται ἀκυροῦν κἂν ἄλλοι τινὲς παραβαίνωσι συνθήκας, οὕτως καὶ ἡμᾶς κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν παραβαίνειν προσήκει κανόνα καὶ μάλιστα τὴν περὶ τῶν μεγίστων ὁμολογίαν ἡμεῖς μὲν φυλάττομεν, οἱ δὲ παραβαίνουσι. But in the other

34

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

theologian he was not able to identify himself with any single article of it without hesitation, and because he ascribed to the true Gnostic the ability to fix and guarantee the truth of Christian doctrine. 36

37

38

Origen, although he also attempted to refute the heretics chiefly by a scientific exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, exhibits an attitude which is already more akin to that of Irenæus and Tertullian than to that of Clement. In the preface to his great work, “De principiis,” he prefixed the Church doctrine as a detailed apostolic rule of faith, and in other instances also he appealed to the apostolic teaching.62 It may be assumed that in the time of Caracalla and Heliogabalus the Alexandrian Christians had also begun to adopt the principles acted upon in Rome and other communities.63 The Syrian Churches, or at least a part of them, followed still later.64 There can be no doubt that, from the last decades of the third century onward, one and the same confession, identical not in its wording, but in its main features, prevailed in the great confederation of Churches extending from Spain to the Euphrates and from Egypt to beyond the Alps.65 It was the basis of the confederation, and therefore also a passport, mark of recognition, etc., for the orthodox Christians. The interpretation of this confession was fixed in certain ground features, that is, in an Antignostic sense. But a definite theological interpretation was also more and more enforced. By the end of the third century there can no longer have been any considerable number of outlying communities where the doctrines of the pre-existence of Christ and the identity of this pre-existent One with the divine Logos were not recognised as the orthodox belief.66 They may have first become an apostolic confession of faith “ through the Nicene Creed. But even this creed was not adopted all at once.

62

63

64 65

66

passages in Clement where ὀμολογίαν appears it nowhere signifies a fixed formula of confession, but always the confession in general which receives its content according to the situation (see Strom. IV. 4. 15; IV. 9. 71; III. 1. 4: ἐγκράτεια σώματος ὐπεροψία κατὰ τὴν πρὸς θεὸν ὁμολογίαν. In the passage quoted it means the confession of the main points of the true doctrine. It is possible or probable that Clement was here alluding to a confession at baptism, but that is also not quite certain. At any rate this one passage cannot prove that Clement identified the ecclesiastical canon with a formulated confession similar to or identical with the Roman, or else such identification must have appeared more frequently in his works. De princip. 1. I. præf. § 4-10., IV. 2. 2. Yet we must consider the passage already twice quoted, namely, Com. in John. XXXII. 9, in order to determine the practice of the Alexandrian Church at that time. Was this baptismal confession not perhaps compiled from Herm., Mand. I., and Christological and theological teachings, so that the later confessions of the East with their dogmatic details are already to be found here? That may be also shown with regard to the New Testament canon. Very important is the declaration of Eusebius (H. E. VI. 14) that Origen, on his own testimony, paid a brief visit to Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, “because he wished to become acquainted with the ancient Church of the Romans.” We learn from Jerome (de vir. inl. 61) that Origen there became acquainted with Hippolytus, who even called attention to his presence in the church in a sermon. That Origen kept up a connection with Rome still later and followed the conflicts there with keen interest may be gathered from his works. (See Döllinger, “Hippolytus und Calixtus” p. 254 ff.) On the other hand, Clement was quite unacquainted with that city. Bigg therefore l.c. rightly remarks: “The West is as unknown to Clement as it was to his favourite Homer.” That there was a formulated πίστις καὶ ὁμολογία in Alexandria about 250 A.D. is shown by the epistle of Dionysius (Euseb., H. E. VII. 8) He says of Novatian, ἀνατρέπει τὴν πρὸ λούτρου πίστιν καὶ ὁμολογίαν. Dionysius would hardly have reproduced this Roman reproach in that way, if the Alexandrian Church had not possessed a similar πίστις. The original of the Apostolic Constitutions has as yet no knowledge of the Apostolic rule of faith in the Western sense. The close of the first homily of Aphraates shows how simple, antique, and original this confession still was in outlying districts at the beginning of the fourth century. On the other hand, there were oriental communities where it was already heavily weighted with theology. Cf. the epistles of Cyprian, especially ep. 69. 70. When Cyprian speaks (69. 7) of one and the same law which is held by the whole Catholic Church, and of one symbol with which she administers baptism (this is the first time we meet with this expression), his words mean far more than the assertion of Irenæus that the confession expounded by him is the guiding rule in all Churches; for in Cyprian’s time the intercourse of most Catholic communities with each other was so regulated that the state of things in each was to some extent really known. Cf. also Novatian, “de trinitate seu de regula fidei,” as well as the circular letter of the

35

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

B. The designation of selected writings read in the churches as New Testament Scriptures or, in other words, as a collection of apostolic writings.67

39

40

Every word and every writing which testified of the κύριος (Lord) was originally regarded as emanating from him, that is, from his spirit: Ὅθεν ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται ἐκεῖ Κύριός ἐστιν. (v. (Didache IV. I; see also 1 Cor. XII. 3). Hence the contents were holy.68 In this sense the New Testament is a “residuary product,” just as the idea of its inspiration is a remnant of a much broader view. But on the other hand, the New Testament is a new creation of the Church,69 inasmuch as it takes its place alongside of the Old — which through it has become a complicated book for Christendom, — as a Catholic and apostolic collection of Scriptures containing and attesting the truth. Marcion had founded his conception of Christianity on a new canon of Scripture,70 which seems to have enjoyed the same authority among his followers as was ascribed to the Old Testament in orthodox Christendom. In the Gnostic schools, which likewise rejected the Old Testament altogether or in part, Evangelic and Pauline writings were, by the middle of the second century, treated as sacred texts and made use of to confirm their theological speculations.71 On the other hand, about the year 150 the main body of Christendom had still no collection of Gospels and Epistles possessing equal authority with the Old Testament, and, apart from Apocalypses, no new writings at all, which

67

68 69

70

71

Synod of Antioch referring to the Metropolitan Paul (Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. 6 . . . ἀποστὰς τοῦ κανόνος ἐπὶ κίβδηλα καὶ νόθα διδάγματα μετελήλυθεν, and the homilies of Aphraates. The closer examination of the last phase in the development of the confession of faith during this epoch, when the apostolic confessions received an interpretation in accordance with the theology of Origen, will be more conveniently left over till the close of our description (see chap. 7 fin). See the histories of the canon by Credner, Reuss, Westcott, Hilgenfeld, Schmiedel, Holtzmann, and Weiss; the latter two, which to some extent supplement each other, are specially instructive. To Weiss belongs the merit of having kept Gospels and Apostles clearly apart in the preliminary history of the canon (see Th. L. Z. 1886. Nr. 24); Zahn, Gesch. des N. Tlichen Kanons, 2 vols, 1888 ff.; Harnack, Das Neue Test. um d. J. 200, 1889; Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimontan. Kampfes, 1891, p. 236 ff.; Weizsäcker, Rede bei der akad. Preisvertheilung, 1892. Nov.; Köppel, Stud. u. Krit. 1891, p. 102 ff.; Barth, Neue Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1893, p. 56 ff. The following account gives only a few aspects of the case, not a history of the genesis of the canon. “Holy” is not always equivalent to “possessing absolute authority.” There are also various stages and degrees of “holy.” I beg here to lay down the following principles as to criticism of the New Testament. (1) It is not individual writings, but the whole book that has been immediately handed down to us. Hence, in the case of difficulties arising, we must first of all enquire, not whether the title and historical setting of a book are genuine or not, but if they are original, or were only given to the work when it became a component part of the collection. This also gives us the right to assume interpolations in the text belonging to the time when it was included in the canon, though this right must be used with caution. (2) Baur’s ‘tendency-criticism’ has fallen into disrepute; hence we must also free ourselves from the pedantry and hair-splitting which were its after effects. In consequence of the (erroneous) assumptions of the Tübingen school of critics a suspicious examination of the texts was justifiable and obligatory on their part. (3) Individual difficulties about the date of a document ought not to have the result of casting suspicion on it, when other good grounds speak in its favour; for, in dealing with writings which have no, or almost no accompanying literature, such difficulties cannot fail to arise. (4) The condition of the oldest Christianity up to the beginning of the second century did not favour literary forgeries or interpolations in support of a definite tendency. (5) We must remember that, from the death of Nero till the time of Trajan, very little is known of the history of the Church except the fact that, by the end of this time, Christianity had not only spread to an astonishing extent, but also had become vigorously consolidated. The novelty lies first in the idea itself, secondly in the form in which it was worked out, inasmuch as Marcion would only admit the authority of one Gospel to the exclusion of all the rest, and added the Pauline epistles which had originally little to do with the conception of the apostolic doctrinal tradition of the Church. It is easy to understand that, wherever there was criticism of the Old Testament, the Pauline epistles circulating in the Church would be thrust into the foreground. The same thing was done by the Manichæans in the Byzantine age.

36

History of Dogma - Volume II

41

Adolf Harnack

as such, that is, as sacred texts, were regarded as inspired and authoritative.72 Here we leave out of consideration that their content is a testimony of the Spirit. From the works of Justin it is to be inferred that the ultimate authorities were the Old Testament, the words of the Lord, and the communications of Christian prophets.73 The memoirs of the Apostles (ἀπομνημονέυματα τῶν ἀποστόλων = τὰ εύαγγέλια) owed their significance solely to the fact that they recorded the words and history of the Lord and bore witness to the fulfilment of Old Testament predictions. There is no mention whatever of apostolic epistles as holy writings of standard authority.74 But we learn further from Justin that the Gospels as well as the Old Testament were read in public worship (Apol. I. 67) and that our first three Gospels were already in use. We can, moreover, gather from other sources that other Christian writings, early and late, were more or less regularly read in Christian meetings.75 Such writings naturally possessed a high degree of authority. As the Holy Spirit and the Church are inseparable, everything that edifies the Church originates with the Holy Spirit,76 which in this, as well as every other respect, is inexhaustibly rich. Here, however, two interests were predominant from the beginning, that of immediate spiritual edification and that of attesting 72

73

74

75 76

Four passages may be chiefly appealed to in support of the opposite view, viz., 2 Peter III. 16; Polycarp ep. 12. I; Barn. IV. 14; 2 Clem. II. 4. But the first is put out of court, as the second Epistle of Peter is quite a late writing. The second is only known from an unreliable Latin translation (see Zahn on the passage: ‘verba “his scripturis” suspecta sunt, cum interpres in c. II. 3 ex suis inseruerit “quod dictum est”’), and even if the latter were faithful here, the quotation from the Psalms prefixed to the quotation from the Epistle to the Ephesians prevents us from treating the passage as certain evidence. As to the third passage (μήποτε, ὡς γέγραπται, πολλοὶ κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρεθῶμεν), it should be noted that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, although he makes abundant use of the evangelic tradition, has nowhere else described evangelic writings as γραφή, and must have drawn from more sources than the canonic Gospels. Here, therefore, we have an enigma which may be solved in a variety of ways. It seems worth noting that it is a saying of the Lord which is here in question. But from the very beginning words of the Lord were equally reverenced with the Old Testament (see the Pauline Epistles), This may perhaps explain how the author — like 2 Clem. II. 4: ἑτέρα δὲ γραφὴ λέγει· ὅτι οὖκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς — has introduced a saying of this kind with the same formula as was used in introducing Old Testament quotations. Passages, such as Clem. XIII. 4: λέγει ὁ θέος· οὑ χάρις ὑμῖν εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε κ.τ.λ. would mark the transition to this mode of expression. The correctness of this explanation is confirmed by observation of the fact that the same formula as was employed in the case of the Old Testament was used in making quotations from early Christian apocalypses, or utterances of early Christian prophets in the earliest period. Thus we already read in Ephesians V. 14: διὸ λέγει· ἔγειρε ὁ καθεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός. That, certainly, is a saying of a Christian prophet, and yet it is introduced with the usual “λέγει”. We also find a saying of a Christian prophet in Clem. XXIII. (the saying is more complete in 2 Clem. XI.) introduced with the words: ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη, ὅπου λέγει. These examples may be multiplied still further. From all this we may perhaps assume that the trite formulæ of quotation “γραφὴ γέγραπται,” etc., were applied wherever reference was made to sayings of the Lord and of prophets that were fixed in writings, even when the documents in question had not yet as a whole obtained canonical authority. Finally, we must also draw attention to the following: — The Epistle of Barnabas belongs to Egypt; and there probably, contrary to my former opinion, we must also look for the author of the second Epistle of Clement. There is much to favour the view that in Egypt Christian writings were treated as sacred texts, without being united into a collection of equal rank with the Old Testament. (See below on this point.) See on Justin Bousset. Die Evv. — Citate Justins. Gött., 1891. We may also infer from the expression of Hegesippus (Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 3; Stephanus Gobarus in Photius, Bibl. 232. p. 288) that it was not Christian writings, but the Lord himself, who was placed on an equality with Law and Prophets. Very instructive is the formula: “Libri et epistolæ Pauli viri iusti” (αἱ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς βίβλοι καὶ αἱ προσεπιτούτοις ἐπιστολαὶ Παύλου τοῦ ὁσίου ἀνδρός), which is found in the Acta Mart. Scillit. anno 180 (ed. Robinson, Texts and Studies, 1891, I. 2, p. 114 f.), and tempts us to make certain conclusions. In the later recensions of the Acta the passage, characteristically enough, is worded: “Libri evangeliorum et epistolæ Pauli viri sanctissimi apostoli” or “Quattuor evv. dom. nostri J. Chr. et epp. S. Pauli ap. et omnis divinitus inspirata scriptura.” It is worthy of note that the Gnostics also, though they quote the words of the Apostles (John and Paul) as authoritative, place the utterances of the Lord on an unattainable height. See in support of this the epistle of Ptolemy to Flora. Rev. I. 3; Herm. Vis II. 4; Dionys. Cor. in Euseb., IV. 23. 11. Tertullian, this Christian of the primitive type, still reveals the old conception of things in one passage where, reversing 2 Tim. III. 16, he says (de cultu fem. I. 3) “Legimus omnem scripturam ædificationi habilem divinitus inspirari.”

37

History of Dogma - Volume II

42

Adolf Harnack

and certifying the Christian Kerygma (ἡ ἀσφάλεια τῶν λόγων). The ecclesiastical canon was the result of the latter interest, not indeed in consequence of a process of collection, for individual communities had already made a far larger compilation,77 but, in the first instance, through selection, and afterwards, but not till then, through addition. We must not think that the four Gospels now found in the canon had attained full canonical authority by the middle of the second century, for the fact — easily demonstrable — that the texts were still very freely dealt with about this period is in itself a proof of this.78 Our first three Gospels contain passages and corrections that could hardly have been fixed before about the year 150. Moreover, Tatian’s attempt to create a new Gospel from the four shews that the text of these was not yet fixed.79 We may remark that he was the first in whom we find the Gospel of John80 alongside of the Synoptists, and these four the only ones recognised. From the assault of the “Alogi” on the Johannine Gospel we learn that about 160 the whole of our four Gospels had not been definitely recognised even in Asia Minor. Finally, we must refer to the Gospel of the Egyptians, the use of which was not confined to circles outside the Church.81

43

From the middle of the second century the Encratites stood midway between the larger Christendom and the Marcionite Church as well as the Gnostic schools. We hear of some of these using the Gospels as canonical writings side by side with the Old Testament, though they would have nothing to do with the Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles.82 But Tatian, the prominent Apologist, who joined them, gave this sect a more complete canon, an important fact about which was its inclusion of Epistles of Paul. Even this period, however, still supplies us with no testimony as to the existence of a New Testament canon in orthodox Christendom, in fact the rise of the so-called “Montanism” and its extreme antithesis, the “Alogi”, in Asia Minor soon after the middle of the second century proves that there was still no New Testament canon there; for, if such an authoritative compilation had existed, these movements could not have arisen. If we gather together all the indications and evidence bearing on the subject, we shall indeed be ready to expect the speedy appearance in the Church of a kind of Gospel canon comprising the four Gospels;83 but we

77

78

79 80 81

82 83

The history of the collection of the Pauline Epistles may be traced back to the first century (1 Clem. XLVII. and like passages). It follows from the Epistle of Polycarp that this native of Asia Minor had in his hands all the Pauline Epistles (quotations are made from nine of the latter; these nine imply the four that are wanting, yet it must remain an open question whether he did not yet possess the Pastoral Epistles in their present form), also 1 Peter, 1 John (though he has not named the authors of these), the first Epistle of Clement and the Gospels. The extent of the writings read in churches which Polycarp is thus seen to have had approaches pretty nearly that of the later recognised canon. Compare, however, the way in which he assumes sayings from those writings to be well known by introducing them with “εἰδότες” (I. 3; IV. 1; V. 1). Ignatius likewise shows himself to be familiar with the writings which were subsequently united to form the New Testament. We see from the works of Clement, that, at the end of the second century, a great mass of Christian writings were collected in Alexandria and were used and honoured. It should also be pointed out that Justin most probably used the Gospel of Peter among the ἀπομνημονεύματα; see Texte u. Unters. IX. 2. See my article in the Zeitschr. f. K. Gesch. Vol. IV. p. 471 ff. Zahn (Tatian’s Diatessaron, 1881) takes a different view. Justin also used the Gospel of John, but it is a disputed matter whether he regarded and used it like the other Gospels. The Sabellians still used it in the third century, which is a proof of the great authority possessed by this Gospel in Christian antiquity. (Epiph., H. 62. 2.) Euseb., H. E. IV. 29. 5. In many regions the Gospel canon alone appeared at first, and in very many others it long occupied a more prominent place than the other canonical writings. Alexander of Alexandria, for instance, still calls God the giver of the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels (Theodoret, I. 4).

38

History of Dogma - Volume II

44

45

Adolf Harnack

are prepared neither for this being formally placed on an equality with the Old Testament, nor for its containing apostolic writings, which as yet are only found in Marcion and the Gnostics. The canon emerges quite suddenly in an allusion of Melito of Sardis preserved by Eusebius,84 the meaning of which is, however, still dubious; in the works of Irenæus and Tertullian; and in the so-called Muratorian Fragment. There is no direct account of its origin and scarcely any indirect; yet it already appears as something to all intents and purposes finished and complete.85 Moreover, it emerges in the same ecclesiastical district where we were first able to show the existence of the apostolic regula fidei. We hear nothing of any authority belonging to the compilers, because we learn nothing at all of such persons.86 And yet the collection is regarded by Irenæus and Tertullian as completed. A refusal on the part of the heretics to recognise this or that book is already made a severe reproach against them. Their Bibles are tested by the Church compilation as the older one, and the latter itself is already used exactly like the Old Testament. The assumption of the inspiration of the books; the harmonistic interpretation of them; the idea of their absolute sufficiency with regard to every question which can arise and every event which they record; the right of unlimited combination of passages; the assumption that nothing in the Scriptures is without importance; and, finally, the allegorical interpretation: are the immediately observable result of the creation of the canon.87 The probable conditions which brought about the formation of the New Testament canon in the Church, for in this case we are only dealing with probabilities, and the interests which led to and remained associated with it can only be briefly indicated here.88 84

85

86

87

88

Euseb., H. E. II. 26. 13. As Melito speaks here of the ἀκρίβεια τῶν παλαιῶν βιβλίων, and of τὰ βιβλία τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης, we may assume that he knows τὰ βιβλία τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης. We may here leave undiscussed the hesitancy with regard to the admissibility of particular books. That the Pastoral Epistles had a fixed place in the canon almost from the very first is of itself a proof that the date of its origin cannot be long before 180. In connection with this, however, it is an important circumstance that Clement makes the general statement that the heretics reject the Epistles to Timothy (Strom. II. 12. 52: οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων τὰς πρὸς Τιμόθεον ἀθετοῦσιν ἐπιστολάς). They did not happen to be at the disposal of the Church at all till the middle of the second century. Yet see the passage from Tertullian quoted, p. 15, note 1; see also the “receptior”, de pudic. 20, the cause of the rejection of Hermas in the Muratorian Fragment and Tertull. de bapt. 17: “Quodsi quæ Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum Theclæ ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse.” The hypothesis that the Apostles themselves (or the apostle John) compiled the New Testament was definitely set up by no one in antiquity and therefore need not be discussed. Augustine (c. Faustum XXII. 79) speaks frankly of “sancti et docti homines” who produced the New Testament. We can prove by a series of testimonies that the idea of the Church having compiled the New Testament writings was in no way offensive to the Old Catholic Fathers. As a rule, indeed, they are silent on the matter. Irenæus and Tertullian already treat the collection as simply existent. Numerous examples may be found in proof of all these points, especially in the writings of Tertullian, though such are already to be met with in Irenæus also. He is not yet so bold in his allegorical exposition of the Gospels as Ptolemæus whom he finds fault with in this respect; but he already gives an exegesis of the books of the New Testament not essentially different from that of the Valentinians. One should above all read the treatise of Tertullian “de idololatria” to perceive how the authority of the New Testament was even by that time used for solving all questions. I cannot here enter into the disputed question as to the position that should be assigned to the Muratorian Fragment in the history of the formation of the canon, nor into its interpretation, etc. See my article “Das Muratorische Fragment und die Entstehung einer Sammlung apostolisch-katholischer Schriften” in the Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. III. p. 358 ff. See also Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, 1880; Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschrift f. Wissensch. Theol. 1881, part 2; Schmiedel, Art. “Kanon” in Ersch. u. Gruber’s Encykl., 2 Section, Vol. XXXII. p. 309 ff.; Zahn, Kanongeschichte, Vol. II. p. 1 ff. I leave the fragment and the conclusions I have drawn from it almost entirely out of account here. The following sketch will show that the objections of Overbeck have not been without influence on me.

39

History of Dogma - Volume II

46

47

Adolf Harnack

The compilation and formation of a canon of Christian writings by a process of selection89 was, so to speak, a kind of involuntary undertaking of the Church in her conflict with Marcion and the Gnostics, as is most plainly proved by the warnings of the Fathers not to dispute with the heretics about the Holy Scriptures,90 although the New Testament was already in existence. That conflict necessitated the formation of a new Bible. The exclusion of particular persons on the strength of some apostolic standards, and by reference to the Old Testament, could not be justified by the Church in her own eyes and those of her opponents, so long as she herself recognised that there were apostolic writings, and so long as these heretics appealed to such. She was compelled to claim exclusive possession of everything that had a right to the name “apostolic,” to deny it to the heretics, and to shew that she held it in the highest honour. Hitherto she had “contented” herself with proving her legal title from the Old Testament, and, passing over her actual origin, had dated herself back to the beginning of all things. Marcion and the Gnostics were the first who energetically pointed out that Christianity began with Christ, and that all Christianity was really to be tested by the apostolic preaching, that the assumed identity of Christian common sense with apostolic Christianity did not exist, and (so Marcion said) that the Apostles contradicted themselves. This opposition made it necessary to enter into the questions raised by their opponents. But, in point of content, the problem of proving the contested identity was simply insoluble, because it was endless and subject to question on every particular point. The “unconscious logic,” that is the logic of self-preservation, could only prescribe an expedient. The Church had to collect everything apostolic and declare herself to be its only legal possessor. She was obliged, moreover, to amalgamate the apostolic with the canon of the Old Testament in such a way as to fix the exposition from the very first, But what writings were apostolic? From the middle of the second century great numbers of writings named after the Apostles had already been in circulation, and there were often different recensions of one and the same writing.91 Versions which contained docetic elements and exhortations to the most pronounced asceticism had even made their way into the public worship of the Church. Above all, therefore, it was necessary to determine (1) what writings were really apostolic, (2) what form or 89

90

91

The use of the word “canon” as a designation of the collection is first plainly demonstrable in Athanasius (ep. fest. of the year 365) and in the 59th canon of the synod of Laodicea. It is doubtful whether the term was already used by Origen. Besides, the word “canon” was not applied even to the Old Testament before the fourth century. The name “New Testament” (books of the New Testament) is first found in Melito and Tertullian. For other designations of the latter see Rönsch, Das N. T. Tertullian’s p. 47 f. The most common name is “Holy Scriptures”. In accordance with its main components the collection is designated as τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος (evangelicæ et apostolicæ litteræ); see Tertullian, de bapt. 15: “tam ex domini evangelio quam ex apostoli litteris.” The name “writings of the Lord” is also found very early. It was already used for the Gospels at a time when there was no such thing as a canon. It was then occasionally transferred to all writings of the collection. Conversely, the entire collection was named, after the authors, a collection of apostolic writings, just as the Old Testament Scriptures were collectively called the writings of the prophets. Prophets and Apostles (= Old and New Testament) were now conceived as the media of God’s revelation fixed in writing (see the Muratorian Fragment in its account of Hermas, and the designation of the Gospels as “Apostolic memoirs” already found in Justin.) This grouping became exceedingly important. It occasioned new speculations about the unique dignity of the Apostles and did away with the old collocation of Apostles and Prophets (that is Christian prophets). By this alteration we may measure the revolution of the times. Finally, the new collection was also called “the writings of the Church” as distinguished from the Old Testament and the writings of the heretics. This expression and its amplifications shew that it was the Church which selected these writings. Here there is a distinction between Irenæus and Tertullian. The former disputed with heretics about the interpretation of the Scriptures, the latter, although he has read Irenæus, forbids such dispute. He cannot therefore have considered Irenæus’ efforts as successful. The reader should remember the different recensions of the Gospels and the complaints made by Dionysius of Corinth (in Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 12).

40

History of Dogma - Volume II

48

Adolf Harnack

recension should be regarded as apostolic. The selection was made by the Church, that is, primarily, by the churches of Rome and Asia Minor, which had still an unbroken history up to the days of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. In making this choice, the Church limited herself to the writings that were used in public worship, and only admitted what the tradition of the elders justified her in regarding as genuinely apostolic. The principle on which she proceeded was to reject as spurious all writings, bearing the names of Apostles, that contained any-thing contradictory to Christian common sense, that is, to the rule of faith — hence admission was refused to all books in which the God of the Old Testament, his creation, etc., appeared to be depreciated, — and to exclude all recensions of apostolic writings that seemed to endanger the Old Testament and the monarchy of God. She retained, therefore, only those writings which bore the names of Apostles, or anonymous writings to which she considered herself justified in attaching such names,92 and whose contents were not at variance with the orthodox creed or attested it. This selection resulted in the awkward fact that besides the four Gospels there was almost nothing but Pauline epistles to dispose of, and therefore no writings or almost none which, as emanating from the twelve Apostles, could immediately confirm the truth of the ecclesiastical Kerygma. This perplexity was removed by the introduction of the Acts of the Apostles93 and in some cases also the Epistles of Peter and John, though that of Peter was not recognised at Rome at first. As a collection this group is the most interesting in the new compilation. It gives it the stamp of Catholicity, unites the Gospels with the Apostle (Paul), and, by subordinating his Epistles to the “Acta omnium apostolorum”, makes them witnesses to the particular tradition that was required and divests them of every thing suspicious

92

93

That the text of these writings was at the same time revised is more than probable, especially in view of the beginnings and endings of many New Testament writings, as well as, in the case of the Gospels, from a comparison of the canonical text with the quotations dating from the time when there was no canon. But much more important still is the perception of the fact that, in the course of the second century, a series of writings which had originally been circulated anonymously or under the name of an unknown author were ascribed to an Apostle and were also slightly altered in accordance with this. In what circumstances or at what time this happened, whether it took place as early as the beginning of the second century or only immediately before the formation of the canon, is in almost every individual case involved in obscurity; but the fact itself, of which unfortunately the Introductions to the New Testament still know so little, is, in my opinion, incontestable. I refer the reader to the following examples, without indeed being able to enter on the proof here (see my edition of the “Teaching of the Apostles” p. 106 ff). (1) The Gospel of Luke seems not to have been known to Marcion under this name, and to have been called so only at a later date. (2) The canonical Gospels of Matthew and Mark do not claim, through their content, to originate with these men; they were regarded as apostolic at a later period. (3) The so-called Epistle of Barnabas was first attributed to the Apostle Barnabas by tradition. (4) The Apocalypse of Hermas was first connected with an apostolic Hermas by tradition (Rom. XVI. 14). (5) The same thing took place with regard to the first Epistle of Clement (Philipp. IV. 3). (6) The Epistle to the Hebrews, originally the writing of an unknown author or of Barnabas, was transformed into a writing of the Apostle Paul (Overbeck zur Gesch. des Kanons, 1880), or given out to be such. (7) The Epistle of James, originally the communication of an early Christian prophet, or a collection of ancient holy addresses, first seems to have received the name of James in tradition. (8) The first Epistle of Peter, which originally appears to have been written by an unknown follower of Paul, first received its present name from tradition. The same thing perhaps holds good of the Epistle of Jude. Tradition was similarly at work, even at a later period, as may for example be recognised by the transformation of the epistle “de virginitate” into two writings by Clement. The critics of early Christian literature have created for themselves insoluble problems by misunderstanding the work of tradition. Instead of asking whether the tradition is reliable, they always wrestle with the dilemma “genuine or spurious”, and can prove neither. As regards its aim and contents, this book is furthest removed from the claim to be a portion of a collection of Holy Scriptures. Accordingly, so far as we know, its reception into the canon has no preliminary history.

41

History of Dogma - Volume II

49

Adolf Harnack

and insufficient.94 The Church, however, found the selection facilitated by the fact that the content of the early Christian writings was for the most part unintelligible to the Christendom of the time, whereas the late and spurious additions were betrayed not only by heretical theologoumena, but also and above all by their profane lucidity. Thus arose a collection of apostolic writings, which in extent may not have been strikingly distinguished from the list of writings that for more than a

50

94

People were compelled by internal and external evidence (recognition of their apostolicity; example of the Gnostics) to accept the epistles of Paul. But, from the Catholic point of view, a canon which comprised only the four Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, would have been at best an edifice of two wings without the central structure, and therefore incomplete and uninhabitable. The actual novelty was the bold insertion into its midst of a book, which, if everything is not deceptive, had formerly been only in private use, namely, the Acts of the Apostles, which some associated with an Epistle of Peter and an Epistle of John, others with an Epistle of Jude, two Epistles of John, and the like. There were now (1) writings of the Lord which were at the same time regarded as ἀπομνημονεύματα of definite Apostles; (2) a book which contained the acts and preaching of all the Apostles, which historically legitimised Paul, and at the same time gave hints for the explanation of “difficult” passages in his Epistle; (3) the Pauline Epistles increased by the compilation of the Pastoral ones, documents which “in ordinatione ecclesiasticæ disciplinæ sanctificatæ erant.” The Acts of the Apostles is thus the key to the understanding of the Catholic canon and at the same time shows its novelty. In this book the new collection had its bond of cohesion, its Catholic element (apostolic tradition), and the guide for its exposition. That the Acts of the Apostles found its place in the canon faute de mieux is clear from the extravagant terms, not at all suited to the book, in which its appearance there is immediately hailed. It is inserted in place of a book which should have contained the teaching and missionary acts of all the 12 Apostles; but, as it happened, such a record was not in existence. The first evidence regarding it is found in the Muratorian fragment and in Irenæus and Tertullian. There it is called “acta omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt, etc.” Irenæus says (III. 14. 1): “Lucas non solum prosecutor sed et cooperarius fuit Apostolorum, maxime autem Pauli”, and makes use of the book to prove the subordination of Paul to the twelve. In the celebrated passages, de præscr. 22, 23: adv. Marc. I. 20; IV. 2-5; V. 1-3, Tertullian made a still more extensive use of the Acts of the Apostles, as the Antimarcionite book in the canon. One can see here why it was admitted into that collection and used against Paul as the Apostle of the heretics. The fundamental thought of Tertullian is that no one who fails to recognise the Acts of the Apostles has any right to recognise Paul, and that to elevate him by himself into a position of authority is unhistorical and absolutely unfounded fanaticism. If the διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων was needed as an authority in the earlier time, a book which contained that authority was required in the later period; and nothing else could be found than the work of the so-called Luke. “Qui Acta Apostolorum non recipiunt, nec spiritus Sancti esse possunt, qui necdum spiritum sanctum possunt agnoscere discentibus missum, sed nec ecclesiam se dicant defendere qui quando et quibus incunabulis institutum est hoc corpus probare non habent.” But the greater part of the heretics remained obstinate. Neither Marcionites, Severians, nor the later Manicheans recognised the Acts of the Apostles. To some extent they replied by setting up other histories of Apostles in opposition to it, as was done later by a fraction of the Ebionites and even by the Marcionites. But the Church also was firm. It is perhaps the most striking phenomenon in the history of the formation of the canon that this late book, from the very moment of its appearance, asserts its right to a place in the collection, just as certainly as the four Gospels, though its position varied. In Clement of Alexandria indeed the book is still pretty much in the background, perhaps on a level with the κήρυγμα Πέτρου, but Clement has no New Testament at all in the strict sense of the word; see below. But at the very beginning the book stood where it is to-day, i.e., immediately after the Gospels (see Muratorian Fragment, Irenæus, etc.). The parallel creation, the group of Catholic Epistles, acquired a much more dubious position than the Acts of the Apostles, and its place was never really settled. Its germ is probably to be found in two Epistles of John (viz., 1st and 3rd) which acquired dignity along with the Gospel, as well as in the Epistle of Jude. These may have given the impulse to create a group of narratives about the twelve Apostles from anonymous writings of old Apostles, prophets, and teachers. But the Epistle of Peter is still wanting in the Muratorian Fragment, nor do we yet find the group there associated with the Acts of the Apostles. The Epistle of Jude, two Epistles of John, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter form the unsymmetrical conclusion of this oldest catalogue of the canon. But, all the same writings, by Jude, John, and Peter are here found side by side; thus we have a preparation for the future arrangement made in different though similar fashion by Irenæus and again altered by Tertullian. The genuine Pauline Epistles appear enclosed on the one hand by the Acts of the Apostles and the Catholic Epistles, and on the other by the Pastoral ones, which in their way are also “Catholic.” That is the character of the “Catholic” New Testament which is confirmed by the earliest use of it (in Irenæus and Tertullian). In speaking above of the Acts of the Apostles as a late book, we meant that it was so relatively to the canon. In itself the book is old and for the most part reliable.

42

History of Dogma - Volume II

51

52

Adolf Harnack

generation had formed the chief and favourite reading in the communities.95 The new collection was already exalted to a high place by the use of other writings being prohibited either for purposes of general edification or for theological ends.96 But the causes and motives which led to its being formed into a canon, that is, being placed on a footing of complete equality with the Old Testament, may be gathered partly from the earlier history, partly from the mode of using the new Bible and partly from the results attending its compilation. First, Words of the Lord and prophetic utterances, including the written records of these, had always possessed standard authority in the Church; there were therefore parts of the collection the absolute authority of which was undoubted from the first.97 Secondly, what was called “Preaching of the Apostles,” “Teaching of the Apostles,” etc., was likewise regarded from the earliest times as completely harmonious as well as authoritative. There had, however, been absolutely no motive for fixing this in documents, because Christians supposed they possessed it in a state of purity and reproduced it freely. The moment the Church was called upon to fix this teaching authentically, and this denotes a decisive revolution, she was forced to have recourse to writings, whether she would or not. The attributes formerly applied to the testimony of the Apostles, so long as it was not collected and committed to writing, had now to be transferred to the written records they had left. Thirdly, Marcion had already taken the lead in forming Christian writings into a canon in the strict sense of the word. Fourthly, the interpretation was at once fixed by forming the apostolic writings into a canon, and placing them on an equality with the Old Testament, as well as by subordinating troublesome writings to the Acts of the Apostles. Considered by themselves these writings, especially the Pauline Epistles, presented the greatest difficulties. We can see even yet from Irenæus and Tertullian that the duty of accommodating herself to these Epistles was forced upon the Church by Marcion and the heretics, and that, but for this constraint, her method of satisfying herself as to her relationship to them would hardly have taken the shape of incorporating them with the canon.98 This shows most clearly that the collection of writings must not be traced to the Church’s effort to create for herself a powerful controversial weapon. But the difficulties which the compilation presented so long as it was a mere collection vanished as soon as it was viewed as a sacred collection. For now the principle: “as the teaching of the Apostles was one, so also is the tradition” (μια ἡ πάντων γέγονε τῶν ἀποστόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις)” was to be applied to all contradictory and objectionable details.99 It was now imperative to explain one writing by another; the Pauline Epistles, for example, were to be interpreted 95

96

97 98

99

There is no doubt that this was the reason why to all appearance the innovation was scarcely felt. Similar causes were at work here as in the case of the apostolic rule of faith. In the one case the writings that had long been read in the Church formed the basis, in the other the baptismal confession. But a great distinction is found in the fact that the baptismal confession, as already settled, afforded an elastic standard which was treated as a fixed one and was therefore extremely practical; whilst, conversely, the undefined group of writings hitherto read in the Church was reduced to a collection which could neither be increased nor diminished. At the beginning, that is about 180, it was only in practice, and not in theory, that the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles possessed equal authority. Moreover, the name New Testament is not yet found in Irenæus, nor do we yet find him giving an exact idea of its content. See Werner in the Text. u. Unters. z. altchristl. Lit. Gesch. Bd. VI. 2. See above, p. 40, note 2. We have ample evidence in the great work of Irenæus as to the difficulties he found in many passages of the Pauline Epistles, which as yet were almost solely utilised as sources of doctrine by such men as Marcion, Tatian, and theologians of the school of Valentinus. The difficulties of course still continued to be felt in the period which followed. (See, e.g., Method, Conviv. Orat. III. 1, 2.) Apollinaris of Hierapolis already regards any contradiction between the (4) Gospels as impossible. (See Routh, Reliq. Sacr. I. p. 150.)

43

History of Dogma - Volume II

53

Adolf Harnack

by the Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles.100 Now was required what Tertullian calls the “mixture” of the Old and New Testaments,101 in consequence of which the full recognition of the knowledge got from the old Bible was regarded as the first law for the interpretation of the new. The formation of the new collection into a canon was therefore an immediate and unavoidable necessity if doubts of all kinds were to be averted. These were abundantly excited by the exegesis of the heretics; they were got rid of by making the writings into a canon. Fifthly, the early Christian enthusiasm more and more decreased in the course of the second century; not only did Apostles, prophets, and teachers die out, but the religious mood of the majority of Christians was changed. A reflective piety took the place of the instinctive religious enthusiasm which made those who felt it believe that they themselves possessed the Spirit.102 Such a piety requires rules; at the same time, however, it is characterised by the perception that it has not the active and spontaneous character which it ought to have, but has to prove its legitimacy in an indirect and “objective” way. The breach with tradition, the deviation from the original state of things is felt and recognised. Men, however, conceal from themselves their own defects, by placing the representatives of the past on an unattainable height, and forming such an estimate of their qualities as makes it unlawful and impossible for those of the present generation, in the interests of their own comfort, to compare themselves with them. When matters reach this point, great suspicion attaches to those who hold fast their religious independence and wish to apply the old standards. Not only do they seem arrogant and proud, but they also appear disturbers of the necessary new arrangement which has its justification in the fact of its being unavoidable. This development of the matter was, moreover, of the greatest significance for the history of the canon. Its creation very speedily resulted in the opinion that the time of divine revelation had gone past and was exhausted in the Apostles, that is, in the records left by them. We cannot prove with certainty that the canon was formed to confirm this opinion, but we can show that it was very soon used to oppose those Christians who professed to be prophets or appealed to the continuance of prophecy. The influence which the canon exercised in this respect is the most decisive and important. That which Tertullian, as a Montanist, asserts of one of his opponents: “Prophetiam expulit, paracletum fugavit” (“he expelled prophecy, he drove away the Paraclete”), can be far more truly said of the New Testament which the same Tertullian as a Catholic recognised. The New Testament, though not all at once, put an end to a situation where it was possible for any Christian under the inspiration of the Spirit to give authoritative disclosures and instructions. It likewise prevented belief in the fanciful creations with which such men enriched the history of the past, and destroyed their pretensions to read the future. As the creation of the canon, though not in a hard and fast way, fixed the period of the production of sacred facts, so it put down all claims of Christian prophecy to public credence. Through the canon it came to be acknowledged that all post-apostolic Christianity is only of a mediate and particular kind, and can therefore never be itself a standard. The Apostles alone possessed the Spirit of God completely and without measure. They only, therefore, are the media of revelation, and by their word alone,

54

100

See Overbeck, “Ueber die Auffassung des Streites des Paulus mit Petrus in Antiochien bei den Kirchenvätern,” 1897, p. 8. See also Clement Strom. IV. 21. 124; VI. 15. 125. The expression is also frequent in Origen, e.g., de princip. præf. 4. 102 The Roman Church in her letter to that of Corinth designates her own words as the words of God (1 Clem. LIX. 1) and therefore requires obedience “τοῖς ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν γεγραμμένοις διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος” (LXIII. 2). 101

44

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

which, as emanating from the Spirit, is of equal authority with the word of Christ, all that is Christian must be tested.103

55

The Holy Spirit and the Apostles became correlative conceptions (Tertull., de pudic. 21). The Apostles, however, were more and more overshadowed by the New Testament Scriptures; and this was in fact an advance beyond the earlier state of things, for what was known of the Apostles? Accordingly, as authors of these writings, they and the Holy Spirit became correlative conceptions. This led to the assumption that the apostolic writings were inspired, that is, in the full and only intelligible sense attached to the word by the ancients.104 By this assumption the Apostles, viewed as prophets, received a significance quite equal to that of Old Testament writers.105 But, though Irenæus and Tertullian placed both parties on a level, they preserved a distinction between them by basing the whole authority of the New Testament on its apostolic origin, the concept “apostolic” being much more comprehensive than that of “prophet.” These men, being Apostles, that is men chosen by Christ himself and entrusted with the proclamation of the Gospel, have for that reason received the Spirit, and their writings are filled with the Spirit. To the minds of Western Christians the primary feature in the collection is its apostolic authorship.106 This implies inspiration also, because the Apostles cannot be inferior to the writers of the Old Testament. For that very reason they could, in a much more radical way, rid the new collection of everything that was not apostolic. They even rejected writings which, in their form, plainly claimed the character of inspiration; and this was evidently done because they did not attribute to them the degree of authority which, in their view, only belonged to that which was apostolic.107 The new canon of Scripture set up by Irenæus and Tertullian primarily professes to be nothing else than a collection of apostolic writings, which, as such, claim absolute authority.108 It takes its place beside the apostolic rule of faith; and 103

Tertull., de exhort. 4: “Spiritum quidem dei etiam fideles habent, sed non omnes fideles apostoli . . . Proprie enim apostoli spiritum sanctum habent, qui plene habent in operibus prophetiæ et efficacia virtutum documentisque linguarum, non ex parte, quod ceteri.” Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 21. 135: “Ἕκαστος ἴδιον ἔχει χάρισμα ἀπὸ θεοῦ, ὁ μὲν οὑτως, ὁ δὲ οὑτως, ὁι ἀπόστολοι δὲ ἐν πᾶσι πεπληρωμένοι; Serapion in Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3: ἡμεῖς καὶ τὸν Πάτρον καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀποστόλους ἀποδεχόμεθα ὡς Χριστόν. The success of the canon here referred to was an undoubted blessing, for, as the result of enthusiasm, Christianity was menaced with complete corruption, and things and ideas, no matter how alien to its spirit, were able to obtain a lodgment under its protection. The removal of this danger, which was in some measure averted by the canon, was indeed coupled with great disadvantages, inasmuch as believers were referred in legal fashion to a new book, and the writings contained in it were at first completely obscured by the assumption that they were inspired and by the requirement of an “expositio legitima.” 104 See Tertull., de virg. vol. 4, de resurr. 24, de ieiun. 15, de pudic. 12. Sufficiency is above all included in the concept “inspiration” (see for ex. Tertull., de monog. 4: “Negat scriptura quod non notat”), and the same measure of authority belongs to all parts (see Iren., IV. 28. 3. Nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum”). 105 The direct designation “prophets” was, however, as a rule, avoided. The conflict with Montanism made it expedient to refrain from this name; but see Tertullian, adv. Marc. IV. 24: “Tam apostolus Moyses, quam et apostoli prophetæ.” 106 Compare also what the author of the Muratorian Fragment says in the passage about the Shepherd of Hermas. 107 This caused the most decisive breach with tradition, and the estimate to be formed of the Apocalypses must at first have remained an open question. Their fate was long undecided in the West; but it was very soon settled that they could have no claim to public recognition in the Church, because their authors had not that fulness of the Spirit which belongs to the Apostles alone. 108 The disputed question as to whether all the acknowledged apostolic writings were regarded as canonical must be answered in the affirmative in reference to Irenæus and Tertullian, who conversely regarded no book as canonical unless written by the Apostles. On the other hand, it appears to me that no certain opinion on this point can be got from the Muratorian Fragment. In the end the Gospel, Acts, Kerygma, and Apocalypse of Peter as well as the Acts of Paul were rejected, a proceeding which was at the same time a declaration that they were spurious. But these three witnesses agree (see also App. Constit. VI. 16) that the apostolic regula fidei is practically the final court of appeal, inasmuch as it decides whether a writing is really apostolic or not, and inasmuch as, according to Tertullian, the apostolic writings belong to the Church alone, because she alone possesses the

45

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

by this faithfully preserved possession, the Church scattered over the world proves herself to be that of the Apostles. 56

57

But we are very far from being able to show that such a rigidly fixed collection of apostolic writings existed everywhere in the Church about the year 200. It is indeed continually asserted that the Antiochian and Alexandrian Churches had at that date a New Testament which, in extent and authority, essentially coincided with that of the Roman Church; but this opinion is not well founded. As far as the Church of Antioch is immediately concerned, the letter of Bishop Serapion (whose episcopate lasted from about 190 to about 209), given in Eusebius (VI. 12), clearly shows that Cilicia and probably also Antioch itself as yet possessed no such thing as a completed New Testament. It is evident that Serapion already holds the Catholic principle that all words of Apostles possess the same value to the Church as words of the Lord; but a completed collection of apostolic writings was not yet at his disposal.109 Hence it is very improbable that Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, who died as early as the reign of Commodus, presupposed such a collection. Nor, in point of fact, do the statements in the treatise “ad Autolycum” point to a completed New Testament.110 Theophilus makes diligent use of the Epistles of Paul and mentions the evangelist John (C. I. 1.) as one of the bearers of the Spirit. But with him the one canonical court of appeal is the Scriptures of the Old Testament, that is, the writings of the Prophets (bearers of the Spirit). These Old Testament Prophets, however, are continued in a further group of “bearers of the Spirit”, which we cannot definitely determine, but which at any rate included the authors of the four Gospels and the writer of the Apocalypse. It is remarkable that Theophilus has never mentioned the Apostles. Though he perhaps regards them all, including Paul, as “bearers of the Spirit”, yet we have no indication that he looked on their Epistles as canonical. The different way he uses the Old Testament and the Gospels on the one hand and the Pauline Epistles on the other is rather evidence of the contrary. Theophilus was acquainted with the four Gospels (but we have no reference to Mark), the thirteen Epistles of Paul (though he does not mention Thessalonians), most probably also with the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as 1st Peter and the Revelation of John. It is significant that no single passage of his betrays an acquaintance with the Acts of the Apostles.111

apostolic regula (de præscr. 37 ff.). The regula of course does not legitimise those writings, but only proves that they are authentic and do not belong to the heretics. These witnesses also agree that a Christian writing has no claim to be received into the canon merely on account of its prophetic form. On looking at the matter more closely, we see that the view of the early Church, as opposed to Montanism, led to the paradox that the Apostles were prophets in the sense of being inspired by the Spirit, but that they were not so in the strict sense of the word. 109 The fragment of Serapion’s letter given in Eusebius owes its interest to the fact that it not only shows the progress made at this time with the formation of the canon at Antioch, but also what still remained to be done. 110 See my essay “Theophilus v. Antiochien und das N. T.” in the Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. XI. p 1 ff. 111 The most important passages are Autol. II. 9. 22: ὅθεν διδάσκουσιν ἡμᾶς αἱ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ καὶ πάντες οἱ πνευματοφόροι, ἐξ ὧν Ἰωάννης λέγει κ.τ.λ. (follows John I. 1) III. I2: καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης, ἧς ὁ νόμος εἴρηκεν, ἀκόλουθα εὑρίσκεται καὶ τὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἔχειν, διὰ τὸ τούς πάντας πνευματοφόρους ἑνὶ πνέυματι θεοῦ λελαληκέναι; III. 13: ὁ ἅγιος λόγος — ἡ ἑυαγγέλιος φωνή.; III. 14.: Ἠσαΐας — τὸ δὲ εὐαγγέλιον — ὁ θεῖος λόγος. The latter formula is not a quotation of Epistles of Paul viewed as canonical, but of a divine command found in the Old Testament and given in Pauline form. It is specially worthy of note that the original of the six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, written in Syria and belonging to the second half of the third century, knows yet of no New Testament. In addition to the Old Testament it has no authority but the “Gospel.”

46

History of Dogma - Volume II

58

59

Adolf Harnack

It might certainly seem venturesome, on the basis of the material found in Theophilus and the original document of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, to conclude that the formation of a New Testament canon was not everywhere determined by the same interest and therefore did not everywhere take a similar course. It might seem hazardous to assume that the Churches of Asia Minor and Rome began by creating a fixed canon of apostolic writings, which was thus necessarily declared to be inspired, whereas other communities applied or did not deny the notion of inspiration to a great number of venerable and ancient writings not rigidly defined, and did not make a selection from a stricter historical point of view, till a later date. But the latter development not only corresponds to the indication found in Justin, but in my opinion may be verified from the copious accounts of Clement of Alexandria.112 In the entire literature of Greeks and barbarians Clement distinguishes between profane and sacred, i. e., inspired writings. As he is conscious that all knowledge of truth is based on inspiration, so all writings, that is all parts, paragraphs, or sentences of writings which contain moral and religious truth are in his view inspired.113 This opinion, however, does not exclude a distinction between these writings, but rather requires it. (2) The Old Testament, a fixed collection of books, is regarded by Clement, as a whole and in all its parts, as the divine, that is, inspired book par excellence. (3) As Clement in theory distinguishes a new covenant from the old, so also he distinguishes the books of the new covenant from those of the old. (4) These books to which he applies the formula “Gospel” (τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον) and “Apostles” (ὁι ἀπόστολοι) are likewise viewed by him as inspired, but he does not consider them as forming a fixed collection. (5) Unless all appearances are deceptive, it was, strictly speaking, only the four Gospels that he considered and treated as completely on a level with the Old Testament. The formula: ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον (“the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel”) is frequently found, and everything else, even the apostolic writings, is judged by this group.114 He does not consider even the Pauline Epistles to be a court of appeal of equal value with the Gospels, though he occasionally describes them as γραφάι.115 A further class of writings stands a stage lower than the Pauline Epistles, viz., the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. It would be wrong to say that Clement views this group as an appendix to the New Testament, or as in any sense Antilegomena. This would imply that he assumed the existence of a fixed collection whose

112

There has as yet been no sufficient investigation of the New Testament of Clement. The information given by Volkmar in Credner’s Gesch. d. N.Tlichen Kanon, p. 382 ff., is not sufficient. The space at the disposal of this manual prevents me from establishing the results of my studies on this point. Let me at least refer to some important passages which I have collected. Strom. I. §§ 28, 100; II. §§ 22, 28, 29; III. §§ 11, 66, 70, 71, 76, 93, 108; IV. §§ 2, 91, 97, 105, 130, 133, 134, 138, 159; V. §§ 3, 17, 27, 28, 30, 31, 38, 80, 85, 86; VI. §§ 42, 44, 54, 59, 61, 66-68, 88, 91, 106, 107, 119, 124, 125, 127, 128, 133, 161, 164; VII. §§ 1, 14, 34, 76, 82, 84, 88, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107. As to the estimate of the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement of Rome as well as of the Shepherd, in Clement, see the Prolegg. to my edition of the Opp. Patr. Apost. 113 According to Strom. V. 14. 138 even the Epicurean Metrodorus uttered certain words ἐνθέως; but on the other hand Homer was a prophet against his will. See Pæd. I. 6. 36, also § 51. 114 In the Pæd. the Gospels are regularly called ἡ γραφή, but this is seldom the case with the Epistles. The word “Apostle” is used in quoting these. 115 It is also very interesting to note that Clement almost nowhere illustrates the parabolic character of the Holy Scriptures by quoting the Epistles, but in this connection employs the Old Testament and the Gospels, just as he almost never allegorises passages from other writings. 1 Cor. III. 2 is once quoted thus in Pæd. I. 6. 49: τὸ ἐν τῷ ἀποστόλῳ ἅγιον πνεῦμα τῇ τοῦ κυρίου ἀποχρώμενον φωνῇ λέγει. We can hardly conclude from Pæd. I. 7. 61 that Clement called Paul a “prophet.”

47

History of Dogma - Volume II

60

Adolf Harnack

parts he considered of equal value, an assumption which cannot be proved.116 (6) As to certain books, such as the “Teaching of the Apostles,” the “Kerygma of Peter,” etc., it remains quite doubtful what authority Clement attributed to them.117 He quotes the Διδαχή as γραφή. (7) In determining and estimating the sacred books of the New Testament Clement is manifestly influenced by an ecclesiastical tradition, for he recognises four Gospels and no more because that was the exact number handed down. This tradition had already applied the name “apostolic” to most Christian writings which were to be considered as γραφαί, but it had given the concept “apostolic” a far wider content than Irenæus and Tertullian,118 although it had not been able to include all the new writings which were regarded as sacred under this idea. (Hermas). At the time Clement wrote, the Alexandrian Church can neither have held the principle that all writings of the Apostles must be read in the Church and form a decisive court of appeal like the Old Testament, nor have believed that nothing but the Apostolic — using this word also in its wider sense — has any claim to authority among Christians. We willingly admit the great degree of freedom and peculiarity characteristic of Clement, and freely acknowledge the serious difficulties inseparable from the attempt to ascertain from his writings what was regarded as possessing standard authority in the Church. Nevertheless it may be assumed with certainty that, at the time this author wrote, the content of the New Testament canon, or, to speak more correctly, its reception in the Church and exact attributes had not yet been finally settled in Alexandria. The condition of the Alexandrian Church of the time may perhaps be described as follows: Ecclesiastical custom had attributed an authority to a great number of early Christian writings without strictly defining the nature of this authority or making it equal to that of the Old Testament. Whatever professed to be inspired, or apostolic, or ancient, or edifying was regarded as the work of the Spirit and therefore as the Word of God. The prestige of these writings increased in proportion as Christians became more incapable of producing the like themselves. Not long before Clement wrote, however, a systematic arrangement of writings embodying the early Christian tradition had been made in Alexandria also. But, while in the regions represented by Irenæus and Tertullian the canon must have arisen and been adopted all at once, so to speak, it was a slow process that led to this result in Alexandria. Here also the principle of apostolicity seems to have been of great importance for the collectors and editors, but it was otherwise applied than at Rome. A conservative proceeding was adopted, as they wished to insure as far as possible the permanence of ancient Christian writings regarded as inspired. In other words, they sought, wherever practicable, to proclaim all these writings to be apostolic by giving a wider meaning to the designation and ascribing an imaginary apostolic origin to many of them. This explains their judgment as to the Epistle to

116

It is worthy of special note that Clem., Pæd. II. 10. 3; Strom. II. 15. 67 has criticised an interpretation given by the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, although he calls Barnabas an Apostle. 117 In this category we may also include the Acts of the Apostles, which is perhaps used like the κήρυγμα. It is quoted in Pæd. II. 16. 56; Strom. I. 50, 89, 91, 92, 153, 154; III. 49; IV. 97; V. 75, 82; VI. 63, 101, 124, 165. 118 The “seventy disciples” were also regarded as Apostles, and the authors of writings the names of which did not otherwise offer a guarantee of authority were likewise included in this category. That is to say, writings which were regarded as valuable and which for some reason or other could not be characterised as apostolic in the narrower sense were attributed to authors whom there was no reason for denying to be Apostles in the wider sense. This wider use of the concept “apostolic” is moreover no innovation. See my edition of the Didache, pp. 111-118.

48

History of Dogma - Volume II

61

62

Adolf Harnack

the Hebrews, and how Barnabas and Clement were described by them as Apostles.119 Had this undertaking succeeded in the Church, a much more extensive canon would have resulted than in the West. But it is more than questionable whether it was really the intention of those first Alexandrian collectors to place the great compilation thus produced, as a New Testament, side by side with the Old, or, whether their undertaking was immediately approved in this sense by the Church. In view of the difference of Clement’s attitude to the various groups within this collection of γραφαί, we may assert that in the Alexandrian Church of that time Gospels and Apostles were indeed ranked with the Law and the Prophets, but that this position of equality with the Old Testament was not assigned to all the writings that were prized either on the score of inspiration or of apostolic authority. The reason of this was that the great collection of early Christian literature that was inspired and declared to be apostolic could hardly have been used so much in public worship as the Old Testament and the Gospels. Be this as it may, if we understand by the New Testament a fixed collection, equally authoritative throughout, of all the writings that were regarded as genuinely apostolic, that is, those of the original Apostles and Paul, then the Alexandrian Church at the time of Clement did not yet possess such a book; but the process which led to it had begun. She had come much nearer this goal by the time of Origen. At that period the writings included in the New Testament of the West were all regarded in Alexandria as equally authoritative, and also stood in every respect on a level with the Old Testament. The principle of apostolicity was more strictly conceived and more surely applied. Accordingly the extent of “Holy Scripture” was already limited in the days of Origen. Yet we have to thank the Alexandrian Church for giving us the seven Catholic Epistles. But, measured by the canon of the Western Church, which must have had a share in the matter, this sifting process was by no means complete. The inventive minds of scholars designated a group of writings in the Alexandrian canon as “Antilegomena.” The historian of dogma can take no great interest in the succeeding development, which first led to the canon being everywhere finally fixed, so far as we can say that this was ever the case. For the still unsettled dispute as to the extent of the canon did not essentially affect its use and authority, and in the following period the continuous efforts to establish a harmonious and strictly fixed canon were solely determined by a regard to tradition. The results are no doubt of great importance to Church history, because they show us the varying influence exerted on Christendom at different periods by the great Churches of the East and West and by their learned men. Addendum. — The results arising from the formation of a part of early Christian writings into a canon, which was a great and meritorious act of the Church,120 notwithstanding the fact that it was forced on her by a combination of circumstances, may be summed up in a series of antitheses.

119

The formation of the canon in Alexandria must have had some connection with the same process in Asia Minor and in Rome. This is shown not only by each Church recognising four Gospels, but still more by the admission of thirteen Pauline Epistles. We would see our way more clearly here, if anything certain could be ascertained from the works of Clement, including the Hypotyposes, as to the arrangement of the Holy Scriptures; but the attempt to fix this arrangement is necessarily a dubious one, because Clement’s “canon of the New Testament” was not yet finally fixed. It may be compared to a half-finished statue whose bust is already completely chiselled, while the under parts are still embedded in the stone. 120 No greater creative act can be mentioned in the whole history of the Church than the formation of the apostolic collection and the assigning to it of a position of equal rank with the Old Testament.

49

History of Dogma - Volume II

63

64

Adolf Harnack

(1) The New Testament, or group of “apostolic” writings formed by selection, preserved from destruction one part, and undoubtedly the most valuable one, of primitive Church literature; but it caused all the rest of these writings, as being intrusive, or spurious, or superfluous, to be more and more neglected, so that they ultimately perished.121 (2) The New Testament, though not all at once, put an end to the composition of works which claimed an authority binding on Christendom’ (inspiration); but it first made possible the production of secular Church literature and neutralised the extreme dangers attendant on writings of this kind. By making room for all kinds of writings that did not oppose it, it enabled the Church to utilise all the elements of Greek culture. At the same time, however, it required an ecclesiastical stamp to be placed on all the new Christian productions due to this cause.122 (3) The New Testament obscured the historical meaning and the historical origin of the writing contained in it, especially the Pauline Epistles, though at the same time it created the conditions for a thorough study of all those documents. Although primarily the new science of theological exegesis in the Church did more than anything else to neutralise the historical value of the New Testament writings, yet, on the other hand, it immediately commenced a critical restoration of their original sense. But, even apart from theological science, the New Testament enabled original Christianity to exercise here and there a quiet and gradual effect on the doctrinal development of the Church, without indeed being able to exert a dominant influence on the natural development of the traditional system. As the standard of interpretation for the Holy Scriptures was the apostolic regula fidei, always more and more precisely explained, and as that regula, in its Antignostic and philosophico-theological interpretation, was regarded as apostolic, the New Testament was explained in accordance with the conception of Christianity that had become prevalent in the Church. At first therefore the spirit of the New Testament could only assert itself in certain undercurrents and in the recognition of particular truths. But the book did not in the least ward off the danger of a total secularising of Christianity. (4) The New Testament opposed a barrier to the enthusiastic manufacture of “facts.” But at the same time its claim to be a collection of inspired writings123 naturally resulted in principles of interpretation (such as the principle of unanimity, of unlimited combination, of absolute clearness and sufficiency, and of allegorism) which were necessarily followed by the manufacture of new facts on the part of theological experts. (5) The New Testament fixed a time within which divine revelation ceased, and prevented any Christian from putting himself into comparison with the disciples of Jesus. By doing so it directly promoted the lowering of Christian ideals and requirements, and in a certain fashion legitimised this weakening of religious power. At the same time, however, it maintained the knowledge of these ideals and requirements, became a spur to the conscience of believers, and averted the danger of Christianity being corrupted by the excesses of enthusiasm. (6) The fact of the New Testament being placed on a level with the Old proved the most effective means of preserving to the latter its canonical authority, 121

The history of early Christian writings in the Church which were not definitely admitted into the New Testament is instructive on this point. The fate of some of these may be described as tragical. Even when they were not branded as downright forgeries, the writings of the Fathers from the fourth century downwards were far preferred to them. 122 See on this point Overbeck “Abhandlung über die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur, l.c., p. 469.” Nevertheless, even after the creation of the New Testament canon, theological authorship was an undertaking which was at first regarded as highly dangerous. See the Antimontanist in Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 3: δεδιὼς καὶ ἐξευλαβούμενος, μή πη δόξω πρὶν ἐπισυγγράφειν ἤ ἐπιδιατάσσεσθαι τῷ τῆς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου καινῆς διαθήκης λόγῳ, We find similar remarks in other old Catholic Fathers (see Clemen. Alex.). 123 But how diverse were the expositions; compare the exegesis of Origen and Tertullian, Scorp. II.

50

History of Dogma - Volume II

65

Adolf Harnack

which had been so often assailed in the second century. But at the same time it brought about an examination of the relation between the Old and New Testaments, which, however, also involved an enquiry into the connection between Christianity and pre-christian revelation. The immediate result of this investigation was not only a theological exposition of the Old Testament, but also a theory which ceased to view the two Testaments as of equal authority and subordinated the Old to the New. This result, which can be plainly seen in Irenæus, Tertullian, and Origen, led to exceedingly important consequences.124 It gave some degree of insight into statements, hitherto completely unintelligible, in certain New Testament writings, and it caused the Church to reflect upon a question that had as yet been raised only by heretics, viz., what are the marks which distinguish Christianity from the Old Testament religion? An historical examination imperceptibly arose; but the old notion of the inspiration of the Old Testament confined it to the narrowest limits, and in fact always continued to forbid it; for, as before, appeal was constantly made to the Old Testament as a Christian book which contained all the truths of religion in a perfect form. Nevertheless the conception of the Old Testament was here and there full of contradictions.125 (7) The fatal identification of words of the Lord and words of the Apostles (apostolical tradition) had existed before the creation of the New Testament, though this proceeding gave it a new range and content and a new significance. But, with the Epistles of Paul included, the New Testament elevated the highest expression of the consciousness of redemption into a guiding principle, and by admitting Paulinism into the canon it introduced a wholesome ferment into the history of the Church. (8) By creating the New Testament and claiming exclusive possession of it the Church deprived the non-Catholic communions of every apostolic foundation, just as she had divested Judaism of every legal title by taking possession of the Old Testament; but, by raising the New Testament to standard authority, she created the armoury which supplied the succeeding period with the keenest weapons against herself.126 The place of the Gospel was taken by a book with exceedingly varied contents, which theoretically acquired the same authority as the Gospel. Still, the Catholic Church never became a religion “of the book”, because every inconvenient text could be explained away by the allegoric method, and because the book was not made use of as the immediate authority for the guidance of Christians, this latter function being directly discharged by the rule of faith.127 In practice it continued to be the rule for

66

124

On the extent to which the Old Testament had become subordinated to the New and the Prophets to the Apostles, since the end of the second century, see the following passage from Novatian, de trinit. 29: “Unus ergo et idem spiritus qui in prophetis et apostolis, nisi quoniam ibi ad momentum, hic semper. Ceterum ibi non ut semper in illis inesset, hic ut in illis semper maneret, et ibi mediocriter distributus, hic totus effusus, ibi parce datus, hic large commodatus.” 125 That may be shown in all the old Catholic Fathers, but most plainly perhaps in the theology of Origen. Moreover, the subordination of the Old Testament revelation to the Christian one is not simply a result of the creation of the New Testament, but may be explained by other causes; see chap. 5. If the New Testament had not been formed, the Church would perhaps have obtained a Christian Old Testament with numerous interpolations — tendencies in this direction were not wanting; see vol. I. p. 114 f. — and increased in extent by the admission of apocalypses. The creation of the New Testament preserved the purity of the Old, for it removed the need of doing violence to the latter in the interests of Christianity. 126 The Catholic Church had from the beginning a very clear consciousness of the dangerousness of many New Testament writings, in fact she made a virtue of necessity in so far as she set up a theory to prove the unavoidableness of this danger. See Tertullian, de præscr. passim, and de resurr. 63. 127 To a certain extent the New Testament disturbs and prevents the tendency to summarise the faith and reduce it to its most essential content. For it not only puts itself in the place of the unity of a system, but frequently also in the place of a harmonious and

51

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

the New Testament to take a secondary place in apologetic writings and disputes with heretics.128 On the other hand it was regarded (1) as the directly authoritative document for the direction of the Christian life,129 and (2) as the final court of appeal in all the conflicts that arose within the sphere of the rule of faith. It was freely applied in the second stage of the Montanist struggle, but still more in the controversies about Christology, that is, in the conflict with the Monarchians. The apostolic writings belong solely to the Church, because she alone has preserved the apostolic doctrine (regula). This was declared to the heretics and therewith all controversy about Scripture, or the sense of Scripture passages, was in principle declined. But within the Church herself the Holy Scripture was regarded as the supreme and completely independent tribunal against which not even an old tradition could be appealed to; and the rule πολιτεύεσθαι κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (“live according to the Gospel”) held good in every respect. Moreover, this formula, which is rarely replaced by the other one, viz., κατὰ τὴν καινὴν διαθήκην (“according to the New Testament”), shows that the words of the Lord, as in the earlier period, continued to be the chief standard of life and conduct.

67

C. The transformation of the episcopal office in the Church into an apostolic office. The history of the remodeling of the conception of the Church.130 I. It was not sufficient to prove that the rule of faith was of apostolic origin, i.e., that the Apostles had set up a rule of faith. It had further to be shown that, up to the present, the Church had always maintained it unchanged. This demonstration was all the more necessary because the heretics also claimed an apostolic origin for their regulæ, and in different ways tried to adduce proof that they alone possessed a guarantee of inheriting the Apostles’ doctrine in all its purity.131 An historical demonstration was first attempted by the earliest of the old Catholic Fathers. They pointed to communities of whose apostolic origin there could be no doubt, and thought it could not reasonably be denied that those Churches must have preserved apostolic Christianity in a pure and incorrupt form. The proof that the Church had always held fast by apostolic Christianity depended on the complete creed. Hence the rule of faith is necessary as a guiding principle, and even an imperfect one is better than a mere haphazard reliance upon the Bible. 128 We must not, however, ascribe that to conscious mistrust, for Irenæus and Tertullian bear very decided testimony against such an idea, but to the acknowledgment that it was impossible to make any effective use of the New Testament Scriptures in arguments with educated non-Christians and heretics. For these writings could carry no weight with the former, and the latter either did not recognise them or else interpreted them by different rules. Even the offer of several of the Fathers to refute the Marcionites from their own canon must by no means be attributed to an uncertainty on their part with regard to the authority of the ecclesiastical canon of Scripture. We need merely add that the extraordinary difficulty originally felt by Christians in conceiving the Pauline Epistles, for instance, to be analogous and equal in value to Genesis or the prophets occasionally appears in the terminology even in the third century, in so far as the term “divine writings” continues to be more frequently applied to the Old Testament than to certain parts of the New. 129 Tertullian, in de corona 3, makes his Catholic opponent say: “Etiam in traditionis obtentu exigenda est auctoritas scripta.” 130 Hatch, Organisation of the early Christian Church, 1883. Harnack, Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel, 1884. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. 1892. 131 Marcion was the only one who did not claim to prove his Christianity from traditions inasmuch as he rather put it in opposition to tradition. This disclaimer of Marcion is in keeping with his renunciation of apologetic proof, whilst, conversely, in the Church the apologetic proof, and the proof from tradition adduced against the heretics, were closely related. In the one case the truth of Christianity was proved by showing that it is the oldest religion, and in the other the truth of ecclesiastical Christianity was established from the thesis that it is the oldest Christianity, viz., that of the Apostles.

52

History of Dogma - Volume II

68

69

Adolf Harnack

agreement in doctrine between the other communities and these.132 But Irenæus as well as Tertullian felt that a special demonstration was needed to show that the Churches founded by the Apostles had really at all times faithfully preserved their genuine teaching. General considerations, as, for instance, the notion that Christianity would otherwise have temporarily perished, or “that one event among many is as good as none; but when one and the same feature is found among many, it is not an aberration but a tradition” (“Nullus inter multos eventus unus est . . . quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum”) and similar ones which Tertullian does not fail to mention, were not sufficient. But the dogmatic conception that the ecclesiæ (or ecclesia) are the abode of the Holy Spirit,133 was incapable of making any impression on the heretics, as the correct application of this theory was the very point in question. To make their proof more precise Tertullian and Irenæus therefore asserted that the Churches guaranteed the incorruptness of the apostolic inheritance, inasmuch as they could point to a chain of “elders,” or, in other words, an “ordo episcoporum per successionem ab initio decurrens,” which was a pledge that nothing false had been mixed up with it.134 This thesis has quite as many aspects as the conception of the “Elders,” e.g., disciples of the Apostles, disciples of the disciples of the Apostles, bishops. It partly preserves a historic and partly assumes a dogmatic character. The former aspect appears in the appeal made to the foundation of Churches by Apostles, and in the argument that each series of successors were faithful disciples of those before them and therefore ultimately of the Apostles themselves. But no historical consideration, no appeal to the “Elders” was capable of affording the assurance sought for. Hence even in Irenæus the historical view of the case had clearly changed into a dogmatic one. This, however, by no means resulted merely from the controversy with the heretics, but was quite as much produced by the altered constitution of the Church and the authoritative position that the bishops had actually attained. The idea was that the Elders, i.e., the bishops, had received “cum episcopatus successione certum veritatis charisma,” that is, their office conferred on them the apostolic heritage of truth, which was therefore objectively attached to this dignity as a charism. This notion of the transmissibility of the charism of truth became associated with the episcopal 132

See Tertullian, de præscr. 20, 21, 32. This theory is maintained by Irenæus and Tertullian, and is as old as the association of the ἁγία ἐκκλησία and the πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Just for that reason the distinction they make between Churches founded by the Apostles and those of later origin is of chief value to themselves in their arguments against heretics. This distinction, it may be remarked, is clearly expressed in Tertullian alone. Here, for example, it is of importance that the Church of Carthage derives its “authority” from that of Rome (de præscr. 36). 134 Tertull., de præscr. 32 (see p. 19). Iren., III. 2. 2: “Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, quæ est ab apostolis, quæ per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos, etc.” III. 3. 1: “Traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in omni ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint videre, et habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis et successiones eorum usque ad nos . . . valde enim perfectos in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes . . . traditio Romanæ ecclesiæ, quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiata hominihus fides per successiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos.” III. 3. 4, 4. 1: “Si de aliqua modica quæstione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt . . . quid autem si neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant ecclesias?” IV. 33. 8: “Character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus apostoli eam quæ in unoquoque loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt, quæ pervenit usque ad nos, etc.” V. 20. 1: “Omnes enim ii valde posteriores sunt quam episcopi, quibus apostoli tradiderunt ecclesias.” IV. 26. 2: “Quapropter eis, qui in ecclesia sunt, presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab apostolis; qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt.” IV. 26. 5: “Ubi igitur charismata domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea quæ est ab apostolis ecclesiæ successio.” The declaration in Luke X. 16 was already applied by Irenæus (III. praef.) to the successors of the Apostles. 133

53

History of Dogma - Volume II

70

Adolf Harnack

office after it had become a monarchical one, exercising authority over the Church in all its relations;135 and after the bishops had proved themselves the strongest supports of the communities against the attacks of the secular power and of heresy.136 In Irenæus and Tertullian, however, we only find the first traces of this new theory. The old notion, which regarded the Churches as possessing the heritage of the Apostles in so far as they possess the Holy Spirit, continued to exercise a powerful influence on these writers, who still united the new dogmatic view with a historical one, at least in controversies with the heretics. Neither Irenæus, nor Tertullian in his earlier writings,137 asserted that the transmission of the charisma veritatis to the bishops had really invested them with the apostolic office in its full sense. They had indeed, according to Irenæus, received the “locum magisterii apostolorum” (“place of government of the Apostles”), but nothing more. It is only the later writings of Tertullian, dating from the reigns of Caracalla and Heliogabalus, which show that the bishop of Rome, who must have had imitators in this respect, claimed for his office the full authority of the apostolic office. Both Calixtus and his rival Hippolytus described themselves as successors of the Apostles in the full sense of the word, and claimed for themselves in that capacity much more than a mere guaranteeing of the purity of Christianity. Even Tertullian did not question this last menticned attribute of the bishops.138 Cyprian found the theory already in existence, but 135

For details on this point see my edition of the Didache, Proleg., p. 140. As the regula fidei has its preparatory stages in the baptismal confession, and the New Testament in the collection of writings read in the Churches, so the theory that the bishops receive and guarantee the apostolic heritage of truth has its preparatory stage in the old idea that God has bestowed on the Church Apostles, prophets, and teachers, who always communicate his word in its full purity. The functions of these persons devolved by historical development upon the bishop; but at the same time it became more and more a settled conviction that no one in this latter period could be compared with the Apostles. The only true Christianity, however, was that which was apostolic and which could prove itself to be so. The natural result of the problem which thus arose was the theory of an objective transference of the charisma veritatis from the Apostles to the bishops. This notion preserved the unique personal importance of the Apostles, guaranteed the apostolicity, that is, the truth of the Church’s faith, and formed a dogmatic justification for the authority already attained by the bishops. The old idea that God bestows his Spirit on the Church, which is therefore the holy Church, was ever more and more transformed into the new notion that the bishops receive this Spirit, and that it appears in their official authority. The theory of a succession of prophets, which can be proved to have existed in Asia Minor, never got beyond a rudimentary form and speedily disappeared. 136 This theory must have been current in the Roman Church before the time when IrenHus wrote; for the list of Roman bishops, which we find in Irenæus and which he obtained from Rome, must itself be considered as a result of that dogmatic theory. The first half of the list must have been concocted, as there were no monarchical bishops in the strict sense in the first century (see my treatise: “Die ältesten christlichen Datirungen und die Anfänge einer bischöflichen Chronographic in Rom.” in the report of the proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 1892, p. 617 ff.). We do not know whether such lists were drawn up so early in the other churches of apostolic origin (Jerusalem?). Not till the beginning of the 3rd century have we proofs of that being done, whereas the Roman community, as early as Soter’s time, had a list of bishops giving the duration of each episcopate. Nor is there any evidence before the 3rd century of an attempt to invent such a list for Churches possessing no claim to have been founded by Apostles. 137 We do not yet find this assertion in Tertullian’s treatise “de præscr.” 138 Special importance attaches to Tertullian’s treatise “de pudicitia,” which has not been sufficiently utilised to explain the development of the episcopate and the pretensions at that time set up by the Roman bishop. It shows clearly that Calixtus claimed for himself as bishop the powers and rights of the Apostles in their full extent, and that Tertullian did not deny that the “doctrina apostolorum” was inherent in his office, but merely questioned the “potestas apostolorum.” It is very significant that Tertullian (c. 21) sneeringly addressed him as “apostolice” and reminded him that “ecclesia spiritus, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum.” What rights Calixtus had already claimed as belonging to the apostolic office may be ascertained from Hippol. Philos. IX. 11. 12. But the introduction to the Philosophoumena proves that Hippolytus himself was at one with his opponent in supposing that the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, had received the attributes of the latter: Τὰς αἱρέσεις ἕτερος οὐκ ἐλέγξει, ἢ τὸ ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ παραδοθὲν ἅγιον πνεῦμα, οὗ τυχόντες πρότεροι οἱ ἀπόστολοι μετέδοσαν τοῖς ὀρθῶς πεπιστευκόσιν ὧν ἡμεῖς δίαδοχοι τυγχάνοντες τῆς τε ἀυτῆς χάριτος μετέχοντες ἀρχιερατείας τε καὶ διδασκαλίας καὶ φρουροὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κελογισμένοι ὀυκ ὀφθαλμῷ νυστάζομεν, ὀυδὲ λόγον ὀρθὸν σιωπῶμεν, κ.τ.λ. In these words we have an immense advance beyond the conception

54

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

was the first to develop it definitely and to eradicate every remnant of the historical argument in its favour. The conception of the Church was thereby subjected to a further transformation. 71

72

(2) The transformation of the idea of the Church by Cyprian completed the radical changes that had been gradually taking place from the last half of the second century.139 In order to understand them it is necessary to go back. It was only with slowness and hesitation that the theories of the Church followed the actual changes in her history. It may be said that the idea of the Church always remained a stage behind the condition reached in practice. That may be seen in the whole course of the history of dogma up to the present day. of Irenæus. This advance, of course, was first made in practice, and the corresponding theory followed. How greatly the prestige and power of the bishops had increased in the first 3rd part of the 3rd century may be seen by comparing the edict of Maximinus Thrax with the earlier ones (Euseb., H. E. VI. 28; see also the genuine Martyr. Jacobi, Mariani, etc., in Numidia c. to [Ruinart, Acta mart. p. 272 edit. Ratisb.]): “Nam ita inter se nostræ religionis gradus artifex sævitia diviserat, ut laicos clericis separatos tentationibus sæculi et terroribus suis putaret esse cessuros” that is, the heathen authorities also knew that the clergy formed the bond of union in the Churches). But the theory that the bishops were successors of the Apostles, that is, possessed the apostolic office, must be considered a Western one which was very slowly and gradually adopted in the East. Even in the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, composed about the end of the 3rd century, which represents the bishop as mediator, king, and teacher of the community, the episcopal office is not yet regarded as the apostolic one. It is rather presbyters, as in Ignatius, who are classed with the Apostles. It is very important to note that the whole theory of the significance of the bishop in determining the truth of ecclesiastical Christianity is completely unknown to Clement of Alexandria. As we have not the slightest evidence that his conception of the Church was of a hierarchical and anti-heretical type, so he very rarely mentions the ecclesiastical officials in his works and rarest of all the bishops. These do not at all belong to his conception of the Church, or at least only in so far as they resemble the English orders (cf. Pæd. III, 12. 97, presbyters, bishops, deacons, widows; Strom. VII. 1. 3; III. 12. 90, presbyters, deacons, laity; VI. I3. 106, presbyters, deacons; VI. 13. 107, bishops, presbyters, deacons; Quis dives 42, bishops and presbyters). On the other hand, according to Clement, the true Gnostic has an office like that of the Apostles. See Strom. VI. 13. 106, 107: ἔξεστιν οὖν καὶ νῦν ταῖς κυριακαῖς ἐνασκήσαντας ἐντολαῖς κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τελείως βιώσαντας καὶ γνωστικῶς εἰς τῆν ἐκλογὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐγγραφῆναι. οὗτος πρεσβύτερός ἐστι τῷ ὄντι τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ δίακονος ἀληθὴς τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ βουλήσεως. Here we see plainly that the servants of the earthly Church, as such, have nothing to do with the true Church and the heavenly hierarchy). Strom. VII. 9, 52 says: the true Gnostic is the mediator with God. In Strom. VI. 14. 108; VII. 12. 77 we find the words: ὁ γνωστικὸς οὗτος συνελόντι ἐιπεῖν τὴν ἀποστολικὴν ἀπουσίαν ανταναπληροῖ, κ.τ.λ. Clement could not have expressed him-self in this way if the office of bishop had at that time been as much esteemed in the Alexandrian Church, of which he was a presbyter, as it was at Rome and in other Churches of the West (see Bigg l.c. l01). According to Clement the Gnostic as a teacher has the same significance as is possessed by the bishop in the West; and according to him we may speak of a natural succession of teachers. Origen in the main still held the same view as his predecessor. But numerous passages in his works and above all his own history shew that in his day the episcopate had become stronger in Alexandria also, and had begun to claim the same attributes and rights as in the West (see besides de princip. praef. 2: “servetur ecclesiastica prædicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita et usque ad praesens in ecclesiis permanens: illa sola credenda est veritas, quæ in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione” — so in Rufinus, and in IV. 2. 2: τοῦ κανόνος τῆς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ διαδοχὴν τ. ἀποστόλων ὀυρανίου ἐκκλησίας). The state of things here is therefore exactly the same as in the case of the apostolic regula fidei and the apostolic canon of scripture. Clement still represents an earlier stage, whereas by Origen’s time the revolution has been completed. Wherever this was so, the theory that the monarchical episcopate was based on apostolic institution was the natural result. This idea led to the assumption — which, however, was not an immediate consequence in all cases — that the apostolic office, and therefore the authority of Jesus Christ himself, was continued in the episcopate: “Manifesta est sententia Iesu Christi apostolos suos mittentis et ipsis solis potestatem a patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus eadem potestatex ecclesiam domini gubernantes et credentium fidem baptizantes (Hartel, Opp. Cypr. I. 459). 139 See Rothe, Die Anfänge der christlichen Kirche und ihrer Verfassung, 1837. Kestlin, Die Katholische Auffassung von der Kirche in ihrer ersten Ausbildung in the Deutsche Zeitschrift für christliche Wissenschaft und christliches Leben, 1855. Ritschl, Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche,” 2nd ed., 1857. Ziegler, Des Irenäus Lehre von der Autorität der Schrift, der Tradition und der Kirche, 1868. Hackenschmidt, Die Anfänge des katholischen Kirchenbegriffs, 1874. Hatch-Harnack, Die Gesellschaftsverfassung der christlichen Kirche im Alterthum, 1883. Seeberg, Zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche, Dorpat, 1884. Söder, Der Begriff der Katholicität der Kirche und des Glaubens, 1881. O. Ritschl, Cyprian von Karthago und die Verfassung der Kirche, 1885. (This contains the special literature treating of Cyprian’s conception of the Church). Sohm, l.c.

55

History of Dogma - Volume II

73

74

Adolf Harnack

The essential character of Christendom in its first period was a new holy life and a sure hope, both based on repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ and brought about by the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Church, that is, the Holy Spirit and the holy Church, were inseparably connected. The Church, or, in other words, the community of all believers, attains her unity through the Holy Spirit. This unity manifested itself in brotherly love and in the common relation to a common ideal and a common hope.140 The assembly of all Christians is realised in the Kingdom of God, viz., in heaven; on earth Christians and the Church are dispersed and in a foreign land. Hence, properly speaking, the Church herself is a heavenly community inseparable from the heavenly Christ. Christians believe that they belong to a real super-terrestrial commonwealth, which, from its very nature, cannot be realised on earth. The heavenly goal is not yet separated from the idea of the Church; there is a holy Church on earth in so far as heaven is her destination.141 Every individual congregation is to be an image of the heavenly Church.142 Reflections were no doubt made on the contrast between the empirical community and the heavenly Church whose earthly likeness it was to be (Hermas); but these did not affect the theory of the subject. Only the saints of God, whose salvation is certain, belong to her, for the essential thing is not to be called, but to be, a Christian. There was as yet no empirical universal Church possessing an outward legal title that could, so to speak, be detached from the personal Christianity of the individual Christian.143 All the lofty designations which Paul, the so-called Apostolic Fathers, and Justin gathered from the Old Testament and applied to the Church, relate to the holy community which originates in heaven and returns thither.144 But, in consequence of the naturalising of Christianity in the world and the repelling of heresy, a formulated creed was made the basis of the Church. This confession was also recognised as a foundation of her unity and guarantee of her truth, and in certain respects as the main one. Christendom protected itself by this conception, though no doubt at a heavy price. To Irenæus and Tertullian the Church rests entirely on the apostolic, traditional faith which legitimises her.145 But 140

See Hatch, l.c. pp. 191, 253. See vol. I. p. 150 f. Special note should be given to the teachings in the Shepherd, in the 2nd Epistle of Clement and in the Διδαχή. 142 This notion lies at the basis of the exhortations of Ignatius. He knows nothing of an empirical union of the different communities into one Church guaranteed by any law or office. The bishop is of importance only for the individual community, and has nothing to do with the essence of the Church; nor does Ignatius view the separate communities as united in any other way than by faith, charity, and hope. Christ, the invisible Bishop, and the Church are inseparably connected (ad Ephes. V. 1; as well as 2nd Clem. XIV.), and that is ultimately the same idea as is expressed in the associating of πνεῦμα and ἐκκλησία. But every individual community is an image of the heavenly Church, or at least ought to be. 143 The expression “Catholic Church” appears first in Ignatius (ad Smyrn. VIII. 2): ὅπου ἄν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ τὸ πλῆθος ἔστω· ὥστερ ὅπου ἄν ῇ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. But in this passage these words do not yet express a new conception of the Church, which represents her as an empirical commonwealth. Only the individual earthly communities exist empirically, and the universal, i.e., the whole Church, occupies the same position towards these as the bishops of the individual communities do towards the Lord. The epithet “καθολικός” does not of itself imply any secularisation of the idea of the Church. 144 The expression “invisible Church” is liable to be misunderstood here, because it is apt to impress us as a mere idea, which is certainly not the meaning attached to it in the earliest period. 145 It was thus regarded by Hegesippus in whom the expression “ἡ ἕνωσις τῆς ἐκκλησίας” is first found. In his view the ἐκκλησία is founded on the ὁρθὸς ζόγος transmitted by the Apostles. The innovation does not consist in the emphasis laid upon faith, for the unity of faith was always supposed to be guaranteed by the possession of the one Spirit and the same hope, but in the setting up of a formulated creed, which resulted in a loosening of the connection between faith and conduct. The transition to the new 141

56

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

this faith itself appeared as a law and aggregate of doctrines, all of which are of equally fundamental importance, so that their practical aim became uncertain and threatened to vanish (“fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis”).

75

76

The Church herself, however, became a union based on the true doctrine and visible in it; and this confederation was at the same time enabled to realise an actual outward unity by means of the apostolic inheritance, the doctrinal confession, and the apostolic writings. The narrower and more external character assumed by the idea of the Church was concealed by the fact that, since the latter half of the second century, Christians in all parts of the world had really united in opposition to the state and “heresy”, and had found compensation for the incipient decline of the original lofty thoughts and practical obligations in the consciousness of forming an œcumenical and international alliance. The designation “Catholic Church” gave expression to the claim of this world-wide union of the same faith to represent the true Church.146 This expression corresponds to the powerful position which the “great Church” (Celsus), or the “old” Church (Clemens Alex.) had attained by the end of the second century, as compared with the Marcionite Church, the school sects, the Christian associations of all kinds, and the independent Christians. This Church, however, was declared to be apostolic, i.e., founded in its present form by Christ through the Apostles. Through this idea, which was supported by the old enthusiastic notion that the Apostles had already proclaimed the Gospel to all the world, it came to be completely forgotten how Christ and his Apostles had exercised their ministry, and an empirical conception of the Church was created in which the idea of a holy life in the Spirit could no longer be the ruling one. It was taught that Christ received from God a law of faith, which, as a new lawgiver, he imparted to the Apostles, and that they, by

conception of the Church was therefore a gradual one. The way is very plainly prepared for it in 1 Tim. III. 15: οἶκος θεοῦ ἐκκλησία, στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς αληθείας. 146 The oldest predicate which was given to the Church and which was always associated with it, was that of holiness. See the New Testament; Barn. XIV. 6; Hermas, Vis. I. 3, 4; I. 6; the Roman symbol; Dial. 119; Ignat. ad Trall. inscr.; Theophil., ad Autol., II. 14 (here we have even the plural, “holy churches”); Apollon. In Euseb., H. E. V. 18. 5; Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 13; V. 4; de pudicit. 1; Mart. Polyc. inscr.; Alexander Hieros. in Euseb., H. E. VI. 11. 5; Clemens Alex.; Cornelius in Euseb., VI. 43. 6; Cyprian. But the holiness (purity) of the Church was already referred by Hegesippus (Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 4) to its pure doctrine: ἐκάλουν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν παρθένον· οὔπω γὰρ ἔφθαρτο ἀκοαῖς ματαίαις. The unity of the Church according to Hegesippus is specially emphasised in the Muratorian Fragment (line 55); see also Hermas; Justin; Irenæus; Tertullian, de præscr. 20; Clem. Alex., Strom. VII. 17. 107. Even before Irenæus and Tertullian the universality of the Church was emphasised for apologetic purposes. In so far as universality is a proof of truth, “universal” is equivalent to “orthodox.” This signification is specially clear in expressions like: ἡ ἐν Σμύρνῃ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία (Mart. Polyc. XVI. 2). From Irenæus, III. 15, 2, we must conclude that the Valentinians called their ecclesiastical opponents “Catholics.” The word itself is not yet found in Irenæus, but the idea is there (sec I. 10. 2; II. 9. 1, etc., Serapion in Euseb., H. E. V. 19: πᾶσα ἡ ἐν κόςμῳ ἀδελφότης). Καθολικός is found as a designation of the orthodox, visible Church in Mart. Polyc. inscr.: αἱ κατὰ πάντα τόπον τῆς ἁγίας καὶ καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας παροικίαι; 19. 2;16. 2 (in all these passages, however, it is probably an interpolation, as I have shown in the “Expositor” for Dec. 1885, p. 410 f.); in the Muratorian Fragment 61, 66, 69; in the anonymous writer in Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 9. in Tertull. frequently, e.g., de præscr. 26, 30; adv. Marc. III. 22: IV. 4; in Clem. Alex., Strom. VII. 17. 106, 107; in Hippol. Philos. IX. 12; in Mart. Pionii 2, 9, 13, 19; in Cornelius in Cypr., epp. 49. 2; and in Cyprian. The expression “catholica traditio” occurs in Tertull., de monog. 2, “fides catholica” in Cyprian ep. 25, “κανὼν καθολικός;” in the Mart. Polyc. rec. Mosq. fin. and Cypr. ep. 70. 1, “catholica fides et religio” in the Mart. Pionii 18. In the earlier Christian literature the word καθολικός occurs in various connections in the following passages: in fragments of the Peratae (Philos. V. 16), and in Herakleon, e.g., in Clement, Strom. IV. 9. 71; in Justin, Dial., 81, 102; Athenag., 27; Theophil., I. 13; Pseudojustin, de monarch. 1, (καθολ. δόξα); Iren., III. 11, 8; Apollon. in Euseb., H. E. IV. 18. 5, Tertull., de fuga 3; adv. Marc. II. 17; IV. 9; Clement, Strom., IV. 15. 97; VI. 6.47; 7. 57; 8. 67. The addition “catholicam” found its way into the symbols of the West only at a comparatively late period. πᾶσαι αἱ ἐκκλησίαι, ἐκκλησίαι κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν, ἐκκλησίαι αἱ ἐν κόσμῳ, αἱ ὑφ᾽ οὐράνου, etc.

57

History of Dogma - Volume II

77

Adolf Harnack

transmitting the truth of which they were the depositaries, founded the one Catholic Church (Iren. III. 4. I). The latter, being guardian of the apostolic heritage, has the assurance of possessing the Spirit; whereas all communities other than herself, inasmuch as they have not received that deposit, necessarily lack the Spirit and are therefore separated from Christ and salvation.147 Hence one must be a member of this Church in order to be a partaker of salvation, because in her alone one can find the creed which must be recognised as the condition of redemption.148 Consequently, in proportion as the faith became a doctrine of faith, the Catholic Church interposed herself as an empiric power between the individual and salvation. She became a condition of salvation; but the result was that she ceased to be a sure communion of the saved and of saints (see on this point the following chapter). It was quite a logical proceeding when about the year 220 Calixtus, a Roman bishop, started the theory that there must be wheat and tares in the Catholic Church and that the Ark of Noah with its clean and unclean beasts was her type.149 The departure from the old idea of the Church appears completed in this statement. But the following facts must not be overlooked: — First, the new conception of the Church was not yet a hierarchical one. Secondly, the idea of the union and unity of all believers found here magnificent expression. Thirdly, the development of the communities into one solid Church also represents the creative power of the Christian spirit. Fourthly, through the consolidation effected in the Church by the rule of faith the Christian religion was in some measure preserved from enthusiastic extravagancies and arbitrary misinterpretation. Fifthly, in consequence of the regard for a Church founded on the doctrine of faith the specific significance of redemption by Christ, as distinguished from natural religion and that of the Old Testament, could no longer be lost to believers. Sixthly, the independence of each individual community had a wide scope not only at the end of the second but also in the third century.150 Consequently, though the revolution which led to the Catholic Church was a result of the situation of the communities in the world in general and of the struggle with the Gnostics and Marcion in particular, and though it was a fatal error to identify the Catholic and apostolic Churches, this change did not take place without an exalting of the Christian spirit and an awakening of its self-consciousness. But there was never a time in history when the conception of the Church, as nothing else than the visible communion of those holding the correct apostolic doctrine, was clearly grasped or exclusively emphasised. In Irenæus and Tertullian we rather find, on the one hand, that the old

147

Very significant is Tertullian’s expression in adv. Val. 4: “Valentinus de ecclesia authenticæ regulæ abrupit,” (but probably this still refers specially to the Roman Church). 148 Tertullian called the Church mother (in Gal. IV. 26 the heavenly Jerusalem is called “mother”); see de orat. 2: “ne mater quidem ecclesia præteritur”, de monog. 7; adv. Marc. V. 4 (the author of the letter in Euseb., H. E. V. 2. 7, I. 45, had already done this before him). In the African Church the symbol was thus worded soon after Tertullian’s time: “credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam” (see Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 2nd ed. p. 29 ff.) On the other hand Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VI. 16. 146) rejected the designation of the Church, as “mother”: μήτηρ δέ οὐχ, ὥς τινες ἐκδεδώκασιν, ἡ ἐκκλησία, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ θεία γνώσις καὶ ἡ σοφία (there is a different idea in Pæd. I. 5. 21 and 6. 42: μήτηρ παρθένος· ἐκκλησίαν ἐμοὶ φίλον ἀυτὴν καλεῖν). In the Acta Justini c. 4 the faith is named “mother.” 149 Hippol. Philos. IX. 12 p. 460. 150 The phraseology of Irenæus is very instructive here. As a rule he still speaks of Churches (in the plural) when he means the empirical Church. It is already otherwise with Tertullian, though even with him the old custom still lingers.

58

History of Dogma - Volume II

78

79

Adolf Harnack

theory of the Church was still to a great extent preserved and, on the other, that the hierarchical notion was already making its appearance. As to the first point, Irenæus frequently asserts that the Spirit and the Church, that is, the Christian people, are inseparable; that the Spirit in divers ways continually effects whatever she needs; that she is the totality of all true believers, that all the faithful have the rank of priests; that outside the holy Church there is no salvation, etc.; in fact these doctrines form the very essence of his teaching. But, since she was also regarded as the visible institution for objectively preserving and communicating the truth, and since the idea of the Church in contradistinction to heresy was necessarily exhausted in this as far as Irenæus was concerned, the old theories of the matter could not operate correctively, but in the end only served to glorify the earthly Catholic Church.151 The proposition that truth is only to be found in the Church and that she and the Holy Spirit are inseparable must be understood in Irenæus as already referring to the Catholic Church in contradistinction to every other calling itself Christian.152 As to the second point, it cannot be denied that, though Irenæus desires to maintain that the only essential part of the idea of the Church is the fact of her being the depository of the truth, he was no longer able to confine himself to this (see above). The episcopal succession and the transmission to the bishops of the magisterium of the Apostles were not indeed of any direct importance to his idea of the Church, but they were of consequence for the preservation of truth and therefore indirectly for the idea of the Church also. To Irenæus, however, that theory was still nothing more than an artificial line; but artificial lines are really supports and must therefore soon attain the value of foundations.153 Tertullian’s conception of the Church was essentially the same as that of Irenæus; but with the former the idea that she is the outward manifestation of the Spirit, and therefore a communion of those who are spiritual, at all times continued to operate more powerfully than with the latter. In the last period of his life Tertullian emphasised this theory so vigorously that the Antignostic idea of the Church being based on the “traditio unius sacramenti” fell into the background. Consequently we find nothing more than traces of the hierarchical conception of the Church in Tertullian. But towards the end of his life he found himself face to face with a fully developed theory of this kind. This he most decidedly rejected, and, in doing so, advanced to such a conception of ecclesiastical orders, and therefore also of the episcopate, as clearly involved him in a contradiction of the other theory — which he also never gave up — viz., that the bishops, as the class which transmits the rule of faith, are an apostolic institution and therefore necessary to the Church.154 151

The most important passages bearing on this are II. 31. 3: III. 24. 1 (see the whole section, but especially: “in ecclesia posuit deus universam operationem spiritus; caius non sunt participes omnes qui non concurrunt ad ecclesiam . . . ubi enim ecclesia, ibi et spiritus dei, et ubi spiritus dei, illic ecclesia et omnis gratia”); III. 11.8: στύλος καὶ στήριγμα ἐκκλησίας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ πνεῦμα ζωῆς: IV. 8.1: “semen Abrahæ ecclesia”., IV. 8.3: “omnes iusti sacerdotalem habent ordinem”; IV. 36.2: “ubique præclara est ecclesia; ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt spiritum”; IV. 33.7: ἐκκλησία μέγα καὶ ἔνδοξον σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ; IV. 26. 1 sq.: V. 20. 1.: V. 32.: V. 34.3., “Levitæ et sacerdotes sunt discipuli omnes domini.” 152 Hence the repudiation of all those who separate themselves from the Catholic Church (III. 11. 9; 24. 1: IV. 26. 2; 33. 7). 153 On IV. 33. 7 see Seeberg, l.c., p. 20, who has correctly punctuated the passage, but has weakened its force. The fact that Irenaeus was here able to cite the “antiquus ecclesiæ status in universo mundo et character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum”, etc., as a second and independent item alongside of the apostolic doctrine is, however, a proof that the transition from the idea of the Church, as a community united by a common faith, to that of a hierarchical institution was already revealing itself in his writings. 154 The Church as a communion of the same faith, that is of the same doctrine, is spoken of in de præscr. 20; de virg. vol. 2. On the other hand we find the ideal spiritual conception in de bapt. 6: “ubi tres, id est pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quæ trium corpus est”; 8: “columba s. spiritus advolat, pacem dei adferens, emissa de cœlis, ubi ecclesia est arca figurata”; 15: “unus deus et unum baptismum et una ecclesia in cœlis”; de pænit. 10: “in uno et altero ecclesia est, ecelesia vero Christus”; de orat.

59

History of Dogma - Volume II

80

81

Adolf Harnack

From the disquisitions of Clement of Alexandria we see how vigorous the old conception of the Church, as the heavenly communion of the elect and believing, still continued to be about the year 200. This will not appear strange after what we have already said as to Clement’s views about the rule of faith, the New Testament, and the episcopate. It is evident that his philosophy of religion led him to give a new interpretation to the original ideas. Yet the old form of these notions can be more easily made out from his works than from those of Irenæus.155 Up to the 15th Chapter of the 7th Book of his great work, the Stromateis, and in the Pædagogus, Clement simply speaks of the Church in the sense of the Epistle to the Ephesians and the Shepherd of Hermas. She is a heavenly formation, continued in that which appears on earth as her image. Instead of distinguishing two Churches Clement sees one, the product of God’s will aiming at the salvation of man — a Church which is to be on earth as it is in heaven, and of which faith forms the subjective and the Logos the objective bond of union. But, beginning with Strom. VII. 15 (see especially 17), where he is influenced by opposition to the heretics, he suddenly identifies this Church with the single old Catholic one, that is, with the visible “Church” in opposition to the heretic sects. Thus the empirical interpretation of the Church, which makes her the institution in possession of the true doctrine, was also completely adopted by Clement; but as yet he employed it simply in polemics and not in positive teachings. He neither reconciled nor seemingly felt the contradiction in the statement that the Church is to be at one and the same time the assembly of the elect and the empiric universal Church. At any rate he made as yet no unconditional acknowledgment of the Catholic Church, because he was still able to attribute independent value to Gnosis, that is, to independent piety as he understood it.156 Consequently, as regards the conception of the Church, the mystic Gnosis exercised the same effect as the old religious enthusiasm from which in other respects it differs so

28: “nos sumus veri adoratores et veri sacerdotes, qui spiritu orantes spiritu sacrificamus;” Apolog. 39; de exhort. 7: “differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit ecclesiæ auctoritas et honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus. Adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tinguis et sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici” (the same idea, only not so definitely expressed, is already found in de bapt. 17); de monog. 7: “nos autem Iesus summus sacerdos sacerdotes deo patri suo fecit . . . vivit unicus pater noster deus et mater ecclesia, . . certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati”: 12; de pudic. 21: “nam et ipsa ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est trinitas unius divinitatis, pater et filius et spiritus sanctus. Illam ecclesiam congregat quam dominus in tribus posuit. Atque ita exinde etiam numerus omnis qui in hanc fidem conspiraverint ecclesia ab auctore et consecratore censetur. Et ideo ecclesia quidem delicta donabit, sed ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum”; de anima 11, 21. Contradictions in detail need not surprise us in Tertullian, since his whole position as a Catholic and as a Montanist is contradictory. 155 The notion that the true Gnostic can attain the same position as the Apostles also preserved Clement from thrusting the ideal conception of the Church into the background. 156 Some very significant remarks are found in Clement about the Church which is the object of faith. See Pæd. I. 5. 18, 21; 6. 27: ὡς γὰρ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐργον ἐστὶ καὶ τοῦτο κόσμος ὀνομάζεται, οὕτω καὶ τὸ βούλημα αὐτοῦ ἀνθρώπων ἐστὶ σωτηρία, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκκλησία κέκληται — here an idea which Hermas had in his mind (see Vol. I., p. 180. note 4) is pregnantly and excellently expressed. Strom. II. 12. 55; IV. 8. 66: εἰκὼν τῆς οὐρανίου ἐκκλησίας ἡ ἐπίγειος, διόπερ εὐχόμεθα καὶ ἐπί γῆς γενέσθαι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ; IV. 26. 172: ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑπὸ λόγου ἀπολιόρκητος ἀτυράννητος πόλις ἐπὶ γῆς, θέλημα θεῖον ἐπὶ γῆς, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ; VI. 13. 106, 107; VI. 14. 108: ἡ ἀνωτάτω ἐκκλησία, καθ᾽ ἥν ὁι φιλόσοφοι συνάγονται τοῦ Θεοῦ; VII. 5. 29: πῶς οὐ κυρίως τὴν ἐις τιμὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν ἁγίαν γενομένην ἐκκλησίαν ιἑρὸν ἂν ἔιποιμεν Θεοῦ τὸ πολλοῦ ἄξιον . . . ὀυ γὰρ νῦν τὸν τόπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἄθροισμα τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἐκκλησίαν καλῶ; VII. 6. 32; VII. I. 68: ἡ πνευμαρικὴ ἐκκλησία. The empirical conception of the Church is most clearly formulated in VII. 17. 107; we may draw special attention to the following sentences: φανερὸν οἶμαι γεγενῆσθαι μίαν εἶναι τὴν ἀληθῆ ἐκκλησίαν τὴν τῷ ὄντι ἀρχάιαν, εἰς ἥν ὁι κατὰ πρόθεσιν δίκαιοι ἐγκαταλέγονται, ἑνὸς γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἑνὸς τοῦ κυρίου . . . τῇ γοῦν τοῦ ἑνὸς φύσει συγκληροῦται ἐκκλησία ἡ μία, ἣν εἰς πολλὰς κατατέμνειν βιάζονται αἱρέσεις.

60

History of Dogma - Volume II

82

83

Adolf Harnack

much.157 The hierarchy has still no significance as far as Clement’s idea of the Church is concerned.158 At first Origen entirely agrees with Clement in regard to this conception. He also starts with the theory that the Church is essentially a heavenly communion and a holy communion of believers, and keeps this idea constantly before him.159 When opposing heretics, he also, like Clement, cannot help identifying her with the Catholic Church, because the latter contains the true doctrine, though he likewise refrains from acknowledging any hierarchy.160 But Origen is influenced by two further considerations, which are scarcely hinted at in Clement, but which were called forth by the actual course of events and signified a further development in the idea of the Church. For, in the first place, Origen saw himself already compelled to examine closely the distinction between the essence and the outward appearance of the Church, and, in this process, reached results which again called in question the identification of the Holy Church with the empiric Catholic one (see on this point the following chapter). Secondly, in consequence of the extraordinary extension and powerful position attained by the Catholic Church by the time of Philip the Arabian, Origen, giving a new interpretation to a very old Christian notion and making use of a Platonic conception,161 arrived at the idea that she was the earthly Kingdom of God, destined to enter the world, to absorb the Roman Empire and indeed all mankind, and to unite and take the place of the various secular states.162 This magnificent idea, which regards the Church as κόσμος τοῦ κόσμου,163 denoted indeed a complete departure from the original theory of the subject, determined by eschatological considerations; though we must not forget that Origen still demanded a really holy Church and a new polity. Hence, as he also distinguishes the various degrees of connection with the Church,164 we already find in his theory a combination of all the features that became essential parts of the conception of the Church in subsequent times, with the exception of the clerical element.165 157

It may, however, be noted that the old eschatological aim has fallen into the background in Clement’s conception of the Church. A significance of this kind is suggested by the notion that the orders in the earthly Church correspond to those in the heavenly one; but this idea, which afterwards became so important in the East, was turned to no further account by Clement. In his view the “Gnostics” are the highest stage in the Church. See Bigg, l.c., p. l00. 159 De princip. IV. 2. 2: ἡ οὐράνιος ἐκκλησία; Hom. IX. in Exod. c. 3: “ecclesia credentium plebs”; Hom. XI. in Lev. c. 5; Hom. VI. in Lev. c. 5; ibid. Hom. IX.: “omni ecclesiæ dei et credentium populo sacerdotium datum.”: T.XIV. in Mt. c. 17: c. Cels. VI. 48: VI. 79; Hom. VII. in Lk.; and de orat. 31 a twofold Church is distinguished (ὥστε εἶναι ἐπι τῶν ἁγίων συναθροιζομένων διπλῆν ἐκκλησίαν τὴν μὲν ἀνθρώπων, τὴν δὲ ἀγγέλων). Nevertheless Origen does not assume two Churches, but, like Clement, holds that there is only one, part of which is already in a state of perfection and part still on earth. But it is worthy of note that the ideas of the heavenly hierarchy are already more developed in Origen (de princip. I. 7). He adopted the old speculation about the origin of the Church (see Papias, fragm. 6; 2 Clem. XIV.). Socrates (H. E. III. 7) reports that Origen, in the 9th vol. of his commentary on Genesis, compared Christ with Adam and Eve with the Church, and remarks that Pamphilus’ apology for Origen stated that this allegory was not new: ὀυ πρῶτον Ὠριγένην ἐπὶ ταύτην τὴν πραγματείαν ἐλθεῖν φασίν, ἀλλὰ τὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας μυστικὴν ἑρμηνεῦσαι παράδοσιν. A great many more of these speculations are to be found in the 3rd century. See, e.g., the Acts of Peter and Paul 29. 160 De princip. IV. 2. 2; Hom. III. in Jesu N. 5: “nemo tibi persuadeat; nemo semetipsum decipiat: extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur.” The reference is to the Catholic Church which Origen also calls τὸ ὅλον σῶμα τῶν συναγωγῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. 161 Hermas (Sim. I.) has spoken of the “city of God” (see also pseudo-Cyprian’s tractate “de pascha computus”); but for him it lies in Heaven and is the complete contrast of the world. The idea of Plato here referred to is to be found in his Republic. 162 See c. Cels. VIII. 68-75. 163 Comment. in Joh. VI. 38. 164 Accordingly he often speaks in a depreciatory way of the ὄχλος τῆς ἐκκλησίας (the ignorant) without accusing them of being unchristian (this is very frequent in the books c. Cels., but is also found elsewhere). 165 Origen, who is Augustine’s equal in other respects also, and who anticipated many of the problems considered by the latter, anticipated prophetically this Father’s view of the City of God — of course as a hope (c. Cels. viii. 68 f.). The Church is also viewed as τὸ κατὰ Θεον πολίτευμα in Euseb., H. E. V. Præf. § 4, and at an earlier period in Clement. 158

61

History of Dogma - Volume II

84

Adolf Harnack

3. The contradictory notions of the Church, for so they appear to us, in Iremeus and Clement and still more in Tertullian and Origen, need not astonish any one who bears in mind that none of these Fathers made the Church the subject of a theological theory.166 Hence no one as yet thought of questioning the old article: I believe in a holy Church.” But, at the same time, actual circumstances, though they did not at first succeed in altering the Church’s belief, forced her to realise her changed position, for she had in point of fact become an association which was founded on a definite law of doctrine and rejected everything that did not conform to it. The identifying of this association with the ideal Church was a matter of course,167 but it was quite as natural to take no immediate theoretical notice of the identification except in cases where it was absolutely necessary, that is, in polemics. In the latter case the unity of faith and hope became the unity of the doctrine of faith, and the Church was, in this instance, legitimised by the possession of the apostolic tradition instead of by the realising of that tradition in heart and life. From the principle that had been set up it necessarily followed that the apostolic inheritance on which the truth and legitimacy of the Church was based, could not but remain an imperfect court of appeal until living authorities could be pointed to in this court, and until every possible cause of strife and separation was settled by reference to it. An empirical community cannot be ruled by a traditional written word, but only by persons; for the written law will always separate and split. If it has such persons, however, it can tolerate within it a great amount of individual differences, provided that the leaders subordinate the interests of the whole to their own ambition. We have seen how Irenæus and Tertullian, though they in all earnestness represented the fides catholica and ecclesia catholica as inseparably connected,168 were already compelled to have recourse to bishops in order to ensure the apostolic doctrine. The conflicts within the sphere of the rule of faith, the struggles with the so-called Montanism, but finally and above all, the existing situation of the Church in the third century with regard to the world within her pale, made the question of organisation the vital one for her. Tertullian and Origen already found themselves face to face with episcopal claims of which they highly disapproved and which, in their own way, they endeavoured to oppose. It was again the Roman bishop169 who first converted the proposition that the bishops are direct successors of the Apostles and have the same “locus magisterii” (“place of government”) into a theory which declares that all apostolic powers have devolved on the bishops and that these have therefore peculiar rights and duties in virtue of their

166

This was not done even by Origen, for in his great work “de principiis” we find no section devoted to the Church. It is frequently represented in Protestant writers that the mistake consisted in this identification, whereas, if we once admit this criticism, the defect is rather to be found in the development itself which took place in the Church, that is, in its secularisation. No one thought of the desperate idea of an invisible Church; this notion would probably have brought about a lapse from pure Christianity far more rapidly than the idea of the Holy Catholic Church. 168 Both repeatedly and very decidedly declared that the unity of faith (the rule of faith) is sufficient for the unity of the Church, and that in other things there must be freedom (see above all Tertull., de orat., de bapt., and the Montanist writings). It is all the more worthy of note that, in the case of a question in which indeed the customs of the different countries were exceedingly productive of confusion, but which was certainly not a matter of faith, it was again a bishop of Rome, and that as far back as the 2nd century, who first made the observance of the Roman practice a condition of the unity of the Church and treated non-conformists as heterodox (Victor; see Euseb., H. E. V. 24). On the other hand Irenæus says: ἡ διαφωνία τῆς νηστέιας τὴν ὁμόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησι. 169 On Calixtus see Hippolyt., Philos. IX. 12, and Tertull., de pudic. 167

62

History of Dogma - Volume II

85

86

Adolf Harnack

office.170 Cyprian added to this the corresponding theory of the Church. In one decisive point, however, he did not assist the secularising process which had been completed by the Roman bishop, in the interest of Catholicity as well as in that of the Church’s existence (see the following chapter). In the second half of the third century there were no longer any Churches, except remote communities, where the only requirement was to preserve the Catholic faith; the bishops had to be obeyed. The idea of the one episcopally organised Church became the main one and overshadowed the significance of the doctrine of faith as a bond of unity. The Church based on the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, the vicegerents of God, is herself the legacy of the Apostles in virtue of this her foundation. This idea was never converted into a rigid theory in the East, though the reality to which it corresponded was not the less certain on that account. The fancy that the earthly hierarchy was the image of the heavenly was the only part that began to be taken in real earnest. In the West, on the other hand, circumstances compelled the Carthaginian bishop to set up a finished theory.171 According to Cyprian, the Catholic Church, to which all the lofty predictions and predicates in the Bible apply (see Hartel’s index under “ecclesia”), is the one institution of salvation outside of which there is no redemption (ep. 73. 21). She is this, moreover, not only as the community possessing the true apostolic faith, for this definition does not exhaust her conception, but as a harmoniously organised federation.172 This Church therefore rests entirely on the episcopate, which sustains her,173 because it is the continuance of the apostolic office and is equipped with all the power of the Apostles.174 Accordingly, the union of individuals with the Church, and therefore with Christ, is effected only by obedient dependence on the bishop, i.e., such a connection alone makes one a member of the Church. But the unity of the Church, which is an attribute of equal importance with

170

See on the other hand Tertull., de monog., but also Hippol., l.c. Cyprian’s idea of the Church, an imitation of the conception of a political empire, viz., one great aristocratically governed state with an ideal head, is the result of the conflicts through which he passed. It is therefore first found in a complete form in the treatise “de unitate ecclesiæ” and, above all, in his later epistles (Epp. 43 sq. ed. Hartel). The passages in which Cyprian defines Church as “constituta in episcopo et in clero et in omnibus credentibus” date from an earlier period, when he himself essentially retained the old idea of the subject. Moreover, he never regarded those elements as similar and of equal value. The limitation of the Church to the community ruled by bishops was the result of the Novatian crisis. The unavoidable necessity of excluding orthodox Christians from the ecclesiastical communion, or, in other words, the fact that such orthodox Christians had separated themselves from the majority guided by the bishops, led to the setting up of a new theory of the Church, which therefore resulted from stress of circumstances just as much as the antignostic conception of the matter held by Irenæus. Cyprian’s notion of the relation between the whole body of the Church and the episcopate may, however, be also understood as a generalisation of the old theory about the connection between the individual community and the bishop. This already contained an œcumenical element, for, in fact, every separate community was regarded as a copy of the one Church, and its bishop therefore as the representative of God (Christ). 172 We need only quote one passage here — but see also epp. 69. 3, 7 sq.: 70. 2: 73. 8–ep. 55. 24: “Quod vero ad Novatiani personam pertinet, scias nos primo in loco nec curiosos esse debere quid ille doceat, cum foris docent; quisquis ille est et qualiscunque est, christianus non est, qui in Christi ecclesia non est.” In the famous sentence (ep. 74. 7; de unit. 6): “habere non potest deum patrem qui ecclesiam non habet matrem,” we must understand the Church held together by the sacramentum unitatis, i.e., by her constitution. Cyprian is fond of referring to Korah’s faction, who nevertheless held the same faith as Moses. 173 Epp. 4. 4: 33. 1: “ecclesia super episcopos constituta”; 43. 5: 45. 3: “unitatem a domino et per apostolos nobis successoribus traditam”; 46. 1: 66. 8: “scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo et si qui cum episcopo non sit in ecclesia non esse”; de unit. 4. 174 According to Cyprian the bishops are the sacerdotes κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν and the iudices vice Christi. See epp. 59. 5: 66. 3 as well as c. 4: “Christus dicit ad apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes præpositos, qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt: qui audit vos me audit.” Ep. 3. 3: “dominus apostolos, i. e., episcopos elegit”; ep. 75. 16. 171

63

History of Dogma - Volume II

87

88

Adolf Harnack

her truth, because this union is only brought about by love,175 primarily appears in the unity of the episcopate. For, according to Cyprian, the episcopate has been from its beginning undivided and has continued to be so in the Church, in so far as the bishops are appointed and guided by God, are on terms of brotherly intercourse and exchange, and each bishop represents the whole significance of the episcopate.176 Hence the individual bishops are no longer to be considered primarily as leaders of their special communities, but as the foundation of the one Church. Each of these prelates, however, provided he keeps within the association of the bishops, preserves the independent right of regulating the circumstances of his own diocese.177 But it also follows that the bishops of those communities founded by the Apostles themselves can raise no claim to any special dignity, since the unity of the episcopate as a continuation of the apostolic office involves the equality of all bishops.178 However, a special importance attaches to the Roman see, because it is the seat of the Apostle to whom Christ first granted apostolic authority in order to show with unmistakable plainness 175

That is a fundamental idea and in fact the outstanding feature of the treatise “de unitate”. The heretics and schismatics lack love, whereas the unity of the Church is the product of love, this being the main Christian virtue. That is the ideal thought on which Cyprian builds his theory (see also epp. 45. 1: 55. 24: 69. 1 and elsewhere), and not quite wrongly, in so far as his purpose was to gather and preserve, and not scatter. The reader may also recall the early Christian notion that Christendom should be a band of brethren ruled by love. But this love ceases to have any application to the case of those who are disobedient to the authority of the bishop and to Christians of the sterner sort. The appeal which Catholicism makes to love, even at the present day, in order to justify its secularised and tyrannical Church, turns in the mouth of hierarchical politicians into hypocrisy, of which one would like to acquit a man of Cyprian’s stamp. 176 Ep. 43. 5: 55. 24: “episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus”; de unit. 5: “episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur.” Strictly speaking Cyprian did not set up a theory that the bishops were directed by the Holy Spirit, but in identifying Apostles and bishops and asserting the divine appointment of the latter he took for granted their special endowment with the Holy Spirit. Moreover, he himself frequently appealed to special communications he had received from the Spirit as aids in discharging his official duties. 177 Cyprian did not yet regard uniformity of Church practice as a matter of moment — or rather he knew that diversities must be tolerated. In so far as the concordia episcoporum was consistent with this diversity, he did not interfere with the differences, provided the regula fidei was adhered to. Every bishop who adheres to the confederation has the greatest freedom even in questions of Church discipline and practice (as for instance in the baptismal ceremonial); see ep. 59. 14: “Singulis pastoribus portio gregis est adscripta, quam regit unusquisque et gubernat rationem sui actus domino redditurus”; 55. 21: “Et quidem apud antecessores nostros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pacis mœchis non putaverunt et in totem pænitentiæ locum contra adulteria cluserunt, non tamen a co-episcoporum suorum collegio recesserunt aut catholicæ ecclesiæ unitatem ruperunt, ut quia apud alios adulteris pax dabatur, qui non dabat de ecclesia separaretur.” According to ep. 57. 5 Catholic bishops, who insist on the strict practice of penance, but do not separate themselves from the unity of the Church, are left to the judgment of God. It is different in the case referred to in ep. 68, for Marcion had formally joined Novatian. Even in the disputed question of heretical baptism (ep. 72. 3) Cyprian declares to Stephen (See 69. 17: 3. 26; Sententiæ episc., præfat.): “qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus, quando habeat in ecclesiæ administratione voluntatis suæ arbitrium liberum unusquisque præpositus, rationem actus sui domino redditurus.” It is therefore plain wherein the unity of the episcopate and the Church actually consists; we may say that it is found in the regula, in the fixed purpose not to give up the unity in spite of all differences, and in the principle of regulating all the affairs of the Church “ad originem dominicam et ad evangelicam adque apostolicam traditionem” (ep. 74. 10). This refers to the New Testament, which Cyprian emphatically insisted on making the standard for the Church. It must be taken as the guide, “si in aliquo in ecclesia nutaverit et vacillaverit veritas”; by it, moreover, all false customs are to be corrected. In the controversy about heretical baptism, the alteration of Church practice in Carthage and Africa, which was the point in question — for whilst in Asia heretical baptism had for a very long time been declared invalid (see ep. 75. 19) this had only been the case in Carthage for a few years — was justified by Cyprian through an appeal to veritas in contrast to consuetudo sine veritate. See epp. 71. 2, 3: 73. 13, 23: 74. 2 sq.: 9 (the formula originates with Tertullian; see de virg. vel. 1-3). The veritas, however, is to be learned from the Gospel and words of the Apostles: “Lex evangelii”, “præcepta dominica”, and synonymous expressions are very frequent in Cyprian, more frequent than reference to the regula or to the symbol. In fact there was still no Church dogmatic, there being only principles of Christian faith and life, which, however, were taken from the Holy Scriptures and the regula. 178 Cyprian no longer makes any distinction between Churches founded by Apostles, and those which arose later (that is, between their bishops).

64

History of Dogma - Volume II

89

90

Adolf Harnack

the unity of these powers and the corresponding unity of the Church that rests on them; and further because, from her historical origin, the Church of this see had become the mother and root of the Catholic Church spread over the earth. In a severe crisis which Cyprian had to pass through in his own diocese he appealed to the Roman Church (the Roman bishop) in a manner which made it appear as if communion with that Church was in itself the guarantee of truth. But in the controversy about heretical baptism with the Roman bishop Stephen, he emphatically denied the latter’s pretensions to exercise special rights over the Church in consequence of the Petrine succession.179 Finally, although Cyprian exalted the unity of the organisation of the Church above the unity of the doctrine of faith, he preserved the Christian element so far as to assume in all his statements that the bishops display a moral and Christian conduct in keeping with their office, and that otherwise they have ipso facto forfeited it.180 Thus, according to Cyprian, the episcopal office does not confer any indelible character, though Calixtus and other. bishops of Rome after him presupposed this attribute. (For more details on this point, as well as with regard to the contradictions that remain unreconciled in Cyprian’s conception of the Church, see the following chapter, in which will be shown the ultimate interests that lie at the basis of the new idea of the Church).

179

The statement that the Church is “super Petrum fundata” is very frequently made by Cyprian (we find it already in Tertullian, de monog.); see de habitu virg. 10; Epp. 59. 7: 66. 8: 71. 3: 74. 11: 73. 7. But on the strength of Matth. XVI. he went still farther; see ep. 43. 5: “deus unus est et Christus unus et una ecclesia et cathedra una super Petrum domini voce fundata”; ep. 48. 3 (ad Cornel.): “communicatio tua, id est catholicæ ecclesiæ unitas pariter et caritas”; de unit. 4: “superunum ædificat ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat, tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis eiusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit”; ep. 70. 3: “una ecclesia a Christo domino nostro super Petrum origine unitatis et ratione fundata” (“with regard to the origin and constitution of the unity” is the translation of this last passage in the “Stimmen aus Maria Laach,” 1877, part 8, p. 355; but “ratio” cannot mean that); ep. 73. 7: “Petro primum dominus, super quem ædificavit ecclesiam et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit.” The most emphatic passages are ep. 48. 3, where the Roman Church is called “matrix et radix ecclesiæ catholicæ” (the expression “radix et mater” in ep. 45. I no doubt also refers to her), and ep. 59. 14: “navigare audent et ad Petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides apostolo prædicante laudata est (see epp. 30. 2, 3: 60. 2), ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum.” We can see most clearly from epp. 67. 5 and 68 what rights were in point of fact exercised by the bishop of Rome. But the same Cyprian says quite naïvely, even at the time when he exalted the Roman cathedra so highly (ep. 52. 2), “quoniam pro magnitudine sua debeat Carthaginem Roma præcedere.” In the controversy about heretical baptism Stephen like Calixtus (Tertull., de pudic. I) designated himself, on the ground of the successio Petri and by reference to Matth. XVI., in such a way that one might suppose he wished to be regarded as “episcopus episcoporum” (Sentent. epist. in Hartel I., p. 436). He expressly claimed a primacy and demanded obedience from the “ecclesiæ novellæ et posteræ” (ep. 71. 3). Like Victor he endeavoured to enforce the Roman practice “tyrannico terrore” and insisted that the unitas ecclesiæ required the observance of this Church’s practice in all communities. But Cyprian opposed him in the most decided fashion, and maintained the principle that every bishop, as a member of the episcopal confederation based on the regula and the Holy Scriptures, is responsible for his practice to God alone. This he did in a way which left no room for any special and actual authority of the Roman see alongside of the others. Besides, he expressly rejected the conclusions drawn by Stephen from the admittedly historical position of the Roman see (ep. 71.3): “Petrus non sibi vindicavit aliquid insolenter aut adroganter adsumpsit, ut diceret se principatum tenere et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere.” Firmilian, ep. 75, went much farther still, for he indirectly declares the successio Petri claimed by Stephen to be of no importance (c. 17), and flatly denies that the Roman Church has preserved the apostolic tradition in a specially faithful way. See Otto Ritschl, 1.c., pp. 92 ff., 110-141. In his conflict with Stephen Cyprian unmistakably took up a position inconsistent with his former views as to the significance of the Roman see for the Church, though no doubt these were ideas he had expressed at a critical time when he stood shoulder to shoulder with the Roman bishop Cornelius. 180 See specially epp. 65, 67, 68.

65

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

ADDENDUM I. The great confederation of Churches which Cyprian presupposes and which he terms the Church was in truth not complete, for it cannot be proved that it extended to any regions beyond the confines of the Roman Empire or that it even embraced all orthodox and episcopally organised communities within those bounds.181 But, further, the conditions of the confederation, which only began to be realised in the full sense in the days of Constantine, were never definitely formulated — before the fourth century at least.182 Accordingly, the idea of the one exclusive Church, embracing all Christians and founded on the bishops, was always a mere theory. But, in so far as it is not the idea, but its realisation to which Cyprian here attaches sole importance, his dogmatic conception appears to be refuted by actual circumstances.183

91

II. The idea of heresy is always decided by the idea of the Church. The designation ἅιρεσις an adherence to something self-chosen in opposition to the acknowledgment of something objectively handed down, and assumes that this is the particular thing in which the apostasy consists. Hence all those who call themselves Christians and yet do not adhere to the traditional apostolic creed, but give themselves up to vain and empty doctrines, are regarded as heretics by Hegesippus, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement, and Origen. These doctrines are as a rule traced to the devil, that is, to the non-Christian religions and speculations, or to wilful wickedness. Any other interpretation of their origin would at once have been an acknowledgment that the opponents of the Church had a right to their opinions,184 and such an explanation is not quite foreign to Origen in one of his lines of argument.185 Hence the orthodox party were perfectly consistent in attaching no value to any

181

Hatch l.c., p. 189 f. The gradual union of the provincial communities into one Church may be studied in a very interesting way in the ecclesiastical Fasti (records, martyrologies, calendars, etc.), though these studies are as yet only in an incipient stage. See De Rossi , Roma Sotter, the Bollandists in the 12th vol. for October; Stevenson, Studi in Italia (1879), pp. 439, 458; the works of Nilles; Egli, Altchristl. Studien 1887 (Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1887, no. 13): Duchesne, Les sources du Martyrol. Hieron. Rome 1885, bat above all the latter’s study: Mémoire sur l’origine des diocèses épiscopaux dans l’ancienne Gaule, 1890. The history of the unification of liturgies from the 4th century should also be studied. 183 There were communities in the latter half of the 3rd century, which can be proved to have been outside the confederation, although in perfect harmony with it in point of belief (see the interesting case in Euseb., H.E. VII. 24. 6). Conversely, there were Churches in the confederation whose faith did not in all respects correspond with the Catholic regula as already expounded. But the fact that it was not the dogmatic system, but the practical constitution and principles of the Church, as based on a still elastic creed, which formed the ultimate determining factor, was undoubtedly a great gain; for a system of dogmatics developed beyond the limits of the Christian kerygma can only separate. Here, however, all differences of faith had of course to be glossed over, for the demand of Apelles: μὴ δεῖν ὅλως ἐξετάζειν τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ᾽ ἕκαστον, ὡς πεπίστευκα, διαμένειν· σωθήσεσθαι γὰρ τοὺς ἐπὶ τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ἡλπικότας κ.τ.λ., was naturally regarded as inadmissible. 184 Hence we need not be surprised to find that the notion of heresy which arose in the Church was immediately coupled with an estimate of it, which for injustice and harshness could not possibly be surpassed in succeeding times. The best definition is in Tertull., de præscr. 6: “Nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet, sed nec eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. Apostolos domini habemus auctores, qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt, sed acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus assignaverunt.” 185 See Vol. I., p. 224, note 1. 182

66

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

sacrament186 or acts esteemed in their own communion, when these were performed by heretics;187 and this was a practical application of the saying that the devil could transform himself into an angel of light.188 92

93

But the Fathers we have named did not yet completely identify the Church with a harmoniously organised institution. For that very reason they do not absolutely deny the Christianity of such as take their stand on the rule of faith, even when these for various reasons occupy a position peculiar to themselves. Though we are by no means entitled to say that they acknowledged orthodox schismatics, they did not yet venture to reckon them simply as heretics.189 If it was desired to get rid of these, an effort was made to impute to them some deviation from the rule of faith; and under this pretext the Church freed herself from the Montanists and the Monarchians.190 Cyprian was the first to proclaim the identity of heretics and schismatics, by making a man’s Christianity depend on his belonging to the great episcopal Church confederation.191 But, both in East and West, this theory of his became established only by very imperceptible degrees, and indeed, strictly speaking, the process was never completed at all. The distinction between heretics and schismatics was preserved, because it prevented a public denial of the old principles, because it was advisable on political grounds to treat certain schismatic communities with indulgence, and because it was always possible in case of need to prove heresy against the schismatics.192 186

We already find this idea in Tertullian; see de bapt. 15: “Hæretici nullum habent consortium nostræ disciplinæ, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est præceptum, quia non idem deus est nobis et illis, nec unus Christus, id est idem, ideoque nec baptismus unus, quia non idem; quem cum rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent, nec capit numerari, quod non habetur; ita nec possunt accipere quia non habent.” Cyprian passed the same judgment on all schismatics, even on the Novatians, and like Tertullian maintained the invalidity of heretical baptism. This question agitated the Church as early as the end of the 2nd century, when Tertullian already wrote against it in Greek. 187 As far as possible the Christian virtues of the heretics were described as hypocrisy and love of ostentation (see e.g., Rhodon in Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 2 and others in the second century). If this view was untenable, then all morality and heroism among heretics were simply declared to be of no value. See the anonymous writer in Eusebius, H. E. V. 16. 21, 22; Clem., Strom. VII. 16. 95; Orig., Comm. ad Rom. I. X., c. 5; Cypr., de unit. 14, 15; ep. 73. 21 etc. 188 Tertull., de præscr. 3-6. 189 Irenæus definitely distinguishes between heretics and schismatics (III. 11. 9: IV. 26. 2; 33. 7), but also blames the latter very severely, “qui gloriosum corpus Christi, quantum in ipsis est, interficiunt, non habentes dei dilectionem suamque utilitatem potius considerantes quam unitatem ecclesiæ.” Note the parallel with Cyprian. Yet he does not class them with those “qui sunt extra veritatem,” i.e., “extra ecclesiam,” although he declares the severest penalties await them. Tertullian was completely preserved by his Montanism from identifying heretics and schismatics, though in the last years of his life he also appears to have denied the Christianity of the Catholics (?). 190 Read, on the one hand, the Antimontanists in Eusebius and the later opponents of Montanism; and on the other, Tertull., adv. Prax.; Hippol., c. Noët; Novatian, de trinitate. Even in the case of the Novatians heresies were sought and found (see Dionys. Alex., in Euseb., H. E. VII. 8, where we find distortions and wicked misinterpretations of Novatian doctrines, and many later opponents). Nay, even Cyprian himself did not disdain to join in this proceeding (see epp. 69. 7: 70. 2). The Montanists at Rome were placed by Hippolytus in the catalogue of heretics (see the Syntagma and Philosoph.). Origen was uncertain whether to reckon them among schismatics or heretics (see in Tit. Opp. IV., p. 696). 191 Cyprian plainly asserts (ep. 3. 3): “hæc sunt initia hæreticorum et ortus adque conatus schismaticorum, ut præpositum superbo tumore contemnant” (as to the early history of this conception, which undoubtedly has a basis of truth, see Clem., ep. ad Cor. 1. 44; Ignat.; Hegesippus in Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 5; Tertull., adv. Valent. 4; de bapt. 17; Anonymus in Euseb; H. E. V. 16. 7; Hippolyt. ad. Epiphan. H. 42. 1; Anonymus in Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 12; according to Cyprian it is quite the common one); see further ep. 59. 3: “neque enim aliunde hæreses obortæ sunt aut nata sunt schismata, quam quando sacerdoti dei non obtemperatur”; epp. 66. 5: 69. 1: “item b. apostolus Johannes nec ipse ullam hæresin aut schisma discrevit aut aliquos speciatim separes posuit”; 52. 1:73. 2: 74. 11. Schism and heresy are always identical. 192 Neither Optatus nor Augustine take Cyprian’s theory as the starting-point of their disquisitions, but they adhere in principle to the distinction between heretic and schismatic. Cyprian was compelled by his special circumstances to identify them, but he

67

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

III. As soon as the empiric Church ruled by the bishops was proclaimed to be the foundation of the Christian religion, we have the fundamental premises for the conception that everything progressively adopted by the Church, all her functions, institutions, and liturgy, in short, all her continuously changing arrangements were holy and apostolic. But the courage to draw all the conclusions here was restrained by the fact that certain portions of tradition, such as the New Testament canon of Scripture and the apostolic doctrine, had been once for all exalted to an unapproachable height. Hence it was only with slowness and hesitation that Christians accepted the inferences from the idea of the Church in the remaining directions, and these conclusions always continued to be hampered with some degree of uncertainty. The idea of the παράδοσισ ἄγραφος (un-written tradition); i.e., that every custom, however recent, within the sphere of outward regulations, of public worship, discipline, etc., is as holy and apostolic as the Bible and the “faith”, never succeeded in gaining complete acceptance. In this case, complicated, uncertain, and indistinct assumptions were the result. 94

CHAPTER III. CONTINUATION. THE OLD CHRISTIANITY AND THE NEW CHURCH. 1. THE legal and political forms by which the Church secured herself against the secular power and heresy, and still more the lower moral standard exacted from her members in consequence of the naturalisation of Christianity in the world, called forth a reaction soon after the middle of the second century. This movement, which first began in Asia Minor and then spread into other regions of Christendom, aimed at preserving or restoring the old feelings and conditions, and preventing Christendom from being secularised. This crisis (the so-called Montanist struggle) and the kindred one which succeeded produced the following results: The Church merely regarded herself all the more strictly as a legal community basing the truth of its title on its historic and objective foundations, and gave a correspondingly new interpretation to the attribute of holiness she claimed. She expressly recognised two distinct classes in her midst, a spiritual and a secular, as well as a double standard of morality. Moreover, she renounced her character as the communion of those who were sure of salvation, and substituted the claim to be an educational institution and a necessary condition of redemption. After a keen struggle, in which the New Testament did excellent service to the bishops, the Church expelled the Cataphrygian fanatics and the adherents of the new prophecy (between 180 and 220); and in the same way, during the course of the third century, she caused the secession of all those Christians who made the truth of the Church depend on a stricter administration of moral discipline. Hence, apart from the heretic and Montanist sects, there existed in the Empire,

united this identification with the greatest liberality of view as to the conditions of ecclesiastical unity (as regards individual bishops). Cyprian did not make a single new article an “articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ”. In fact he ultimately declared — and this may have cost him struggle enough — that even the question of the validity of heretical baptism was not a question of faith.

68

History of Dogma - Volume II

95

Adolf Harnack

after the middle of the second century, two great but numerically unequal Church confederations, both based on the same rule of faith and claiming the title “ecclesia catholica”, viz., the confederation which Constantine afterwards chose for his support, and the Novatian Catharist one. In Rome, however, the beginning of the great disruption goes back to the time of Hippolytus and Calixtus; yet the schism of Novatian must not be considered as an immediate continuation of that of Hippolytus. 2. The so-called Montanist reaction193 was itself subjected to a similar change, in accordance with the advancing ecclesiastical development of Christendom. It was originally the violent undertaking of a Christian prophet, Montanus, who, supported by prophetesses, felt called upon to realise the promises held forth in the Fourth Gospel. He explained these by the Apocalypse, and declared that he himself was the Paraclete whom Christ had promised — that Paraclete in whom Jesus Christ himself, nay, even God the Father Almighty, comes to his own to guide them to all truth, to gather those that are dispersed, and to bring them into one flock. His main effort therefore was to make Christians give up the local and civil relations in which they lived, to collect them, and create a new undivided Christian commonwealth, which, separated from the world, should prepare itself for the descent of the Jerusalem from above.194

96

The natural resistance offered to the new prophets with this extravagant message — especially by the leaders of communities, and the persecutions to which the Church was soon after subjected under Marcus Aurelius, led to an intensifying of the eschatological expectations that beyond doubt had been specially keen in Montanist circles from the beginning. For the New Jerusalem was soon

193

See Ritschl, 1. c.; Schwegler, Der Montanismus, 1841; Gottwald, De Montanismo Tertulliani, 1862; Réville, Tertull. et le Montanisme, in the Revue des Deux Mondes of 1st Novr. 1864; Stroehlin, Essai sur le Montanisme, 1870; De Soyres, Montanism and the Primitive Church, 1878; Cunningham, The Churches of Asia, 1880; Renan, Les Crises du Catholicisme Naissant in the Revue des Deux Mondes of 15th Febr. 1881; Renan, Marc Aurèle, 1882, p. 208 ff.; Bonwetsch, Geschichte des Montanismus, 1881; Harnack, Das Mönchthum, seine Ideale und seine Geschichte, 3rd. ed., 1886; Belck, Geschichte des Montanismus, 1883; Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimontanistischen Kampfes, 1891. Further the articles on Montanism by Möller (Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie), Salmon (Dictionary of Christian Biography), and Harnack (Encyclopedia Britannica). Weizsäcker in the Theologische Litteraturzeitung, 1882, no. 4; Bonwetsch, Die Prophetie im apostolischen und nachapostolischen Zeitalter in the Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben, 1884, Parts 8, 9; M. von Engelhardt, Die ersten Versuche zur Aufrichtung des wahren Christenthums in einer Gemeinde von Heiligen, Riga, 1881. 194 In certain vital points the conception of the original nature and history of Montanism, as sketched in the following account, does not correspond with that traditionally current. To establish it in detail would lead us too far. It may be noted that the mistakes in estimating the original character of this movement arise from a superficial examination of the oracles preserved to us and from the unjustifiable practice of interpreting them in accordance with their later application in the circles of Western Montanists. A completely new organisation of Christendom, beginning with the Church in Asia, to be brought about by its being detached from the bonds of the communities and collected into one region, was the main effort of Montanus. In this way he expected to restore to the Church a spiritual character and fulfil the promises contained in John. That is clear from Euseb., V. 16 ff. as well as from the later history of Montanism in its native land (see Jerome, ep. 41; Epiphan., H. 49. 2 etc.). In itself, however, apart from its particular explanation in the case of Montanus, the endeavour to detach Christians from the local Church unions has so little that is striking about it, that one rather wonders at being unable to point to any parallel in the earliest history of the Church. Wherever religious enthusiasm has been strong, it has at all times felt that nothing hinders its effect more than family ties and home connections. But it is just from the absence of similar undertakings in the earliest Christianity that we are justified in concluding that the strength of enthusiastic exaltation is no standard for the strength of Christian faith. (Since these words were written, we have read in Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel [see Georgiades in the journal Ἐκκλ. ἀληθεία, 1885, p. 52 sq.] very interesting accounts of such undertakings in the time of Septimius Severus. A Syrian bishop persuaded many brethren with wives and children to go to meet Christ in the wilderness; and another in Pontus induced his people to sell all their possessions, to cease tilling their lands, to conclude no more marriages etc., because the coming of the Lord was nigh at hand).

69

History of Dogma - Volume II

97

Adolf Harnack

to come down from heaven in visible form, and establish itself in the spot which, by direction of the Spirit, had been chosen for Christendom in Phrygia.195 Whatever amount of peculiarity the movement lost, in so far as the ideal of an assembly of all Christians proved incapable of being realised or at least only possible within narrow limits, was abundantly restored in the last decades of the second century by the strength and courage that the news of its spread in Christendom gave to the earnest minded to unite and offer resistance to the ever increasing tendency of the Church to assume a secular and political character. Many entire communities in Phrygia and Asia recognised the divine mission of the prophets. In the Churches of other provinces religious societies were formed in which the predictions of these prophets were circulated and viewed as a Gospel, though at the same time they lost their effect by being so treated. The confessors at Lyons openly expressed their full sympathy with the movement in Asia. The bishop of Rome was on the verge of acknowledging the Montanists to be in full communion with the Church. But among themselves there was no longer, as at the beginning, any question of a new organisation in the strict sense of the word, and of a radical remodelling of Christian society.196 Whenever Montanism comes before us in the clear light of history it rather appears as a religious movement already deadened, though still very powerful. Montanus and his prophetesses had set no limits to their enthusiasm; nor were there as yet any fixed barriers in Christendom that could have restrained them.197 The Spirit, the Son, nay, the Father himself had appeared in them and spoke through them.198 Imagination pictured

98

195

Oracle of Prisca in Epiph. H. 49. 1. Even in its original home Montanism must have accommodated itself to circumstances at a comparatively early date — which is not in the least extraordinary. No doubt the Montanist Churches in Asia and Phrygia, to which the bishop of Rome had already issued literæ pacis, were now very different from the original followers of the prophets (Tertull., adv. Prax. 1). When Tertullian further reports that Praxeas at the last moment prevented them from being recognised by the bishop of Rome, “falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eorum adseverando”, the “falsehood about the Churches” may simply have consisted in an account of the original tendencies of the Montanist sect. The whole unique history which, in spite of this, Montanism undoubtedly passed through in its original home is, however, explained by the circumstance that there were districts there, where all Christians belonged to that sect (Epiph., H. 51. 33; cf. also the later history of Novatianism). In their peculiar Church organisation (patriarchs, stewards, bishops), these sects preserved a record of their origin. 197 Special weight must be laid on this. The fact that whole communities became followers of the new prophets, who nevertheless adhered to no old regulation, must above all be taken into account. 198 See Oracles 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 17, 18, 21 in Bonwetsch, l.c., p. 197 f. It can hardly have been customary for Christian prophets to speak like Montanus (Nos. 3-5): ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ταντοκράτωρ καταγινόμενος ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, or ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ἦλθον or ἐγὼ εἰμί ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ ὁ παράκλητος, though Old Testament prophecy takes an analogous form. Maximilla says on one occasion (No. 11); ἀπέστειλέ με κύριος τούτου τοῦ πόνου καὶ τῆς συνθήκης καὶ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας αἱρετιστήν; and a second time (No. 12): διώκομαι ὡς λύκος ἐκ προβάτων˙ οὐκ εἰμὶ λύκς˙ ῥῆμά εἰμί καὶ πνεῦμα καὶ δύναμις. The two utterances do not exclude, but include, one another (cf. also No. 10: ἐμοῦ μὴ ἀκούσητε ἀλλὰ Χριστοῦ ἀκούσατε). From James IV. V. and Hermas, and from the Didache, on the other hand, we can see how the prophets of Christian communities may have usually spoken. 196

70

History of Dogma - Volume II

99

Adolf Harnack

Christ bodily in female form to the eyes of Prisca.199 The most extravagant promises were given.200 These prophets spoke in a loftier tone than any Apostle ever did, and they were even bold enough to overturn apostolic regulations.201 They set up new commandments for the Christian life, regardless of any tradition,202 and they inveighed against the main body of Christendom.203 They not only proclaimed themselves as prophets, but as the last prophets, as notable prophets in whom was first fulfilled the promise of the sending of the Paraclete.204 These Christians as yet knew nothing of the 199

L.c., no. 9: Χριστὸς ἐν ἰδέᾳ γυναικὸς ἐσχηματισμένος. How variable must the misbirths of the Christian imagination have been in this respect also! Unfortunately almost everything of that kind has been lost to us because it has been suppressed. The fragments of the once highly esteemed Apocalypse of Peter are instructive, for they still attest that the existing remains of early Christian literature are not able to give a correct picture of the strength of religious imagination in the first and second centuries. The passages where Christophanies are spoken of in the earliest literature would require to be collected. It would be shown what naive enthusiasm existed. Jesus appears to believers as a child, as a boy, as a youth, as Paul etc. Conversely, glorified men appear in visions with the features of Christ. 200 See Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 9. In Oracle No. 2 an evangelical promise is repeated in a heightened form; but see Papias in Iren., V. 33. 3 f. 201 We may unhesitatingly act on the principle that the Montanist elements, as they appear in Tertullian, are, in all cases, found not in a strengthened, but a weakened, form. So, when even Tertullian still asserts that the Paraclete in the new prophets could overturn or change, and actually did change, regulations of the Apostles, there is no doubt that the new prophets themselves did not adhere to apostolic dicta and had no hesitation in deviating from them. Cf., moreover, the direct declarations on this point in Hippolytus (Syntagma and Philos. VIII. 19) and in Didymus (de trin. III. 41. 2). 202 The precepts for a Christian life, if we may so speak, given by the new prophets, cannot be determined from the compromises on which the discipline of the later Montanist societies of the Empire were based. Here they sought for a narrow line between the Marcionite and Encratite mode of life and the common church practice, and had no longer the courage and the candour to proclaim the “e sæculo excedere”. Sexual purity and the renunciation of the enjoyments of life were the demands of the new prophets. But it is hardly likely that they prescribed precise “laws”, for the primary matter was not asceticism, but the realising of a promise. In later days it was therefore possible to conceive the most extreme demands as regulations referring to none but the prophets themselves, and to tone down the oracles in their application to believers. It is said of Montanus himself (Euseb., H. E. V. 18. 2): ὁ διδάξας λύσεις γάμων, ὁ νηστείας νομοθετήσας; Prisca was a παρθένος (l.c. § 3); Proculus, the chief of the Roman Montanists, “virginis senectæ” (Tert., adv. Val. 5). The oracle of Prisca (No. 8) declares that sexual purity is the preliminary condition for the oracles and visions of God; it is presupposed in the case of every “sanctus minister”. Finally, Origen tells us (in Titum, Opp. IV. 696) that the (older) Cataphrygians said: “ne accedas ad me, quoniam mundus sum; non enim accepi uxorem, nec est sepulcrum patens guttur meum, sed sum Nazarenus dei non bibens vinum sicut illi”. But an express legal direction to abolish marriage cannot have existed in the collection of oracles possessed by Tertullian. But who can guarantee that they were not already corrected? Such an assumption, however, is not necessary. 203 Euseb., V. 16. 9: V. 18. 5. 204

It will not do simply to place Montanus and his two female associates in the same category as the prophets of primitive Christian Churches. The claim that the Spirit had descended upon them in unique fashion must have been put forth by themselves with unmistakable clearness. If we apply the principle laid down on p. 98, note 3, we will find that — apart from the prophets’ own utterances — this is still clearly manifest from the works of Tertullian. A consideration of the following facts will remove all doubt as to the claim of the new prophets to the possession of an unique mission. (1) From the beginning both opponents and followers constantly applied the title “New Prophecy” to the phenomenon in question (Euseb., V. 16. 4: V. 19. 2; Clem., Strom. IV. 13. 93; Tertull., monog. 14, ieiun. 1, resurr. 63, Marc. III. 24: IV. 22, Prax. 30; Firmil. ep. 75. 7; alii). (2) Similarly, the divine afflatus was, from the first, constantly designated as the “Paraclete” (Orac. no. 5; Tertull. passim; Hippol. passim; Didymus etc.). (3) Even in the third century the Montanist congregations of the Empire must still have doubted whether the Apostles had possessed this Paraclete or not, or at least whether this had been the case in the full sense. Tertullian identifies the Spirit and the Paraclete and declares that the Apostles possessed the latter in full measure — in fact as a Catholic he could not do otherwise. Nevertheless he calls Montanus etc. “prophetæ proprii” of the Spirit (pudic. 12; see Acta Perpet. 21). On the contrary we find in Philos. VIII. 19: ὑπὲρ δὲ ἀποστόλους καὶ πᾶν χάρισμα ταῦτα τὰ γύναια δοξάζουσιν, ὡς τολμᾶν πλεῖόν τι Χριστοῦ ἐν τούτοις λέγειν τινὰς αὐτῶν γεγονέναι. Pseudo-Tertullian says: “in apostolis quidem dicunt spiritum sanctum fuisse, paracletum non fuisse, et paracletum plura in Montano dixisse quam Christum in evangelio protulisse.” In Didymus, 1.c., we read: τοῦ ἀποστόλου γράψαντος κ.τ.λ., ἐκεῖνοι λέγουσιν τὸν Μοντανὸν ἐληλυθέναι καὶ ἐσχηκέναι τὸ τέλειον τὸ τοῦ παρακλήτου, τοῦτ᾽ τὸ τοῦ ἁγίου

71

History of Dogma - Volume II

100

101

Adolf Harnack

“absoluteness of a historically complete revelation of Christ as the fundamental condition of Christian consciousness;” they only felt a Spirit to which they yielded unconditionally and without reserve. But, after they had quitted the scene, their followers sought and found a kind of compromise. The Montanist congregations that sought for recognition in Rome, whose part was taken by the Gallic confessors, and whose principles gained a footing in North Africa, may have stood in the same relation to the original adherents of the new prophets and to these prophets themselves, as the Mennonite communities did to the primitive Anabaptists and their empire in Münster. The “Montanists” outside of Asia Minor acknowledged to the fullest extent the legal position of the great Church. They declared their adherence to the apostolic “regula” and the New Testament canon.205 The organisation of the Churches, and, above all, the position of the bishops as successors of the Apostles and guardians of doctrine were no longer disputed. The distinction between them and the main body of Christendom, from which they were unwilling to secede, was their belief in the new prophecy of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, which was contained, in its final form, in written records and in this shape may have produced the same impression as is excited by the fragments of an exploded bomb.206

πνεύματος. (4) Lastly, the Montanists asserted that the prediction contained in John XIV. ff. had been fulfilled in the new prophecy, and that from the beginning, as is denoted by the very expression “Paraclete.” What sort of mission they ascribed to themselves is seen from the last quoted passage, for the promises contained in it must be regarded as the enthusiastic carrying out of Montanus’ programme. If we read attentively John XIV. 16-21, 23, 26: XV. 20-26: XVI. 7-15, 25 as well as XVII. and X.; if we compare the oracles of the prophets still preserved to us; if we consider the attempt of Montanus to gather the scattered Christians and really form them into a flock, and also his claim to be the bearer of the greatest and last revelations that lead to all truth; and, finally, if we call to mind that in those Johannine discourses Christ designated the coming of the Paraclete as his own coming in the Paraclete and spoke of an immanence and unity of Father, Son, and Paraclete, which one finds re-echoed in Montanus’ Oracle No. V., we cannot avoid concluding that the latter’s undertaking is based on the impression made on excited and impatient prophets by the promises contained in the Gospel of John, understood in an apocalyptic and realistic sense, and also by Matt. XXIII. 34 (see Euseb., V. 16. 12 sq.). The correctness of this interpretation is proved by the fact that the first decided opponents of the Montanists in Asia — the so-called “Alogi” (Epiph., H. 51) — rejected both the Gospel and Revelation of John, that is, regarded them as written by some one else. Montanism therefore shows us the first and — up till about 180 — really the only impression made by the Gospel of John on non-Gnostic Gentile Christians; and what a remarkable one it was! It has a parallel in Marcion’s conception of Paulinism. Here we obtain glimpses of a state of matters which probably explains why these writings were made innocuous in the canon. To the view advanced here it cannot be objected that the later adherents of the new prophets founded their claims on the recognised gift of prophecy in the Church, or on a prophetic succession (Euseb., H. E. V. 17. 4; Proculus in the same author, II. 25. 7: III. 31. 4), nor that Tertullian, when it suits him, simply regards the new prophecy as a restitutio (e.g., in Monog. 4); for these assumptions merely represent the unsuccessful attempt to legitimise this phenomenon within the Catholic Church. In proof of the fact that Montanus appealed to the Gospel of John see Jerome, Ep. 41 (Migne, I. p. 474), which begins with the words: “Testimonia de Johannis evangelio congregata, quæ tibi quidam Montani sectator ingessit, in quibus salvator noster se ad patrem iturum missurumque paracletum pollicetur etc.” In opposition to this Jerome argues that the promises about the Paraclete are fulfilled in Acts II., as Peter said in his speech, and then continues as follows: “Quodsi voluerint respondere et Philippi deinceps quattuor filias prophetasse et prophetam Agabum reperiri et in divisionibus spiritus inter apostolos et doctores et prophetas quoque apostolo scribente formatos, etc.” 205 We are assured of this not only by Tertullian, but also by the Roman Montanist Proculus, who, like the former, argued against heretics, and by the testimony of the Church Fathers (see, e.g., Philos. VIII. 19). It was chiefly on the ground of their orthodoxy that Tertullian urged the claim of the new prophets to a hearing; and it was, above all, as a Montanist that he felt himself capable of combating the Gnostics, since the Paraclete not only confirmed the regula, but also by unequivocal utterances cleared up ambiguous and obscure passages in the Holy Scriptures, and (as was asserted) completely rejected doctrines like the Monarchian (see fuga 1, 14; corona 4; virg. vel. 1; Prax. 2, 13, 30; resurr. 63; pud. 1; monog. 2; ieiun. 10, 11). Besides, we see from Tertullian’s writings that the secession of the Montanist conventicles from the Church was forced upon them. 206 The question as to whether the new prophecy had or had not to be recognised as such became the decisive one (fuga 1, 14; coron. 1; virg. vel. 1; Prax. 1; pudic. 11; monog. 1). This prophecy was recorded in writing (Euseb., V. 18. 1; Epiph., H. 48. 10; Euseb.,

72

History of Dogma - Volume II

102

103

Adolf Harnack

In this new prophecy they recognised a subsequent revelation of God, which for that very reason assumed the existence of a previous one. This after-revelation professed to decide the practical questions which, at the end of the second century, were burning topics throughout all Christendom, and for which no direct divine law could hitherto be adduced, in the form of a strict injunction. Herein lay the importance of the new prophecy for its adherents in the Empire, and for this reason they believed in it.207 The belief in the efficacy of the Paraclete, who, in order to establish a relatively stricter standard of conduct in Christendom during the latter days, had, a few decades before, for several years given his revelations in a remote corner of the Empire, was the dregs of the original enthusiasm, the real aspect of which had been known only to the fewest. But the diluted form in which this force remained was still a mighty power, because it was just in the generation between 190 and 220 that the secularising of the Church had made the greatest strides. Though the followers of the new prophecy merely insisted on abstinence from second marriage, on stricter regulations with regard to fasts, on a stronger manifestation of the Christian spirit in daily life, in morals and customs, and finally on the full resolve not to avoid suffering and martyrdom for Christ’s name’s sake, but to bear them willingly and joyfully,208 yet, under the given circumstances, these requirements, in spite of the express repudiation of everything “Encratite,”209 implied a demand that directly endangered the conquests already made by the Church and impeded the progress of the new propaganda.210 The people who put forth these demands, expressly based them on the injunctions of the Paraclete, and really lived in accordance with them, were not permanently capable of maintaining their position in the Church. In fact, the endeavour to found these demands on the legislation of the Paraclete was an undertaking quite as strange, in form and content, as the possible attempt to represent the wild utterances of determined anarchists as the programme of a constitutional government. It was of no avail that they appealed to the confirmation of the rule of faith by the Paraclete; that they demonstrated the harmlessness of the new prophecy, thereby involving themselves in contradictions;211 that they showed all honour to the New Testament; and that they VI. 20). The putting of this question, however, denoted a fundamental weakening of conviction, which was accompanied by a corresponding falling off in the application of the prophetic utterances. 207 The situation that preceded the acceptance of the new prophecy in a portion of Christendom may be studied in Tertullian’s writings “de idolol.” and “de spectac.” Christianity had already been conceived as a nova lex throughout the whole Church, and this lex had, moreover, been clearly defined in its bearing on the faith. But, as regards outward conduct, there was no definite lex, and arguments in favour both of strictness and of laxity were brought forward from the Holy Scriptures. No divine ordinances about morality could be adduced against the progressive secularising of Christianity; but there was need of statutory commandments by which all the limits were clearly defined. In this state of perplexity the oracles of the new prophets were gladly welcomed; they were utilised in order to justify and invest with divine authority a reaction of a moderate kind. More than that — as may be inferred from Tertullian’s unwilling confession — could not be attained; but it is well known that even this result was not reached. Thus the Phrygian movement was employed in support of undertakings, that had no real connection with it. But this was the form in which Montanism first became a factor in the history of the Church. To what extent it had been so before, particularly as regards the creation of a New Testament canon (in Asia Minor and Rome), cannot be made out with certainty. 208 See Bonwetsch, l.c., p. 82-108. 209 This is the point about which Tertullian’s difficulties are greatest. Tatian is expressly repudiated in de ieiun. 15. 210 Tertullian (de monog.) is not deterred by such a limitation: “qui potest capere capiat, inquit, id est qui non potest discedat.” 211 It is very instructive, but at the same time very painful, to trace Tertullian’s endeavours to reconcile the irreconcilable, in other words, to show that the prophecy is new and yet not so; that it does not impair the full authority of the New Testament and yet supersedes it. He is forced to maintain the theory that the Paraclete stands in the same relation to the Apostles as Christ does to Moses, and that he abrogates the concessions made by the Apostles and even by Christ himself; whilst he is at the same time obliged to reassert the sufficiency of both Testaments. In connection with this he hit upon the peculiar theory of stages in revelation — a theory which, were it not a mere expedient in his case, one might regard as the first faint trace of a historical view of the

73

History of Dogma - Volume II

104

105

Adolf Harnack

did not insist on the oracles of the Paraclete being inserted in it.212 As soon as they proved the earnestness of their temperate but far-reaching demands, a deep gulf that neither side could ignore opened up between them and their opponents. Though here and there an earnest effort was made to avoid a schism, yet in a short time this became unavoidable; for variations in rules of conduct make fellowship impossible. The lax Christians, who, on the strength of their objective possession, viz., the apostolic doctrine and writings, sought to live comfort-ably by conforming to the ways of the world, necessarily sought to rid themselves of inconvenient societies and inconvenient monitors;213 and they could only do so by reproaching the latter with heresy and unchristian assumptions. Moreover, the followers of the new prophets could not permanently recognise the Churches of the “Psychical,”214 which rejected the “Spirit” and extended their toleration so far as to retain even whoremongers and adulterers within their pale. In the East, that is, in Asia Minor, the breach between the Montanists and the Church had in all probability broken out before the question of Church discipline and the right of the bishops had yet been clearly raised. In Rome and Carthage this question completed the rupture that had already taken place between the conventicles and the Church (de pudic. 1. 21). Here, by a peremptory edict, the bishop of Rome claimed the right of forgiving sins as successor of the Apostles; and declared that he would henceforth exercise this right in favour of repentant adulterers. Among the Montanists this claim was violently contested both in an abstract sense and in this application of it. The Spirit the Apostles had received, they said, could not be transmitted; the Spirit is given to the Church; he works in the prophets, but lastly and in the highest measure in the new prophets. The latter, however, expressly refused to readmit gross sinners, though recommending them to the grace of God (see the saying of the Paraclete, de pud. 21; “potest ecclesia donare delictum, sed non faciam”). Thus

question. Still, this is another case of a dilemma, furnishing theology with a conception that she has cautiously employed in succeeding times, when brought face to face with certain difficulties; see virg. vel. 1; exhort. 6; monog. 2, 3, 14; resurr. 63. For the rest, Tertullian is at bottom a Christian of the old stamp; the theory of any sort of finality in revelation is of no use to him except in its bearing on heresy; for the Spirit continually guides to all truth and works wherever he will. Similarly, his only reason for not being an Encratite is that this mode of life had already been adopted by heretics, and become associated with dualism. But the conviction that all religion must have the character of a fixed law and presupposes definite regulations — a belief not emanating from primitive Christianity, but from Rome — bound him to the Catholic Church. Besides, the contradictions with which he struggled were by no means peculiar to him; in so far as the Montanist societies accepted the Catholic regulations, they weighed on them all, and in all probability crushed them out of existence. In Asia Minor, where the breach took place earlier, the sect held its ground longer. In North Africa the residuum was a remarkable propensity to visions, holy dreams, and the like. The feature which forms the peculiar characteristic of the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas is still found in a similar shape in Cyprian himself, who makes powerful use of visions and dreams; and in the genuine African Acts of the Martyrs, dating from Valerian’s time, which are unfortunately little studied. See, above all, the Acta Jacobi, Mariani etc., and the Acta Montani, Lucii etc. (Ruinart, Acta Mart. edit Ratisb. 1859, p. 268 sq., p. 275 sq.) 212 Nothing is known of attempts at a formal incorporation of the Oracles with the New Testament. Besides, the Montanists could dispense with this because they distinguished the commandments of the Paraclete as “novissima lex” from the “novum testamentum.” The preface to the Montanist Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas (was Tertullian the author?) showed indeed the high value attached to the visions of martyrs. In so far as these were to be read in the Churches they were meant to be reckoned as an “instrumentum ecclesiæ?” in the wider sense. 213 Here the bishops themselves occupy the foreground (there are complaints about their cowardice and serving of two masters in the treatise de fuga). But it would be very unjust simply to find fault with them as Tertullian does. Two interests combined to influence their conduct; for if they drew the reins tight they gave over their flock to heresy or heathenism. This situation is already evident in Hermas and dominates the resolutions of the Church leaders in succeeding generations (see below). 214 The distinction of “Spiritales” and “Psychici” on the part of the Montanists is not confined to the West (see Clem., Strom. IV. 13. 93); we find it very frequently in Tertullian. In itself it did not yet lead to the formal breach with the Catholic Church.

74

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

agreement was no longer possible. The bishops were determined to assert the existing claims of the Church, even at the cost of her Christian character, or to represent the constitution of the Catholic Church as the guarantee of that character. At the risk of their own claim to be Catholic, the Montanist sects resisted in order to preserve the minimum legal requirements for a Christian life. Thus the opposition culminated in an attack on the new powers claimed by the bishops, and in consequence awakened old memories as to the original state of things, when the clergy had possessed no importance.215 But the ultimate motive was the effort to stop the continuous secularising of the Christian life and to preserve the virginity of the Church as a holy community.216 In his latest writings Tertullian vigorously defended a position already lost, and carried with him to the grave the old strictness of conduct insisted on by the Church. 106

Had victory remained with the stricter party, which, though not invariably, appealed to the injunctions of the Paraclete,217 the Church would have been rent asunder and decimated. The great opportunist party, however, was in a very difficult position, since their opponents merely seemed to be acting up to a conception that, in many respects, could not be theoretically disputed. The problem was how to carry on with caution the work of naturalising Christianity in the world, and at the same time avoid all appearance of innovation which, as such, was opposed to the principle of Catholicism. The bishops therefore assailed the form of the new prophecy on the ground of innovation;218 they sought to throw suspicion on its content; in some cases even Chiliasm, as represented by the Montanists, was declared to have a Jewish and fleshly character.219 They tried to show that the moral demands of their opponents were extravagant, that they savoured of the ceremonial law (of the Jews), were opposed to Scripture, and were derived from the worship of

215

A contrast to the bishops and the regular congregational offices existed in primitive Montanism. This was transmitted in a weakened form to the later adherents of the new prophecy (cf. the Gallic confessors’ strange letter of recommendation on behalf of Irenæus in Euseb., H. E. V. 4), and finally broke forth with renewed vigour in opposition to the measures of the lax bishops (de pudic. 21; de exhort. 7; Hippolytus against Calixtus). The ecclesia, represented as numerus episcoparum, no longer preserved its prestige in the eyes of Tertullian. 216 See here particularly, de pudicitia 1, where Tertullian sees the virginity of the Church not in pure doctrine, but in strict precepts for a holy life. As will have been seen in this account, the oft debated question as to whether Montanism was an innovation or merely a reaction does not admit of a simple answer. In its original shape it was undoubtedly an innovation; but it existed at the end of a period when one cannot very well speak of innovations, because no bounds had yet been set to subjective religiosity. Montanus decidedly went further than any Christian prophets known to us; Hermas, too, no doubt gave injunctions, as a prophet, which gave rise to innovations in Christendom; but these fell short of Montanus’ proceedings. In its later shape, however, Montanism was to all intents and purposes a reaction, which aimed at maintaining or reviving an older state of things. So far, however, as this was to be done by legislation, by a novissima lex, we have an evident innovation analogous to the Catholic development. Whereas in former times exalted enthusiasm had of itself, as it were, given rise to strict principles of conduct among its other results, these principles, formulated with exactness and detail, were now meant to preserve or produce that original mode of life. Moreover, as soon as the New Testament was recognised, the conception of a subsequent revelation through the Paraclete was a highly questionable and strange innovation. But for those who acknowledged the new prophecy all this was ultimately nothing but a means. Its practical tendency, based as it was on the conviction that the Church abandons her character if she does not resist gross secularisation at least, was no innovation, but a defence of the most elementary requirements of primitive Christianity in opposition to a Church that was always more and more becoming a new thing. 217 There were of course a great many intermediate stages between the extremes of laxity and rigour, and the new prophecy was by no means recognised by all those who had strict views as to the principles of Christian polity; see the letters of Dionysius of Corinth in Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. Melito, the prophet, eunuch, and bishop, must also be reckoned as one of the stricter party, but not as a Montanist. We must judge similarly of Irenæus. 218 Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 17. The life of the prophets themselves was subsequently subjected to sharp criticism. 219 This was first done by the so-called Alogi who, however, had to be repudiated.

75

History of Dogma - Volume II

107

108

Adolf Harnack

Apis, Isis, and the mother of the Gods.220 To the claim of furnishing the Church with authentic oracles of God, set up by their antagonists, the bishops opposed the newly formed canon; and declared that everything binding on Christians was contained in the utterances of the Old Testament prophets and the Apostles. Finally, they began to distinguish between the standard of morality incumbent on the clergy and a different one applying to the laity,221 as, for instance, in the question of a single marriage; and they dwelt with increased emphasis on the glory of the heroic Christians, belonging to the great Church, who had distinguished themselves by asceticism and joyful submission to martyrdom. By these methods they brought into disrepute that which had once been dear to the whole Church, but was now of no further service. In repudiating supposed abuses they more and more weakened the regard felt for the thing itself, as, for example, in the case of the so-called Chiliasm,222 congregational prophecy and the spiritual independence of the laity. But none of these things could be absolutely rejected; hence, for example, Chiliasm remained virtually unweakened (though subject to limitations223) in the West and certain districts of the East; whereas prophecy lost its force so much that it appeared harmless and therefore died away.224 However, the most effective means of legitimising the present state of things in the Church was a circumstance closely connected with the formation of a canon of early Christian writings, viz., the distinction of an epoch of revelation, along with a corresponding classical period of Christianity unattainable by later generations. This period was connected with the present by means of the New Testament and the apostolic office of the bishops. This later time was to regard the older period as an ideal, but might not dream of really attaining the same perfection, except at least through the medium of the 220

De ieiun. 12, 16. Tertullian protested against this in the most energetic manner. 222 It is well known that in the 3rd century the Revelation of John itself was viewed with suspicion and removed from the canon in wide circles in the East. 223 In the West the Chiliastic hopes were little or not at all affected by the Montanist struggle. Chiliasm prevailed there in unimpaired strength as late as the 4th century. In the East, on the contrary, the apocalyptic expectations were immediately weakened by the Montanist crisis. But it was philosophical theology that first proved their mortal enemy. In the rural Churches of Egypt Chiliasm was still widely prevalent after the middle of the 3rd century; see the instructive 24th chapter of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Book VII. “Some of their teachers,” says Dionysius, “look on the Law and the Prophets as nothing, neglect to obey the Gospel, esteem the Epistles of the Apostles as little worth, but, on the contrary, declare the doctrine contained in the Revelation of John to be a great and a hidden mystery.” There were even temporary disruptions in the Egyptian Church on account of Chiliasm (see Chap. 24. 6). 224 “Lex et prophetæ usque ad Johannem” now became the motto. Churchmen spoke of a “completus numerus prophetarum” (Muratorian Fragment), and formulated the proposition that the prophets corresponded to the pre-Christian stage of revelation, but the Apostles to the Christian; and that in addition to this the apostolic age was also particularly distinguished by gifts of the Spirit. “Prophets and Apostles” now replaced “Apostles, prophets, and teachers,” as the court of appeal. Under such circumstances prophecy might still indeed exist; but it could no longer be of a kind capable of ranking, in the remotest degree, with the authority of the Apostles in point of importance. Hence it was driven into a corner, became extinct, or at most served only to support the measures of the bishops. In order to estimate the great revolution in the spirit of the times let us compare the utterances of Irenæus and Origen about gifts of the Spirit and prophecy. Irenaeus still expressed himself exactly like Justin (Dial. 39, 81, 82, 88); he says (II. 32. 4: V. 6. 1): καθὼς καὶ πολλῶν ἀκούομεν ἀδελφῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ προφητικὰ χαρίσματα ἐχόντων κ.τ.λ. Origen on the contrary (see numerous passages, especially in the treatise c. Cels.), looks back to a period after which the Spirit’s gifts in the Church ceased. It is also a very characteristic circumstance that along with the naturalisation of Christianity in the world, the disappearance of charisms, and the struggle against Gnosticism, a strictly ascetic mode of life came to be viewed with suspicion. Euseb., H. E. V. 3 is especially instructive on this point. Here it is revealed to the confessor Attalus that the confessor Alcibiades, who even in captivity continued his ascetic practice of living on nothing but bread and water, was wrong in refraining from that which God had created and thus become a “τύπος σκανδάλου” to others. Alcibiades changed his mode of life. In Africa, however, (see above, p. 103) dreams and visions still retained their authority in the Church as important means of solving perplexities. 221

76

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

Holy Scriptures and the apostolic office, that is, the Church. The place of the holy Christendom that had the Spirit in its midst was taken by the ecclesiastic institution possessing the “instrument of divine literature” (“instrumentum divinæ litteraturæ”) and the spiritual office. Finally, we must mention another factor that hastened the various changes; this was the theology of the Christian philosophers, which attained importance in the Church as soon as she based her claim on and satisfied her conscience with an objective possession.

109

110

3. But there was one rule which specially impeded the naturalisation of the Church in the world and the transformation of a communion of the saved into an institution for obtaining salvation, viz., the regulation that excluded gross sinners from Christian membership. Down to the beginning of the third century, in so far as the backslider did not atone for his guilt225 by public confession before the authorities (see Ep. Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. 1 ff.), final exclusion from the Church was still the penalty of relapse into idolatry, adultery, whoredom, and murder; though at the same time the forgiveness of God in the next world was reserved for the fallen provided they remained penitent to the end. In theory indeed this rule was not very old. For the oldest period possessed no theories; and in those days Christians frequently broke through what might have been counted as one by appealing to the Spirit, who, by special announcements — particularly by the mouth of martyrs and prophets — commanded or sanctioned the readmission of lapsed members of the community (see Hermas).226 Still, the rule corresponded to the ancient notions that Christendom is a communion of saints, that there is no ceremony invariably capable of replacing baptism, that is, possessing the same value, and that God alone can forgive sins. The practice must on the whole have agreed with this rule; but in the course of the latter half of the second century it became an established custom, in the case of a first relapse, to allow atonement to be made once for most sins and perhaps indeed for all, on condition of public confession.227 For this, appeal was probably made to Hermas, who very likely owed his prestige to the service he here unwittingly rendered. We say “unwittingly,” for he could scarcely have intended such an application of his precepts, though at bottom it was 225

Tertullian, adv. Marc. IV. 9, enumerates “septem maculas capitalium delictorum,” namely, “idololatria”, “blasphemia”, “homicidium”, “adulterium” “stuprum”, “falsum testimonium”, “fraus”. The stricter treatment probably applied to all these seven offences. So far as I know, the lapse into heresy was not placed in the same category in the first centuries; see Iren. III. 4. 2; Tertull., de præser. 30 and, above all, de pudic. 19 init.; the anonymous writer in Euseb., H. E. V. 28. 12, from which passages it is evident that repentant heretics were readmitted. 226 Hermas based the admissibility of a second atonement on a definite divine revelation to this effect, and did not expressly discuss the admission of gross sinners into the Church generally, but treated of their reception into that of the last days, which he believed had already arrived. See particulars on this point in my article “Lapsi”, in Herzog Real-Encyklopädie, 2 ed. Cf. Preuschen, Tertullian’s Schriften de pænit. et de pudic. mit Rücksicht auf die Bussdisciplin, 1890; Rolffs, Indulgenz-Edict des Kallistus, 1893. 227 In the work de pænit. (7 ff.) Tertullian treats this as a fixed Church regulation. K. Müller, Kirchengeschichte I. 1892 p. 114, rightly remarks: “He who desired this expiation continued in the wider circle of the Church, in her “antechamber” indeed, but as her member in the wider sense. This, however, did not exclude the possibility of his being received again, even in this world, into the ranks of those possessing full Christian privileges, — after the performance of penance or exhomologesis. But there was no kind of certainty as to that taking place. Meanwhile this exhomologesis itself underwent a transformation which in Tertullian includes a whole series of basal religious ideas. It is no longer a mere expression of inward feeling, confession to God and the brethren, but is essentially performance. It is the actual attestation of heartfelt sorrow, the undertaking to satisfy God by works of self-humiliation and abnegation, which he can accept as a voluntarily endured punishment and therefore as a substitute for the penalty that naturally awaits the sinner. It is thus the means of pacifying God, appeasing his anger, and gaining his favour again — with the consequent possibility of readmission into the Church. I say the possibility, for readmission does not always follow. Participation in the future kingdom may be hoped for even by him who in this world is shut out from full citizenship and

77

History of Dogma - Volume II

111

112

Adolf Harnack

not directly opposed to his attitude. In point of fact, however, this practice introduced something closely approximating to a second baptism. Tertullian indeed (de pænit. 12) speaks unhesitatingly of two planks of salvation.228 Moreover, if we consider that in any particular case the decision as to the deadly nature of the sin in question was frequently attended with great difficulty, and certainly, as a rule, was not arrived at with rigorous exactness, we cannot fail to see that, in conceding a second expiation, the Church was beginning to abandon the old idea that Christendom was a community of saints. Nevertheless the fixed practice of refusing whoremongers, adulterers, murderers, and idolaters readmission to the Church, in ordinary cases, prevented men from forgetting that there was a boundary line dividing her from the world. This state of matters continued till about 220.229 In reality the rule was first infringed by the peremptory edict of bishop Calixtus, who, in order to avoid breaking up his community, granted readmission to those who had fallen into sins of the flesh. Moreover, he claimed this power of readmission as a right appertaining to the bishops as successors of the Apostles, that is, as possessors of the Spirit and the power of the keys.230 At Rome this rescript led to the secession headed by Hippolytus. But, between 220 and 250, the milder practice with regard to the sins of the flesh became prevalent, though it was not yet universally accepted. This, however, resulted in no further schism (Cyp., ep. 55. 21). But up to the year 250 no concessions were allowed in the case of relapse into idolatry.231 These were first occasioned by the Decian persecution, since in many towns those who had abjured Christianity were more numerous than those who adhered to it.232 The majority of the bishops, part of them with hesitation, agreed on new principles.233 To begin with, permission was given to absolve repentant apostates on their deathbed. Next, a distinction was made between sacrificati and libellatici, the latter being more mildly treated. Finally, the possibility of readmission was conceded under certain severe conditions to all the lapsed, a casuistic proceeding was adopted merely remains in the ranks of the penitent. In all probability then it still continued the rule for a person to remain till death in a state of penance or exhomologesis. For readmission continued to involve the assumption that the Church had in some way or other become certain that God had forgiven the sinner, or in other words that she had power to grant this forgiveness in virtue of the Spirit dwelling in her, and that this readmission therefore involved no violation of her holiness.” In such instances it is first prophets and then martyrs that appear as organs of the Spirit, till at last it is no longer the inspired Christian, but the professional medium of the Spirit, viz., the priest, who decides everything. 228 In the 2nd century even endeavours at a formal repetition of baptism were not wholly lacking. In Marcionite congregations repetition of baptism is said to have taken place (on the Elkesaites see Vol. I. p. 308). One can only wonder that there is not more frequent mention of such attempts. The assertion of Hippolytus (Philos. IX. 12 fin.) is enigmatical: Ἐπὶ Kαλλίστου πρώτω τετόλμηται δεύτερον ἀυτοῖς βάπτισμα. 229 See Tertull., de pudic. 12: “hinc est quod neque idololatriæ neque sanguini pax ab ecclesiis redditur.” Orig., de orat. 28 fin; c. Cels. III. 50. 230 It is only of whoremongers and idolaters that Tertullian expressly speaks in de pudic. c. I. We must interpret in accordance with this the following statement by Hippolytus in Philos. IX. 12: Κάλλιστος πρῶτος τὰ πρὸς τὰς ἡδονὰς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συγχωρεῖν ἐπενόησε, λέγων πᾶσιν ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ ἀφίεσθαι ἁμαρτίας. The aim of this measure is still clear from the account of it given by Hippolytus, though this indeed is written in a hostile spirit. Roman Christians were then split into at least five different sects, and Calixtus left nothing undone to break up the unfriendly parties and enlarge his own. In all probability, too, the energetic bishop met with a certain measure of success. From Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 6, one might be inclined to conclude that, even in Marcus Aurelius’ time, Dionysius of Corinth had issued lax injunctions similar to those of Calixtus. But it must not he forgotten that we have nothing but Eusebius’ report; and it is just in questions of this kind that his accounts are not reliable. 231 No doubt persecutions were practically unknown in the period between 220 and 260. 232 See Cypr., de lapsis. 233 What scruples were caused by this innovation is shown by the first 40 letters in Cyprian’s collection. He himself had to struggle with painful doubts.

78

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

in regard to the laity, and strict measures — though this was not the universal rule — were only adopted towards the clergy. In consequence of this innovation, which logically resulted in the gradual cessation of the belief that there can be only one repentance after baptism — an assumption that was untenable in principle — Novatian’s schism took place and speedily rent the Church in twain. But, even in cases where unity was maintained, many communities observed the stricter practice down to the fifth century.234 What made it difficult to introduce this change by regular legislation was the authority to forgive sins in God’s stead, ascribed in primitive times to the inspired, and at a later period to the confessors in virtue of their special relation to Christ or the Spirit (see Ep. Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. 1 ff.; Cypr. epp.; Tertull. de pudic. 22). The confusion occasioned by the confessors after the Decian persecution led to the non-recognition of any rights of “spiritual” persons other than the bishops. These confessors had frequently abetted laxity of conduct, whereas, if we consider the measure of secularisation found among the great mass of Christians, the penitential discipline insisted on by the bishops is remarkable for its comparative severity. The complete adoption of the episcopal constitution coincided with the introduction of the unlimited right to forgive sins.235 113

4. The original conception of the relation of the Church to salvation or eternal bliss was altered by this development. According to the older notion the Church was the sure communion of salvation and of saints, which rested on the forgiveness of sins mediated by baptism, and excluded everything unholy. It is not the Church, but God alone, that forgives sins, and, as a rule, indeed, this is only done through baptism, though, in virtue of his unfathomable grace, also now and then by special proclamations, the pardon coming into effect for repentant sinners, after death, in heaven. If Christendom readmitted gross sinners, it would anticipate the judgment of God, as it would thereby assure them of salvation. Hence it can only take back those who have been excluded in cases where their offences have not been committed against God himself, but have consisted in transgressing the commandments of the Church, that is, in venial sins.236 But in course of time it was just in lay circles that faith in God’s grace became weaker trust in the Church stronger. He whom the Church abandoned was lost to the world; therefore she must not abandon him. This state of things was expressed in the new interpretation of the proposition, “no salvation outside the Church” (“extra ecclesiam nulla salus”), viz., the Church alone saves from damnation which is otherwise certain. In this conception the nature of the Church is depotentiated, but her powers are extended. If she is 234

Apart from some epistles of Cyprian, Socrates, II. E. V. 22, is our chief source of information on this point. See also Conc. Illib. can. 1, 2, 6-8, 12, 17, 18-47, 70-73, 75. 235 See my article “Novatian” in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, 2nd ed. One might be tempted to assume that the introduction of the practice of unlimited forgiveness of sins was an “evangelical reaction” against the merciless legalism which, in the case of the Gentile Church indeed, had established itself from the beginning. As a matter of fact the bishops and the laxer party appealed to the New Testament in justification of their practice. This had already been done by the followers of Calixtus and by himself. See Philos. IX. 12: φάσκοντες Χριστὸν ἀφιέναι τοῖς εὐδοκοῦσι; Rom. XIV. 4 and Matt. XIII. 29 were also quoted. Before this Tertuilian’s opponents who favoured laxity had appealed exactly in the same way to numerous Bible texts, e.g., Matt. X. 23: XI. 19 etc., see de monog., de pudic., de ieiun. Cyprian is also able to quote many passages from the Gospels. However, as the bishops and their party did not modify their conception of baptism, but rather maintained in principle, as before, that baptism imposes only obligations for the future, the “evangelical reaction” must not be estimated very highly; (see below, p. 117, and my essay in the Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Vol. I., “Die Lehre von der Seligkeit allein durch den Glauben in der alten Kirche.” 236 The distinction of sins committed against God himself, as we find it in Tertullian, Cyprian, and other Fathers, remains involved in an obscurity that I cannot clear up.

79

History of Dogma - Volume II

114

115

Adolf Harnack

the institution which, according to Cyprian, is the indispensable preliminary condition of salvation, she can no longer be a sure communion of the saved; in other words, she becomes an institution from which proceeds the communion of saints; she includes both saved and unsaved. Thus her religious character consists in her being the indispensable medium, in so far as she alone guarantees to the individual the possibility of redemption. From this, however, it immediately follows that the Church would anticipate the judgment of God if she finally excluded anyone from her membership who did not give her up of his own accord; whereas she could never prejudge the ultimate destiny of a man by readmission.237 But it also follows that the Church must possess a means of repairing any injury upon earth, a means of equal value with baptism, namely, a sacrament of the forgiveness of sins. With this she acts in God’s name and stead, but — and herein lies the inconsistency — she cannot by this means establish any final condition of salvation. In bestowing forgiveness on the sinner she in reality only reconciles him with herself, and thereby, in fact, merely removes the certainty of damnation. In accordance with this theory the holiness of the Church can merely consist in her possession of the means of salvation: the Church is a holy institution in virtue of the gifts with which she is endowed. She is the moral seminary that trains for salvation and the institution that exercises divine powers in Christ’s room. Both of these conceptions presuppose political forms; both necessarily require priests and more especially an episcopate. (In de pudic. 21 Tertullian already defines the position of his adversary by the saying, “ecclesia est numerus episcoporum.”) This episcopate by its unity guarantees the unity of the Church and has received the power to forgive sins (Cyp., ep. 69. 11). The new conception of the Church, which was a necessary outcome of existing circumstances and which, we may remark, was not formulated in contradictory terms by Cyprian, but by Roman bishops,238 was the first thing that gave a fundamental religious significance to the separation of clergy and laity. The powers exercised by bishops and priests were thereby fixed and hallowed. No doubt the old order of things, which gave laymen a share in the administration of moral discipline, still continued in the third century, but it became more and more a mere form. The bishop became the practical vicegerent of Christ; he disposed of the power to bind and to loose. But the recollection of the older form of Christianity continued to exert an influence on the Catholic Church of the third

237

Cyprian never expelled any one from the Church, unless he had attacked the authority of the bishops, and thus in the opinion of this Father placed himself outside her pale by his own act. 238 Hippol., Philos. IX. 12: Καὶ παραβολὴν τῶν ζιζανίων πρὸς τοῦτο ἔφη ὁ Κάλλιστος λέγεσθαι· Ἄφετε τὰ ζιζάνια συναύξειν τῷ σιτῷ τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας. Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ Νῶε εἰς ὁμοίωμα ἐκκλησίας ἔφη γεγονέναι, ἐν ᾗ καὶ κύνες καὶ λύκοι καὶ κόρακες κὰι πάντα τὰ καθαρὰ καὶ ἀκάθαρτα. ὁύτω φάσκων δεῖν εἶναι ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ὁμοίως· καὶ ὅσα πρὸς τοῦτο δυνατὸς ἦν συνάγειν ὁύτως ἡρμήνευσεν. From Tertull., de idolol. 24, one cannot help assuming that even before the year 200 the laxer sort in Carthage had already appealed to the Ark. (“Viderimus si secundum arcæ typum et corvus et milvus et lupus et canis et serpens in ecclesia erit. Certe idololatres in arcæ typo non habetur. Quod in arca non fuit, in ecclesia non sit”). But we do not know what form this took and what inferences they drew. Moreover, we have here a very instructive example of the multitudinous difficulties in which the Fathers were involved by typology: the Ark is the Church, hence the dogs and snakes are men. To solve these problems it required an abnormal degree of acuteness and wit, especially as each solution always started fresh questions. Orig. (Hom. II. in Genes. III.) also viewed the Ark as the type of the Church (the working out of the image in Hom. I. in Ezech., Lomm. XIV. p. 24 sq., is instructive); but apparently in the wild animals he rather sees the simple Christians who are not yet sufficiently trained — at any rate he does not refer to the whoremongers and adulterers who must be tolerated in the Church. The Roman bishop Stephen again, positively insisted on Calixtus’ conception of the Church, whereas Cornelius followed Cyprian (see Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 10), who never declared sinners to be a necessary part of the Church in the same fashion as Calixtus did. (See the following note and Cyp., epp. 67. 6; 68. 5).

80

History of Dogma - Volume II

116

Adolf Harnack

century. It is true that, if we can trust Hippolytus’ account, Calixtus had by this time firmly set his face against the older idea, inasmuch as he not only defined the Church as essentially a mixed body (corpus permixtum), but also asserted the unlawfulness of deposing the bishop even in case of mortal sin.239 But we do not find that definition in Cyprian, and, what is of more importance, he still required a definite degree of active Christianity as a sine quâ non in the case of bishops; and assumed it as a self-evident necessity. He who does not give evidence of this forfeits his episcopal office ipso facto.240 Now if we consider that Cyprian makes the Church, as the body of believers (plebs credentium), so dependent on the bishops, that the latter are the only Christians not under tutelage, the demand in question denotes a great deal. It carries out the old idea of the Church in a certain fashion, as far as the bishops are concerned. But for this very reason it endangers the new conception in a point of capital importance; for the spiritual acts of a sinful bishop are invalid;241 and if the latter, as a notorious sinner, is no longer bishop, the whole certainty of the ecclesiastical system ceases. Moreover, an appeal to the certainty of God’s installing the bishops and always appointing the right ones242 is of no avail, if false ones manifestly find their way in. Hence Cyprian’s idea of the Church — and this is no dishonour to him — still involved an inconsistency which, in the fourth century, was destined to produce a very serious crisis in the Donatist struggle.243 The view, however — which Cyprian never openly expressed, and which was merely the natural inference from his theory — that the Catholic Church, though the “one dove” (“una columba”), is in truth not coincident with the number of the elect, was clearly recognised and frankly expressed by Origen before him. Origen plainly distinguished between spiritual and fleshly members of the Church; and spoke of such as only belong to her outwardly, but are not Christians. As these are finally overpowered by the gates of hell, Origen does not hesitate to class them as merely seeming members of the Church. Conversely, he contemplates the possibility of a person being expelled from her fellowship and yet remaining a member in the eyes of God.244 Nevertheless he by no means attained to clearness on the point, in which case, moreover, he would have been the first to do so;

117

239

Philos., 1.c,: Κάλλιστος ἐδογμάτισεν ὅπως εἰ ἐπίσκοπος ἁμάρτοι τι, εἰ καὶ πρὸς θάνατον, μὴ δεῖν κατατίθεσθαι. That Hippolytus is not exaggerating here is evident from Cyp., epp. 67, 68; for these passages make it very probable that Stephen also assumed the irremovability of a bishop on account of gross sins or other failings. 240 See Cypr., epp. 65, 66, 68; also 55. 11. 241 This is asserted by Cyprian in epp. 65. 4 and 67. 3; but he even goes on to declare that everyone is polluted that has fellowship with an impure priest, and takes part in the offering celebrated by him. 242 On this point the greatest uncertainty prevails in Cyprian. Sometimes he says that God himself instals the bishops, and it is therefore a deadly sin against God to criticise them (e.g., in ep. 66. 1); on other occasions he remembers that the bishops have been ordained by bishops; and again, as in ep. 67. 3, 4, he appears to acknowledge the community’s right to choose and control them. Cf. the sections referring to Cyprian in Reuter “Augustinische Studien” (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. VII., p. 199 ff.). 243 The Donatists were quite justified in appealing to Cyprian, that is, in one of his two aspects. 244 Origen not only distinguishes between different groups within the Church as judged by their spiritual understanding and moral development (Comm. in Matt. Tom. XI. at Chap. XV. 29; Hom. II. in Genes. Chap. 3; Hom. in Cantic. Tom. I. at Chap. I. 4: “ecclesia una quidem est, cum perfecta est; multæ vero sunt adolescentulæ, cum adhuc instruuntur et proficiunt”; Hom. III. in Levit. Chap. iii.), but also between spiritual and carnal members (Hom. XXVI. in Num. Chap. vii.) i.e., between true Christians and those who only bear that name without heartfelt faith — who outwardly take part in everything, but bring forth fruits neither in belief nor conduct. Such Christians he as little views as belonging to the Church as does Clement of Alexandria (see Strom. VII. 14. 87, 88). To him they are like the Jebusites who were left in Jerusalem; they have no part in the promises of Christ, but are lost (Comm. in Matt. T. XII. c. xii.). It is the Church’s task to remove such members, whence we see that Origen was far from sharing Calixtus’ view of the Church as a corpus permixtum; but to carry out this process so perfectly that only the holy

81

History of Dogma - Volume II

118

119

Adolf Harnack

nor did he give an impulse to further reflection on the problem. Besides, speculations were of no use here. The Church with her priests, her holy books, and gifts of grace, that is, the moderate secularisation of Christendom corrected by the means of grace, was absolutely needed in order to prevent a complete lapse into immorality.245 But a minority struggled against this Church, not with speculations, but by demanding adherence to the old practice with regard to lapsed members. Under the leadership of the Roman presbyter, Novatian, this section formed a coalition in the Empire that opposed the Catholic confederation.246 Their adherence to the old system of Church discipline involved a reaction against the secularising process, which did not seem to be tempered by the spiritual powers of the bishops. Novatian’s conception of the Church, of ecclesiastical absolution and the rights of the priests, and in short, his notion of the power of the keys is different from that of his opponents. This is clear from, a variety of considerations. For he (with his followers) assigned to the Church the right and duty of expelling gross sinners once for all;247 he denied her the authority to absolve idolaters, but left these to the forgiveness of God who alone has the power of pardoning sins committed against himself; and he asserted: “non est pax illi ab episcopo necessaria habituro gloriæ suæ (scil. martyrii) pacem et and the saved remain is a work beyond the powers of human sagacity. One must therefore content oneself with expelling notorious sinners; see Hom. XXI. in Jos., c. i.: “sunt qui ignobilem et degenerem vitam ducunt, qui et fide et actibus et omni conversatione sua perversi sunt. Neque enim possibile est, ad liquidum purgari ecclesiam, dum in terris est, ita ut neque impius in ea quisquam, neque peccator residere videatur, sed sint in ea omnes sancti et beati, et in quibus nulla prorsus peccati macula deprehendatur. Sed sicut dicitur de zizaniis: Ne forte eradicantes zizania simul eradicetis et triticum, ita etiam super its dici potest, in quibus vel dubia vel occulta peccata sunt . . . Eos saltem eiiciamus quos possumus, quorum peccata manifesta sunt. Ubi enim peccatum non est evidens, eiicere de ecclesia neminem possumus.” In this way indeed very many wicked people remain in the Church (Comm. in Matt. T. X. at c. xiii. 47 f.: μὴ ξενιζῶμεθα, ἐάν ὁρῶμεν ἡμῶν τὰ ἀθροίσματα πεπληρωμένα καὶ πονηρῶν); but in his work against Celsus Origen already propounded that empiric and relative theory of the Christian Churches which views them as simply “better” than the societies and civic communities existing alongside of them. The 29th and 30th chapters of the 3rd book against Celsus, in which he compares the Christians with the other population of Athens, Corinth, and Alexandria, and the heads of congregations with the councillors and mayors of these cities, are exceedingly instructive and attest the revolution of the times. In conclusion, however, we must point out that Origen expressly asserts that a person unjustly excommunicated remains a member of the Church in God’s eyes; see Hom. XIV. in Levit. c. iii.: “ita fit, ut interdum ille qui foras mittitur intus sit, et ille foris, qui intus videtur retineri.” Döllinger (Hippolytus and Calixtus, page 254 ff.) has correctly concluded that Origen followed the disputes between Hippolytus and Calixtus in Rome, and took the side of the former. Origen’s trenchant remarks about the pride and arrogance of the bishops of large towns (in Matth. XI. 9. 15: XII. 9-14: XVI. 8. 22 and elsewhere, e.g., de orat. 28, Hom. VI. in Isai. c. i., in Joh. X. 16), and his denunciation of such of them as, in order to glorify God, assume a mere distinction of names between Father and Son, are also correctly regarded by Langen as specially referring to the Roman ecclesiastics (Geschichte der römischen Kirche I. p. 242). Thus Calixtus was opposed by the three greatest theologians of the age — Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen. 245 If, in assuming the irremovability of a bishop even in case of mortal sin, the Roman bishops went beyond Cyprian, Cyprian drew from his conception of the Church a conclusion which the former rejected, viz., the invalidity of baptism administered by non-Catholics. Here, in all likelihood, the Roman bishops were only determined by their interest in smoothing the way to a return or admission to the Church in the case of non-Catholics. In this instance they were again induced to adhere to their old practice from a consideration of the catholicity of the Church. It redounds to Cyprian’s credit that he drew and firmly maintained the undeniable inferences from his own theory in spite of tradition. The matter never led to a great dogmatic controversy. 246 As to the events during the vacancy in the Roman see immediately before Novatian’s schism, and the part then played by the latter, who was still a member of the Church, see my essay: “Die Briefe des römischen Klerus aus der Zeit. der Sedisvacanz im Jahre 250” (Abhandl. f. Weizsäcker, 1892). 247 So far as we are able to judge, Novatian himself did not extend the severer treatment to all gross sinners (see ep. 55. 26, 27); but only decreed it in the case of the lapsed. It is, however, very probable that in the later Novatian Churches no mortal sinner was absolved (see, e.g., Socrates, H. E. I. 10). The statement of Ambrosius (de pænit. III. 3) that Novatian made no difference between gross and lesser sins and equally refused forgiveness to transgressors of every kind distorts the truth as much as did the old

82

History of Dogma - Volume II

120

Adolf Harnack

accepturo maiorem de domini dignatione mercedem,” — “the absolution of the bishop is not needed by him who will receive the peace of his glory (i.e., martyrdom) and will obtain a greater reward from the approbation of the Lord” (Cypr. ep. 57. 4), and on the other hand taught: “peccato alterius inquinari alterum et idololatriam delinquentis ad non delinquentem transire,” — “the one is defiled by the sin of the other and the idolatry of the transgressor passes over to him who does not transgress.” His proposition that none but God can forgive sins does not depotentiate the idea of the Church; but secures both her proper religious significance and the full sense of her dispensations of grace: it limits her powers and extent in favour of her content. Refusal of her forgiveness under certain circumstances — though this does not exclude the confident hope of God’s mercy — can only mean that in Novatian’s view this forgiveness is the foundation of salvation and does not merely avert the certainty of perdition. To the Novatians, then, membership of the Church is not the sine quâ non of salvation, but it really secures it in some measure. In certain cases nevertheless the Church may not anticipate the judgment of God. Now it is never by exclusion, but by readmission, that she does so. As the assembly of the baptised, who have received God’s forgiveness, the Church must be a real communion of salvation and of saints; hence she cannot endure unholy persons in her midst without losing her essence. Each gross sinner that is tolerated within her calls her legitimacy in question. But, from this point of view, the constitution of the Church, i.e., the distinction of lay and spiritual and the authority of the bishops, likewise retained nothing but the secondary importance it had in earlier times. For, according to those principles, the primary question as regards Church membership is not connection with the clergy (the bishop). It is rather connection with the community, fellowship with which secures the salvation that may indeed be found outside its pale, but not with certainty. But other causes contributed to lessen the importance of the bishops: the art of casuistry, so far-reaching in its results, was unable to find a fruitful soil here, and the laity were treated in exactly the same way as the clergy. The ultimate difference between Novatian and Cyprian as to the idea of the Church and the power to bind and loose did not become clear to the latter himself. This was because, in regard to the idea of the Church, he partly overlooked the inferences from his own view and to some extent even directly repudiated them. An attempt to lay down a principle for judging the case is found in ep. 69. 7: “We and the schismatics have neither the same law of the creed nor the same interrogation, for when they say: ‘you believe in the remission of sins and eternal life through the holy Church’, they speak falsely” (“non est una nobis et schismaticis symboli lex neque eadem interrogatio; nam cum dicunt, credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam, mentiuntur”). Nor did Dionysius of Alexandria, who endeavoured to accumulate reproaches against Novatian, succeed in forming any effective accusation (Euseb., H. E. VII. 8). Pseudo-Cyprian had just as little success (ad Novatianum). It was not till the subsequent period, when the Catholic Church had resolutely pursued the path she had entered, that the difference in principle manifested itself with unmistakable plainness. The historical estimate of the contrast must vary in proportion as one contemplates the demands of primitive Christianity or the requirements of the time. The Novatian confederation undoubtedly preserved a valuable remnant of the old tradition. The idea that the Church, as a fellowship of salvation, must also be the fellowship of saints, (Καθαροί) corresponds to the ideas of the earliest reproach laid to his charge, viz., that he as “a Stoic” made no distinction between sins. Moreover, in excluding gross sinners, Novatian’s followers did not mean to abandon them, but to leave them under the discipline and intercession of the Church.

83

History of Dogma - Volume II

121

122

Adolf Harnack

period. The followers of Novatian did not entirely identify the political and religious attributes of the Church; they neither transformed the gifts of salvation into means of education, nor confused the reality with the possibility of redemption; and they did not completely lower the requirements for a holy life. But on the other hand, in view of the minimum insisted upon, the claim that they were the really evangelical party and that they fulfilled the law of Christ248 was a presumption. The one step taken to avert the secularising of the Church, exclusion of the lapsed, was certainly, considering the actual circumstances immediately following a great apostasy, a measure of radical importance; but, estimated by the Gospel and in fact simply by the demands of the Montanists fifty years before, it was remarkably insignificant. These Catharists did indeed go the length of expelling all so-called mortal sinners, because it was too crying an injustice to treat libellatici more severely than unabashed transgressors;249 but, even then, it was still a gross self-deception to style themselves the “pure ones”, since the Novatian Churches speedily ceased to be any stricter than the Catholic in their renunciation of the world. At least we do not hear that asceticism and devotion to religious faith were very much more prominent in the Catharist Church than in the Catholic. On the contrary, judging from the sources that have come down to us, we may confidently say that the picture presented by the two Churches in the subsequent period was practically identical.250 As Novatian’s adherents did not differ from the opposite party in doctrine and constitution, their discipline of penance appears an archaic fragment which it was a doubtful advantage to preserve; and their rejection of the Catholic dispensations of grace (practice of rebaptism) a revolutionary measure, because it had insufficient justification. But the distinction between venial and mortal sins, a theory they held in common with the Catholic Church, could not but prove especially fatal to them; whereas their opponents, through their new regulations as to penance, softened this distinction, and that not to the detriment of morality. For an entirely different treatment of so-called gross and venial transgressions must in every case deaden the conscience towards the latter.

248

The title of the evangelical life (evangelical perfection, imitation of Christ) in contrast to that of ordinary Catholic Christians, a designation which we first find among the Encratites (see Vol. I. p. 237, note 3) and Marcionites (see Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 14: “Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias Marcionis, per quas proprietatem doctrinæ suæ inducit ad edictum, ut ita dixerim, Christi, Beati mendici etc.”), and then in Tertullian (in his pre-Montanist period, see ad mart., de patient., de pænit., de idolol.; in his later career, see de coron. 8, 9, 13, 14; de fuga 8, 13; de ieiun. 6, 8, 15; de monog. 3, 5, I I; see Aubé, Les Chrétiens dans l’empire Romain de la fin des Antonins, 1881, p. 237 ff.: “Chrétiens intransigeants et Chrétiens opportunistes”) was expressly claimed by Novatian (Cypr., ep. 44. 3: “Si Novatiani se adsertores evangelii et Christi esse confitentur”; 46. 2: “nec putetis, sic vos evangelium Christi adserere”). Cornelius in Eusebius, H. E. VI. 43. 11 calls Novatian: ὁ ἐκδικητὴς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. This is exceedingly instructive, and all the more so when we note that, even as far back as the end of the second century, it was not the “evangelical”, but the lax, who declared the claims of the Gospel to be satisfied if they kept God in their hearts, but otherwise lived in entire conformity with the world. See Tertullian, de spec. 1; de pænit. 5: “Sed aiunt quidam, satis deum habere, si corde et animo suspiciatur, licet actu minus fiat; itaque se salvo metu et fide peccare, hoc est salva castitate matrimonia violare etc.”; de ieiun. 2: “Et scimus, quales sint carnalium commodorum suasoriæ, quam facile dicatur: Opus est de totis præcordiis credam, diligam deum et proximum tanquam me. In his enim duobus præceptis tota lex pendet et prophetæ, non in pulmonum et intestinorum meorum inanitate.” The Valentinian Heracleon was similarly understood, see above Vol. I. p. 262. 249 Tertullian (de pud. 22) had already protested vigorously against such injustice. 250 From Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History we can form a good idea of the state of the Novatian communities in Constantinople and Asia Minor. On the later history of the Catharist Church see my article “Novatian”, l.c., 667 ff. The most remarkable feature of this history is the amalgamation of Novatian’s adherents in Asia Minor with the Montanists and the absence of distinction between their manner of life and that of the Catholics. In the 4th century of course the Novatians were nevertheless very bitterly attacked.

84

History of Dogma - Volume II

123

124

Adolf Harnack

5. If we glance at the Catholic Church and leave the melancholy recriminations out of account, we cannot fail to see the wisdom, foresight, and comparative strictness251 with which the bishops carried out the great revolution that so depotentiated the Church as to make her capable of becoming a prop of civic society and of the state, without forcing any great changes upon them.252 In learning to look upon the Church as a training school for salvation, provided with penalties and gifts of grace, and in giving up its religious independence in deference to her authority, Christendom as it existed in the latter half of the third century,253 submitted to an arrangement that was really best adapted to its own interests. In the great Church every distinction between her political and religious conditions necessarily led to fatal disintegrations, to laxities, such as arose in Carthage owing to the enthusiastic behaviour of the confessors; or to the breaking up of communities. The last was a danger incurred in all cases where the attempt was made to exercise unsparing severity. A casuistic proceeding was necessary as well as a firm union of the bishops as pillars of the Church. Not the least important result of the crises produced by the great persecutions was the fact that the bishops in West and East were thereby forced into closer connection and at the same time acquired full jurisdiction (“per episcopos solos peccata posse dimitti”). If we consider that the archiepiscopal constitution had not only been simultaneously adopted, but had also attained the chief significance in the ecclesiastical organisation,254 we may say that the Empire Church was completed the moment

251

This indeed was disputed by Hippolytus and Origen. This last conclusion was come to after painful scruples, particularly in the East — as we may learn from the 6th and 7th books of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. For a time the majority of the Oriental bishops adopted an attitude favourable to Novatian and unfavourable to Cornelius and Cyprian. Then they espoused the cause of the latter, though without adopting the milder discipline in all cases (see the canons of Ancyra and Neocæsarea IV. sæc. init.). Throughout the East the whole question became involved in confusion, and was not decided in accordance with clear principles. In giving up the last remnant of her exclusiveness (the canons of Elvira are still very strict while those of Arles are lax), the Church became “Catholic” in quite a special sense, in other words, she became a community where everyone could find his place, provided he submitted to certain regulations and rules. Then, and not till then, was the Church’s pre-eminent importance for society and the state assured. It was no longer variance, and no longer the sword (Matt. X. 34, 35), but peace and safety that she brought; she was now capable of becoming an educative or, since there was little more to educate in the older society, a conservative power. At an earlier date the Apologists (Justin, Melito, Tertullian himself) had already extolled her as such, but it was not till now that she really possessed this capacity. Among Christians, first the Encratites and Marcionites, next the adherents of the new prophecy, and lastly the Novatians had by turns opposed the naturalisation of their religion in the world and the transformation of the Church into a political commonwealth. Their demands had progressively become less exacting, whence also their internal vigour had grown ever weaker. But, in view of the continuous secularising of Christendom, the Montanist demands at the beginning of the 3rd century already denoted no less than those of the Encratites about the middle of the second, and no more than those of the Novatians about the middle of the third. The Church resolutely declared war on all these attempts to elevate evangelical perfection to an inflexible law for all, and overthrew her opponents. She pressed on in her world-wide mission and appeased her conscience by allowing a twofold morality within her bounds. Thus she created the conditions which enabled the ideal of evangelical perfection to be realised in her own midst, in the form of monasticism, without threatening her existence. “What is monasticism but an ecclesiastical institution that makes it possible to separate oneself from the world and to remain in the Church, to separate oneself from the outward Church without renouncing her, to set oneself apart for purposes of sanctification and yet to claim the highest rank among her members, to form a brotherhood and yet to further the interests of the Church?” In succeeding times great Church movements, such as the Montanist and Novatian, only succeeded in attaining local or provincial importance. See the movement at Rome at the beginning of the 4th century, of which we unfortunately know so little (Lipsius, Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe, pp. 250-255); the Donatist Revolution, and the Audiani in the East. 253 It is a characteristic circumstance that Tertullian’s de ieiun. does not assume that the great mass of Christians possess an actual knowledge of the Bible. 254 The condition of the constitution of the Church about the middle of the 3rd century (in accordance with Cyprian’s epistles) is described by Otto Ritschl, l. c., pp. 142-237. Parallels to the provincial and communal constitution of secular society are to be found throughout. 252

85

History of Dogma - Volume II

125

Adolf Harnack

that Diocletian undertook the great reorganisation of his dominions.255 No doubt the old Christianity had found its place in the new Church, but it was covered over and concealed. In spite of all that, little alteration had been made in the expression of faith, in religious language; people spoke of the universal holy Church, just as they did a hundred years before. Here the development in the history of dogma was in a very special sense a development in the history of the Church. Catholicism was now complete; the Church had suppressed all utterances of individual piety, in the sense of their being binding on Christians, and freed herself from every feature of exclusiveness. In order to be a Christian a man no longer required in any sense to be a saint. “What made the Christian a Christian was no longer the possession of charisms, but obedience to ecclesiastical authority,” share in the gifts of the Church, and the performance of penance and good works. The Church by her edicts legitimised average morality, after average morality had created the authority of the Church. (“La médiocrité fonda l’autorité”). The dispensations of grace, that is, absolution and the Lord’s Supper, abolished the charismatic gifts. The Holy Scriptures, the apostolic episcopate, the priests, the sacraments, average morality in accordance with which the whole world could live, were mutually conditioned. The consoling words: “Jesus receives sinners”, were subjected to an interpretation that threatened to make them detrimental to morality.256 And with all that the self-righteousness of proud ascetics was not excluded — quite the contrary. Alongside of a code of morals, to which any one in case of need could adapt himself, the Church began to legitimise a morality of self-chosen, refined sanctity, which really required no Redeemer. It was as in possession of this constitution that the great statesman found and admired her, and recognised in her the strongest support of the Empire.257 A comparison of the aims of primitive Christendom with those of ecclesiastical society at the end of the third century — a comparison of the actual state of things at the different periods is hardly possible — will always lead to a disheartening result; but the parallel is in itself unjust. The truth rather is that the correct standpoint from which to judge the matter was already indicated by Origen in the comparison he drew (c. Cels. 111. 29. 30) between the Christian society of the third

126

255

To how great an extent the Church in Decius’ time was already a state within the state is shown by a piece of information given in Cyprian’s 55th epistle (c. 9.): “Cornelius sedit intrepidus Romæ in sacerdotali cathedra eo tempore: cum tyrannus infestus sacerdotibus dei fanda adque infanda comminaretur, cum multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret levari adversus se æmulum principem quam constitui Romæ dei sacerdotem.” On the other hand the legislation with regard to Christian flamens adopted by the Council of Elvira, which, as Duchesne (Mélanges Renier: Le Concile d’Elvire et les flamines chrétiens, 1886) has demonstrated, most probably dates from before the Diocletian persecution of 300, shows how closely the discipline of the Church had already been adapted to the heathen regulations in the Empire. In addition to this there was no lack of syncretist systems within Christianity as early as the 3rd century (see the Κεστοί of Julius Africanus, and other examples). Much information on this point is to be derived from Origen’s works and also, in many respects, from the attitude of this author himself. We may also refer to relic- and hero-worship, the foundation of which was already laid in the 3rd century, though the “religion of the second order” did not become a recognised power in the Church or force itself into the official religion till the 4th. 256 See Tertullian’s frightful accusations in de pudic. (10) and de ieiun. (fin) against the “Psychici”, i.e., the Catholic Christians. He says that with them the saying had really come to signify “peccando promeremur”, by which, however, he does not mean the Augustinian: “o felix culpa”. 257 The relation of this Church to theology, what theology she required and what she rejected, and, moreover, to what extent she rejected the kind that she accepted may be seen by reference to chap. 5 ff. We may here also direct attention to the peculiar position of Origen in the Church as well as to that of Lucian the Martyr, concerning whom Alexander of Alexandria (Theoderet, H.E. 1. 3) remarks that he was a ἀποσυνάγωγος in Antioch for a long time, namely, during the rule of three successive bishops.

86

History of Dogma - Volume II

127

Adolf Harnack

century and the non-Christian, between the Church and the Empire, the clergy and the magistrates.258 Amidst the general disorganisation of all relationships, and from amongst the ruins of a shattered fabric, a new structure, founded on the belief in one God, in a sure revelation, and in eternal life, was being laboriously raised. It gathered within it more and more all the elements still capable of continued existence; it readmitted the old world, cleansed of its grossest impurities, and raised holy barriers to secure its conquests against all attacks. Within this edifice justice and civic virtue shone with no greater brightness than they did upon the earth generally; but within it burned two mighty flames — the assurance of eternal life, guaranteed by Christ, and the practice of mercy. He who knows history is aware that the influence of epoch-making personages is not to be sought in its direct consequences alone, as these speedily disappear: that structure which prolonged the life of a dying world, and brought strength from the Holy One to another struggling into existence, was also partly founded on the Gospel, and but for this would neither have arisen nor attained solidity. Moreover, a Church had been created within which the pious layman could find a holy place of peace and edification. With priestly strife he had nothing to do, nor had he any concern in the profound and subtle dogmatic system whose foundation was now being laid. We may say that the religion of the laity attained freedom in proportion as it became impossible for them to take part in the establishment and guardianship of the official Church system. It is the professional guardians of this ecclesiastical edifice who are the real martyrs of religion, and it is they who have to bear the consequences of the worldliness and lack of genuineness pertaining to the system. But to the layman who seeks from the Church nothing more than aid in raising himself to God, this worldliness and unveracity do not exist. During the Greek period, however, laymen were only able to recognise this advantage to a limited extent. The Church dogmatic and the ecclesiastical system were still

258

We have already referred to the passage above. On account of its importance we may quote it here: “According to Celsus Apollo required the Metapontines to regard Aristeas as a god; but in their eyes the latter was but a man and perhaps not a virtuous one . . . They would therefore not obey Apollo, and thus it happened that no one believed in the divinity of Aristeas. But with regard to Jesus we may say that it proved a blessing to the human race to acknowledge him as the Son of God, as God who appeared on earth united with body and soul.” Origen then says that the demons counterworked this belief, and continues: “But God who had sent Jesus on earth brought to nought all the snares and plots of the demons and aided in the victory of the Gospel of Jesus throughout the whole earth in order to promote the conversion and amelioration of men; and everywhere brought about the establishment of Churches which are ruled by other laws than those that regulate the Churches of the superstitious, the dissolute and the unbelieving. For of such people the civil population (πολιτευόμενα ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν πολέων πλήθη) of the towns almost everywhere consists.” Αἱ δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστῷ μαθητευθεῦσαι ἐκκλησίαι, συνεξεταζόμεναι ταῖς ὧν παροικοῦσι δήμων ἐκκλησίαις, ὡς φωστῆρας εἰσιν ἐν κόσμῳ. τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἄν ὁμολογήσαι, καὶ τοὺς χείρους τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ συγκρίσει βελτιόνων ἐλάττους πολλῷ κρείττους τυγχάνειν τῶν ἐν τοῖς δήμοις ἐκκλησιῶν; ἐκκλησία μὲν γὰρ τοῦ Θεοῦ, φέρ᾽ εἰπεῖν, ἡ Ἀθήνῃσι πραεῖά τις καὶ εὐσταθής, ἅτε Θεῷ ἀρέσκειν τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι βουλομένη· ἡ δ᾽Αθηναίων ἐκκλησία στασιώδης καὶ οὐδαμῶς παραβαλλομένη τῇ ἐκεῖ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ· τὸ δ᾽αὐτὸ ἐρεῖς. Περὶ ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Κορίνθῳ καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ δήμου Κορινθίων·; καὶ, φέρ᾽ εἰπεῖν, περὶ ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ, καὶ ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Ἀλεξανδρέων δήμου. Καὶ ἐὰν εὐγνώμων ᾖ ὁ τούτου ἀκούων καὶ φιλαλήθως ἐξετάθῃ τὰ πράγματα, θαυμάσεται τὸν καὶ βουλευσάμενον καὶ ἀνύσαι δυνηθέντα πανταχοῦ συστήσασθαι ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, παροικούσασ ἒκλησίαις τῶν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πόλιν δήμων οὕτω δὲ καὶ βουλὴν ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ βουλῇ τῇ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πόλιν συνεξετάζων εὕροις ἄν ὅτι τινὲς μὲν τῆς ἐκκλησίας βουλευταὶ ἄξιοὶ εἰσι — εἵ τίς ἐστιν ἐν τῷ παντὶ πόλις τοῦ Θεοῦ — ἐν εκείνῃ πολιτεύεσθαι ὁι δὲ πανταχοῦ βουλευταὶ οὐδὲν ἄξιον τῆς ἐκ κατατάξεως ὑπεροχῆς, ἢν ὑπερέχειν δοκοῦσι τῶν πολιτῶν, φέρουσιν ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτῶν ἤθεσιν· οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἄρχοντα ἐκκλησίας ἑκάςτης πόλεως ἄρχοντι τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει συγκριτέν· ἵνα κατανοήσῃς, ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν σφόδρα ἀποτυγχανομένων βουλευτῶν καὶ ἀρχόντων ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ, καὶ ῥαθυμοτέρων παρὰ τοὺς εὐτονωτέρως βιοῦντας οὐδὲν ἧττόν ἐστιν εὑρεῖν ὡς ἐπίπαν ὑπεροχήν τὴν ἐν τῇ ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς προκοπῇ παρὰ τὰ ἤθη τῶν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι βουλευτῶν καὶ ἀρχόντων.

87

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

too closely connected with their own interests. It was in the Middle Ages, that the Church first became a Holy Mother and her house a house of prayer — for the Germanic peoples; for these races were really the children of — the Church, and they themselves had not helped to rear the house in which they worshipped. 128

ADDENDA.

129

I. The Priesthood. The completion of the old Catholic conception of the Church, as this idea was developed in the latter half of the third century, is perhaps most clearly shown in the attribute of priesthood, with which the clergy were invested and which conferred on them the greatest importance.259 The development of this conception, whose adoption is a proof that the Church had assumed a heathen complexion, cannot be more particularly treated of here.260 What meaning it has is shown by its application in Cyprian and the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions (see Book II.). The bishops (and also the presbyters) are priests, in so far as they 259

Rïtschl, Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche pp. 362, 368, 394, 461, 555, 560, 576. Otto Ritschl, l.c., pp. 208, 218, 231. Hatch “Organisation of the early Christian Church”, Lectures 5 and 6; id., Art. “Ordination”, “Priest”, in the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. Hauck, Art. “Priester” in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, 2nd ed. Voigt, l.c., p. 175 ff. Sohm, Kirchenrecht I. p. 205 ff. Louw, Het ontstaan van het Priesterschap in de christ. Kerk, Utrecht, 1892. 260 Clement of Rome was the first to compare the conductors of public worship in Christian Churches with the priests and Levites, and the author of the Διδαχή was the first to liken the Christian prophets to the high priests. It cannot, however, be shown that there were any Christian circles where the leaders were directly styled “priests” before the last quarter of the 2nd century. We can by no means fall back on Ignatius, Philad. 9, nor on Iren., IV. 8. 3, which passage is rather to be compared with Διδ. 13. 3. It is again different in Gnostic circles, which in this case, too, anticipated the secularising process; read for example the description of Marcus in Iren., I. 13. Here, mutatis mutandis, we have the later Catholic bishop, who alone is able to perform a mysterious sacrifice to whose person powers of grace are attached — the formula of bestowal was: μεταδοῦναί σοι θέλω τῆς ἐμῆς χάριτος . . . λάμβανε ἀπ᾽ εμõυ καὶ δι᾽ εμõυ χάριν, and through whose instrumentality union with God can alone be attained: the ἀπολύτρωσις (I. 21.) is only conferred through the mystagogue. Much of a similar nature is to be found, and we can expressly say that the distinction between priestly mystagogues and laymen was of fundamental importance in many Gnostic societies (see also the writings of the Coptic Gnostics); it was different in the Marcionite Church. Tertullian (de bapt. 17) was the first to call the bishop “summus sacerdos”, and the older opinion that he merely “played” with the idea is untenable, and refuted by Pseudo-Cyprian, de aleat. 2 (“sacerdotalïs dignitas”). In his Antimontanist writings the former has repeatedly repudiated any distinction in principle of a particular priestly class among Christians, as well as the application of certain injunctions to this order (de exhort. 7: “nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? . . . adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tınguıs et sacerdos es tibi solus, sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici.”; de monog. 7). We may perhaps infer from his works that before about the year 200, the name “priest” was not yet universally applied to bishop and presbyters in Carthage (but see after this de præscr. 29, 41: sacerdotalia munera; de pud. 1, 21; de monog. 12: disciplina sacerd.; de exhort. 7: sacerdotalis ordo; ibid. 11: “et offeres pro duabus uxoribus, et commendabis illas duas per sacerdotem de monogamia ordinatum; de virg. vel. 9: sacerdotale officium; Scorp. 7: sacerdos). The latest writings of Tertullian show us indeed that the name and the conception which it represents were already prevalent. Hippolytus (Philos. præf.: ὧν ἡμεῖς διάδοχοι τυγχάνοντες τῆς τε ἀυτῆς χάριτος μετέχοντες ἀρχιερατείας καὶ διδασκαλίας, see also the Arabian canons) expressly claimed high priesthood for the bishops, and Origen thought he was justified in giving the name of “Priests and Levites” to those who conducted public worship among Christians. This he indeed did with reserve (see many passages, e.g., Hom. II. in Num., Vol. II. p. 278; Hom. VI. in Lev., Vol. II. p. 211; Comment. in Joh., Vol. I. 3), but yet to a far greater extent than Clement (see Bigg, l.c., p. 214 f.). In Cyprian and the literature of the Greek Church in the immediately following period we find the designation “priest” as the regular and most customary name for the bishop and presbyters. Novatian (Jerome. de vir. inl. 70) wrote a treatise de sacerdote and another de ordinatione. The notable and momentous change of conception expressed in the idea can be traced by us through its preparatory stages almost as little as the theory of the apostolic succession of the bishops. Irenæus (IV. 8. 3, 17. 5, 18. 1) and Tertullian, when compared with Cyprian, appear here as representatives of primitive Christianity. They firmly assert the priesthood of the whole congregation. That the laity had as great a share as the leaders of the Churches in the transformation of the latter into Priests is moreover shown by the bitter saying of Tertullian (de

88

History of Dogma - Volume II

130

131

Adolf Harnack

alone are empowered to present the sacrifice as representatives of the congregation before God261 and in so far as they dispense or refuse the divine grace as representatives of God in relation to the congregation. In this sense they are also judges in God’s stead.262 The position here conceded to the higher clergy corresponds to that of the mystagogue in heathen religions, and is acknowledged to be borrowed from the latter.263 Divine grace already appears as a sacramental consecration of an objective nature, the bestowal of which is confined to spiritual personages chosen by God. This fact is no way affected by the perception that an ever increasing reference is made to the Old Testament priests as well as to the whole Jewish ceremonial and ecclesiastical regulations.264 It is true that there is no other respect in which Old Testament commandments were incorporated with Christianity to such an extent as they were in this.265 But it can be proved that this formal adoption everywhere took place at a subsequent date, that is, it had practically no influence on the development itself, which was not legitimised by the commandments till a later period, and that often in a somewhat lame fashion. We may perhaps say that the development which made the bishops and elders priests altered the inward form of the Church in a more radical fashion than any other. “Gnosticism”, which the Church had repudiated in the second century, became part of her own system in the third. As her integrity had been made dependent on in-alienable objective standards, the adoption even of this greatest innovation, which indeed was in complete harmony with the secular element within her, was an elementary necessity. In regard to every sphere of Church life,

monog. 12): “Sed cum extollimur et inflamur adversus clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc omnes sacerdotes, quia ‘sacerdotes nos deo et patri fecit’. Cum ad peræquationem disciplinæ sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas.” 261 See Sohm, I. p. 207. 262 The “deservire altari et sacrificia divina celebrare” (Cypr., ep. 67. 1) is the distinctive function of the sacerdos dei. It may further be said, however, that all ceremonies of public worship properly belong to him, and Cyprian has moreover contrived to show that this function of the bishop as leader of the Church follows from his priestly attributes; for as priest the bishop is antistes Christi (dei); see epp. 59. 18: 61. 2: 63. 14: 66. 5, and this is the basis of his right and duty to preserve the lex evangelica and the traditio dominica in every respect. As antistes dei, however, an attribute bestowed on the bishop by the apostolic succession and the laying on of hands, he has also received the power of the keys, which confers the right to judge in Christ’s stead and to grant or refuse the divine grace. In Cyprian’s conception of the episcopal office the successio apostolica and the position of vicegerent of Christ (of God) counterbalance each other; he also tried to amalgamate both elements (ep. 55. 8: “cathedra sacerdotalis). It is evident that as far as the inner life of each church was concerned, the latter and newer necessarily proved the more important feature. In the East, where the thought of the apostolical succession of the bishops never received such pronounced expression as in Rome it was just this latter element that was almost exclusively emphasised from the end of the 3rd century. Ignatius led the way when he compared the bishop, in his position towards the individual community, with God and Christ. He, however, is dealing in images, but at a later period the question is about realities based on a mysterious transference. 263 Soon after the creation of a professional priesthood, there also arose a class of inferior clergy. This was first the case in Rome. This development was not uninfluenced by the heathen priesthood, and the temple service (see my article in Texte und Untersuchungen II. 5). Yet Sohm, 1. c., p. 128 ff., has disputed this, and proposed modifications, worth considering, in my view of the origin of the ordines minores. 264 Along with the sacerdotal laws, strictly so called, which Cyprian already understood to apply in a frightful manner (see his appeal to Deut. XVII. 12; I Sam. VIII. 7; Luke X. 16; John XVIII. 22 f.; Acts XXIII. 4-5 in epp. 3. 43, 59. 66), other Old Testament commandments could not fail to be introduced. Thus the commandment of tithes, which Irenæus had still asserted to be abolished, was now for the first time established (see Orion; Constit. Apost. and my remarks on Διδ. c. 13); and hence Mosaic regulations as to ceremonial cleanness were adopted (see Hippol. Canones arab. 17; Dionys. Alex., ep. canon.). Constantine was the first to base the observance of Sunday on the commandment as to the Sabbath. Besides, the West was always more hesitating in this respect than the East. In Cyprian’s time, however, the classification and dignity of the clergy were everywhere upheld by an appeal to Old Testament commandments, though reservations still continued to be made here and there. 265 Tertullian (de pud. I.) sneeringly named the bishop of Rome “pontifex maximus”, thereby proving that he clearly recognised the heathen colouring given to the episcopal office. With the picture of the bishop drawn by the Apostolic constitutions may be compared the ill-natured descriptions of Paul of Samosata in Euseb., VII. 30.

89

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

and hence also in respect to the development of dogma266 and the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, the priesthood proved of the highest significance. The clerical exposition of the sacred books, with its frightful ideas, found its earliest advocate in Cyprian and had thus a most skilful champion at the very first.267

132

133

II. SACRIFICE. In Book I., chap. III., § 7, we have already shown what a wide field the idea of sacrifice occupied in primitive Christendom, and how it was specially connected with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The latter was regarded as the pure (i.e., to be presented with a pure heart), bloodless thank-offering of which Malachi had prophesied in I. 11. Priesthood and sacrifice, however, are mutually conditioned. The alteration of the concept “priest” necessarily led to a simultaneous and corresponding change in the idea of sacrifice, just as, conversely, the latter reacted on the former.268 In Irenæus and Tertullian the old conception of sacrifice, viz., that prayers are the Christian sacrifice and that the disposition of the believer hallows his whole life even as it does his offering, and forms a well-pleasing sacrifice to God, remains essentially unchanged. In particular, there is no evidence of any alteration in the notion of sacrifice connected with the Lord’s Supper.269 But nevertheless we can already trace a certain degree of modification in Tertullian. Not only does he give fasting, voluntary celibacy, martyrdom, etc., special prominence among the sacrificial acts of a Christian life, and extol their religious value — as had already been done before; but he also attributes a God-propitiating significance to these performances, and plainly designates them as “merita” (“promereri deum”). To the best of my belief Tertullian was the first who definitely regarded ascetic performances as propitiatory offerings and ascribed to them the “potestas reconciliandi iratum deum.”270 But he himself was far from using this fatal theory, so often found in his works, to support a lax Church practice that made Christianity consist in out ward forms. This result did not come about till the eventful decades, prolific in new developments, that elapsed 266

Yet this influence, in a direct form at least, can only be made out at a comparatively late period. But nevertheless, from the middle of the 3rd century the priests alone are possessed of knowledge. As μάθησις and μυσταγωγία are inseparably connected in the mysteries and Gnostic societies, and the mystagogue was at once knowing one and priest, so also in the Catholic Church the priest is accounted the knowing one. Doctrine itself became a mystery to an increasing extent. 267 Examples are found in epp. 1, 3, 4, 33, 43, 54, 57, 59, 65, 66. But see Iren., IV. 26. 2, who is little behind Cyprian here, especially when he threatens offenders with the fate of Dathan and Abiram. One of the immediate results of the formation of a priestly and spiritual class was that the independent “teachers” now shared the fate of the old “prophets” and became extinct (see my edition of the Διδαχή, prolegg. pp. 131-137). It is an instructive fact that Theoktistus of Cæsarea and Alexander of Jerusalem in order to prove in opposition to Demetrius that independent teachers were still tolerated, i.e., allowed to speak in public meetings of the Church, could only appeal to the practice of Phrygia and Lycaonia, that is, to the habit of outlying provinces where, besides, Montanism had its original seat. Euelpis in Laranda, Paulinus in Iconium, and Theodorus in Synnada, who flourished about 216, are in addition to Origen the last independent teachers (i.e., outside the ranks of the clergy) known to us in Christendom (Euseb., H. E. VI. 19 fin.). 268 See Döllinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 1826. Höfling, Die Lehre der ältesten Kirche vom Opfer, p. 71 ff. Th. Harnack, Der christliche Gemeindegottesdienst im apostolischen und altkatholischen Zeitalter, p. 342 ff. Steitz, Art. “Messe” in Herzog’s Real Encyklopädie, 2nd ed. It is idle to enquire whether the conception of the “sacerdotium” or that of the “sacrificium” was first altered, because they are correlative ideas. 269 See the proof passages in Höfling, 1. c., who has also treated in detail Clement and Origen’s idea of sacrifice, and cf. the beautiful saying of Irenæus IV. 18. 3: “Non sacrificia sanctificant hominem; non enim indiget sacrificio deus; sed conscientia eius qui offert sanctificat sacrificium, pura exsistens, et præstat acceptare deum quasi ab amico” (on the offering in the Lord’s Supper see Iren. IV. 17. 5, 18. 1); Tertull., Apolog. 30; de orat. 28; adv. Marc. III. 22; IV. 1, 35: adv. Jud. 5; de virg. vel. 13. 270 Cf. specially the Montanist writings; the treatise de ieiunio is the most important among them in this case; see cc. 7, 16; de resurr. 8. On the use of the word “satisfacere” and the new ideas on the point which arose in the West (cf. also the word “meritum”) see below chap. 5. 2 and the 2nd chap. of the 5th Vol. Note that the 2nd Ep. of Clement already contains the sayings: καλὸν

90

History of Dogma - Volume II

134

Adolf Harnack

between the persecutions of Septimius and Decius; and in the West it is again Cyprian who is our earliest witness as to the new view and practice.271 In the first place, Cyprian was quite familiar with the idea of ascetic propitiations and utilised it in the interest of the Catholicity of the Church; secondly, he propounded a new theory of the offering in the cultus. As far as the first point is concerned, Cyprian’s injunctions with regard to it are everywhere based on the understanding that even after baptism no one can be without sin (de op. et eleemos. 3); and also on the firm conviction that this sacrament can only have a retrospective virtue. Hence he concludes that we must appease God, whose wrath has been aroused by sin, through performances of our own, that is, through offerings that bear the character of “satisfactions”. In other words we must blot out transgressions by specially meritorious deeds in order thus to escape eternal punishment. These deeds Cyprian terms “merita”, which either possess the character of atonements, or, in case there are no sins to be expiated, entitle the Christian to a special reward (merces).272 But, along with lamentationes and acts of penance, it is principally alms-giving that forms such means of atonement (see de lapsis, 35, 36). In Cyprian’s eyes this is already the proper satisfaction; mere prayer, that is, devotional exercises unaccompanied by fasting and alms, being regarded as “bare and unfruitful”. In the work “de opere et eleemosynis” which, after a fashion highly characteristic of Cyprian, is made dependent on Sirach and Tobias, he has set forth a detailed theory of what we may call alms-giving as a means of grace in its relation to baptism and salvation.273 However, this practice can only be viewed as a

ἐλεημοσύνη ὡς μετάνοια ἁμαρτίας· κρείσσων νηστεία προσευχῆς, ἐλεημοσύνη δὲ ἀμφοτέρων . . . ἐλεημοσύνη γὰρ κούϕισμα ἁμαρτίας γίνεται (16. 4; similar expressions occur in the “Shepherd”). But they only show how far back we find the origin of these injunctions borrowed from Jewish proverbial wisdom. One cannot say that they had no effect at all on Christian life in the 2nd century; but we do not yet find the idea that ascetic performances are a sacrifice offered to a wrathful God. Martyrdom seems to have been earliest viewed as a performance which expiated sins. In Tertullian’s time the theory, that it was on a level with baptism (see Melito, 12. Fragment in Otto, Corp. Apol. IX. p. 418: δύο συνέστη τὰ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτημάτα παρεχόμενα, πάθος διὰ Χριστὸν καὶ βάπτισμα), had long been universally diffused and was also exegetically grounded. In fact, men went a step further and asserted that the merits of martyrs could also benefit others. This view had likewise become established long before Tertullian’s day, but was opposed by him (de pudic. 22), when martyrs abused the powers universally conceded to them. Origen went furthest here; see exhort. ad mart. 50: ὥσπερ τιμίῳ αἵματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἠγοράσθημεν . . . οὕτως τῷ τιμίῳ αἵματι τῶν μαρτύρων ἀγορασθήσονταί τινες; Hom. X. in Num. c. II.: “ne forte, ex quo martyres non fiunt et hostiæ sanctorum non offeruntur pro peccatis nostris, peccatorum nostrorum remissionem non mereamur.” The origin of this thought is, on the one hand, to be sought for in the wide-spread notion that the sufferings of an innocent man benefit others, and, on the other, in the belief that Christ himself suffered in the martyrs (see, e.g., ep. Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. 1. 23, 41). 271 In the East it was Origen who introduced into Christianity the rich treasure of ancient ideas that had become associated with sacrifices. See Bigg’s beautiful account in “The Christian Platonists of Alexandria,” Lect. IV.-VI. 272 Moreover, Tertullian (Scorp. 6) had already said: “Quomodo multæ mansiones apud patrem, si non pro varietate meritorum.” 273 See c. 1: Nam cum dominus adveniens sanasset illa, quæ Adam portaverit vulnera et venena serpentis antiqua curasset, legem dedit sano et præcepit, ne ultra iam peccaret, ne quid peccanti gravius eveniret; coartati eramus et in angustum innocentiæ præscriptione conclusi, nec haberet quid fragilitatis humanæ infirmitas adque imbecillitas faceret, nisi iterum pietas divina subveniens iustitiæ et misericordiæ operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendæ salutis aperiret, ut sordes postmodum quascumque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus.” c. 2: sicut lavacro aquæ salutaris gehennæ ignis extinguitur, ita eleemosynis adque operationibus iustus delictorum flamma sopitur, et quia semel in baptismo remissa peccatorum datur, adsidua et iugis operatio baptismi instar imitata dei rursus indulgentiam largiatur.” 5, 6, 9. In c. 18 Cyprian already established an arithmetical relation between the number of alms-offerings and the blotting out of sins, and in c. 21, in accordance with an ancient idea which Tertullian and Minucius Felix, however, only applied to martyrdom, he describes the giving of alms as a spectacle for God and Christ. In Cyprian’s epistles “satisfacere deo” is exceedingly frequent. It is almost still more important to note the frequent use of the expression “promereri deum (iudicem)” in Cyprian. See de unitate 15: “iustitia opus est, ut promereri quis possit deum iudicem: præceptis eius et monitis obtemperandum est, ut accipiant merita nostra mercedem.” 18; de lapsis 31; de orat. 8, 32, 36; de mortal. 10; de op. 11, 14, 15, 26; de bono pat. 18; ep. 62. 2: 73. 10. Here it is everywhere assumed that Christians acquire God’s favour by their works.

91

History of Dogma - Volume II

135

136

137

Adolf Harnack

means of grace in Cyprian’s sense in so far as God has accepted it, that is, pointed it out. In itself it is a free human act. After the Decian persecution and the rearrangement of ecclesiastical affairs necessitated by it, works and alms (opera et eleemosynæ) made their way into the absolution system of the Church, and were assigned a permanent place in it. Even the Christian who has forfeited his Church membership by abjuration may ultimately recover it by deeds of sacrifice, of course under the guidance and intercessory coöperation of the Church. The dogmatic dilemma we find here cannot be more clearly characterised than by simply placing the two doctrines professed by Cyprian side by side. These are: — (1) that the sinfulness common to each individual can only be once extirpated by the power of baptism derived from the work of Christ, and (2) that transgressions committed after baptism, inclusive of mortal sins, can and must be expiated solely by spontaneous acts of sacrifice under the guidance of kind mother Church.274 A Church capable of being permanently satisfied with such doctrines would very soon have lost the last remains of her Christian character. What was wanted was a means of grace, similar to baptism and granted by God through Christ, to which the opera et eleemosynæ are merely to bear the relation of accompanying acts. But Cyprian was no dogmatist and was not able to form a doctrine of the means of grace. He never got beyond his “propitiate God the judge by sacrifices after baptism” (“promereri deum judicem post baptismum sacrificiis”), and merely hinted, in an obscure way, that the absolution of him who has committed a deadly sin after baptism emanates from the same readiness of God to forgive as is expressed in that rite, and that membership in the Church is a condition of absolution. His whole theory as to the legal nature of man’s (the Christian’s) relationship to God, and the practice, inaugurated by Tertullian, of designating this connection by terms derived from Roman law continued to prevail in the West down to Augustine’s time.275 But, during this whole interval, no book was written by a Western Churchman which made the salvation of the sinful Christian dependent on ascetic offerings of atonement, with so little regard to Christ’s grace and the divine factor in the case, as Cyprian’s work de opere et eleemosynis. No less significant is Cyprian’s advance as regards the idea of the sacrifice in public worship, and that in three respects. To begin with, Cyprian was the first to associate the specific offering, i.e., the Lord’s Supper276 with the specific priesthood. Secondly, he was the first to designate the passio dominis, nay, the sanguis Christi and the dominica hostia as the object of the eucharistic offering.277 Thirdly, he expressly represented the celebration of the Lord’s Supper as an incorporation of the congregation and its individual members with Christ, and was the first to bear clear testimony as to the special importance attributed to commemoration of the celebrators (“vivi et defuncti”), 274

Baptism with blood is not referred to here. With modifications, this has still continued to be the case beyond Augustine’s time down to the Catholicism of the present day. Cyprian is the father of the Romish doctrine of good works and sacrifice. Yet is it remarkable that he was not yet familiar with the theory according to which man must acquire merita. In his mind “merits” and “blessedness” are not yet rigidly correlated ideas; but the rudiments of this view are also found in him; cf. de unit. 15 (see p. 134, note 3 ). 276 “Sacrificare”, “sacrificium celebrare”, in all passages where they are unaccompanied by any qualifying words, mean to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Cyprian has never called prayer a “sacrifice” without qualifying terms; on the contrary he collocates “preces” and “sacrificium”, and sometimes also “oblatio” and “sacrificium”. The former is then the offering of the laity and the latter of the priests. 277 Cf. the whole 63rd epistle and above all c. 7: “Et quia passionis eius mentionem in sacrificiis omnibus facimus, passio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerrimus, nihil aliud quam quod ille fecit facere debemus”; c. 9.: “unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici.” 13; de unit. 17: “dominicæ hostiæ veritatem per falsa sacrificia profanare”; ep. 63. 4: 275

92

History of Dogma - Volume II

138

Adolf Harnack

though no other can be ascertained than a specially strong intercession.278 But this is really the essential effect of the sacrifice of the supper as regards the celebrators; for however much the conceptions about this ceremony might be heightened, and whatever additions might be made to its ritual, forgiveness of sins in the strict sense could not be associated with it. Cyprian’s statement that every celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a repetition or imitation of Christ’s sacrifice of himself, and that the ceremony has therefore an expiatory value remains a mere assertion, though the Romish Church still continues to repeat this doctrine to the present day. For the idea that partaking of the Lord’s Supper cleansed from sin like the mysteries of the Great Mother (magna mater) and Mithras, though naturally suggested by the ceremonial practice, was counteracted by the Church principles of penance and by the doctrine of baptism. As a sacrificial rite the Supper never became a ceremony equivalent in effect to baptism. But no doubt, as far as the popular conception was concerned, the solemn ritual copied from the ancient mysteries could not but attain an indescribably important significance. It is not possible, within the framework of the history of dogma, to describe the development of religious ceremonial in the third century, and to show what a radical alteration took

“sacramentum sacrificii dominici”. The transference of the sacrificial idea to the consecrated elements, which, in all probability, Cyprian already found in existence, is ultimately based on the effort to include the element of mystery and magic in the specifically sacerdotal ceremony of sacrifice, and to make the Christian offering assume, though not visibly, the form of a bloody sacrifice, such as secularised Christianity desired. This transference, however, was the result of two causes. The first has been already rightly stated by Ernesti (Antimur. p. 94) in the words: “quia eucharistia habet ἀνάμνησιν Christi mortui et sacrificii eius in cruce peracti, propter ea paullatim cœpta est tota eucharistia sacrificium dici.” In Cyprian’s 63rd. epistle it is still observable how the “calicem in commemorationem domini et passionis eius offerre” passes over into the “sanguinem Christi offerre”, see also Euseb. demonstr. I. 13: μνήμην τῆς θυσίας Χριστοῦ προσφέρειν and τὴν ἔνσαρκον τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίαν καὶ τὸ καταρτισθὲν αὐτοῦ σῶμα προσφέρειν. The other cause has been specially pointed out by Theodore Harnack (l.c., p. 409 f.). In ep. 63. 2 and in many other passages Cyprian expresses the thought “that in the Lord’s Supper nothing else is done by us but what the Lord has first done for us.” But he says that at the institution of the Supper the Lord first offered himself as a sacrifice to God the Father. Consequently the priest officiating in Christ’s stead only presents a true and perfect offering when he imitates what Christ has done (c. 14: “si Christus Jesus dominus et deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos dei patris et sacrificium patri se ipsum obtulit et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem præcepit, utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur et sacrificium verum et plenum tunc offert in ecclesia deo patri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse”). This brings us to the conception of the repetition of Christ’s sacrifice by the priest. But in Cyprian’s case it was still, so to speak, only a notion verging on that idea, that is, he only leads up to it, abstains from formulating it with precision, or drawing any further conclusions from it, and even threatens the idea itself inasmuch as he still appears to conceive the “calicem in commemorationem domini et passionis eius offerre” as identical with it. As far as the East is concerned we find in Origen no trace of the assumption of a repeated sacrifice of Christ. But in the original of the first 6 books of the Apostolic Constitutions this conception is also wanting, although the Supper ceremonial has assumed an exclusively sacerdotal character (see II. 25: αἱ τότε (in the old covenant) θυσίαι, νῦν εὐχαὶ καὶ δεήσεις καὶ ἐυχαριστίαι. II. 53). The passage VI. 23: ἀνρὶ θυσίας τῆς δἰ αἱμάτων τήν λογικὴν καὶ τὴν μυστικήν, ἥτις εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου συμβόλων χάριν ἐπιτελεῖται τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος, does not belong to the original document, but to the interpolator. With the exception therefore of one passage in the Apostolic Church order (printed in my edition of the Didache prolegg. p. 236) viz.: ἡ προσϕορὰ τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος, we possess no proofs that there was any mention in the East before Eusebius’ time of a sacrifice of Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper. From this, however, we must by no means conclude that the mystic feature in the celebration of the sacrifice had been less emphasised there. 278 In ep. 63. 13 Cyprian has illustrated the incorporation of the community with Christ by the mixture of wine and water in the Supper, because the special aim of the epistle required this: “Videmus in aqua populum intellegi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem Christi; quando autem in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur et credentium plebs ei in quem credidit copulatur et iungitur etc.” The special mention of the offerers (see already Tertullian’s works: de corona 3, de exhort. cast. 11, and de monog. 10) therefore means that the latter commend themselves to Christ as his own people, or are recommended to him as such. On the Praxis see Cyprian ep. 1. 2 “. . . si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo nec sacrificium pro dormitione eius celebraretur”; 62. 5: “ut fratres nostros in mente habeatis orationibus vestris et eis vicem boni operis in sacrificiis et precibus repræsentetis, subdidi nomina singulorum.”

93

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

place in men’s conceptions with regard to it (cf. for example, Justin with Cyprian). But, in dealing with the history of dogma within this period, we must clearly keep in view the development of the cultus, the new conceptions of the value of ritual, and the reference of ceremonial usages to apostolic tradition; for there was plainly a remodelling of the ritual in imitation of the ancient mysteries and of the heathen sacrificial system, and this fact is admitted by Protestant scholars of all parties. Ceremonial and doctrine may indeed be at variance, for the latter may lag behind the former and vice versa, but they are never subject to entirely different conditions.

139

140

III. MEANS OF GRACE, BAPTISM, and EUCHARIST. That which the Western Church of post-Augustinian times calls sacrament in the specific sense of the word (means of grace) was only possessed by the Church of the third century in the form of baptism.279 In strict theory she still held that the grace once bestowed in this rite could be conferred by no holy ceremony of equal virtue, that is, by no fresh sacrament. The baptised Christian has no means of grace, conferred by Christ, at his disposal, but has his law to fulfil (see, e.g., Iren. IV. 27. 2). But, as soon as the Church began to absolve mortal sinners, she practically possessed in absolution a real means of grace that was equally effective with baptism from the moment that this remission became unlimited in its application.280 The notions as to this means of grace, however, continued quite uncertain in so far as the thought of God’s absolving the sinner through the priest was qualified by the other theory (see above) which asserted that forgiveness was obtained through the penitential acts of transgressors (especially baptism with blood, and next in importance lamentationes, ieiunia, eleemosynæ). In the third century there were manifold holy dispensations of grace by the hands of priests; but there was still no theory which traced the means of grace to the historical work of Christ in the same way that the grace bestowed in baptism was derived from it. From Cyprian’s epistles and the anti-Novatian sections in the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions we indeed see that appeal was not unfrequently made to the power of forgiving sins bestowed on the Apostles and to Christ’s declaration that he received sinners; but, as the Church had not made up her mind to repeat baptism, so also she had yet no theory that expressly and clearly supplemented this rite by a sacramentum 279

Much as the use of the word “sacramentum” in the Western Church from Tertullian to Augustine (Hahn, Die Lehre von den Sacramenten, 1864, p. 5 ff.) differs from that in the classic Romish use it is of small interest in the history of dogma to trace its various details. In the old Latin Bible μυστήροιν was translated “sacramentum” and thus the new signification “mysterious, holy ordinance or thing” was added to the meaning “oath”, “ sacred obligation”. Accordingly Tertullian already used the word to denote sacred facts, mysterious and salutary signs and vehicles, and also holy acts. Everything in any way connected with the Deity and his revelation, and therefore, for example, the content of revelation as doctrine, is designated “sacrament”; and the word is also applied to the symbolical which is always something mysterious and holy. Alongside of this the old meaning “sacred obligation” still remains in force. If, because of this comprehensive use, further discussion of the word is unnecessary, the fact that revelation itself as well as everything connected with it was expressly designated as a “mystery” is nevertheless of importance in the history of dogma. This usage of the word is indeed not removed from the original one so long as it was merely meant to denote the supernatural origin and supernatural nature of the objects in question; but more than this was now intended; “sacramentum” (μυτήριον) was rather intended to represent the holy thing that was revealed as something relatively concealed. This conception, however, is opposed to the Judæo-Christian idea of revelation, and is thus to be regarded as an introduction of the Greek notion. Probst (Sacramente und Sacramentalia, 1872) thinks differently. That which is mysterious and dark appears to be such an essential attribute of the divine, that even the obscurities of the New Testament Scriptures were now justified because these writings were regarded as altogether “spiritual”. See Iren. II. 28. 1-3. Tert. de bapt. 2: “deus in stultitia et impossibilitate materias operationis suæ instituit.” 280 We have explained above that the Church already possessed this means of grace, in so far as she had occasionally absolved mortal sinners, even at an earlier period; but this possession was quite uncertain and, strictly speaking, was not a possession at all, for in such cases the early Church merely followed extraordinary directions of the Spirit.

94

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

absolutionis. In this respect, as well as in regard to the sacramentum ordinis, first instituted by Augustine, theory remained far behind practice. This was by no means an advantage, for, as a matter of fact, the whole religious ceremonial was already regarded as a system of means of grace. The consciousness of a personal, living connection of the individual with God through Christ had already disappeared, and the hesitation in setting up new means of grace had only the doubtful result of increasing the significance of human acts, such as offerings and satisfactions, to a dangerous extent.

141

Since the middle of the second century the notions of baptism281 in the Church have not essentially altered (see Vol. I. p. 206 ff.). The result of baptism was universally considered to be forgiveness of sins, and this pardon was supposed to effect an actual sinlessness which now required to be maintained.282 We frequently find “deliverance from death”, “regeneration of man”, “restoration to the image of God”, and “obtaining of the Holy Spirit”. (“Absolutio mortes”, “regeneratio hominis”, “restitutio ad similitudinem dei” and “consecutio spiritus sancti”) named along with the “remission of sins” and “obtaining of eternal life” (“remissio delictorum” and “consecutio æternitatis”). Examples are to be found in Tertullian283 adv. Marc. I. 28 and elsewhere; and Cyprian speaks of the “bath of regeneration and sanctification” (“lavacrum regenerationis et sanctificationis”). Moreover, we pretty frequently find rhetorical passages where, on the strength of New Testament texts, all possible blessings are associated with baptism.284 The constant additions to the baptismal ritual, a process which had begun at a very early period, are partly due to the intention of symbolising these supposedly manifold virtues of baptism,285 and partly owe their origin to the endeavour to provide the great mystery with fit accompaniments.286 As yet the separate acts can hardly be proved 281

Höfling, Das Sacrament der Taufe, 2 Vols., 1846. Steitz, Art. “Taufe” in Herzog’s Real Encyklopädie. Walch, Hist. pædobaptismi quattuor priorum sæculorum, 1739. 282 In de bono pudic. 2: “renati ex aqua et pudicitia,” Pseudo-Cyprian expresses idea, which, though remarkable, is not confined to himself. 283 But Tertullian says (de bapt. 6): “Non quod in aquis spiritum sanctum consequamur, sed in aqua emundati sub angelo spiritui sancto præparamur.” 284 The disquisitions of Clement of Alexandria in Pædag. I. 6 (baptism and sonship) are very important, but he did not follow them up. It is deserving of note that the positive effects of baptism were more strongly emphasised in the East than in the West. But, on the other hand, the conception is more uncertain in the former region. 285 See Tertullian, de bapt. 7 ff.; Cypr., ep. 70. 2 (“ungi quoque necesse est eum qui baptizatus est, ut accepto chrismate, i.e., unctione esse unctus dei et habere in se gratiam Christi possit”), 74. 5 etc. “Chrism” is already found in Tertullian as well as the laying on of hands. The Roman Catholic bishop Cornelius in the notorious epistle to Fabius (Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 15), already traces the rites which accompany baptism to an ecclesiastical canon (perhaps one from Hippolytus’ collection; see can. arab. 19). After relating that Novatian in his illness had only received clinical baptism he writes: οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ τῶν λοιπῶν ἔτυχε, διαφυγὼν τὴν νόσον, ὧν χρὴ μεταλαμβάνειν κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας κανόνα, τοῦ τε σφραγισθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου. It is also remarkable that one of the bishops who voted about heretic baptism (Sentent. episcop., Cypr., opp. ed. Hartel I. p. 439) calls the laying on of hands a sacrament like baptism: “neque enim spiritus sine aqua separatim operari potest nec aqua sine spiritu male ergo sibi quidem interpretantur ut dicant, quod per manus impositionem spiritum sanctum accipiant et sic recipiantur, cum manifestum sit utroque sacramento debere eos renasci in ecclesia catholica.” Among other particulars found in Tertullian’s work on baptism (cc. 1. 12 seq.) it may moreover be seen that there were Christians about the year 200, who questioned the indispensability of baptism to salvation (baptismus non est necessarius, quibus fides satis est). The assumption that martyrdom replaces baptism (Tertull., de bapt. 16; Origen), is in itself a sufficient proof that the ideas of the “sacrament” were still uncertain As to the objection that Jesus himself had not baptised and that the Apostles had not received Christian baptism see Tert., de bapt. 11, 12. 286 In itself the performance of this rite seemed too simple to those who sought eagerly for mysteries. See Tertull., de bapt. 2: “Nihil adeo est quod obduret mentes hominum quam simplicitas divinorum operum, quæ in actu videtur, et magnificentia, quæ in effecta repromittitur, ut hinc quoque, quoniam tanta simplicitate, sine pompa, sine apparatu novo aliquo, denique sine sumptu homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus non multo vel nihilo mundior resurgit, eo incredibilis existimetur consecutio

95

History of Dogma - Volume II

142

143

Adolf Harnack

to have an independent signification.287 The water was regarded both as the symbol of the purification of the soul and as an efficacious, holy medium of the Spirit (in accordance with Gen. I. 2; water and Spirit are associated with each other, especially in Cyprian’s epistles on baptism). He who asserted the latter did not thereby repudiate the former (see Orig. in Joann. Tom. VI. 17, Opp. IV. p. 133).288 Complete obscurity prevails as to the Church’s adoption of the practice of child baptism, which, though it owes its origin to the idea of this ceremony being indispensable to salvation, is nevertheless a proof that the superstitious view of baptism had increased.289 In the time of Irenæus (II. 22. 4) and Tertullian (de bapt. 18) child baptism had already become very general and was founded on Matt. XIX. 14. We have no testimony regarding it from earlier times; Clement of Alexandria does not yet assume it. Tertullian argued against it not only because he regarded conscious faith as a needful preliminary condition, but also because he thought it advisable to delay baptism (cunctatio baptismi) on account of the responsibility involved in it (pondus baptismi). He says: “It is more advantageous to delay baptism, especially in the case of little children. For why is it necessary for the sponsors (this is the first mention of “godparents “) also to be thrust into danger? . . . let the little ones therefore come when they are growing up; let them come when they are learning, when they are taught where they are coming to; let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ. Why does an age of innocence hasten to the remission of sins? People will act more cautiously in worldly affairs, so that one who is not trusted with earthly things is trusted with divine. Whoever understands the responsibility of baptism will fear its attainment more than its delay.”290 To all appearance the practice of immediately baptising the children of Christian families was universally adopted in the Church in the course of the third century. (Origen, Comment. in ep. ad Rom. V. 9, Opp. IV. p. 565, declared child baptism to be a custom handed down by the Apostles.) Grown up people, on the other hand, frequently postponed baptism, but this habit was disapproved.291 æternitatis. Mentior, si non e contrario idolorum solemnia vel arcana de suggestu et apparatu deque sumptu fidem at auctoritatem sibi exstruunt.” 287 But see Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 15, who says that only the laying on of hands on the part of the bishop communicates the Holy Spirit, and this ceremony must therefore follow baptism. It is probable that confirmation as a specific act did not become detached from baptism in the West till shortly before the middle of the third century. Perhaps we may assume that the Mithras cult. had an influence here. 288 See Tertullian’s superstitious remarks in de bap. 3-9 to the effect that water is the element of the Holy Spirit and of unclean Spirits etc. Melito also makes a similar statement in the fragment of his treatise on baptism in Pitra, Anal, Sacra II., p. 3 sq. Cyprian, ep. 70. 1, uses the remarkable words: “oportet vero mundari et sanctificari aquam prius a sacerdote (Tertull. still knows nothing of this: c. 17: etiam laicis ius est”), ut possit baptismo suo peccata hominis qui baptizatur abluere.” Ep. 74. 5: “peccata purgare et hominem sanctificare aqua sola non potest, nisi habeat et spiritum sanctum.” Clem. Alex. Protrept. 10. 99: λάβετε ὕδωρ λογικόν. 289 It was easy for Origen to justify child baptism, as he recognised something sinful in corporeal birth itself, and believed in sin which had been committed in a former life. The earliest justification of child baptism may therefore be traced back to a philosophical doctrine. 290 Translator’s note. The following is the original Latin, as quoted by Prof. Harnack: “Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, præcipue circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri . . . veniant ergo parvuli, dum adolescunt; veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniant docentur; fiant Christiani, cum Christum nosse potuerint. Quid festinat innocens ætas ad remissionem peccatorum? Cautius agetur in sæcularibus, ut cui substantia terrena non creditur, divina credatur . . . Si qui pondus intelligant baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem.” 291 Under such circumstances the recollection of the significance of baptism in the establishment of the Church fell more and more into the background (see Hermas: “the Church rests like the world upon water”; Irenæus III. 17. 2: “Sicut de arido tritico massa una non fieri potest sine humore neque unis panis, ita nec nos multi unum fieri in Christo Iesu poteramus sine aqua quæ de cœlo est. Et sicut arida terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat: sic et nos lignum aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam sine superna voluntaria pluvia. Corpora unim nostra per lavacrum illam quæ est ad incorruptionem unitatem

96

History of Dogma - Volume II

144

145

Adolf Harnack

The Lord’s Supper was not only regarded as a sacrifice, but also as a divine gift.292 The effects of this gift were not theoretically fixed, because these were excluded by the strict scheme293 of baptismal grace and baptismal obligation. But in practice Christians more and more assumed a real bestowal of heavenly gifts in the holy food, and gave themselves over to superstitious theories. This bestowal was sometimes regarded as a spiritual and sometimes as a bodily self-communication of Christ, that is, as a miraculous implanting of divine life. Here ethical and physical, and again ethical and theoretical features were intermixed with each other. The utterances of the Fathers to which we have access do not allow us to classify these elements here; for to all appearance not a single one clearly distinguished between spiritual and bodily, or ethical and intellectual effects unless he was in principle a spiritualist. But even a writer of this kind had quite as superstitious an idea of the holy elements as the rest. Thus the holy meal was extolled as the communication of incorruption, as a pledge of resurrection, as a medium of the union of the flesh with the Holy Spirit; and again as food of the soul, as the bearer of the Spirit of Christ (the Logos), as the means of strengthening faith and knowledge, as a sanctifying of the whole personality. The thought of the forgiveness of sins fell quite into the background. This ever changing conception, as it seems to us, of the effects of partaking of the Lord’s Supper had also a parallel in the notions as to the relation between the visible elements and the body of Christ. So far as we are able to judge no one felt that there was a problem here, no one enquired whether this relation was realistic or symbolical. The symbol is the mystery and the mystery was not conceivable without a symbol. What we now-a-days understand by “symbol” is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time “symbol” denoted a thing which, in some kind of way, really is what it signifies; but, on the other hand, according to the ideas of that period, the really heavenly element lay either in or behind the visible form without being identical with it. Accordingly the distinction of a symbolic and realistic conception of the Supper is altogether to be rejected; we could more rightly distinguish between materialistic, dyophysite, and docetic conceptions which, however, are not to be regarded as severally exclusive in the strict sense. In the popular idea the consecrated elements were heavenly fragments of magical virtue (see Cypr., de laps. 25; Euseb., H. E. VI. 44). With these the rank and file of third-century Christians already connected many superstitious notions which the priests tolerated

acceperunt, animæ autem per spiritum”). The unbaptised (catechumens) also belong to the Church, when they commit themselves to her guidance and prayers. Accordingly baptism ceased more and more to be regarded as an act of initiation, and only recovered this character in the course of the succeeding centuries. In this connection the 7th (spurious) canon of Constantinople (381) is instructive: καὶ τὴν πρώτην ἡμέραν ποιοῦμεν αὐτοὺς Χριστιανούς, τὴν δὲ δευτέραν κατηχουμένους, εἶτα τὴν τρίτην ἐξορκίζομεν αὐτοὺς κ.τ.λ. 292 Döllinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistic in dem ersten 3 Jahrhunderten, 1826. Engelhardt in the Zeitschrift für die hist. Theologie, 1842, I. Kahnis, Lehre vom Abendmahl, 1851. Rückert, Das Abendmahl, sein Wesen und seine Geschichte, 1856. Leimbach, Beiträge zur Abendmahlslehre Tertullian’s, 1874. Steitz, Die Abendmahlslehre der griechischen Kirche, in the Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1864-1868; cf. also the works of Probst. Whilst Eucharist and love feast had already been separated from the middle of the 2nd century in the West, they were still united in Alexandria in Clement’s time; see Bigg, l.c., p. 103. 293 The collocation of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which, as the early Christian monuments prove, was a very familiar practice (Tert., adv. Marc. IV. 34: sacramentum baptismi et eucharistiæ; Hippol., can. arab. 38: “baptizatus et corpore Christi pastus”), was, so far as I know, justified by no Church Father on internal grounds. Considering their conception of the holy ordinances this is not surprising. They were classed together because they were instituted by the Lord, and because the elements (water, wine, bread) afforded much common ground for allegorical interpretation.

97

History of Dogma - Volume II

146

Adolf Harnack

or shared.294 The antignostic Fathers acknowledged that the consecrated food consisted of two things, an earthly (the elements) and a heavenly (the real body of Christ). They thus saw in the sacrament a guarantee of the union between spirit and flesh, which the Gnostics denied; and a pledge of the resurrection of the flesh nourished by the blood of the Lord (Justin; Iren. IV. 18. 4, 5; V. 2. 2, 3; likewise Tertullian who is erroneously credited with a “symbolical” doctrine295). Clement and Origen “spiritualise”, because, like Ignatius, they assign a spiritual significance to the flesh and blood of Christ himself (summary of wisdom). To judge from the exceedingly confused passage in Pæd. II. 2, Clement distinguishes a spiritual and a material blood of Christ. Finally, however, he sees in the Eucharist the union of the divine Logos with the human spirit, recognises, like Cyprian at a later period, that the mixture of wine with water in the symbol represents the spiritual process, and lastly does not fail to attribute to the holy food a relationship to the body.296 It is true that Origen, the great mysteriosophist and theologian of sacrifice, expressed himself in plainly “ spiritualistic” fashion; but in his eyes religious mysteries and the whole person of Christ lay in the province of the spirit, and therefore his theory of the Supper is not “symbolical”, but conformable to his doctrine of Christ. Besides, Origen was only able to recognise spiritual aids in the sphere of the intellect and the disposition, and in the assistance given to these by man’s own free and spontaneous efforts. Eating and drinking and, in general, participation in a ceremonial are from Origen’s standpoint completely indifferent matters. The intelligent Christian feeds at all times on the body of Christ, that is, on the Word of God, and thus celebrates a never ending Supper (c. Cels. VIII. 22). Origen, however, was not blind to the fact that his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was just as far removed from the faith of the simple Christian as his doctrinal system generally. Here also, therefore, he accommodated himself to that faith in points where it seemed necessary. This, however, he did not find difficult; for, though with him everything is at bottom “spiritual”, he was unwilling to dispense with symbols and mysteries, because he knew that one must be initiated into the spiritual, since one cannot learn it as one learns the lower sciences.297 But, whether we consider simple believers, the antignostic Fathers or Origen, and, moreover, whether we view the

294

The story related by Dionysius (in Euseb., l.c.) is especially characteristic, as the narrator was an extreme spiritualist. How did it stand therefore with the dry tree? Besides, Tertull. (de corona 3) says: “Calicis aut panis nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxie patimur”. Superstitious reverence for the sacrament ante et extra usum is a very old habit of mind in the Gentile Church. 295 Leimbach’s investigations of Tertullian’s use of words have placed this beyond doubt; see de orat. 6; adv. Marc. I. 14: IV. 40: III. 19; de resurr. 8. 296 The chief passages referring to the Supper in Clement are Protrept. 12. 120; Pæd. I. 6. 43: II. 2. 19 sq.: I. 5. 15: I. 6. 38, 40; Quis div. 23; Strom. V. 10. 66: I. 10. 46: I. 19. 96: VI. 14. 113: V. 11. 70. Clement thinks as little of forgiveness of sins in connection with the Supper as does the author of the Didache or the other Fathers; this feast is rather meant to bestow an initiation into knowledge and immortality. Ignatius had already said, “the body is faith, the blood is hope”. This is also Clement’s opinion; he also knows of a transubstantiation, not, however, into the real body of Christ, but into heavenly powers. His teaching was therefore that of Valentinus (see the Exc. ex. Theod. § 82, already given on Vol. i. p. 263) Strom. V. 11. 70: λογικὸν ἡμῖν βρῶμα ἡ γνῶσις; I. 20. 46: ἕνα δὴ φάγωμεν λογικῶς; V. 10. 66: βρῶσις γὰρ καὶ πόσις τοῦ θείου λόγου ἡ γνῶσις ἐστι τῆς θείας οὐσίας. Adumbrat. in epp. Joh.: “sanguis quod est cognitio”; see Bigg, i.e., p. 106 ff. 297 Orig. in Matth. Comment. ser. 85: “Panis iste, quem deus verbum corpus suum esse fatetur, verbum est nutritorium animarum, verbum de deo verbo procedens et panis de pane cœ’esti . . . Non enim panem illum visibilem, quem tenebat in manibus, corpus suum dicebat deus verbum, sed verbum, in cuius mysterio fuerat panis ille frangendus; nec potum illum visibilem sanguinem suum dicebat, sed verbum in cuius mysterio potus ille fuerat effundendus”; see in Matt. XI. 14; c. Cels. VIII. 33. Hom. XVI. 9 in Num. On Origen’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper see Bigg, p. 219 ff.

98

History of Dogma - Volume II

147

148

Adolf Harnack

Supper as offering or sacrament, we everywhere observe that the holy ordinance had been entirely diverted from its original purpose and pressed into the service of the spirit of antiquity. In no other point perhaps is the hellenisation of the Gospel so evident as in this. To mention only one other example, this is also shown in the practice of child communion, which, though we first hear of it in Cyprian (Testim. III. 25; de laps. 25), can hardly be of later origin than child baptism. Partaking of the Supper seemed quite as indispensable as baptism, and the child had no less claim than the adult to a magical food from heaven.298 In the course of the third century a crass superstition became developed in respect to the conceptions of the Church and the mysteries connected with her. According to this notion we must subject ourselves to the Church and must have ourselves filled with holy consecrations as we are filled with food. But the following chapters will show that this superstition and mystery magic were counterbalanced by a most lively conception of the freedom and responsibility of the individual. Fettered by the bonds of authority and superstition in the sphere of religion, free and self-dependent in the province of morality, this Christianity is characterised by passive submission in the first respect and by complete activity in the second. It may be that exegetical theology can never advance beyond an alternation between these two aspects of the case, and a recognition of their equal claim to consideration; for the religious phenomenon in which they are combined defies any explanation. But religion is in danger of being destroyed when the insufficiency of the understanding is elevated into a convenient principle of theory and life, and when the real mystery of the faith, viz., how one becomes a new man, must accordingly give place to the injunction that we must obediently accept the religious as a consecration, and add to this the zealous endeavour after ascetic virtue. Such, however, has been the character of Catholicism since the third century, and even after Augustine’s time it has still remained the same in its practice.

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTERS II. AND III.

149

CATHOLIC AND ROMAN.299

298

The conception of the Supper as viaticum mortis (fixed by the 13th canon of Nicæa: περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐξοδευόντων ὁ παλαιὸς καὶ κανονικὸς νόμος φυλαχθήσεται καὶ νῦν, ὥστε εἴτις ἐξοδεύοι, τοῦ τελευταίου καὶ ἀναγκαιοτάτου ἐφοδίου μὴ ἀποστερεῖσθαι, a conception which is genuinely Hellenic and which was strengthened by the idea that the Supper was φάρμακον ἀθανασίας), the practice of benediction, and much else in theory and practice connected with the Eucharist reveal the influence of antiquity. See the relative articles in Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. 299 The fullest account of the “history of the Romish Church down to the pontificate of Leo I.” has been given by Langen, 1881; but I can in no respect agree (see Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1891, No. 6) with the hypotheses about the primacy as propounded by him in his treatise on the Clementine romances (1890, see especially p. 163 ff). The collection of passages given by Caspari, “Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols,” Vol. III., deserves special recognition. See also the sections bearing on this subject in Renan “Origines du Christianisme”, Vols. V.-VII., especially VII., chaps. 5, 12, 23. Sohm in his “Kirchenrecht” I. (see especially pp. 164 ff., 350 ff., 377 ff.) has adopted my conception of “Catholic “ and “Roman”, and made it the basis of further investigations. He estimates the importance of the Roman Church still more highly, in so far as, according to him, she was the exclusive originator of Church law as well as of the Catholic form of Church constitution; and on page 381 he flatly says: “The whole Church constitution with its claim to be founded on divine arrangement was first developed in Rome and then transferred from her to the other communities.” I think this is an exaggeration. Tschirn (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, XII. p. 215 ff.) has discussed the origin of the Roman Church in the 2nd century. Much that was the common property of Christendom, or is found in every religion as it becomes older, is regarded by this author as specifically Roman.

99

History of Dogma - Volume II

150

151

Adolf Harnack

IN investigating the development of Christianity up till about the year 270 the following facts must be specially kept in mind: In the regions subject to Rome, apart from the Judæo-Christian districts and passing disturbances, Christianity had yet an undivided history in vital questions;300 the independence of individual congregations and of the provincial groups of Churches was very great; and every advance in the development of the communities at the same time denoted a forward step in their adaptation to the existing conditions of the Empire. The first two facts we have mentioned have their limitations. The further apart the different Churches lay, the more various were the conditions under which they arose and flourished; the looser the relations between the towns in which they had their home the looser also was the connection between them. Still, it is evident that towards the end of the third century the development in the Church had well-nigh attained the same point everywhere — except in outlying communities. Catholicism, essentially as we conceive it now, was what most of the Churches had arrived at. Now it is an a priori probability that this transformation of Christianity, which was simply the adaptation of the Gospel to the then existing Empire, came about under the guidance of the metropolitan Church,301 the Church of Rome; and that “Roman” and “Catholic” had therefore a special relation from the beginning. It might a limine be objected to this proposition that there is no direct testimony in support of it, and that, apart from this consideration, it is also improbable, in so far as, in view of the then existing condition of society, Catholicism appears as the natural and only possible form in which Christianity could be adapted to the world. But this is not the case; for in the first place very strong proofs can be adduced, and besides, as is shown by the development in the second century, very different kinds of secularisation were possible. In fact, if all appearances are not deceptive, the Alexandrian Church, for example, was up to the time of Septimius Severus pursuing a path of development which, left to itself, would not have led to Catholicism, but, in the most favourable circumstances, to a parallel form.302 It can, however, be proved that it was in the Roman Church, which up to about the year 190 was closely connected with that of Asia Minor, that all the elements on which Catholicism is based

300

No doubt we must distinguish two halves in Christendom. The firs the ecclesiastical West, includes the west coast of Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome together with their daughter Churches, that is, above all, Gaul and North Africa. The second or eastern portion embraces Palestine, Egypt, Syria, and the east part of Asia Minor. A displacement gradually arose in the course of the 3rd century. In the West the most important centres are Ephesus, Smyrna, Corinth, and Rome, cities with a Greek and Oriental population. Even in Carthage the original speech of the Christian community was probably Greek. 301 Rome was the first city in the Empire, Alexandria the second. They were the metropolitan cities of the world (see the inscription in Kaibel, No. 1561, p. 407: θρέψε μ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρεια, μέτοικον ἔθαψε δὲ Ῥώμη, αἱ κόσμου καὶ γῆς, ὦ ξένε, μητροπόλεις). This is reflected in the history of the Church; first Rome appears, then Alexandria. The significance of the great towns for the history of dogma and of the Church will be treated of in a future volume. Abercius of Hieropolis, according to the common interpretation (inscription V. 7 f.) designates Rome as “queen”. This was a customary appellation; see Eunap., vita Prohær. p. 90: ἡ βασιλεύουσα Ῥώμη. 302 In this connection we need only keep in mind the following summary of facts. Up to the end of the second century the Alexandrian Church had none of the Catholic and apostolic standards, and none of the corresponding institutions as found in the Roman Church; but her writer, Clement, was also “as little acquainted with the West as Homer”. In the course of the first half of the 3rd century she received those standards and institutions; but her writer, Origen, also travelled to Rome himself in order to see “the very old” church and formed a connection with Hippolytus; and her bishop Dionysius carried on a correspondence with his Roman colleague, who also made common cause with him. Similar particulars may also be ascertained with regard to the Syrian Church.

100

History of Dogma - Volume II

152

Adolf Harnack

first assumed a definite form.303 (1) We know that the Roman Church possessed a precisely formulated baptismal confession, and that as early as the year 180 she declared this to be the apostolic rule by which everything is to be measured. It is, only in her case that we are really certain of this, for we can merely guess at it as regards the Church of Smyrna, that is, of Asia Minor. It was accordingly admitted that the Roman Church was able to distinguish true from false with special exactness;304 and Irenæus and Tertullian appealed to her to decide the practice in Gaul and Africa. This practice, in its precisely developed form, cannot be shown to have existed in Alexandria till a later period; but Origen, who testifies to it, also bears witness to the special reverence for and connection with the Roman Church. (2) The New Testament canon, with its claim to be accounted catholic and apostolic and to possess exclusive authority is first traceable in her; in the other communities it can only be proved to exist at a later period. In the great Antiochian diocese there was, for instance, a Church some of whose members wished the Gospel of Peter read; in the Pentapolis group of congregations the Gospel of the Egyptians was still used in the 3rd century; Syrian Churches of the same epoch used Tatian’s Diatessaron; and the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions still makes no mention of a New Testament canon. Though Clement of Alexandria no doubt testifies that, in consequence of the common history of Christianity, the group of Scriptures read in the Roman congregations was also the same as that employed in public worship at Alexandria, he had as yet no New Testament canon before him in the sense of Irenæus and Tertullian. It was not till Origen’s time that Alexandria reached the stage already attained in Rome about forty years earlier. It must, however, be pointed out that a series of New Testament books, in the form now found in the canon and universally recognised, show marks of revision that can be traced back to the Roman Church.305 Finally, the later investigations, which show that after the third century the Western readings, that is, the Roman text, of the New Testament were adopted in the Oriental MSS. of the Bible,306 are of the utmost value here; for the most natural explanation of these facts is that the Eastern Churches then received their New Testament from Rome and used

153

303

See the proofs in the two preceding chapters. Note also that these elements have an inward connection. So long as one was lacking, all were, and whenever one was present, all the others immediately made their appearance. 304 Ignatius already says that the Roman Christians are ἀποδιυλισμένοι ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀλλοτρίον χρώματος (Rom. inscr.); he uses this expression of no others. Similar remarks are not quite rare at a later period; see, for instance, the oft-repeated eulogy that no heresy ever arose in Rome. At a time when this city had long employed the standard of the apostolic rule of faith with complete confidence, namely, at the beginning of the 3rd century, we bear that a lady of rank in Alexandria, who was at any rate a Christian, lodged and entertained in her house Origen, then a young man, and a famous heretic. (See Euseb., H. E. VI. 2. 13, 14). The lectures on doctrine delivered by this heretic and the conventicles over which he presided were attended by a μυρίον πλῆθος οὐ μόνον αἱρετικῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡμετέρων. That is a very valuable piece of information which shows us a state of things in Alexandria that would have been impossible in Rome at the same period. See, besides, Dionys. Alex. in Euseb., H. E. VII. 7. 305 I must here refrain from proving the last assertion. The possibility of Asia Minor having had a considerable share, or having led the way, in the formation of the canon must be left an open question (cf. what Melito says, and the use made of New Testament writings in the Epistle of Polycarp). We will, however, be constrained to lay the chief emphasis on Rome, for it must not be forgotten that Irenæus had the closest connection with the Church of that city, as is proved by his great work, and that he lived there before he came to Gaul. Moreover, it is a fact deserving of the greatest attention that the Montanists and their decided opponents in Asia, the so-called Alogi, had no ecclesiastical canon before them, though they may all have possessed the universally acknowledged books of the Romish canon, and none other, in the shape of books read in the churches. 306 See the Prolegg. of Westcott and Hort (these indeed give an opposite judgment), and cf. Harris, Codex Bezæ. A study of the so-called Western text of the New Testament, 1891. An exhaustive study of the oldest martyrologies has already led to important cases of agreement between Rome and the East, and promises still further revelations. See Duchesne, “Les Sources du Martyrologe

101

History of Dogma - Volume II

154

Adolf Harnack

it to correct their copies of books read in public worship.307 (3) Rome is the first place which we can prove to have constructed a list of bishops reaching back to the Apostles (see Irenæus).308 We know that in the time of Heliogabalus such lists also existed in other communities; but it cannot be proved that these had already been drawn up by the time of Marcus Aurelius or Commodus, as was certainly the case at Rome. (4) The notion of the apostolic succession of the episcopate309 was first turned to account by the Roman bishops, and they were the first who definitely formulated the political idea of the Church in connection with this. The utterances and corresponding practical measures of Victor,310 Calixtus (Hippolytus), and Stephen are the earliest of their kind; whilst the precision and assurance with which they substituted the political and clerical for the ideal conception of the Church, or amalgamated the two notions, as well as the decided way in which they proclaimed the sovereignty of the bishops, were not surpassed in the third century by Cyprian himself. (5) Rome was the first place, and that at a very early period, to date occurrences according to her bishops; and, even outside that city, churches reckoned, not according to their own, but according to the Roman episcopate.311 (6) The Oriental Churches say that two bishops of Rome compiled the chief apostolic regulations for the organisation of the Church; and this is only partially wrong.312 (7) The three great theologians of the age, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen, opposed the pretensions of the Roman bishop Calixtus; and this very attitude of theirs testified that the advance in the political organisation of the Church, denoted by the measures of Calixtus, was still an unheard-of novelty, but immediately exercised a very important influence on the attitude of other Churches. We know that the other communities imitated this advance in the succeeding decades. (8) The institution of lower orders of clergy with the corresponding distinction of clerici maiores and minores first took place in Rome; but we know that this momentous arrangement gradually

Hieron.” 1885. Egli, “Altchristliche Studien, Martyrien und Martyrologieen ältester Zeit.” 1887; the same writer in the “Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie”. 1891, p. 273 ff. 307 On the relations between Edessa and Rome see the end of the Excursus. 308 See my treatise “Die ältesten christlichen Datirungen und die Anfänge einer bischöflichen Chronographie in Rom.” in the report of the proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 1892, pp. 617-658. I think I have there proved that, in the time of Soter, Rome already possessed a figured list of bishops, in which important events were also entered. 309 That the idea of the apostolic succession of the bishops was first turned to account or appeared in Rome is all the more remarkable, because it was not in that city, but rather in the East, that the monarchical episcopate was first consolidated. (Cf. the Shepherd of Hermas and Ignatius’ Epistles to the Romans with his other Epistles). There must therefore have been a very rapid development of the constitution in the time between Hyginus and Victor. Sohm, l.c., tries to show that the monarchical episcopate arose in Rome immediately after the composition of the First Epistle of Clement, and as a result of it; and that this city was the centre from which it spread throughout Christendom. 310 See Pseudo-Cyprian’s work “de aleat” which, in spite of remarks to the contrary, I am inclined to regard as written by Victor; cf. Texte und Untersuchungen “ V. 1; see c. 1 of this writing: “et quoniam in nobis divina et paterna pietas apostolatus ducatum contulit et vicariam domini sedem cælesti dignatione ordinavit et originem authentici apostolatus, super quem Christus fundavit ecclesiam, in superiore nostro portamus.” 311 See report of the proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 1892, p. 622 ff. To the material found there must be added a remarkable passage given by Nestle (Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1893, p. 437), where the dates are reckoned after Sixtus I. 312 Cf. the 8th book of the Apostolic Constitutions with the articles referring to the regulation of the Church, which in Greek MSS. bear the name of Hippolytus. Compare also the Arabian Canones Hippolyti, edited by Haneberg (1870) and commented on by Achelis (Texte und Untersuchungen VI. 4). Apart from the additions and alterations, which are no doubt very extensive, it is hardly likely that the name of the Roman bishop is wrongly assigned to them. We must further remember the importance assigned by the tradition of the Eastern and Western Churches to one of the earliest Roman “bishops”, Clement, as the confidant and secretary of the Apostles and as the composer and arranger of their laws.

102

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

spread from that city to the rest of Christendom.313 (9) The different Churches communicated with one another through the medium of Rome.314 155

156

From these considerations we can scarcely doubt that the fundamental apostolic institutions and laws of Catholicism were framed in the same city that in other respects imposed its authority on the whole earth; and that it was the centre from which they spread, because the world had become accustomed to receive law and justice from Rome.315 But it may be objected that the parallel development in other provinces and towns was spontaneous, though it everywhere came about at a somewhat later date. Nor do we intend to contest the assumption in this general sense; but, as I think, it can be proved that the Roman community had a direct and important share in the process and that, even in the second century, she was reckoned the first and most influential Church.316 We shall give a bird’s-eye view of the most important facts bearing on the question, in order to prove this. No other community made a more brilliant entrance into Church history than did that of Rome by the so-called First Epistle of Clement — Paul having already testified (Rom. i. 8) that the faith of this Church was spoken of throughout the whole world. That letter to the Corinthians proves that, by the end of the first century, the Roman Church had already drawn up fixed rules for her own guidance, that she watched with motherly care over outlying communities, and that she then knew how to use language that was at once an expression of duty, love, and authority.317 As yet she pretends to no legal title of any kind, but she knows the “commandments and ordinances” (προστάγματα and δοκαιώματα) of God, whereas the conduct of the sister Church evinces her uncertainty on the matter; she is in an orderly condition, whereas the sister community is threatened with dissolution; she adheres to the κανὼν τῆς παραδόσεως, whilst the other body stands in need of exhortation;318 and in these facts her claim to authority consists. The Shepherd of Hermas also proves that even in the circles of the laity the Roman Church is impressed with the consciousness 313

See my proofs in “Texte und Untersuchungen”, Vol. II., Part 5. The canons of the Council of Nicæa presuppose the distinction of higher and lower clergy for the whole Church. 314 We see this from the Easter controversy, but there are proofs of it elsewhere, e.g., in the collection of Cyprian’s epistles. The Roman bishop Cornelius informs Fabius, bishop of Antioch, of the resolutions of the Italian, African, and other Churches (Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 3: ἦλθον εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐπιστολαὶ Κορνηλὶου Ῥωμαίων ἐπισκόπου πρὸς . . . φάβιον, δηλοῦσαι τὰ περὶ τῆς Ῥωμαίων συνόδου, καὶ τὰ δόξαντα πᾶσι τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν καὶ Ἀφρικὴν καὶ τὰς αὐτόθι χώρας. We must not forget, however, that there were also bishops elsewhere who conducted a so-called œcumenical correspondence and enjoyed great influence, as, e.g., Dionysius of Corinth and Dionysius of Alexandria. In matters relating to penance the latter wrote to a great many Churches, even as far as Armenia, and sent many letters to Rome (Euseb., H. E. VI. 46). The Catholic theologian, Dittrich — before the Vatican Decree, no doubt — has spoken of him in the following terms (Dionysius von Alexandrien , 1867, p. 26): “As Dionysius participated in the power, so also he shared in the task of the primateship.” “Along with the Roman bishop he was, above all, called upon to guard the interests of the whole Church.” 315 This conception, as well as the ideas contained in this Excursus generally, is now entirely shared by Weingarten (Zeittafeln 3rd. ed., 1888 pp. 12, 21): “The Catholic Church is essentially the work of those of Rome and Asia Minor. The Alexandrian Church and theology do not completely adapt themselves to it till the 3rd century. The metropolitan community becomes the ideal centre of the Great Church” . . . “The primacy of the Roman Church is essentially the transference to her of Rome’s central position in the religion of the heathen world during the Empire: urbs æterna urbs sacra.” 316 This is also admitted by Langen (l.c., 184 f.), who even declares that this precedence existed from the beginning. 317 Cf. chaps. 59 and 62, but more especially 63. 318 At that time the Roman Church did not confine herself to a letter; she sent ambassadors to Corinth, οἵτινες μάρτυρες ἔσονται μεταξὺ ὑμῶν καὶ ἡμῶν. Note carefully also the position of the Corinthian community with which the Roman one interfered (see on this point Wrede, Untersuchungen zum I Clemensbrief, 1891.)

103

History of Dogma - Volume II

157

158

Adolf Harnack

that she must care for the whole of Christendom. The first testimony of an outsider as to this community is afforded us by Ignatius. Soften as we may all the extravagant expressions in his Epistle to the Romans, it is at least clear that Ignatius conceded to them a precedence in the circle of sister Churches; and that he was well acquainted with the energy and activity displayed by them in aiding and instructing other communities.319 Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to bishop Soter, affords us a glimpse of the vast activity manifested by the Christian Church of the world’s metropolis on behalf of all Christendom and of all brethren far and near; and reveals to us the feelings of filial affection and veneration with which she was regarded in all Greece as well as in Antioch. This author has specially emphasised the fact that the Roman Christians are Romans, that is, are conscious of the particular duties incumbent on them as members of the metropolitan Church.320 After this evidence we cannot wonder that Irenæus expressly assigned to the Church of Rome the highest rank among those founded by the Apostles.321 His famous testimony has been quite as often underas over-estimated. Doubtless his reference to the Roman Church is introduced in such a way that she is merely mentioned by way of example, just as he also adds the allusion to Smyrna and Ephesus; but there is quite as little doubt that this example was no arbitrary selection. The truth rather is that the Roman community must have been named, because its decision was already the most authoritative and impressive in Christendom.322 Whilst giving a formal scheme of proof that assigned the same theoretical value to each Church founded by the Apostles, Irenaeus added a reference to particular circumstance, viz., that in his time many communities turned to Rome in order to testify 319

In Ignatius, Rom. inscr., the verb προκάθημαι is twice used about the Roman Church (προκάθηται ἐν [to be understood in a local sense] τόπῳ χωρίου Ῥρωμαίων — προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης = presiding in, or having the guardianship of, love). Ignatius (Magn. 6), uses the same verb to denote the dignity of the bishop or presbyters in relation to the community. See, besides, the important testimony in Rom. II.: ἄλλους ἐδιδάξατε. Finally, it must be also noted that Ignatius presupposes an extensive influence on the part of individual members of the Church in the higher spheres of government. Fifty years later we have a memorable proof of this in the Marcia-Victor episode. Lastly, Ignatius is convinced that the Church will interfere quite as energetically on behalf of a foreign brother as on behalf of one of her own number. In the Epistle of Clement to James, c. 2, the Roman bishop is called ὁ ἀληθείας προκαθεζόμενος. 320 Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 9-12; cf, above all, the words: Ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑμῖν ἔθος ἐστὶ τοῦτο, πάντας μὲν ἀδελφοὺς ποικίλως εὐεργετεῖν, ἐκκλησίαις τε πολλαῖς ταῖς κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν ἐφόδια πέμπειν . . . πετροπαράδοτον ἔθος Ῥωμαίων Ῥωμαῖοι διαφυλάττοντες. Note here the emphasis laid on Ῥωμαῖοι. 321 According to Irenæus a peculiar significance belongs to the old Jerusalem Church, in so far as all the Christian congregations sprang from her (III. 12. 5: αὗται φωνὰι τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἐξ ἧς πᾶσα ἔσχηκεν ἐκκλησία τὴς ἀρχήν· αὗται φωναὶ τῆς μητροπόλεως τῶν τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης πολιτῶν). For obvious reasons Irenæus did not speak of the Jerusalem Church of his own time. Hence that passage cannot be utilised. 322 Iren. III. 3. 1: “Sed quoniam valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximæ et antiquissimæ et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Paulo et Petro Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ ecclesiæ, eam quam habet ab apostolis traditionem et annuntiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo vel per sibiplacentiam malam vel vanam gloriam vel per cæcitatem et malam sententiam, præterquam oportet, colligunt. Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quæ est ab apostolis traditio.” On this we may remark as follows: (1) The special importance which Irenæus claims for the Roman Church — for he is only referring to her — is not merely based by him on her assumed foundation by Peter and Paul, but on a combination of the four attributes “maxima”, “antiquissima” etc. Dionysius of Corinth also made this assumption (Euseb., II 25. 8), but applied it quite as much to the Corinthian Church. As regards capability of proving the truth of the Church’s faith, all the communities founded by the Apostles possess principalitas in relation to the others; but the Roman Church has the potentior principalitas, in so far as she excels all the rest in her qualities of ecclesia maxima et omnibus cognita etc. Principalitas = “sovereign authority,” αυθεντία, for this was probably the word in the original text (see proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 9th Nov., 1893). In common with most scholars I used to think that the “in qua” refers to “Roman Church”;

104

History of Dogma - Volume II

159

Adolf Harnack

their orthodoxy.323 As soon as we cease to obscure our vision with theories and keep in view the actual circumstances, we have no cause for astonishment. Considering the active intercourse between the various Churches and the metropolis, it was of the utmost importance to all, especially so long as they required financial aid, to be in connection with that of Rome, to receive support from her, to know she would entertain travelling brethren, and to have the power of recommending prisoners and those pining in the mines to her influential intervention. The evidence of Ignatius and Dionysius as well as the Marcia-Victor episode place this beyond doubt (see above). The efforts of Marcion and Valentinus in Rome have also a bearing on this question, and the venerable bishop, Polycarp, did not shrink from the toil of a long journey to secure the valuable fellowship of the Roman Church;324 it was not Anicetus who came to Polycarp, but Polycarp to Anicetus. At the time when the controversy with Gnosticism ensued, the Roman Church showed all the rest an example of resolution; it was naturally to be expected that, as a necessary condition of mutual fellowship, she should require other communities to recognise the law by which she had regulated her own circumstances. No community in the Empire could regard with indifference its relationship to the great Roman Church; almost everyone had connections with her; she contained believers from all the rest. As early as 180 this Church could point to a series of bishops reaching in uninterrupted succession from the glorious apostles Paul and Peter325 down to the present time; and she alone maintained a brief but definitely formulated lex, which she entitled the summary of apostolic tradition, and by reference to which she decided all questions of faith with admirable certainty. Theories were incapable of overcoming the elementary differences that could not but appear as soon as Christianity became naturalised in the various provinces and towns of the Empire. Nor was it theories that created the empiric unity of the Churches, but the unity which the Empire possessed in Rome; the extent and composition of the Græco-Latin community there; the security — and this was not the least powerful element — that accompanied the development of this great society, well provided as it was with wealth and possessed of an influence in high quarters already dating from the first century;326 as well as the care which it displayed on behalf of all Christendom. All these but I have now convinced myself (see the treatise just cited) that it relates to “omnem ecclesiam”, and that the clause introduced by “in qua” merely asserts that every church, in so far as she is faithful to tradition, i.e., orthodox, must as a matter of course agree with that of Rome. (2) Irenæus asserts that every Church, i.e., believers in all parts of the world, must agree with this Church (“convenire” is to be understood in a figurative sense; the literal acceptation “every Church must come to that of Rome” is not admissible). However, this “must” is not meant as an imperative, but = ἀνάγκη = “it cannot be otherwise.” In reference to principalitas = ἀυθεντία (see I. 31. 1: I. 26. 1) it must be remembered that Victor of Rome (l.c.) speaks of the “origo authentici apostolatus”, and Tertullian remarks of Valentinus when he apostatised at Rome, “ab ecclesia authenticæ regulæ abrupit” (adv. Valent. 4). 323 Beyond doubt his “convenire necesse est” is founded on actual circumstances. 324 On other important journeys of Christian men and bishops to Rome in the 2nd and 3rd centuries see Caspari, l.c. Above all we may call attention to the journey of Abercius of Hierapolis (not Hierapolis on the Meander) about 200 or even earlier. Its historical reality is not to be questioned. See his words in the epitaph composed by himself (V. 7 f.): εἰς Ῥώμην ὅς ἔπεμψεν ἐμὲν βασίληαν ἀθρῆσαι καὶ βασίλισσαν ιδεῖν χρυσόστολον χρυσοπέδιλον. However, Ficker raises very serious objections to the Christian origin of the inscription. 325 We cannot here discuss how this tradition arose; in all likelihood it already expresses the position which the Roman Church very speedily attained in Christendom. See Renan, Orig., Vol. VII., p. 70: “Pierre et Paul (réconciliés), voilà le chef-d’œuvre qui fondait la suprématie ecclésiastique de Rome clans l’avenir. Une nouvelle qualité mythique remplaçait celle de Romulus et Remus.” But it is highly probable that Peter was really in Rome like Paul (see 1 Clem. V., Ignatius ad Rom. IV.); both really performed important services to the Church there, and died as martyrs in that city. 326 The wealth of the Roman Church is also illustrated by the present of 200,000 sesterces brought her by Marcion (Tertull., de præsc. 30). The “Shepherd” also contains instructive particulars with regard to this. As far as her influence is concerned, we

105

History of Dogma - Volume II

160

161

Adolf Harnack

causes combined to convert the Christian communities into a real confederation under the primacy of the Roman Church (and subsequently under the leadership of her bishops.). This primacy cannot of course be further defined, for it was merely a de facto one. But, from the nature of the case, it was immediately shaken, when it was claimed as a legal right associated with the person of the Roman bishop. That this theory is more than a hypothesis is shown by several facts which prove the unique authority as well as the interference of the Roman Church (that is, of her bishop). First, in the Montanist controversy — and that too at the stage when it was still almost exclusively confined to Asia Minor — the already sobered adherents of the new prophecy petitioned Rome (bishop Eleutherus) to recognise their Church, and it was at Rome that the Gallic confessors cautiously interfered in their behalf; after which a native of Asia Minor induced the Roman bishop to withdraw the letters of toleration already issued.327 In view of the facts that it was not Roman Montanists who were concerned, that Rome was the place where the Asiatic members of this sect sought for recognition, and that it was in Rome that the Gauls interfered in their behalf, the significance of this proceeding cannot be readily minimised. We cannot of course dogmatise on the matter; but the fact can be proved that the decision of the Roman Church must have settled the position of that sect of enthusiasts in Christendom. Secondly, what is reported to us of Victor, the successor of Eleutherus, is still plainer testimony. He ventured to issue an edict, which we may already style a peremptory one, proclaiming the Roman practice with regard to the regulation of ecclesiastical festivals to be the universal rule in the Church, and declaring that every congregation, that failed to adopt the Roman arrangement,328 was excluded from the union of the one Church on the ground of heresy. How would Victor have ventured on such an edict — though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case — unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the “common unity” (κοινὴ ἕνωσις) in the vital questions of the faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact? How could Victor have addressed such a demand to the independent Churches, if he had not been recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the κοινὴ ἕνωσις?329 Thirdly, it was Victor who formally excluded Theodotus from Church fellowship. This is the first really well-attested case of a Christian taking his stand on the rule of faith being excommunicated because a definite interpretation of it was already insisted on. In this instance the expression ὑιὸς μονογενής (only begotten Son) was required to be understood in the sense of φύσει Θεός (God by nature). It was in Rome that this first took place. Fourthly, under possess various testimonies from Philipp. IV. 22 down to the famous account by Hippolytus of the relations of Victor to Marcia. We may call special attention to Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans. 327 See Tertullian, adv. Prax.1; Euseb., H. E. V. 3, 4. Dictionary of Christian Biography III., p. 937. 328 Euseb., H. E. V. 24. 9: Ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ μὲν τῆς Ῥωμαίων προεστὼς Βίκτωρ ἀθρόως τῆς Ἀσίας πάσης ἅμα ταῖς ὁμόροις ἐκκλησίαις τὰς παροικίας ἀποτόέμνειν ὡσὰν ἑτεροδοξούσας, τῆς κοινῆς ἑνώσεως πειρᾶται, καὶ στηλιτέυει γε διὰ γραμμάτων, ακοινωνέτους πάντας ἄρδην τούς ἐκεῖσε ἀνακηρύττων ἀδελφούς. Stress should be laid on two points here: (1) Victor proclaimed that the people of Asia Minor were to be excluded from the κοινὴ ἕνωσις, and not merely from the fellowship of the Roman Church; (2) he based the excommunication on the alleged heterodoxy of those Churches. See Heinichen, Melet. VIII., on Euseb., l.c. Victor’s action is parallelled by that of Stephen. Firmilian says to the latter: “Dum enim putas, omnes abs te abstineri posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti.” It is a very instructive fact that in the 4th century Rome also made the attempt to have Sabbath fasting established as an apostolic custom. See the interesting work confuted by Augustine (ep. 36), a writing which emanates from a Roman author who is unfortunately unknown to us. Cf. also Augustine’s 54th and 55th epistles. 329 Irenæus also (l.c. § 11) does not appear to have questioned Victor’s proceeding as such, but as applied to this particular case.

106

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

Zephyrinus, Victor’s successor, the Roman ecclesiastics interfered in the Carthaginian veil dispute, making common cause with the local clergy against Tertullian; and both appealed to the authority of predecessors, that is, above all, of the Roman bishops.330 Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, and Cyprian were obliged to resist the pretensions of these ecclesiastics to authority outside their own Church, the first having to contend with Calixtus, and the three others with Stephen.331 162

163

It was the Roman Church that first displayed this activity and care; the Roman bishop sprang from the community in exactly the same way as the corresponding official did in other places.332 In Irenæus’ proof from prescription, however, it is already the Roman bishops that are specially mentioned.333 Praxeas reminded the bishop of Rome of the authority of his predecessors (“auctoritates praecessorum eius”) and it was in the character of bishop that Victor acted. The assumption that Paul and Peter laboured in Rome, that is, founded the Church of that city (Dionysius, Irenæus, 330

See Tertull., de orat. 22: “Sed non putet institutionem unusquisque antecessoris commovendam.” De virg. vel. I: “Paracletus solus antecessor, quia solus post Christum”; 2: “Eas ego acclesias proposui, quas et ipsi apostoli vel apostolici viri condiderunt, et puto ante quosdam”; 3: “Sed nec inter consuetudines dispicere voluerunt illi sanctissimi antecessores”. This is also the question referred to in the important remark in Jerome, de vir. inl. 53: “Tertullianus ad mediam ætatem presbyter fuit ecclesiæ Africanæ, invidia postea et contumeliis clericorum Romanæ ecclesiæ ad Montani dogma delapsus.” 331 Stephen acted like Victor and excluded almost all the East from the fellowship of the Church; see in addition to Cyprian’s epistles that of Dionysius of Alexandria in Euseb., H. E. VII. 5. In reference to Hippolytus, see Philosoph. I. IX. In regard to Origen, see the allusions in de orat. 28 fin.; in Matth. XI. 9, 15: XII. 9-14: XVI. 8, 22: XVII. 14; in Joh. X. 16; Rom. VI in Isai. c. I. With regard to Philosoph. IX. 12, Sohm rightly remarks (p. 389): “It is clear that the responsibility was laid on the Roman bishop not merely in several cases where married men were made presbyters and deacons, but also when they were appointed bishops; and it is also evident that he appears just as responsible when bishops are not deposed in consequence of their marrying. One cannot help concluding that the Roman bishop has the power of appointing and deposing not merely presbyters and deacons, but also bishops. Moreover, the impression is conveyed that this appointment and deposition of bishops takes place in Rome, for the passage contains a description of existent conditions in the Roman Church. Other communities may be deprived of their bishops by an order from Rome, and a bishop (chosen in Rome) may be sent them. The words of the passage are: ἐπὶ Καλλίστου ἤρξαντο ἐπίσκοποι καὶ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ διάκονοι δίγαμοι καὶ τρίγαμοι καθίστασθαι εἰς κλήρους· εἰ δὲ καὶ τις ἐν κλήρῳ ὤν γαμοίη, μένειν τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ ὡς μὴ ἡμαρτηκότα. 332 In the treatise “Die Briefe des römischen Klerus aus der Zeit der Sedisvacanz im Jahre 250” (Abhandlungen für Weizsäcker, 1892), I have shown how the Roman clergy kept the revenue of the Church and of the Churches in their hands, though they had no bishop. What language the Romans used in epistles 8, 30, 36 of the Cyprian collection, and how they interfered in the affairs of the Carthaginian Church! Beyond doubt the Roman Church possessed an acknowledged primacy in the year 250; it was the primacy of active participation and fulfilled duty. As yet there was no recognised dogmatic or historic foundation assigned for it; in fact it is highly probable that this theory was still shaky and uncertain in Rome herself. The college of presbyters and deacons feels and speaks as if it were the bishop. For it was not on the bishop that the incomparable prestige of Rome was based — at least this claim was not yet made with any confidence, — but on the city itself, on the origin and history, the faith and love, the earnestness and zeal of the whole Roman Church and her clergy. 333 In Tertullian, de præsc. 36, the bishops are not mentioned. He also, like Irenæus, cites the Roman Church as one amongst others. We have already remarked that in the scheme of proof from prescription no higher rank could be assigned to the Roman Church than to any other of the group founded by the Apostles. Tertullian continues to maintain this position, but expressly remarks that the Roman Church has special authority for the Carthaginian, because Carthage had received its Christianity from Rome. He expresses the special relationship between Rome and Carthage in the following terms: “Si autem Italiæ adiaces habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas præsto est.” With Tertullian, then, the de facto position of the Roman Church in Christendom did not lead to the same conclusion in the scheme of proof from prescription as we found in Irenæus. But in his case also that position is indicated by the rhetorical ardour with which he speaks of the Roman Church, whereas he does nothing more than mention Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus. Even at that time, moreover, he had ground enough for a more reserved attitude towards Rome, though in the antignostic struggle he could not dispense with the tradition of the Roman community. In the veil dispute (de virg. vel. 2) he opposed the authority of the Greek apostolic Churches to that of Rome. Polycarp had done the same against Anicetus, Polycrates against Victor, Proculus against his Roman opponents. Conversely, Praxeas in his appeal to Eleutherus (c. I.: “præcessorum auctoritates”), Caius when contending with Proculus, the Carthaginian clergy when opposing Tertullian (in the veil dispute), and Victor when contending with Polycrates set the authority of Rome against that of the Greek apostolic

107

History of Dogma - Volume II

164

165

Adolf Harnack

Tertullian, Caius), must have conferred a high degree of prestige on her bishops, as soon as the latter officials were elevated to the position of more or less sovereign lords of the communities and were regarded as successors of the Apostles. The first who acted up to this idea was Calixtus. The sarcastic titles of “pontifex maximus”, “episcopus episcoporum”, “benedictus papa” and “apostolicus”, applied to him by Tertullian in “de pudicitia” I. 13, are so many references to the fact that Calixtus already claimed for himself a position of primacy, in other words, that he associated with his own personal position as bishop the primacy possessed by the Roman Church, which pre-eminence, however, must have been gradually vanishing in proportion to the progress of the Catholic form of organisation among the other communities. Moreover, that is evident from the form of the edict he issued (Tert. 1. c., I: “I hear that an edict has been issued and that a decisive one”, “audio edictum esse præpositum et quidem peremptorium”), from the grounds it assigned and from the opposition to it on the part of Tertullian. From the form, in so far as Calixtus acted here quite independently and, without previous consultation, issued a peremptory edict, that is, one settling the matter and immediately taking effect; from the grounds it assigned, in so far as he appealed in justification of his action to Matt. XVI. 18 ff.334 — the first instance of the kind recorded in history; from Tertullian’s opposition to it, because the latter treats it not as local, Roman, but as pregnant in consequences for all Christendom. But, as soon as the question took the form of enquiring whether the Roman bishop was elevated above the rest, a totally new situation arose. Even in the third century, as already shown, the Roman community, led by its bishops, still showed the rest an example in the process of giving a political constitution to the Church. It can also be proved that even far distant congregations were still being bound to the Roman Church through financial support,335 and that she was appealed to in questions of faith, just as the law of the city of Rome was invoked as the standard in civil questions.336 It is further manifest from Cyprian’s epistles that the Roman Church was regarded as the ecclesia principalis, as the guardian par excellence of the unity of the Church. We may explain from Cyprian’s own particular situation all else that he said Churches. These struggles at the transition from the 2nd to the 3rd century are of the utmost importance. Rome was here seeking to overthrow the authority of the only group of Churches able to enter into rivalry with her those of Asia Minor, and succeeded in the attempt. 334 De pudic. 21: “De tua nunc sententia quæro, unde hoc ius ecclesiæ usurpes. Si quia dixerit Petro dominus: Super hanc petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam, tibi dedi claves regni cælestis, vel, Quæcumque alligaveris vel solveris in terra, erunt alligata vel soluta in cœlis, id circo præsumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et alligandi potestatem?” Stephen did the same; see Firmilian in Cyprian ep. 75. With this should be compared the description Clement of Rome gives in his epistles to James of his own installation by Peter (c. 2). The following words are put in Peter’s mouth: Κλήμεντα τοῦτον ἐπίσκοπον ὑμῖν χειροτονῶ, ᾧ τὴν ἐμὴν τῶν λόγων πιστεύω καθέδραν . . . διὸ αὐτῷ μεταδίδωμι τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ δεσμεύειν καὶ λύειν, ἵνα περὶ παντὸς οὗ ἄν χειροτονήσῃ ἐπὶ γῆς ἔσται δεδογματισμένον ἐν οὐρανοῖς. δήσει γὰρ ὅ δεῖ δεθῆναι καὶ λύσει ὅ δεῖ λυθῆναι, ὡς τὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας εἰδὼς κανόνα. 335 See Dionysius of Alexandria’s letter to the Roman bishop Stephen (Euseb., H. E. VII. 5. 2): Αἱ μέντοι Συρίαι ὅλαι καὶ ἡ Ἀραβία, οἷς ἐπαρκεῖτε ἑκάστοτε καὶ οἷς νῦν ἐπεστείλατε. 336 In the case of Origen’s condemnation the decision of Rome seems to have been of special importance. Origen sought to defend his orthodoxy in a letter written by his own hand to the Roman bishop Fabian (see Euseb., H. E. VI. 36; Jerome, ep. 84. 10). The Roman bishop Pontian had previously condemned him after summoning a “senate”; see Jerome, ep. 33 (Döllinger, Hippolytus and Calixtus, p. 259 f.). Further, it is an important fact that a deputation of Alexandrian Christians, who did not agree with the Christology of their bishop Dionysius, repaired to Rome to the Roman bishop Dionysius and formally accused the first named prelate. It is also significant that Dionysius received this complaint and brought the matter up at a Roman synod. No objection was taken to this proceeding (Athanas., de synod.). This information is very instructive, for it proves that the Roman Church was ever regarded as specially charged with watching over the observance of the conditions of the general ecclesiastical federation,

108

History of Dogma - Volume II

166

167

Adolf Harnack

in praise of the Roman Church (see above p. 88, note 2) and specially of the cathedra Petri; but the general view that she is the “matrix et radix ecclesiæ catholicæ” is not peculiar to him, and the statement that the “unitas sacerdotalis” originated in Rome is merely the modified expression, necessitated by the altered circumstances of the Church, for the acknowledged fact that the Roman community was the most distinguished among the sister groups, and as such had had and still possessed the right and duty of watching over the unity of the whole. Cyprian himself no doubt took a further step at the time of his correspondence with Cornelius, and proclaimed the special reference of Matt. XVI. to the cathedra Petri; but he confined his theory to the abstractions “ecclesia”, “cathedra”. In him the importance of this cathedra oscillates between the significance of a once existent fact that continues to live on as a symbol, and that of a real and permanent court of appeal. Moreover, he did not go the length of declaring that any special authority within the collective Church attached to the temporary occupant of the cathedra Petri. If we remove from Cyprian’s abstractions everything to which he himself thinks there is nothing concrete corresponding, then we must above all eliminate every prerogative of the Roman bishop for the time being. What remains behind is the special position of the Roman Church, which indeed is represented by her bishop. Cyprian can say quite frankly: “owing to her magnitude Rome ought to have precedence over Carthage” (“pro magnitudine sua debet Carthaginem Roma præcedere”) and his theory: “the episcopate is one, and a part of it is held by each bishop for the whole” (“episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur”), virtually excludes any special prerogative belonging to a particular bishop (see also “de unit.” 4). Here we have reached the point that has already been briefly referred to above, viz., that the consolidation of the Churches in the Empire after the Roman pattern could not but endanger the prestige and peculiar position of Rome, and did in fact do so. If we consider that each bishop was the acknowledged sovereign of his own diocese — now Catholic, that all bishops, as such, were recognised to be successors of the Apostles, that, moreover, the attribute of priesthood occupied a prominent position in the conception of the episcopal office, and that the metropolitan unions with their presidents and synods had become completely naturalised — in short, that the rigid episcopal and provincial constitution of the Church had become an accomplished fact, so that, ultimately, it was no longer communities, but merely bishops that had dealings with each other, then we shall see that a new situation was thereby created for Rome, that is, for her bishop. In the West it was perhaps chiefly through the cooperation of Cyprian that Rome found herself face to face with a completely organised Church system. His behaviour in the controversy about heretical baptism proves that in cases of dispute he was resolved to elevate his theory of the sovereign authority of each bishop above his theory of the necessary connection with the cathedra Petri. But, when that levelling of the episcopate came about, Rome had already acquired rights that could no longer be cancelled.337 Besides, there was one thing that could not be taken from the Roman Church, nor therefore from her bishop, even if she were denied the special right to Matt. XVI., viz., the possession of Rome. The site of the world’s metropolis might be shifted, the κοινὴ ἕνωσις. As to the fact that in circular letters, not excepting Eastern ones, the Roman Church was put at the head of the address, see Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. How frequently foreign bishops came to Rome is shown by the 19th canon of Arles (A.D. 314): “De episcopis peregrinis, qui in urbem solent venire, placuit iis locum dari ut offerant.” The first canon is also important in deciding the special position of Rome. 337 Peculiar circumstances, which unfortunately we cannot quite explain, are connected with the cases discussed by Cyprian in epp. 67 and 68. The Roman bishop must have had the acknowledged power of dealing with the bishop of Arles, whereas the Gallic

109

History of Dogma - Volume II

168

Adolf Harnack

but Rome could not be removed. In the long run, however, the shifting of the capital proved advantageous to ecclesiastical Rome. At the beginning of the great epoch when the alienation of East from West became pronounced and permanent, an emperor, from political grounds, decided in favour of that party in Antioch “with whom the bishops in Italy and the city of the Romans held intercourse” (οἷς ἄν οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν καὶ τὴν Ῥωμαίων πόλιν ἐπίσκοποι τοῦ δόγματος επιστέλλοιεν338). In this instance the interest of the Roman Church and the interest of the emperor coincided. But the Churches in the various provinces, being now completely organised and therefore seldom in need of any more help from outside, were henceforth in a position to pursue their own interest. So the bishop of Rome had step by step to fight for the new authority, which, being now based on a purely dogmatic theory and being forced to repudiate any empirical foundation, was inconsistent with the Church system that the Roman community more than any other had helped to build up. The proposition “the Roman Church always had the primacy” (“ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum”) and the statement that “Catholic” virtually means “Roman Catholic” are gross fictions, when devised in honour of the temporary occupant of the Roman see and detached from the significance of the Eternal City in profane history; but, applied to the Church of the

prelates had not this right. Sohm, p. 391 ff., assumes that the Roman bishop alone — not Cyprian or the bishops of Gaul — had authority to exclude the bishop of Arles from the general fellowship of the Church, but that, as far as the Gallic Churches were concerned, such an excommunication possessed no legal effect, but only a moral one, because in their case the bishop of Rome had only a spiritual authority and no legal power. Further, two Spanish bishops publicly appealed to the Roman see against their deposition, and Cyprian regarded this appeal as in itself correct. Finally, Cornelius says of himself in a letter (in Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 10): τῶν λοιπῶν ἐπισκόπων διαδόχους εἰς τοὺς τόπους, ἐν οἷς ἦσαν, χειροτονήσαντες ἀπεστάλκαμεν. This quotation refers to Italy, and the passage, which must be read connectedly, makes it plain (see, besides, the quotation in reference to Calixtus given above on p. 162), that, before the middle of the 3rd century, the Roman Church already possessed a legal right of excommunication and the recognised power of making ecclesiastical appointments as far as the communities and bishops in Italy were concerned (see Sohm, p. 389 ff.). 338 Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. 19. The Church of Antioch sought to enter upon an independent line of development under Paul of Samosata. Paul’s fall was the victory of Rome. We may suppose it to be highly probable, though to the best of my belief there is for the present no sure proof, that it was not till then that the Roman standards and sacraments, catholic and apostolic collection of Scriptures (see, on the contrary, the use of Scripture in the Didaskalia), apostolic rule of faith, and apostolic episcopacy attained supremacy in Antioch; but that they began to be introduced into that city about the time of Serapion’s bishopric (that is, during the Easter controversy). The old records of the Church of Edessa have an important bearing on this point; and from these it is evident that her constitution did not begin to assume a Catholic form till the beginning of the 3rd century, and that as the result of connection with Rome. See the Doctrine of Addai by Phillips, p. 50: “Palut himself went to Antioch and received the hand of the priesthood from Serapion, bishop of Antioch. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, himself also received the hand from Zephyrinus, bishop of the city of Rome, from the succession of the hand of the priesthood of Simon Cephas, which he received from our Lord, who was there bishop of Rome 25 years, (sic) in the days of the Cæsar, who reigned there 13 years.” (See also Tixeront, Édesse, pp. 149, 152.) Cf. with this the prominence given in the Acts of Scharbil and Barsamya to the fact that they were contemporaries of Fabian, bishop of Rome. We read there (see Rubens Duval, Les Actes de Scharbil et les Actes de Barsamya, Paris, 1889, and Histoire d’Édesse, p. 130): “Barsamya (he was bishop of Edessa at the time of Decius) lived at the time of Fabian, bishop of Rome. He had received the laying on of hands from Abschelama, who had received it from Palut. Palut had been consecrated by Serapion, bishop of Antioch, and the latter had been consecrated by Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome.” As regards the relation of the State of Rome to the Roman Church, that is, to the Roman bishop, who by the year 250 had already become a sort of præfectus urbis, with his district superintendents, the deacons, and in fact a sort of princeps æmulus, cf. (1) the recorded comments of Alexander Severus on the Christians, and especially those on their organisation; (2) the edict of Maximinus Thrax and the banishment of the bishops Pontian and Hippolytus; (3) the attitude of Philip the Arabian; (4) the remarks of Decius in Cyp. ep. 55 (see above p. 124) and his proceedings against the Roman bishops, and (5) the attitude of Aurelian in Antioch. On the extent and organisation of the Roman Church about 250 see Euseb., H. E. VI. 43.

110

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

imperial capital, they contain a truth the denial of which is equivalent to renouncing the attempt to explain the process by which the Church was unified and catholicised.339

169

II. FIXING AND GRADUAL HELLENISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS A SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE. CHAPTER IV. ECCLESIASTICAL CHRISTIANITY AND PHILOSOPHY. THE APOLOGISTS. 1. Introduction.340

170

THE object of the Christian Apologists, some of whom filled ecclesiastical offices and in various ways promoted spiritual progress,341 was, as they themselves explained, to uphold the Christianity professed by the Christian Churches and publicly preached. They were convinced that the Christian faith was founded on revelation and that only a mind enlightened by God could grasp and maintain the faith. They acknowledged the Old Testament to be the authoritative source of God’s revelation, maintained that the whole human race was meant to be reached by Christianity, and adhered to the early Christian eschatology. These views as well as the strong emphasis they laid upon human freedom and responsibility, enabled them to attain a firm standpoint in opposition to “Gnosticism”, and to preserve their position within the Christian communities, whose moral purity and strength they regarded as a strong proof of the truth of this faith. In the endeavours of the Apologists to explain Christianity to the cultured world, we have before us the attempts of Greek churchmen to represent the Christian religion as a philosophy, and to convince outsiders that it was the highest wisdom and the absolute truth. These efforts were not rejected by the Churches like those of the so-called Gnostics, but rather became in subsequent times the foundation of the ecclesiastical dogmatic. The Gnostic speculations were repudiated, whereas those of the Apologists were accepted.

339

The memorable words in the lately discovered appeal by Eusebius of Dorylaeum to Leo I. (Neues Archiv., Vol. XI., part 2, p. 364 f.) are no mere flattery, and the fifth century is not the first to which they are applicable: “Curavit desuper et ab exordio consuevit thronus apostolicus iniqua perferentes defensare et eos qui in evitabiles factiones inciderunt, adiuvare et humi iacentes erigere, secundum possibilitatem, quam habetis; causa autem rei, quod sensum rectum tenetis et inconcussam servatis erga dominum nostrum Iesum Christum fidem, nec non etiam indissimulatam universis fratribus et omnibus in nomine Christi vocatis tribuitis caritatem, etc.” See also Theodoret’s letters addressed to Rome. 340 Edition by Otto, 9 Vols., 1876 f. New edition of the Apologists (unfinished; only Tatian and Athenagoras by Schwarz have yet appeared) in the Texte und Untersuchungen zur altchristlichen Litteratur-Geschichte, Vol. IV. Tzschirner, Geschichte der Apologetik, 1st part, 1805; id., Der Fall des Heidenthums, 1829. Ehlers, Vis atque potestas, quam philosophia antiqua, imprimis Platonica et Stoica in doctrina apologetarum habuerit, 1859. 341 It is intrinsically probable that their works directly addressed to the Christian Church gave a more full exposition of their Christianity than we find in the Apologies. This can moreover be proved with certainty from the fragments of Justin’s, Tatian’s and Melito’s esoteric writings. But, whilst recognising this fact, we must not make the erroneous assumption that the fundamental conceptions and interests of Justin and the rest were in reality other than may be inferred from their Apologies.

111

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

The manner in which the latter set forth Christianity as a philosophy met with approval. What were the conditions under which ecclesiastical Christianity and Greek philosophy concluded the alliance which has found a place in the history of the world? How did this union attain acceptance and permanence, whilst “Gnosticism” was at first rejected? These are the two great questions the correct answers to which are of fundamental importance for the understanding of the history of Christian dogma.

171

The answers to these questions appear paradoxical. The theses of the Apologists finally overcame all scruples in ecclesiastical circles and were accepted by the Græco-Roman world, because they made Christianity rational without taking from, or adding to, its traditional historic material. The secret of the epoch-making success of the apologetic theology is thus explained: These Christian philosophers formulated the content of the Gospel in a manner which appealed to the common sense of all the serious thinkers and intelligent men of the age. Moreover, they contrived to use the positive material of tradition, including the life and worship of Christ, in such a way as to furnish this reasonable religion with a confirmation and proof that had hitherto been eagerly sought, but sought in vain. In the theology of the Apologists, Christianity, as the religious enlightenment directly emanating from God himself, is most sharply contrasted with all polytheism, natural religion, and ceremonial. They proclaimed it in the most emphatic manner as the religion of the spirit, of freedom, and of absolute morality. Almost the whole positive material of Christianity is embodied in the story which relates its entrance into the world, its spread, and the proof of its truth. The religion itself, on the other hand, appears as the truth that is surely attested and accords with reason — a truth the content of which is not primarily dependent on historical facts and finally overthrows all polytheism. Now this was the very thing required. In the second century of our era a great many needs and aspirations were undoubtedly making themselves felt in the sphere of religion and morals. “Gnosticism” and Marcionite Christianity prove the variety and depth of the needs then asserting themselves within the space that the ecclesiastical historian is able to survey. Mightier than all others, however, was the longing men felt to free themselves from the burden of the past, to cast away the rubbish of cults and of unmeaning religious ceremonies, and to be assured that the results of religious philosophy, those great and simple doctrines of virtue and immortality and of the God who is a Spirit, were certain truths. He who brought the message that these ideas were realities, and who, on the strength of these realities, declared polytheism and the worship of idols to be obsolete, had the mightiest forces on his side; for the times were now ripe for this preaching. What formed the strength of the apologetic philosophy was the proclamation that Christianity both contained the highest truth, as men already supposed it to be and as they had discovered it in their own minds, and the absolutely reliable guarantee that was desired for this truth. To the quality which makes it appear meagre to us it owed its impressiveness. The fact of its falling in with the general spiritual current of the time and making no attempt to satisfy special and deeper needs enabled it to plead the cause of spiritual monotheism and to oppose the worship of idols in the manner most easily understood. As it did not require historic and positive material to describe the

112

History of Dogma - Volume II

172

173

Adolf Harnack

nature of religion and morality, this philosophy enabled the Apologists to demonstrate the worthlessness of the traditional religion and worship of the different nations.342 The same cause, however, made them take up the conservative position with regard to the historical traditions of Christianity. These were not ultimately tested as to their content, for this was taken for granted, no matter how they might be worded; but they were used to give an assurance of the truth, and to prove that the religion of the spirit was not founded on human opinion, but on divine revelation. The only really important consideration in Christianity is that it is revelation, real revelation. The Apologists had no doubt as to what it reveals, and therefore any investigation was unnecessary. The result of Greek philosophy, the philosophy of Plato and Zeno, as it had further developed in the empires of Alexander the Great and the Romans, was to attain victory and permanence by the aid of Christianity. Thus we view the progress of this development to-day,343 and Christianity really proved to be the force from which that religious philosophy, viewed as a theory of the world and system of morality, first received the courage to free itself from the polytheistic past and descend from the circles of the learned to the common people. This constitutes the deepest distinction between Christian philosophers like Justin and those of the type of Valentinus. The latter sought for a religion; the former, though indeed they were not very clear about their own purpose, sought assurance as to a theistic and moral conception of the world which they already possessed. At first the complexus of Christian tradition, which must have possessed many features of attraction for them, was something foreign to both. The latter, however, sought to make this tradition intelligible,. For the former it was enough that they had here a revelation before them; that this revelation also bore unmistakable testimony to the one God, who was a Spirit, to virtue, and to immortality; and that it was capable of convincing men and of leading them to a virtuous life. Viewed superficially, the Apologists were no doubt the conservatives; but they were so, because they scarcely in any respect meddled with the contents of tradition. The “Gnostics”, on the contrary, sought to understand what they read and to investigate the truth of the message of which they heard. The most characteristic feature is the attitude of each to the Old Testament. The Apologists were content to have found in it an ancient source of revelation, and viewed the book as a testimony to the truth, i.e., to philosophy and virtue; the Gnostics investigated this document and examined to what extent it agreed with the new impressions they had received from the Gospel. We may sum up as follows: The Gnostics sought to determine what Christianity is as a religion, and, as they were convinced of the absoluteness of Christianity, this process led them to incorporate with it all that they looked on as sublime and holy and to remove everything they recognised to be inferior. The Apologists, again, strove to discover an authority for religious enlightenment and morality and to find the confirmation of a theory of the universe, which, if true, contained for them the certainty of eternal life; and this they found in the Christian tradition. At bottom this contrast is a picture of the great discord existing in the religious philosophy of the age itself (see p. 129, vol. I.). No one denied the fact that all truth was divine, that is, was

342

That is, so far as these were clearly connected with polytheism. Where this was not the case or seemed not to be so, national traditions, both the true and the spurious, were readily and joyfully admitted into the catalogus testimoniorum of revealed truth. 343 Though these words were already found in the first edition, Clemen (Justin 1890, p. 56) has misunderstood me so far as to think that I spoke here of conscious intention on the part of the Apologists. Such nonsense of course never occurred to me.

113

History of Dogma - Volume II

174

175

Adolf Harnack

founded on revelation. The great question, however, was whether every man possessed this truth as a slumbering capacity that only required to be awakened; whether it was rational, i.e., merely moral truth, or must be above that which is moral, that is, of a religious nature; whether it must carry man beyond himself; and whether a real redemption was necessary. It is ultimately the dispute between morality and religion, which appears as an unsettled problem in the theses of the idealistic philosophers and in the whole spiritual conceptions then current among the educated, and which recurs in the contrast between the Apologetic and the Gnostic theology. And, as in the former case we meet with the most varied shades and transitions, for no one writer has developed a consistent theory, so also we find a similar state of things in the latter;344 for no Apologist quite left out of sight the idea of redemption (deliverance from the dominion of demons can only be effected by the Logos, i.e., God). Wherever the idea of freedom is strongly emphasised, the religious element, in the strict sense of the word, appears in jeopardy. This is the case with the Apologists throughout. Conversely, wherever redemption forms the central thought, need is felt of a suprarational truth, which no longer views morality as the only aim, and which, again, requires particular media, a sacred history and sacred symbols. Stoic rationalism, in its logical development, is menaced wherever we meet the perception that the course of the world must in some way be helped, and wherever the contrast between reason and sensuousness, that the old Stoa had confused, is clearly felt to be an unendurable state of antagonism that man cannot remove by his own unaided efforts. The need of a revelation had its starting-point in philosophy here. The judgment of oneself and of the world to which Platonism led, the selfconsciousness which it awakened by the detachment of man from nature, and the contrasts which it revealed led of necessity to that frame of mind which manifested itself in the craving for a revelation. The Apologists felt this. But their rationalism gave a strange turn to the satisfaction of that need. It was not their Christian ideas which first involved them in contradictions. At the time when Christianity appeared on the scene, the Platonic and Stoic systems themselves were already so complicated that philosophers did not find their difficulties seriously increased by a consideration of the Christian doctrines. As Apologists, however, they decidedly took the part of Christianity because, according to them, it was the doctrine of reason and freedom. The Gospel was hellenised in the second century in so far as the Gnostics in various ways transformed it into a Hellenic religion for the educated. The Apologists used it — we may almost say inadvertently — to overthrow polytheism by maintaining that Christianity was the realisation of an absolutely moral theism. The Christian religion was not the first to experience this twofold destiny on Græco-Roman soil. A glance at the history of the Jewish religion shows us a parallel development; in fact, both the speculations of the Gnostics and the theories of the Apologists were foreshadowed in the theology of the Jewish Alexandrians, and particularly in that of Philo. Here also the Gospel merely entered upon the heritage of Judaism.345 Three centuries before the appearance of Christian Apologists, Jews, who had received a Hellenic training, had already set forth the religion of Jehovah to the Greeks in that remarkably summary and spiritualised form which represents it as the absolute and highest philosophy, i.e., the knowledge of God, of virtue, and of recompense in

344

Note here particularly the attitude of Tatian, who has already introduced a certain amount of the “Gnostic” element into his; “Oratio ad Græcos”, although, he adheres in the main to the ordinary apologetic doctrines. 345 Since the time of Josephus Greek philosophers had ever more and more acknowledged the “philosophical” character of Judaism; see Porphyr., de abstin. anim. II. 26, about the Jews: ἅτε φιλόσοφοι τὸ γένος ὄντες.

114

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

the next world. Here these Jewish philosophers had already transformed all the positive and historic elements of the national religion into parts of a huge system for proving the truth of that theism. The Christian Apologists adopted this method, for they can hardly be said to have invented it anew.346 We see from the Jewish Sibylline oracles how wide-spread it was. Philo, however, was not only a Stoic rationalist, but a hyper-Platonic religious philosopher. In like manner, the Christian Apologists did not altogether lack this element, though in some isolated cases among them there are hardly any traces of it. This feature is most fully represented among the Gnostics.

176

177

This transformation of religion into a philosophic system would not have been possible had not Greek philosophy itself happened to be in process of development into a religion. Such a transformation was certainly very foreign to the really classical time of Greece and Rome. The pious belief in the efficacy and power of the gods and in their appearances and manifestations, as well as the traditional worship, could have no bond of union with speculations concerning the essence and ultimate cause of things. The idea of a religious dogma which was at once to furnish a correct theory of the world and a principle of conduct was from this standpoint completely unintelligible. But philosophy, particularly in the Stoa, set out in search of this idea, and, after further developments, sought for one special religion with which it could agree or through which it could at least attain certainty. The meagre cults of the Greeks and Romans were unsuited for this. So men turned their eyes towards the barbarians. Nothing more clearly characterises the position of things in the second century than the agreement between two men so radically different as Tatian and Celsus. Tatian emphatically declares that salvation comes from the barbarians, and to Celsus it is also a “truism” that the barbarians have more capacity than the Greeks for discovering valuable doctrines.347 Everything was in fact prepared, and nothing was wanting. About the middle of the second century, however, the moral and rationalistic element in the philosophy and spiritual culture of the time was still more powerful than the religious and mystic; for Neoplatonism, which under its outward coverings concealed the aspiration after religion and the living God, was only in its first beginnings. It was not otherwise in Christian circles. The “Gnostics” were in the minority. What the great majority of the Church felt to be intelligible and edifying above everything else was an earnest moralism.348 New and strange as the undertaking to represent Christianity as a philosophy might seem at first, the Apologists, so far as they were understood, appeared to advance nothing inconsistent with Christian common sense. Besides, they did not question authorities, but rather supported them, and introduced no foreign positive materials.

346

On the relation of Christian literature to the writings of Philo, cf. Siegfried, Philo von Alexandrien, p. 303 f. It is very instructive to find Celsus (Origen, c. Cels. I. 2) proceeding to say that the Greeks understood better how to judge, to investigate, and to perfect the doctrines devised by the barbarians, and to apply them to the practice of virtue. This is quite in accordance with the idea of Origen, who makes the following remarks on this point: “When a man trained in the schools and sciences of the Greeks becomes acquainted with our faith, he will not only recognise and declare it to be true, but also by means of his scientific training and skill reduce it to a system and supplement what seems to him defective in it, when tested by the Greek method of exposition and proof, thus at the same time demonstrating the truth of Christianity. 348 See the section “Justin und die apostolischen Väter” in Engelhardt’s “Christenthum Justin’s des Martyrers”, p. 375 ff., and my article on the so-called 2nd Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte I. p. 329 ff.). Engelhardt, who on the whole emphasises the correspondences, has rather under- than over-estimated them. If the reader compares the exposition given in Book I., chap. 3, with the theology of the Apologists (see sub. 3), he will find proof of the intimate relationship that may be traced here. 347

115

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

For all these reasons, and also because their writings were not at first addressed to the communities, but only to outsiders, the marvellous attempt to present Christianity to the world as the religion which is the true philosophy, and as the philosophy which is the true religion, remained unopposed in the Church. But in what sense was the Christian religion set forth as a philosophy? An exact answer to this question is of the highest interest as regards the history of Christian dogma.

2. Christianity as Philosophy and as Revelation.

178

It was a new undertaking and one of permanent importance to a tradition hitherto so little concerned for its own vindication, when Quadratus and the Athenian philosopher, Aristides, presented treatises in defence of Christianity to the emperor.349 About a century had elapsed since the Gospel of Christ had begun to be preached. It may be said that the Apology of Aristides was a most significant opening to the second century, whilst we find Origen at its close. Marcianus Aristides expressly designates himself in his pamphlet as a philosopher of the Athenians. Since the days when the words were written: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit” (Col. II. 8), it had constantly been repeated (see, as evidence, Celsus, passim) that Christian preaching and philosophy were things entirely different, that God had chosen the fools, and that man’s duty was not to investigate and seek, but to believe and hope. Now a philosopher, as such, pleaded the cause of Christianity. In the summary he gave of the content of Christianity at the beginning of his address, he really spoke as a philosopher and represented this faith as a philosophy. By expounding pure monotheism and giving it the main place in his argument, Aristides gave supreme prominence to the very doctrine which simple Christians also prized as the most important.350 Moreover, in emphasing not only the supernatural character of the Christian doctrine revealed by the Son of the Most High God, but also the continuous inspiration of believers — the new race (not a new school) — he confessed in the most express way the peculiar nature of this philosophy as a divine truth. According to him Christianity is philosophy because its content is in accordance with reason, and because it gives a satisfactory and universally intelligible answer to the questions with which all real philosophers have concerned themselves. But it is no philosophy, in fact it is really the complete opposite of this, in so far as it proceeds from revelation and is propagated by the agency of God, i.e., has a supernatural and divine origin, on which alone the truth and certainty of its doctrines finally depend. This contrast to philosophy is chiefly shown in the unphilosophical form in which Christianity was first preached to the world. That is the thesis maintained by all the Apologists from Justin to Tertullian,351 and which Jewish philosophers before them propounded and defended. This proposition may certainly be expressed in a great variety of ways. In the first place, it is important whether the first or second half is emphasised, and secondly, whether that 349

See Euseb., H. E. IV. 3. Only one sentence of Quadratus’ Apology is preserved; we have now that of Aristides in the Syriac language; moreover, it is proved to have existed in the original language in the Historia Barlaam et Joasaph; finally, a considerable fragment of it is found in Armenian. See an English edition by Harris and Robinson in the Texts and Studies I. 1891. German translation and commentary by Raabe in the Texte und Untersuchungen IX. 1892. Eusebius says that the Apology was handed in to the emperor Hadrian; but the superscription in Syriac is addressed to the emperor Titus Hadrianus Antoninus. 350 See Hermas, Mand I. 351 With reservations this also holds good of the Alexandrians. See particularly Orig., c. Cels. I. 62.

116

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

which is “universally intelligible” is to be reckoned as philosophy at all, or is to be separated from it as that which comes by “nature”. Finally, the attitude to be taken up towards the Greek philosophers is left an open question, so that the thesis, taking up this attitude as a starting-point, may again assume various forms. But was the contradiction which it contains not felt? The content of revelation is to be rational; but does that which is rational require a revelation? How the proposition was understood by the different Apologists requires examination. 179

180

Aristides. He first gives an exposition of monotheism and the monotheistic cosmology (God as creator and mover of the universe, as the spiritual, perfect, almighty Being, whom all things need, and who requires nothing). In the second chapter he distinguishes, according to the Greek text, three, and, according to the Syriac, four classes of men (in the Greek text polytheists, Jews, Christians, the polytheists being divided into Chaldeans, Greeks, and Egyptians; in the Syriac barbarians, Greeks, Jews, Christians), and gives their origin. He derives the Christians from Jesus Christ and reproduces the Christian kerygma (Son of the Most High God, birth from the Virgin, 12 disciples, death on the cross, burial, resurrection, ascension, missionary labours of the 12 disciples). After this, beginning with the third chapter, follows a criticism of polytheism, that is, the false theology of the barbarians, Greeks, and Egyptians (down to chapter 12). In the 13th chapter the Greek authors and philosophers are criticised, and the Greek myths, as such, are shown to be false. In the 14th chapter the Jews are introduced (they are monotheists and their ethical system is praised; but they are then reproached with worshipping of angels and a false ceremonial). In the 15th chapter follows a description of the Christians, i.e., above all, of their pure, holy life. It is they who have found the truth, because they know the creator of heaven and earth. This description is continued in chapters 16 and 17: “This people is new and there is a divine admixture in it.” The Christian writings are recommended to the emperor. Justin.352 In his treatise addressed to the emperor Justin did not call himself a philosopher as Aristides had done. In espousing the cause of the hated and despised Christians he represented himself as a simple member of that sect. But in the very first sentence of his Apology he takes up the ground of piety and philosophy, the very ground taken up by the pious and philosophical emperors themselves, according to the judgment of the time and their own intention. In addressing them he appeals to the λόγος σώϕρων in a purely Stoic fashion. He opposes the truth — also in the Stoic manner — to the δόξαις παλαιῶν.353 It was not to be a mere captatio benevolentiæ. In that case Justin would not have added: “That ye are pious and wise and guardians of righteousness and friends of culture, ye hear everywhere. Whether ye are so, however, will be shown.”354 His whole exordium is calculated to prove to the emperors that they are in danger of repeating a hundredfold the crime which the judges of Socrates had committed.355 Like a second Socrates Justin 352

Semisch, Justin der Märtyrer, 2 vols., 1840 f. Aubé, S. Justin, philosophe et martyr, 2nd reprint, 1875. Weizsäcker, Die Theologie des Märtyrers Justin’s in the Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologie, 1867, p. 60 ff. Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justin’s, 1878; id., “Justin”, in Herzog Real Encyklopädie. Stählin, Justin der Märtyrer , 1880. Clemen, Die religionsphilosophische Bedeutung des stoisch-christlichen Eudämonismus in Justin’s Apologie, 1890. Flemming, zur Beurtheilung des Christenthums Justin’s des Martyrers, 1893. Duncker, Logoslehre Justin’s, 1848. Bosse, Der präexistente Christus des Justinus, 1891. 353 Apol. I. 2, p. 6, ed. Otto. 354 Apol. I. 2, p. 6, sq. 355 See the numerous philosophical quotations and allusions in Justin Apology pointed out by Otto. Above all, he made an extensive use of Plato Apology of Socrates.

117

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

speaks to the emperors in the name of all Christians. They are to hear the convictions of the wisest of the Greeks from the mouth of the Christians. Justin wishes to enlighten the emperor with regard to the life and doctrines (βίος καὶ μαθήματα) of the latter. Nothing is to be concealed, for there is nothing to conceal.

181

Justin kept this promise better than any of his successors. For that very reason also he did not depict the Christian Churches as schools of philosophers (cc. 61-67). Moreover, in the first passage where he speaks of Greek philosophers,356 he is merely drawing a parallel. According to him there are bad Christians and seeming Christians, just as there are philosophers who are only so ‘in name and outward show. Such men, too, were in early times called “philosophers” even when they preached atheism. To all appearance, therefore, Justin does not desire Christians to be reckoned as philosophers. But it is nevertheless significant that, in the case of the Christians, a phenomenon is being repeated which otherwise is only observed in the case of philosophers; and how were those whom he was addressing to understand him? In the same passage he speaks for the first time of Christ. He introduces him with the plain and intelligible formula: ὁ διδάσκαλος Χριστός (“the teacher Christ”).357 Immediately thereafter he praises Socrates because he had exposed the worthlessness and deceit of the evil demons, and traces his death to the same causes which are now he says bringing about the condemnation of the Christians. Now he can make his final assertion. In virtue of “reason” Socrates exposed superstition; in virtue of the same reason, this was done by the teacher whom the Christians follow. But this teacher was reason itself; it was visible in him, and indeed it appeared bodily in him.358 Is this philosophy or is it myth? The greatest paradox the Apologist has to assert is connected by him with the most impressive remembrance possessed by his readers as philosophers. In the same sentence where he represents Christ as the Socrates of the barbarians,359 and consequently makes Christianity out to be a Socratic doctrine, he propounds the unheard of theory that the teacher Christ is the incarnate reason of God. Justin nowhere tried to soften the effect of this conviction or explain it in a way adapted to his readers. Nor did he conceal from them that his assertion admits of no speculative demonstration. That philosophy can only deal with things which ever are, because they ever were, since this world began, is a fact about which he himself is perfectly clear. No Stoic could have felt more strongly than Justin how paradoxical is the assertion that a thing is of value which has happened only once. Certain as he is that the “reasonable” emperors will regard it as a rational assumption that “Reason” is the Son of God,360 he knows equally well that no philosophy will bear him out in that other assertion, and that such a statement is seemingly akin to the contemptible myths of the evil demons.

182

356

Apol. I. 4. p. 16, also I. 7, p. 24 sq: 1. 26. Apol. I. 4, p. 14. 358 Apol. I. 5, p. 18 sq., see also I. 14 fin.: οὐ σοφιστὴς ὑπῆρχεν ἀλλὰ δύναμις Θεοῦ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἦν. 359 L. c.: οὐ γὰρ μόνον ἐν Ἕλλησι διὰ Σωκράτους ὑπὸ λόγου ἡλέγχθη ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν βαρβάροις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου μορφωθέντος καὶ ἀνθρώπου καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κληθέντος. 360 Celsus also admits this, or rather makes his Jew acknowledge it (Orig., c. Cels. II. 31). In Book VI. 47 he adopts the proposition of the “ancients” that the world is the Son of God. 357

118

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

But there is certainly a proof which, if not speculative, is nevertheless sure. The same ancient documents, which contain the Socratic and super-Socratic wisdom of the Christians, bear witness through prophecies, which, just because they are predictions, admit of no doubt, that the teacher Christ is the incarnate reason; for history confirms the word of prophecy even in the minutest details. Moreover, in so far as these writings are in the lawful possession of the Christians, and announced at the very beginning of things that this community would appear on the earth, they testify that the Christians may in a certain fashion date themselves back to the beginning of the world, because their doctrine is as old as the earth itself (this thought is still wanting in Aristides). The new Socrates who appeared among the barbarians is therefore quite different from the Socrates of the Greeks, and for that reason also his followers are not to be compared with the disciples of the philosophers.361 From the very beginning of things a world-historical dispensation of God announced this reasonable doctrine through prophets, and prepared the visible appearance of reason itself. The same reason which created and arranged the world took human form in order to draw the whole of humanity to itself. Every precaution has been taken to make it easy for any one, be he Greek or barbarian, educated or uneducated, to grasp all the doctrines of this reason, to verify their truth, and test their power in life. What further importance can philosophy have side by side with this, how can one think of calling this a philosophy?

183

And yet the doctrine of the Christians can only be compared with philosophy. For, so far as the latter is genuine, it is also guided by the Logos; and, conversely, what the Christians teach concerning the Father of the world, the destiny of man, the nobility of his nature, freedom and virtue, justice and recompense, has also been attested by the wisest of the Greeks. They indeed only stammered, whereas the Christians speak. These, however, use no unintelligible and unheard-of language, but speak with the words and through the power of reason. The wonderful arrangement, carried out by the Logos himself, through which he ennobled the human race by restoring its consciousness of its own nobility, compels no one henceforth to regard the reasonable as the unreasonable or wisdom as folly. But is the Christian wisdom not of divine origin? How can it in that case be natural, and what connection can exist between it and the wisdom of the Greeks? Justin bestowed the closest attention on this question, but he never for a moment doubted what the answer must be. Wherever the reasonable has revealed itself, it has always been through the operation of the divine reason. For man’s lofty endowment consists in his having had a portion of the divine reason implanted within him, and in his consequent capacity of attaining a knowledge of divine things, though not a perfect and clear one, by dint of persistent efforts after truth and virtue. When man remembers his real nature and destination, that is, when he comes to himself, the divine reason is already revealing itself in him and through him. As man’s possession conferred on him at the creation, it is at once his most peculiar property, and the power which dominates and determines his nature.362 361

See Apol. II. 10 fin.: Σωκράτει οὐδεὶς ἐπείσθη ὑπὲρ τούτου τοῦ δόγματος ἀποθνήσκειν· Χριστῷ δὲ τῷ καὶ ὑπὸ Σωκράτους ἀπὸ μέρους γνωσθέντι . . . οὐ φιλόσοφοι οὐδὲ φιλόλογοι μόνον ἐπείσθησαν. 362 The utterances of Justin do not clearly indicate whether the non-Christian portion of mankind has only a σπέρμα τοῦ λόγου as a natural possession, or whether this σπέρμα has in some cases been enhanced by the inward workings of the whole Logos (inspiration). This ambiguity, however, arises from the fact that he did not further discuss the relation between ὁ λόγος and τὸ σπέρμα τοῦ λόγου and we need not therefore attempt to remove it. On the one hand, the excellent discoveries of poets and philosophers are simply traced to τὸ ἔμϕυτον παντὶ γένει ἀνθρώπων σπέρμα τοῦ λόγου (Apol. II. 8), the μέρος σπερματικοῦ

119

History of Dogma - Volume II

184

185

Adolf Harnack

All that is reasonable is based on revelation. In order to accomplish his true destiny man requires from the beginning the inward working of that divine reason which has created the world for the sake of man, and therefore wishes to raise man beyond the world to God.363 Apparently no one could speak in a more stoical fashion. But this train of thought is supplemented by something which limits it. Revelation does retain its peculiar and unique significance. For no one who merely possessed the “seed of the Logos” (σπέρμα τοῦ λόγου), though it may have been his exclusive guide to knowledge and conduct, was ever able to grasp the whole truth and impart it in a convincing manner. Though Socrates and Heraclitus may in a way be called Christians, they cannot be so designated in any real sense. Reason is clogged with unreasonableness, and the certainty of truth is doubtful wherever the whole Logos has not been acting; for man’s natural endowment with reason is too weak to oppose the powers of evil and of sense that work in the world, namely, the demons. We must therefore believe in the prophets in whom the whole Logos spoke. He who does that must also of necessity believe in Christ; for the prophets clearly pointed to him as the perfect embodiment of the Logos. Measured by the fulness, clearness, and certainty of the knowledge imparted by the Logos-Christ, all knowledge independent of him appears as merely human wisdom, even when it emanates from the seed of the Logos. The Stoic argument is consequently untenable. Men blind and kept in bondage by the demons require to be aided by a special revelation. It is true that this revelation is nothing new, and in so far as it has always existed, and never varied in character, from the beginning of the world, it is in this sense nothing extraordinary. It is the divine help granted to man, who has fallen under the power of the demons, and enabling him to follow his reason and freedom to do what is good. By the appearance of Christ this help became accessible to all men. The dominion of demons and revelation are the two correlated ideas. If the former did not exist, the latter would not be necessary. According as we form a lower or higher estimate of the pernicious results of that sovereignty, the value of revelation rises or sinks. This revelation cannot do less than give the necessary assurance of the truth, and it cannot do more than impart the

λόγου (ibid.) which was implanted at the creation, and on which the human εὕρεσις καὶ θεωρία depend (II. 10). In this sense it may be said of them all that they “in human fashion attempted to understand and prove things by means of reason”; and Socrates is merely viewed as the πάντων εὐτονώτερος (ibid.), his philosophy also, like all pre-Christian systems, being a ϕιλοσοϕία ἁνθρώπειος (II. 15). But on the other hand Christ was known by Socrates though only ἀπὸ μέρους; for “Christ was and is the Logos who dwells in every man”. Further, according to the Apologist, the μέρος τοῦ σπερματικοῦ θείου λόγου bestows the power of recognising whatever is related to the Logos (τό συγγενές II. 13). Consequently it may not only be said: ὅσα παρὰ πᾶσι καλῶς είρηται ἡμῶν, τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐστί (ibid.), but, on the strength of the “participation” in reason conferred on all, it may be asserted that all who have lived with the Logos (μετὰ λόγου) — an expression which must have been ambiguous — were Christians. Among the Greeks this specially applies to Socrates and Heraclitus (I. 46). Moreover, the Logos implanted in man does not belong to his nature in such a sense as to prevent us saying ὑπὸ λόγου διὰ Σωκράτους ἡλέγχθη κ.τ.λ. (I. 5). Nevertheless αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος did not act in Socrates, for this only appeared in Christ (ibid). Hence the prevailing aspect of the case in Justin was that to which he gave expression at the close of the 2nd Apology (II. 15: alongside of Christianity there is only human philosophy), and which, not without regard for the opposite view, he thus formulated in II. 13 fin.: All non-Christian authors were able to attain a knowledge of true being, though only darkly, by means of the seed of the Logos naturally implanted within them. For the σπορά and μίμημα of a thing, which are bestowed in proportion to one’s receptivity, are quite different from the thing itself, which divine grace bestows on us for our possession and imitation.” 363 “For the sake of man” (Stoic) Apol. I. 10: II. 4, 5; Dial. 41, p. 260A, Apol I. 8: “Longing for the eternal and pure life, we strive to abide in the fellowship of God, the Father and Creator of all things, and we hasten to make confession, because we are convinced and firmly believe that that happiness is really attainable.” It is frequently asserted that it is the Logos which produces such conviction and awakens courage and strength.

120

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

power that develops and matures the inalienable natural endowment of man and frees him from the dominion of the demons.

186

Accordingly the teaching of the prophets and Christ is related even to the very highest human philosophy as the whole is to the part,364 or as the certain is to the uncertain; and hence also as the permanent is to the transient. For the final stage has now arrived and Christianity is destined to put an end to natural human philosophy. When the perfect work is there; the fragmentary must cease. Justin gave the clearest expression to this conviction. Christianity, i.e., the prophetic teaching attested by Christ and accessible to all, puts an end to the human systems of philosophy that from their close affinity to it may be called Christian, inasmuch as it effects all and more than all that these systems have done, and inasmuch as the speculations of the philosophers, which are uncertain and mingled with error, are transformed by it into dogmas of indubitable certainty.365 The practical conclusion drawn in Justin’s treatise from this exposition is that the Christians are at least entitled to ask the authorities to treat them as philosophers (Apol. I. 7, 20: II. 15). This demand, he says, is the more justifiable because the freedom of philosophers is enjoyed even by such people as merely bear the name, whereas in reality they set forth immoral and pernicious doctrines.366 364

Justin has destroyed the force of this argument in two passages (I. 44. 59) by tracing (like the Alexandrian Jews) all true knowledge of the poets and philosophers to borrowing from the books of the Old Testament (Moses). Of what further use then is the σπέρμα λόγου ἔμϕυτον? Did Justin not really take it seriously? Did he merely wish to suit himself to those whom he was addressing? We are not justified in asserting this. Probably, however, the adoption of that Jewish view of the history of the world is a proof that the results of the demon sovereignty were in Justin’s estimation so serious that he no longer expected anything from the σπέρμα λόγου ἔμϕυτον when left to its own resources; and therefore regarded truth and prophetic revelation as inseparable. But this view is not the essential one in the Apology. That assumption of Justin’s is evidently dependent on a tradition, whilst his real opinion was more “liberal”. 365 Compare with this the following passages: In Apol. I. 20 are enumerated a series of the most important doctrines common to philosophers and Christians. Then follow the words: “If we then in particular respects even teach something similar to the doctrines of the philosophers honoured among you, though in many cases in a divine and more sublime way; and we indeed alone do so in such a way that the matter is proved etc.” In Apol. I. 44: II. 10. 13 uncertainty, error, and contradictions are shown to exist in the case of the greatest philosophers. The Christian doctrines are more sublime than all human philosophy (II. 15). “Our doctrines are evidently more sublime than any human teaching, because the Christ who appeared for our sakes was the whole fulness of reason” (τὸ λογικὸν το ὅλον, II. 10). “The principles of Plato are not foreign (ἀλλότρια) to the teaching of Christ , but they do not agree in every respect. The same holds good of the Stoics” (II. 13). “We must go forth from the school of Plato” (II. 12). “Socrates convinced no one in such a way that he would have been willing to die for the doctrine proclaimed by him; whereas not only philosophers and philologers, but also artisans and quite common uneducated people have believed in Christ” (II. 10). These are the very people — and that is perhaps the strongest contrast found between Logos and Logos in Justin — among whom it is universally said of Christianity: δύναμις ἐστὶ τοῦ ἀρρήτου πατρὸς καὶ οὐχὶ ἀνθρωπείου κόγου κατασκευή (see also I. 14 and elsewhere.) 366 In Justin’s estimate of the Greek philosophers two other points deserve notice. In the first place, he draws a very sharp distinction between real and nominal philosophers. By the latter he specially means the Epicureans. They are no doubt referred to in I. 4, 7, 26 (I. 14: Atheists). Epicurus and Sardanapalus are classed together in II. 7; Epicurus and the immoral poets in II. 12; and in the conclusion of II. 15 the same philosopher is ranked with the worst society. But according to II. 3 fin. (ἀδύνατον Κυνικῷ, αδιάφορον τὸ τέλος προθεμένῳ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι πλὴν αδιαφορίας) the Cynics also seem to be outside the circle of real philosophers. This is composed principally of Socrates, Plato, the Platonists and Stoics, together with Heraclitus and others. Some of these understood one set of doctrines more correctly, others another series. The Stoics excelled in ethics (II. 7); Plato described the Deity and the world more correctly. It is, however, worthy of note — and this is the second point — that Justin in principle conceived the Greek philosophers as a unity, and that he therefore saw in their very deviations from one another a proof of the imperfection of their teaching. In so far as they are all included under the collective idea “human philosophy”, philosophy is characterised by the conflicting opinions found within it. This view was suggested to Justin by the fact that the highest truth, which is at once allied and opposed to human philosophy, was found by him among an exclusive circle of fellow-believers. Justin showed great skill in selecting from the Gospels the passages (I. 15-17), that prove the “philosophical”

121

History of Dogma - Volume II

187

188

Adolf Harnack

In the dialogue with the Jew Trypho, which is likewise meant for heathen readers, Justin ceased to employ the idea of the existence of a “seed of the Logos implanted by nature” (σπέρμα λόγου ἔμφυτον) in every man. From this fact we recognise that he did not consider the notion of fundamental importance. He indeed calls the Christian religion a philosophy;367 but, in so far as this is the case, it is “the only sure and saving philosophy”. No doubt the so-called philosophies put the right questions, but they are incapable of giving correct answers. For the Deity, who embraces all true being, and a knowledge of whom alone makes salvation possible, is only known in proportion as he reveals himself. True wisdom is therefore exclusively based on revelation. Hence it is opposed to every human philosophy, because revelation was only given in the prophets and in Christ.368 The Christian is the philosopher,369 because the followers of Plato and the Stoics are virtually no philosophers. In applying the title “philosophy” to Christianity he therefore does not mean to bring Christians and philosophers more closely together. No doubt, however, he asserts that the Christian doctrine, which is founded on the knowledge of Christ and leads to blessedness,370 is in accordance with reason. Athenagoras. The petition on behalf of Christians, which Athenagoras, “the Christian philosopher of Athens”, presented to the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, nowhere expressly designates Christianity as a philosophy, and still less does it style the Christians philosophers.371 But, at the very beginning of his writing Athenagoras also claims for the Christian doctrines the toleration granted by the state to all philosophic tenets.372 In support of his claim he argues that the state punishes nothing but practical atheism,373 and that the “atheism” of the Christians is a doctrine about God such as had been propounded by the most distinguished philosophers — Pythagoreans, Platonists, Peripatetics, and Stoics — who, moreover, were permitted to write whatsoever they pleased on the subject of the “Deity”.374 The Apologist concedes even more: “If philosophers did not also acknowledge the existence of one God, if they did not also conceive the gods in question to be partly demons, partly matter, partly of human birth, then certainly we would be justly expelled as aliens.”375 He therefore takes up the standpoint that the state is justified in refusing to tolerate life of the Christians as described by him in c. 14. Here he cannot be acquitted of colouring the facts (cf. Aristides) nor of exaggeration (see, for instance, the unqualified statement: ἅ ἔχομεν εἰς κοινὸν φέροντες καὶ παντὶ δεομένῳ κοινωνοῦντες). The philosophical emperors were meant here to think of the “ϕίλοις πάντα κοινά”. Yet in I. 67 Justin corrected exaggerations in his description. Justin’s reference to the invaluable benefits which Christianity confers on the state deserves notice (see particularly I. 12, 17.) The later Apologists make a similar remark. 367 Dialogue 8. The dialogue takes up a more positive attitude than the Apology, both as a whole and in detail. If we consider that both works are also meant for Christians, and that, on the other hand, the Dialogue as well as the Apology appeals to the cultured heathen public, we may perhaps assume that the two writings were meant to present a graduated system of Christian instruction. (In one passage the Dialogue expressly refers to the Apology). From Justin’s time onward the apologetic polemic of the early Church appears to have adhered throughout to the same method. This consisted in giving the polemical writings directed against the Greeks the form of an introduction to Christian knowledge, and in continuing this instruction still further in those directed against the Jews. 368 Dial. 2. sq. That Justin’s Christianity is founded on theoretical scepticism is clearly shown by the introduction to the Dialogue. 369 Dial. 8: οὕτως δὴ καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ϕιλόσοϕος ἐγώ. 370 Dial., l. c.: παρέστιν σοὶ τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντι καὶ τελείῳ γενομένῳ εὐδαιμονεῖν. 371 See particularly the closing chapter. 372 Suppl. 2. 373 Suppl. 4. 374 Suppl. 5-7. 375 Suppl. 24 (see also Aristides c. 13).

122

History of Dogma - Volume II

189

190

Adolf Harnack

people with completely new doctrines. When we add that he everywhere assumes that the wisdom and piety of the emperors are sufficient to test and approve376 the truth of the Christian teaching, that he merely represents this faith itself as the reasonable doctrine,377 and that, with the exception of the resurrection of the body, he leaves all the positive and objectionable tenets of Christianity out of account,378 there is ground for thinking that this Apologist differs essentially from Justin in his conception of the relation of Christianity to secular philosophy. Moreover, it is not to be denied that Athenagoras views the revelation in the prophets and in Christ as completely identical. But in one very essential point he agrees with Justin; and he has even expressed himself still more plainly than the latter, inasmuch as he does not introduce the assumption of a “seed of the Logos implanted by nature” (σπέρμα λόγου ἔμφυτον). The philosophers, he says, were incapable of knowing the full truth, since it was not from God, but rather from themselves, that they wished to learn about God. True wisdom, however, can only be learned from God, that is, from his prophets; it depends solely on revelation.379 Here also then we have a repetition of the thought that the truly reasonable is of supernatural origin. Such is the importance attached by Athenagoras to this proposition, that he declares any demonstration of the “reasonable” to be insufficient, no matter how luminous it may appear. Even that which is most evidently true — e.g., monotheism — is not raised from the domain of mere human opinion into the sphere of undoubted certainty till it can be confirmed by revelation,380 This can be done by Christians alone. Hence they are very different from the philosophers, just as they are also distinguished from these by their manner of life.381 All the praises which Athenagoras from time to time bestows on philosophers, particularly Plato.382 are consequently to be understood in a merely relative sense. Their ultimate object is only to establish the claim made by the Apologist with regard to the treatment of Christians by the state; but they are not really meant to bring the former into closer relationship to philosophers. Athenagoras also holds the theory that Christians are philosophers, in so far as the “philosophers” are not such in any true sense. It is only the problems they set that connect the two. He exhibits less clearness than Justin in tracing the necessity of revelation to the fact that the demon sovereignty, which, above all, reveals itself in polytheism,383 can only be overthrown by revelation; he rather emphasises the other thought (cc. 7, 9) that the necessary attestation of the truth can only be given in this way.384 376

Suppl. 7 fin. and many other places. E.g., Suppl. 8. 35 fin. 378 The Crucified Man, the incarnation of the Logos etc. are wanting. Nothing at all is said about Christ. 379 Suppl. 7. 380 Cf. the arguments in c. 8 with c. 9 init. 381 Suppl. 11. 382 Suppl. 23. 383 Suppl. 18, 23-27. He, however, as well as the others, sets forth the demon theory in detail. 384 The Apology which Miltiades addressed to Marcus Aurelius and his fellow-emperor perhaps bore the title: ὑπὲρ τῆς κατά Χριστιανοὺς φιλοσοφίας (Euseb., H. E. V. 17. 5). It is certain that Melito in his Apology designated Christianity as ἡ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς φιλοσοφία (1. c., IV. 26. 7). But, while it is undeniable that this writer attempted, to a hitherto unexampled extent, to represent Christianity as adapted to the Empire, we must nevertheless beware of laying undue weight on the expression “philosophy”. What Melito means chiefly to emphasise is the fact that Christianity, which in former times had developed into strength among the barbarians, began to flourish in the provinces of the Empire simultaneously with the rise of the monarchy under Augustus, that, as foster-sister of the monarchy, it increased in strength with the latter, and that this mutual relation of the two institutions had given prosperity and splendour to the state. When in the fragments preserved to us he twice, in this connection, calls 377

123

History of Dogma - Volume II

191

Adolf Harnack

Tatian’s385 chief aim was not to bring about a juster treatment of the Christians.386 He wished to represent their cause as the good contrasted with the bad, wisdom as opposed to error, truth in contradistinction to outward seeming, hypocrisy, and pretentious emptiness. His “Address to the Greeks” begins with a violent polemic against all Greek philosophers. Tatian merely acted up to a judgment of philosophers and philosophy which in Justin’s case is still concealed.387 Hence it was not possible for him to think of demonstrating analogies between Christians and philosophers. He also no doubt views Christianity as “reasonable”; he who lives virtuously and follows wisdom receives it;388 but yet it is too sublime to be grasped by earthly perception.389 It is a heavenly thing which depends on the communication of the “Spirit”, and hence can only be known by revelation.390 But yet it is a “philosophy” with definite doctrines (δόγματα);391 it brings nothing new, but only

192

Christianity “philosophy”, we must note that this expression alternates with the other “ὁ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς λόγος”, and that he uses the formula: “Thy forefathers held this philosophy in honour along with the other cults” (πρὸς ταῖς ἄλλαις θρησκείαις). This excludes the assumption that Melito in his Apology merely represented Christianity as philosophy (see also IV. 26. 5, where the Christians are called “τὸ τῶν θεοσεβῶν γένος”). He also wrote a treatise περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ. In it (fragment in the Chron. Pasch.) he called Christ Θεοῦ λόγος πρὸ αἰώνων. 385 See my treatise “Tatian’s Rede an die Griechen übers.”, 1884 (Giessener Programm). Daniel, Tatianus, 1837. Steuer, Die Gottesund Logoslehre des Tatian, 1893. 386 But see Orat. 4 init., 24 fin., 25 fin., 27 init. 387 He not only accentuated the disagreement of philosophers more strongly than Justin, but insisted more energetically than that Apologist on the necessity of viewing the practical fruits of philosophy in life as a criterion; see Orat. 2, 3, 19, 25. Nevertheless Socrates still found grace in his eyes (c. 3). With regard to other philosophers he listened to foolish and slanderous gossip. 388 Orat. 13, 15 fin., 20. Tatian also gave credence to it because it imparts such an intelligible picture of the creation of the world (c. 29). 389 Orat. 12: τὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας παιδείας ἐστὶν ἀνωτέρω τῆς κοσμικῆς καταλήψεως. Tatian troubled himself very little with giving demonstrations. No other Apologist made such bold assertions. 390 See Orat. 12 (p. 54 fin.), 20 (p. 90), 25 fin., 26 fin., 29, 30 (p. 116), 13 (p. 62), 15 (p. 70), 36 (p. 142), 40 (p. 152 sq.). The section cc. 12-15 of the Oratio is very important (see also c. 7 ff.); for it shows that Tatian denied the natural immortality of the soul, declared the soul (the material spirit) to be something inherent in all matter, and accordingly looked on the distinction between men and animals in respect of their inalienable natural constitution as only one of degree. According to this Apologist the dignity of man does not consist in his natural endowments; but in the union of the human soul with the divine spirit, for which union indeed he was planned. But, in Tatian’s opinion, man lost this union by falling under the sovereignty of the demons. The Spirit of God has left him, and consequently he has fallen back to the level of the beasts. So it is man’s task to unite the Spirit again with himself, and thereby recover that religious principle on which all wisdom and knowledge rest. This anthropology is opposed to that of the Stoics and related to the “Gnostic” theory. It follows from it that man, in order to reach his destination, must raise himself above his natural endowment; see c. 15: ἄνθρωπον λέγω τὸν πόρρω μὲν ἀνθρωπότητος πρὸς ἀυτὸν δὲ τὸν Θεὸν κεχωρηκότα. But with Tatian this conception is burdened with radical inconsistency; for he assumes that the Spirit reunites itself with every man who rightly uses his freedom, and he thinks it still possible for every person to use his freedom aright (11 fin., 13 fin., 15 fin.) So it is after all a mere assertion that the natural man is only distinguished from the beast by speech. He is also distinguished from it by freedom. And further it is only in appearance that the blessing bestowed in the “Spirit” is a donum superadditum et supernaturale. For if a proper spontaneous use of freedom infallibly leads to the return of the Spirit, it is evident that the decision and consequently the realisation of man’s destination depend on human freedom. That is, however, the proposition which all the Apologists maintained. But indeed Tatian himself in his latter days seems to have observed the inconsistency in which he had become involved and to have solved the problem in the Gnostic, that is, the religious sense. In his eyes, of course, the ordinary philosophy is a useless and pernicious art; philosophers make their own opinions laws (c. 27); whereas of Christians the following holds good (c. 32): λόγου τοῦ δημοσίου καὶ ἐπιγείου κεχωρισμένοι καὶ παραγγέλμασι καὶ νόμῳ πατρὸς ἀφθαρσίας ἑπόμενοι, πᾶν τὸ ἐν δόξῃ κείμενον ἀνθρωπίνῃ παραιτούμεθα. 391 C. 31. init.: ἡ ἡμετέρα φιλοσοφία. 32 (p. 128): οἱ βουλόμενοι φιλοσοφεῖν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἄνθρωποι. In c. 33 (p. 130) Christian women are designated αἱ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν φιλοσοφοῦσαι. C. 35: ἡ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς βάρβαρος φιλοσσοφία. 40 (p. 152): οἱ κατὰ Μωυσέα καὶ ὁμοίως

124

History of Dogma - Volume II

193

Adolf Harnack

such blessings as we have already received, but could not retain392 owing to the power of error, i.e., the dominion of the demons.393 Christianity is therefore the philosophy in which, by virtue of the Logos revelation through the prophets,394 the rational knowledge that leads to life395 is restored. This knowledge was no less obscured among the Greek philosophers than among the Greeks generally. In so far as revelation took place among the barbarians from the remotest antiquity, Christianity may also be called the barbarian philosophy.396 Its truth is proved by its ancient date397 as well as by its intelligible form, which enables even the most uneducated person that is initiated in it398 to understand it perfectly.399 Finally, Tatian also states (c. 40) that the Greek sophists have read the writings of Moses and the prophets, and reproduced them in a distorted form. He therefore maintains the very opposite of what Celsus took upon him to demonstrate when venturing to derive certain sayings and doctrines of Christ and the Christians from the philosophers. Both credit the plagiarists with intentional misrepresentation or gross misunderstanding. Justin judged more charitably. To Tatian, on the contrary, the mythology of the Greeks did not appear worse than their philosophy; in both cases he saw imitations and intentional corruption of the truth.400

αὐτῷ φιλοσοφοῦντες. 42: ὁ κατὰ βαρβάρους φιλοσοφῶν Τατιανός. The δόγματα of the Christians: c. 1 (p. 2), 12 (p. 58), 19 (p. 86), 24 (p. 102), 27 (p. 108), 35 (p. 138), 40, 42. But Tatian pretty frequently calls Christianity “ἡ ἡμετέρα παιδεία”, once also “νομοθεσία” (12; cf. 40: οἱ ἡμέτεροι νόμοι), and often πολιτεία. 392 See, e.g., c. 29 fin.: the Christian doctrine gives us οὐχ ὅπερ μὴ ἐλάβομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπερ λαβόντες ὑπὸ τῆς πλάνης ἔχειν ἐκωλύθημεν. 393 Tatian gave still stronger expression than Justin to the opinion that it is the demons who have misled men and rule the world, and that revelation through the prophets is opposed to this demon rule; see c. 7 ff. The demons have fixed the laws of death; see c. 15 fin. and elsewhere. 394 Tatian also cannot at bottom distinguish between revelation through the prophets and through Christ. See the description of his conversion in c. 29. where only the Old Testament writings are named, and c. 13 fin., 20 fin., 12 (p. 54) etc. 395 Knowledge and life appear in Tatian most closely connected. See, e.g., c. 13 mit.: “In itself the soul is not immortal, but mortal; it is also possible, however, that it may not die. If it has not attained a knowledge of that truth it dies and is dissolved with the body; but later, at the end of the world, it will rise again with the body in order to receive death in endless duration as a punishment. On the contrary it does not die, though it is dissolved for a time, if it is equipped with the knowledge of God.” 396 Barbarian: the Christian doctrines are τὰ τῶν βαρβάρων δόγματα (c. 1): ῇ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς βάρβαρος φιλοσοφία (c. 35); ἡ εαρβαρικὴ νομοθεσία (c. 12); γραφαὶ βαρβαρικαί (c. 29); καινοτομεῖν τὰ βαρβάρων δόγματα (c. 35); ὁ κατὰ βαρβάρους φιλοσοφῶν Τατιανός (c. 42); Μωυσῆς πάσης βαρβάρου φιλοσοφίας ἀρχηγός (c. 31); see also c. 30, 32. In Tatian’s view barbarians and Greeks are the decisive contrasts in history. 397 See the proof from antiquity, c. 31 ff. 398 C. 30 (p. 114): τούτων οὖν τὴν κατάληψιν μεμυημένος. 399 Tatian’s own confession is very important here (c. 26): “Whilst I was reflecting on what was good it happened that there fell into my hands certain writings of the barbarians, too old to be compared with the doctrines of the Greeks, too divine to be compared with their errors. And it chanced that they convinced me through the plainness of their expressions, through the unartificial nature of their language, through the intelligible representation of the creation of the world, through the prediction of the future, the excellence of their precepts, and the summing up of all kinds under one head. My soul was instructed by God and I recognised that those Greek doctrines lead to perdition, whereas the others abolish the slavery to which we are subjected in the world, and rescue us from our many lords and tyrants, though they do not give us blessings we had not already received, but rather such as we had indeed obtained, but were not able to retain in consequence of error.” Here the whole theology of the Apologists is contained in nuce; see Justin, Dial. 7-8. In Chaps. 32, 33 Tatian strongly emphasises the fact that the Christian philosophy is accessible even to the most uneducated; see Justin, Apol. II. 10; Athenag. 11 etc. 400 The unknown author of the Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας also formed the same judgment as Tatian (Corp. Apolog., T. III., p. 2 sq., ed. Otto; a Syrian translation, greatly amplified, is found in the Cod. Nitr. Mus. Britt. Add. 14658. It was published by Cureton, Spic. Syr., p. 38 sq. with an English translation). Christianity is an incomparable heavenly wisdom, the teacher of which is the Logos himself. “It produces neither poets, nor philosophers, nor rhetoricians; but it makes mortals immortal and men gods, and leads them away upwards from the earth into super-Olympian regions.” Through Christian knowledge the soul returns to its Creator: δεῖ γὰρ ἀποκατασταθῆαι ὅθεν ἀπέστη.

125

History of Dogma - Volume II

194

195

Adolf Harnack

Theophilus agrees with Tatian, in so far as he everywhere appears to contrast Christianity with philosophy. The religious and moral culture of the Greeks is derived from their poets (historians) and philosophers (ad Autol. II. 3 fin. and elsewhere). However, not only do poets and philosophers contradict each other (II. 5); but the latter also do not agree (II. 4. 8: III. 7), nay, many contradict themselves (III. 3). Not a single one of the so-called philosophers, however, is to be taken seriously;401 they have devised myths and follies (II. 8); everything they have set forth is useless and godless (III. 2); vain and worthless fame was their aim (III. 3). But God knew beforehand the “drivellings of these hollow philosophers” and made his preparations (II. 15). He of old proclaimed the truth by the mouth of prophets, and these deposited it in holy writings. This truth refers to the knowledge of God, the origin and history of the world, as well as to a virtuous life. The prophetic testimony in regard to it was continued in the Gospel.402 Revelation, however, is necessary because this wisdom of the philosophers and poets is really demon wisdom, for they were inspired by devils.403 Thus the most extreme contrasts appear to exist here. Still, Theophilus is constrained to confess that truth was not only announced by the Sibyl, to whom his remarks do not apply, for she is (II. 36): ἐν ῞Ελλησιν καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν γενομένη προφῆτις, but that poets and philosophers, “though against their will”, also gave clear utterances regarding the justice, the judgment, and the punishments of God, as well as regarding his providence in respect to the living and the dead, or, in other words, about the most important points (II. 37, 38, 8 fin.). Theophilus gives a double explanation of this fact. On the one hand he ascribes it to the imitation of holy writings (II. 12, 37: I. 14), and on the other he admits that those writers, when the demons abandoned them (τῇ ψυχῇ ἐκνήψαντες ἐξ ἀυτῶν), of themselves displayed a knowledge of the divine sovereignty, the judgment etc., which agrees with the teachings of the prophets (II. 8). This admission need not cause astonishment; for the freedom and control of his own destiny with which man is endowed (II. 27) must infallibly lead him to correct knowledge and obedience to God, as soon as he is no longer under the sway of the demons. Theophilus did not apply the title of philosophy to Christian truth, this title being in his view discredited; but Christianity is to him the “wisdom of God”, which by luminous proofs convinces the men who reflect on their own nature.404 401

Nor is Plato “ὁ δοκῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς σεμνότερον πεφιλοσοφηκέναι” any better than Epicurus and the Stoics (III. 6). Correct views which are found in him in a greater measure than in the others (ὁ δοκῶν Ἑλλήνων σοφώτερος γεγενῆσθαι), did not prevent him from giving way to the stupidest babbling (III. 16). Although he knew that the full truth can only be learned, from God himself through the law (III. 17), he indulged in the most foolish guesses concerning the beginning of history. But where guesses find a place, truth is not to be found (III. 16: εἰ δἰκασμῷ, οὐκ ἄρα ἀληθῆ ἐστὶν τὰ ὑπ̓ αὐτοῦ εἰρημένα). 402 Theophilus confesses (I. 14) exactly as Tatian does: καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἡπίστουν τοῦτο ἔσεσθαι, ἀλλὰ νῦν κατανοήσας αὐτὰ πιστεύω, ἅμα καὶ ἐπιτυχὼν ἱεραῖς γραφαῖς τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν, οἳ καὶ προεῖπον διὰ τνεύματος Θεοῦ τὰ προγεγονότα ᾧ τρόπῳ γέγονεν καὶ τὰ ἐνεστῷτα τίνι τρόπῳ γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἐπερχόμενα ποίᾳ τάξει ἀπαρτισθήσεται. Ἀπόδειξιν οὐν λαβὼν τῶν γινομένων καὶ προαναπεφωνημένων οὐκ απιστῶ; see also II. 8-10, 22, 30, 33-35: III. 10, 11, 17. Theophilus merely looks on the Gospel as a continuation of the prophetic revelations and injunctions. Of Christ, however, he did not speak at all, but only of the Logos (Pneuma), which has operated from the beginning. To Theophilus the first chapters of Genesis already contain the sum of all Christian knowledge (II. 10-32). 403 See II. 8: ὑπὸ δαιμόνων δὲ ἐμπνευσθέντες καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν φυσιωθέντες ἅ εἶπον δι᾽ αὐτῶν εἶπον. 404 The unknown author of the work de resurrectione, which goes under the name of Justin (Corp. Apol., Vol. III.) has given a surprising expression to the thought that it is simply impossible to give a demonstration of truth. (Ὁ μὲν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγος ἐστὶν ἐλεύθερός τε καὶ αὐτεξούσιος, ὑπὸ μηδεμίαν βάσανον ἐλέγχου θέλων πίπτειν μηδὲ τὴν παρὰ τοῖς ἀκούουσι δἰ ἀποδειξεως ἐξέτασιν ὑπομένειν. Τὸ γὰρ εὐγενὲς αὐτοῦ καὶ πεποιθὸς αὐτῷ τῷ πέμψαντι πιστεύεσθαι θέλει). He inveighs in the beginning of his treatise against all rationalism, and on the one hand professes a sort of materialistic theory of knowledge, whilst on the other, for that very reason, he believes in inspiration and the authority of revelation; for all truth originates with revelation, since

126

History of Dogma - Volume II

196

197

Adolf Harnack

Tertullian and Minucius Felix.405 Whilst, in the case of the Greek Apologists, the acknowledgment of revelation appears conditioned by philosophical scepticism on the one hand, and by the strong impression of the dominion of the demons on the other, the sceptical element is not only wanting in the Latin Apologists, but the Christian truth is even placed in direct opposition to the sceptical philosophy and on the side of philosophical dogmatism, i.e., Stoicism.406 Nevertheless the observations of Tertullian and Minucius Felix with regard to the essence of Christianity, viewed as philosophy and as revelation, are at bottom completely identical with the conception of the Greek Apologists, although it is undeniable that in the former case the revealed character of Christianity is placed in the background.407 The recognition of this fact is exceedingly instructive, for it proves that the conception of Christianity set forth by the Apologists was not an individual one, but the necessary expression of the conviction that Christian truth contains the completion and guarantee of philosophical knowledge. To Minucius Felix (and Tertullian) Christian truth chiefly presents itself as the wisdom implanted by nature in every man (Oct. 16. 5). In so far as man possesses reason and speech and accomplishes the task of the “examination of the universe” (“inquisitio universitatis”), conditioned by this gift, he has the Christian truth, that is, he finds Christianity in his own constitution, and in the rational order of the world. Accordingly, Minucius is also able to demonstrate the Christian doctrines by means of the Stoic principle of knowledge, and arrives at the conclusion that Christianity is a philosophy, i.e., the true philosophy, and that philosophers are to be considered Christians in proportion as they have discovered the truth.408 Moreover, as he

God himself and God alone is the truth. Christ revealed this truth and is for us τῶν ὅλων πίστις καὶ ἀπὸδειξις. But it is far from probable that the author would really have carried this proposition to its logical conclusion (Justin, Dial. 3 ff. made a similar start). He wishes to meet his adversaries “armed with the arguments of faith which are unconquered” (c. 1., p. 214), but the arguments of faith are still the arguments of reason. Among these he regarded it as most important that even according to the theories about the world, that is, about God and matter, held by the “so-called sages”, Plato, Epicurus, and the Stoics, the assumption of a resurrection of the flesh is not irrational (c. 6, p. 228 f.). Some of these, viz., Pythagoras and Plato, also acknowledged the immortality of the soul. But, for that very reason, this view is not sufficient, “for if the Redeemer had only brought the message of the (eternal) life of the soul what new thing would he have proclaimed in addition to what had been made known by Pythagoras, Plato, and the band of their adherents?” (c. 10, p. 246) This remark is very instructive, for it shows what considerations led the Apologists to adhere to the belief in the resurrection of the body. Zahn, (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. VIII., pp. 1 f., 20 f.) has lately reassigned to Justin himself the the fragment de resurr. His argument, though displaying great plausibility, has nevertheless not fully convinced me. The question is of great importance for fixing the relation of Justin to Paul. I shall not discuss Hermias’ “Irrisio Gentilium Philosophorum”, as the period when this Christian disputant flourished is quite uncertain. We still possess an early-Church Apology in Pseudo-Melito “Oratio ad Antoninum Cæsarem” (Otto, Corp. Apol. IX., p. 423 sq.). This book is preserved (written?) in the Syrian language and was addressed to Caracalla or Heliogabalus (preserved in the Cod. Nitr. Mus. Britt. Add. 14658). It is probably dependent on Justin, but it is less polished and more violent than his Apology. 405 Massebieau (Revue de l’histoire des religions, 1887, Vol. XV. No. 3) has convinced me that Minucius wrote at a later period than Tertullian and made use of his works. 406 Cf. the plan of the “Octavius”. The champion of heathenism here opposed to the Christian is a philosopher representing the standpoint of the middle Acad. emy. This presupposes, as a matter of course, that the latter undertakes the defence of the Stoical position. See, besides, the corresponding arguments in the Apology of Tertullian, e.g., c. 17, as well as his tractate: “de testimonio animæ naturaliter Christianæ”. We need merely mention that the work of Minucius is throughout dependent on Cicero’s book, “de natura deorum.” In this treatise he takes up a position more nearly akin to heathen syncretism than Tertullian. 407 In R. Kühn’s investigation (“Der Octavius des Min. Felix”, Leipzig, 1882) — the best special work we possess on an early Christian Apology from the point of view of the history of dogma — based on a very careful analysis of the Octavius, more emphasis is laid on the difference than on the agreement between Minucius and the Greek Apologists. The author’s exposition requires to be supplemented in the latter respect (see Theologische Litteratur-Zeitung, 1883, No. 6). 408 C. 20: Exposui opiniones omnium ferme philosophorum . . . , ut quivis arbitretur, aut nunc Christianos philosophos esse aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos.”

127

History of Dogma - Volume II

198

199

Adolf Harnack

represented Christian ethics to be the expression of the Stoic, and depicted the Christian bond of brotherhood as a cosmopolitan union of philosophers, who have become conscious of their natural similarity,409 the revealed character of Christianity appears to be entirely given up. This religion is natural enlightenment, the revelation of a truth contained in the world and in man, the discovery of the one God from the open book of creation. The difference between him and an Apologist like Tatian seems here to be a radical one. But, if we look more closely, we find that Minucius — and not less Tertullian — has abandoned Stoic rationalism in vital points. We may regard his apologetic aim as his excuse for clearly drawing the logical conclusions from these inconsistencies himself. However, these deviations of his from the doctrines of the Stoa are not merely prompted by Christianity, but rather have already become an essential component of his philosophical theory of the world. In the first place, Minucius developed a detailed theory of the pernicious activity of the demons (cc. 26, 27). This was a confession that human nature was not what it ought to be, because an evil element had penetrated it from without. Secondly, he no doubt acknowledged (I. 4: 16. 5) the natural light of wisdom in humanity, but nevertheless remarked (32. 9) that our thoughts are darkness when measured by the clearness of God. Finally, and this is the most essential point, after appealing to various philosophers when expounding his doctrine of the final conflagration of the world, he suddenly repudiated this tribunal, declaring that the Christians follow the prophets, and that philosophers “have formed this shadowy picture of distorted truth in imitation of the divine predictions of the prophets” (34). Here we have now a union of all the elements already found in the Greek Apologists; only they are, as it were, hid in the case of Minucius. But the final proof that he agreed with them in the main is found in the exceedingly contemptuous judgment which he in conclusion passed on all philosophers and indeed on philosophy generally410 (34. 5: 38. 5). This judgment is not to be explained, as in Tertullian’s case, by the fact that his Stoic opinions led him to oppose natural perception to all philosophical theory — for this, at most, cannot have been more than a secondary contributing cause,411 but by the fact that he is conscious of following revealed wisdom.412 Revelation is necessary because mankind must be aided from without, i.e., by God. In this idea man’s need of redemption is acknowledged, though not to the same extent as by Seneca and Epictetus. But no sooner does Minucius perceive the teachings of the prophets to be divine truth than man’s natural endowment and the speculation of philosophers sink for him into darkness. Christianity is the wisdom which philosophers sought, but were not able to find.413 409

See Minucius, 31 ff. A quite similar proceeding is already found in Tertullian, who in his Apologeticum has everywhere given a Stoic colouring to Christian ethics and rules of life, and in c. 39 has drawn a complete veil over the peculiarity of the Christian societies. 410 Tertullian has done exactly the same thing; see Apolog. 46 (and de præscr. 7.) 411 Tertull., de testim. I.: “Sed non eam te (animam) advoco, quæ scholis format, bibliothecis exercitata, academiis et porticibus Atticis pasta sapientiam ructas. Te simplicem et rudem et impolitam et idioticam compello, qualem te habent qui te solam habent . . . Imperitia tua mihi opus est, quoniam aliquantulæ peritiæ tuæ nemo credit.” 412 Tertull., Apol.46: “Quid simile philosophus et Christianus? Græciæ discipulus et cœli?” de præscr. 7: “Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academiæ et ecclesiæ?” Minuc. 38.5: “Philosophorum supercilia contemnimus, quos corruptores et adulteros novimus . . . nos, qui non habitu sapientiam sed mente præferimus, non eloquimur magna sed vivimus, gloriamur nos consecutos, quod illi summa intentione quæsiverunt nec invenire potuerunt. Quid ingrati sumus, quid nobis invidemus, si veritas divinitatis nostri temporis rate maturuit?” 413 Minucius did not enter closely into the significance of Christ any more than Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus; he merely touched upon it (9. 4: 29. 2). He also viewed Christianity as the teaching of the Prophets; whoever acknowledges the latter must of necessity adore the crucified Christ. Tertullian was accordingly the first Apologist after Justin who again considered it necessary

128

History of Dogma - Volume II

200

Adolf Harnack

We may sum up the doctrines of the Apologists as follows: (1) Christianity is revelation, i.e., it is the divine wisdom, proclaimed of old by the prophets and, by reason of its origin, possessing an absolute certainty which can also be recognised in the fulfilment of their predictions. As divine wisdom Christianity is contrasted with, and puts an end to, all natural and philosophical knowledge. (2) Christianity is the enlightenment corresponding to the natural but impaired knowledge of man.414 It embraces all the elements of truth in philosophy, whence it is the philosophy; and helps man to realise the knowledge with which he is naturally endowed. (3) Revelation of the rational was and is necessary, because man has fallen under the sway of the demons. (4) The efforts of philosophers to ascertain the right knowledge were in vain; and this is, above all, shown by the fact that they neither overthrew polytheism nor brought about a really moral life. Moreover, so far as they discovered the truth, they owed it to the prophets from whom they borrowed it; at least it is uncertain whether they even attained a knowledge of fragments of the truth by their own independent efforts.415 But it is certain that many seeming truths in the writings of the philosophers were imitations of the truth by evil demons. This is the origin of all polytheism, which is, moreover, to some extent an imitation of Christian institutions. (5) The confession of Christ is simply included in the acknowledgment of the wisdom of the prophets; the doctrine of the truth did not receive a new content through Christ; he only made it accessible to the world and strengthened it (victory over the demons; special features acknowledged by Justin and Tertullian). (6) The practical test of Christianity is first contained in the fact that all persons are able to grasp it, for women and uneducated men here become veritable sages; secondly in the fact that it has the power of producing a holy life, and of overthrowing the tyranny of the demons. In the Apologists, therefore, Christianity served itself heir to antiquity, i.e., to the result of the monotheistic knowledge and ethics of the Greeks: Ὅσα οὖν παρὰ πᾶσικαλῶς εἴρηται, ἡμῶν τῶν Χριστιανῶν εστί” (Justin, Apol. II. 13). It traced its origin back to the beginning of the world. Everything true and good which elevates mankind springs from divine revelation, and is at the same time genuinely human, because it is a clear expression of what man finds within him and of his destination (Justin, Apol. I. 46: οἱ μετὰ λόγου βιώσαντες Χριστιανοί εἰσι, κἄν ἄθεοι ἐνομίσθησαν, οἷον ἐν Ἕλλησι μὲν Σωκράτης καὶ Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ ὅμοιοι αὐτοῖς, ἐν βαρβάροις δὲ Ἀβραὰμ κ.τ.λ., “those that have lived with reason are Christians, even though they were accounted atheists, such as Socrates and Heraclitus and those similar to them among the Greeks, and Abraham etc. among the barbarians”). But everything true and good is Christian, for Christianity is nothing else than the teaching of revelation. No second formula can be imagined in which the claim of Christianity to be the religion of the world is so

to give a detailed account of Christ as the incarnation of the Logos (see the 21st chapter of the Apology in its relation to chaps. 17-20). 414 Among the Greek Apologists the unknown author of the work “de Monarchial”, which bears the name of Justin, has given clearest expression to this conception. He is therefore most akin to Minucius (see chap. I.). Here monotheism is designated as the καθρολικὴ δόξα which has fallen into oblivion through bad habit; for τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως τὸ κατ᾽ ἀρχὴν συζυγίαν συνέσεως καὶ σωτηρίας λαβούσης εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας θρησκείας τε τῆς εἰς τὸν ἕνα καὶ πάντων δεσπότην. According to this, then, only an awakening is required. 415 But almost all the Apologists acknowledged that heathendom possessed prophets. They recognise these in the Sibyls and the old poets. The author of the work “de Monarchia” expressed the most pronounced views in regard to this. Hermas (Vis. II. 4), however, shows that the Apologists owed this notion also to an idea that was widespread among Christian people.

129

History of Dogma - Volume II

201

202

Adolf Harnack

powerfully expressed (hence also the endeavour of the Apologists to reconcile Christianity and the Empire), nor, on the other hand, can we conceive of one where the specific content of traditional Christianity is so thoroughly neutralised as it is here. But the really epoch-making feature is the fact that the intellectual culture of mankind now appears reconciled and united with religion. The “dogmas” are the expression of this. Finally, these fundamental presuppositions also result in a quite definite idea of the essence of revelation and of the content of reason. The essence of revelation consists in its form: it is divine communication through a miraculous inward working. All the media of revelation are passive organs of the Holy Spirit (Athenag. Supplic. 7; Pseudo-Justin, Cohort. 8; Justin, Dialogue 115. 7; Apol. I. 31, 33, 36; etc.; see also Hippolytus, de Christo et Antichr. 2). These were not necessarily at all times in a state of ecstasy, when they received the revelations; but they were no doubt in a condition of absolute receptivity. The Apologists had no other idea of revelation. What they therefore viewed as the really decisive proof of the reality of revelation is the prediction of the future, for the human mind does not possess this power. It was only in connection with this proof that the Apologists considered it important to show what Moses, David, Isaiah, etc., had proclaimed in the Old Testament, that is, these names have only a chronological significance. This also explains their interest in a history of the world, in so far as this interest originated in the effort to trace the chain of prophets up to the beginning of history, and to prove the higher antiquity of revealed truth as compared with all human knowledge and errors, particularly as found among the Greeks (clear traces in Justin,416 first detailed argument in Tatian).417 If, however, strictly speaking, it is only the form and not the content of revelation that is supernatural in so far as this content coincides with that of reason, it is evident that the Apologists simply took the content of the latter for granted and stated it dogmatically. So, whether they expressed themselves in strictly Stoic fashion or not, they all essentially agree in the assumption that true religion and morality are the natural content of reason. Even Tatian forms no exception, though he himself protests against the idea.

3. The doctrines of Christianity as the revealed and rational religion. The Apologists frequently spoke of the doctrines or “dogmas” of Christianity; and the whole content of this religion as philosophy is included in these dogmas.418 According to what we have 416

See Justin, Apol. I. 31, Dial. 7, p. 30 etc. See Tatian, c. 31 ff. 418 In the New Testament the content of the Christian faith is nowhere designated as dogma. In Clement (I. II.), Hermas, and Polycarp the word is not found at all; yet Clement (I. 20. 4, 27. 5) called the divine order of nature τά δεδογματισμένα ὑπὸ Θεοῦ. In Ignatius (ad Magn. XIII. 1) we read: σπουδάζετε οὖν βεβαιωθῆ̃ναι ἐν τοῖς δόγμασιν τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων, but δόγματα here exclusively mean the rules of life (see Zahn on this passage), and this is also their signification in Διδαχή XI. 3. In the Epistle of Barnabas we read in several passages (I. 6: IX. 7: X. 1, 9 f.) of “dogmas of the Lord”; but by these he means partly particular mysteries, partly divine dispensations. Hence the Apologists are the first to apply the word. to the Christian faith, in accordance with the language of philosophy. They are also the first who employed the ideas θεολογεῖν and θελογία. The latter word is twice found in Justin (Dial. 56) in the sense of “aliquem nominare deum”. In Dial. 113, however, it has the more comprehensive sense of “to make religio-scientific investigations”. Tatian (10) also used the word in the first sense; on the contrary he entitled a book of which he was the author “πρὸς τοὺς ἀποφηναμένους τὰ περὶ Θεοῦ” and not “πρὸς τοὺς θεολογοῦντας”. In Athenagoras (Suppl. 10) theology is the doctrine of God and of all beings to whom the predicate “Deity” 417

130

History of Dogma - Volume II

203

204

Adolf Harnack

already set forth there can be no doubt about the character of Christian dogmas. They are the rational truths, revealed by the prophets in the Holy Scriptures, and summarised in Christ (Χριστὸς λόγος καὶ νόμος), which in their unity represent the divine wisdom, and the recognition of which leads to virtue and eternal life. The Apologists considered it their chief task to set forth these doctrines, and hence they can be reproduced with all desirable clearness. The dogmatic scheme of the Apologists may therefore be divided into three component parts. These are: (A) Christianity viewed as monotheistic cosmology (God as the Father of the world); (B) Christianity as the highest morality and righteousness (God as the judge who rewards goodness and punishes wickedness); (C) Christianity regarded as redemption (God as the Good One who assists man and rescues him from the power of the demons).419 Whilst the first two ideas are expressed in a clear and precise manner, it is equally true that the third is not worked out in a lucid fashion. This, as will afterwards be seen, is, on the one hand, the result of the Apologists’ doctrine of freedom, and, on the other, of their inability to discover a specific significance for the person of Christ within the sphere of revelation. Both facts again are ultimately to be explained from their moralism. The essential content of revealed philosophy is viewed by the Apologists (see A, B) as comprised in three doctrines.420 First, there is one spiritual and inexpressibly exalted God, who is Lord and Father of the world. Secondly, he requires a holy life. Thirdly, he will at last sit in judgment, and will reward the good with immortality and punish the wicked with death. The teaching concerning God, virtue, and eternal reward is traced to the prophets and Christ; but the bringing about of a virtuous life (of righteousness) has been necessarily left by God to men themselves; for God has created man free, and virtue can only be acquired by man’s own efforts. The prophets and Christ are therefore a source of righteousness in so far as they are teachers. But as God, that is, the divine Word (which we need not here discuss) has spoken in them, Christianity is to be defined as the Knowledge of God, mediated by the Deity himself, and as a virtuous walk in the longing after eternal and perfect life with God, as well as in the sure hope of this imperishable reward. By knowing what is true and doing what is good man becomes righteous and a partaker of the highest bliss.

belongs (see also 20, 22). That is the old usage of the word. It was thus employed by Tertullian in ad nat. II. 1 (the threefold division of theology; in II. 2, 3 the expression “theologia physica, mythica” refers to this); Cohort, ad Gr. 3, 22. The anonymous writer in Eusebius (H. E. V. 28. 4, 5) is instructive on the point. Brilliant demonstrations of the ancient use of the word “theology” are found in Natorp, Thema und Disposition der aristotelischen Metaphysik (Philosophische Monatshefte, 1887, Parts 1 and 2, pp. 55-64). The title “theology”, as applied to a philosophic discipline, was first used by the Stoics; the old poets were previously called “theologians”, and the “theological” stage was the prescientific one which is even earlier than the “childhood” of “physicists” (so Aristotle speaks throughout). To the Fathers of the Church also the old poets are still οἱ παγαιοὶ θεολόγοι. But side by side with this we have an adoption of the Stoic view that there is also a philosophical theology, because the teaching of the old poets concerning the gods conceals under the veil of myth a treasure of philosophical truth. In the Stoa arose the “impossible idea of a ‘theology’ which is to be philosophy, that is, knowledge based on reason, and yet to have positive religion as the foundation of its certainty.” The Apologists accepted this, but added to it the distinction of a κοσμικὴ and θεολογικὴ σοφία. 419 Christ has a relation to all three parts of the scheme, (1) as λόγος: (2) as νόμος, νομοθέτης and κριτής; (3) as διδάσκαλος and σωτήρ. 420 In the reproduction of the apologetical theology historians of dogma have preferred to follow Justin; but here they have constantly overlooked the fact that Justin was the most Christian among the Apologists, and that the features of his teaching to which particular value is rightly attached, are either not found in the others at all (with the exception of Tertullian), or else in quite rudimentary form. It is therefore proper to put the doctrines common to all the Apologists in the foreground, and to describe what is peculiar to Justin as such, so far as it agrees with New Testament teachings or contains an anticipation of the future tenor of dogma.

131

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

This knowledge, which has the character of divine instruction,421 rests on faith in the divine revelation. This revelation has the nature and power of redemption in so far as the fact is undoubted that without it men cannot free themselves from the tyranny of the demons, whilst believers in revelation are enabled by the Spirit of God to put them to flight. Accordingly, the dogmas of Christian philosophy theoretically contain the monotheistic cosmology, and practically the rules for a holy life, which appears as a renunciation of the world and as a new order of society.422 The goal is immortal life, which consists in the full knowledge and contemplation of God. The dogmas of revelation lie between the cosmology and ethics; they are indefinitely expressed so far as they contain the idea of salvation; but they are very precisely worded in so far as they guarantee the truth of the cosmology and ethics.

205

I. The dogmas which express the knowledge of God and the world are dominated by the fundamental idea that the world as the created, conditioned, and transient is contrasted with something self-existing, unchangeable and eternal, which is the first cause of the world. This self-existing Being has none of the attributes which belong to the world; hence he is exalted above every name and has in himself no distinctions. This implies, first, the unity and uniqueness of this eternal Being; secondly, his spiritual nature, for everything bodily is subject to change; and, finally, his perfection, for the self-existent and eternal requires nothing. Since, however, he is the cause of all being, himself being unconditioned, he is the fulness of all being or true being itself (Tatian 5: καθὸ πᾶσα δύναμις ὁρατῶν τε καὶ αὀράτων αὐτὸς ὑπόστασις ἦν, σὺν αὐτῲ τὰ πάντα). As the living and spiritual Being he reveals himself in free creations, which make known his omnipotence and wisdom, i.e., his operative reason. These creations are, moreover, a proof of the goodness of the Deity, for they can be no result of necessities, in so far as God is in himself perfect. Just because he is perfect, the Eternal Essence is also the Father of all virtues, in so far as he contains no admixture of what is defective. These virtues include both the goodness which manifests itself in his creations, and the righteousness which gives to the creature what belongs to him, in accordance with the position he has received. On the basis of this train of thought the Apologists lay down the dogmas of the monarchy of God (τῶν ὅλων τὸ μοναρχικόν); his supramundaneness (τὸ ἄρρητον, τὸ ἀνέκφραστον, τὸ ἀχώριτον, τὸ ἀκατάληπτον, τὸ ἀπερινόητον, τὸ ἀσύγκριτον, τὸ ἀσυμβίβαστον, τὸ ἀνεκδιηγητόν; see Justin, Apol, II. 6; Theoph. I. 3); his unity (εἷς Θεός); his having no beginning (ἄναρχος, ὅτι ἀγένητος); his eternity and unchangeableness (ἀναλλοίωτος καθότι ἀθάνατος); his perfection (τέλειος); his need of nothing (ἀπροσδεής); his spiritual nature (πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός); his absolute causality (αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τοῦ παντὸς ἡ ὑπόστασις, the motionless mover, see Aristides c. 1); his creative activity (κτίστης τῶν πάντων); his sovereignty (δεσπότης τῶν ὅλων); his fatherhood (πατὴρ διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρὸ τῶν ὅλων) his reason-power (God as λόγος, νοῦς, πνεῦμα, σοφία); his omnipotence (παντοκράτωρ ὅτι αὐτὸς τὰ πάντα κρατεῖ καὶ ἐμπεριέχει); his righteousness and goodness (πατὴρ τῆς δικαιοσύνης καὶ πασῶν τῶν ἀρετῶν χρηστότης). These dogmas are set 421

Cicero’s proposition (de nat. deor. II. 66. 167): “nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino unquam fuit,” which was the property of all the idealistic philosophers of the age, is found in the Apologists reproduced in the most various forms (see, e.g., Tatian 29). That all knowledge of the truth, both among the prophets and those who follow their teaching, is derived from inspiration was in their eyes a matter of certainty. But here they were only able to frame a theory in the case of the prophets; for such a theory strictly applied to all would have threatened the spontaneous character of the knowledge of the truth. 422 Justin, Apol. I. 3: Ἡμέτερον οὖν ἔργον καὶ βίου καὶ μαθημάτων τὴν ἐπίσκεψιν πᾶσι παρέχειν.

132

History of Dogma - Volume II

206

207

Adolf Harnack

forth by one Apologist in a more detailed, and by another in a more concise form, but three points are emphasised by all. First, God is primarily to be conceived as the First Cause. Secondly, the principle of moral good is also the principle of the world. Thirdly, the principle of the world, that is, the Deity, as being the immortal and eternal, forms the contrast to the world which is the transient. In the cosmology of the Apologists the two fundamental ideas are that God is the Father and Creator of the world, but that, as uncreated and eternal, he is also the complete contrast to it.423 These dogmas about God were not determined by the Apologists from the standpoint of the Christian Church which is awaiting an introduction into the Kingdom of God; but were deduced from a contemplation of the world on the one hand (see particularly Tatian, 4; Theophilus, I. 5, 6), and of the moral nature of man on the other. But, in so far as the latter itself belongs to the sphere of created things, the cosmos is the starting-point of their speculations. This is everywhere dominated by reason and order;424 it bears the impress of the divine Logos, and that in a double sense. On the one hand it appears as the copy of a higher, eternal world, for if we imagine transient and changeable matter removed, it is a wonderful complex of spiritual forces; on the other it presents itself as the finite product of a rational will. Moreover, the matter which lies at its basis is nothing bad, but an indifferent substance created by God,425 though indeed perishable. In its constitution the world is in every respect a structure worthy of God.426 Nevertheless, according to the Apologists, the direct author of the world was not God, but the personified power of reason which they perceived in the cosmos and represented as the immediate source of the universe. The motive for this dogma and the interest in it would be wrongly determined by alleging that the Apologists purposely introduced the Logos in order to separate God from matter, because they regarded this as something bad. This idea of Philo’s cannot at least have been adopted by them as the result of conscious reflection, for it does not agree with their conception of matter; nor is it compatible with their idea of God and their belief in Providence, which is everywhere firmly maintained. Still less indeed can it be shown that they were all impelled to this dogma from their view of Jesus Christ, since in this connection, with the exception of Justin and Tertullian, they manifested no specific interest in the incarnation of the Logos in Jesus. The adoption of the dogma of the Logos is rather to be explained thus: (1) The idea of God, derived by abstraction from the cosmos, did indeed, like that of the idealistic philosophy, involve the element of unity and spirituality, which implied a sort of personality; but the fulness of all spiritual forces, the essence of everything imperishable were quite as essential features of the conception; for in spite of the transcendence inseparable from the notion of God, this idea was neverthless meant to explain the world.427 Accordingly, they required a formula capable of expressing the transcendent and unchangeable nature of God on the one hand, and his fulness

423

See the exposition of the doctrine of God in Aristides with the conclusion found in all the Apologists, that God requires no offerings and presents. 424 Even Tatian says in c. 19: Κόσμου μὲν γὰρ ἡ κατασκευὴ καλή, τὸ δὲ ἐν ἀυτῷ πολίτευμα φαῦλον. 425 Tatian 5: Οὔτε ἄναρχος ἡ ὕλη καθάπερ ὁ Θεός, οὐδὲ διὰ τὸ ἄναρχον καὶ αὐτὴ ἰσοδύναμος τῷ Θεῷ· γεννητὴ δὲ καὶ οὐχ ὑπό τοῦ ἄλλου γεγονυῖα· μόνον δε ὑπὸ τοῦ πάντων δημιουργοῦ προβεβλημένη. 12. Even Justin does not seem to have taught otherwise, though that is not quite certain; see Apol. I. 10, 59, 64, 67: II. 6. Theophilus I. 4: II. 4, 10, 13 says very plainly: ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν . . . . τί δὲ μέγα, εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐξ ὑποκειμένης ὕλης ἐποίει τὸν κόσμον. 426 Hence the knowledge of God and the right knowledge of the world are most closely connected; see Tatian 27: ἡ Θεοῦ κατάληψις ἥν ἔχω περὶ τῶν ὅλων. 427 The beginning of the fifth chapter of Tatian’s Oration is specially instructive here.

133

History of Dogma - Volume II

208

209

Adolf Harnack

of creative and spiritual powers on the other. But the latter attributes themselves had again to be comprehended in a unity, because the law of the cosmos bore the appearance of a harmonious one. From this arose the idea of the Logos, and indeed the latter was necessarily distinguished from God as a separate existence, as soon as the realisation of the powers residing in God was represented as beginning. The Logos is the hypostasis of the operative power of reason, which at once preserves the unity and unchangeableness of God in spite of the exercise of the powers residing in him, and renders this very exercise possible. (2) Though the Apologists believed in the divine origin of the revelation given to the prophets, on which all knowledge of truth is based, they could nevertheless not be induced by this idea to represent God himself as a direct actor. For that revelation presupposes a speaker and a spoken word; but it would be an impossible thought to make the fulness of all essence and the first cause of all things speak. The Deity cannot be a speaking and still less a visible person, yet according to the testimony of the prophets, a Divine Person was seen by them. The Divine Being who makes himself known on earth in audible and visible fashion can only be the Divine Word. As, however, according to the fundamental view of the Apologists the principle of religion, i.e., of the knowledge of the truth, is also the principle of the world, so that Divine Word, which imparts the right knowledge of the world, must be identical with the Divine Reason which produced the world itself. In other words, the Logos is not only the creative Reason of God, but also his revealing Word. This explains the motive and aim of the dogma of the Logos. We need not specially point out that nothing more than the precision and certainty of the Apologists’ manner of statement is peculiar here; the train of thought itself belongs to Greek philosophy. But that very confidence is the most essential feature of the case; for in fact the firm belief that the principle of the world is also that of revelation represents an important early-Christian idea, though indeed in the form of philosophical reflection. To the majority of the Apologists the theoretical content of the Christian faith is completely exhausted in this proposition. They required no particular Christology, for in every revelation of God by his Word they already recognised a proof of his existence not to be surpassed, and consequently regarded it as Christianity in nuce.428 But the fact that the Apologists made a distinction in thesi between the prophetic Spirit of God and the Logos, without being able to make any use of this distinction, is a very clear instance of their dependence on the formulæ of the Church’s faith. Indeed their conception of the Logos continually compelled them to identify the Logos and the Spirit, just as they not unfrequently define Christianity as the belief in the true God and in his Son, without mentioning the Spirit.429 Further their dependence on 428

According to what has been set forth in the text it is incorrect to assert that the Apologists adopted the Logos doctrine in order to reconcile monotheism with the divine honours paid to the crucified Christ. The truth rather is that the Logos doctrine was already part of their creed before they gave any consideration to the person of the historical Christ, and vice versâ Christ’s right to divine honours was to them a matter of certainty independently of the Logos doctrine. 429 We find the distinction of Logos (Son) and Spirit in Justin, Apol. I. 5, and in every case where he quotes formulæ (if we are not to assume the existence of interpolation in the text, which seems to me not improbable; see now also Cramer in the Theologische Studien, 1893. pp. 17 ff., 138 ff.). In Tatian 13 fin. the Spirit is represented as ὁ διάκονος τοῦ πεπονθότος Θεοῦ. The conception in Justin, Dial. 116, is similar. Father, Word, and prophetic Spirit are spoken of in Athenag. 10. The express designation τρίας is first found in. Theophilus (but see the Excerpta ex Theodoto); see II. 15: αἰ τρεῖς ἡμέραι τύποι ἑισὶν τῆς τριάδος, τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ λόγου ἀυτοῦ καὶ τῆς σοφίας ἀυτοῦ; see II. 10, 18. But it is just in Theophilus that the difficulty of deciding between Logos and Wisdom appears with special plainness (II. 10). The interposition of the host of good angels between Son and Spirit found in Justin, Apol. I. 5 (see Athenag.), is exceedingly striking. We have, however, to notice, provided the text is right, (1) that this interposition is only found in a single passage, (2) that Justin wished to refute the reproach of ἀθεότης, (3) that the placing of the Spirit after the angels does not necessarily imply a position inferior to theirs, but merely a subordination to the

134

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

the Christian tradition is shown in the fact that the most of them expressly designated the Logos as the Son of God.430

210

211

The Logos doctrine of the Apologists is an essentially unanimous one. Since God cannot be conceived as without reason, ἄλογος, but as the fulness of all reason,431 he has always Logos in himself. This Logos is on the one hand the divine consciousness itself, and on the other the power (idea and energy) to which the world is due; he is not separate from God, but is contained in his essence.432 For the sake of the creation God produced (sent forth, projected) the Logos from himself, that is, he engendered433 him from his essence by a free and simple act of will (Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ πεφυκώς εξ ἑαυτοῦ. Dial. 61). Then for the first time the Logos became a hypostasis separate from God, or, in other words, he first came into existence; and, in virtue of his origin, he possesses the following distinctive features:434 (1) The inner essence of the Logos is identical with the essence of God himself; for it is the product of self-separation in God, willed and brought about by himself. Further, the Logos is not cut off and separated from God, nor is he a mere modality in him. He is rather the Son and the Father common to the Spirit and the angels, (4) that the good angels were also invoked by the Christians, because they were conceived as mediators of prayer (see my remark on I. Clem. ad Corinth. LVI. 1); they might have found a place here just for this latter reason. On the significance of the Holy Spirit in the theology of Justin, see Zahn Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 228: “If there be any one theologian of the early Church who might be regarded as depriving the Holy Spirit of all scientific raison d’être at least on the ground of having no distinctive(?) activity, and the Father of all share in revelation, it is Justin.” We cannot at bottom say that the Apologists possessed a doctrine of the Trinity. 430 To Justin the name of the Son is the most important; see also Athenag. 10. The Logos had indeed been already called the Son of God by Philo, and Celsus expressly says (Orig., c. Cels. II. 31); “If according to your doctrine the Word is really the Son of God then we agree with you;” but the Apologists are the first to attach the name of Son to the Logos as a proper designation. If, however, the Logos is intrinsically the Son of God, then Christ is the Son of God, not because he is the begotten of God in the flesh (early Christian), but because the spiritual being existing in him is the antemundane reproduction of God (see Justin, Apol. II. 6: ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Θεοῦ, ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυριώς ὑιός) — a momentous expression. 431 Athenag., l0; Tatian, Orat. 5. 432 The clearest expression of this is in Tatian 5, which passage is also to be compared with the following: Θεὸς ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ, τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν λόγου δύναμιν παρειλήφαμεν. Ὁ γὰρ δεσπότης τῶν ὅλων, αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τοῦ παντὸς ἡ ὑπόστασις, κατὰ μὲν τὴν μηδέπω γεγενημένην ποίησιν μόνος ἦν· καθὸ δὲ πᾶσα δύναμις, ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ἀοράτων ἀυτὸς ὑπόστασις ἦν, σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα· σὺν αὐτῷ διὰ λογικῆς δυνάμεως αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ λόγος, ὅς ἦν ἐν αὐτῷ, ὑπέστησε. Θελήματι δέ τῆς ἁπλότητος αὐτοῦ προπηδᾷ λόγος· ὁ δὲ λόγος, ὀυ κατὰ κενοῦ χωρήσας, ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρὸς γίνεται. Τοῦτον ἴσμεν τοῦ κόσμου τὴν ἀρχήν. Γέγονε δὲ κατὰ μερισμόν, ο̦ κατὰ ἀποκοπήν· τὸ γὰρ ἀποτμηθὲν τοῦ πρώτου κεχώρισται, τὸ δὲ μερισθὲν οἰκονομίας τὴν αἵρεσιν προσλαβὸν οὐκ ἐνδεᾶ τὸν ὅθεν εἴληπται πεπόιηκεν. Ὥστερ γὰρ ἀπὸ μιᾶς δᾳδὸς ἀνάπτεται μὲν πυρὰ πολλὰ, τῆς δὲ πρώτης δᾳδὸς διὰ τὴν ἔξαψιν τῶν πολλῶν δᾳδῶν οὐκ ἐλαττοῦται τὸ φῶς, οὕτω καὶ ὁ λόγος προελθὼν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς δυνάμεως οὐκ ἄλογον πεποίηκε τὸν γεγεννηκότα. In the identification of the divine consciousness, that is, the power of God, with the force to which the world is clue the naturalistic basis of the apologetic speculations is most clearly shown. Cf. Justin, Dial. 128, 129. 433 The word “beget” (γεννᾶν) is used by the Apologists, especially Justin, because the name “Son” was the recognised expression for the Logos. No doubt the words ἐξερέυγεσθαι, προβάλλεσθαι, προέρχεσθαι, προπηδᾶν and the like express the physical process more exactly in the sense of the Apologists. On the other hand, however, γεννᾶν appears the more appropriate word in so far as the relation of the essence of the Logos to the essence of God is most clearly shown by the name “Son”. 434 None of the Apologists has precisely defined the Logos idea. Zahn, 1.c., p. 233, correctly remarks: “Whilst the distinction drawn between the hitherto unspoken and the spoken word of the Creator makes Christ appear as the thought of the world within the mind of God, yet he is also to be something real which only requires to enter into a new relation to God to become an active force. Then again this Word is not to be the thought that God thinks, but the thought that thinks in God. And again it is to be a something, or an Ego, in God’s thinking essence, which enters into reciprocal intercourse with something else in God; occasionally also the reason of God which is in a state of active exercise and without which he would not be rational.” Considering this evident uncertainty it appears to me a very dubious proceeding to differentiate the conceptions of the Logos in Justin, Athenagoras, Tatian, and Theophilus, as is usually done. If we consider that no Apologist wrote a special treatise on the Logos, that Tatian

135

History of Dogma - Volume II

212

Adolf Harnack

independent product of the self-unfolding of God (οἰκονομία), which product, though it is the epitome of divine reason, has nevertheless not stripped the Father of this attribute. The Logos is the revelation of God, and the visible God. Consequently the Logos is really God and Lord, i.e., he possesses the divine nature in virtue of his essence. The Apologists, however, only know of one kind of divine nature and this is that which belongs to the Logos. (2) From the moment when he was begotten the Logos is a being distinct from the Father; he is ἀριθμῷ ἐτερόν τι, Θεὸς ἕτερος, Θεὸς δεύτερος (“something different in number, another God, a second God.”) But his personality only dates from that moment. “Fuit tempus, cum patri filius non fuit,” (“there was a time when the Father had no Son”, so Tertullian, adv. Hermog. 3).The λόγος προφορικός is for the first time a hypostasis distinct from the Father, the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος is not.435 (3) The Logos has an origin, the Father has not; hence it follows that in relation to God the Logos is a creature; he is the begotten, that is, the created God, the God who has a beginning. Wherefore in rank he is below God (ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ — δεύτερος Θεός, “in the second place, and a second God”), the messenger and servant of God. The subordination of the Logos is not founded on the content of his essence, but on his origin. In relation to the creatures, however, the Logos is the ἀρχή, i.e., not only the beginning but the principle of the vitality and form of everything that is to receive being. As an emanation (the begotten) he is distinguished from all creatures, for he alone is the Son;436 but, as having a beginning, he again stands on a level with them. Hence the paradoxical expression, ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρός (“first begotten work of the Father”), is here the most appropriate designation. (4) In virtue of his finite origin, it is possible and proper for the Logos to enter into the finite, to act, to speak. and to appear. As he arose for the sake of the creation of the world, he has the capacity of personal and direct revelation which does not belong to the infinite God; nay, his whole essence consists in the very fact that he is thought, word, and deed. Behind this active substitute and vicegerent, the Father stands in the darkness of the incomprehensible, and in the incomprehensible light of perfection as the hidden, unchangeable God.437 With the issuing forth of the Logos from God began the realisation of the idea of the world. The world as κόσμος νοητός is contained in the Logos. But the world is material and manifold, the (c. 5) is really the only one from whom we have any precise statements, and that the elements of the conception are the same in all, it appears inadvisable to lay so great stress on the difference as Zahn, for instance, has done in the book already referred to, p. 232, f. Hardly any real difference can have. existed between Justin, Tatian, and Theophilus in the Logos doctrine proper. On the other hand Athenagoras certainly seems to have tried to eliminate the appearance of the Logos in time, and to emphasise the eternal nature of the divine relationships, without, however, reaching the position which Irenæus took up here. 435 This distinction is only found in Theophilus (II. 10); but the idea exists in Tatian and probably also in Justin, though it is uncertain whether Justin regarded the Logos as having any sort of being before the moment of his begetting. 436 Justin, Apol. II. 6., Dial. 61. The Logos is not produced out of nothing, like the rest of the creatures. Yet it is evident that the Apologists did not yet sharply and precisely distinguish between begetting and creating, as the later theologians did; though some of them certainly felt the necessity for a distinction. 437 All the Apologists tacitly assume that the Logos in virtue of his origin has the capacity of entering the finite. The distinction which here exists between Father and Son is very pregnantly expressed by Tertullian (adv. Marc. II. 27): “Igitur quæcumque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcumque autem ut indigna reprehenditis deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro.” But we ought not to charge the Apologists with the theologoumenon that it was an inward necessity for the Logos to become man. Their Logos hovers, as it were, between God and the world, so that he appears as the highest creature, in so far as he is conceived as the production of God; and again seems to be merged in God, in so far as he is looked upon as the consciousness and spiritual force of God. To Justin, however, the incarnation is irrational, and the rest of the Greek Apologists are silent about it.

136

History of Dogma - Volume II

213

214

Adolf Harnack

Logos is spiritual and one. Therefore the Logos is not himself the world, but he is its creator and in a certain fashion its archetype. Justin and Tatian used the expression “beget” (γεννᾶν) for the creation of the world, but in connections which do not admit of any importance being attached to this use. The world was created out of nothing after a host of spirits, as is assumed by most Apologists, had been created along with heaven, which is a higher, glorious world. The purpose of the creation of the world was and is the production of men, i.e., beings possessed of soul and body, endowed with reason and freedom, and therefore made in the image of God; beings who are to partake of the blessedness and perfection of God. Everything is created for man’s sake, and his own creation is a proof of the goodness of God. As beings possessed of soul and body, men are neither mortal nor immortal, but capable either of death or immortality.438 The condition on which men can attain the latter introduces us to ethics. The doctrines, that God is also the absolute Lord of matter; that evil cannot be a quality of matter, but rather arose in time and from the free decision of the spirits or angels; and finally that the world will have an end, but God can call the destroyed material into existence, just as he once created it out of nothing, appear in principle to reconcile the dualism in the cosmology. We have the less occasion to give the details here, because they are known from the philosophical systems of the period, especially Philo’s, and vary in manifold ways. All the Apologists, however, are imbued with the idea that this knowledge of God and the world, the genesis of the Logos and cosmos, are the most essential part of Christianity itself.439 This conception is really not peculiar to the Apologists: in the second century the great majority of Christians, in so far as they reflected at all, regarded the monotheistic explanation of the world as a main part of the Christian religion. The theoretical view of the world as a harmonious whole, of its order, regularity and beauty; the certainty that all this had been called into existence by an Almighty Spirit; the sure hope that heaven and earth will pass away, but will give place to a still more glorious structure, were always present, and put an end to the bright and gorgeously coloured, but phantastic and vague, cosmogonies and theogonies of antiquity. 2. Their clear system of morality is in keeping with their relatively simple cosmology. In giving man reason and freedom as an inalienable possession God destined him for incorruptibility (ἀθανασία, ἀφθαρσία), by the attainment of which he was to become a being similar to God.440 To the gift of imperishability God, however, attached the condition of man’s preserving τὰ τῆς ἀθανασίας (“the things of immortality”), i.e., preserving the knowledge of God and maintaining a holy walk in imitation of the divine perfection. This demand is as natural as it is just; moreover, nobody can fulfil it in man’s stead, for an essential feature of virtue is its being free, independent

438

The most of the Apologists argue against the conception of the natural immortality of the human soul; see Tatian 13; Justin, Dial.5; Theoph. II. 27. 439 The first chapter of Genesis represented to them the sum of all wisdom, and therefore of all Christianity. Perhaps Justin had already written a commentary to the Hexaëmeron (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 169 f.). It is certain that in the second century Rhodon (Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 8), Theophilus (see his 2nd Book ad Autol.), Candidus, and Apion (Euseb., H. E. V. 27) composed such. The Gnostics also occupied themselves a great deal with Gen. I.-III.; see, e.g., Marcus in Iren. I. 18. 440 See Theophilus ad Aut. II. 27: Εἰ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ἀθάνατον τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς πεποιήκει, Θεὸν αὐτὸν πεποιήκει· πάλιν εἰ θνητὸν ἀυτὸν πεποιήκει ἐδόκει ἄν ὁ Θεὸς αἴτιος εἶναι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ. Οὔτε οὖν ἀθάνατον ἀυτὸν ἐποίησεν οὔτε μὴν θνητόν, ἀλλὰ δεκτικὸν ἀμφοτέρων; ἵνα, εἰ ῥέψῃ ἐπὶ τὰ τῆς ἀθανασίας τηρήσας τὴν ἑντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ, μισθὸν κομίσηται παῤ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀθανασίαν καὶ γένηται Θεός, εἰ δ᾽ αὖ τραπῇ ἐπὶ τὰ τοῦ θανάτου πράγματα παρακούσας τοῦ Θεοῦ, αὐτὸς ἐαυτῷ αἴτιος ᾖ τοῦ θανάτου.

137

History of Dogma - Volume II

215

216

Adolf Harnack

action. Man must therefore determine himself to virtue by the knowledge that he is only in this way obedient to the Father of the world and able to reckon on the gift of immortality. The conception of the content of virtue, however, contains an element which cannot be clearly apprehended from the cosmology; moral goodness consists in letting oneself be influenced in no way by the sensuous, but in living solely, after the Spirit, and imitating the perfection and purity of God. Moral badness is giving way to any affection resulting from the natural basis of man. The Apologists undoubtedly believe that virtue consists negatively in man’s renunciation of what his natural constitution of soul and body demands or impels him to. Some express this thought in a more pregnant and unvarnished fashion, others in a milder way. Tatian, for instance, says that we must divest ourselves of the human nature within us; but in truth the idea is the same in all. The moral law of nature of which the Apologists speak, and which they find reproduced in the clearest and most beautiful way in the sayings of Jesus,441 calls upon man to raise himself above his nature and to enter into a corresponding union with his fellow-man which is something higher than natural connections. It is not so much the law of love that is to rule everything, for love itself is only a phase of a higher law; it is the law governing the perfect and sublime Spirit, who, as being the most exalted existence on this earth, is too noble for the world. Raised already in this knowledge beyond time and space, beyond the partial and the finite, the man of God, even while upon the earth, is to hasten to the Father of Light. By equanimity, absence of desires, purity, and goodness, which are the necessary results of clear knowledge, he is to show that he has already risen above the transient through gazing on the imperishable and through the enjoyment of knowledge, imperfect though the latter still be. If thus, a suffering hero, he has stood the test on earth, if he has become dead to the world,442 he may be sure that in the life to come God will bestow on him the gift of immortality, which includes the direct contemplation of God together with the perfect knowledge that flows from it.443 Conversely, the vicious man is given over to eternal death, and in this punishment the righteousness of God is quite as plainly manifested, as in the reward of everlasting life. 3. While it is certain that virtue is a matter of freedom, it is just as sure that no soul is virtuous unless it follows the will of God, i.e., knows and judges of God and all things as they must be known and judged of; and fulfils the commandments of God. This presupposes a revelation of God through the Logos. A revelation of God, complete in itself and mediated by the Logos, is found in the cosmos and in the constitution of man, he being created in his Maker’s image.444 But experience has shown that this revelation is insufficient to enable men to retain clear knowledge. They yielded to the seduction of evil demons, who, by God’s sufferance, took possession of the world, and availed themselves of man’s sensuous side to draw him away from the contemplation of the divine and

441

See Justin, Apol. I. 14 ff. and the parallel passages in the other Apologists. See Tatian, Orat.11. and many other passages. 443 Along with this the Apologists emphasise the resurrection of the flesh in the strongest way as the specific article of Christian anticipation, and prove the possibility of realising this irrational hope. Yet to the Apologists the ultimate ground of their trust in this early-Christian idea is their reliance on the unlimited omnipotence of God and this confidence is a proof of the vividness of their idea of him. Nevertheless this conception assumes that in the other world there will be a return of the flesh, which on this side the grave had to be overcome and regarded as non-existent. A clearly chiliastic element is found only in Justin. 444 No uniform conception of this is found in the Apologists; see Wendt, Die Christliche Lehre von der menschlichen Vollkommenheit 1882, pp. 8-20. Justin speaks only of a heavenly destination for which man is naturally adapted. With Tatian and Theophilus it is different. 442

138

History of Dogma - Volume II

217

218

Adolf Harnack

lead him to the earthly.445 The results of this temptation appeared in the facts that humanity as a whole fell a prey to error, was subjected to the bonds of the sensuous and of the demons, and therefore became doomed to death, which is at once a punishment and the natural consequence of want of knowledge of God.446 Hence it required fresh efforts of the Logos to free men from a state which is indeed in no instance an unavoidable necessity, though a sad fact in the case of almost all. For very few are now able to recognise the one true God from the order of the universe and from the moral law implanted in themselves; nor can they withstand the power of the demons ruling in the world and use their freedom to imitate the virtues of God. Therefore the Almighty in his goodness employed new means through the Logos to call men back from the error of their ways, to overthrow the sovereignty of the demons upon earth, and to correct the disturbed course of the world before the end has yet come. From the earliest times the Logos (the Spirit) has descended on such men as preserved their souls pure, and bestowed on them, through inspiration, knowledge of the truth (with reference to God, freedom, virtue, the demons, the origin of polytheism, the judgment) to be imparted by them to others. These are his “prophets”. Such men are rare among the Greeks (and according to some not found at all), but numerous among the barbarians, i.e., among the Jewish people. Taught by God, they announced the truth about him, and under the promptings of the Logos they also committed the revelations to writings, which therefore, as being inspired, are an authentic record of the whole truth.447 To some of the most virtuous among them he himself even appeared in human form and gave directions. He then is a Christian, who receives and follows these prophetic teachings, that have ever been proclaimed afresh from the beginning of the world down to the present time, and are summed up in the Old Testament, Such a one is enabled even now to rescue his soul from the rule of the demons, and may confidently expect the gift of immortality. With the majority of the Apologists “Christianity” seems to be exhausted in these doctrines; in fact, they do not even consider it necessary to mention ex professo the appearance of the Logos in Christ (see above, p. 189 ff.). But, while it is certain that they all recognised that the teachings of 445

The idea that the demon sovereignty has led to some change in the psychological condition and capacities of man is absolutely unknown to Justin (see Wendt, l. c., p. 11 f., who has successfully defended the correct view in Engelhardt’s “Das Christenthum Justin’s des Märtyrers” pp. 92 f. 151. f. 266 f., against Stählin, “Justin der Märtyrer und sein neuester Beurtheiler” 1880, p. 16 f.). Tatian expressed a different opinion, which, however, involved him in evident contradictions (see above, p. 191 ff.). The apologetic theology necessarily adhered to the two following propositions: (1) The freedom to do what is good is not lost and cannot be. This doctrine was opposed to philosophic determinism and popular fatalism. (2) The desires of the flesh resulting from the constitution of man only become evil when they destroy or endanger the sovereignty of reason. The formal liberum arbitrium explains the possibility of sin, whilst its actual existence is accounted for by the desire that is excited by the demons. The Apologists acknowledge the universality of sin and death, but refused to admit the necessity of the former in order not to call its guilty character in question. On the other hand they are deeply imbued with the idea that the sovereignty of death is the most powerful factor in the perpetuation of sin. Their believing conviction of the omnipotence of God, as well as their moral conviction of the responsibility of man, protected them in theory from a strictly dualistic conception of the world. At the same time, like all who separate nature and morality in their ethical system, though in other respects they do not do so, the Apologists were obliged in practice to be dualists. 446 Death is accounted the worst evil. When Theophilus (II. 26) represents it as a blessing, we must consider that he is arguing against Marcion. Polytheism is traced to the demons; they are accounted the authors of the fables about the gods; the shameful actions of the latter are partly the deeds of demons and partly lies. 447 The Old Testament therefore is not primarily viewed as the book of prophecy or of preparation for Christ, but as the book of the full revelation which cannot be surpassed. In point of content the teaching of the prophets and of Christ is completely identical. The prophetical details in the Old Testament serve only to attest the one truth. The Apologists confess that they were converted to Christianity by reading the Old Testament. Cf. Justin’s and Tatian’s confessions. Perhaps Commodian (Instruct. I. 1) is also be understood thus.

139

History of Dogma - Volume II

219

Adolf Harnack

the prophets contained the full revelation of the truth, we would be quite wrong in assuming that they view the appearance and history of Christ as of no significance. In their presentations some of them no doubt contented themselves with setting forth the most rational and simple elements, and therefore took almost no notice of the historical; but even in their case certain indications show that they regarded the manifestation of the Logos in Christ as of special moment.448 For the prophetic utterances, as found from the beginning, require an attestation, the prophetic teaching requires a guarantee, so that misguided humanity may accept them and no longer take error for truth and truth for error. The strongest guarantee imaginable is found in the fulfilment of prophecy. Since no man is able to foretell what is to come, the prediction of the future accompanying a doctrine proves its divine origin. God, in his extraordinary goodness, not only inspired the prophets, through the Logos, with the doctrines of truth, but has from the beginning put numerous predictions in their mouth. These predictions were detailed and manifold; the great majority of them referred to a more prolonged appearance of the Logos in human form at the end of history, and to a future judgment. Now, so long as the predictions had not yet come to pass, the teachings of the prophets were not sufficiently impressive, for the only sure witness of the truth is its outward attestation. In the history of Christ, however, the majority of these prophecies were fulfilled in the most striking fashion, and this not only guarantees the fulfilment of the relatively small remainder not yet come to pass (judgment, resurrection), but also settles beyond all doubt the truth of the prophetic teachings about God, freedom, virtue, immortality, etc. In the scheme of fulfilment and prophecy even the irrational becomes rational; for the fulfilment of a prediction is not a proof of its divine origin unless it refers to something extraordinary. Any one can predict regular occurrences which always take place, Accordingly, a part of what was predicted had to be irrational. Every particular in the history of Christ has therefore a significance, not as regards the future, but as regards the past. Here everything happened that the word of the prophet might be fulfilled.” Because the prophet had said so, it had to happen. Christ’s destiny attests the ancient teachings of the prophets. Everything, however, depends on this attestation, for it was no longer the full truth that was wanting, but a convincing proof that the truth was a reality and not a fancy.449 But prophecy testifies that Christ is the ambassador of God, the Logos that has appeared in human form, and the Son of God. If the future destiny of Jesus is recorded in the Old Testament down to the smallest particular, and the book at the same time declares that this predicted One is the Son of God and will be crucified, then the paying of divine honours to this crucified man, to whom all the features of prophecy apply, is completely justified. The stage marked by Christ in the history of God’s revelation, the content of which is always the same, is therefore the highest and last, because in it the “truth along with the proof” has appeared. This circumstance explains why the truth is so much more impressive and

448

The Oratio of Tatian is very instructive in this respect. In this book he has nowhere spoken ex professo of the incarnation of the Logos in Christ; but in c. 13 fin. he calls the Holy Spirit “the servant of God who has suffered”, and in c. 21 init. he says: “we are not fools and do not adduce anything stupid, when we proclaim that God has appeared in human form.” Similar expressions are found in Minucius Felix. In no part of Aristides’ Apology is there any mention of the pre-Christian appearance of the Logos. The writer merely speaks of the revelation of the Son of God in Jesus Christ. 449 We seldom receive an answer to the question as to why this or that particular occurrence should have been prophesied. According to the ideas of the Apologists, however, we have hardly a right to put that question; for, since the value of the historical consists in its having been predicted, its content is of no importance. The fact that Jesus finds the she-ass bound to a vine (Justin, Apol. 1. 32) is virtually quite as important as his being born of a virgin. Both occurrences attest the prophetic teachings of God, freedom, etc.

140

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

convinces more men than formerly, especially since Christ has also made special provision for the spread of the truth and is himself an unequalled exemplification of a virtuous life, the principles of which have now become known in the whole world through the spread of his precepts. 220

221

These statements exhaust the arguments in most of the Apologies; and they accordingly seem neither to have contemplated a redemption by Christ in the stricter sense of the word, nor to have assumed the unique nature of the appearance of the Logos in Jesus. Christ accomplished salvation as a divine teacher, that is to say, his teaching brings about the ἀλλαγή and ἐπαναγωγή of the human race, its restoration to its original destination. This also seems to suffice as regards demon rule. Logically considered, the individual portions of the history of Jesus (of the baptismal Confession) have no direct significance in respect to salvation. Hence the teachings of the Christians seem to fall into two groups having no inward connection, i.e., the propositions treating of the rational knowledge of God, and the predicted and fulfilled historical facts which prove those doctrines and the believing hopes they include. But Justin at least gave token of a manifest effort to combine the historical statements regarding Christ with the philosophical and moral doctrines of salvation and to conceive Jesus as the Redeemer.450 Accordingly, if the Christian dogmatic of succeeding times is found in the connection of philosophical theology with the baptismal confession, that is, in the “scientific theology of facts”, Justin is, in a certain fashion, the first framer of Church dogma, though no doubt in a very tentative way. (1) He tried to distinguish between the appearance of the Logos in pre-Christian times and in Christ; he emphasised the fact that the whole Logos appeared only in Christ, and that the manner of this appearance has no counterpart in the past. (2) Justin showed in the Dialogue that, independently of the theologoumenon of the Logos, he was firmly convinced of the divinity of Christ on the ground of predictions and of the impression made by his personality.451 (3) In addition to the story of the exaltation of Christ, Justin also emphasised other portions of his history, especially the death on the cross (together with baptism and the Lord’s Supper) and tried to give them a positive significance.452 He adopted the common Christian saying that the blood of Christ cleanses believers and men are healed through his wounds; and he tried to give a mystic significance to the cross. (4) He accordingly spoke of the forgiveness of sins through Christ and confessed that men are changed, through the new birth in baptism, from children of necessity and ignorance into children of purpose and understanding and forgiveness of sins.453 Von Engelhardt has, however, quite rightly 450

In Justin’s polemical works this must have appeared in a still more striking way. Thus we find in a fragment of the treatise πρὸς Μαρκίωνα, quoted by Irenæus (IV. 6. 2), the sentence “unigenitus filius venit ad nos, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans.” So the theologoumenon of the recapitulatio per Christum already appeared in Justin. (Vide also Dial. c. Tryph. 100.) If we compare Tertullian’s Apologeticum with his Antignostic writings we easily see how impossible it is to determine from that work the extent of his Christian faith and knowledge. The same is probably the case, though to a less extent, with Justin’s apologetic writings. 451 Christians do not place a man alongside of God, for Christ is God, though indeed a second God. There is no question of two natures. It is not the divine nature that Justin has insufficiently emphasised — or at least this is only the case in so far as it is a second Godhead — but the human nature; see Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 39 ff. 452 We find allusions in Justin where the various incidents in the history of the incarnate Logos are conceived as a series of arrangements meant to form part of the history of salvation, to paralyse mankind’s sinful history, and to regenerate humanity. He is thus a forerunner of Irenæus and Melito. 453 Even the theologoumenon of the definite number of the elect, which must be fulfilled, is found in Justin (Apol. I. 28, 45). For that reason the judgment is put off by God (II. 7). The Apology of Aristides contains a short account of the history of Jesus; his

141

History of Dogma - Volume II

222

223

Adolf Harnack

noticed that these are mere words which have nothing at all corresponding to them in the general system of thought, because Justin remains convinced that the knowledge of the true God, of his will, and of his promises, or the certainty that God will always grant forgiveness to the repentant and eternal life to the righteous, is sufficient to convert the man who is master of himself. Owing to the fundamental conviction which is expressed in the formulæ, “perfect philosophy”, “divine teacher”, “new law”, “freedom”, “repentance”, “sinless life”, “sure hope”, “reward”, “immortality”, the ideas, “forgiveness of sins”, “redemption”, “reconciliation”, “new birth”, “faith” (in the Pauline sense) must remain words,454 or be relegated to the sphere of magic and mystery.455 Nevertheless we must not on that account overlook the intention. Justin tried to see the divine revelation not only in the sayings of the prophets, but in unique fashion in the person of Christ, and to conceive Christ not only as the divine teacher, but also as the “Lord and Redeemer”. In two points he actually succeeded in this. By the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Justin proved that Christ, the divine teacher, is also the future judge and bestower of reward. Christ himself is able to give what he has promised — a life after death free from sufferings and sins, that is the first point. The other thing, however, which Justin very strongly emphasised is that Jesus is even now reigning in heaven, and shows his future visible sovereignty of the world by giving his own people the power to cast out and vanquish the demons in and by his name. Even at the present time the latter are put to flight by believers in Christ.456 So the redemption is no mere future one; it is even now taking place, and the revelation of the Logos in Jesus Christ is not merely intended to prove the doctrines of the rational religion, but denotes a real redemption, that is, a new beginning, in so far as the power of the demons on earth is overthrown through Christ and in his strength. Jesus Christ, the teacher of the whole truth and of a new law, which is the rational, the oldest, and the divine, the only being who has understood how to call men from all the different nations and in all stages of culture into a union of holy life, the inspiring One, for whom his disciples go to death, the mighty One, through whose name the demons are cast out, the risen One, who will one day reward and punish as judge, must be identical with the Son of God, who is the divine reason and the divine power. In this belief which accompanies the confession of the one God, creator of heaven and earth, Justin finds the special content of Christianity, which the later Apologists, with the probable exception of Melito, reproduced in a much more imperfect and meagre form. One thing, however, Justin in all probability did not formulate with precision, viz., the proposition that the special result of salvation, i.e.,

conception, birth, preaching, choice of the 12 Apostles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, sending out of the 12 Apostles are mentioned. 454 “To Justin faith is only an acknowledgment of the mission and Sonship of Christ and a conviction of the truth of his teaching. Faith does not justify, but is merely a presupposition of the justification which is effected through repentance, change of mind, and sinless life. Only in so far as faith itself is already a free. decision to serve God has it the value of a saving act, which is indeed of such significance that one can say, ‘Abraham was justified by faith.’ In reality, however, this took place through μετάνοια.” The idea of the new birth is exhausted in the thought: Θεὸς καλεῖ εἰς μετάνοιαν, that of the forgiveness of sins in the idea: “God is so good that he overlooks sins committed in a state of ignorance, if man has changed his mind.” Accordingly, Christ is the Redeemer in so far as he has brought about all the conditions which make for repentance. 455 This is in fact already the case in Justin here and there, but in the main there are as yet mere traces of it: the Apologists are no mystics. 456 If we consider how largely the demons bulked in the ideas of the Apologists, we must rate very highly their conviction of the redeeming power of Christ and of his name, a power continuously shown in the victories over the demons. See Justin Apol. II. 6, 8; Dial. 11, 30, 35, 39, 76, 85, 111, 121; Tertull., Apol. 23, 27, 32, 37 etc. Tatian also (16 fin.) confirms it, and c. 12, p. 56, line 7 if. (ed. Otto) does not contradict this.

142

History of Dogma - Volume II

224

Adolf Harnack

immortality, was involved in the incarnation of the Logos, in so far as that act brought about a real secret transformation of the whole mortal nature of man. With Justin, indeed, as with the other Apologists, the “salvation” (σωτηρία) consists essentially in the apportioning of eternal life to the world, which has been created mortal and in consequence of sin has fallen a prey to the natural destiny of “death”; and Christ is regarded as the bestower of incorruptibility who thus brings the creation to its goal; but as a rule Justin does not go beyond this thought. Yet we certainly find hints pointing to the notion of a physical and magical redemption accomplished at the moment of the incarnation. See particularly the fragment in Irenæus (already quoted on page 220), which may be thus interpreted, and Apol. I. 66. This conception, in its most complete shape, would have to be attributed to Justin if the fragment V. (Otto, Corp. Apol. III. p. 256) were genuine.457 But the precise form of the presentation makes this very improbable. The question as to how, i.e., in what conceivable way, immortality can be imparted to the mortal nature as yet received little attention from Justin and the Apologists: it is the necessary result of knowledge and virtue. Their great object was to assure the belief in immortality. “Religion and morality depend on the belief in immortality or the resurrection from the dead. The fact that the Christian religion, as faith in the incarnate Son of God the creator, leads to the assurance that the maker of all things will reward piety and righteousness with the bestowal of eternal and immortal life, is the essential advantage possessed by the Christian religion over all others. The righteousness of the heathen was imperfect in spite of all their knowledge of good and evil, because they lacked the certain knowledge that the creator makes the just immortal and will consign the unjust to eternal torment.”! — placement of this note is uncertain — !458 The philosophical doctrines of God, virtue, and immortality became through the Apologists the certain content of a world-wide religion, which is Christian because Christ guarantees its certainty. They made Christianity a deistical religion for the whole world without abandoning in word at least the old “teachings and knowledge” (διδάγματα καὶ μαθήματα καὶ μαθήματα) of the Christians. They thus marked out the task of “dogmatic” and, so to speak, wrote the prolegomena for every future theological system in the Church (see Von Engelhardt’s concluding observations in his “Christenthum Justin’s” pp. 447-490, also Overbeck in the Historische Zeitschrift, 1880, pp. 499-505.) At the same time, however, they adhered to the early-Christian eschatology (see Justin,

457

Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justin’s, p. 432 f., has pronounced against its genuineness; see also my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 158. In favour of its genuineness see Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1883, p. 26 f. The fragments is worded as follows: Πλάσας ὁ Θεὸς κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῆς γνώμης αὐτοῦ τὰ τῆς φύσεως ἀπῃώρησεν ἐντολῇ μιᾷ ποιησάμενος τὴν διάπειραν. Φυλάξαντα μὲν γὰρ ταύτην τῆς ἀθανάτου λήξεως πεποίηκεν ἔσεσθαι, παραβάντα δὲ τῆς ἐναντίας. Οὕτω γεγονὼς ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ πρὸς τὴν παράβασιν εὐθὺς ἐλθὼν τὴν φθορὰν φυσικῶς εἰσεδέξατο. Φύσει δὲ τῆς φθορᾶς προσγενομένης ἀναγκαῖον ἦν ὅτι σῶσαι βουλόμενος ἦν τὴν φθοροποιὸν οὐσίαν ἀφανίσας. Τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ ἦν ἑτέρως γενέσθαι, εἰ μήπερ ἡ κατὰ φύσιν ζωὴ προσεπλάκη τῷ τὴν φθορὰν δεξαμένῳ ἀφανιζουσα μὲν τὴν φθοράν, ἀθάνατον δὲ τοῦ λοιποῦ τὸ δεξάμενον διατηροῦσα. Διὰ τοῦτο τὸν λόγον ἐδέησεν ἐν σώματι γενέσθαι, ἵνα (τοῦ θανάτου) τῆς κατὰ φύσιν ἡμᾶς φθορᾶς ἐλευθερώσῃ. Εἰ γὰρ, ὥς φατε, νεύματι μόνον τὸν θάνατον ἡμῶν ἀπεκώλυσεν, οὐ προσῄει μὲν διὰ τὴν βούλησιν ὁ θάνατος, οὐδὲν δὲ ἧττον φθαρτοὶ πάλιν ἦμεν, φυσικὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τὴν φθορὰν περιφέροντες. 458 Schultz (Gottheit Christi, p. 41) very rightly points out that all the systems of the post-Socratic schools, so far as they practically spread among the people, invariably assume that knowledge, as such, leads to salvation, so that the bestowal of the ἀφθαρσία need not necessarily be thought so naturalistic and mystic a process as we are apt to imagine.

143

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

Melito, and, with reference to the resurrection of the flesh, the Apologists generally), and thus did not belie their connection with early Christianity.459 225

226

Interpretation and Criticism, especially of Justin’s Doctrines. 1. The fundamental assumption of all the Apologists is that there can only be one and the same relation on earth between God and free man, and that it has been conditioned by the creation. This thought, which presupposes the idea of God’s unchangeableness, at bottom neutralises every quasi-historical and mythological consideration. According to it grace can be nothing else than the stimulation of the powers of reason existent in man; revelation is supernatural only in respect of its form, and the redemption merely enables us to redeem ourselves, just as this possibility was given at the creation. Sin, which arose through temptation, appears on the one hand as error which must almost of necessity have arisen so long as man only possessed the “germs of the Logos” (σπέρματα τοῦ λόγου), and on the other as the dominion of sensuousness, which was nearly unavoidable since earthly material clothes the soul and mighty demons have possession of the world. The mythological idea of the invading sway of the demons is really the only interruption of the rationalistic scheme. So far as Christianity is something different from morality, it is the antithesis of the service and sovereignty of the demons. Hence the idea that the course of the world and mankind require in some measure to be helped is the narrow foundation of the thought of revelation or redemption. The necessity of revelation and redemption was expressed in a much stronger and more decisive way by many heathen philosophers of the same period. Accordingly, not only did these long for a revelation which would give a fresh attestation to old truth, but they yearned for a force, a real redemption, a præsens numen, and some new thing. Still more powerful was this longing in the case of the Gnostics and Marcion; compare the latter’s idea of revelation with that of the Apologists. It is probable indeed that the thought of redemption would have found stronger expression among them also, had not the task of proof, which could be best discharged by the aid of the Stoic philosophy, demanded religious rationalism. But, admitting this, the determination of the highest good itself involved rationalism and moralism. For immortality is the highest good, in so far as it is perfect knowledge — which is, moreover, conceived as being of a rational kind, — that necessarily leads to immortality. We can only find traces of the converse idea, according to which the change into the immortal condition is the prius and the knowledge the posterius. But, where this conception is the prevailing one, moralistic intellectualism is broken through, and we can now point to a specific, supernatural blessing of salvation, produced by revelation and redemption. Corresponding to the general development of religious philosophy from moralism into mysticism (transition from the second to the third century), a displacement in this direction can also be noticed in the history of Greek apologetics (in the West it was different); but this displacemcnt was never considerable and therefore cannot be clearly traced. Even later on under altered circumstances, apologetic science adhered in every respect to its old method, as being the most suitable (monotheism, morality, proof from prophecy), a circumstance which is evident, for example,

459

Weizsäcker, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1867, p. 119, has with good reason strongly emphasised this element. See also Stählin, Justin der Märtyrer, 188, p. 63 f., whose criticism of Von Engelhardt’s book contains much that is worthy of note, though it appears to me inappropriate in the main.

144

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

from the almost complete disregard of the New Testament canon of Scripture and from other considerations besides.

227

228

2. In so far as the possibility of virtue and righteousness has been implanted by God in men, and in so far as — apart from trifling exceptions — they can actually succeed in doing what is good only through prophetic, i.e., divine, revelations and exhortations, some Apologists, following the early Christian tradition, here and there designate the transformation of the sinner into a righteous man as a work of God, and speak of renewal and regeneration. The latter, however, as a real fact, is identical with the repentance which, as a turning from sin and turning to God, is a matter of free will. As in Justin, so also in Tatian, the idea of regeneration is exhausted in the divine call to repentance. The conception of the forgiveness of sins is also determined in accordance with this. Only those sins can be forgiven, i.e., overlooked, which are really none, i.e., which were committed in a state of error and bondage to the demons, and were well-nigh unavoidable. The blotting out of these sins is effected in baptism, “which is the bath of regeneration in so far as it is the voluntary consecration of one’s own person. The cleansing which takes place is God’s work in so far as baptism was instituted by him, but it is effected by the man who in his change of mind lays aside his sins. The name of God is pronounced above him who repents of his transgressions, that he may receive freedom, knowledge, and forgiveness of his previous sins, but this effects a change only denoting the new knowledge to which the baptised person has attained.” If, as all this seems to show, the thought of a specific grace of God in Christ appears virtually neutralised, the adherence to the language of the cultus (Justin and Tatian) and Justin’s conception of the Lord’s Supper show that the Apologists strove to get beyond moralism, that is, they tried to supplement it through the mysteries. Augustine’s assertion (de predest. sanct. 27) that the faith of the old Church in the efficacy of divine grace was not so much expressed in the opuscula as in the prayers, shows correct insight. 3. All the demands, the fulfilment of which constitutes the virtue and righteousness of men, are summed up under the title of the new law. In virtue of its eternally valid content this new law is in reality the oldest; but it is new because Christ and the prophets were preceded by Moses, who inculcated on the Jews in a transient form that which was eternally valid. It is also new because, being proclaimed by the Logos that appeared in Christ, it announced its presence with the utmost impressiveness and undoubted authority, and contains the promise of reward in terms guaranteed by the strongest proof — the proof from prophecy. The old law is consequently a new one because it appears now for the first time as purely spiritual, perfect, and final. The commandment of love to one’s neighbour also belongs to the law; but it does not form its essence (still less love to God, the place of which is taken by faith, obedience, and imitation). The content of all moral demands is comprehended in the commandment of perfect, active holiness, which is fulfilled by the complete renunciation of all earthly blessings, even of life itself. Tatian preached this renunciation in a specially powerful manner. There is no need to prove that no remains of Judæo-Christianity are to be recognised in these ideas about the new law. It is not Judæo-Christianity that lies behind the Christianity and doctrines of the Apologists, but Greek philosophy (Platonic metaphysics, Logos doctrine of the Stoics, Platonic and Stoic ethics), the Alexandrine-Jewish apologetics, the maxims of Jesus, and the religious speech of the Christian Churches. Justin is distinguished from Philo by the sure conviction of the living power of God, the Creator and Lord of the world, and the steadfast confidence in the reality of all the ideals which is derived from the person of Christ. We ought not, 145

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

however, to blame the Apologists because to them nearly everything historical was at bottom only a guarantee of thoughts and hopes. As a matter of fact, the assurance is not less important than the content. By dint of thinking one can conceive the highest truth, but one cannot in this way make out the certainty of its reality. No positive religion can do more for its followers than faith in the revelation through Christ and the prophets did for the Apologists. Although it chiefly proved to them the truth of that which we call natural theology and which was the idealistic philosophy of the age, so that the Church appears as the great insurance society for the ideas of Plato and Zeno, we ought not at the same time to forget that their idea of a divine spirit working upon earth was a far more lively and worthy one than in the case of the Greek philosophers.

229

4. By their intellectualism and exclusive theories the Apologists founded philosophic and dogmatic Christianity (Loofs: “they laid the foundation for the conversion of Christianity into a revealed doctrine.”460 If about the middle of the second century the short confession of the Lord Jesus Christ was regarded as a watchword, passport, and tessera hospitalitas (signum et vinculum), and if even in lay and uneducated circles it was conceived as “doctrine” in contradistinction to heresy, this transformation must have been accelerated through men, who essentially conceived Christianity as the “divine doctrine”, and by whom all its distinctive features were subordinated to this conception or neutralised. As the philosophic schools are held together by their “laws “ (νόμοι) as the “dogmas “ form the real bond between the “friends”, and as, in addition to this, they are united by veneration for the founder, so also the Christian Church appeared to the Apologists as a universal league established by a divine founder and resting on the dogmas of the perfectly known truth, a league the members of which possess definite laws, viz., the eternal laws of nature for everything moral, and unite in common veneration for the Divine Master. In the “dogmas” of the Apologists, however, we find nothing more than traces of the fusion of the philosophical and historical elements; in the main both exist separately side by side. It was not till long after this that intellectualism gained the victory in a Christianity represented by the clergy. What we here chiefly understand by “intellectualism” is the placing of the scientific conception of the world behind the commandments of Christian morality and behind the hopes and faith of the Christian religion, and the connecting of the two things in such a way that this conception appeared as the foundation of these commandments and hopes. Thus was created the future dogmatic in the form which still prevails in the Churches and which presupposes the Platonic and Stoic conception of the world long ago overthrown by science. The attempt made at the beginning of the Reformation to free the Christian faith from this amalgamation remained at first without success.

230

460

Loofs continues: “The Apologists, viewing the transference of the concept ‘Son’ to the preëxistent Christ as a matter of course, enabled the Christological problem of the 4th century to be started. They removed the point of departure of the Christological speculation from the historical Christ back into the preëxistence and depreciated the importance of Jesus’ life as compared with the incarnation They connected the Christology with the cosmology, but were not able to combine it with the scheme of salvation. Their Logos doctrine is not a ‘higher’ Christology than the prevailing form; it rather lags behind the genuine Christian estimate of Christ. It is not God who reveals himself in Christ, but the Logos, the depotentiated God, who as God is subordinate to the supreme Deity.”

146

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

CHAPTER V. THE BEGINNINGS OF AN ECCLESIASTICO-THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION AND REVISION OF THE RULE OF FAITH IN OPPOSITION TO GNOSTICISM ON THE BASIS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY OF THE APOLOGISTS: MELITO, IRENÆUS, TERTULLIAN, HIPPOLYTUS, NOVATIAN.461 1. The theological position of Irenæus and the later contemporary Church teachers.

231

GNOSTICISM and the Marcionite Church had compelled orthodox Christianity to make a selection from tradition and to make this binding on Christians as an apostolical law. Everything that laid claim to validity had henceforth to be legitimised by the faith, i.e., the baptismal confession and the New Testament canon of Scripture (see above, chap. 2, under A and B). However, mere “prescriptions” could no longer suffice here. But the baptismal confession was no “doctrine”; if it was to be transformed into such it required an interpretation. We have shown above that the interpreted baptismal confession was instituted as the guide for the faith. This interpretation took its matter from the sacred books of both Testaments. It owed its guiding lines, however, on the one hand to philosophical theology, as set forth by the Apologists, and on the other to the earnest endeavour to maintain and defend against all attacks the traditional convictions and hopes of believers, as professed in the past generation by the enthusiastic forefathers of the Church. In addition to this, certain interests, which had found expression in the speculations of the so-called Gnostics, were adopted in an increasing degree among all thinking Christians, and also could not but influence the ecclesiastical teachers.462 The theological labours, thus initiated, accordingly bear the impress of great uniqueness and complexity. In the first place, the old Catholic Fathers, Melito,463 Rhodon,464 Irenæus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian were in every case convinced that all their expositions contained the universal Church faith itself and nothing else. Though the faith is identical with the baptismal confession, yet every interpretation of it derived from the New Testament is no less

461

Authorities: The works of Irenæus (Stieren’s and Harvey’s editions), Melito (Otto, Corp. Apol. IX.), Tertullian (Oehler’s and Reifferscheid’s editions), Hippolytus (Fabricius’, Lagarde’s, Duncker’s and Schneidewin’s editions), Cyprian (Hartel’s edition), Novatian (Jackson). Biographies of Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, 1873 ff. Werner, Der Paulinismus des Irenäus, 1889. Nöldechen, Tertullian, 1890. Döllinger, “Hippolytus und Kallistus,” 1853. Many monographs on Irenæus and Tertullian. 462 The following exposition will show how much Irenæus and the later old Catholic teachers learned from the Gnostics. As a matter of fact the theology of Irenæus remains a riddle so long as we try to explain it merely from the Apologists and only consider its antithetical relations to Gnosis. Little as we can understand modern orthodox theology from a historical point of view — if the comparison be here allowed — without keeping in mind what it has adopted from Schleiermacher and Hegel, we can just as little understand the theology of Irenæus without taking into account the schools of Valentinus and Marcion. 463 That Melito is to be named here follows both from Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 5, and still more plainly from what we know of the writings of this bishop; see Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, I. 1, 2, p. 240 ff.). The polemic writings of Justin and the Antignostic treatise of that “ancient” quoted by Irenæus (see Patr. App. Opp. ed. Gebhardt etc. I. 2, p. 105 sq.) may in a certain sense be viewed as the precursors of Catholic literature. We have no material for judging of them with certainty. The New Testament was not yet at the disposal of their authors, and consequently there is a gap between them and Irenæus. 464 See Eusebius, H. E. V. 13.

147

History of Dogma - Volume II

232

233

Adolf Harnack

certain than the shortest formula.465 The creation of the New Testament furnished all at once a quite unlimited multitude of conceptions, the whole of which appeared as “doctrines” and offered themselves for incorporation with the “faith”.466 The limits of the latter therefore seem to be indefinitely extended, whilst on the other hand tradition, and polemics too in many cases, demanded an adherence to the shortest formula. The oscillation between this brief formula, the contents of which, as a rule, did not suffice, and that fulness, which admitted of no bounds at all, is characteristic of the old Catholic Fathers we have mentioned. In the second place, these Fathers felt quite as much need of a rational proof in their arguments with their Christian opponents, as they did while contending with the heathen;467 and, being themselves children of their time, they required this proof for their own assurance and that of their fellow-believers. The epoch in which men appealed to charisms, and “knowledge” counted as much as prophecy and vision, because it was still of the same nature, was in the main a thing of the past.468 Tradition and reason had taken the place of charisms as courts of appeal. But this change had neither come to be clearly recognised,469 nor was the right and scope of rational theology alongside of tradition felt to be a problem. We can indeed trace the consciousness of the danger in attempting to introduce new termini and regulations not prescribed by the Holy Scriptures.470 The bishops themselves in fact encouraged this apprehension in order to warn people against the Gnostics,471 and after the deluge of heresy, representatives of Church orthodoxy looked with distrust on every philosophic-theological formula.472 Such propositions of rationalistic theology as were absolutely required, were, however, placed by Irenæus and Tertullian on the same level as the hallowed doctrines of tradition, and were not viewed by them as something of a different nature. Irenæus uttered most urgent warnings against subtle speculations;473 but yet, 465

Tertullian does indeed say in de præscr. 14: “Ceterum manente forma regulæ fidei in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras, et tractes, et omnem libidinem curiositatis effundas, si quid tibi videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari”; but the preceding exposition of the regula shows that scarcely any scope remained for the “curiositas”, and the one that follows proves that Tertullian did not mean that freedom seriously. 466 The most important point was that the Pauline theology, towards which Gnostics, Marcionites) and Encratites had already taken up a definite attitude, could now no longer be ignored. See Overbeck Basler Univ. — Programm, 1877. Irenæus immediately shows the influence of Paulinism very clearly. 467 See what Rhodon says about the issue of his conversation with Appelles in Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 7: ἐγὼ δὲ γελάσας κατέγνων αὐτοῦ, διότι διδάσκαλος εἶναι λέγων ὀυκ ᾔδει τὸ διδασκόμενον ὕπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ κρατύνειν. 468 On the old “prophets and teachers” see my remarks on the Διδαχη, c. 11 ff., and the sections pp. 93-137, of the prolegomena to my edition of this work. The διδάσκαλοι ἀποστολικοὶ καὶ προϕητικοί (Ep. Smyrn. ap. Euseb., H. E. IV. 15. 39) became lay-teachers who were skilful in the interpretation of the sacred traditions. 469 In the case of Irenæus, as is well known, there was absolutely no consciousness of this, as is well remarked by Eusebius in H. E. V. 7. In support of his own writings, however, Irenæus appealed to no charisms. 470 See the passage already quoted on p. 63, note 1. 471 Irenæus and Tertullian scoffed at the Gnostic terminology in the most bitter way. 472 Tertullian, adv. Prax. 3: “Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sæculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intellegentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua οἰκονομίᾳ esse credendum, expavescunt ad οἰκονομίαν.” Similar remarks often occur in Origen. See also Hippol., c. Nöet. 11. 473 The danger of speculation and of the desire to know everything was impressively emphasised by Irenæus, II. 25-28. As a pronounced ecclesiastical positivist and traditionalist, he seems in these chapters disposed to admit nothing but obedient and acquiescent faith in the words of Holy Scripture, and even to reject speculations like those of Tatian, Orat. 5. Cf. the disquisitions II. 25.3: “Si autem et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium quæ requiruntur, cogitet, quia homo est in infinitum minor deo et qui ex parte (cf. II. 28.) acceperit gratiam et qui nondum æqualis vel similis sit factori; II. 26. 1: “ Ἄμείνον καὶ συμφορώτερον, ἰδιώτας καὶ ὀλιγομαθεῖς ὑπάρχειν, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης πλησίον γενέσθαι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἤ πολυμαθεῖς καὶ ἐμπείρους δοκοῦντας εἶναι, βλασφήμους εἰς τὸν ἑαυτῶν εὑρίσκεσθαι δεσπότην, and in addition to this the close of the paragraph, II. 27. 1: Concerning

148

History of Dogma - Volume II

234

235

Adolf Harnack

in the naïvest way, associated with the faithfully preserved traditional doctrines and fancies of the faith theories which he likewise regarded as tradition and which, in point of form, did not differ from those of the Apologists or Gnostics.474 The Holy Scriptures of the New Testament were the basis on which Irenæus set forth the most important doctrines of Christianity. Some of these he stated as they had been conceived by the oldest tradition (see the eschatology), others he adapted to the new necessities. The qualitative distinction between the fides credenda and theology was noticed neither by Irenæus nor by Hippolytus and Tertullian. According to Irenæus I. 10. 3 this distinction is merely quantitative. Here faith and theological knowledge are still completely intermixed. Whilst stating and establishing the doctrines of tradition with the help of the New Testament, and revising and fixing them by means of intelligent deduction, the Fathers think they are setting forth the faith itself and nothing else. Anything more than this is only curiosity not unattended with danger to Christians. Theology is interpreted faith.475 Corresponding to the baptismal confession there thus arose at the first a loose system of dogmas which were necessarily devoid of strict style, definite principle, or fixed and harmonious aim. In this form we find them with special plainness in Tertullian.476 This writer was still completely incapable of inwardly connecting his rational (Stoic) theology, as developed by him for apologetic purposes, with the Christological doctrines of the regula fidei, which, after the example of Irenæus, he constructed and defended from Scripture and tradition in opposition to heresy. Whenever he attempts in any place to prove the intrinsic necessity of these dogmas, he seldom gets beyond rhetorical statements, holy paradoxes, or juristic forms. As a systematic thinker, a cosmologist, moralist, and jurist rather than a theosophist, as a churchman, a masterly defender of tradition, as a Christian exclusively guided in practical life by the strict precepts and hopes of the Gospel, his theology, if by that we understand his collective theological disquisitions, is completely devoid of unity, and can only be termed a mixture of dissimilar and, not unfrequently, contradictory propositions, which admit of no comparison with the older theology of Valentinus or the later

the sphere within which we are to search (the Holy Scriptures and “quæ ante oculos nostros occurrunt”, much remains dark to us even in the Holy Scriptures II. 28. 3); II. 28. 1 f. on the canon which is to be observed in all investigations, namely, the confident faith in God the creator, as the supreme and only Deity; II. 28. 2-7: specification of the great problems whose solution is hid from us, viz., the elementary natural phenomena, the relation of the Son to the Father, that is, the manner in which the Son was begotten, the way in which matter was created, the cause of evil. In opposition to the claim to absolute knowledge, i.e., to the complete discovery of all the processes of causation, which Irenæus too alone regards as knowledge, he indeed pointed out the limits of our perception, supporting his statement by Bible passages. But the ground of these limits, “ex parte accepimus gratiam”, is not an early-Christian one, and it shows at the same time that the bishop also viewed knowledge as the goal, though indeed he thought it could not be attained on earth. 474 The same observation applies to Tertullian. Cf. his point blank repudiation of philosophy in de præsc. 7, and the use he himself nevertheless made of it everywhere. 475 In point of form this standpoint is distinguished from the ordinary Gnostic position by its renunciation of absolute knowledge, and by its corresponding lack of systematic completeness. That, however, is an important distinction in favour of the Catholic Fathers. According to what has been set forth in the text I cannot agree with Zahn’s judgment (Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 235 f.): “Irenæus is the first ecclesiastical teacher who has grasped the idea of an independent science of Christianity, of a theology which, in spite of its width and magnitude, is a branch of knowledge distinguished from others; and was also the first to mark out the paths of this science.” 476 Tertullian seems even to have had no great appreciation for the degree of systematic exactness displayed in the disquisitions of Irenæus. He did not reproduce these arguments at least, but preferred after considering them to fall back on the proof from prescription.

149

History of Dogma - Volume II

236

Adolf Harnack

system of Origen.477 To Tertullian everything lies side by side; problems which chance to turn up are just as quickly solved. The specific faith of Christians is indeed no longer, as it sometimes seems to be in Justin’s case, a great apparatus of proof for the doctrines of the only true philosophy; it rather stands, in its own independent value, side by side with these, partly in a crude, partly in a developed form; but inner principles and aims are nearly everywhere sought for in vain.478 In spite of this he possesses inestimable importance in the history of dogma; for he developed and created, in a disconnected form and partly in the shape of legal propositions, a series of the most important dogmatic formulæ, which Cyprian, Novatian, Hosius, and the Roman bishops of the fourth century, Ambrosius and Leo I., introduced into the general dogmatic system of the Catholic Church. He founded the terminology both of the trinitarian and of the Christological dogma; and in addition to this was the first to give currency to a series of dogmatic concepts (satisfacere, meritum, sacramentum, vitium originis etc., etc.). Finally it was he who at the very outset imparted to the type of dogmatic that arose in the West its momentous bias in the direction of auctoritas et ratio, and its corresponding tendency to assume a legal character (lex, formal and material), peculiarities which were to become more and more clearly marked as time went on.479 But, great as is his importance in this respect, it has no connection at all with the fundamental conception of Christianity peculiar to himself, for, as a matter of fact, this was already out of date at the time when he lived. What influenced the history of dogma was not his Christianity, but his masterly power of framing formulæ. It is different with Irenæus. The Christianity of this man proved a decisive factor in the history of dogma in respect of its content. If Tertullian supplied the future Catholic dogmatic with the most important part of its formulæ, Irenæus clearly sketched for it its fundamental idea, by combining the ancient notion of salvation with New Testament (Pauline) thoughts.480 Accordingly, as far as the essence of the matter is concerned, the great work of Irenæus is far superior to the theological writings of Tertullian. This appears already in the task, voluntarily undertaken by Irenæus, of giving a relatively complete exposition of the doctrines of ecclesiastical Christianity on the basis of the New Testament, in opposition to heresy. Tertullian nowhere betrayed a similar systematic necessity, which indeed, in the case of the Gallic bishop too, only made its appearance as the result of polemical motives. But Irenæus to a certain degree succeeded in amalgamating philosophic theology and the statements of ecclesiastical tradition viewed as doctrines. This result followed (1) because he never lost sight of a fundamental idea to which he tried to refer everything, and (2) because he was directed

477

The more closely we study the writings of Tertullian, the more frequently we meet with inconsistencies, and that in his treatment both of dogmatic and moral questions. Such inconsistencies could not but make their appearance, because Tertullian’s dogmatising was only incidental. As far as he himself was concerned, he did not feel the slightest necessity for a systematic presentation of Christianity. 478 With reference to certain articles of doctrine, however, Tertullian adopted from Irenæus some guiding principles and some points of view arising from the nature of faith; but he almost everywhere changed them for the worse. The fact that he was capable of writing a treatise like the de præscr. hæret., in which all proof of the intrinsic necessity and of the connection of his dogmas is wanting, shows the limits of his interests and of his understanding. 479 Further references to Tertullian in a future volume. Tertullian is at the same time the first Christian individual after Paul, of whose inward life and peculiarities we can form a picture to ourselves. His writings bring us near himself, but that cannot be said of Irenæus. 480 Consequently the spirit of Irenæus, though indeed strongly modified by that of Origen, prevails in the later Church dogmatic, whilst that of Tertullian is not to be traced there.

150

History of Dogma - Volume II

237

238

Adolf Harnack

by a confident view of Christianity as a religion, that is, a theory of its purpose. The first fundamental idea, in its all-dominating importance, was suggested to Irenæus by his opposition to Gnosticism. It is the conviction that the Creator of the world and the supreme God are one and the same.481 The other theory as to the aim of Christianity, however, is shared by Irenæus with Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion. It is the conviction that Christianity is real redemption, and that this redemption was only effected by the appearance of Christ. The working out of these two ideas is the most important feature in Irenæus’ book. As yet, indeed, he by no means really succeeded in completely adapting to these two fundamental thoughts all the materials to be taken from Holy Scripture and found in the rule of faith; he only thought with systematic clearness within the scheme of the Apologists. His archaic eschatological disquisitions are of a heterogeneous nature, and a great deal of his material, as, for instance, Pauline formulæ and thoughts, he completely emptied of its content, inasmuch as he merely contrived to turn it into a testimony of the oneness and absolute causality of God the Creator; but the repetition of the same main thoughts to an extent that is wearisome to us, and the attempt to refer everything to these, unmistakably constitute the success of his work.482 God the Creator and the one Jesus Christ are really the middle points of his theological system, and in this way he tried to assign an intrinsic significance to the several historical statements of the baptismal confession. Looked at from this point of view, his speculations were almost of an identical nature with the Gnostic.483 But, while he conceives Christianity as an explanation of the world and as redemption, his Christocentric teaching was opposed to that of the Gnostics. Since the latter started with the conception of an original dualism they saw in the empiric world a faulty combination

481

The supreme God is the Holy and Redeeming One. Hence the identity of the creator of the world and the supreme God also denotes the unity of nature, morality, and revelation. 482 What success the early-Christian writings of the second century had is almost completely unknown to us; but we are justified in saying that the five books “adv. hæreses” of Irenæus were successful, for we can prove the favourable reception of this work and the effects it had in the 3rd and 4th centuries (for instance, on Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Victorinus, Marcellus of Ancyra, Epiphanius, and perhaps Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius). As is well known, we no longer possess a Greek manuscript, although it can be proved that the work was preserved down to middle Byzantine times, and was quoted with respect. The insufficient Christological and especially the eschatological disquisitions spoiled the enjoyment of the work in later times (on the Latin Irenæus cf. the exhaustive examination of Loof: “The Manuscripts of the Latin translation of Irenæus”, in the “Studies of Church History” dedicated to Reuter, 1887). The old Catholic works written against heretics by Rhodon, Melito, Miltiades, Proculus, Modestus, Musanus, Theophilus, Philip of Gortyna, Hippolytus, and others have all been just as little preserved to us as the oldest book of this kind, the Syntagma of Justin against heresies, and the Memorabilia of Hegesippus. If we consider the criticism to which Tatian’s Christology was subjected by Arethas in the l0th century (Oratio 5 see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2 p. 95 ff.), and the depreciatory judgment passed on Chiliasm from the 3rd century downwards, and if we moreover reflect that the older polemical works directed against heretics were supplanted by later detailed ones, we have a summary of the reasons for the loss of that oldest Catholic literature. This loss indeed makes it impossible for us to form an exact estimate of the extent and intensity of the effect produced by any individual writing, even including the great work of Irenæus. 483 People are fond of speaking of the “Asia Minor” theology of Irenæus, ascribe it already to his teachers, Polycarp and the presbyters, then ascend from these to the Apostle John, and complete, though not without hesitation, the equation: John — Irenæus. By this speculation they win simply everything, in so far as the Catholic doctrine now appears as the property of an “apostolic” circle, and Gnosticism and Antignosticism are thus eliminated. But the following arguments may be urged against this theory: (1) What we know of Polycarp by no means gives countenance to the supposition that Irenæus learned more from him and his fellows than a pious regard for the Church tradition and a collection of historical traditions and principles. (2) The doctrine of Irena us cannot be separated from the received canon of New Testament writings; but in the generation before him there was as yet no such compilation. (3) The presbyter from whom Irenæus adopted important lines of thought in the 4th book did not write till after the middle of the second century. (4) Tertullian owes his Christocentric theology, so far as he has such a thing, to Irenæus (and Melito?).

151

History of Dogma - Volume II

239

240

Adolf Harnack

of opposing elements,484 and therefore recognised in the redemption by Christ the separation of what was unnaturally united. Irenæus, on the contrary, who began with the idea of the absolute causality of God the Creator, saw in the empiric world faulty estrangements and separations, and therefore viewed the redemption by Christ as the reunion of things unnaturally separated — the “recapitulatio” (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις).485 This speculative thought, which involved the highest imaginable optimism in contrast to Gnostic pessimism, brought Irenæus into touch with certain Pauline trains of thought,486 and enabled him to adhere to the theology of the Apologists. At the same time it opened up a view of the person of Christ, which supplemented the great defect of that theology,487 surpassed the Christology of the Gnostics,488 and made it possible to utilise the Christological statements contained in certain books of the New Testament.489 So far as we know at least, Irenæus is the first ecclesiastical theologian after the time of the Apologists (see Ignatius before that) who assigned a quite specific significance to the person of Christ and in fact regarded it as the vital factor.490 That was possible for him because of his realistic view of redemption. Here, however, he did not fall into the abyss of Gnosticism, because, as a disciple of the “elders”, he adhered to the early-Christian eschatology, and because, as a follower of the Apologists, he held, along with the realistic conception of salvation, the other dissimilar theory that Christ, as the teacher, imparts to men, who are free and naturally constituted for fellowship with God, the knowledge which enables them to imitate God, and thus by their own act to attain communion with him. Nevertheless to Irenæus the pith of the matter is already found in the idea that Christianity is real redemption, i.e., that the highest blessing bestowed in Christianity is the deification of human nature through the gift of immortality, and that this deification includes the full knowledge and enjoying of God (visio dei). This conception suggested to him the question as to the cause of the incarnation as well as the answer to the same. The question “cur deus — homo”, which was by no means clearly formulated in the apologetic writings, in so far as in these “homo” only meant appearance among men, and the “why” was answered by referring to prophecy and the necessity of divine teaching, was by Irenæus made the central point. The reasons why the answer he gave was so highly satisfactory may be stated as follows: (1) It proved that the Christian

484

Marcion, as is well known, went still further in his depreciatory judgment of the world, and therefore recognised in the redemption through Christ a pure act of grace. 485 See Molwitz, De Ἀνακεφαλαιώσεως in Irenæi theologic potestate, Dresden, 1874. 486 See, e.g., the Epistle to the Ephesians and also the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. 487 But see the remark made above, p. 220, note 1. We might without loss give up the half of the Apologies in return for the preservation of Justin’s chief Antignostic work. 488 According to the Gnostic Christology Christ merely restores the status quo ante, according to that of Irenæus he first and alone realises the. hitherto unaccomplished destination of humanity. 489 According to the Gnostic conception the incarnation of the divine, i.e., the fall of Sophia, contains, paradoxically expressed, the element of sin; according to Irenæus’ idea the element of redemption. Hence we must compare not only the Gnostic Christ, but the Gnostic Sophia, with the Christ of the Church. Irenæus himself did so in II. 20. 3. 490 After tracing in II. 14 the origin of the Gnostic theologoumena to the Greek philosophers Irenæus continues § 7: “Dicemus autem adversus eos: utramne hi omnes qui prædicti sunt, cum quibus eadem dicentes arguimini (Scil. “ye Gnostics with the philosophers”), cognoverunt veritatem aut non cognoverunt? Et si quidem cognoverunt, superflua est salvatoris in hunc mundum descensio. Ut (lege “ad”) quid enim descendebat?” It is characteristic of Irenæus not to ask what is new in the revelations of God (through the prophets and the Logos), but quite definitely: Cur descendit salvator in hunc mundum?” See also lib. III. præf.: “veritas, hoc est dei filii doctrina”, III. 10. 3: “Hæc est salutis agnitio quæ deerat eis, quæ est filii dei agnitio . . . agnitio salutis erat agnitio filii dei, qui et salus et salvator et salutare vere et dicitur et est.” III. I1. 3: III. 12. 7: IV. 24.

152

History of Dogma - Volume II

241

242

Adolf Harnack

blessing of salvation was of a specific kind. (2) It was similar in point of form to the so-called Gnostic conception of Christianity, and even surpassed it as regards the promised extent of the sphere included in the deification. (3) It harmonised with the eschatological tendency of Christendom, and at the same time was fitted to replace the material eschatological expectations that were fading away. (4) It was in keeping with the mystic and Neoplatonic current of the time, and afforded it the highest imaginable satisfaction. (5) For the vanishing trust in the possibility of attaining the highest knowledge by the aid of reason it substituted the sure hope of a supernatural transformation of human nature which would even enable it to appropriate that which is above reason. (6) Lastly, it provided the traditional historical utterances respecting Christ, as well as the whole preceding course of history, with a firm foundation and a definite aim, and made it possible to conceive a history of salvation unfolding itself by degrees (ὀικονομία Θεοῦ). According to this conception the central point of history was no longer the Logos as such, but Christ as the incarnate God, while at the same time the moralistic interest was balanced by a really religious one. An approach was thus made to the Pauline theology, though indeed in a very peculiar way and to some extent only in appearance. A more exact representation of salvation through Christ has, however, been given by Irenæus as follows: Incorruptibility is a habitus which is the opposite of our present one and indeed of man’s natural condition. For immortality is at once God’s manner of existence and his attribute; as a created being man is only “capable of incorruption and immortality” (“capax incorruptionis et immortalitatis”);491 thanks to the divine goodness, however, he is intended for the same, and yet is empirically “subjected to the power of death” (“sub condicione mortis”). Now the sole way in which immortality as a physical condition can be obtained is by its possessor uniting himself realiter with human nature, in order to deify it “by adoption” (“per adoptionem”), such is the technical term of Irenæus. The deity must become what we are in order that we may become what he is. Accordingly, if Christ is to be the Redeemer, he must himself be God, and all the stress must fall upon his birth as man. “By his birth as man the eternal Word of God guarantees the inheritance of life to those who in their natural birth have inherited death.”492 But this work of Christ can be conceived as recapitulatio because God the Redeemer is identical with God the Creator; and Christ consequently brings about a final condition which existed from the beginning in God’s plan, but 491

See II. 24. 3, 4: “Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est; sed secundum gratiam dei datur.” Cf. what follows. Irenæus has in various places argued that human nature inclusive of the flesh is capax incorruptibilitatis, and likewise that immortality is at once a free gift and the realisation of man’s destiny. 492 Book V. pref.: “Iesus Christus propter immensam suam dilectionem factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse”: III. 6. 1: “Deus stetit in synagoga deorum . . . de patre et filio et de his, qui adoptionem perceperunt, dicit: hi autem sunt ecclesia. Hæc enim est synagoga dei,” etc.; see also what follows, III. 16. 3: “Filius dei hominis filius factus, ut per eum adoptionem percipiamus, portante homine et capiente et complectente filium dei.” III. 16. 6: “Dei verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus, ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster . . . unus Iesus Christus, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans . . . in semetipsum primatum assumens . . . universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore.” III. 18. 1: “Quando incarnatus est filius homo et homo factus longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem præstans, ut quod perdideramus in Adam id est secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse dei, hoc in Christo Iesu reciperemus.” Cf. the whole 18th chapter where the deepest thoughts of the Pauline Gnosis of the death on the cross are amalgamated with the Gnosis of the incarnation; see especially 18. 6, 7: “Ἥνωσεν οὖν τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ Θεῷ. Εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἄνθρωπος ἐνίκησεν τὴν ἀντίπαλον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, οὐκ ἂν δικαίως ἐνικήθη ὁ ἐχθρός. Πάλιν τε, εἰ μὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἐδωρήσατο τὴν σωτηρίαν, οὑκ ἄν βεβαίως ἔσχομεν αὐτήν. Καὶ εἰ μὴ συνηνώθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ Θεῷ οὐκ ἂν ἡδυνήθη μετασχεῖν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας. Ἔδει γὰρ τὸν μεσίτην Θεοῦ τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς ἰδίας πρὸς

153

History of Dogma - Volume II

243

Adolf Harnack

could not be immediately realised in consequence of the entrance of sin. It is perhaps Irenæus’ highest merit, from a historical and ecclesiastical point of view, to have worked out this thought in pregnant fashion and with the simplest means, i.e., without the apparatus of the Gnostics, but rather by the aid of simple and essentially Biblical ideas. Moreover, a few decades later, he and Melito, an author unfortunately so little known to us, were already credited with this merit. For the author of the so-called “Little Labyrinth” (Euseb., H. E. V. 28. 5) can indeed boast with regard to the works of Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, etc., that they declared Christ to be God, but then continues: Τὰ Εἰρηνάιου τε κὰι Μελίτωνος κὰι τῶν λοιπῶν τίς ἀγνοεῖ βιβλία, θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγέλλοντα τὸν Χριστόν (“Who is ignorant of the books of Irenæus, Melito, and the rest, which proclaim Christ to be God and man”). The progress in theological views is very precisely and appropriately expressed in these words. The Apologists also professed their belief in the full revelation of God upon earth, that is, in revelation as the teaching which necessarily leads to immortality;493 but Irenæus is the first to whom Jesus Christ, God and man, is the centre of history

ἑκατέρους οἰκειὸτητος εἰς φιλίαν καὶ ὁμόνοιαν τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους συναγαγεῖν· καὶ Θεῷ μὲν παραστῆσαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀνθρώποις δὲ γνωρίσαι τὸν Θεόν. Qua enim ratione filiorum adoptionis eius participes esse possemus, nisi per filium eam quæ est ad ipsum recepissemus ab eo communionem, nisi verbum eius communicasset nobis caro factum? Quapropter et per omnem venit ætatem, omnibus restituens eam quæ est ad deum communionem.” The Pauline ideas about sin, law, and bondage are incorporated by Irenæus in what follows. The disquisitions in capp. 19-23 are dominated by the same fundamental idea. In cap. 19 Irenæus turns to those who hold Jesus to be a mere man, “perseverantes in servitute pristinæ inobedientiæ moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo dei patris neque per filium percipientes libertatem . . . privantur munere eius, quod est vita æterna: non recipientes autem verbum incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et sunt debitores mortis, antidotum vitæ non accipientes. Ad quos verbum ait, suum munus gratiæ narrans: Ἐγὼ εἶπα, υἱοὶ ὑψίστου ἐστὲ πάντες καὶ θεοί· ὑμεῖς δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωποι ἀποθνήσκετε. Ταῦτα λέγει πρὸς τοὺς μὴ δεξαμένους τὴν δωρεὰν τῆς υἱοθεσίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἀτιμάζοντας τὴν σάρκωσιν τῆς καθαρᾶς γεννήσεως τοῦ λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ . . . Εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ λόγος ἄνθρωπος et qui filius dei est filius hominis factus est, ἵνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὸν λόγον χωρήσας καὶ τὴν υἱοθεσίαν λαβὼν υἱὸς γένηται Θεοῦ. Non enim poteramus aliter incorruptelam et immortalitatem percipere, nisi adunati fuissemus incorruptelæ et immortalitati. Quemadmodum autem adunari possumus incorruptelæ et immortalitati, nisi prius incorruptela et immortalitas facta fuisset id quod et nos, ut absorberetur quod erat corruptibile ab incorruptela et quod erat mortale ab immortalitate, ut filiorum adoptionem perciperemus?” III. 21. 10: Εἰ τοίνυν ὁ πρῶτος Ἀδὰμ ἔσχε πατέρα ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἐκ ππέρματος ἐγεννήθη, εἰκὸς ἦν καὶ τὸν δεύτερον Ἀδὰμ λέγειν ἐξ Ἰωσὴφ γεγεννῆσθαι. Εἰ δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἐκ γῆς ἐλήφθη, πλάστης δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεός, ἔδει καὶ τὸν ἀνακεφαλαιούμενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πεπλασμένον ἄνθρωπον τὴν αὐτὴν ἐκείνῳ τῆς γεννήσεως ἔχειν ὁμοιότητα. Εἰς τὶ οὖν πάλιν οὐκ ἔλαβε χοῦν ὁ Θεός, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ Μαρίας ἐνήργησε τὴν πλάσιν γενέσθαι; Ἵνα μὴ ἀλλη πλάσις γένηται μηδὲ ἀλλὸ τὸ σωζόμενον ἦ, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος ἀνακεφαλαιωθῇ τηπουμένης τῆς ὁμοιότητος; III. 23. 1: IV. 38: V. 36: IV. 20: V. 16, 19-21, 22. In working out this thought Irenæus verges here and there on soteriological naturalism (see especially the disquisitions regarding the salvation of Adam, opposed to Tatian’s views, in III. 23). But he does not fall into this for two reasons. In the first place, as regards the history of Jesus, he has been taught by Paul not to stop at the incarnation, but to view the work of salvation as only completed by the sufferings and death of Christ (See II. 20. 3: “dominus per passionem mortem destruxit et solvit errorem corruptionemque exterminavit, et ignorantiam destruxit, vitam autem manifestavit et ostendit veritatem et incorruptionem donavit”; III. 16. 9: III. 18. 1-7 and many other passages), that is, to regard Christ as having performed a work. Secondly, alongside of the deification of Adam’s children, viewed as a mechanical result of the incarnation, he placed the other (apologetic) thought, viz., that Christ, as the teacher, imparts complete knowledge, that he has restored, i.e., strengthened the freedom of man, and that redemption (by which he means fellowship with God) therefore takes place only in the case of those children of Adam that acknowledge the truth proclaimed by Christ and imitate the Redeemer in a holy life (V. 1. 1.: “Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alius poterat enarrare nobis, quæ sunt patris, nisi proprium ipsius verbum . . . Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes et per auditum nostrum vocem eius percipientes, ut imitatores quidem operum, factores autem sermonum eius facti, communionem habeamus cum ipso”, and many other passages. We find a combined formula in III. 5.3: “Christus libertatem hominibus restauravit et attribuit incorruptelæ hæreditatem.” 493 Theophilus also did not see further, see Wendt, l.c., 17 ff.

154

History of Dogma - Volume II

244

245

Adolf Harnack

and faith.494 Following the method of Valentinus, he succeeded in sketching a history of salvation, the gradual realising of the οἰκονομία Θεοῦ culminating in the deification of believing humanity, but here he always managed to keep his language essentially within the limits of the Biblical. The various acting æons of the Gnostics became to him different stages in the saving work of the one Creator and his Logos. His system seemed to have absorbed the rationalism of the Apologists and the intelligible simplicity of their moral theology, just as much as it did the Gnostic dualism with its particoloured mythology. Revelation had become history, the history of salvation; and dogmatics had in a certain fashion become a way of looking at history, the knowledge of God’s ways of salvation that lead historically to an appointed goal.495 But, as this realistic, quasi-historical view of the subject was by no means completely worked out by Irenæus himself, since the theory of human freedom did not admit of its logical development, and since the New Testament also pointed in other directions, it did not yet become the predominating one even in the third century, nor was it consistently carried out by any one teacher. The two conceptions opposed to it, that of the early Christian eschatology and the rationalistic one, were still in vogue. The two latter were closely connected in the third century, especially in the West, whilst the mystic and realistic view was almost completely lacking there. In this respect Tertullian adopted but little from Irenæus. Hippolytus also lagged behind him. Teachers like Commodian, Arnobius, and Lactantius, however, wrote as if there had been no Gnostic movement at all, and as if no Antignostic Church theology existed. The immediate result of the work carried on by Irenus and the Antignostic teachers in the Church consisted in the fixing of tradition and in the intelligent treatment of individual doctrines, which gradually became established. The most important will be set forth in what follows. On the most vital point, the introduction of the philosophical Christology into the Church’s rule of faith, see Chapter 7. The manner in which Irenæus undertook his great task of expounding and defending orthodox Christianity in opposition to the Gnostic form was already a prediction of the future. The oldest Christian motives and hopes; the letter of both Testaments, including even Pauline thoughts; moralistic and philosophical elements, the result of the Apologists’ labours; and realistic and mystical features balance each other in his treatment. He glides over from the one to the other; limits the one by the other; plays off Scripture against reason, tradition against the obscurity of the Scriptures; and combats fantastic speculation by an appeal sometimes to reason, sometimes to the limits of human knowledge. Behind all this and dominating everything, we find his firm belief in the bestowal of divine incorruptibility on believers through the work of the God-man. This eclectic method did not arise from shrewd calculation. It was equally the result of a rare capacity for appropriating the feelings and ideas of others, combined with the conservative instincts that guided the great teacher, and the consequence of a happy blindness to the gulf which lay between the

494

Melito’s teaching must have been similar. In a fragment attributed to him (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2 p. 255 ff.) we even find the expression “αἱ δύο οὐσίαι Χριστοῦ”. The genuineness of the fragment is indeed disputed, but, as I think, without grounds. It is certainly remarkable that the formula is not found in Irenæus (see details below). The first Syriac fragment (Otto IX. p. 419) shows that Melito also views redemption as reunion through Christ. 495 The conception of the stage by stage development of the economy of God and the corresponding idea of “several covenants” (I. 10. 3: III. 11-15 and elsewhere) denote a very considerable advance, which the Church teachers owe to the controversy with Gnosticism, or to the example of the Gnostics. In this case the origin of the idea is quite plain. For details see below.

155

History of Dogma - Volume II

246

247

Adolf Harnack

Christian tradition and the world of ideas prevailing at that time. Still unconscious of the greatest problem, Irenæus with inward sincerity sketched out that future dogmatic method according to which the theology compiled by an eclectic process is to be nothing else than the simple faith itself, this being merely illustrated and explained, developed and by that very process established, as far as “stands in the Holy Scripture”, and — let us add — as far as reason requires. But Irenæus was already obliged to decline answering the question as to how far unexplained faith can be sufficient for most Christians, though nothing but this explanation can solve the great problems, “why more covenants than one were given to mankind, what was the character of each covenant, why God shut up every man unto unbelief, why the Word became flesh and suffered, why the advent of the Son of God only took place in the last times etc.” (I. 10. 3). The relation of faith and theological Gnosis was fixed by Irenæus to the effect that the latter is simply a continuation of the former.496 At the same time, however, he did not clearly show how the collection of historical statements found in the confession can of itself guarantee a sufficient and tenable knowledge of Christianity. Here the speculative theories are as a matter of fact quite imbedded in the historical propositions of tradition. Will these obscurities remain when once the Church is forced to compete in its theological system with the whole philosophical science of the Greeks, or may it be expected that, instead of this system of eclecticism and compromise, a method will find acceptance which, distinguishing between faith and theology, will interpret in a new and speculative sense the whole complex of tradition? Irenæus’ process has at least this one advantage over the other method: according to it everything can be reckoned part of the faith, providing it bears the stamp of truth, without the faith seeming to alter its nature. It is incorporated in the theology of facts which the faith here appears to be.497 The latter, however, imperceptibly becomes a revealed system of doctrine and history; and though Irenæus himself always seeks to refer everything again to the “simple faith” (ψιλὴ πίστις), and to believing simplicity, that is, to the belief in the Creator and the Son of God who became man, yet it was not in his power to stop the development destined to transform the faith into knowledge of a theological system. The pronounced hellenising of the Gospel, brought about by the Gnostic systems, was averted by Irenæus and the later ecclesiastical teachers by preserving a great portion of the early Christian tradition, partly as regards its letter, partly as regards its spirit, and thus rescuing it for the future. But the price of this preservation was the adoption of a series of “Gnostic” formulæ. Churchmen, though with hesitation, adopted the adversary’s way of looking at things, and necessarily did so, because as they became ever further and further removed from the early-Christian feelings and thoughts, they had always more and more lost every other point of view. The old Catholic Fathers permanently settled a great part of early tradition for Christendom, but at the same time promoted the gradual hellenising of Christianity. 496

It would seem from some passages as if faith and theological knowledge were according to Irenæus simply related as the “is” and the “why”. As a matter of fact, he did express himself so without being really able to maintain the relationship thus fixed; for faith itself must also to some extent include a knowledge of the reason and aim of God’s ways of salvation. Faith and theological knowledge are therefore, after all, closely interwoven with each other. Irenæus merely sought for a clear distinction, but it was impossible for him to find it in his way. The truth rather is that the same man, who, in opposition to heresy, condemned an exaggerated estimate of theoretical knowledge, contributed a great deal to the transformation of that faith into a monistic speculation. 497 See I. 10, 2: Καὶ οὔτε ὁ πάνυ δυνατὸς ἐν λόγῳ τῶν ἐν ταῖ ἐκκλησίαις προεστώτων ἕτερα τούτων (scil. than the regula fidei) ἐρεῖ· οὐδείς γὰρ ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον· οὔτε ὁ ἀσθενὴς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἐλαττώσει τὴν παράδοσιν. Μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς πίστεως οὔσης οὔτε ὁ πολὺ περὶ αὐτῆς δυνάμενος εἰπεῖν ἐπλεόνασεν, οὔτε ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον ἡλαττόνησε.

156

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

2. The Doctrines of the Church. In the following section we do not intend to give a presentation of the theology of Irenæus and the other Antignostic Church teachers, but merely to set forth those points of doctrine to which the teachings of these men gave currency in succeeding times.

248

Against the Gnostic theses498 Irenæus and his successors, apart from the proof from prescription, adduced the following intrinsic considerations: (1) In the case of the Gnostics and Marcion the Deity lacks absoluteness, because he does not embrace everything, that is, he is bounded by the kenoma or by the sphere of a second God; and also because his omnipresence, ,omniscience, and omnipotence have a corresponding limitation.499 (2) The assumption of divine emanations and of a differentiated divine pleroma represents the Deity as a composite, i.e.,500 finite being; and, moreover, the personification of the divine qualities is a mythological freak, the folly of which is evident as soon as one also makes the attempt to personify the affections and qualities of man in a similar way.501 (3) The attempt to make out conditions existing within the Godhead is in itself absurd and audacious.502 (4) The theory of the passion and ignorance of Sophia introduces sin into the pleroma itself, i.e., into the Godhead.503 With this the weightiest argument against the Gnostic cosmogony is already mentioned. A further argument against the system is that the world and mankind would have been incapable of improvement, if they had owed their origin to ignorance and sin.504 Irenæus and Tertullian employ lengthy arguments to show that a God who has created nothing is inconceivable, and that a Demiurge occupying a position alongside of or below the Supreme Being is self-contradictory, inasmuch as he sometimes appears higher than this Supreme

249

498

See Böhringer’s careful reviews of the theology of Irenæus and Tertullian (Kirchengeschichte in Biographien, Vol. I. 1st section, 1st half (2nd ed.), pp. 378-612, 2nd half, pp. 484-739). 499 To the proof from prescription belong the arguments derived from the novelty and contradictory multiplicity of the Gnostic doctrines as well as the proofs that Greek philosophy is the original source of heresy. See Iren. II. 14. 1-6; Tertull. de præscr. 7; Apolog. 47 and other places; the Philosophoumena of Hippolytus. On Irenæus’ criticism of Gnostic theology see Kunze, Gotteslehre des Irenäus, Leipzig, 1891, p. 8 ff. 500 See Irenæus II. I. 2-4: II. 31. 1. Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 2-7. Tertullian proves that there can be neither two morally similar, nor two morally dissimilar Deities; see also I. 15. 501 See Irenæus II. 13. Tertullian (ad Valent. 4) very appropriately defined the æons of Ptolemy as “personales substantias extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat.” 502 See Irenæus, l.c., and elsewhere in the 2nd Book, Tertull. adv. Valent. in several passages. Moreover, Irenæus still treated the first 8 Ptolemaic æons with more respect than the 22 following, because here at least there was some appearance of a Biblical foundation. In confuting the doctrine of æons he incidentally raised several questions (II. 17. 2), which Church theologians discussed in later times, with reference to the Son and Spirit. “Quæritur quemadmodum emissi sunt reliqui æones? Utrum uniti ei qui emiserit, quemadmodum a sole radii, an efficabiliter et partiliter, uti sit unusquisque eorum separatim et suam figurationem habens, quemadmodum ab homine homo . . . Aut secundum germinationem, quemadmodum ab arbore rami? Et utrum eiusdem substantiæ exsistebant his qui se emiserunt, an ex altera quadam substantia substantiam habentes? Et utrum in eodem emissi sunt, ut eiusdem temporis essent sibi? . . . Et utrum simplices quidam et uniformes et undique sibi æquales et similes, quemadmodum spiritus et lumina emissa sunt, an compositi et differentes”? See also II. 17. 4: “Si autem velut a lumine lumina accensa sunt . . . velut verbi gratia a facula faculæ, generatione quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem autem substantiæ cum sint cum principe emissionis ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et pater ipsorum participabit passiones. Neque enim quæ postea accensa est facula, alterum lumen habebit quam illud quod ante eam fuit.” Here we have already a statement of the logical reasons, which in later times were urged against the Arian doctrine. 503 See Iren. II. 17. 5 and II. 18. 504 See Iren. II. 4. 2.

157

History of Dogma - Volume II

250

Adolf Harnack

Being, and sometimes so weak and limited that one can no longer look on him as a God.505 The Fathers everywhere argue on behalf of the Gnostic Demiurge and against the Gnostic supreme God. It never occurs to them to proceed in the opposite way and prove that the supreme God may be the Creator. All their efforts are rather directed to show that the Creator of the world is the only and supreme God, and that there can be no other above this one. This attitude of the Fathers is characteristic; for it proves that the apologetico-philosophical theology was their fundamental assumption. The Gnostic (Marcionite) supreme God is the God of religion, the God of redemption; the Demiurge is the being required to explain the world. The intervention of the Fathers on his behalf, that is, their assuming him as the basis of their arguments, reveals what was fundamental and what was accidental in their religious teaching. At the same time, however, it shows plainly that they did not understand or did not feel the fundamental problem that troubled and perplexed the Gnostics and Marcion, viz., the qualitative distinction between the spheres of creation and redemption. They think they have sufficiently explained this distinction by the doctrine of human freedom and its consequences. Accordingly their whole mode of argument against the Gnostics and Marcion is, in point of content, of an abstract, philosophico-rational kind.506 As a rule they do not here carry on their controversy with the aid of reasons taken from the deeper views of religion. As soon as the rational argument fails, however, there is really an entire end to the refutation from inner grounds, at least in the case of Tertullian; and the contest is shifted into the sphere of the rule of faith and the Holy Scriptures. Hence, for example, they have not succeeded in making much impression on the heretical Christology from dogmatic considerations, though in this respect Irenæus was still very much more successful than Tertullian.507 Besides, in adv. Marc. II. 27, the latter betrayed what interest he took in the preëxistent Christ as distinguished from God the Father. It is not expedient to separate the arguments advanced by the Fathers against the Gnostics from their own positive teachings, for these are throughout dependent on their peculiar attitude within the sphere of Scripture and tradition. Irenæus and Hippolytus have been rightly named Scripture theologians; but it is a strange infatuation to think that this designation characterises them as evangelical. If indeed we here understand “evangelical” in the vulgar sense, the term may be correct, only in this case it means exactly the same as “Catholic”. But if “evangelical” signifies “early-Christian”, then it must be said that Scripture theology was not the primary means of preserving the ideas of primitive Christianity; for, as the New Testament Scriptures were also regarded as inspired documents and 505

Tertullian in particular argued in great detail (adv. Marc. I. 9-19) that every God must, above all, have revealed himself as a creator. In opposition to Marcion’s rejection of all natural theology, he represents this science as the foundation of all religious belief. In this connection he eulogised the created world (I. 13) and at the same time (see also the 2nd Book) argued in favour of the Demiurge, i.e., of the one true God. Irenæus urged a series of acute and weighty objections to the cosmogony of the Valentinians (see II. 1-5), and showed how untenable was the idea of the Demiurge as an intermediate being. The doctrines that the Supreme Being is unknown (II. 6), that the Demiurge is the blind instrument of higher æons, that the world was created against the will of the Supreme God, and, lastly, that our world is the imperfect copy of a higher one were also opposed by him with rational arguments. His refutation of the last conception is specially remarkable (II. 7). On the idea that God did not create the world from eternal matter see Tertull., adv. Hermog. 506 But this very method of argument was without doubt specially impressive in the case of the educated, and it is these alone of whom we are here speaking. On the decay of Gnosticism after the end of the 2nd century, see Renan, Origines, Vol. VII, p. 113 ff. 507 See his arguments that the Gnostics merely assert that they have only one Christ, whereas they actually possess several, III. 16. 1, 8 and elsewhere.

158

History of Dogma - Volume II

251

252

Adolf Harnack

were to be interpreted according to the regula, their content was just for that reason apt to be obscured. Both Marcion and the chiefs of the Valentinian school had also been Scripture theologians. Irenæus and Hippolytus merely followed them. Now it is true that they very decidedly argued against the arbitrary method of interpreting the Scriptures adopted by Valentinus, and compared it to the process of forming the mosaic picture of a king into the mosaic picture of a fox, and the poems of Homer into any others one might choose;508 but they just as decidedly protested against the rejection by Apelles and Marcion of the allegorical method of interpretation,509 and therefore were not able to set up a canon really capable of distinguishing their own interpretation from that of the Gnostics.510 The Scripture theology of the old Catholic Fathers has a twofold aspect. The religion of the Scripture is no longer the original form; it is the mediated, scientific one to be constructed by a learned process; it is, on its part, the strongest symptom of the secularisation that has begun. In a word, it is the religion of the school, first the Gnostic then the ecclesiastical. But it may, on the other hand, be a whole-some reaction against enthusiastic excess and moralistic frigidity; and the correct sense of the letter will from the first obtain imperceptible recognition in opposition to the “spirit” arbitrarily read into it, and at length banish this “spirit” completely. Irenæus certainly tried to mark off the Church use of the Scriptures as distinguished from the Gnostic practice. He rejects the accommodation theory of which some Gnostics availed themselves;511 he emphasises more strongly than these the absolute sufficiency of the Scriptures by repudiating all esoteric doctrines;512 he rejects all distinction between different kinds of inspiration in the sacred books;513 he lays down the maxim that the obscure passages are to be interpreted from the clear ones, not vice versâ;514 but this principle being in itself ambiguous, it is rendered quite unequivocal by the injunction to interpret everything according to the rule of faith515 and, in the case of all objectionable passages, to seek the type.516 Not only did Irenæus explain the Old Testament allegorically, in accordance with traditional usage;517 but according to the principle: “with God there is nothing without purpose or due signification” (“nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum”) (IV. 2I. 3), he was also the first to apply the scientific and mystical explanation to the New Testament, and was consequently obliged to adopt the Gnostic exegesis, which was imperative as soon as the apostolic

508

See Iren., I. 9 and elsewhere; Tertull., de præscr. 39, adv. Valent. passim. See Tertull., adv. Marc. II. 19, 21, 22: III. 5, 6, 14, 19: V. I.; Orig. Comm. in Matth., T. XV. 3, Opp. III., p. 655; Comm. in ep. ad Rom., T. II. 12. Opp. IV., p. 494 sq.; Pseudo-Orig. Adamantius, De recta in deum fide; Orig. I. pp. 808, 817. 510 For this reason Tertullian altogether forbade exegetic disputes with the Gnostics, see de præscr. 16-19: “Ego non ad scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est aut parum certa.” 511 See Iren., III. 5. I: III. 12. 6. 512 See Iren., III. 14. 2: III. 15. 1; Tertull., de præscr. 25: “Scripturæ quidem perfecta sunt, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius dictæ, nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a verbo dei et spiritu eius, secundum hoc et scientia mysteriorum eius indigemus.” 513 See Iren. II. 35. 2: IV. 34, 35 and elsewhere. Irenæus also asserted that the translation of the Septuagint (III. 21. 4) was inspired. The repudiation of different kinds of inspiration in the Scriptures likewise involved the rejection of all the critical views of the Gnostics that were concealed behind that assumption. The Alexandrians were the first who again to some extent adopted these critical principles. 514 See Iren. II. 10. 1: II. 27. 1, 2. 515 See Iren. II. 25. 1. 516 Irenæus appropriates the words of an Asia Minor presbyter when he says (IV. 32. I): De his quidem delictis, de quibus ipsæ scripturæ increpant patriarchas et prophetas, nos non oportere exprobare eis . . . de quibus autem scripturæ non increpant (scil. delictis), sed simpliciter sunt posits, nos non debere fieri accusatores, sed typum quærere.” 517 See, e.g., IV. 20. 12 where he declares the three spies whom Rahab entertained to be Father, Son, and Spirit. 509

159

History of Dogma - Volume II

253

Adolf Harnack

writings were viewed as a New Testament. He regards the fact of Jesus handing round food to those lying at table as signifying that Christ also bestows life on the long dead generations;518 and, in the parable of the Samaritan, he interprets the host as the Spirit and the two denarii as the Father and Son.519 To Irenæus and also to Tertullian and Hippolytus all numbers, incidental circumstances, etc., in the Holy Scriptures are virtually as significant as they are to the Gnostics, and hence the only question is what hidden meaning we are to give to them. “Gnosticism” is therefore here adopted by the ecclesiastical teachers in its full extent, proving that this “Gnosicism” is nothing else than the learned construction of religion with the scientific means of those days. As soon as Church-men were forced to bring forward their proofs and proceed to put the same questions as the “Gnostics”, they were obliged to work by their method. Allegory, however, was required in order to establish the continuity of the tradition from Adam down to the present time — not merely down to Christ — against the attacks of the Gnostics and Marcion. By establishing this continuity a historical truth was really also preserved. For the rest, the disquisitions of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus were to such an extent borrowed from their opponents that there is scarcely a problem that they propounded and discussed as the result of their own thirst for knowledge. This fact not only preserved to their works an early-Christian character as compared with those of the Alexandrians, but also explains why they frequently stop in their positive teachings, when they believe they have confuted their adversaries. Thus we find neither in Irenæus nor Tertullian a discussion of the relation of the Scriptures to the rule of faith. From the way in which they appeal to both we can deduce a series of important problems, which, however, the Fathers themselves did not formulate and consequently did not answer.520 The doctrine of God was fixed by the old Catholic Fathers for the Christendom of succeeding centuries, and in fact both the methodic directions for forming the idea of God and their results remained unchanged. With respect to the former they occupy a middle position between the renunciation of all knowledge — for God is not abyss and silence — and the attempt to fathom the depths of the Godhead.521 Tertullian, influenced by the Stoics, strongly emphasised the possibility of attaining a knowledge of God. Irenæus, following out an idea which seems to anticipate the mysticism of later theologians, made love a preliminary condition of knowledge and plainly

518

See Iren. IV. 22. 1. See Iren. III. 17. 3. 520 Justin had already noted certain peculiarities of the Holy Scriptures as distinguished from profane writings. Tertullian speaks of two proprietates iudaicæ literaturæ in adv. Marc. III. 5. 6. But the Alexandrians were the first to propound any kind of complete theories of inspiration. 521 See above p. 233, note 2, Kunze, l.c. 519

160

History of Dogma - Volume II

254

255

Adolf Harnack

acknowledged it as the principle of knowledge.522 God can be known from revelation,523 because he has really revealed himself, that is, both by the creation and the word of revelation. Irenæus also taught that a sufficient knowledge of God, as the creator and guide, can be obtained from the creation, and indeed this knowledge always continues, so that all men are without excuse.524 In this case the prophets, the Lord himself, the Apostles, and the Church teach no more and nothing else than what must be already plain to the natural consciousness. Irenæus certainly did not succeed in reconciling this proposition with his former assertion that the knowledge of God springs from love resting on revelation. Irenæus also starts, as Apologist and Antignostic, with the God who is the First Cause. Every God who is not that is a phantom;525 and every sublime religious state of mind which does not include the feeling of dependence upon God as the Creator is a deception. It is the extremest blasphemy to degrade God the Creator, and it is the most frightful machination of the devil that has produced the blasphemia creatoris.526 Like the Apologists, the early Catholic Fathers confess that the doctrine of God the Creator is the first and most important of the main articles of Christian faith;527 the belief in his oneness as well as his absoluteness is the main point.528 God is all light, all understanding, all Logos, all active spirit;529 everything anthropopathic and

522

See Iren., II. 26. I, 13. 4: “Sic et in reliquis omnibus nulli similis erit omnium pater hominum pusillitati: et dicitur quidem secundum hæc propter delectionem, sentitur autem super hæc secundum magnitudinem.” Irenæus expressly says that God cannot be known as regards his greatness, i.e., absolutely, but that he can be known as regards his love, IV. 20. I: “Igitur secundum magnitudem non est cognoscere deum, impossibile est enim mensurari patrem; secundum autem dilectionem eius — hæc est enim quæ nos per verbum eius perducit ad deum — obedientes ei semper discimus quoniam est tantus deus etc.”; in IV. 20. 4 the knowledge of God “secundum dilectionem” is more closely defined by the words “per verbum eius Iesum Christum.” The statements in §§ 5 and 6 are, however, specially important: they who are pure in heart will see God. God’s omnipotence and goodness remove the impossibility of man knowing him. Man comes to know him gradually, in proportion as he is revealed and through love, until he beholds him in a state of perfection. He must be in God in order to know God: ὥσπερ οἱ βλέποντες τὸ φῶς ἐντός εἰσι τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ τῆς λαμπρότητος αὐτοῦ μετέχουσιν, οὕτως οἱ βλέποντες πὸν Θεὸν ἐντός εἰσι τοῦ Θεοῦ, μετέχοντες αὐτοῦ τῆς λαμπρότητος. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὁ ἀχώρητος καὶ ἀκατάληπτος καὶ ἀόρατος ὁρώμενον ἑαυτὸν . . . τοῖς πιστοῖς παρέσχεν, ἵνα ζωοποιήσῃ τοὺς χωροῦντας καὶ βλέποντας αὐτὸν διὰ πίστεως. See also what follows down to the words: μετοχὴ Θεοῦ ἐστὶ τὸ γινώσκειν Θεὸν καὶ ἀπολαύειν τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ, et homines igitur videbunt deum, ut vivant, per visionem immortales facti et pertingentes usque in deum. Sentences of this kind where rationalism is neutralised by mysticism we seek for in Tertullian in vain. 523 See Iren., IV. 6. 4: Ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς ὁ κύριος, ὅτι Θεὸν εἰδέναι οὐδεὶς δύναται, μὴ οὐχὶ Θεοῦ διδάξαντος, τουτέστιν, ἄνευ Θεοῦ μὴ γινώσκεσθαι τὸν Θεόν· αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ γινώσκεσθαι τὸν Θεὸν θέλημα εἶναι τοῦ πατρός, Γνώσονται γὰρ αὐτὸν οἷς ἀν ἀποκαλύψῃ ὁ υἱός. 524 Iren. II. 6. 1, 9. 1, 27. 2: III. 25. 1: “Providentiam habet deus omnium propter hoc et consilium dat: consilium autem dans adest his, qui morum providentiam hibent. Necesse est igitur ea quæ providentur et gubernantur cognoscere suum directorem; quæ quidem non sunt irrationalia neque vana, sed habent sensibilitatem perceptam de providentia dei. Et propter hoc ethnicorum quidam, qui minus illecebris ac voluptatibus servierunt, et non in tantum superstitione idolorum coabducti sunt, providentia eius moti licet tenuiter, tamen conversi sunt, ut dicerent fabricatorem huius universitatis patrem omnium providentem et disponentem secundum nos mundum.” Tertull., de testim. animæ; Apolog. 17. 525 See Iren., IV. 6. 2; Tertull., adv. Marc. I, II. 526 See Iren., V. 26. 2. 527 See Iren., II. 1. 1 and the Hymn II. 30. 9. 528 See Iren., III. 8. 3. Very pregnant are Irenæus’ utterances in II. 34. 4 and II. 30. 9: “Principari enim debet in omnibus et dominari voluntas dei, reliqua autem omnia huic cedere et subdita esse et in servitium dedita” . . . “substantia omnium voluntas dei;” see also the fragment V. in Harvey, Iren., Opp. II. p. 477 sq. Because everything originates with God and the existence of eternal metaphysical contrasts is therefore impossible the following proposition (IV. 2, 4), which is proved from the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, holds good: “ex una substantia esse omnia, id est Abraham et Moysem et prophetas, etiam ipsum dominum.” 529 See Iren. II. 28. 4, 5: IV. 11. 2.

161

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

anthropomorphic is to be conceived as incompatible with his nature.530 The early-Catholic doctrine of God shows an advance beyond that of the Apologists, in so far as God’s attributes of goodness and righteousness are expressly discussed, and it is proved in opposition to Marcion that they are not mutually exclusive, but necessarily involve each other.531 256

257

In the case of the Logos doctrine also, Tertullian and Hippolytus simply adopted and developed that of the Apologists, whilst Irenaus struck out a path of his own. In the Apologeticum (c. 21) Tertullian set forth the Logos doctrine as laid down by Tatian, the only noteworthy difference between him and his predecessor consisting in the fact that the appearance of the Logos in Jesus Christ was the uniform aim of his presentation.532 He fully explained his Logos doctrine in his work against the Monarchian Praxeas.533 Here he created the formulæ of succeeding orthodoxy by introducing the ideas “substance” and “person” and by framing, despite of the most pronounced subordinationism and a purely economical conception of the Trinity, definitions of the relations

530

Tertullian also makes the same demand (e.g., adv. Marc. II. 27); for his assertion “deum corpus esse” (adv. Prax. 7: “Quis enim negabit, deum corpus esse, etsi deus spiritus est? spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie”) must be compared with his realistic doctrine of the soul (de anima 6) as well as with the proposition formulated in de carne 11: “omne quod est, corpus est sui generis; nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est.” Tertullian here followed a principle of Stoic philosophy, and in this case by no means wished to teach that the Deity has a human form, since he recognised that man’s likeness to God consists merely in his spiritual qualities. On the contrary Melito ascribed to God a corporeal existence of a higher type (Eusebius mentions a work of this bishop under the title “ὁ περὶ ἐνσωμάτου Θεοῦ λόγος”, and Origen reckoned him among the ichers who recognised that man had also a likeness to God in form (in body); see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1. 2, pp. 243, 248. In the second century the realistic eschatological ideas no doubt continued to foster in wide circles the popular idea that God had a form and a kind of corporeal existence. A middle position between these ideas and that of Tertullian and the Stoics seems to have been taken up by Lactantius (Instit. div. VII. 9, 21; de ira dei 2. 18.). 531 See Iren., III. 25. 2; Tertulla adv. Marc. I. 23-28: II. 11 sq. Hippolytus briefly defined his doctrine of God in Phil. X. 32. The advance beyond the Apologists’ idea of God consists not only in the thorough discussion of God’s attributes of goodness and righteousness, but also in the view, which is now much more vigorously worked out, that the Almighty Creator has no other purpose in his world than the salvation of mankind. See the 10th Greek fragment of Irenæus (Harvey, II. p. 480); Tertull., de orat. 4: “Summa est voluntatis dei salus eorum, quos adoptavit”; de pænit. 2: “Bonorum dei unus est titulus, salus hominum”; adv. Marc. II. 27: “Nihil tam dignum deo quam salus hominis.” They had here undeniably learned from Marcion; see adv. Marc. I. 17. In the first chapters of the work de orat., however, in which Tertullian expounds the Lord’s Prayer, he succeeded in unfolding the meaning of the Gospel in a way such as was never possible for him elsewhere. The like remark may be made of Origen’s work de orat., and, in general, in the case of most authors who interpreted the Lord’s Prayer in the succeeding period. This prayer kept alive the knowledge of the deepest meaning of the Gospel. 532 Apol. 21: “Necesse et igitur pauca de Christo ut deo . . . Jam ediximus deum universitatem hanc mundi verbo et ratione et virtute molitum. Apud vestros quoque sapientes λόγον, id est sermonem et rationem, constat artificem videri universitatis.” (An appeal to Zeno and Cleanthes follows). “Et nos autem sermoni atque rationi itemque virtuti, per quæ omnia molitum deum ediximus, propriam substantiam spiritum inscribimus, cui et sermo insit pronuntianti et ratio adsit disponenti et virtus præsit perficienti. Hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum et idcirco filium dei et deum dictum ex unitate substantiæ, nam et deus spiritus (that is, the antemundane Logos is the Son of God). Et cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa; sed sol erit in radio, quia solis est radius nec separator substantia sed extenditur (cf. adv. Prax. 8). Ita de spiritu spiritus et deo deus ut lumen de lumine accensum. Manet integra et indefecta materiæ matrix, etsi plures inde traduces qualitatis mutueris: ita et quod de deo profectum est, deus est et dei filius et unus ambo. Ita et de spiritu spiritus et de deo deus modulo alternum numerum, gradu non statu fecit, et a matrice non recessit sed excessit. Iste igitur dei radius, ut retro semper prædicabatur, delapsus in virginem quandam et in utero eius caro figuratus nascitur homo deo mixtus. Caro spiritu instructa nutritur, adolescit, adfatur, docet, operatur et Christus est.” Tertullian adds: “Recipite interim hanc fabulam, similis est vestris.” As a matter of fact the heathen most have viewed this statement as a philosophical speculation with a mythological conclusion. It is very instructive to ascertain that in Hippolytus’ book against Noëtus “the setting forth of the truth” (c. 10 ff.) he begins with the proposition: Θεός ἐβουλήθη κόσμον κτίσαι. The Logos whose essence and working are described merely went forth to realise this intention. 533 See Hagemann, Die römische Kirche (1864), p. 172 ff.

162

History of Dogma - Volume II

258

Adolf Harnack

between the persons which could be fully adopted in the Nicene creed.534 Here also the philosophical and cosmological interest prevails; the history of salvation appears only to be the continuation of that of the cosmos. This system is distinguished from Gnosticism by the history of redemption appearing as the natural continuation of the history of creation and not simply as its correction. The thought that the unity of the Godhead is shown in the una substantia and the una dominatio was worked out by Tertullian with admirable clearness. According to him the unfolding of this one substance into several heavenly embodiments, or the administration of the divine sovereignty by emanated persons cannot endanger the unity; the “arrangement of the unity when the unity evolves the trinity from itself” (“dispositio unitatis, quando unitas ex semetipsa [trinitatem] derivat”) does not abolish the unity, and, moreover, the Son will some day subject himself to the Father, so that God will be all in all.535 Here then the Gnostic doctrine of moons is adopted in its complete form, and in fact Hippolytus, who in this respect agrees with Tertullian, has certified that the Valentinians “acknowledge that the one is the originator of all” (“τὸν ἕνα ὁμολογοῦσιν αἴτιον τῶν πάντων”), because with them also, “the whole goes back to one” (“τὸ πᾶν εἰς ἕνα ανατρέχει”).536 The only difference is that Tertullian and Hippolytus limit the “economy of God” (οἰκονομία τοῦ Θεοῦ) to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, while the Gnostics exceed this number.537 According to Tertullian “a rational conception of the Trinity constitutes truth, an irrational idea of the unity makes heresy” (“trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituit, unitas irrationaliter collecta hæresim facit”) is already the watchword of the Christian dogmatic. Now what he considers a rational conception is keeping in view the different stages of God’s economy, and distinguishing between dispositio, distinctio, numerus on the one hand and divisio on the other. At the beginning God was alone, but

534

See my detailed exposition of the orthodox side of Tertullian’s doctrine of the Trinity (“orthodox” in the later sense of the word), in Vol. IV. There it is also shown that these formulæ were due to Tertullian’s juristic bias. The formulæ, “una substantia, tres personæ”, never alternates in his case with the others, “una natura, tres personæ”; and so it remained for a long time in the West; they did not speak of “natures” but of “substances” (“nature” in this connection is very rare down to the 5th century). What makes this remarkable is the fact that Tertullian always uses “substance” in the concrete sense “individual substance” and has even expressed himself precisely on the point. He says in de anima 32: “aliud est substantia, aliud natura substantiæ; siquidem substantia propria est rei cuiusque, natura vero potest esse communis. Suscipe exemplum: substantia est lapis, ferrum; duritia lapidis et ferri natura substantia est. Duritia (natura) communicat, substantia discordat. Mollitia lanæ, mollitia plumæ pariant naturalia eorum, substantiva non pariant . . . Et tunc naturæ similitudo notatur, cum substantiæ dissimilitudo conspicitur. Men and animals are similar natura, but not substantia.” We see that Tertullian in so far as he designated Father, Son, and Spirit as one substance expressed their unity as strongly as possible. The only idea intelligible to the majority was a juristic and political notion, viz., that the Father, who is the tota substantia, sends forth officials whom he entrusts with the administration of the monarchy. The legal fiction attached to the concept “person” aided in the matter here. 535 See adv. Prax. 3: “Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est: Milies centies centena milia adsistebant ei, et milies centena milia apparebant ei, nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta milia virtutum procuratur: quale est ut deus divisionem et dispersionem pati videatur in filio et spiritu sancto, secundum et tertium sortitis locum, tam consortibus substantiæ patris, quam non patitur in tot angelorum numero?” (! !) c. 4: “Videmus igitur non obesse monarchiæ filium, etsi hodie apud filium est, quia et in suo statu est apud filium, et cum suo statu restituetur patri a filio.” L.c.: Monarchia in tot nominibus constituta est, in quot deus voluit.” 536 See Hippol., c. Noëtum 11. According to these doctrines the unity is sufficiently preserved (1) if the separate persons have one and the same substance, (2) if there is one possessor of the whole substance, i.e., if everything proceeds from him. That this is a remnant of polytheism ought not to be disputed. 537 Adv. Prax. 8: “Hoc si qui putaverit, me προβολὴν aliquam introducere id est prolationem rei alterius ex altera, quod facit Valentinus, primo quidem dicam tibi, non ideo non utatur et veritas vocabulo isto et re ac censu eius, quia et hæresis utitur; immo hæresis potius ex veritate accepit quod ad mendacium suum strueret”; cf. also what follows. Thus far then theologians had got already: “The economy is founded on as many names as God willed” (c. 4).

163

History of Dogma - Volume II

259

260

Adolf Harnack

ratio and sermo existed within him. In a certain sense then, he was never alone, for he thought and spoke inwardly. If even men can carry on conversations with themselves and make themselves objects of reflection, how much more is this possible with God.538 But as yet he was the only person.539 The moment, however, that he chose to reveal himself and sent forth from himself the word of creation, the Logos came into existence as a real being, before the world and for the sake of the world. For “that which proceeds from such a great substance and has created such substances cannot itself be devoid of substance.” He is therefore to be conceived as permanently separate from God “secundus a deo consititutus, perseverans in sua forma”; but as unity of substance is to be preserved (“alias pater, alias filius, alias non aliud” — “ego et pater unum sumus ad substantiæ unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem dictum est” — “tres unum sunt, non unus” — “the Father is one person and the Son is another, different persons not different things”, “I and the Father are one refers to unity of substance, not to singleness in number” — “the three are one thing not one person”), the Logos must be related to the Father as the ray to the sun, as the stream to the source, as the stem to the root (see also Hippolytus, c. Noëtum 10).540 For that very reason “Son” is the most suitable expression for the Logos that has emanated in this way (κατὰ μερισμόν). Moreover, since he (as well as the Spirit) has the same substance as the Father (“unius substantiæ” = ὁμοούσιος) he has also the same power541 as regards the world. He has all might in heaven and earth, and he has had it ab initio, from the very beginning of time.542 On the other hand this same Son is only a part and offshoot; the Father is the whole; and in this the mystery of the economy consists. What the Son possesses has been given him by the Father; the Father is therefore greater than the Son; the Son is subordinate to the Father.543 “Pater tota substantia est, filius vero derivatio totius et portio”.544 This paradox is ultimately based on a philosophical axiom of Tertullian: the whole fulness of the Godhead, i.e., the Father, is incapable of entering into the finite, whence also he must always remain invisible, unapproachable, and incomprehensible. The Divine Being that appears and works on earth can never be anything but a part of the transcendent Deity. This Being must be a derived existence, which has already in some fashion a finite element in itself, because it is the hypostatised Word of creation, which has an origin.545 We would assert too much, were we to say that Tertullian

538

See adv. Prax. 5. Tertull., adv. Hermog. 3: “fuit tempus, cum ei filius non fuit.” 540 Novatian (de trin. 23) distinguishes very decidedly between “factum esse” and “procedere”. 541 Adv. Prax. 2: “Custodiatur οἰκονομίας sacramentum, qua unitatem in trinitatem disponit, tres dirigens, tres autem non statu, sed gradu, nec substantia, sed forma, nec potestate, sed specie, unius autem substantiæ et unius status et potestatis.” 542 See the discussions adv. Prax. 16 ff. 543 Tertull., adv. Marc. III. 6: “filius portio plenitudinis.” In another passage Textullian has ironically remarked in opposition to Marcion (IV. 39): “Nisi Marcion Christum non sabiectum patri infert.” 544 Adv. Prax. 9. 545 See the whole 14th chap. adv. Prax. especially the words: “Jam ergo alius erit qui videbatur, quia non potest idem invisibilis definiri qui videbatur, et consequens erit, ut invisibilem patrem intellegamus pro plenitudine maiestatis, visibilem vero filium agnoscamus pro modulo derivationis.” One cannot look at the sun itself, but, “toleramus radium eius pro temperatura portionis, quæ in terram inde porrigitur.” The chapter also shows how the Old Testament theophanies must have given an impetus to the distinction between the Deity as transcendent and the Deity as making himself visible. Adv. Marc. II. 27: Quæcunque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcunque autem ut indigna reprehenditis, deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro, miscente in semetipso hominem et deum in virtutibus deum, in pusillitatibus hominem, ut tantum homini conferat quantum deo detrahit.” In adv. Prax. 29 Tertullian showed in very precise terms that the Father is by nature impassible, but the Son is capable of suffering. Hippolytus does not share this opinion; to him the Logos in himself is likewise ἀπαθής (see c. Noëtum 15). 539

164

History of Dogma - Volume II

261

Adolf Harnack

meant that the Son was simply the world-thought itself; his insistance on the “unius substantiæ” disproves this. But no doubt he regards the Son as the Deity depotentiated for the sake of self-communication; the Deity adapted to the world, whose sphere coincides witht he world-thought, and whose power is identical with that necessary for the world. From the standpoint of humanity this Deity is God himself, i.e., a God whom men can apprehend and who can apprehend them; but from God’s standpoint, which speculation can fix but not fathom, this Deity is a subordinate, nay, even a temporary one. Tertullian and Hippolytus know as little of an immanent Trinity as the Apologists; the Trinity only appears such, because the unity of the substance is very vigorously emphasised; but in truth the Trinitarian process as in the case of the Gnostics, is simply the background of the process that produces the history of the world and of salvation. This is first of all shown by the fact that in course of the process of the world and of salvation the Son grows in his sonship, that is, goes through a finite process;546 and secondly by the fact that the Son himself will one day restore the monarchy to the Father.547 These words no doubt are again spoken not from the standpoint of man, but from that of God; for so long as history lasts “the Son continues in his form.” In its point of departure, its plan, and its details this whole exposition is not distinguished from the teachings of contemporaneous and subsequent Greek philosophers,548 but merely differs in its aim. In itself absolutely unfitted to preserve the primitive Christian belief in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, its importance consists in its identification of the historical Jesus with this Logos. By its aid Tertullian united the scientific, idealistic cosmology with the utterances of early Christian tradition about Jesus in such a way as to make the two, as it were, appear the totally dissimilar wings of one and the same building,549 With peculiar versatility he contrived to make himself at home in both wings. 546

According to Tertullian it is certainly an essential part of the Son’s nature to appear, teach, and thus come into connection with men; but he neither asserted the necessity of the incarnation apart from the faulty development of mankind, nor can this view be inferred from his premises. 547 See adv. Prax. 4. the only passage, however, containing this idea, which is derived from 1 Cor. XV. 548 Cf. specially the attempts of Plotinus to reconcile the abstract unity which is conceived as the principle of the universe with the manifoldness and fulness of the real and the particular (Ennead. lib. III.–V.). Plotinus employs the subsidiary notion μερισμός in the same way as Tertullian; see Hagemann l.c. p. 186 f. Plotinus would have agreed with Tertullian’s proposition in adv. Marc. III. 15: “Dei nomen quasi naturale divinitatis potest in omnes communicari quibus divinitas vindicatur.” Plotinus’ idea of hypostasis is also important, and this notion requires exact examination. 549 Following the baptismal confession, Tertullian merely treated the Holy Ghost according to the scheme of the Logos doctrine without any trace of independent interest. In accordance with this, however, the Spirit possesses his own “numerus” — “tertium numen divinitatis et tertium nomen maiestatis”, — and he is a person in the same sense as the Son, to whom, however, he is subordinate, for the subordination is a necessary result of his later origin. See cc. 2, 8: “tertius est spiritus a deo et filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus a frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus a flumine et tertius a sole apex ex radio. Nihil tamen a matrice alienatur a qua proprietates suas ducit. Ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a patre decurrens et monarchiæ nihil obstrepit et οἰκονομίας statum protegit”; de pudic. 21. In de præscr. 13 the Spirit in relation to the Son is called “vicaria vis”. The element of personality in the Spirit is with Tertullian merely a result arising from logical deduction; see his successor Novatian de trin. 29. Hippolytus did not attribute personality to the Spirit, for he says (adv. Noët. 14): Ἕνα Θεὸν ἐρῶ, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, οἰκονομίᾳ δὲ τρίτην τὴν χάριν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος· πατὴρ μὲν γὰρ εἷς, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, ὅτι καὶ ὁ υἱός, τὸ δὲ τρίτον τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα.” In his Logos doctrine apart from the express emphasis he lays on the creatureliness of the Logos (see Philos. X. 33: Εἰ γὰρ Θεόν σε ἡθέλησε ποῖσαι ὁ Θεός, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ λόγου τὸ παράδειγμα) he quite agrees with Tertullian. See ibid.; here the Logos is called before his coming forth “ἐνδιάθετος τοῦ παντὸς λογισμός”; he is produced ἐκ τῶν ὄντων, i.e., from the Father who then alone existed; his essence is “that he bears in himself the will of him who has begotten him” or “that he comprehends in himself the ideas previously conceived by and resting in the Father.” Cyprian in no part of his writings took occasion to set forth the Logos doctrine in a didactic way; he simply kept to the formula: “Christus deus et homo”, and to the Biblical expressions which were understood in the sense of divinity and preëxistence; see Testim. II. 1-10. Lactantius was still quite confused in his

165

History of Dogma - Volume II

262

263

264

Adolf Harnack

It is essentially otherwise with the Logos doctrine of Irenæus.550 Whereas Tertullian and Hippolytus developed their Logos doctrine without reference to the historical Jesus, the truth rather being that they simply add the incarnation to the already existing theory of the subject, there is no doubt that Irenæus, as a rule, made Jesus Christ, whom he views as God and man, the starting-point of his speculation. Here he followed the Fourth Gospel and Ignatius. It is of Jesus that Irenæus almost always thinks when he speaks of the Logos or of the Son of God; and therefore he does not identify the divine element in Christ or Christ himself with the world idea or the creating Word or the Reason of God.551 That he nevertheless makes Logos (μονογενής, πρωτότοκος, “only begotten”, “first born”) the regular designation of Christ as the preexistent One can only be explained from the apologetic tradition which in his time was already recognised as authoritative by Christian scholars, and moreover appeared justified and required by John I. 1. Since both Irenæus and Valentinus consider redemption to be the special work of Christ, the cosmological interest in the doctrine of the second God becomes sub-ordinate to the soteriological. As, however, in Irenæus’ system (in opposition to Valentinus) this real redemption is to be imagined as recapitulatio of the creation, redemption and creation are not opposed to each other as antitheses; and therefore the Redeemer has also his place in the history of creation. In a certain sense then the Christology of Irenæus occupies a middle position between the Christology of the Valentinians and Marcion on the one hand and the Logos doctrine of the Apologists on the other. The Apologists have a cosmological interest, Marcion only a soteriological, whereas Irenæus has both; the Apologists base their speculations on the Old Testament, Marcion on a New Testament, Irenæus on both Old and New. Irenæus expressly refused to investigate what the divine element in Christ is, and why another deity stands alongside of the Godhead of the Father. He confesses that he here simply keeps to the rule of faith and the Holy Scriptures, and declines speculative disquisitions on principle. He does not admit the distinction of a Word existing in God and one coming forth from him, and opposes not only ideas of emanation in general, but also the opinion that the Logos issued forth at a definite point of time. Nor will Irenæus allow the designation “Logos” to be interpreted in the sense of the Logos being the inward Reason or the spoken Word of God. God is a simple essence and always remains in the same state; besides we ought not to hypostatise qualities.552 Nevertheless Irenæus, too, calls the preexistent Christ the Son of God, and strictly maintains the personal distinction between Father and Son. What makes the opposite appear to be the case is the fact that he does not utilise the distinction in the interest of cosmology.553 In Irenæus’ sense we shall have to say: The Logos is the revelation hypostasis of the Father, “the self-revelation of the self-conscious God”,

Trinitarian doctrine and, in particular, conceived the Holy Ghost not as a person but as “sanctificatio” proceeding from the Father or from the Son. On the contrary, Novatian, in his work de trinitate, reproduced Tertullian’s views. For details see Dorner Entwickelungsgeschichte I. pp. 563-634, Kahnis, Lehre vom heiligen Geiste; Hagemann, l.c., p. 371 ff. It is noteworthy that Tertullian still very frequently called the preëxistent Christ dei spiritus; see de orat. I: “Dei spiritus et dei sermo et dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus, utrumque Iesus Christus.”Apol. 21; adv. Prax. 26; adv. Marc. I. 10: III. 6, 16: IV. 21. 550 See Zahn, Marcellus of Ancyra, pp. 235-244. Duncker, Des heiligen Irenäus Christologie, 1843. 551 Zahn, l.c., p. 238. 552 See Iren., II. 13. 8: II. 28. 4-9: II. 12. 2: II. 13. 2, and also the important passage II. 29. 3 fin. 553 A great many passages clearly show that Irenæus decidedly distinguished the Son from the Father, so that it is absolutely incorrect to attribute modalistic ideas to him. See III. 6. 1 and all the other passages where Irenæus refers to the Old Testament theophanies. Such are III. 6. 2: IV. 5. 2 fin.: IV. 7. 4, where the distinction is particularly plain: IV. 17. 6: II. 28. 6.

166

History of Dogma - Volume II

265

Adolf Harnack

and indeed the eternal self-revelation. For according to him the Son always existed with God, always revealed the Father, and it was always the full Godhead that he revealed in himself. In other words, he is God in his specific nature, truly God, and there is no distinction of essence between him and God.554 Now we might conclude from the strong emphasis laid on “always” that Irenæus conceived a relationship of Father and Son in the Godhead, conditioned by the essence of God himself and existing independently of revelation. But the second hypostasis is viewed by him as existing from all eternity, just as much in the quality of Logos as in that of Son, and his very statement that the Logos has revealed the Father from the beginning shows that this relationship is always within the sphere of revelation. The Son then exists because he gives a revelation. Little interested as Irenæus is in saying anything about the Son, apart from his historical mission, naïvely as he extols the Father as the direct Creator of the universe, and anxious as he is to repress all speculations that lead beyond the Holy Scriptures, he could not altogether avoid reflecting on the problems: why there is a second deity alongside of God, and how the two are related to one another. His incidental answers are not essentially different from those of the Apologists and Tertullian; the only distinction is this incidental character. Irenæus too looked on the Son as “the hand of God”, the mediator of creation; he also seems in one passage to distinguish Father and Son as the naturally invisible and visible elements of God; he too views the Father as the one who dominates all, the head of Christ, i.e., he who bears the creation and his Logos.555 Irenæus had no opportunity of 554

The Logos (Son) is the administrator and bestower of the divine grace as regards humanity, because he is the revealer of this grace, see IV. 6 (§ 7: “agnitio patris filius, agnitio autem filii in patre et per filium revelata”); IV. 5: IV. 16. 7: IV. 20. 7. He has been the revealer of God from the beginning and always remains so, III. 16. 6: IV. 13. 4 etc.: he is the antemundane revealer to the angel world, see II. 30. 9: “semper autem coëxsistens filius patri, olim et ab initio semper revelat patrem et angelis et archangelis et potestatibus et virtutibus et omnibus, quibus vult revelari deus; he has always existed with the Father, see II. 30. 9: III. 18. 1: “non tunc cœpit filius dei, exsistens semper apud patrem”; IV. 20. 3, 7, 14. 1: II. 25. 3: “non enim infectus es, o homo, neque semper coëxsistebas deo, sicut proprium eius verbum.” The Logos is God as God, nay, for us he is God himself, in so far as his work is the work of God. Thus, and not in a modalistic sense, we must understand passages like II. 30. 9: “fabricator qui fecit mundum per semitipsum, hoc est per verbum et per sapientiam suam,” or hymnlike statements such as III. 16. 6: “et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo” (see something similar in Ignatius and Melito, Otto, Corp. Apolog. IX, p. 419 sq.). Irenæus also says in III. 6. 2: “filius est in patre et habet in se patrem,” III. 6. 1.: utrosque dei appellatione signavit spiritus, et eum qui ungitur filium et eum, qui ungit, id est patrem.” He not only says that the Son has revealed the Father, but that the Father has revealed the Son (IV. 6. 3: IV. 7. 7). He applies Old Testament passages sometimes to Christ, sometimes to God, and hence in some cases calls the Father the creator, and in others the Son (“pater generis humani verbum dei”, IV. 31. 2). Irenæus (IV. 4. 2) appropriated the expression of an ancient “immensum patrem in filio mensuratum; mensura enim patris filius, quoniam et capit eum.” This expression is by no means intended to denote a diminution, but rather to signify the identity of Father and Son. In all this Irenæus adhered to an ancient tradition; but these propositions do not admit of being incorporated with a rational system. 555 Logos and Sophia are the hands of God (III. 21. IQ: IV. 20): also IV. 6.6: “Invisibile filii pater, visibile autem patris filius.” Judging from this passage, it is always doubtful whether Irenæus, like Tertullian, assumed that transcendency belonged to the Father in a still higher sense than to the Son, and that the nature of the Son was more adapted for entering the finite than that of the Father (on the contrary see IV. 20. 7 and especially IV. 24. 2: “verbum naturaliter quidem invisibile”). But it ought not to have been denied that there are passages, in which Irenæus hints at a subordination of the Son, and deduces this from his origin. See II. 28. 8 (the knowledge of the Father reaches further than that of the Son and the Father is greater than the Son); III. 6. 1 (the Son receives from the Father the sovereignty); IV. 17. 6 (a very important passage: the Father owns the name of Jesus Christ as his, first, because it is the name of his Son, and, secondly, because he gave it himself; V. 18. 21, 3 (“pater conditionem simul et verbum suum portans” — “verbum portatum a patre” — “et sic unus deus pater ostenditur, qui est super omnia et per omnia et in omnibus; super omnia pater quidem et ipse est caput Christi” — “verbum universorum potestatem habet a patre”). “This is not a subordination founded on the nature of the second person, but an inequality that has arisen historically,” says Zahn (l.c., p. 241); but it is doubtful whether such a distinction can be imputed to Irenæus. We have rather simply to recognise the contradiction, which was not felt by Irenæus because, in his religious belief, he places Christ on a level with God, but, as a

167

History of Dogma - Volume II

266

Adolf Harnack

writing against the Monarchians, and unfortunately we possess no apologetic writings of his. It cannot therefore be determined how he would have written, if he had had less occasion to avoid the danger of being himself led into Gnostic speculations about æons. It has been correctly remarked that with Irenæus the Godhead and the divine personality of Christ merely exist beside each other. He did not want to weigh the different problems, because, influenced as he was by the lingering effects of an early. Christian, anti-theological interest, he regarded the results of this reflection as dangerous; but, as a matter of fact, he did not really correct the premises of the problems by rejecting the conclusions. We may evidently assume (with Zahn) that, according to Irenæus, “God placed himself in the relationship of Father to Son, in order to create after his image and in his likeness the man who was to become his Son;”556 but we ought not to ask if Irenæus understood the incarnation as a definite purpose necessarily involved in the Sonship, as this question falls outside the sphere of Patristic thinking. No doubt the incarnation constantly formed the preëminent interest of Irenæus, and owing to this interest he was able to put aside or throw a veil over the mythological speculations of the Apologists regarding the Logos, and to proceed at once to the soteriological question.557 theologian, merely touched on the problem. So also he shows remarkable unconcern as to the proof of the unity of God in view of the distinction between Father and Son. 556 Irenæus very frequently emphasises the idea that the whole economy of God refers to mankind, see, e.g., I. 10. 3: ἐκδιηγεῖσθαι τὴν πραγματείαν καὶ οἰκονομίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι γενομένην, IV. 20. 7: Verbum dispensator paternæ gratiæ factus est ad utilitatem hominum, propter quos fecit tantas dispositiones.” God became a creator out of goodness and love; see the beautiful expression in IV. 20. 7: “Gloria dei vivens homo, vita autem hominis visio dei,” or III. 20. 2: “Gloria hominis deus, operationes vero dei et omnis sapientiæ eius et virtutis receptaculum homo.” V. 29. 1: “Non homo propter conditionem, sed conditio facta est propter hominem.” 557 Irenæus speaks about the Holy Spirit in numerous passages. No doubt he firmly believes in the distinction of the Spirit (Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Father, Spirit of the Son, prophetic Spirit, Wisdom) from the Father and Son, and in a particular significance belonging to the Spirit, as these doctrines are found in the regula. In general the same attributes as are assigned to the Son are everywhere applicable to him; he was always with the Father before there was any creation (IV. 20. 3; Irenæus applies Prov. III. 19: VIII. 22 to the Spirit and not to the Son); like the Son he was the instrument and hand of the Father (IV. pref. 4, 20. 1: V. 6. 1.). That Logos and Wisdom are to be distinguished is clear from IV. 20. 1-12 and particularly from § 12: IV. 7. 4: III. 17. 3 (the host in the parable of the Good Samaritan is the Spirit). Irenæus also tried by reference to Scripture to distinguish the work of the Spirit from that of the Logos. Thus in the creation, the guidance of the world, the Old Testament history, the incarnation, the baptism of Jesus, the Logos is the energy, the Spirit is wisdom. He also alluded to a specific ministry of the Spirit in the sphere of the new covenant. The Spirit is the principle of the new knowledge in IV. 33. 1, 7, Spirit of fellowship with God in V. 1. 1, pledge of immortality in V. 8. 1, Spirit of life in V. 18. 2. But not only does the function of the Spirit remain very obscure for all that, particularly in the incarnation, where Irenæus was forced by the canon of the New Testament to unite what could not be united (Logos doctrine and descent of the Spirit upon Mary — where, moreover, the whole of the Fathers after Irenæus launched forth into the most wonderful speculations), but even the personality of the Spirit vanishes with him, e.g., in III. 18. 3: “unguentem patrem et unctum filium et unctionem, qui est spiritus” (on Isaiah LXI. 1); there is also no mention of the Spirit in IV. pref. 4 fin., and IV. 1. 1, though he ought to have been named there. Father, Son, and Spirit, or God, Logos, and Sophia are frequently conjoined by Irenæus, but he never uses the formula τριάς, to say nothing of the abstract formulæ of Tertullian. In two passages (IV. 20. 5: V. 36. 2) Irenæus unfolded a sublime speculation, which is inconsistent with his usual utterances. In the first passage he says that God has shown himself prophetically through the Spirit (in the Old Testament), then adoptively through the Son, and will finally show himself paternally in the kingdom of heaven; the Spirit prepares man for the Son of God, the Son leads him to the Father, but the Father confers on him immortality. In the other passage he adopts the saying of an old presbyter (Papias?) that we ascend gradually through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in the end the Son will deliver up everything to the Father, and God will be all in all. It is remarkable that, as in the case of Tertullian (see above), it is 1 Cor. XV. 23-28 that has produced this speculation. This is another clear proof, that in Irenæus the equality of Father, Son, and Spirit is not unconditional and that the eternity of Son and Spirit is not absolute. Here also we plainly perceive that the several disquisitions in Irenæus were by no means part of a complete system. Thus, in IV. 38. 2, he inverts the relationship and says that we ascend from the Son to the Spirit: Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Παῦλος Κορινθίοις φησί· γάλα ὑμᾶς ἐπότισα, οὐ βρῶμα, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡδονασθε βαστάζειν· τουτέστι, τὴν μὲν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου ἐμαθητεύθητε, οὐδήπου δὲ τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς πνεῦμα ἐπαναπαύεται ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς διὰ τὴν ὑμῶν ἀσθέγειαν. Here one of Origen’s thoughts appears.

168

History of Dogma - Volume II

267

268

269

Adolf Harnack

Nothing is more instructive than an examination of Irenæus’ views with regard to the destination of man, the original state, the fall, and sin; because the heterogeneous elements of his “theology”, the apologetic and moralistic, the realistic, and the Biblical (Pauline), are specially apparent here, and the inconsistencies into which he was led are very plain. But these very contradictions were never eliminated from the Church doctrinal system of succeeding centuries and did not admit of being removed; hence his attitude on these points is typical.558 The apologetic and moralistic train of thought is alone developed with systematic clearness. Everything created is imperfect, just from the very fact of its having had a beginning; therefore man also. The Deity is indeed capable of bestowing perfection on man from the beginning, but the latter was incapable of grasping or retaining it from the first. Hence perfection, i.e., incorruptibility, which consists in the contemplation of God and is conditional on voluntary obedience, could only be the destination of man, and he must accordingly have been made capable of it.559 That destination is realised through the guidance of God and the free decision of man, for goodness not arising from free choice has no value. The capacity in question is on the one hand involved in man’s possession of the divine image, which, however, is only realised in the body and is therefore at bottom a matter of indifference; and, on the other, in his likeness to God, which consists in the union of the soul with God’s Spirit, but only comes about when man is obedient to him. Along with this Irenæus has also the idea that man’s likeness consists in freedom. Now, as man became disobedient immediately after the creation, this

558

The opinions advanced here are, of course, adumbrations of the ideas about redemption. Nöldechen (Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1885, p. 462 ff): “Die Lehre vom ersten Menschen bei den christlichen Lehrern des 2 Jahrhunderts.” 559 Here the whole 38th chapter of the 4th Book is to be examined. The following sentences are perhaps the most important: Εἰ δὲ λέγει τις· οὐκ ἡδύνατο ὁ Θεὸς ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τέλειον ἀναδεῖξαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον; Γνύτω, ὅτι τῷ μὲν Θεῶ, ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ὄντι καὶ ἀγεννήτῳ ὑπάρχοντι, ὃς πρὸς ἑαυτόν, πάντα δυνατά· τὰ δὲ γεγονότα, καθὸ μετέπειτα γενέσεως ἀρχὴν ἰδίαν ἔσχε, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι δεῖ αὐτὰ τοῦ πεποιηκότος· ὀυ γὰρ ἡδύναντο ἀγέννητα εἶναι τὸ νεωστὶ γεγεννημένα. Καθὸ δὲ μή ἐστιν ἀγέννητα, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τοῦ τελείου. Καθὸ δὲ νεώτερα, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ νήπια, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀσυνήθη καί αγύμναστα πρὸς τὴν τελείαν ἀγωγήν. The mother can no doubt give strong food to the child at the very beginning, but the child cannot stand it: ἄνθρωπος ἀδύνατος λαβεῖν ἀυτό· νήπιος γὰρ ἦν, see also § 2-4: “Non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum dii, quamvis deus secundum simplicitatem bonitatis suæ hoc fecerit, nequis eum putet invidiosum aut impræstantem. “Ego,” inquit, “dixi, estis et filii excelsi omnes, nobis autem potestatem divintatis divinitatis baiulare non sustinentibus” . . . Oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere, post deinde vinci et absorbi mortale ab immortalitate et corruptibile ab incorruptibilitate, et fieri hominem secundum imaginem at similitudinem dei, agnitione accepta bone et mali.” Ibid.: ὑποταγὴ Θεοῦ αφθαρσία, καὶ παραμονὴ ἀφθαρσίας δόξα ἀγέννητος . . . ὅρασις Θεοῦ περιποιητικὴ ἀφθαρσίας· ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ Θεοῦ. In this chapter Irenæus contemplates the manner of appearance of the Logos (as man) from the point of view of a συννηπιάζειν. His conception of the capacity and destination of man enabled him to develop his ideas about the progressive training of the human race and about the different covenants (see below). On this point cf. also IV. 20. 5-7. The fact that, according to this way of looking at things, the Good and Divine appeared only as the destination of man — which was finally to be reached through divine guidance — but not as his nature, suggested both to Irenæus and Tertullian the distinction between “natura” and “gratia” or between “substantia” and “fides et iustitia”. In other words, they were led to propound a problem which had occurred to the Gnostics long before, and had been solved by them in a dualistic sense. See Irenæus II. 29. 1: “Si propter substantiam omnes succedunt animæ in refrigerium, et superfluum est credere, superflua autem et discessio salvatoris; si autem propter iustitiam, iam non propter id, quod sint animæ sed quoniam sunt iustæ . . . Si enim natura et substantia salvat, omnes salvabuntur animæ; si autem iustitia et fides etc. II. 34. 3: “Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundum gratiam dei datur,” II. 34. 4. Tertullian adv. Marc. III. 15: “Christi nomen non ex natura veniens, sed ex dispositione.” In Tertullian these ideas are not unfrequently opposed to each other in this way; but the relationship between them has by no means been made clear.

169

History of Dogma - Volume II

270

271

Adolf Harnack

likeness to God did not become perfect.560 Through the fall he lost the fellowship with God to which he was destined, i.e., he is forfeit to death. This death was transmitted to Adam’s whole posterity.561 Here Irenæus followed sayings of Paul, but adopted the words rather than the sense; for, in the first place, like the Apologists, he very strongly emphasises the elements that palliate man’s fall562 and, secondly, he contemplates the fall as having a teleological significance. It is the fall itself and not, as in Paul’s case, the consequences of the fall, that he thus views; for he says that disobedience was conducive to man’s development. Man had to learn by experience that disobedience entails death, in order that he might acquire wisdom and choose freely to fulfil the commandments of God. Further, man was obliged to learn through the fall that goodness and life do not belong to him by nature as they do to God.563 Here life and death are always the ultimate question to Irenæus. It is 560

On the psychology of Irenæus see Böhringer, p. 466 f., Wendt p. 22. The fact that in some passages he reckoned the πνεῦμα in man as the latter’s inalienable nature (e.g. II. 33. 5), though as a rule (like Tatian) he conceives it as the divine Spirit, is an evident inconsistency on his part. The εἰκών is realised in the body, the ὁμοίωσις is not given by nature, but is brought about by the union with the Spirit of God realised through obedience (V. 6. 1). The ὁμοίωσις is therefore subject to growth, and was not perfect at the beginning (see above, IV. 38. 4, where he opposes Tatian’s opinion). It is clear, especially from V. 12. 2, that it is only the πνοή, not the πνεῦμα, that is to be conceived as an original possession. On this point Irenæus appealed to 1 Cor. XV. 45. It is plain from the 37th chapter of the 4th Book, that Irenæus also views everything as ultimately dependent on man’s inalienable freedom. Alongside of this God’s goodness has scope for displaying itself in addition to its exercise at the creation, because it guides man’s knowledge through counsel; see § 1. On Matth. XXIII. 37 Irenæus remarks: “veterem legem libertatis hominis manifestavit, quia liberum eum deus fecit ab initio, habentem suam potestatem sicut et suam animam ad utendum sententia dei voluntarie et non coactum a deo . . . posuit in homine potestatem electionis quemadmodum in angelis (et enim angeli rationabiles), ut hi quidem qui obedissent iuste bonum sint possidentes, datum quidem a deo, servatum vero ab ipsis.” An appeal to Rome II. 4-7 (!) follows. In § 2 Irenæus inveighs violently against the Gnostic doctrines of natural goodness and wickedness: πάντες τῆς αὐτῆς εἰσὶ φύσεως. In § 4 he interprets the Pauline: “omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt,” as referring to man’s inalienable freedom and to the way in which it is abused in order to work evil (!): “liberæ sententiæ ab initio est homo et liberæ sententiæ est deus, cuius ad similitudinem factus est.” § 5: “Et non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide, liberum et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit (that is, respected) dominus, dicens: Secundum fidem tuam fiat tibi.” § 4: “deus consilium dat continere bonum, quod perficitur ex obedientia.” § 3: “τὸ αὐτεξούσιον τοῦ ἀνθώπου καὶ τὸ συμβουλευτικὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ μὴ βιαζομένου. IV. 4. 3: “homo rationabilis et secundum hoc similis deo liber in arbitrio factus et suæ potestatis, ipse sibi causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum aliquando autem palea fiat.” 561 As a matter of fact this view already belongs to the second train of thought; see particularly III. 21-23. Here in reality this merely applies to the particular individuals who chose disobedience, but Irenæus almost everywhere referred back to the fall of Adam. See, however, V. 27. 2: “Quicunque erga eum custodiunt dilectionem, suam his præstat communionem. Communio autem dei vita et lumen et fruitio eorum quæ sunt apud deum bonorum. Quicumque autem absistunt secundum sententiam suam ab eo, his eam quæ electa est ab ipsis separationem inducit. Separatio autem dei mors, et separatio lucis tenebræ, et separatio dei amissio omnium quæ sunt apud eum bonorum.” V. 19. 1, 1. 3, 1. 1. The subjective moralism is very clearly defined in IV. 15. 2: “Id quod erat semper liberum et suæ potestatis in homine semper servavit deus et sua exhortatio, ut iuste iudicentur qui non obediunt ei quoniam non obedierant, et qui obedierunt et crediderunt ei, honorentur incorruptibilitate.” 562 Man’s sin is thoughtlessness; he is merely led astray (IV. 40. 3). The fact that he let himself be seduced under the pretext of immortality is an excuse for him; man was infans, (See above; hence it is said, in opposition to the Gnostics in IV. 38. 4: “supergredientes legem humani generis et antequam fiant homines, iam volunt similes esse factori deo et nullam esse differentiam infecti dei et nunc facti hominis.” The same idea is once more very clearly expressed in IV. 39. 3; “quemadmodum igitur erit homo deus, qui nondum factus est homo?” i.e., how could newly created man be already perfect as he was not even man, inasmuch as he did not yet know how to distinguish good and evil?). Cf. III. 23. 3, 5: “The fear of Adam was the beginning of wisdom; the sense of transgression led to repentance; but God bestows his grace on the penitent” . . . “eum odivit deus, qui seduxit hominem, ei vero qui seductus est, sensim paullatimque misertus est.” The “pondus peccati” in the sense of Augustine was by no means acknowledged by Irenæus, and although he makes use of Pauline sayings, and by preference such as have a quite different sense, he is very far from sharing Paul’s view. 563 See IV. 37. 7: “Alias autem esset nostrum insensatum bonum, quod esset inexercitatum. Sed et videre non tantum nobis esset desiderabile, nisi cognovissemus quantum esset malum non videre; et bene valere autem male valentis experientia honorabilius efficit, et lucem tenebrarum comparatio et vitam mortis. Sic et cœleste regnum honorabilius est his qui cognoverunt terrenum.” The main passage is III. 20. 1, 2, which cannot be here quoted. The fall was necessary in order that man might not believe that

170

History of Dogma - Volume II

272

Adolf Harnack

only when he quotes sayings of Paul that he remembers sin in connection with redemption; and ethical consequences of the fall are not mentioned in this connection. “The original destination of man was not abrogated by the fall, the truth rather being that the fall was intended as a means of leading men to attain this perfection to which they were destined.”564 Moreover, the goodness of God immediately showed itself both in the removal of the tree of life and in the sentence of temporal death.565 What significance belongs to Jesus Christ within this conception is clear: he is the man who first realised in his person the destination of humanity; the Spirit of God became united with his soul and accustomed itself to dwell in men. But he is also the teacher who reforms mankind by his preaching, calls upon them too direct their still existing freedom to obedience to the divine commandments, thereby restoring, i.e., strengthening, freedom, so that humanity is thus rendered capable of receiving incorruptibility.566 One can plainly see that this is the idea of Tatian and Theophilus, with which Irenæus has incorporated utterances of Paul. Tertullian and Hippolytus taught essentially the same doctrine;567 only Tertullian beheld the image and likeness of God expressly and exclusively in the fact that man’s will and capacity are free, and based on this freedom an argument in justification of God’s ways.568 But, in addition to this, Irenæus developed a second train of thought. This was the outcome of his Gnostic and realistic doctrine of recapitulation, and evinces clear traces of the influence of Pauline theology. It is, however, inconsistent with the moralistic teachings unfolded above, and could only be united with them at a few points. To the Apologists the proposition: “it is impossible to learn to know God without the help of God” (“impossibile est sine deo discere deum”) was a conviction which, with the exception of Justin, they subordinated to their moralism and to which they did not give a specifically Christological signification. Irenæus understood this proposition in a Christological sense,569 and at the same time conceived the blessing of salvation imparted by Christ not only as the incorruptibility consisting in the beholding of God bestowed on obedience

he was “naturaliter similis deo”. Hence God permitted the great whale to swallow man for a time. In several passages Irenæus has designated the permitting of evil as kind generosity on the part of God, see, e.g., IV. 39. 1, 37. 7. 564 See Wendt, l.c., p. 24. 565 See III. 23. 6. 566 See V. 1. 1: “Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. . . . Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes,” etc.; III. 23. 2, 5. 3: “libertatem restauravit”; IV. 24. 1: “reformavit humanum genus”; III. 17. 1: “spiritus sanctus in filium dei, filium hominis factum, descendit cum ipso assuescens habitare in genere humano.” III. 19. 1: IV. 38. 3: 39. 1, 2. Wendt’s summary, l.c., p. 24: “By the Logos becoming man, the type of the perfect man made its appearance,” formulates Irenæus’ meaning correctly and excludes the erroneous idea that he viewed the Logos himself as the prototype of humanity. A real divine manhood is not necessary within this train of thought; only a homo inspiratus is required. 567 See Hippol. Philos. X. 33 (p. 538 sq.): Ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸν πάντων ἄρχοντα δημιουργῶν ἐκ πασῶν συνθέτων οὐσιῶν ἐσκεύασαν, οὐ Θεὸν θέλων ποιεῖν ἔσσηλεν, οὐδὲ ἄγγελον, ἀλλ᾽ ἄνθρωπον. Εἰ γὰρ Θεόν σε ἡθέλησε ποιῆσαι, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ λόγου τὸ παράδειγμα· ἄνθρωπον θέλων, ἄνθρωπόν σε ἐποίησεν· εἰ δὲ θέλεις καὶ Θεὸς γενέσθαι, ὑπάκουε τῷ πεποιηκότι. The famous concluding chapter of the Philosophoumena with its prospect of deification is to be explained from this (X. 34). 568 See Tertull. adv. Marc. II. 4-11; his undiluted moralism appears with particular clearness in chaps. 6 and 8. No weight is to be attached to the phrase in chapter 4 that God by placing man in Paradise really even then put him from Paradise into the Church. This is contrary to Wendt opinion, l.c., p. 67. ff., where the exposition of Tertullian is speciosior quam verior. In adv. Marc. II. 4 ff. Wendt professes to see the first traces of the scholastic and Romish theory, and in de anima 16, 41 the germ of the subsequent Protestant view. 569 See IV. 5. 1, 6. 4.

171

History of Dogma - Volume II

273

274

Adolf Harnack

IV. 20. 5-7: IV. 38, but also as the divine sonship which has been won for us by Christ and which is realised in constant fellowship with God and dependence on him.570 No doubt he also viewed this divine sonship as consisting in the transformation of human nature; but the point of immediate importance here is that it is no longer human freedom but Christ that he contemplated in this connection. Corresponding to this he has now also a different idea of the original destination of man, of Adam, and of the results of the fall. Here comes in the mystical Adam-Christ speculation, in accordance with the Epistles to the Ephesians and Corinthians. Everything, that is, the “longa hominum expositio”, was recapitulated by Christ in himself; in other words he restored humanity to what it originally was and again included under one head what was divided.571 If humanity is restored, then it must have lost something before and been originally in good condition. In complete contradiction to the other teachings quoted above, Irenæus now says: “What we had lost in Adam, namely, our possession of the image and likeness of God, we recover in Christ.572 Adam, however, is humanity; in other words, as all humanity is united and renewed through Christ so also it was already summarised in Adam. Accordingly “the sin of disobedience and the loss of salvation which Adam consequently suffered may now be viewed as belonging to all mankind summed up in him, in like manner as Christ’s obedience and possession of salvation are the property of all mankind united under him as their head.”573 In the first Adam we offended God by not fulfilling his commandments; in Adam humanity became disobedient, wounded, sinful, bereft of life; through Eve mankind became forfeit to death; through its victory over the first man death descended upon us all, and the devil carried us all away captive etc.574 Here Irenæus always means that in Adam, who represents all mankind as their head, the latter became doomed to death. In this instance he did not think of a hereditary transmission, but of a mystic unity575 as in the case of Christ, viewed 570

See IV. 14. 1: “In quantum enim deus nullius indiget, in tantum homo indiget dei communione. Hæc enim gloria hominis, perseverare et permanere in dei servitute.” This statement, which, like the numerous others where Irenæus speaks of the adoptio, is opposed to moralism, reminds us of Augustine. In Irenæus’ great work, however, we can point out not a few propositions which, so to speak, bear the stamp of Augustine; see IV. 38. 3: ὑποταγὴ Θεοῦ ἀφθαρσία. 571 See the passages quoted above, p. 241 f. 572 See III. 18. 1. V. 16.1 is very remarkable: Ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν χρόνοις ἐλεγετο μὲν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐκ ἐδείκνυτο δὲ, ἔτι γὰρ ἀόρατος ἦν ὁ λόγος, οὖ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐγεγόνει. διὰ τοῦτο δὴ καὶ τὴν ὁμοίωσιν ῥᾳδιως ἀπέβαλεν; see also what follows. In V. 1. 1 Irenæus even says: “Quoniam iniuste dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus dei omnipotentis, alienavit nos contra naturam diabolus.” Compare with this the contradictory passage IV. 38: “oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere” etc. (see above, p. 268), where natura hominis is conceived as the opposite of the divine nature. 573 See Wendt, i.e., p. 29, who first pointed out the two dissimilar trains of thought in Irenæus with regard to man’s original state, Duncker having already done so in regard to his Christology. Wendt has rightly shown that we have here a real and not a seeming contradiction; but, as far as the explanation of the fact is concerned, the truth does not seem to me to have been arrived at. The circumstance that Irenæus did not develop the mystic view in such a systematic way as the moralistic by no means justifies us in supposing that he merely adopted it superficially (from the Scriptures): for its nature admits of no systematic treatment, but only of a rhetorical and contemplative one. No further explanation can be given of the contradiction, because, strictly speaking, Irenæus has only given us fragments. 574 See V. 16. 3: ἐν τῷ πρῶτῳ Ἁδὰμ προσεκόψαμεν, μὴ ποιήσαντες αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐντολήν. IV. 34. 2: “homo initio in Adam inobediens per mortem percussus est;” III. 18. 7-23: V. 19. 1: V. 21. 1: V. 17. 1 sq. 575 Here also Irenæus keeps sin in the background; death and life are the essential ideas. Böhringer l.c., p. 484 has very rightly remarked: “We cannot say that Irenæus, in making Adam’s conduct and suffering apply to the whole human race had started from an inward, immediate experience of human sinfulness and a feeling of the need of salvation founded on this.” It is the thoughts of Paul to which Irenæus tried to accommodate himself without having had the same feeling about the flesh and sin as this Apostle. In Tertullian the mystic doctrine of salvation is rudimentary (but see, e.g., de anima 40: “ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur,” and other passages; but he has speculations about Adam (for the most part developments of hints given in Irenæus; see the index in Oehler’s edition), and he has a new realistic idea as to a physical taint

172

History of Dogma - Volume II

275

276

Adolf Harnack

as the second Adam. The teachings in III. 21. 10-23576 show what an almost naturalistic shape the religious quasi-historical idea assumed in Irenæus’ mind. This is, however, more especially evident from the assertion, in opposition to Tatian, that unless Adam himself had been saved by Christ, God would have been overcome by the devil.577 It was merely his moralistic train of thought that saved him from the conclusion that there is a restoration of all individual men. This conception of Adam as the representative of humanity corresponds to Irenæus’ doctrine of the God-man. The historical importance of this author lies in the development of the Christology. At the present day, ecclesiastical Christianity, so far as it seriously believes in the unity of the divine and human in Jesus Christ and deduces the divine manhood from the work of Christ as his deification, still occupies the same standpoint as Irenæus did. Tertullian by no means matched him here; he too has the formula in a few passages, but he cannot, like Irenæus, account for its content. On the other hand we owe to him the idea of the “two natures”, which remain in their integrity — that formula which owes its adoption to the influence of Leo I. and at bottom contradicts Irenæus’ thought “the Son of God became the Son of man”, (“filius dei factus filius hominis”). Finally, the manner in which Irenæus tried to interpret the historical utterances about Jesus Christ from the standpoint of the Divine manhood idea, and to give them a significance in regard to salvation is also an epoch-making fact. “Filius dei filius hominis factus”, “it is one and the same Jesus Christ, not a Jesus and a Christ, nor a mere temporary union of an on and a man, but one and the same person, who created the world, was born, suffered, and ascended” — this along with the dogma of God the Creator is the cardinal doctrine of Irenæus:578 “Jesus Christ truly man and truly God” (“Jesus Christus, vere homo, vere deus”).579 It is only the Church that adheres to this doctrine, for “none of the heretics hold the

of sin propagated through procreation. Here we have the first beginning of the doctrine of original sin (de testim. 3: “per diabolum homo a primordio circumventus, ut præceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum suæ etiam damnationis traducem fecit.” Compare his teachings in de anima 40, 41, 16 about the disease of sin that is propagated “ex originis vitio” and has become a real second nature). But how little he regards this original sin as guilt is shown by de bapt. 18: “Quare innocens ætas festinat ad baptismum?” For the rest, Tertullian discussed the relationship of flesh and spirit, sensuousness and intellect, much more thoroughly than Irenæus; he showed that flesh is not the seat of sin (de anima 40). In the same book (but see Bk. V. c. 1) he expressly declared that in this question also sure results are only to be obtained from revelation. This was an important step in the direction of secularising Christianity through “philosophy” and of emasculating the understanding through “revelation.” In regard to the conception of sin Cyprian followed his teacher. De op. et eleem. 1 reads indeed like an utterance of Irenæus (“dominus sanavit illa quæ Adam portaverat vulnera”); but the statement in ep. 64. 5: “Recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquæ, prima nativitate contraxit” is quite in the manner of Tertullian, and perhaps the latter could also have agreed with the continuation: “infanti remittintur non propria sed aliena peccata.” Tertullian’s proposition that absolutely no one but the Son of God could have remained without sin was repeated by Cyprian (see, e.g., de op. et eleem. 3). 576 III. 22. 4 has quite a Gnostic sound . . . “eam quæ est a Maria in Evam recirculationem significans; quia non aliter quod colligatum est solveretur, nisi ipsæ compagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus, ut primæ coniunctiones solvantur per secundas, secundæ rursus liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem a secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem primæ solutionis habere locum. Et propter hoc dominus dicebat primos quidem novissimos futuros et novissimos primos.” Irenæus expresses a Gnostic idea when he on one occasion plainly says (V. 12. 3): Ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνήσκομεν, ὅτι ψυχικοί . But Paul, too, made an approach to this thought. 577 See III. 23. 1, 2, a highly characteristic statement. 578 See, e.g., III. g. 3, 12. 2, 16. 6-9, 17. 4 and repeatedly 8. 2: “verbum dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, qui est dominus noster Jesus Christus.” 579 See IV. 6. 7.

173

History of Dogma - Volume II

277

Adolf Harnack

opinion that the Word of God became flesh” (“secundum nullam sententiam hæreticorum verbum dei caro factum est”).580 What therefore has to be shown is (1) that Jesus Christ is really the Word of God, i.e., is God, (2) that this Word really became man and (3) that the incarnate Word is an inseparable unity. Irenæus maintains the first statement as well against the “Ebionites” as against the Valentinians who thought that Christ’s advent was the descent of one of the many moons. In opposition to the Ebionites he emphasises the distinction between natural and adopted Sonship, appeals to the Old Testament testimony in favour of the divinity of Christ,581 and moreover argues that we would still be in the bondage of the old disobedience, if Jesus Christ had only been a man.582 In this connection he also discussed the birth from the virgin.583 He not only proved it from prophecy, but his recapitulation theory also suggested to him a parallel between Adam and Eve on the one hand and Christ and Mary on the other, which included the birth from the virgin.584 He argues in opposition to the Valentinians that it was really the eternal Word of God himself, who was always with God and always present to the human race, that descended.585 He who became man was not a being foreign to the world — this is said in opposition to Marcion — but the Lord of the world and humanity, the Son of God, and none other. The reality of the body of Christ, i.e., the essential identity of the humanity of Christ with our own, was continually emphasised by Irenæus, and he views the whole work of salvation as dependent on this identity.586 In the latter he also includes the 580

See III. 11. 3. See III. 6. 582 See III. 19. 1, 2: IV. 33. 4: V. 1. 3 see also Tertullian against “Ebion” de carne 14, 18, 24; de præscr. 10. 33. 583 Editor: This note is missing in the footnotes. 584 See the arguments, l c., V. 19. 1: “Quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem, æqua lance disposita virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam,” and other similar ones. We find the same in Tertull., de carne 17, 20. In this connection we find in both very extravagant expressions with regard to Mary (see, e.g., Tertull., l.c. 20 fin.: “uti virgo esset regeneratio nostra spiritaliter ab omnibus inquinamentis sanctificata per Christum.” Iren. III. 21. 7: “Maria cooperans dispositioni (dei);” III. 22. 4 “Maria obediens et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est salutis” . . . “quod alligavit virgo Eva per incredulitatem, hoc virgo Maria solvit per fidem”). These, however, have no doctrinal significance; in fact the same Tertullian expressed himself in a depreciatory way about Mary in de carne 7. On the other hand it is undeniable that the later Mariolatry has one of its roots in the parallel between Eve and Mary. The Gnostic invention of the virginitas Mariæ in partu can hardly be traced in Irenæus III. 21. 4. Tertullian (de carne 23) does not seem to know anything about it as yet, and very decidedly assumed the natural character of the process. The popular conception as to the reason of Christ’s birth from a virgin, in the form still current to-day, but beneath all criticism, is already found in Tertullian de carne 18: “Non competebat ex semine humano dei filium nasci, ne, si totus esset filius hominis, non esset et dei filius, nihilque haberet amplius Salomone, ut de Hebionis opinione credendus erat. Ergo iam dei filius ex patris dei semine, id est spiritu, ut esset et hominis filius, caro ei sola competebat ex hominis came sumenda sine viri semine. Vacabat enim semen viri apud habentem dei semen.” The other theory existing side by side with this, viz., that Christ would have been a sinner if he had been begotten from the semen, whereas he could assume sinless flesh from woman is so far as I know scarcely hinted at by Irenæus and Tertullian. The fact of Christ’s birth was frequently referred to by Tertullian in order to prove Christ’s kinship to God the Creator, e.g., adv. Marc. III. 11. Hence this article of the regula fidei received a significance from this point of view also. An Encratite explanation of the birth from the Virgin is found in the old treatise de resurr. bearing Justin’s name (Otto, Corp. Apol. III., p. 220. 585 See, e.g., III. 18. 1 and many other places. See the passages named in note, p. 276. 586 So also Tertullian. See adv. Marc. III. 8: The whole work of salvation is destroyed by Docetism; cf. the work de carne Christi. Tertullian exclaims to the Docetist Marcion in c. 5: “Parce unicæ spei totius orbis.” Irenæus and Tertullian mean that Christ’s assumption of humanity was complete, but not unfrequently express themselves in such a manner as to convey the impression that the Logos only assumed flesh. This is particularly the case with Tertullian, who, moreover, in his earlier time had probably quite naïve Docetic ideas and really looked upon the humanity of Christ as only flesh. See Apolog. 21: “spiritum Christus cum verbo sponte dimisit, prævento carnificis officio.” Yet Irenæus in several passages spoke of Christ’s human soul (III. 22. 1: V. 1.1) as also did Melito (τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ ἀσάνταστον τῆς ψυχῆς Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ σώματος, τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρωπίνης σύσεως Otto, l.c., IX, p. 415) and Tertullian (de carne 10 ff. 13; de resurr. 53). What we possess in virtue of the creation was assumed by Christ (Iren., l.c., III. 22. 2.) Moreover, Tertullian already examined how the case stands with sin in relation to the flesh of 581

174

History of Dogma - Volume II

278

279

Adolf Harnack

fact that Jesus must have passed through and been subjected to all the conditions of a complete human life from birth to old age and death.587 Jesus Christ is therefore the Son of God who has really become the Son of man; and these are not two Christs but one, in whom the Logos is permanently united with humanity.588 Irenæus called this union “union of the Word of God with the creature” (“adunitio verbi dei ad plasma”)589 and “blending and communion of God and man” (“commixtio et communio dei et hominis”)590 without thereby describing it any more clearly.591 He views it as perfect, for, as a rule, he will not listen to any separation of what was done by the man Jesus and by God the Word.592 The explicit formula of two substances or natures in Christ is not

Christ. In opposition to the opinion of the heretic Alexander, that the Catholics believe Jesus assumed earthly flesh in order to destroy the flesh of sin in himself, he shows that the Saviour’s flesh was without sin and that it is not admissible to teach the annihilation of Christ’s flesh (de carne 16; see also Irenæus V. 14. 2, 3): “Christ by taking to himself our flesh has made it his own, that is, he has made it sinless.” It was again passages from Paul (Rom. VIII. 3 and Ephes. II. 15) that gave occasion to this discussion. With respect to the opinion that it may be with the flesh of Christ as it is with the flesh of angels who appear, Tertullian remarks (de carne 6) that no angel came to die; that which dies must be born; the Son of God came to die. 587 This conception was peculiar to Irenæus, and for good reasons was not repeated in succeeding times; see II. 22: III. 17. 4. From it also Irenæus already inferred the necessity of the death of Christ and his abode in the lower world, V. 31. 1, 2. Here we trace the influence of the recapitulation idea. It has indeed been asserted (very energetically by Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 73 f.) that the Christ of Irenæus was not a personal man, but only possessed humanity. But that is decidedly incorrect, the truth merely being that Irenæus did not draw all the inferences from the personal humanity of Christ. 588 See Iren. V. 31. 2: “Surgens in came sic ascendit ad patrem.” Tertullian, de carne 24: “Bene quod idem veniet de cælis qui est passus . . . et agnoscent qui eum confixerunt, utique ipsam carnem in quam sævierunt, sine qua nec ipse esse poterit et agnosci;” see also what follows. 589 See Iren. IV. 33. 11. 590 See Iren. IV. 20. 4; see also III. 19. 1. 591 He always posits the unity in the form of a confession without describing it. See III. 16. 6, which passage may here stand for many. “Verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster, qui et passus est pro nobis et ressurrexit propter nos . . . Unus igitur deus pater, quemadmodum ostendimus, et unus Christus Iesus dominus noster, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo.” V. 18.1: “Ipsum verbum dei incarnatum suspensum est super lignum.” 592 Here Irenæus was able to adopt the old formula “God has suffered” and the like; so also Melito, see Otto l.c., IX. p. 416: ὁ Θεὸς πέπονθεν ὑπὸ δεξιᾶς Ἰσραηλιτιδος (p. 422): “Quidnam est hoc novum mysterium? iudex iudicatur et quietus est; invisibilis videtur neque erubescit: incomprehensibilis prehenditur neque indignatur, incommensurabilis mensuratur neque repugnat; impassibilis patitur neque ulciscitur; immortalis moritur, neque respondit verbum, cœlestis sepelitur et id fert.” But let us note that these are not “doctrines”, but testimonies to the faith, as they were always worded from the beginning and such as could, if need were, be adapted to any Christology. Though Melito in a fragment whose genuineness is not universally admitted (Otto, l.c., p. 415 sq.) declared in opposition to Marcion, that Christ proved his humanity to the world in the 30 years before his baptism; but showed the divine nature concealed in his human nature during the 3 years of his ministry, he did not for all that mean to imply that Jesus’ divinity and humanity are in any way separated. But, though Irenæus inveighed so violently against the “Gnostic” separation of Jesus and Christ (see particularly III. 16. 2, where most weight is laid on the fact that we do not find in Matth.: “Iesu generatio sic erat” but “Christi generatio sic erat”), there is no doubt that in some passages he himself could not help unfolding a speculation according to which the predicates applying to the human nature of Jesus do not also hold good of his divinity, in fact he actually betrayed a view of Christ inconsistent with the conception of the Saviour’s person as a perfect unity. We can indeed only trace this view in his writings in the form of an undercurrent, and what led to it will be discussed further on. Both he and Melito, as a rule adhered to the simple “filius dei filius hominis factus” and did not perceive any problem here, because to them the disunion prevailing in the world and in humanity was the difficult question that appeared to be solved through this very divine manhood. How closely Melito agreed with Irenæus is shown not only by the proposition (p. 419): “Propterea misit pater filium suum e cœlo sine corpore (this is said in opposition to the Valentinian view), ut, postquam incarnatus esset in, utero virginis et natus esset homo, vivificaret hominem et colligeret membra eius quæ mors disperserat, quum hominem divideret,” but also by the “propter hominem iudicatus est iudex, impassibilis passus est?” (l.c.).

175

History of Dogma - Volume II

280

281

Adolf Harnack

found in Irenæus; but Tertullian already used it. It never occurred to the former, just because he was not here speaking as a theologian, but expressing his belief.593 In his utterances about the God-man Tertullian closely imitates Irenæus. Like the latter he uses the expression “man united with God” (“homo deo mixtus”)594 and like him he applies the predicates of the man to the Son of God.595 But he goes further, or rather, in the interest of formal clearness, he expresses the mystery in a manner which shows that he did not fully realise the religious significance of the proposition, “the Son of God made Son of man” (“filius dei filius hominis factus”). He speaks of a “corporal and spiritual, i.e., divine, substance of the Lord”, (“corporalis et spiritalis [i.e., divina] substantia domini”)596 of “either substance of the flesh and spirit of Christ” (“utraque substantia et carnis et spiritus Christi”), of the “creation of two substances which Christ himself also possesses”, (“conditio duarum substantiarum, quas Christus et ipse gestat”)597 and of the “twofold condition not blended but united in one person-God and man” (“duplex status non confusus sed conjunctus in una persona — deus et homo”.598 Here we already have in a complete form the later Chalcedonian formula of the two substances in one person.599 At the same time, however, we can clearly see that Tertullian went beyond Irenæus in his exposition.600 He was, moreover, impelled to combat an antagonistic 593

The concepts employed by Irenæus are deus, verbum, filius dei, homo, filius hominis, plasma dei. What perhaps hindered the development of that formula in his case was the circumstance of his viewing Christ, though he had assumed the plasma dei, humanity, as a personal man who (for the sake of the recapitulation theory) not only had a human nature but was obliged to live through a complete human life. The fragment attributed to Irenæus (Harvey II., p. 493) in which occur the words, τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου ἑνώοει τῇ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν φυσικῇ ἑνωθέντος τῇ σακρί, is by no means genuine. How we are to understand the words: ἵνα ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τὸ περιφανὲς τῶν φύσεων παραδειχθῇ in fragment VIII. (Harvey II., p. 479), and whether this piece belongs to Irenæus, is uncertain. That Melito (assuming the genuineness of the fragment) has the formula of the two natures need excite no surprise; for (1) Melito was also a philosopher, which Irenæus was not, and (2) it is found in Tertullian, whose doctrines can be shown to be closely connected with those of Melito (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 249 f.). If that fragment is genuine Melito is the first Church teacher who has spoken of two natures. 594 See Apol. 21: “verbum caro figuratus . . . homo deo mixtus; adv. Marc. II. 27: “filius dei miscens in semetipso hominem et deum;” de carne 15: “homo deo mixtus;” 18: “sic homo cum deo, dum caro hominis cum spiritu dei.” On the Christology of Tertullian cf. Schulz, Gottheit Christi, p. 74 ff. 595 De carne 5: “Crucifixus est dei filius, non pudet quia pudendum est; et mortuus est dei filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile est;” but compare the whole book; c. 5 init.: “deus crucifixus” “nasci se voluit deus”. De pat. 3: “nasci se deus in utero patitur.” The formula: “ὁ γεννηθείς, ὁμεγας Θεός is also found in Sibyll. VII. 24. 596 De carne 1, cf. ad nat. II. 4: “ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione substantiæ.” 597 De carne 18 fin. 598 Adv. Prax. 27: “Sed enim invenimus illum directo et deum et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente (Ps. LXXXVII. 5) . . . hic erit homo et filius hominis, qui definitus est filius dei secundum spiritum . . . Videmus duplicem statum, non confusum sed coniunctum in una persona deum et hominem Iesum. De Christo autem differo. Et adeo salva est utriusque proprietas substantiæ, ut et spiritus res suas egerit in illo, id est virtutes et opera et signa, et caro passiones suas functa sit, esuriens sub diabolo . . . denique et mortua est. Quodsi tertium quid esset, ex utroque confusum, ut electrum, non tam distincta documenta parerent utriusque substantiæ.” In what follows the actus utriusque substantiæ are sharply demarcated: “ambæ substantiæ in statu suo quæque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operæ et exitus sui occurrerunt . . . neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in uno plane esse possunt.” See also c. 29: “Quamquam cum duæ substantiæ censeantur in Christo Iesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam” etc. 599 Of this in a future volume. Here also two substances in Christ are always spoken of (there are virtually three, since, according to de anima 35, men have already two substances in themselves). I know only one passage where Tertullian speaks of natures in reference to Christ, and this passage in reality proves nothing; de carne 5: “Itaque utriusque substantiæ census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem” etc. Then: “Quæ proprietas conditionum, divinæ et humanæ, æqua utique naturæ cuiusque veritate disjuncta est.” 600 In the West up to the time of Leo I. the formula “deus et homo”, or, after Tertullian’s time “duæ substantiæ”, was always a simple expression of the facts acknowledged in the Symbol, and not a speculation derived from the doctrine of redemption. This is shown just from the fact of stress being laid on the unmixedness. With this was associated a theoretic and apologetic interest

176

History of Dogma - Volume II

282

283

Adolf Harnack

principle. Irenæus had as yet no occasion to explain in detail that the proposition “the Word became flesh” (“verbum caro factum”) denoted no transformation. That he excludes the idea of change, and that he puts stress on the Logos’ assumption of flesh from the Virgin is shown by many passages.601 Tertullian, on the other hand, was in the first place confronted by (Gnostic) opponents who understood John’s statement in the sense of the Word’s transforming himself into flesh, and therefore argued against the “assumption of flesh from the Virgin” (“assumptio carnis ex virgine”);602 and, in the second place, he had to do with Catholic Christians who indeed admitted the birth from the Virgin, but likewise assumed a change of God into flesh, and declared the God thus invested with flesh to be the Son.603 In this connection the same Tertullian, who in the Church laid great weight on formulæ like “the crucified God”, “God consented to be born” (“deus crucifixus”, “nasci se voluit deus”) and who, impelled by opposition to Marcion and by his apologetic interest, distinguished the Son as capable of suffering from God the Father who is impassible, and imputed to him human weaknesses — which was already a further step, — sharply emphasised the “distinct function” (“distincte agere”) of the two substances in Christ and thus separated the persons. With Tertullian the interest in the Logos doctrine, on the one hand, and in the real humanity, on the other, laid the basis of that conception of Christology in accordance with which the unity of the person is nothing more than an assertion. The “deus factus homo” (“verbum caro factus”) presents quite insuperable difficulties, as soon as “theology” can no longer be banished. Tertullian smoothed over these difficulties by juristic distinctions, for all his elucidations of “substance” and “person” are of this nature. A somewhat paradoxical result of the defence of the Logos doctrine in the struggle against the “Patripassians” was the increased emphasis that now began to be laid on the integrity and independence of the human nature in Christ. If the only essential result of the struggle with Gnosticism was to assert the substantial reality of Christ’s body, it was Tertullian who distinguished what Christ did as man from what he did as God in order to prove that he was not a tertium quid. The discriminating intellect which was forced to receive a doctrine as a problem could not proceed otherwise. But, even before the struggle with Modalism, elements were present which repressed the naïve confidence of the utterances about the God-man. If I judge rightly, there were two features in Irenæus both of which resulted in a splitting up of the conception of the perfect unity of Christ’s person. The first was the intellectual contemplation of the perfect humanity of Jesus, the second

on the part of theologians, so that they began to dwell at greater length on the unmixedness after the appearance of that Patripassianism, which professed to recognise the filius dei in the caro, that is in the deus so far as he is incarnatus or has changed himself into flesh. As to Tertullian’s opposition to this view see what follows. In contradistinction to this Western formula the monophysite one was calculated to satisfy both the salvation interest and the understanding. The Chalcedonian creed, as is admitted by Schulz, l.c., pp. 64 ff., 71 ff., is consequently to be explained from Tertullian’s view, not from that of the Alexandrians. Our readers will excuse us for thus anticipating. 601 “Quare,” says Irenæus III. 21. 10 — “igitur non iterum sumpsit limum deus sed ex Maria operatus est plasmationem fieri? Ut non alia plasmatio fieret neque alia, esset plasmatio quæ salvaretur, sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudine?” 602 See de carne 18. Oehler has misunderstood the passage and therefore mispointed it. It is as follows: “Vox ista (Joh. I. 14) quid caro factum sit contestatur, nec tamen periclitatur, quasi statim aliud sit (verbum), factum caro, et non verbum . . . Cum scriptura non dicat nisi quod factum sit, non et unde sit factum, ergo ex alio, non ex semetipso suggerit factum” etc. 603 Adv. Prax. 27 sq. In de carne 3 sq. and elsewhere Tertullian indeed argues against Marcion that God in contradistinction to all creatures can transform himself into anything and yet remain God. Hence we are not to think of a transformation in the strict sense, but of an adunitio.

177

History of Dogma - Volume II

284

285

Adolf Harnack

was found in certain Old and New Testament texts and the tradition connected with these.604 With regard to the first we may point out that Irenæus indeed regarded the union of the human and divine as possible only because man, fashioned from the beginning by and after the pattern of the Logos, was an image of the latter and destined for union with God. Jesus Christ is the realisation of our possession of God’s image;605 but this thought, if no further developed, may be still united with the Logos doctrine in such a way that it does not interfere with it, but serves to confirm it. The case becomes different when it is not only shown that the Logos was always at work in the human race, but that humanity was gradually more and more accustomed by him (in the patriarchs and prophets) to communion with God,606 till at last the perfect man appeared in Christ. For in this view it might appear as if the really essential element in Jesus Christ were not the Logos, who has become the new Adam, but the new Adam, who possesses the Logos. That Irenæus, in explaining the life of Jesus as that of Adam according to the recapitulation theory, here and there expresses himself as if he were speaking of the perfect man, is undeniable: If the acts of Christ are really to be what they seem, the man concerned in them must be placed in the foreground. But how little Irenæus thought of simply identifying the Logos with the perfect man is shown by the passage in III. 19. 3 where he writes: “ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἵνα πειρασθῇ, οὕτω καὶ λόγος ἵνα δοξασθῇ. ἡσυχάζοντος μὲν τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῷ πειράζεσθαι καὶ σταυροῦσθαι καὶ ἀποθνήσκειν, συγγινομένου δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν τῷ νικᾷν καὶ ὑπομένειν καὶ χρηστεύεσθαι καὶ ἀνίστασθαι καὶ ἀναλαμβάνεσθαι” (“For as he was man that he might be tempted, so also he was the Logos that he might be glorified. The Logos remained quiescent during the process of temptation, crucifixion and death, but aided the human nature when it conquered, and endured, and performed deeds of kindness, and rose again from the dead, and was received up into heaven”). From these words it is plain that Irenæus preferred to assume that the divine and human natures existed side by side, and consequently to split up the perfect unity, rather than teach a mere ideal manhood which would be at the same time a divine manhood. The “discrete agere” of the two natures proves that to Irenæus the perfect manhood of the incarnate Logos was merely an incidental quality he possessed. In reality the Logos is the perfect man in so far as his incarnation creates the perfect man and renders him possible, or the Logos always exists behind Christ the perfect man. But nevertheless this very way of viewing the humanity in Christ already compelled Irenæus to limit the “deus crucifixus” and to lay the foundation for Tertullian’s formulæ. With regard to the second point we may remark that there were not a few passages in both Testaments where Christ appeared as the man chosen by God and anointed with the Spirit. These as well as the corresponding language of the Church were the greatest difficulties

604

So I think I ought to express myself. It does not seem to me proper to read a twofold conception into Irenæus’ Christological utterances under the pretext that Christ according to him was also the perfect man, with all the modern ideas that are usually associated with this thought (Böhringer, l.c., p. 542 ff., see Thomasius in opposition to him). 605 See, e.g., V. 1. 3. Nitzch, Dogmengeschichte I. p. 309. Tertullian, in his own peculiar fashion, developed still more clearly the thought transmitted to him by Irenæus. See adv. Prax. 12: “Quibus faciebat deus hominem similem? Filio quidem, qui erat induturas hominem . . . Erat autem ad cuius imaginem faciebat, ad filii scilicet, qui homo futurus certior et verior imaginem suam fecerat dici hominem, qui tunc de limo formari habebat, imago veri et similitudo.” Adv. Marc. V. 8: “Creator Christum, sermonem suum, intuens hominem futurum, Faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram”; the same in de resurr. 6. But with Tertullian, too, this thought was a sudden idea and did not become the basis of further speculation. 606 Iren. IV. 14. 2 for further particulars on the point see below, where Irenæus’ views on the preparation of salvation are discussed. The views of Dorner, i.e., 492 f., that the union of the Son of God with humanity was a gradual process, are marred by some exaggerations, but are correct in their main idea.

178

History of Dogma - Volume II

286

Adolf Harnack

in the way of the Logos Christology. Of what importance is an anointing with the Spirit to him who is God? What is the meaning of Christ being born by the power of the Holy Ghost? Is this formula compatible with the other, that he as the Logos himself assumed flesh from the Virgin etc.? Irenæus no doubt felt these difficulties. He avoided them (III. 9. 3) by referring the bestowal of the Spirit at baptism merely to the man Jesus, and thus gave his own approval to that separation which appeared to him so reprehensible in the Gnostics.607 This separation indeed rescued to future ages the minimum of humanity that was to be retained in the person of Christ, but at the same time it laid the foundation of those differentiating speculations, which in succeeding times became the chief art and subject of dispute among theologians. The fact is that one cannot think in realistic fashion of the “deus homo factus” without thinking oneself out of it. It is exceedingly instructive to find that, in some passages, even a man like Irenæus was obliged to advance from the creed of the one God-man to the assumption of two independent existences in Christ, an assumption which in the earlier period has only “Gnostic” testimony in its favour. Before Irenæus’ day, in fact, none but these earliest theologians taught that Jesus Christ had two natures, and ascribed to them particular actions and experiences. The Gnostic distinction of the Jesus patibilis (“capable of suffering”) and the Christ ἀπαθής (“impassible”) is essentially identical with the view set forth by Tertullian adv. Prax., and this proves that the doctrine of the two natures is simply nothing else than the Gnostic, i.e., scientific, adaptation of the formula: “filius dei filius hominis factus”. No doubt the old early-Christian interest still makes itself felt in the assertion of the one person. Accordingly we can have no historical understanding of Tertullian’s Christology or even of that of Irenæus without taking into account, as has not yet been done, the Gnostic distinction of Jesus and Christ, as well as those old traditional formulæ: “deus passus, deus crucifixus est” (“God suffered, God was crucified”).608 607

“Secundum id quod verbum dei homo erat ex radice Iesse et filius Abrahæ, secundum hoc requiescebat spiritus dei super eum . . . secundum autem quod deus erat, non secundum gloriam iudicabat.” All that Irenæus said of the Spirit in reference to the person of Christ is to be understood merely as an exegetical necessity and must not be regarded as a theoretical principle (this is also the case with Tertullian). Dorner (l.c., p. 492 f.) has failed to see this, and on the basis of Irenæus’ incidental and involuntary utterances has attempted to found a speculation which represents the latter as meaning that the Holy Ghost was the medium which gradually united the Logos, who was exalted above growing and suffering, into one person with the free and growing man in Jesus Christ. In III. 12. 5-7 Irenæus, in conformity with Acts IV. 27: X. 38, used the following other formulæ about Christ: ὁ Θεός, ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν κ.τ.λ., καὶ ὁ τούτου παῖς, ὅν ἔχρισεν ὁ Θεός — “Petrus Iesum ipsum esse filium dei testificatus est, qui et unctus Spiritu Sancto Iesus dicitur.” But Irenæus only expressed himself thus because of these passages, whereas Hippolytus not unfrequently calls Christ παῖς Θεοῦ. 608 On Hippolytus’ views of the incarnation see Dorner, l.c., I. p. 609 ff. — an account to be used with caution — and Overbeck, Quæst. Hippol. Specimen (1864), p. 47 sq. Unfortunately the latter has not carried out his intention to set forth the Christology of Hippolytus in detail. In the work quoted he has, however, shown how closely the latter in many respects has imitated Irenæus in this case also. It is instructive to see what Hippolytus has not adopted from Irenæus or what has become rudimentary with him. As a professional and learned teacher he is at bottom nearer to the Apologists as regards his Christology than Irenæus. As an exegete and theological author he has much in common with the Alexandrians, just as he is in more than one respect a connecting link between Catholic controversialists like Irenæus and Catholic scholars like Origen. With the latter he moreover came into personal contact. See Hieron., de vir. inl. 61: Hieron., ep. ad Damas. edit. Venet. I., ep. 36 is also instructive. These brief remarks are, however, by no means intended to give countenance to Kimmel’s untenable hypothesis (de Hippol. vita et scriptis, 1839) that Hippolytus was an Alexandrian. In Hippolytus’ treatise c. Noët. we find positive teachings that remind us of Tertullian. An important passage is de Christo et Antichristo 3 f.: εἷ γὰρ καὶ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ταῖς (Iren.), δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἡμεῖς τυχόντες τὴν διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἀναγέννησιν εἰς ἕνα τέλειον καὶ ἐπουράνιον ἄνθρωπον οἱ πάντες καταντῆσαι ἐπιθυμοῦμεν (see Iren.) Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄσαρκος ὢν (see Melito, Iren., Tertull.) ἐνεδύσατο τὴν ἁγίαν σάρκα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου· ὡς νύμφιος ἱμάτιον ἐξυφάνας ἑαυτῷ ἦν τῷ σταυρικῷ πάθει (Irenæus and Tertullian also make the death on the cross the object

179

History of Dogma - Volume II

287

288

Adolf Harnack

But beyond doubt the prevailing conception of Christ in Irenæus is the idea that there was the most complete unity between his divine and human natures; for it is the necessary consequence of his doctrine of redemption, that “Jesus Christus factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse”609 (“Jesus Christ became what we are in order that we might become what he himself is”). But, in accordance with the recapitulation theory, Irenæus developed the “factus est quod sumus nos” in such a way that the individual portions of the life of Christ, as corresponding to what we ought to have done but did not do, receive the value of saving acts culminating in the death on the cross. Thus he not only regards Jesus Christ as “salvation and saviour and saving” (“salus et salvator et salutare”),610 but he also views his whole life as a work of salvation. All that has taken place between the conception and the ascension is an inner necessity in this work of salvation. This is a highly significant advance beyond the conception of the Apologists. Whilst in their case the history of Jesus seems to derive its importance almost solely from the fulfilment of prophecy, it acquires in Irenæus an independent and fundamental significance. Here also we recognise the influence of “Gnosis”, nay, in many places he uses the same expressions as the Gnostics, when he sees salvation accomplished, on the one hand, in the mere appearance of Jesus Christ as the second Adam, and on the other, in the simple acknowledgment of this appearance.611 But he is distinguished of the assumption of the flesh), ὅπως συγκεράσας τὸ θνητὸν ἡμῶν σῶμα τῇ ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμει καὶ μίξας (Iren., Tertull.) τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τὸ φθαρτὸν καὶ τὸ ἀσθενὲς τῷ ἰσχυρῷ σώσῃ τὸν ἀπολλύμενον ἄνθρωπον (Iren.). The succeeding disquisition deserves particular note, because it shows that Hippolytus has also borrowed from Irenæus the idea that the union of the Logos with humanity had already begun in a certain way in the prophets. Overbeck has rightly compared the ἀναπλάσσειν δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν Ἀδάμ, l.c., c. 26, with the ἀνακεφαλαιοῦν of Irenæus and l.c., c. 44, with Iren. II. 22, 4. For Hippolytus’ Christology Philosoph. X. 33, p. 542 and c. Noët. 10 ff. are the chief passages of additional importance. In the latter passage it is specially noteworthy that Hippolytus, in addition to many other deviations from Irenæus and Tertullian, insists on applying the full name of Son only to the incarnate Logos. In this we have a remnant of the more ancient idea and at the same time a concession to his opponents who admitted an eternal Logos in God, but not a pre-temporal hypostasis of the Son. See c. 15: ποῖον οὖν υἱὸν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς διὰ τῆς σαρκὸς κατέπεμψεν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τὸν λόγον; ὃν υἱὸν προσηγόρευε διὰ τὸ μέλλειν αὐτὸν γενέσθαι. Καὶ τὸ κοινὸν ὅνομα τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους φιλοστοργίας ἀναλαμβάνει ὁ υἱὸς (καίτοι τέλειος λόγος ὢν μονγενής). οὔδ᾽ ἡ σαρξ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν δίχα τοῦ λόγου ὑποστῆναι ἠδύνατο διὰ τὸ ἐν λόγῳ τὴν σύστασιν ἔχειν. οὕτως οὖν εἱς υἱὸς τέλειος Θεοῦ ἐφανερώθη. Hippolytus partook to a much greater extent than his teacher Irenæus of the tree of Greek knowledge and he accordingly speaks much more frequently than the latter of the “divine mysteries” of the faith. From the fragments and writings of this author that are preserved to us the existence of very various Christologies can be shown; and this proves that the Christology of his teacher Irenæus had not by any means yet become predominant in the Church, as we might suppose from the latter’s confident tone. Hippolytus is an exegete and accordingly still yielded with comparative impartiality to the impressions conveyed by the several passages. For example he recognised the woman of Rev. XII. as the Church and the Logos as her child, and gave the following exegesis of the passage (de Christo et Antichristo 61): οὐ παύσεται ἡ ἐκκλησία γεννῶσα ἐκ καρδίας τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐν κόσμω ὑπὸ ἀπίστων διωκόμενον. “καὶ ἔτεκε”, φησίν, “υἱὸν ἄρρενα, ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη”, τὸν ἄρρενα καὶ τέλειον Χριστόν, παῖδα Θεοῦ, Θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγελλόμενον ἀεί τίκτουσα ἡ ἐκκλησία διδάσκει πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. If we consider how Irenæus’ pupil is led by the text of the Holy Scriptures to the most diverse “doctrines”, we see how the “Scripture” theologians were the very ones who threatened the faith with the greatest corruptions. As the exegesis of the Valentinian schools became the mother of numerous self-contradictory Christologies, so the same result was threatened here — “doctrinæ inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt Gnosticorum.” From this standpoint Origen’s undertaking to subject the whole material of Biblical exegesis to a fixed theory appears in its historical greatness and importance. 609 See other passages on p. 241, note 2. This is also reëchoed in Cyprian. See, for example, ep. 58. 6: “filius dei passus est ut nos filios dei faceret, et filius hominis (scil. the Christians) pati non vult esse dei filius possit.” 610 See III. 10. 3. 611 See the remarkable passage in IV. 36. 7: ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἥτις ἦν ἀσθαρσία. Another result of the Gnostic struggle is Irenæus’ raising the question as to what new thing the Lord has brought (IV. 34. 1): “Si autem subit vos huiusmodi sensus, ut dicatis: Quid igitur novi dominus attulit veniens? cognoscite, quoniam omnem novitatem attulit semetipsum afferens, qui fuerat annuntiatus.” The new thing is then defined thus: “Cum perceperunt eam quæ ab eo est libertatem et participant visionem eius

180

History of Dogma - Volume II

289

290

Adolf Harnack

from them by the fact that he decidedly emphasises the personal acts of Jesus, and that he applies the benefits of Christ’s work not to the “pneumatic” ipso facto, but in principle to all men, though practically only to those who listen to the Saviour’s words and adorn themselves with works of righteousness.612 Irenæus presented this work of Christ from various points of view. He regards it as the realisation of man’s original destiny, that is, being in communion with God, contemplating God, being imperishable like God; he moreover views it as the abolition of the consequences of Adam’s disobedience, and therefore as the redemption of men from death and the dominion of the devil; and finally he looks upon it as reconciliation with God. In all these conceptions Irenæus fell back upon the person of Christ. Here, at the same time, he is everywhere determined by the content of Biblical passages; in fact it is just the New Testament that leads him to these considerations, as was first the case with the Valentinians before him. How uncertain he still is as to their ecclesiastical importance is shown by the fact that he has no hesitation in reckoning the question, as to why the Word of God became flesh and suffered, among the articles that are a matter of consideration for science, but not for the simple faith (I. 10. 3). Here, therefore, he still maintains the archaic standpoint according to which it is sufficient to adhere to the baptismal confession and wait for the second coming of Christ along with the resurrection of the body. On the other hand, Irenæus did not merely confine himself to describing the fact of redemption, its content and its consequences; but he also attempted to explain the peculiar nature of this redemption from the essence of God and the incapacity of man, thus solving the question “cur deus Homo” in the highest sense.613 Finally, he adopted from Paul the thought that Christ’s real work of salvation consists in his death on the cross; and so he tried to amalgamate the two propositions, “filius dei filius hominis factus est propter nos” (“the Son of God became Son of man for us”) and “filius dei passus est propter nos” (“the Son of God suffered for us”) as the most vital ones. He did not, however, clearly show which of these doctrines is the more important. Here the speculation of Irenæus is already involved in the same ambiguity as was destined to be the permanent characteristic of Church speculation as to Christ’s work in succeeding times. For on the one hand, Paul led one to lay all the emphasis on the death on the cross, and on the other, the logical result of dogmatic thinking only pointed to the appearance of God in the flesh, but not to a particular work of Christ that had not been already involved in the appearance of the Divine Teacher himself. Still, Irenæus contrived to reconcile the discrepancy better than his successors, because, being in earnest with his idea of Christ as the second Adam, he was able to contemplate the whole life of Jesus as redemption in so far as he conceived it as a recapitulation. We see this at once not only from his conception of the virgin birth as a fact of salvation, but also from his way of describing redemption as deliverance from the devil. For, as the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary is the recapitulating counterpart of Adam’s birth from the

et audierunt sermones eius et fruiti sunt muneribus ab eo, non iam requiretur, quid novius attulit rex super eos, qui annuntiaverunt advenum eius . . . Semetipsum enim attulit et ea quæ prædicta sunt bona.” 612 See IV. 36. 6: “Adhuc manifestavit oportere nos cum vocatione (i.e., μετὰ τὴν κλῆσιν) et iustitiæ operibus adornari, uti requiescat super nos spiritus dei” — we must provide ourselves with the wedding garment. 613 The incapacity of man is referred to in III. 18. 1: III. 21. 10; III. 21-23 shows that the same man that had fallen had to be led to communion with God; V. 21. 3: V. 24. 4 teach that man had to overcome the devil; the intrinsic necessity of God’s appearing as Redeemer is treated of in III. 23. 1: “Si Adam iam non reverteretur ad vitam, sed in totum proiectus esset morti, victus esset dens et superasset serpentis nequitia voluntatem dei. Sed quoniam deus invictus et magnanimis est, magnanimem quidem se exhibuit etc.” That the accomplishment of salvation must be effected in a righteous manner, and therefore be as much a proof of the righteousness as of the immeasurable love and mercy of God, is shown in V. 1. 1: V. 21.

181

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

virgin earth, and as the obedience of the mother of Jesus is the counterpart of Eve’s disobedience, so the story of Jesus’ temptation is to him the recapitulating counterpart of the story of Adam’s temptation. In the way that Jesus overcame the temptation by the devil (Matt. IV.) Irenæus already sees the redemption of mankind from Satan; even then Jesus bound the strong one. But, whereas the devil seized upon man unlawfully and deceitfully, no in-justice, untruthfulness, or violence is displayed in the means by which Jesus resisted Satan’s temptation.614 As yet Irenæus is quite as free from the thought that the devil has real rights upon man, as he is from the immoral idea that God accomplished his work of redemption by an act of deceit. But, on the strength of Pauline passages, many of his teachings rather view redemption from the devil as accomplished by the death of Christ, and accordingly represent this death as a ransom paid to the “apostasy” for men who had fallen into captivity. He did not, however, develop this thought any further.615 291

His idea of the reconciliation of God is just as rudimentary, and merely suggested by Biblical passages. He sometimes saw the means of reconciliation solely in obedience and in the righteous flesh” as such, at other times in the “wood.” Here also the recapitulation theory again appears: through disobedience at the tree Adam became a debtor to God, and through obedience at the tree God is reconciled.616 But teachings as to vicarious suffering on the part of Christ are not found in

614

Irenæus demonstrated the view in V. 21 in great detail. According to his ideas in this chapter we must include the history of the temptation in the regula fidei. 615 See particularly V. I. 1: “Verbum potens et homo verus sanguine suo ratio nabiliter redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt . . . dei verbum non deficiens in sua iustitia, iuste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quemadmodum illa initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, accipere quæ vellet, ut neque quod est iustum confringeretur neque antiqua plasmatio dei deperiret.” We see that the idea of the blood of Christ as ransom does not possess with Irenæus the value of a fully developed theory, but is suggestive of one. But even in this form it appeared suspicious and, in fact, a Marcionite idea to a Catholic teacher of the 3rd century. Pseudo-Origen (Adamantius) opposed it by the following argument (De recta in deum fide, edid Wetstein 1673, Sectio I. p. 38 sq. See Rufinus’ translation in Caspari’s Kirchenhistorische Anecdota Vol. I. 1883, p. 34 sq., which in many places has preserved the right sense): Τὸν πριωμενον ἔσης, εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν; ὁ πεπρακὼς τὶς ἐστιν; ἦλθεν εἰς σὲ ὁ ἀπλοῦς μῠθος· ὅτι ὁ πωλῶν καὶ ὁ ἀγοράζων ἀδελσοί εἰσιν; εἰ κακός ὤν ὁ διάβολος τῷ ἀγαθῷ πέπρακεν, οὐκ ἔστι κακὸς ἀλλὰ ἀγαθός· ὁ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς σθονήσας τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, νῦν ὀυκ ἔτι ὑπὸ σθόνου ἄγεται, τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὴν νομὴν παραδούς. ἔσται οὖν δίκαιος ὁ τοῦ σθόνου καὶ παντὸς κακοῦ παυσάμενος. αὐτὸς γοῦν ὁ Θεὸς εὑρίσκεται πωλήσας· μᾶλλον δὲ οἱ ἡμαρτηκότες ἑαυτοὺς ἀπηλλοτρίωσαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀυτῶν· πάλιν δὲ ἐλυτρώθησαν διὰ τὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν ἀυτοῦ. τοῦτο γὰρ σήσιν ὁ προσήτης· Ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν ἐπράθητε καὶ ταῖς ἀνομίαις ἐξαπέστειλα τὴν μητέρα ὑμῶν. Καὶ ἄλλος πὰλιν· Δωρεὰν ἐπράθητε, καὶ οὐ μετὰ ἀργυρίου λυτρωθήσεσθε. Τὸ, οὐδὲ μετὰ ἀργυρίου· δηλονότι, τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. τοῦτο γὰρ σάσκει ὁ προσήτης (Isaiah, LIII. 5 follows). Ἐικὸς δὲ ὅτι κατὰ σὲ επρίατο δοὺς ἑαυτοῦ τὸ αἷμα· πῶς οὖν καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἡγείρετο; εἰ γὰρ ὁ λαβὼν τὴν τιμὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὸ αἷμα, ἀπέδωκεν, οὐκέτι ἐπώλησεν. Εὶ δὲ μὴ ἀπέδωκε, τῶς ἀνέστη Χριστός; οὐκέτι οὗν τό, Ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω λαβεῖν, ἵσταται; ὁ γοῦν διὰβολος κατέχει τὸ αἶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀντὶ τῆς τιμῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων; πολλὴ βλασσήμιος ἄνοια! σεῦ τῶν κακῶν! σεῦ τῶν κακῶν! Ἀπέθανεν, ἀνέστη ὡς δυνατὸς· ἔθηκεν ὅ ἔλαβεν· αὕτη ποία πρᾶσις; τοῦ προσήτου λέγοντος· Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεὸς καὶ διασκορπισθήτωσαν οἱ ἐχθροὶ ἀυτοῦ; Ὅπου ἀνδστασις, ἐκεῖ θάνατος! That is an argument as acute as it is true and victorious. 616 See Iren. V. 2, 3, 16. 3, 17-4. In III. 16. 9 he says: Christus per passionem reconciliavit nos deo.” It is moreover very instructive to compare the way in which Irenæus worked out the recapitulation theory with the old proof from prophecy (“this happened that the Scripture might be fulfilled”). Here we certainly have an advance; but at bottom the recapitulation theory may also be conceived as a modification of that proof.

182

History of Dogma - Volume II

292

293

Adolf Harnack

Irenæus, and his death is seldom presented from the point of view of a sacrifice offered to God.617 According to this author the reconciliation virtually consists in Christ’s restoring man to communion and friendship with God and procuring forgiveness of sins; he very seldom speaks of God being offended through Adam’s sin (V. 16. 3). But the incidental mention of the forgiveness of sins resulting from the redemption by Christ has not the meaning of an abolition of sin. He connects the redemption with this only in the form of Biblical and rhetorical phrases; for the vital point with him is the abolition of the consequences of sin, and particularly of the sentence of death.618 Here we have the transition to the conception of Christ’s work which makes this appear more as a completion than as a restoration. In this connection Irenæus employed the following categories: restoring of the likeness of God in humanity; abolition of death; connection and union of man with God; adoption of men as sons of God and as gods; imparting of the Spirit who now becomes accustomed to abide with men;619 imparting of a knowledge of God culminating in beholding him; bestowal of everlasting life. All these are only the different aspects of one and the same blessing, which, being of a divine order, could only be brought to us and implanted in our nature by God himself. But inasmuch as this view represents Christ not as performing a reconciling but a perfecting work, his acts are thrust more into the background; his work is contained in his constitution as the God-man. Hence this work has a universal significance for all men, not only as regards the present, but as regards the past from Adam downwards, in so far as they “according to their virtue in their generation have not only feared but also loved God, and have behaved justly and piously towards their neighbours, and have longed to see Christ and to hear his voice.”620 Those redeemed by Jesus are immediately joined by him into a unity, into the true humanity, the Church, whose head he himself is.621 This Church is the communion of the Sons of God, who have attained to a contemplation of him and have been gifted with everlasting life. In this the work of Christ the God-man is fulfilled. In Tertullian and Hippolytus, as the result of New Testament exegesis, we again find the same

617

See, e.g., IV. 5. 4: προθύμως Ἀβραὰμ τὸν ἴδιον μονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν παραχωρήσας θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ, ἵνα καὶ ὁ Θεὸς εὐδοκήσῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ σπέρματος ἀυτοῦ παντὸς τὸν ἴδιον μονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν υἱὸν θύσίαν παρασχεῖν εἰς λύτρωσιν ἡμετέραν. 618 There are not a few passages where Irenæus said that Christ has annihilated sin, abolished Adam’s disobedience, and introduced righteousness through his obedience (III. 18. 6, 7: III. 20. 2: V. 16-21); but he only once tried to explain how that is to be conceived (III. 18. 7), and then merely reproduced Paul’s thoughts. 619 Irenæus has no hesitation in calling the Christian who has received the Spirit of God the perfect, the spiritual one, and in representing him, in contrast to the false Gnostic, as he who in truth judges all men, Jews, heathen, Marcionites, and Valentinians, but is himself judged by no one; see the great disquisition in IV. 33 and V. 9. 10. This true Gnostic, however, is only to be found where we meet with right faith in God the Creator, sure conviction with regard to the God-man Jesus Christ, true knowledge as regards the Holy Spirit and the economy of salvation, the apostolic doctrine, the right Church system in accordance with the episcopal succession, the intact Holy Scripture, and its uncorrupted text and interpretation (IV. 33. 7, 8). To him the true believer is the real Gnostic. 620 See IV. 22. In accordance with the recapitulation theory Christ must also have descended to the lower world. There he announced forgiveness of sins to the righteous, the patriarchs and prophets (IV. 27. 2). For this, however, Irenæus was not able to appeal to Scripture texts, but only to statements of a presbyter. It is nevertheless expressly asserted, on the authority of Rom. III. 23, that these pre-Christian just men also could only receive justification and the light of salvation through the arrival of Christ among them. 621 See III. 16. 6: “In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei; et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans, uti sicut in supercælestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps est verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum primatum assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesiæ, universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore.”

183

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

aspects of Christ’s work as in Irenæus, only with them the mystical form of redemption recedes into the background.622 622

There are innumerable passages where Tertullian has urged that the whole work of Christ is comprised in the death on the cross, and indeed that this death was the aim of Christ’s mission. See, e.g., de pat. 3: “Taceo quod figitur; in hoc enim venerat”; de bapt. 11: “Mors nostra dissolvi non potuit, nisi domini passione, nec vita restitui sine resurrectione ipsius”; adv. Marc. III. 8: “Si mendacium deprehenditur Christi caro . . . nec passiones Christi fidem merebuntur. Eversum est igitur totum dei opus. Totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors Christi, negatur, quam tam impresse apostolus demendat, utique veram, summum eam fundamentum evangelii constituens et salutis nostræ et prædictionis sum, 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4; he follows Paul here. But on the other hand he has also adopted from Irenæus the mystical conception of redemption — the constitution of Christ is the redemption — though with a rationalistic explanation. See adv. Marc. II. 27: “filius miscens in semetipso hominem et deum, ut tantum homini conferat, quantum deo detrahit. Conversabatur deus, ut homo divina agere doceretur. Ex æquo agebat deus cum homine, ut homo ex æquo agere cum deo posset.” Here therefore the meaning of the divine manhood of the Redeemer virtually amounts to divine teaching. In de resurr. 63 Christ is called “fidelissimus sequester dei et hominum, qui et homini deum et hominem deo reddet.” Note the future tense. It is the same with Hippolytus who in Philos. X. 34 represents the deification of men as the aim of redemption, but at the same time merely requires Christ as the lawgiver and teacher: “Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἐκσεύξῃ Θεὸν τὸν ὄντα διδαχθείς, ἕξεις δὲ ἀθάνατον τὸ σῶμα καὶ ἄσθαρτον ἅμα ψυχῇ, βασιλείαν ὀυρανῶν ἀπολήψῃ, ὁ ἐν γῇ βιοὺς καὶ ἐπουράνιον βασιλέα ἐπιγνούς, ἔσῃ δὲ ὁμιλητὴς Θεοῦ καὶ συγκληρονόμος Χριστοῦ, οὐκ ἐπιθυμίαις ἤ πάθεσι καὶ νόσοις δουλούμενος. Γέγονας γὰρ Θεός· ὅσα γὰρ ὑπέμεινας πάθη ἄνθρωπος ὤν, ταῦτα ἐδίδου, ὅτι ἄνθρωπος εἶ, ὅσα δὲ παρακολουθεῖ Θεῷ, ταῦτα παρέχειν ἐπήγγελται Θεὸς, ὅτι ἐθεοποιήθης, ἀθάνατος γεννηθείς. Τουτέστι τὸ Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, επιγνοὺς τὸν πεποιηκότα Θεόν. Τὸ γὰρ ἐπιγνῶναι ἑαυτὸν ἐπιγνωσθῆναι συμβέβηκε τῷ καλουμένῳ ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ. Μὴ σιλεχθρήσητε τοίνυν ἑαυτοῖς, ἄνθρωποι, μηδὲ τὸ παλινδρομεῖν διστάσητε. Χριστὸς γὰρ ἐστιν ὁ κατὰ πάντων Θεός, ὃς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀποπλύνειν προέταξε, νέον τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀποτελῶν, εἰκόνα τοῦτον καλέσας ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, διὰ τύπου τὴν εἰς σὲ ἐπιδεικνύμενος στοργήν, οὗ προστάγμασιν ὑπακούσας σεμνοῖς, καὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἀγαθὸς γενόμενος μιμητής, ἔσῃ ὅμοιος ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ τιμηθείς. Οὐ γὰρ πτωχέυει Θεὸς καὶ σὲ Θεὸν ποιήσας εἰς δόξαν αὐτοῦ.” It is clear that with a conception like this, which became prevalent in the 3rd century, Christ’s death on the cross could have no proper significance; nothing but the Holy Scriptures preserved its importance. We may further remark that Tertullian used the expression “satisfacere deo” about men (see, e.g., de bapt. 20; de pud. 9), but, so far as I know, not about the work of Christ. This expression is very frequerit in Cyprian (for penances), and he also uses it about Christ. In both writers, moreover, we find “meritum” (eg. , Scorp. 6) and “promereri deum”. With them and with Novatian the idea of “culpa” is also more strongly emphasised than it is by the Eastern theologians. Cf. Novatian de trin. 10: “quoniam cum caro et sanguis non obtinere regnum dei scribitur, non carnis substantia damnata est, quæ divinis manibus ne periret, exstructa est, sed sola carnis culpa merito reprehensa est.” Tertullian de bapt. 5 says: “Exempto reatu eximitur et pœna.” On the other hand he speaks of fasting as “officia humiliationis”, through which we can “inlicere” God. Among these Western writers the thought that God’s anger must be appeased both by sacrifices and corresponding acts appears in a much more pronounced form than in Irenæus. This is explained by their ideas as practical churchmen and by their actual experiences in communities that were already of a very secular character. We may, moreover, point out in a general way that the views of Hippolytus are everywhere more strictly dependent on Scripture texts than those of Irenæus. That many of the latter’s speculations are not found in Hippolytus is simply explained by the fact that they have no clear scriptural basis; see Overbeck, Quæst. Hippol., Specimen p. 75, note 29. On a superficial reading Tertullian seems to have a greater variety of points of view than Irenæus; he has in truth fewer, he contrived to work the grains of gold transmitted to him in such a way as to make the form more valuable than the substance. But one idea of Tertullian, which is not found in Irenæus, and which in after times was to attain great importance in the East (after Origen’s day) and in the West (after the time of Ambrosius), may be further referred to. We mean the notion that Christ is the bridegroom and the human soul (and also the human body) the bride. This theologoumenon owes its origin to a combination of two older ones, and subsequently received its Biblical basis from the Song of Solomon. The first of these older theologoumena is the Greek philosophical notion that the divine Spirit is the bridegroom and husband of the human soul. See the Gnostics (e.g., the sublime description in the Excerpta ex Theodoto 27); Clem. ep. ad Jacob. 4. 6; as well as Tatian, Orat. 13; Tertull., de anima 41 fin.: “Sequitur animam nubentem spiritui caro; o beatum connubium”; and the still earlier Sap. Sal. VIII. 2 sq. An offensively realistic form of this image is found in Clem. Hom. III. 27: νύμφη γὰρ εστὶν ὁ πᾶς ἅνθρωπος, ὁπόταν τοῦ ἀληθοῦς προφήτου λευκῷ λόγῳ ἀληθείας σπειρόμενος φωτίζηται τὸν νοῦν. The second is the apostolic notion that the Church is the bride and the body of Christ. In the 2nd Epistle of Clement the latter theologoumenon is already applied in a modified form. Here it is said that humanity as the Church, that is human nature (the flesh), belongs to Christ as his Eve (c. 14; see also Ignat. ad Polyc. V. 2; Tertull. de monog. 11, and my notes on Διδαχή XI. 11). The conclusion that could be drawn from this, and that seemed to have a basis in certain utterances of Jesus, viz., that the individual human soul together with the flesh is to be designated as the bride of Christ, was, so far as I know, first arrived at by Tertullian de resurr. 63: “Carnem et spiritum iam in semetipso Christus fœderavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum sponsæ comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis nomine

184

History of Dogma - Volume II

294

295

296

297

Adolf Harnack

Nevertheless the eschatology as set forth by Irenæus in the fifth Book by no means corresponds to this conception of the work of Christ as a restoring and completing one; it rather appears as a remnant of antiquity directly opposed to the speculative interpretation of redemption, but protected by the regula fidei, the New Testament, especially Revelation, and the material hopes of the great majority of Christians. But it would be a great mistake to assume that Irenæus merely repeated the hopes of an earthly kingdom just because he still found them in tradition, and because they were completely rejected by the Gnostics and guaranteed by the regula and the New Testament.623 The truth rather is that he as well as Melito, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Commodian, and Victorinus lived in these hopes no less than did Papias, the Asia Minor Presbyters and Justin.624 But this is the clearest proof that all these theologians were but half-hearted in their theology, which was forced upon them, in defence of the traditional faith, by the historical situation in which they found themselves. The Christ, who will shortly come to overcome Antichrist, overthrow the Roman empire, establish in Jerusalem a kingdom of glory, and feed believers with the fat of a miraculously fruitful earth, is in fact a quite different being from the Christ who, as the incarnate God, has already virtually accomplished his work of imparting perfect knowledge and filling mankind with divine life and incorruptibility. The fact that the old Catholic Fathers have both Christs shows more clearly than any other the middle position that they occupy between the acutely hellenised Christianity of the theologians, i.e., the Gnostics, and the old tradition of the Church. We have indeed seen that the twofold conception of Christ and his work dates back to the time of the Apostles, for there is a vast difference between the Christ of Paul and the Christ of the supposedly inspired Jewish Apocalypses; and also that the agency in producing this conjunction may be traced back to the oldest time; but the union of a precise Christological Gnosis, such as we find in Irenæus and

sequetur animam caro . . . Caro est sponsa, quæ in Christo spiritum sponsum per sanguinem pacta est”; see also de virg. vel. 16. Notice, however, that Tertullian continually thinks of all souls together (all flesh together) rather than of the individual soul. 623 By the regula inasmuch as the words “from thence he will come to judge the quick and the dead” had a fixed place in the confessions, and the belief in the duplex adventus Christi formed one of the most important articles of Church belief in contradistinction to Judaism and Gnosticism (see the collection of passages in Hesse, “das Muratorische Fragment”, p. 112 f.). But the belief in the return of Christ to this world necessarily involved the hope of a kingdom of glory under Christ upon earth, and without this hope is merely a rhetorical flourish. 624 Cf. here the account already given in Book I., chap. 3, Vol. I., p. 167 ff., Book I., chap. 4, Vol. I., p. 261, Book II., chap. 3, Vol. I., p. 105 f. On Melito compare the testimony of Polycrates in Eusebius, H. E. V. 24. 5, and the title of his lost work πέρὶ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰωάννου.” Chiliastic ideas are also found in the epistle from Lyons in Eusebius, H. E. V. 1 sq. On Hippolytus see his work “de Christo et Antichristo” and Overbeck careful account (l.c., p. 70 sq.) of the agreement here existing between Irenæus and Hippolytus as well as of the latter’s chiliasm on which unfounded doubts have been cast. Overbeck has also, in my opinion, shown the probability of chiliastic portions having been removed at a later period both from Hippolytus’ book and the great work of Irenæus. The extensive fragments of Hippolytus’ commentary on Daniel are also to be compared (and especially the portions full of glowing hatred to Rome lately discovered by Georgiades). With reference to Tertullian compare particularly the writings adv. Marc. III., adv. Jud., de resurrectione carnis, de anima, and the titles of the subsequently suppressed writings de paradiso and de spe fidelium. Further see Commodian, Carmen apolog., Lactantius, Instit. div., 1. VII., Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse. It is very remarkable that Cyprian already set chiliasm aside; cf. the conclusion of the second Book of the Testimonia and the few passages in which he quoted the last chapters of Revelation. The Apologists were silent about chiliastic hopes, Justin even denied them in Apol. I. 11, but, as we have remarked, he gives expression to them in the Dialogue and reckons them necessary to complete orthodoxy. The Pauline eschatology, especially several passages in 1 Cor. XV. (see particularly verse 50), caused great difficulties to the Fathers from Justin downwards. See Fragm. Justini IV. a Methodio supped. in Otto, Corp. Apol. III., p. 254, Iren. V. 9, Tertull. de resurr. 48 sq. According to Irenæus the heretics, who completely abandoned the early-Christian eschatology, appealed to 1 Cor. XV. 50. The idea of a kind of purgatory — a notion which does not originate with the realistic but with the philosophical eschatology — is quite plainly found in Tertullian, e.g., in de anima 57 and 58 (“modicum delictum illuc luendum”). He speaks in several passages of stages and different places of bliss; and this was a universally diffused idea (e.g., Scorp. 6).

185

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

Tertullian, with the retention in their integrity of the imaginative series of thoughts about Antichrist, Christ as the warrior hero, the double resurrection, and the kingdom of glory in Jerusalem, is really a historical novelty. There is, however, no doubt that the strength of the old Catholic theology in opposition to the Gnostics lies in the accomplishment of this union, which, on the basis of the New Testament, appeared to the Fathers possible and necessary. For it is not systematic consistency that secures the future of a religious conception within a church, but its elasticity, and its richness in dissimilar trains of thought. But no doubt this must be accompanied by a firm foundation, and this too the old Catholic Fathers possessed — the church system itself.

298

299

As regards the details of the eschatological hopes, they were fully set forth by Irenæus himself in Book V. Apart from the belief that the returning Nero would be the Antichrist, an idea spread in the West during the third century by the Sibylline verses and proved from Revelation, the later teachers who preached chiliastic hopes did not seriously differ from the gallic bishop; hence the interpretation of Revelation is in its main features the same. It is enough therefore to refer to the fifth Book of Irenæus.625 There is no need to show in detail that chiliasm leads to a peculiar view of history, which is as much opposed to that resulting from the Gnostic theory of redemption, as this doctrine itself forbids the hope of a bliss to be realised in an earthly kingdom of glory. This is not the proper place to demonstrate to what extent the two have been blended, and how the chiliastic scheme of history has been emptied of its content and utilised in the service of theological apologetics.

625

Irenæus begins with the resurrection of the body and the proofs of it (in opposition to Gnosticism). These proofs are taken from the omnipotence and goodness of God, the long life of the patriarchs, the translation of Enoch and Elijah, the preservation of Jonah and of the three men in the fiery furnace, the essential nature of man as a temple of God to which the body also belongs, and the resurrection of Christ (V. 3-7). But Irenæus sees the chief proof in the incarnation of Christ, in the dwelling of the Spirit with its gifts in us (V. 8-16), and in the feeding of our body with the holy eucharist (V. 2. 3).Then he discusses the defeat of Satan by Christ (V. 21-23), shows that the powers that be are set up by God, that the devil therefore manifestly lies in arrogating to himself the lordship of the world (V. 24), but that he acts as a rebel and robber in attempting to make himself master of it. This brings about the transition to Antichrist. The latter is possessed of the whole power of the devil, sums up in himself therefore all sin and wickedness, and pretends to be Lord and God. He is described in accordance with the Apocalypses of Daniel and John as well as according to Matth. XXIV. and 2nd Thessalonians. He is the product of the 4th Kingdom that is, the Roman empire; but at the same time springs from the tribe of Dan (V. 30. 2), and will take up his abode in Jerusalem etc. The returning Christ will destroy him, and the Christ will come back when 6000 years of the world’s history have elapsed; for “in as many days as the world was made, in so many thousands of years will it be ended” (V. 28. 3). The seventh day is then the great world Sabbath, during which Christ will reign with the saints of the first resurrection after the destruction of Antichrist. Irenæus expressly argued against such as pass for orthodox, but disregard the order of the progress of the righteous and know no stages of preparation for incorruptibility” (V. 31). By this he means such as assume that after death souls immediately pass to God. On the contrary he argues that these rather wait in a hidden place for the resurrection which takes place on the return of Christ after which the souls receive back their bodies and men now restored participate in the Saviour’s Kingdom (V. 31. 2). This Kingdom on earth precedes the universal judgment; “for it is just that they should also receive the fruits of their patience in the same creation in which they suffered tribulation”; moreover, the promise made to Abraham that Palestine would be given to him and to his seed, i.e., the Christians, must be fulfilled (V. 32). There they will eat and drink with the Lord in the restored body (V. 33. 1), sitting at a table covered with food (V. 33. 2) and consuming the produce of the land, which the earth affords in miraculous fruitfulness. Here Irenæus appeals to alleged utterances of the Lord of which he had been informed by Papias (V. 33. 3, 4). The wheat will be so fat that lions lying peacefully beside the cattle will be able to feed themselves even on the chaff (V. 33. 3, 4). Such and similar promises are everywhere to be understood in a literal sense. Irenæus here expressly argues against any figurative interpretation (ibid. and V. 35). He therefore adopted the whole Jewish eschatology, the only difference being that he regards the Church as the seed of Abraham. The earthly Kingdom is then followed by the second resurrection, the general judgment, and the final end.

186

History of Dogma - Volume II

300

Adolf Harnack

But the Gnostics were not the only opponents of chiliasm. Justin, even in his time, knew orthodox Christians who refused to believe in an earthly kingdom of Christ in Jerusalem, and Irenæus (V. 33 ff.), Tertullian, and Hippolytus626 expressly argued against these. Soon after the middle of the second century, we hear of an ecclesiastical party in Asia Minor, which not only repudiated chiliasm, but also rejected the Revelation of John as an untrustworthy book, and subjected it to sharp criticism. These were the so-called Alogi.627 But in the second century such Christians were still in the minority in the Church. It was only in the course of the third century that chiliasm was almost completely ousted in the East. This was the result of the Montanistic controversy and the Alexandrian theology. In the West, however, it was only threatened. In this Church the first literary opponent of chiliasm and of the Apocalypse appears to have been the Roman Presbyter Caius. But his polemic did not prevail. On the other hand the learned bishops of the East in the third century used their utmost efforts to combat and extirpate chiliasm. The information given to us by Eusebius (H. E. VII. 24), from the letters of Dionysius of Alexandria, about that father’s struggles with whole communities in Egypt, who would not give up chiliasm, is of the highest interest. This account shews that wherever philosophical theology had not yet made its way the chiliastic hopes were not only cherished and defended against being explained away, but were emphatically regarded as Christianity itself.628 Cultured theologians were able to achieve the union of chiliasm and religious philosophy; but the “simplices et idiotæ” could only understand the former. As the chiliastic hopes were gradually obliged to recede in exactly the same proportion as philosophic theology became naturalised, so also their subsidence denotes the progressive tutelage of the laity. The religion they under. stood was taken from them, and they received in return a faith they could not understand; in other words, the old faith and the old hopes decayed of themselves and the authority of a mysterious faith took their place. In this sense the extirpation or decay of chiliasm is perhaps the most momentous fact in the history of Christianity in the East. With chiliasm men also lost the living faith in the nearly impending return of Christ, and the consciousness that the prophetic spirit with its gifts is a real possession of Christendom. Such of the old hopes as remained were at most particoloured harmless fancies which, when allowed by theology, were permitted to be added to dogmatics. In the West, on the contrary, the millennial hopes retained their vigour during the whole third century; we know of no bishop there who would have opposed chiliasm. With this, however, was preserved a portion of the earliest Christianity which was to exercise its effects far beyond the time of Augustine.

626

Hippolytus in the lost book ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως. Perhaps we may also reckon Melito among the literary defenders of Chiliasm. 627 See Epiph., H. 51, who here falls back on Hippolytus. 628 In the Christian village communities of the district of Arsinoë the people would not part with chiliasm, and matters even went the length of an “apostasy” from the Alexandrian Church. A book by an Egyptian bishop, Nepos, entitled “Refutation of the allegorists” attained the highest repute. “They esteem the law and the prophets as nothing, neglect to follow the Gospels, think little of the Epistles of the Apostles, and on the contrary declare the doctrine set forth in this book to be a really great secret. They do not permit the simpler brethren among us to obtain a sublime and grand idea of the glorious and truly divine appearance of our Lord, of our resurrection from the dead as well as of the union and assimilation with him; but they persuade us to hope for things petty, perishable, and similar to the present in the kingdom of God.” So Dionysius expressed himself, and these words are highly characteristic of his own position and that of his opponents; for in fact the whole New Testament could not but be thrust into the background in cases where the chiliastic hopes were really adhered to. Dionysius asserts that he convinced these Churches by his lectures; but chiliasm and material religious ideas were still long preserved in the deserts of Egypt. They were cherished by the monks; hence Jewish Apocalypses accepted by Christians are preserved in the Coptic and Ethiopian languages.

187

History of Dogma - Volume II

301

302

Adolf Harnack

Finally, we have still to treat of the altered conceptions regarding the Old Testament which the creation of the New produced among the early-Catholic Fathers. In the case of Barnabas and the Apologists we became acquainted with a theory of the Old Testament which represented it as the Christian book of revelation and accordingly subjected it throughout to an allegorical process. Here nothing specifically new could be pointed out as having been brought by Christ. Sharply opposed to this conception was that of Marcion, according to which the whole Old Testament was regarded as the proclamation of a Jewish God hostile to the God of redemption. The views of the majority of the Gnostics occupied a middle position between the two notions. These distinguished different components of the Old Testament, some of which they traced to the supreme God himself and others to intermediate and malevolent beings. In this way they both established a connection between the Old Testament, and the Christian revelation and contrived to show that the latter contained a specific novelty. This historico-critical conception, such as we specially see it in the epistle of Ptolemy to Flora, could not be accepted by the Church because it abolished strict monotheism and endangered the proof from prophecy. No doubt, however, we already find in Justin and others the beginning of a compromise, in so far as a distinction was made between the moral law of nature contained in the Old Testament — the Decalogue — and the ceremonial law; and in so far as the literal interpretation of the latter, for which a pedagogic significance was claimed, was allowed in addition to its typical or Christian sense. With this theory it was possible, on the one hand, to do some sort of justice to the historical position of the Jewish people, and on the other, though indeed in a meagre fashion, to give expression to the novelty of Christianity. The latter now appears as the new law or the law of freedom, in so far as the moral law of nature had been restored in its full purity without the burden of ceremonies, and a particular historical relation to God was allowed to the Jewish nation, though indeed more a wrathful than a covenant one. For the ceremonial regulations were conceived partly as tokens of the judgment on Israel, partly as concessions to the stiffneckedness of the people in order to protect them from the worst evil, polytheism. Now the struggle with the Gnostics and Marcion, and the creation of a New Testament had necessarily a double consequence. On the one hand, the proposition that the “Father of Jesus Christ is the creator of the world and the God of the Old Testament” required the strictest adherence to the unity of the two Testaments, so that the traditional apologetic view of the older book had to undergo the most rigid development; on the other hand, as soon as the New Testament was created, it was impossible to avoid seeing that this book was superior to the earlier one, and thus the theory of the novelty of the Christian doctrine worked out by the Gnostics and Marcion had in some way or other to be set forth and demonstrated. We now see the old Catholic Fathers engaged in the solution of this twofold problem; and their method of accomplishing it has continued to be the prevailing one in all Churches up to the present time, in so far as the ecclesiastical and dogmatic practice still continues to exhibit the inconsistencies of treating the Old Testament as a Christian book in the strict sense of the word and yet elevating the New above it, of giving a typical interpretation to the ceremonial law and yet acknowledging that the Jewish people had a covenant with God. With regard to the first point, viz., the maintenance of the unity of the two Testaments, Irenæus and Tertullian gave a most detailed demonstration of it in opposition to Marcion,629 and primarily 629

See Irenæus lib. IV. and Tertull. adv. Marc. lib. II. and III.

188

History of Dogma - Volume II

303

304

Adolf Harnack

indeed with the same means as the older teachers had already used. It is Christ that prophesied and appeared in the Old Testament; he is the householder who produced both Old and New Testaments.630 Moreover, as the two have the same origin, their meaning is also the same. Like Barnabas the early-Catholic Fathers contrived to give all passages in the Old Testament a typical Christian sense: it is the same truth which we can learn from the prophets and again from Christ and the Apostles. With regard to the Old Testament the watchword is: “Seek the type” (“Typum quæras”).631 But they went a step further still. In opposition to Marcion’s antitheses and his demonstration that the God of the Old Testament is a petty being and has enjoined petty, external observances, they seek to show in syntheses that the same may be said of the New. (See Irenæus IV. 21-36). The effort of the older teachers to exclude everything outward and ceremonial is no longer met with to the same extent in Irenæus and Tertullian, at least when they are arguing and defending their position against the Gnostics. This has to be explained by two causes. In the first place Judaism (and Jewish Christianity) was at bottom no longer an enemy to be feared; they therefore ceased to make such efforts to avoid the “Jewish” conception of the Old Testament. Irenæus, for example, emphasised in the most naïve manner the observance of the Old Testament law by the early Apostles and also by Paul. This is to him a complete proof that they did not separate the Old Testament God from the Christian Deity.632 In connection with this we observe that the radical antijudaism of the earliest period more and more ceases. Irenæus and Tertullian admitted that the Jewish nation had a covenant with God and that the literal interpretation of the Old Testament was justifiable. Both repeatedly testified that the Jews had the right doctrine and that they only lacked the knowledge of the Son. These thoughts indeed do not attain clear expression with them because their works contain no systematic discussions involving these principles. In the second place the Church itself had become an institution where sacred ceremonial injunctions were necessary; and, in order to find a basis for these, they had to fall back on Old Testament commandments (see Vol. I., chap. 6, p. 291 ff.). In Tertullian we find this only in its most rudimentary form;633 but in the course of the third century these needs grew mightily634 and were satisfied. In this way the Old Testament threatened to become an authentic book of revelation to the Church, and that in a quite different and much more dangerous sense than was formerly the case with the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists. With reference to the second point, we may remark that just when the decay of antijudaism, the polemic against Marcion, and the new needs of the ecclesiastical system threatened the Church with an estimate of the Old Testament hitherto unheard of, the latter was nevertheless thrust back

630

It would be superfluous to quote passages here; two may stand for all. Iren. IV. 9. 1: “Utraque testamenta unus et idem paterfamilias produxit, verbum dei, dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui et Abrahæ et Moysi collocutus est.” Both Testaments are “unius et eiusdem substantiæ.” IV. 2. 3: “Moysis literæ sunt verba Christi.” 631 See Iren. IV. 31. 1. 632 Iren. III. 12. 15 (on Gal. II. 11 f.): Sic apostoli, quos universi actus et universæ doctrinæ dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant circa dispositionem legis, quæ est secundum Moysem, ab uno et eodem significantes esse deo”; see Overbeck “Ueber die Auffassung des Streits des Paulus mit Petrus bei den Kirchenvätern,” 1877, p. 8 f. Similar remarks are frequent in Irenæus. 633 Cf., e.g., de monog. 7: “Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogamiæ debitores, ex pristina dei lege, quæ nos tunc in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit.” Here also Tertullian’s Montanism had an effect. Though conceiving the directions of the Paraclete as new legislation, the Montanists would not renounce the view that these laws were in some way already indicated in the written documents of revelation. 634 Very much may be made out with regard to this from Origen’s works and the later literature, particularly from Commodian and the Apostolic Constitutions, lib. I.-VI.

189

History of Dogma - Volume II

305

Adolf Harnack

by the creation and authority of the New Testament, and this consequently revived the uncertain position in which the sacred book was henceforth to remain. Here also, as in every other case, the development in the Church ends with the complexus oppositorum, which nowhere allows all the conclusions to be drawn, but offers the great advantage of removing every perplexity up to a certain point. The early-Catholic Fathers adopted from Justin the distinction between the Decalogue, as the moral law of nature, and the ceremonial law; whilst the oldest theologians (the Gnostics) and the New Testament suggested to them the thought of the (relative) novelty of Christianity and therefore also of the New Testament. Like Marcion they acknowledged the literal sense of the ceremonial law and God’s covenant with the Jews; and they sought to sum up and harmonise all these features in the thought of an economy of salvation and of a history of salvation. This economy and history of salvation which contained the conception of a divine accommodation and pedagogy, and which accordingly distinguished between constituent parts of different degrees of value (in the Old Testament also), is the great result presented in the main work of Irenæus and accepted by Tertullian. It is to exist beside the proof from prophecy without modifying it;635 and thus appears as something intermediate between the Valentinian conception that destroyed the unity of origin of the Old Testament and the old idea which neither acknowledged various constituents in the book nor recognised the peculiarities of Christianity. We are therefore justified in regarding this history of salvation approved by the Church, as well as the theological propositions of Irenæus and Tertullian generally, as a Gnosis “toned down” and reconciled with Monotheism. This is shown too in the faint gleam of a historical view that still shines forth from this “history of salvation” as a remnant of that bright light which may be recognised in the Gnostic conception of the Old Testament.636 Still, it is a striking advance that Irenæus has made beyond Justin and especially beyond Barnabas. No doubt it is mythological history that appears in this history of salvation and the recapitulating story of Jesus with its saving facts that is associated with it; and it is a view that is not even logically worked out, but ever and anon crossed by the proof from prophecy; yet for all that it is development and history. The fundamental features of Irenæus’ conception are as follow: The Mosaic law and the New Testament dispensation of grace both emanated from one and the same God, and were granted for the salvation of the human race in a form appropriate to the times.637 The two are in part different; but the difference must be conceived as due to causes638 that do not affect the unity of the author and of the main points.639 We must make the nature of God and the nature of man our point of departure. God is always the same, man is ever advancing towards God; God is always the giver,

635

Where Christians needed the proof from prophecy or indulged in a devotional application of the Old Testament, everything indeed remained as before, and every Old Testament passage was taken for a Christian one, as has remained the case even to the present day. 636 With the chiliastic view of history this newly acquired theory has nothing in common. 637 Iren. III. 12. 11. 638 See III. 12. 12. 639 No commutatio agnitionis takes place, says Irenæus, but only an increased gift (IV. 11. 3); for the knowledge of God the Creator is “principium evangelii.” (III. 11. 7).

190

History of Dogma - Volume II

306

307

Adolf Harnack

man always the receiver;640 God leads us ever to the highest goal; man, however, is not God from the beginning, but is destined to incorruptibility, which he is to attain step by step, advancing from the childhood stage to perfection (see above, p. 267 f.). This progress, conditioned by the nature and destination of man, is, however, dependent on the revelation of God by his Son, culminating in the incarnation of the latter and closing with the subsequent bestowal of the Spirit on the human race. In Irenæus therefore the place of the many different revelation-hypostases of the Valentinians is occupied by the one God, who stoops to the level of developing humanity, accommodates himself to it, guides it, and bestows on it increasing revelations of grace.641 The fundamental knowledge of God and the moral law of nature, i.e., natural morality, were already revealed to man and placed in his heart642 by the creator. He who preserves these, as for example the patriarchs did, is justified. (In this case Irenæus leaves Adam’s sin entirely out of sight). But it was God’s will to bring men into a higher union with himself; wherefore his Son descended to men from the beginning and accustomed himself to dwell among them. The patriarchs loved God and refrained from injustice towards their neighbours; hence it was not necessary that they should be exhorted with the strict letter of the law, since they had the righteousness of the law in themselves.643 But, as far as the great majority of men are concerned, they wandered away from God and fell into the sorriest condition. From this moment Irenæus, keeping strictly to the Old Testament, only concerns himself with the Jewish people. These are to him the representatives of humanity. It is only at this period that the training of the human race is given to them; but it is really the Jewish nation that he keeps in view, and through this he differs very decidedly from such as Barnabas.644 When righteousness and love to God died out in Egypt, God led his people forth so that man might again become a disciple and imitator of God. He gave him the written law (the Decalogue), which contains nothing else than the moral law of nature that had fallen into oblivion.645 But when they made to themselves a golden calf and chose to be slaves rather than free men, then the Word, through the instrumentality of Moses, gave to them, as a particular addition, the commandments of slavery (the ceremonial law) in a form suitable for their training. These were bodily commandments of bondage which did not separate them from God, but held them in the yoke. The ceremonial law was thus a pedagogic means of preserving the people from idolatry; but it was at the same time a type of the future. Each constituent of the ceremonial law has this double signification, and both of these meanings originate 640

See IV. 11. 2 and other passages, e.g., IV. 20. 7: IV. 26. 1: IV. 37. 7: IV. 38. 1-4. Several covenants I. 10. 3; four covenants (Adam, Noah, Moses, Christ) III. 11. 8; the two Testaments (Law and New Covenant) are very frequently mentioned. 642 This is very frequently mentioned; see e.g., IV. 13. 1: “Et quia dominus naturalia legis, per quæ homo iustificatur, quæ etiam ante legisdationem custodiebant qui fide iustificabantur et placebant deo non dissolvit etc.” IV. 15. 1. 643 Irenæus, as a rule, views the patriarchs as perfect saints; see III. 11. 8: “Verbum dei illis quidem qui ante Moysem fuerunt patriarchis secundum divinitatem et gloriam colloquebatur”, and especially IV. 16. 3. As to the Son’s having descended from the beginning and having thus appeared to the patriarchs also, see IV. 6. 7. Not merely Abraham but all the other exponents of revelation knew both the Father and the Son. Nevertheless Christ was also obliged to descend to the lower world to the righteous, the prophets, and the patriarchs, in order to bring them forgiveness of sins (IV. 27. 2). 644 On the contrary he agrees with the teachings of a presbyter, whom he frequently quotes in the 4th Book. To Irenæus the heathen are simply idolaters who have even forgotten the law written in the heart; wherefore the Jews stand much higher, for they only lacked the agnitio filii. See III. 5. 3: III. 10. 3: III. 12. 7 IV. 23, 24. Yet there is still a great want of clearness here. Irenæus cannot get rid of the following contradictions. The pre-Christian righteous know the Son and do not know him; they require the appearance of the Son and do not require it; and the agnitio filii seems sometimes a new, and in fact the decisive, veritas, and sometimes that involved in the knowledge of God the Creator. 645 Irenæus IV. 16. 3. See IV. 15. 1: “Decalogum si quis non fecerit, non habet salutem”. 641

191

History of Dogma - Volume II

308

309

Adolf Harnack

with God, i.e., with Christ; for “how is Christ the end of the law, if he be not the beginning of it?” (“quomodo finis legis Christus, si non et initium eius esset”) IV. 12. 4. Everything in the law is therefore holy, and moreover we are only entitled to blame such portions of the history of the Jewish nation as Holy Scripture itself condemns. This nation was obliged to circumcise itself, keep Sabbaths, offer up sacrifices, and do whatever is related of it, so far as its action is not censured. All this belonged to the state of bondage in which men had a covenant with God and in which they also possessed the right faith in the one God and were taught before hand to follow his Son (IV. 12, 5; “lex prædocuit hominem sequi oportere Christum”). In addition to this, Christ continually manifested himself to the people in the prophets, through whom also he indicated the future and prepared men for his appearance. In the prophets the Son of God accustomed men to be instruments of the Spirit of God and to have fellowship with the Father in them; and in them he habituated himself to enter bodily into humanity.646 Hereupon began the last stage, in which men, being now sufficiently trained, were to receive the “testamentum libertatis” and be adopted as Sons of God. By the union of the Son of God with the flesh the agnitio filii first became possible to all; that is the fundamental novelty. The next problem was to restore the law of freedom. Here a threefold process was necessary. In the first place the Law of Moses, the Decalogue, had been disfigured and blunted by the “traditio seniorum”. First of all then the pure moral law had to be restored; secondly, it was now necessary to extend and fulfil it by expressly searching out the inclinations of the heart in all cases, thus unveiling the law in its whole severity; and lastly the particularia legis, i.e., the law of bondage, had to be abolished. But in the latter connection Christ and the Apostles themselves avoided every transgression of the ceremonial law, in order to prove that this also had a divine origin. The non-observance of this law was first permitted to the Gentile Christians, Thus, no doubt, Christ himself is the end of the law, but only in so far as he has abolished the law of bondage and restored the moral law in its whole purity and severity, and given us himself. The question as to the difference between the New Testament and the Old is therefore answered by Irenæus in the following manner. It consists (1) in the agnitio filii and consequent transformation of the slaves into children of God; and (2) in the restoration of the law, which is a law of freedom just because it excludes bodily commandments, and with stricter interpretation lays the whole stress

646

As the Son has manifested the Father from of old, so also the law, and indeed even the ceremonial law, is to be traced back to him. See IV. 6. 7: IV. 12. 4: IV. 14. 2: “his qui inquieti erant in eremo dans aptissimam legem . . . per omnes transiens verbum omni conditioni congruentem et aptam legem conscribens”. IV. 4. 2. The law is a law of bondage; it was just in that capacity that it was necessary; see IV. 4. 1: IV. 9. 1: IV. 13. 2, 4: IV. 14. 3: IV. 15: IV. 16: IV. 32: IV. 36. A part of the commandments are concessions on account of hardness of heart (IV. 15. 2). But Irenæus still distinguishes very decidedly between the “people” and the prophets. This is a survival of the old view. The prophets he said knew very well of the coming of the Son of God and the granting of a new covenant (IV. 9. 3: IV. 20. 4, 5: IV. 33. 10); they understood what was typified by the ceremonial law, and to them accordingly the law had only a typical signification. Moreover, Christ himself came to them ever and anon through the prophetic spirit. The preparation for the new covenant is therefore found in the prophets and in the typical character of the old. Abraham has this peculiarity, that both Testaments were prefigured in him: the Testament of faith, because he was justified before his circumcision, and the Testament of the law. The latter occupied “the middle times”, and therefore come in between (IV. 25. 1). This is a Pauline thought, though otherwise indeed there is not much in Irenæus to remind us of Paul, because he used the moral categories, growth and training, instead of the religious ones, sin and grace.

192

History of Dogma - Volume II

310

311

Adolf Harnack

on the inclinations of the heart.647 But in these two respects he finds a real addition, and hence, in his opinion, the Apostles stand higher than the prophets. He proves this higher position of the Apostles by a surprising interpretation of 1 Cor. XII. 28, conceiving the prophets named in that passage to be those of the Old Testament.648 He therefore views the two Testaments as of the same nature, but “greater is the legislation which confers liberty than that which brings bondage” (“maior est legisdatio quæ in libertatem, quam quæ data est in servitutem”). Through the two covenants the accomplishment of salvation was to be hastened “for there is one salvation and one God; but the precepts that form man are numerous, and the steps that lead man to God are not a few; (“una est enim salus et unus deus; quæ autem formant hominem, præcepta multa et non pauci gradus, qui adducunt hominem ad deum”). A worldly king can increase his benefits to his subjects; and should it not also be lawful for God, though he is always the same, to honour continually with greater gifts those who are well pleasing to him? (IV. 9. 3). Irenæus makes no direct statement as to the further importance which the Jewish people have, and in any case regards them as of no consequence after the appearance of the covenant of freedom. Nor does this nation appear any further even in the chiliastic train of thought. It furnishes the Antichrist and its holy city becomes the capital of Christ’s earthly kingdom; but the nation itself, which, according to this theory, had represented all mankind from Moses to Christ, just as if all men had been Jews, now entirely disappears.649 This conception, in spite of its want of stringency, made an immense impression, and has continued to prevail down to the present time. It has, however, been modified by a combination with the Augustinian doctrine of sin and grace. It was soon reckoned as Paul’s conception, to which in fact it has a distant relationship. Tertullian had already adopted it in its essential features, amplified

647

The law, i.e., the ceremonial law, reaches down to John, IV. 4. 2. The New Testament is a law of freedom, because through it we are adopted as sons of God, III. 5. 3: III. 10. 5: III. 12. 5: III. 12. 14: III. 15. 3: IV. 9. 1, 2: IV. 1. 1: IV. 13. 2, 4: IV. 15. 1, 2: IV. 16. 5: IV. 18: IV. 32: IV. 34. 1: IV. 36. 2 Christ did not abolish the naturalia legis, the Decalogue, but extended and fulfilled them; here the old Gentile-Christian moral conception based on the Sermon on the Mount, prevails. Accordingly Irenæus now shows that in the case of the children of freedom the situation has become much more serious, and that the judgments are now much more threatening. Finally, he proves that the fulfilling, extending, and sharpening of the law form a contrast to the blunting of the natural moral law by the Pharisees and elders; see IV. 12. 1 ff.: “Austero dei præcepto miscent seniores aquatam traditionem”. IV. 13. 1. f.: “Christus naturalia legis (which are summed up in the commandment of love) extendit et implevit . . . plenitudo et extensio . . . necesse fuit, auferri quidem vincula servitutis, superextendi vero decreta libertatis”. That is proved in the next passage from the Sermon on the Mount: we must not only refrain from evil works, but also from evil desire. IV. 16. 5: “Hæc ergo, quæ in servitutem et in signum data sunt illis, circumscripsit novo libertatis testamento. Quæ autem naturalia et liberalia et communia omnium, auxit et dilatavit, sine invidia largiter donans hominibus per adoptionem, patrem scire deum . . . auxit autem etiam timorem: filios enim plus timere oportet quam servos”. IV. 27. 2. The new situation is a more serious one; the Old Testament believers have the death of Christ as an antidote for their sins, “propter eos vero, qui nunc peccant, Christus non iam morietur”. IV. 28. 1 f.: under the old covenant God punished “typice et temporaliter et mediocrius”, under the new, on the contrary, “vere et semper et austerius” . . . as under the new covenant “fides aucta est”, so also it is true that “diligentia conversationis adaucta est”. The imperfections of the law, the “particularia legis”, the law of bondage have been abolished by Christ, see specially IV. 16, 17, for the types are now fulfilled; but Christ and the Apostles did not transgress the law; freedom was first granted to the Gentile Christians (III. 12) and circumcision and foreskin united (III. 5. 3). But Irenæus also proved how little the old and new covenants contradict each other by showing that the latter also contains concessions that have been granted to the frailty of man; see IV. 15. 2 (1 Cor. VII.). 648 See III. 11. 4. There too we find it argued that John the Baptist was not merely a prophet, but also an Apostle. 649 From Irenæus’ statement in IV. 4 about the significance of the city of Jerusalem we can infer what he thought of the Jewish nation. Jerusalem is to him the vine-branch on which the fruit has grown; the latter having reached maturity, the branch is cut off and has no further importance.

193

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

it in some points, and, in accordance with his Montanist ideas, enriched it by adding a fourth stage (ab initio — Moses-Christ — Paraclete). But this addition was not accepted by the Church.650

3. Results to ecclesiastical Christianity. 312

As we have shown, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus had no strictly systematised theology; they formulated theological propositions because their opponents were theologians. Hence the result of their labours, so far as this was accepted by the Western Church of the third century, does not appear in the adoption of a systematic philosophical dogmatic, but in theological fragments, namely, the rule of faith fixed and interpreted in an antignostic sense.651 As yet the rule of faith and 650

No special treatment of Tertullian is required here, as he only differs from Irenæus in the additions he invented as a Montanist. Yet this is also prefigured in Irenæus’ view that the concessions of the Apostles had rendered the execution of the stern new law more easy. A few passages may be quoted here. De orat. 1: Quidquid retro fuerat, aut demutatum est (per Christum), ut circumcisio, aut suppletum ut reliqua lex, aut impletum ut prophetia, aut perfectum ut fides ipsa. Omnia de carnalibus in spiritalia renovavit nova dei gratia superducto evangelio, expunctore totius retro vetustatis.” (This differentiation strikingly reminds us of the letter of Ptolemy to Flora. Ptolemy distinguishes those parts of the law that originate with God, Moses, and the elders. As far as the divine law is concerned, he again distinguishes what Christ had to complete, what he had to supersede and what he had to spiritualise, that is, perficere, solvere, demutare). In the regula fidei (de præscr. 13): “Christus prædicavit novam legem et novam promissionem regni cœlorum”; see the discussions in adv. Marc. II., III., and adv. Iud.; de pat. 6: “amplianda adimplendaque lex.” Scorp. 3, 8, 9; ad uxor. 2; de monog. 7: “Et quoniam quidam interdum nihil sibi dicunt esse cum lege, quam Christus non dissolvit, sed adimplevit, interdum quæ volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that continually), plane et nos sic dicimus legem, ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum, quæ nec patres sustinere valuerunt, concesserint, quæ vero ad iustitiam spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum et ampliata.” That the new law of the new covenant is the moral law of nature in a stricter form, and that the concessions of the Apostle Paul cease in the age of the Paraclete, is a view we find still more strongly emphasised in the Montanist writings than in Irenæus. In ad uxor. 3 Tertullian had already said: “Quod permittitur, bonum non est,” and this proposition is the theme of many arguments in the Montanist writings. But the intention of finding a basis for the laws of the Paraclete, by showing that they existed in some fashion even in earlier times, involved Tertullian in many contradictions. It is evident from his writings that Montanists and Catholics in Carthage alternately reproached each other with judaising tendencies and an apostasy to heathen discipline and worship. Tertullian, in his enthusiasm for Christianity, came into conflict with all the authorities which he himself had set up. In the questions as to the relationship of the Old Testament to the New, of Christ to the Apostles, of the Apostles to each other, of the Paraclete to Christ and the Apostles, he was also of necessity involved in the greatest contradictions. This was the case not only because he went more into details than Irenæus; but, above all, because the chains into which he had thrown his Christianity were felt to be such by himself. This theologian had no greater opponent than himself, and nowhere perhaps is this so plain as in his attitude to the two Testaments. Here, in every question of detail, Tertullian really repudiated the proposition from which he starts. In reference to one point, namely, that the Law and the prophets extend down to John, see Nöldechen’s article in the Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1885, p. 333 f. On the one hand, in order to support certain trains of thought, Tertullian required the proposition that prophecy extended down to John (see also the Muratorian Fragment: completus numerus prophetarum”, Sibyll. I. 386: καὶ τότε δὴ παῦσις ἔσται μετέπειτα προφητῶν, scil. after Christ), and on the other, as a Montanist, he was obliged to assert the continued existence of prophecy. In like manner he sometimes ascribed to the Apostles a unique possession of the Holy Spirit, and at other times, adhering to a primitive Christian idea, he denied this thesis. Cf. also Barth “Tertullian’s Auffassung des Apostels Paulus und seines Verhältnisses zu den Uraposteln” (Jahrbuch für protestantische Theologie, Vol. III. p. 706 ff.). Tertullian strove to reconcile the principles of early Christianity with the authority of ecclesiastical tradition and philosophical apologetics. Separated from the general body of the Church, and making ever increasing sacrifices for the early-Christian enthusiasm, as he understood it, he wasted himself in the solution of this insoluble problem. 651 In addition to this, however, they definitely established within the Church the idea that there is a “Christian” view in all spheres of life and in all questions of knowledge. Christianity appears expanded to an immense, immeasurable breadth. This is also Gnosticism. Thus Tertullian, after expressing various opinions about dreams, opens the 45th chapter of his work “de anima” with the words: “Tenemur hic de somniis quoque Christianam sententiam expromere”. Alongside of the antignostic rule of faith as the “doctrine” we find the casuistic system of morality and penance (the Church “disciplina”) with its media of almsgiving,

194

History of Dogma - Volume II

313

314

Adolf Harnack

theology nowhere came into collision in the Western Churches of the third century, because Irenæus and his younger contemporaries did not themselves notice any such discrepancies, but rather imagined all their teachings to be expositions of the faith itself, and did not trouble their heads about inconsistencies. If we wish to form a notion as to what ideas had become universally prevalent in the Church in the middle of the third century let us compare Cyprian’s work “Testimonia”, written for a layman, with Novatian’s work “De Trinitate”. In the “Testimonia” the doctrine of the two Testaments, as developed by Irenæus, forms the framework in which the individual dogmas are set. The doctrine of God, which should have been placed at the beginning, has been left out in this little book probably because the person addressed required no instruction on the point. Some of the dogmas already belong to philosophical theology in the strict sense of the word; in others we have merely a precise assertion of the truth of certain facts. All propositions are, however, supported by passages from the two Testaments and thereby proved.652 The theological counterpart to this is Novatian’s work “De Trinitate”. This first great Latin work that appeared in Rome is highly important. In regard to completeness, extent of Biblical proofs, and perhaps also its influence on succeeding times, it may in many respects be compared with Origen’s work περὶ ἀρχῶν. Otherwise indeed it differs as much from that work, as the sober, meagre theology of the West, devoid of philosophy and speculation, differs in general from that of the East. But it sums up in classic fashion the doctrines of Western orthodoxy, the main features of which were sketched by Tertullian in his antignostic writings and the work against Praxeas. The old Roman symbol forms the basis of the work. In accordance with this the author gives a comprehensive exposition of his doctrine of God in the first eight chapters. Chapters 9-28 form the main portion; they establish the correct Christology in opposition to the heretics who look on Christ as a mere man or as the Father himself; the Holy Scriptures furnish the material for the proofs. Chapter 29 treats of the Holy Spirit. Chapters 30 and 31 contain the recapitulation and conclusion. The whole is based on Tertullian’s treatise against Praxeas. No important argument in that work has escaped Novatian; but everything is extended, and made more systematic and polished. No trace of Platonism is to be found in this dogmatic; on the contrary he employs the Stoic and Aristotelian syllogistic and dialectic method used also by his Monarchian opponents. This plan together with its Biblical attitude gives the work great outward completeness and certainty. We cannot help concluding that this work must have made a deep impression wherever it was read, although the real difficulties of the matter are not at all touched upon, but veiled by distinctions and formulæ. It probably contributed not least to make Tertullian’s type of Christology the universal Western one. This type, however, as will be set forth in greater detail hereafter, already approximates closely to the resolutions of Nicæa and Chalcedon.653 Novatian adopted Tertullian’s formulæ “one substance, three persons” (“una substantia, tres personæ”), “from the substance of God” (“ex substantia dei”), “always with the Father” (“semper apud patrem”), “God and man” (“deus et fasting, and prayer; see Cypr, de op. et eleemos., but before that Hippol., Comm. in Daniel (Ἐκκλ. Ἀληθ. 1886, p. 242): οἱ εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ πιστεύοντες καὶ δι᾽ ἀγαθοεργίας τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐξιλασκόμενοι. 652 In the case of Irenæus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian we already find that they observe a certain order and sequence of books when advancing a detailed proof from Scripture. 653 It is worthy of note that there was not a single Arian ecclesiastic of note in the Novatian churches of the 4th century, so far as we know. All Novatian’s adherents, even those in the West (see Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History), were of the orthodox Nieman type. This furnishes material for reflection.

195

History of Dogma - Volume II

315

Adolf Harnack

homo”), “two substances” (“dux substantiæ”), “one person” (“una persona”), as well as his expressions for the union and separation of the two natures adding to them similar ones and giving them a wider extension.654 Taking his book in all we may see that he thereby created for the West a dogmatic vademecum, which, from its copious and well-selected quotations from Scripture, must have been of extraordinary service. 654

Owing to the importance of the matter we shall give several Christological and trinitarian disquisitions from the work “de trinitate”. The archaic attitude of this Christology and trinitarian doctrine is evident from the following considerations. (1) Like Tertullian, Novatian asserts that the Logos was indeed always with the Father, but that he only went forth from him at a definite period of time (for the purpose of creating the world). (2) Like Tertullian, he declares that Father, Son, and Spirit have one substance (that is, are ὁμοόυσιοι, the homoousia of itself never decides as to equality in dignity); but that the Son is subordinate and obedient to the Father and the Spirit to the Son (cc. 17, 22, 24), since they derive their origin, essence, and function from the Father (the Spirit from the Son). (3) Like Tertullian, Novatian teaches that the Son, after accomplishing his work, will again become intermingled with the Father, that is, will cease to have an independent existence (c. 31); whence we understand why the West continued so long to be favourable to Marcellus of Ancyra; see also the so-called symbol of Sardika). Apart from these points and a few others of less consequence, the work, in its formulæ, exhibits a type which remained pretty constant in the West down to the time of Augustine, or, till the adoption of Johannes Damascenus’ dogmatic. The sharp distinction between “deus” and “homo” and the use that is nevertheless made of “permixtio” and synonymous words are also specially characteristic. Cap. 9: “Christus deus dominus deus noster, sed dei filius”; c. 11: “non sic de substantia corporis ipsius exprimimus, ut solum tantum hominem illum esse dicamus, sed ut divinitate sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta etiam deum illum teneamus”; c. 11 Christ has auctoritas divina, “tam enim scriptura etiam deum adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum hominem adnuntiat deum, tam hominem descripsit Iesum Christum, quam etiam deum quoque descripsit Christum dominum.” In c. 12 the term “Immanuel” is used to designate Christ as God in a way that reminds one of Athanasius; c. 13: “præsertim cum animadvertat, scripturam evangelicam utramque istam substantiam in unam nativitatis Christi foederasse concordiam”; c. 14: “Christus ex verbi et carnis coniunctione concretus”; c. 16: “. . . ut neque homo Christo subtrahatur, neque divinitas negetur . . . utrumque in Christo confoederatum est, utrumque coniunctum est et utrumque connexum est . . . pignerata in illo divinitatis et humilitatis videtur esse concordia . . . qui mediator dei et hominum effectus exprimitur, in se deum et hominem sociasse reperitur . . . nos sermonem dei scimus indutum carnis substantiam . . . lavit substantiam corporis et materiam carnis abluens, ex parte suscepti hominis, passione”; c. 17: “. . . nisi quoniam auctoritas divini verbi ad suscipiendum hominem interim conquiescens nec se suis viribus exercens, deiicit se ad tempus atque deponit, dum hominem fert, quem suscepit”; c. 18: “. . . ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet terrenorum pariter atque cælestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens pignora et deum homini et hominem deo copularet, ut merito filius dei per assumptionem carnis filius hominis et filius hominis per receptionem dei verbi filius dei effici possit”; c. 19: “hic est enim legitimus dei filius qui ex ipso deo est, qui, dum sanctum illud (Luke I. 35) assumit, sibi filium hominis annectit et illum ad se rapit atque transducit, connexione sua et permixtione sociata præstat et filium illum dei facit, quod ille naturaliter non fuit (Novatian’s teaching is therefore like that of the Spanish Adoptionists of the 8th century), ut principalitas nominis istius “filius dei” in spiritu sit domini, qui descendit et venit, ut sequela nominis istius in filio dei et hominis sit, et merito consequenter hic filius dei factus sit, dum non principaliter filius dei est, atque ideo dispositionem istam anhelus videns et ordinem istum sacramenti expediens non sic cuncta confundens, ut nullum vestigium distinctionis collocavit, distinctionem posuit dicendo. ‘Propterea et quod nascetur ex te sanctum vocabitur filius dei’. Ne si distributionem istam cum libramentis suis non dispensasset, sed in confuso permixtum reliquisset, vere occasionem hæreticis contulisset, ut hominis filium qua homo est, eundum et dei et hominis filium pronuntiare deberent . . . Filius dei, dum filium hominis in se suscepit, consequenter illum filium dei fecit, quoniam illum filius sibi dei sociavit et iunxit, ut, dum filius hominis adhæret in nativitate filio dei, ipsa permixtionem fœneratum et mutuatum teneret, quod ex natura propria possidere non posset. Ac si facta est angeli voce, quod nolunt hæretici, inter filium dei hominisque cum sua tamen sociatione distinctio, urgendo illos, uti Christum hominis filium hominem intelligant quoque dei filium et hominem dei filium id est dei verbum deum accipiant, atque ideo Christum Iesum dominum ex utroque connexum, et utroque contextum atque concretum et in eadem utriusque substantiæ concordia mutui ad invicem fœderis confibulatione sociatum, hominem et deum, scripturæ hoc ipsum dicentis veritate cognoscant”. c. 21: “hæretici nolunt Christum secundam esse personam post patrem, sed ipsum patrem;” c. 22: “Cum Christus ‘Ego’ dicit (John X. 30), deinde patrem infert dicendo, ‘Ego et pater’, proprietatem personæ suæ id est filii a paterna auctoritate discernit atque distinguit, non tantummodo de sono nominis, sed etiam de ordine dispositæ potestatis . . . unum enim neutraliter positum, societatis concordiam, non unitatem personæ sonat . . . unum autem quod ait, ad concordiam et eandem sententiam et ad ipsam charitatis societatem pertinet, ut merito unum sit pater et filius per concordiam et per amorem et per dilectionem. Et quoniam ex patre est, quicquid illud est, filius est, manente tamen distinctione . . . denique novit hanc concordiæ unitatem est apostolus Paulus cum personarum tamen distinctione.” (Comparison with the relationship between Paul and Apollos! “Quos personæ ratio invicem dividit, eosdem rursus invicem religionis ratio conducit; et quamvis idem atque ipsi non sint, dum idem sentiunt, ipsum sunt, et cum duo sint, unum sunt”); c.

196

History of Dogma - Volume II

316

317

Adolf Harnack

The most important articles which were now fixed and transferred to the general creed along with the necessary proofs, especially in the West, were: (1) the unity of God, (2) the identity of the supreme God and the creator of the world, that is, the identity of the mediators of creation and redemption, (3) the identity of the supreme God with the God of the Old Testament, and the declaration that the Old Testament is God’s book of revelation, (4) the creation of the world out of nothing, (5) the unity of the human race, (6) the origin of evil from freedom, and the inalienable nature of freedom, (7) the two Testaments, (8) Christ as God and Man, the unity of his personality, the truth of his divinity, the actuality of his humanity, the reality of his fate, (9) the redemption and conclusion of a covenant through Christ as the new and crowning manifestation of God’s grace to all men, (10) the resurrection of man in soul and body. But the transmission and interpretation of these propositions, by means of which the Gnostic theses were overthrown, necessarily involved the transmission of the Logos doctrine; for the doctrine of the revelation of God and of the two Testaments could not have prevailed without this theory. How this hypothesis gained acceptance in the course of the third century, and how it was the means of establishing and legitimising philosophical theology as part of the faith, will be shown in the seventh chapter. We may remark in conclusion that the religious hope which looked forward to an earthly kingdom of Christ was still the more widely diffused among the Churches of the third century;655 but that the other hope, viz., that of being deified, was gaining adherents more and more. The latter result was due to men’s increasing indifference to daily life and growing aspiration after a higher one, a longing that was moreover nourished among the more cultured by the philosophy which was steadily gaining ground. The hope of deification is the expression of the idea that this world and human nature do not correspond to that exalted world which man has built up within his own mind and which he may reasonably demand to be realised, because it is only in it that he can come to himself. The fact that Christian teachers like Theophilus, Irenæus, and Hippolytus expressly declared this to be a legitimate

23: “constat hominem a deo factum esse, non ex deo processisse; ex deo autem homo quomodo non processit, sic dei verbum processit”. In c. 24 it is argued that Christ existed before the creation of the world and that not merely “predestinatione”, for then he would be subsequent and therefore inferior to Adam, Abel, Enoch etc. “Sublata ergo prædestinatione quæ non est posita, in substantia fuit Christus ante mundi institutionem”; c. 31: “Est ergo deus pater omnium institutor et creator, solus originem nesciens(!), invisibilis, immensus, immortalis, æternus, unus deus(!), . . . ex quo quando ipse voluit, sermo filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aëris aut tono coactæ de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolatæ a deo virtutis agnoscitur, cuius sacræ et divinæ nativitatis arcana nec apostolus didicit . . . , filio soli nota sunt, qui patris secreta cognovit. Hic ergo cum sit genitus a patre, semper est in patre. Semper autem sic dico, ut non innatum, sed natum probem; sed qui ante omne tempus est, semper in patre fuisse discendus est, nec enim tempus illi assignari potest, qui ante tempus est; semper enim in patre, ne pater non semper sit pater: quia et pater illum etiam præcedit, quod necesse est, prior sit qua pater sit. Quoniam antecedat necesse est eum, qui habet originem, ille qui originem nescit. Simul ut hic minor sit, dum in illo esse se scit habens originem quia nascitur, et per patrem quamvis originem habet qua nascitur, vicinus in nativitate, dum ex eo patre, qui solus originem non habet, nascitur . . . , substantia scilicet divina, cuius nomen est verbum . . . , deus utique procedens ex deo secundam personam efficiens, sed non eripiens illud patri quod unus est deus . . . Cuius sic divinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inæqualitate divinitatis duos deos reddidisse videatur . . . Dum huic, qui est deus, omnia substrata traduntur et cuncta sibi subiecta filius accepta refert patri, totam divinitatis auctoritatem rursus patri remittit, unus deus ostenditur verus et æternus pater, a quo solo hæc vis divinitatis emissa, etiam in filium tradita et directa rursus per substantiæ communionem ad patrem revolvitur.” 655 If I am not mistaken, the production or adaptation of Apocalypses did indeed abate in the third century, but acquired fresh vigour in the 4th, though at the same time allowing greater scope to the influence of heathen literature (including romances as well as hagiographical literature).

197

History of Dogma - Volume II

318

Adolf Harnack

Christian hope and held out a sure prospect of its fulfilment through Christ, must have given the greatest impulse to the spread and adoption of this ecclesiastical Christianity. But, when the Christian religion was represented as the belief in the incarnation of God and as the sure hope of the deification of man, a speculation that had originally never got beyond the fringe of religious knowledge was made the central point of the system and the simple content of the Gospel was obscured.656

CHAPTER VI.

319

THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION INTO A PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, OR THE ORIGIN OF THE SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY AND DOGMATIC OF THE CHURCH. Clement and Origen. THE Alexandrian school of catechists was of inestimable importance for the transformation of the heathen empire into a Christian one, and of Greek philosophy into ecclesiastical philosophy. In the third century this school overthrew polytheism by scientific means whilst at the same time preserving everything of any value in Greek science and culture. These Alexandrians wrote for the educated people of the whole earth; they made Christianity a part of the civilisation of the world. The saying that the Christian missionary to the Greeks must be a Greek was first completely verified within the Catholic Church in the person of Origen, who at the same time produced the only system of Christian dogma possessed by the Greek Church before John Damascenus. 1. The Alexandrian Catechetical School. Clement of Alexandria.657

656

I did not care to appeal more frequently to the Sibylline oracles either in this or the preceding chapter, because the literary and historical investigation of these writings has not yet made such progress as to justify one in using it for the history of dogma. It is well known that the oracles contain rich materials in regard to the doctrine of God, Christology, conceptions of the history of Jesus, and eschatology; but, apart from the old Jewish oracles, this material belongs to several centuries and has not yet been reliably sifted. 657 Guericke, De schola, quæ Alex. floruit catechetica 1824, 1825. Vacherot, Hist. crit. de l’école d’Alex., 1846-51. Reinkens, De Clemente Alex., 1850. Redepenning, Origenes Thl. I. p. 57 ff. Læmmer, Clem. Al. de Logo doctrina, 1855. Reuter, Clem. theolog. moralis, 1853. Cognat, Clement d’Alex. Paris, 1859. Westcott, Origen and the beginnings of Christian Philosophy (Contemporary Review, May 1879). Winter, Die Ethik des Clemens von Alex., 1882. Merk, Cl. Alex. in seiner Abhängigkeit von der griech. Philosophie, Leipzig, 1879 (see besides Overbeck, Theol. Lit. Ztg., 1879. No. 20 and cf. above all his disquisitions in the treatise “Ueber. die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur,” Hist. Ztschr. N. F., Vol. XII., pp. 455-472 Zahn, Forschungen, Vol. III. Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Oxford, 1886. Kremmer, De catal. heurematum, Lips. 1890. Wendland, Quæst. Musonianæ, Berol. 1886. Bratke, Die Stellung des Clem. Alex. z. antiken Mysterienwesen (Stud. u. Krit. 1888, p. 647 ff.). On Alexander of Jerusalem see Routh, Reliq. Sacr. T. II. p. 161 sq.; on Julius Africanus see Gelzer, Sextus Jul. Afr. I. Thl., 1880, p. 1 ff., Spitta, Der Brief des Jul. Afr. an Aristides, Halle 1877, and my article in the Real-Encykl. On Bardesanes see Hilgenfeld, B., der letzte Gnostiker, 1864, and Hort’s article in the Dictionary of Christian Biography. On the labours in scientific theology on the part of the so-called Alogi in Asia Minor and of the Roman Theodotianists see Epiph. hær. 51, Euseb., H. E. V. 28 and my article “Monarchianismus” in the R.-Encykl. f. protest. Theol. 2nd. ed., Vol. X., pp 183 ff., 188 ff. On the tendencies even of orthodox Christians to scientific theology see Tertull., de præscr. hær. 8 ff. (cf. the first words of c. 8: “Venio itaque ad illum articulum, quem et nostri prætendunt ad ineundam curiositatem. Scriptum est, inquiunt, Quærite et invenietis” etc.).

198

History of Dogma - Volume II

320

321

Adolf Harnack

“The work of Irenæus still leaves it undecided whether the form of the world’s literature, as found in the Christian Church, is destined only to remain a weapon to combat its enemies, or is to become an instrument of peaceful labour within its own territory.” With these words Overbeck has introduced his examination of Clement of Alexandria’s great masterpiece from the standpoint of the historian of literature. They may be also applied to the history of theology. As we have shown, Irenæus, Tertullian (and Hippolytus) made use of philosophical theology to expel heretical elements; but all the theological expositions that this interest suggested to them as necessary, were in their view part of the faith itself. At least we find in their works absolutely no clear expression of the fact that faith is one thing and theology another, though rudimentary indications of such distinctions are found. Moreover, their adherence to the early-Christian eschatology in its entirety, as well as their rejection of a qualitative distinction between simple believers and ‘Gnostics’, proved that they themselves were deceived as to the scope of their theological speculations, and that moreover their Christian interest was virtually satisfied with subjection to the authority of tradition, with the early-Christian hopes, and with the rules for a holy life. But since about the time of Commodus, and in some cases even earlier, we can observe, even in ecclesiastical circles, the growing independence and might of the aspiration for a scientific knowledge and treatment of the Christian religion, that is of Christian tradition.658 There is a wish to maintain this tradition in its entirety and hence the Gnostic theses are rejected. The selection from tradition, made in opposition to Gnosticism — though indeed in accordance with its methods — and declared to be apostolic, is accepted. But there is a desire to treat the given material in a strictly scientific manner, just as the Gnostics had formerly done, that is, on the one hand to establish it by a critical and historical exegesis, and on the other to give it a philosophical form and bring it into harmony with the spirit of the times. Along with this we also find the wish to incorporate the thoughts of Paul which now possessed divine authority.659 Accordingly schools and scholastic unions now make their appearance afresh, the old schools having been expelled from the Church.660 In Asia Minor such efforts had already begun shortly before the time when the canon of holy apostolic tradition was fixed by the ecclesiastical authorities (Alogi). From the history of Clement of Alexandria, the life of bishop Alexander, after-wards bishop of Jerusalem, and subsequently from the history of Origen (we may also mention Firmilian of Cæsarea), we learn that there was in Cappadocia about the year 200 a circle of ecclesiastics who zealously applied themselves to scientific pursuits. Bardesanes, a man of high repute, laboured in the Christian kingdom of Edessa about the same time. He wrote treatises on philosophical theology, which indeed, judged by a Western standard, could not be accounted orthodox, and directed a theological school which maintained its ground in the third century and

322

658

This manner of expression is indeed liable to be misunderstood, because it suggests the idea that something new was taking place. As a matter of fact the scientific labours in the Church were merely a continuation of the Gnostic schools under altered circumstances, that is, under the sway of a tradition which was now more clearly defined and more firmly fenced round as a noli me tangere. 659 This was begun in the Church by Irenæus and Tertullian and continued by the Alexandrians. They, however, not only adopted theologoumena from Paulinism, but also acquired from Paul a more ardent feeling of religious freedom as well as a deeper reverence for love and knowledge as contrasted with lower morality. 660 We are not able to form a clear idea of the school of Justin. In the year 180 the schools of the Valentinians, Carpocratians, Tatian etc. were all outside the Church.

199

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

attained great importance.661 In Palestine, during the time of Heliogabalus and Alexander (Severus), Julius Africanus composed a series of books on scientific theology, which were specifically different from the writings of Irenæus and Tertullian; but which on the other hand show the closest relationship in point of form to the treatises of the so-called Gnostics. His inquiries into the relationship of the genealogies of Jesus and into certain parts of the Greek Apocalypse of Daniel showed that the Church’s attention had been drawn to problems of historical criticism. In his chronography the apologetic interest is subordinate to the historical, and in his Κεστοί, dedicated to Alexander Severus (Hippolytus had already dedicated a treatise on the resurrection to the wife of Heliogabalus), we see fewer traces of the Christian than of the Greek scholar. Alexander of Ælia and Theoktistus of Cæsarea, the occupants of the two most important sees in Palestine, were, contemporaneously with him, zealous patrons of an independent science of theology. Even at that early time the former founded an important theological library; and the fragments of his letters preserved to us prove that he had caught not only the language, but also the scientific spirit of the age. In Rome, at the beginning of the third century, there was a scientific school where textual criticism of the Bible was pursued and where the works of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Euclid, and Galen were zealously read and utilised. Finally, the works of Tertullian show us that, even among the Christians of Carthage, there was no lack of such as wished to naturalise the pursuit of science within the Church; and Eusebius (H. E. V. 27) has transmitted to us the titles of a series of scientific works dating as far back as the year 200 and ascribed to ecclesiastics of that period.

323

Whilst all these phenomena, which collectively belong to the close of the second and beginning of the third century, show that it was indeed possible to suppress heresy in the Church, but not the impulse from which it sprang, the most striking proof of this conclusion is the existence of the so-called school of catechists in Alexandria. We cannot now trace the origin of this school, which first comes under our notice in the year 190,662 but we know that the struggle of the Church with heresy was concluded in Alexandria at a later period than in the West. We know further that the school of catechists extended its labours to Palestine and Cappadocia as early as the year 200, and, to all appearance, originated or encouraged scientific pursuits there.663 Finally, we know that the existence of this school was threatened in the fourth decade of the third century; but Heraclas was shrewd enough to reconcile the ecclesiastical and scientific interests.664 In the Alexandrian school

661

On the school of Edessa see Assemani, Bibl. orient., T. III., P. II., p. 924; Von Lengerke, De Ephraemi arte hermen., p. 86 sq.; Kihn, Die Bedeutung der antiochenischen Schule etc., pp. 32 f. 79 f., Zahn, Tatian’s Diatessaron, p. 54. About the middle of the 3rd century Macarius, of whom Lucian the Martyr was a disciple, taught at this school. Special attention was given to the exegesis of the Holy Scriptures. 662 Overbeck, l.c., p. 455, has very rightly remarked: “The origin of the Alexandrian school of catechists is not a portion of the Church history of the 2nd century, that has somehow been left in the dark by a mere accident; but a part of the well-defined dark region on the map of the ecclesiastical historian of this period, which contains the beginnings of all the fundamental institutions of the Church as well as those of the Alexandrian school of catechists, a school which was the first attempt to formulate the relationship of Christianity to secular science.” We are, moreover, still in a state of complete uncertainty as to the personality and teaching of Pantænus (with regard to him see Zahn, “Forschungen” Vol. III., pp. 64 ff. 77 ff.). We can form an idea of the school of catechists from the 6th Book of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and from the works of Clement and Origen. 663 On the connection of Julius Africanus with this school see Eusebius, VI. 31, As to his relations with Origen see the correspondence. Julius Africanus had, moreover, relations with Edessa. He mentions Clement in his chronicles. On the connection of Alexander and the Cappadocian circle with Pantænus, Clement, and Origen, see the 6th Book of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Alexander and Origen were disciples of Pantænus. 664 See my article “Heraklas” in the Real-Encyklopädie.

200

History of Dogma - Volume II

324

325

Adolf Harnack

of catechists the whole of Greek science was taught and made to serve the purpose of Christian apologetics. Its first teacher, who is well known to us from the writings he has left, is Clement of Alexandria.665 His main work is epoch-making. “Clement’s intention is nothing less than an introduction to Christianity, or, speaking more correctly and in accordance with the spirit of his work, an initiation into it. The task that Clement sets himself is an introduction to what is inmost and highest in Christianity itself. He aims, so to speak, at first making Christians perfect Christians by means of a work of literature. By means of such a work he wished not merely to repeat to the Christian what life has already done for him as it is, but to elevate him to something still higher than what has been revealed to him by the forms of initiation that the Church has created for herself in the course of a history already dating back a century and a half.” To Clement therefore Gnosis, that is, the (Greek) philosophy of religion, is not only a means of refuting heathenism and heresy, but at the same time of ascertaining and setting forth what is highest and inmost in Christianity. He views it as such, however, because, apart from evangelical sayings, the Church tradition, both collectively and in its details, is something foreign to him; he has subjected himself to its authority, but he can only make it intellectually his own after subjecting it to a scientific and philosophical treatment.666 His great work, which has rightly been called the boldest literary undertaking in the history of the Church,667 is consequently the first attempt to use Holy Scripture and the Church tradition together with the assumption that Christ as the Reason of the world is the source of all truth, as the basis of a presentation of Christianity which at once addresses itself to the cultured by satisfying the scientific demand for a philosophical ethic and theory of the world, and at the same time reveals to the believer the rich content of his faith. Here then is found, in form and content, the scientific Christian doctrine of religion which, while not contradicting the faith, does not merely support or explain it in a few places, but raises it to another and higher intellectual sphere, namely, out of the province of authority and obedience into that of clear knowledge and inward, intellectual assent emanating from love to God.668 Clement cannot imagine that the Christian faith, as found in tradition, can of itself produce the union of intellectual independence and devotion to God which he regards as moral perfection. He is too much of a Greek philosopher for that, and believes that this aim is only reached through knowledge. But in so far as this is only the deciphering of the secrets revealed in the Holy Scriptures through the Logos, secrets which the believer also gains possession of by subjecting himself to them, all knowledge is a reflection of the divine revelation. The lofty ethical and religious ideal of the man made perfect in fellowship with God, which Greek philosophy had developed since the time of Plato and to which it had subordinated the whole

665

We have the most complete materials in Zahn, “Forschungen” Vol. III. pp. 17-176. The best estimate of the great tripartite work (Protrepticus, Pædagogus, Stromateis) is found in Overbeck, l.c. The titles of Clement’s remaining works, which are lost to us or only preserved in fragments, show how comprehensive his scientific labours were. 666 This applies quite as much to the old principles of Christian morality as to the traditional faith. With respect to the first we may refer to the treatise: “Quis dives salvetur”, and to the 2nd and 3rd Books of the Pædagogus. 667 Clement was also conscious of the novelty of his undertaking; see Overbeck, l.c., p. 464 f. The respect enjoyed by Clement as a master is shown by the letters of Alexander of Jerusalem. See Euseb., H. E. VI. 11 and specially VI. 14. Here both Pantænus and Clement are called “Father “, but whilst the former receives the title, ὁ μακάριος ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ κύριος, the latter is called: ὁ ιἑρὸς Κλήμης, κύριός μου γενόμενος καὶ ὠφελήσας με. 668 Strom. VI. 14, 109 πλέον ἐστὶν τοῦ πιστεῦσαι τὸ γνῶναι. Pistis is γνῶσις σύντομος τῶν κατεπειγόντων (VII. 10. 57, see the whole chapter), Gnosis is ἀπόδειξις τῶν διὰ πίστεως παρειλημμένων τῇ πίστει ἐποικοδομουμένη (l.c.), τελείωσις ἀνθρώπου (l.c.), πίστις ἐπιστημονική (II. 11.48).

201

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

scientific knowledge of the world, was adopted and heightened by Clement, and associated not only with Jesus Christ but also with ecclesiastical Christianity. But, whilst connecting it with the Church tradition, he did not shrink from the boldest remodelling of the latter, because the preservation of its wording was to him a sufficient guarantee of the Christian character of the speculation.669

326

327

In Clement, then, ecclesiastical Christianity reached the stage that Judaism had attained in Philo, and no doubt the latter exercised great influence over him.670 Moreover, Clement stands on the ground that Justin had already trodden, but he has advanced far beyond this Apologist. His superiority to Justin not only consists in the fact that he changed the apologetic task that the latter had in his mind into a systematic and positive one; but above all in the circumstance that he transformed the tradition of the Christian Church, which in his days was far more extensive and more firmly established than in Justin’s time, into a real scientific dogmatic; whereas Justin neutralised the greater part of this tradition by including it in the scheme of the proof from prophecy. By elevating the idea of the Logos who is Christ into the highest principle in the religious explanation of the world and in the exposition of Christianity, Clement gave to this idea a much more concrete and copious content than Justin did. Christianity is the doctrine of the creation, training, and redemption of mankind by the Logos, whose work culminates in the perfect Gnostics. The philosophy of the Greeks, in so far as it possessed the Logos, is declared to be a counterpart of the Old Testament law;671 and the facts contained in the Church tradition are either subordinated to the philosophical dogmatic or receive a new interpretation expressly suited to it. The idea of the Logos has a content which is on the one hand so wide that he is found wherever man rises above the level of nature, and on the other so concrete that an authentic knowledge of him can only be obtained from historical revelation. The Logos is essentially the rational law of the world and the teacher; but in Christ he is at the same time officiating priest, and the blessings he bestows are a series of holy initiations which alone contain the possibility of man’s raising himself to the divine life.672 While this is already clear evidence of Clement’s affinity to Gnostic teachers, especially the Valentinians, the same similarity may also be traced in the whole conception of the task (Christianity as theology), in the determination of the formal principle (inclusive of the recourse to esoteric tradition; see above, p.

669

We have here more particularly to consider those paragraphs of the Stromateis where Clement describes the perfect Gnostic: the latter elevates himself by dispassionate love to God, is raised above everything earthly, has rid himself of ignorance, the root of all evil, and already lives a life like that of the angels. See Strom. VI. 9. 71, 72: Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐνδεῖ τι ἀυτῷ πρὸς ἐξομοίωσιν τῷ καλῷ καὶ ἀγαθῷ εἶναι· οὐδὲ ἄρα σιλεῖ τινὰ τὴν κοινὴν ταύτην σιλίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κτίστην διὰ τῶν κτισμάτων, Οὔτ᾽ οὖν ἐπιθυμίᾳ καὶ ὁρέξει τινὶ περιπίπτει οὔτε ἐνδεής ἐστι κατά γε τὴν ψυχὴν τῶν ἄλλων τινός συνὼν ἤδη δι᾽ ἀγάπης τῷ ἐραστῷ, ᾧ δὴ ᾠκείωται κατὰ τὴν αἵρεσιν καὶ τῇ ἐξ ἀσκήσεως ἕξει, τούτῳ προσεχέστερον συνεγγίζων, μακάριος ὢστε ἕνεκά γε τούτων ἐξυμοιοῦσθαι βιάζεται τῷ διδασκάλῳ εἰς ἀπαθείαν. Strom. VII. 69-83: VI. 14, 113: οὗτως δύναμιν λαβοῦσα κυριακὴν ἡ ψυχὴ μελετᾷ εἶναι Θεός, κακόν μὲν ὀυδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν ἀγνοίας εἶναι νομίζουσα. The whole 7th Book should be read. 670 Philo is quoted by Clement several times and still more frequently made use of without acknowledgment. See the copious citations in Siegfried, Philo von Alexandrien, pp. 343-351. In addition to this Clement made use of many Greek philosophers or quoted them without acknowledgment, e.g., Musonius. 671 Like Philo and Justin, Clement also no doubt at times asserts that the Greek philosophers pilfered from the Old Testament; but see Strom. I. 5. 28 sq.: πάντων μὲν ἄιτιος τῶν καλῶν ὁ Θεός, ἀλλὰ τῶν μὲν κατὰ προηγούμενον ὡς τῆς τε διαθήκης τῆς παλαιᾶς καὶ τῆς νεάς, τῶν δὲ κατ᾽ ἐπακολούθημα ὡς τῆς σιλοσοσίας. τάχα δὲ καὶ προηγουμένως τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐδόθη τότε πρὶν ἢ τὸν κύριον καλέσαι καὶ τοὺς Ἕλληνας. ἐπαιδαγώγει γὰρ καί ἀυτὴ τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν ὡς ὁ γόμος τοὺς Ἑβραίους εἰς Χριστόν. 672 See Bratke’s instructive treatise cited above.

202

History of Dogma - Volume II

328

Adolf Harnack

35 f.),673 and in the solution of the problems. But Clement’s great superiority to Valentinus is shown not only in his contriving to preserve in all points his connection with the faith of the main body of Christendom, but still more in his power of mastering so many problems by the aid of a single principle, that is, in the art of giving the most comprehensive presentation with the most insignificant means. Both facts are indeed most closely connected. The rejection of all conceptions that could not be verified from Holy Scripture, or at least easily reconciled with it, as well as his optimism, opposed as this was to Gnostic pessimism, proved perhaps the most effective means of persuading the Church to recognise the Christian character of a dogmatic that was at least half inimical to ecclesiastical Christianity. Through Clement theology became the crowning stage of piety, the highest philosophy of the Greeks was placed under the protection and guarantee of the Church, and the whole Hellenic civilisation was thus at the same time legitimised within Christianity. The Logos is Christ, but the Logos is at the same time the moral and rational in all stages of development. The Logos is the teacher, not only in cases where an intelligent self-restraint, as understood by the ancients, bridles the passions and instincts and wards off excesses of all sorts; but also, and here of course the revelation is of a higher kind, wherever love to God alone determines the whole life and exalts man above everything sensuous and finite.674 What Gnostic moralists merely regarded as contrasts Clement, the Christian and Greek, was able to view as stages; and thus he succeeded in conceiving the motley society that already represented the Church of his time as a unity, as the humanity trained by one and the same Logos, the Pedagogue. His speculation did not drive him out of the Church; it rather enabled him to understand the multiplicity of forms she contained and to estimate their relative justification; nay, it finally led him to include the history of pre-Christian humanity in the system he regarded as a unity, and to form a theory of universal history satisfactory

673

The fact that Clement appeals in support of the Gnosis to an esoteric tradition (Strom. VI. 7. 61: VI. 8. 68: VII. 10. 55) proves how much this writer, belonging as he did to a sceptical age, underestimated the efficacy of all human thought in determining the ultimate truth of things. The existence of sacred writings containing all truth was not even enough for him; the content of these writings had also to be guaranteed by divine communication. But no doubt the ultimate cause of this, as of all similar cases of scepticism, was the dim perception that ethics and religion do not at all come within the sphere of the intellectual, and that the intellect can produce nothing of religious value. As, however, in consequence of philosophical tradition, neither Philo, nor the Gnostics, nor Clement, nor the Neoplatonists were able to shake themselves free from the intellectual scheme, those things which-as they instinctively felt, but did not recognise — could really not be ascertained by knowledge at all received from them the name of suprarational and were traced to divine revelation. We may say that the extinction or pernicious extravagancies to which Greek philosophy was subjected in Neoplatonism, and the absurdities into which the Christian dogmatic was led, arose from the fact that the tradition of placing the ethical and religious feelings and the development of character within the sphere of knowledge, as had been the case for nearly a thousand years, could not be got rid of, though the incongruity was no doubt felt. Contempt for empiricism, scepticism, the extravagancies of religious metaphysics which finally become mythology, have their origin here. Knowledge still continues to be viewed as the highest possession; it is, however, no longer knowledge, but character and feeling; and it must be nourished by the fancy in order to be able to assert itself as knowledge. 674 Clement was not a Neoplatonic mystic in the strict sense of the word. When he describes the highest ethical ideal, ecstasy is wanting; and the freshness with which he describes Quietism shows that he himself was no Quietist. See on this point Bigg’s third lecture, l.c., particularly p. 98 f. “. . . The silent prayer of the Quietist is in fact ecstasy, of which there is not a trace in Clement. For Clement shrank from his own conclusions. Though the father of all the Mystics he is no Mystic himself. He did not enter the “enchanted garden”, which he opened for others. If he talks of “flaying the sacrifice”, of leaving sense behind, of Epopteia, this is but the parlance of his school. The instrument to which he looks for growth in knowledge is not trance, but disciplined reason. Hence Gnosis, when once obtained, is indefectible, not like the rapture which Plotinus enjoyed but four times during his acquaintance with Porphyry, which in the experience of Theresa never lasted more than half an hour. The Gnostic is no Visionary, no Theurgist, no Antinomian.”

203

History of Dogma - Volume II

329

330

Adolf Harnack

to his mind.675 If we compare this theory with the rudimentary ideas of a similar kind in Irenæus, we see clearly the meagreness and want of freedom, the uncertainty and narrowness, in the case of the latter. In the Christian faith as he understood it and as amalgamated by him with Greek culture, Clement found intellectual freedom and independence, deliverance from all external authority. We need not here directly discuss what apparatus he used for this end. Irenæus again remained entangled in his apparatus, and much as he speaks of the novum testamentum libertatis, his great work little conveys the impression that its author has really attained intellectual freedom. Clement was the first to grasp the task of future theology. According to him this task consists in utilising the historical traditions, through which we have become what we are, and the Christian communion, which is imperative upon us as being the only moral and religious one, in order to attain freedom and independence of our own life by the aid of the Gospel; and in showing this Gospel to be the highest revelation by the Logos, who has given evidence of himself whenever man rises above the level of nature and who is consequently to be traced throughout the whole history of humanity. But does the Christianity of Clement correspond to the Gospel? We can only give a qualified affirmation to this question. For the danger of secularisation is evident, since apostasy from the Gospel would be completely accomplished as soon as the ideal of the self-sufficient Greek sage came to supplant the feeling that man lives by the grace of God. But the danger of secularisation lies in the cramped conception of Irenæus, who sets up authorities which have nothing to do with the Gospel, and creates facts of salvation which have a no less deadening effect though in a different way. If the Gospel is meant to give freedom and peace in God, and to accustom us to an eternal life in union with Christ Clement understood this meaning. He could justly say to his opponents: “If the things we say appear to some people diverse from the Scriptures of the Lord, let them know that they draw inspiration and life therefrom and, making these their starting-point give their meaning only, not their letter” (κἂν ἑτεροῖα τισι τῶν πολλῶν καταφαίνηται τὰ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν λεγόμενα τῶν κυριακῶν γραφῶν, ἰστέον ὅτι ἐκεῖθεν ἀναπνεῖ τε καὶ ζῇ καὶ τὰς ἀσορμὰς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔχοντα τὸν νοῦν μόνον, οὐ τὴν λέξιν, παριστᾶν ἐπαγγελλέται).676 No doubt Clement conceives the aim of the whole traditionary material to be that of Greek philosophy, but we cannot fail to perceive that this aim is blended with the object which the Gospel puts before us, namely, to be rich in God and to receive strength and life from him. The goodness of God and the responsibility of man are the central ideas of Clement and the Alexandrians; they also occupy the foremost place in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If this is certain we must avoid that searching of the heart which undertakes to fix how far he was influenced by the Gospel and how far by philosophy. But, while so judging, we cannot deny that the Church tradition was here completely transformed into a Greek philosophy of religion on a historical basis, nor do we certify the Christian character of Clement’s “dogmas” in acknowledging the evangelical spirit of his practical position. What

675

What a bold and joyous thinker Clement was is shown by the almost audacious remark in Strom. IV. 22. 136: εἰ γοῦν τις καθ᾽ ὑπόθεσιν προθείη τῷ γνωστικῷ πότερον ἑλέσθαι βούλοιτο τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἢ τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν αἰωνίαν, εἴη δὲ ταῦτα κεχωρισμένα παντὸς μᾶλλον ἐν ταυτότητε ὅντα, οὐδὲ καθ᾽ ὁτιοῦν διστάσας ἕλοιτ᾽ ἂν τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. 676 Strom. VII. 1. 1. In several passages of his main work Clement refers to those churchmen who viewed the practical and speculative concentration of Church tradition as dangerous and questioned the use of philosophy at all. See Strom. VI. 10. 80: πολλοὶ καθάπερ οἱ παῖδες τὰ μορμολυκεῖα, οὕτως δεδίασι τὴν ἑλληνικὴν σιλοσοσίαν, σοβούμενοι μὴ ἀπαγάγῃ αὐτούς. VI. 11. 93.

204

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

would be left of Christianity, if the practical aim, given by Clement to this religious philosophy, were lost? A depotentiated system which could absolutely no longer be called Christian. On the other hand there were many valuable features in the ecclesiastical regula literally interpreted; and the attempts of Irenæus to extract an authoritative religious meaning from the literal sense of Church tradition and of New Testament passages must be regarded as conservative efforts of the most valuable kind. No doubt Irenæus and his theological confrères did not themselves find in Christianity that freedom which is its highest aim; but on the other hand they preserved and rescued valuable material for succeeding times. If some day trust in the methods of religious philosophy vanishes, men will revert to history, which will still be recognisable in the preserved tradition, as prized by Irenæus and the rest, whereas it will have almost perished in the artificial interpretations due to the speculations of religious philosophers.

331

332

The importance that the Alexandrian school was to attain in the history of dogma is not associated with Clement, but with his disciple Origen.677 This was not because Clement was more heterodox than Origen, for that is not the case, so far as the Stromateis is concerned at least;678 but because the latter exerted an incomparably greater influence than the former; and, with an energy perhaps unexampled in the history of the Church, already mapped out all the provinces of theology by his own unaided efforts. Another reason is that Clement did not possess the Church tradition in its fixed Catholic forms as Origen did (see above, chapter 2), and, as his Stromateis shows, he was as yet incapable of forming a theological system. What he offers is portions of a theological Christian dogmatic and speculative ethic. These indeed are no fragments in so far as they are all produced according to a definite method and have the same object in view, but they still want unity. On the other hand Origen succeeded in forming a complete system inasmuch as he not only had a Catholic tradition of fixed limits and definite type to fall back upon as a basis; but was also enabled by the previous efforts of Clement to furnish a methodical treatment of this tradition.679 Now a sharp eye indeed perceives that Origen personally no longer possessed such a complete and bold religious theory of the world as Clement did, for he was already more tightly fettered by the Church tradition, some details of which here and there led him into compromises that remind us of Irenæus; but it was in connection with his work that the development of the following period took place. It is

677

Eusebius, H. E. VI. 14. 8, tells us that Origen was a disciple of Clement. Clement’s authority in the Church continued much longer than that of Origen See Zahn, “Forschungen” III. p. 140 f. The heterodox opinions advanced by Clement in the Hypotyposes are for the most part only known to us in an exaggerated form from the report of Photius. 679 In ecclesiastical antiquity all systematising was merely relative and limited, because the complex of sacred writings enjoyed a different authority from that which it possessed in the following period. Here the reference of a theologoumenon to a passage of Scripture was of itself sufficient, and the manifold and incongruous doctrines were felt as a unity in so far as they could all be verified from Holy Scriptures. Thus the fact that the Holy Scriptures were regarded as a series of divine oracles guaranteed, as it were, a transcendental unity of the doctrines, and, in certain circumstances, relieved the framer of the system of a great part of his task. Hitherto little justice has been done to this view of the, history of dogma, though it is the only solution of a series of otherwise insoluble problems. We cannot for example understand the theology of Augustine, and necessarily create for ourselves the most difficult problems by our own fault, if we make no use of that theory. In Origen’s dogmatic and that of subsequent Church Fathers — so far as we can speak of a dogmatic in their case — the unity lies partly in the canon of Holy Scripture and partly in the ultimate aim; but these two principles interfere with each other. As far as the Stromateis of Clement is concerned, Overbeck (l.c.) has furnished the explanation of its striking plan. Moreover, how would it have been conceivable that the riches of Holy Scripture, as presented to the philosophers who allegorised the books, could have been mastered, problems and all, at the first attempt. 678

205

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

therefore sufficient, within the framework of the history of dogma, to refer to Clement as the bold forerunner of Origen, and, in setting forth the theology of the latter, to compare it in important points with the doctrines of Clement.

2. The system of Origen.680

333

Among the theologians of ecclesiastical antiquity Origen was the most important and influential alongside of Augustine. He proved the father of ecclesiastical science in the widest sense of the word, and at the same time became the founder of that theology which reached its complete development in the fourth and fifth centuries, and which in the sixth definitely denied its author, without, however, losing the form he had impressed on it. Origen created the ecclesiastical dogmatic and made the sources of the Jewish and Christian religion the foundation of that science. The Apologists, in their day, had found everything clear in Christianity; the antignostic Fathers had confused the Church’s faith and the science that treats of it. Origen recognised the problem and the problems, and elevated the pursuit of Christian theology to the rank of an independent task by freeing it from its polemical aim. He could not have become what he did, if two generations had not preceded him in paving the way to form a mental conception of Christianity and give it a philosophical foundation. Like all epoch-making personalities, he was also favoured by the conditions in which he lived, though he had to endure violent attacks. Born of a Christian family which was faithfully attached to the Church, he lived at a time when the Christian communities enjoyed almost uninterrupted peace and were being naturalised in the world; he was a member of a Christian Church where the right of scientific study was already recognised and where this had attained a fixed position in an organised school.681 He proclaimed the reconciliation of science with the Christian faith and the compatibility of the highest culture with the Gospel within the bosom of the Church, thus contributing more than any other to convert the ancient world to Christianity. But he made no compromises from shrewd calculation: it was his inmost and holiest conviction that the sacred documents of Christianity contained all the ideals of antiquity, and that the speculative conception of ecclesiastical Christianity was the only true and right one. His character was pure, his life blameless; in his work he was not only unwearied, but also unselfish. There have been few Fathers of the Church whose life-story leaves such an impression of purity behind it as that of Origen. The atmosphere which he breathed as a Christian and as a philosopher was dangerous; but his mind

680

See the treatises of Huëtius (1668) reprinted by Lommatzsch. Thomasius, Origenes 1837. Redepenning, Origenes, 2 Vols. 1841-46. Denis, de la philosophie d’Origène, Paris 1884. Lang, Die Leiblichkeit der Vernunftwesen bei Origenes, Leipzig, 1892. Mehlhorn, Die Lehre von der menschlichen Freiheit nach Origenes (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II., p. 234 ff.). Westcott, Origenes, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography Vol. IV Möller in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, 2nd ed., Vol. XI., pp. 92-109. The special literature is to be found there as well as in Nitzsch, Dogmengeschichte I., p. 151, and Ueberweg, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, 5th ed., p. 62 f. 681 See his letter in Eusebius, H. E. VI. 19. 11 ff.

206

History of Dogma - Volume II

334

335

Adolf Harnack

remained sound, and even his feeling for truth scarcely ever forsook him.682 To us his theory of the world, surveyed in its details, presents various changing hues, like that of Philo, and at the present day we can scarcely any longer understand how he was able to unite the different materials; but, considering the solidity of his character and the confidence of his decisions, we cannot doubt that he himself felt the agreement of all essential parts of his system. No doubt he spoke in one way to the perfect and in another to the mass of Christian people. The narrow-minded or the immature will at all times necessarily consider such proceedings hypocrisy, but the outcome of his religious and scientific conception of the world required the twofold language. Orthodox theology of all creeds has never yet advanced beyond the circle first mapped out by his mind. She has suspected and corrected her founder, she has thought she could lop off his heterodox opinions as if they were accidental excrescences, she has incorporated with the simple faith itself the measure of speculation she was obliged to admit, and continued to give the rule of faith a more philosophic form, fragment by fragment, in order that she might thus be able to remove the gap between Faith and Gnosis and to banish free theology through the formula of ecclesiastical dogma. But it may reasonably be questioned whether all this is progress, and it is well worth investigating whether the gap between half theological, clerical Christianity and a lay Christianity held in tutelage is more endurable than that between Gnosis and Pistis, which Origen preserved and bridged over. The Christian system of Origen683 is worked out in opposition to the systems of the Greek philosophers and of the Christian Gnostics. It is moreover opposed to the ecclesiastical enemies of science, the Christian Unitarians, and the Jews.684 But the science of the faith, as developed by Origen, being built up with the appliances of Philo’s science, bears unmistakable marks of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Origen speculated not only in the manner of Justin, but also in that of Valentinus and therefore likewise after the fashion of Plotinus; in fact he is characterised by the adoption of the methods and, in a certain sense, of the axioms current in the schools of Valentinus and traceable in Neoplatonism. But, as this method implied the acknowledgment of a sacred literature, Origen was an exegete who believed in the Holy Scriptures and indeed, at bottom, he viewed all theology as a methodical exegesis of Holy Writ. Finally, however, since Origen, as an ecclesiastical Christian, was convinced that the Church (by which he means only the perfect and pure Church) is the sole possessor of God’s holy revelations with whose authority the faith may be justly satisfied, nothing but the two Testaments, as preserved by her, was regarded by him as 682

In the polemic against Celsus it seems to us in not a few passages as if the feeling for truth had forsaken him. If we consider, however, that in Origen’s idea the premises of his speculation were unassailable, and if we further consider into what straits he was driven by Celsus, we will conclude that no proof has been advanced of Origen’s having sinned against the current rules of truth. These, however, did not include the commandment to use in disputation only such arguments as could be employed in a positive doctrinal presentation. Basilius (Ep. 210 ad prim. Neocaes) was quite ready to excuse an utterance of Gregory Thaumaturgus, that sounded suspiciously like Sabellianism, by saying that the latter was not speaking δογματικῶς, but ἀγωνιστικῶς. Jerome also (ad Pammach. ep. 48, c. 13), after defending the right of writing γυμναστικῶς, expressly said that all Greek philosophers “have used many words to conceal their thoughts, threaten in one place, and deal the blow in another.” In the same way, according to him, Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris had acted in the dispute with Celsus and Porphyry. “Because they are sometimes compelled to say, not what they them selves think, but what is necessary for their purpose; they do this only in the struggle with the heathen.” 683 See, above all, the systematic main work “περὶ ἀρχῶν”. 684 Many writings of Origen are pervaded by arguments, evincing equal discretion and patience, against the Christians who contest the right of science in the Church. In the work against Celsus, however, he was not unfrequently obliged to abandon the simple Christians. C. Celsus III. 78: V. 14-24 are particularly instructive.

207

History of Dogma - Volume II

336

Adolf Harnack

the absolutely reliable divine revelation.685 But, in addition to these, every possession of the Church, and, above all, the rule of faith, was authoritative and holy.686 By acknowledging not only the relative correctness of the beliefs held by the great mass of simple Christians as the Valentinians did, but also the indispensableness of their faith as the foundation of speculation, Origen like Clement avoided the dilemma of becoming a heterodox Gnostic or an ecclesiastical traditionalist. He was able to maintain this standpoint, because in the first place his Gnosis required a guaranteed sacred literature which he only found in the Church, and because in the second place this same Gnosis had extended its horizon far enough to see that what the heretical Gnosis had regarded as contrasts were different aspects of the same thing. The relative way of looking at things, an inheritance from the best time of antiquity, is familiar to Origen, as it was to Clement; and he contrived never to lose sight of it, in spite of the absolute attitude he had arrived at through the Christian Gnosis and the Holy Scriptures. This relative view taught him and Clement toleration and discretion (Strom. IV. 22. 139: ἡ γνῶσις ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τοὺς ἀγνοοῦντας διδάσκει τε καὶ παιδεύει τὴν πᾶσαν κτίσιν τοῦ παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ τιμᾶν, “Gnosis loves and instructs the ignorant and teaches us to honour the whole creation of God Almighty”); and enabled them everywhere to discover, hold fast, and further the good in that which was meagre and narrow, in that which was undeveloped and as yet intrinsically obscure.687 As an orthodox traditionalist and decided opponent of all heresy Origen acknowledged that Christianity embraces a salvation which is offered to all men and attained by faith, that it is the doctrine of historical facts to which we must adhere, that the content of Christianity has been appropriately summarised by the Church in her rule of faith,688 and that belief is of itself sufficient for the renewal and salvation of man. But, as an idealistic philosopher, Origen transformed the whole content of ecclesiastical faith into ideas. Here he adhered to no fixed philosophical system, but, like Philo, Clement, and the Neoplatonists, adopted and adapted all that had been effected by the labours of idealistic Greek moralists since the time of Socrates. These, however, had long before transformed the Socratic saying “know thyself” into manifold rules for the right conduct of life, and associated with it a theosophy, in which man was first to attain to his true self.689 These rules

685

In this point Origen is already narrower than Clement. Free judgments, such as were passed by Clement on Greek philosophy, were not, so far as I know, repeated by Origen. (See especially Clement, Strom. I. 5. 28-32: 13. 57, 58 etc.); yet he also acknowledges revelations of God in Greek philosophy (see, e.g., c. Cels. VI. 3), and the Christian doctrine is to him the completion of Greek philosophy (see the remains of Origen’s lost Stromateis and Hom. XIV. in Genes. § 3; Other passages in Redepenning II., p, 324 ff.). 686 We must here content ourselves with merely pointing out that the method of scientific Scriptural exegesis also led to historico-critical investigations, that accordingly Origen and his disciples were also critics of the tradition, and that scientific theology, in addition to the task of remodelling Christianity, thus began at its very origin the solution of another problem, namely, the critical restoration of Christianity from the Scriptures and tradition and the removal of its excrescences: for these efforts, strictly speaking, do not come up for consideration in the history of dogma. 687 The theory that justified a twofold morality in the Church is now completely legitimised, but the higher form no longer appears as Encratite and eschatological, but as Encratite and philosophical. See, for example, Clement, Strom. III. 12. 82: VI. 13. 106 etc. Gnosis is the principle of perfection. See Strom. IV. 7. 54: πρόκειται δὲ τοῖς εἰς τελείωσιν σπεύδουσιν ἡ γνῶσις ἡ λογικὴ ἧς θεμέλιος ἡ ἁγία τριὰς πιστίς, ἀγάπη, ἐλπίς. 688 See the preface to the work. 689 From the conclusion of Hippolytus’ Philosophoumena it is also evident how the Socratic Γνῶθι σεαυτόν was in that age based on a philosophy of religion and was regarded as a watchword in wide circles. See Clem. Pædag. III. 11. 1.

208

History of Dogma - Volume II

337

338

Adolf Harnack

made the true “sage” abstain from occupying himself in the service of daily life and “from burdensome appearance in public”. They asserted that the mind “can have no more peculiar duty than caring for itself. This is accomplished by its not looking without nor occupying itself with foreign things, but, turning inwardly to itself, restoring its own nature to itself and thus practising righteousness.”690 Here it was taught that the wise man who no longer requires anything is nearest the Deity, because he is a partaker of the highest good through possession of his rich Ego and through his calm contemplation of the world; here moreover it was proclaimed that the mind that has freed itself from the sensuous691 and lives in constant contemplation of the eternal is also in the end vouchsafed a view of the invisible and is itself deified. No one can deny that this sort of flight from the world and possession of God involves a specific secularisation of Christianity, and that the isolated and self-sufficient sage is pretty much the opposite of the poor soul that hungers after righteousness.692 Nor, on the other hand, can any one deny that concrete examples of both types are found in infinite multiplicity and might shade off into each other in this multiplicity. This was the case with Clement and Origen. To them the ethical and religious ideal is the state without sorrow, the state of insensibility to all evils, of order and peace — but peace in God. Reconciled to the course of the world, trusting in the divine Logos,693 rich in disinterested love to God and the brethen, reproducing the divine thoughts, looking up with longing to heaven its native city,694 the created spirit attains its likeness to God and eternal bliss. It reaches this by the victory over sensuousness, by constantly occupying itself with the divine — “Go ye believing thoughts into the wide field of eternity” — by self-knowledge and contemplative isolation, which, however, does not exclude work in the kingdom of God, that is in the Church. This is the divine wisdom: “The soul practises viewing herself as in a mirror: she displays the divine Spirit in herself as in a mirror, if she is to be found worthy of this fellowship; and she thus discovers the traces of a mysterious way to deification.”695 Origen employed the Stoic and Platonic systems of ethics as an instrument for the gradual realisation of this ideal.696 With him the mystic and ecstatic as well as the magic and sacramental element is still in the background, though it is not wanting. To Origen’s mind, however, the inadequacy of philosophical injunctions was constantly made plain by the following considerations. (1) The philosophers, in spite of their noble thoughts of God, tolerated the existence of polytheism; and this was really the only fault he had to find with Plato. (2) The truth did not

690

See Gregory Thaumaturgus’ panegyric on Origen, one of the most instructive writings of the 3rd century, especially cc. 11-18. Yet all excesses are repudiated. See Clem. Strom. IV. 22. 138: Οὐκ ἐγκρατὴς οὗτος ἔτι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἕξει γέγονεν ἀπαθείας σχῆμα θεῖον ἐπενδύσασθαι αναμένων. Similar remarks are found in Origen. 692 In many passages of Clement the satisfaction in knowledge appears in a still more pronounced form than in Origen. The boldest expression of it is Strom. IV. 22. 136. This passage is quoted above on p. 328.) 693 See the beautiful prayer of the Christian Gnostic in Strom. IV. 23. 148. 694 See Strom. IV. 26. 172: Origen’s commentaries are continually interrupted by similar outbursts of feeling. 695 On deification as the ultimate aim see Clem., Strom. IV. 23. 149-155: VII. 10. 56, 13. 82, 16. 95: οὕτως ὁ τῷ κυρίῳ πειθόμενος καὶ τῇ δοθείσῃ δι᾽ ἀυτοῦ κατακολουθήσας προφητείᾳ τελέως ἐκτελεῖται κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ διδασκάλου ἐν σαρκὶ περιπολῶν Θεός. But note what a distinction Clement makes between ὁ Θεός and the perfect man in VII. 15. 88 (in contradistinction to the Stoic identification); Origen does this also. 696 Gregory (l.c., c. 13) relates that all the works of the poets and philosophers were read in Origen’s school, and that every part of these works that would stand the test was admitted. Only the works of atheists were excluded, “because these overpass the limits of human thought.” However, Origen did not judge philosophers in such an unprejudiced manner as Clement, or, to speak more correctly, he no longer valued them so highly. See Bigg, l.c., p. 133, Denis l.c. Introd. 691

209

History of Dogma - Volume II

339

Adolf Harnack

become universally accessible through them.697 (3) As the result of these facts they did not possess sufficient power.698 In contrast to this the divine revelation had already mastered a whole people through Moses — “Would to God the Jews had not transgressed the law, and had not slain the prophets and Jesus; we would then have had a model of that heavenly commonwealth which Plato has sought to describe”699 — and the Logos shows his universal power in the Church (1) by putting an end to all polytheism, and (2) by improving everyone to the extent that his knowledge and capacity admit, and in proportion as his will is inclined to, and susceptible of, that which is good.700 697

See, for example, c. Cels. V. 43: VII. 47, 59 sq. He compared Plato and other wise men to those doctors who give their attention only to cultured patients. 698 See, for example, c. Cels. VI. 2. 699 C. Cels. V. 43. 700 One of Origen’s main ideas, which we everywhere meet with, particularly in the work against Celsus (see, for example, VI. 2) is the thought that Christ has come to improve all men according to their several capacities, and to lead some to the highest knowledge. This conception appears to fall short of the Christian ideal and perhaps really does so; but as soon as we measure it not by the Gospel but by the aims of Greek philosophy, we see very clearly the progress that has been attained through this same Gospel. What Origen has in his eye is mankind, and he is anxious for the amendment not merely of a few, but of all. The actual state of things in the Church no longer allowed him to repeat the exclamations of the Apologists that all Christians were philosophers and that all were filled with the same wisdom and virtue. These exclamations were naive and inappropriate even for that time. But he could already estimate the relative progress made by mankind within the Church as compared with those outside her pale, saw no gulf between the growing and the perfect, and traced the whole advance to Christ. He expressly declared, c. Cels. III. 78, that the Christianity which is fitted for the comprehension of the multitude is not the best doctrine in an absolute, but only in a relative, sense; that the “common man”, as he expresses himself, must be reformed by the prospect of rewards and punishments; and that the truth can only he communicated to him in veiled forms and images, as to a child. The very fact, however, that the Logos in Jesus Christ has condescended so to act is to Origen a proof of the universality of Christianity. Moreover, many of the wonderful phenomena reported in the Holy Scriptures belong in his opinion to the veiled forms and images. He is very far from doing violence to his reason here; he rather appeals to mysterious powers of the soul, to powers of divination, visionary states etc. His standpoint in this case is wholly that of Celsus (see particularly the instructive disquisition in I. 48), in so far as he is convinced that many unusual things take place between heaven and earth, and that individual names, symbols etc. possess a mysterious power (see, for example, c. Cels. V. 45). The views as to the relationship between knowledge and holy initiation or sacramentum are those of the philosophers of the age. He thinks, however, that each individual case requires to be examined, that there can be no miracles not in accordance with nature, but that on the contrary everything must fit into a higher order. As the letter of the precepts in both Testaments frequently contains things contrary to reason (see περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 2. 8-27) in order to lead men to the spiritual interpretation, and as many passages contain no literal sense at all (l.c. § 12), so also, in the historical narratives, we frequently discover a mythical element from which consequently nothing but the idea is to be evolved (l.c. § 16 sq.: “Non solum de his, quæ usque ad adventum Christi scripta sunt, hæc Spiritus sanctus procuravit, sed . . . eadem similiter etiam in evangelistis et apostolis fecit. Nam ne illas quidem narrationes, quas per eos inspiravit, absque huiuscemodi, quam supra exposuimus, sapientiæ sua arte contexuit. Unde etiam in ipsis non parva promiscuit, quibus historialis narrandi ordo interpolatus, vel intercisus per impossibilitatem sui reflecteret atque revocaret intentionem legentis ad intelligentiæ interioris examen.”) In all such cases Origen makes uniform use of the two points of view, that God wished to present something even to the simple and to incite the more advanced to spiritual investigations. In some passages, however, the former point of view fails, because the content of the text is offensive; in that case it is only the second that applies. Origen therefore was very far from finding the literal content of Scripture edifying in every instance, indeed, in the highest sense, the letter is not edifying at all. He rather adopted, to its widest extent, the critical method employed by the Gnostics particularly when dealing with the Old Testament; but the distinction he made between the different senses of Scripture and between the various legitimate human needs enabled him to preserve both the unity of God and the harmony of revelation. Herein, both in this case and everywhere else, lies the superiority of his theology. Read especially c. Celsum I. 9-12. After appealing to the twofold religion among the Egyptians, Persians, Syrians, and Indians — the mythical religion of the multitude and the mystery-religion of the initiated — he lays down exactly the same distinction within Christianity, and thus repels the reproach of Celsus that the Christians were obliged to accept everything without examination. With regard to the mythical form of Christianity he merely claims that it is the most suitable among religions of this type. Since, as a matter of fact, the great majority of men have neither time nor talent for philosophy, ποία ἂν ἄλλη βελτίων μέθοδος πρὸς τὸ τοῖς πολλοῖς βοηθῆσαι εὑρεθείη, τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς ἔθνεσι παραδοθείσης (l.c., 9). This thought is quite in the spirit of antiquity, and neither Celsus nor Porphyry could have any fault to find with these arguments in point of form: all positive religions have a mythical element; the true religion therefore lies behind

210

History of Dogma - Volume II

340

341

342

Adolf Harnack

Not only, however, did Origen employ the Greek ethic in its varied types, but the Greek cosmological speculation also formed the complicated substructure of his religious system of morals. The Gnosis is formally a philosophy of revelation, that is a Scripture theology,701 and materially a cosmological speculation. On the basis of a detailed theory of inspiration, which itself, moreover, originates with the philosophers, the Holy Scriptures are so treated that all facts appear as the vehicles of ideas and only attain their highest value in this aspect. Systematic theology, in undertaking its task, always starts, as Clement and Origen also did, with the conscious or unconscious thought of emancipating itself from the outward revelation and community of cultus that are the characteristic marks of positive religion. The place of these is taken by the results of speculative cosmology, which, though themselves practically conditioned, do not seem to be of this character. This also applies to Origen’s Christian Gnosis or scientific dogmatic, which is simply the metaphysics of the age. However, as he was the equal of the foremost minds of his time, this dogmatic was no schoolboy imitation on his part, but was to some extent independently developed and was worked out both in opposition to pantheistic Stoicism and to theoretical dualism. That we are not mistaken in this opinion is shown by a document ranking among the most valuable things preserved to us from the third century; we mean the judgment passed on Origen by Porphyry in Euseb., H. E. VI. 19. Every sentence is instructive,702 but the culminating point is the judgment contained in § 7: κατὰ μὲν τὸν βίον Χριστιανῶς ζῶν καὶ παρανόμως, κατὰ δὲ τὰς περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων καὶ τοῦ θείου δόξας Ἑλληνίζων καὶ τὰ Ἑλλήνων τοῖς ὀθνείοις ὑποβαλλόμενος μύθοις. (“His outward life was that of a Christian and opposed to the law, but in regard to his views of things and of the Deity, he thought like the Greeks, inasmuch as he introduced their ideas into the myths of other peoples.”) We can everywhere verify this observation from Origen’s works and particularly from the books written against Celsus, where he is continually obliged to mask his essential agreement in principles and method with the enemy of the Christians.703 The Gnosis is in fact the Hellenic one and results in that wonderful picture of the world which, though apparently a drama, is in reality immovable, and only assumes such a complicated form here from its relation to the Holy Scriptures and the history of Christ.704 The Gnosis neutralises everything connected with empiric history; and if this does not everywhere hold good with regard to the actual occurrence of facts, it is at least invariably the case in respect to their significance. The clearest proof of this is (1) that Origen raised the the religions. But the novelty which neither Celsus nor Porphyry could recognise lies in the acknowledgment that the one religion, even in its mythical form, is unique and divine, and in the demand that all men, so far as they cannot attain the highest knowledge, must subject themselves to this mythical religion and no other. In this claim Origen rejected the ancient contrast between the multitude and the initiated just as he repudiated polytheism; and in this, if I see rightly, his historical greatness consists. He everywhere recognised gradations tending in the same direction and rejected polytheism. 701 Bigg (l.c., p. 154) has rightly remarked: “Origen in point of method differs most from Clement, who not unfrequently leaves us in doubt as to the precise Scriptural basis of his ideas.” 702 Note, for example, § 8, where it is said that Origen adopted the allegorical method from the Stoic philosophers and applied it to the Jewish writings. On Origen’s hermeneutic principles in their relation to those of Philo see Siegfried, l.c., pp. 351-62. Origen has developed them fully and clearly in the 4th Book of περὶ ἀρχῶν . 703 See Overbeck, Theologische Literatur-Zeitung, 1878, Col. 535. 704 A full presentation of Origen’s theology would require many hundreds of pages, because he introduced everything worth knowing into the sphere of theology, and associated with the Holy Scriptures, verse by verse, philosophical maxims, ethical reflexions, and results of physical science, which would require to be drawn on the widest canvas, because the standpoint selected by Origen allowed the most extensive view and the most varied judgments. The case was similar with Clement before him, and also with

211

History of Dogma - Volume II

343

Adolf Harnack

thought of the unchangeability of God to be the norm of his system and (2) that he denied the historical, incarnate Logos any significance for “Gnostics”. To these Christ merely appears as the Logos who has been from eternity with the Father and has always acted from the beginning. He alone is the object of the knowledge of the wise man, who merely requires a perfect or, in other words, a divine teacher.705 The Gospel too only teaches the “shadow of the secrets of Christ;” but the eternal Gospel, which is also the pneumatic one, “clearly places before men’s minds all things concerning the Son of God himself, both the mysteries shown by his words, and the things of which his acts were the riddles” (σασῶς παρίστησι τοῖς νοοῦσι τὰ πάντα ἐνώπιον περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὰ παριστάμενα μυστήρια ὑπὸ τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ, τά τε πράγματα, ὦν αἰνίγματα ἧσαν αἱ πράξεις αὐτοῦ)706 No doubt the true theology based on revelation makes pantheism appear overthrown as well as dualism, and here the influence of the two Testaments cannot be mistaken; but a subtle form of the latter recurs in Origen’s system, whilst the manner in which he rejected both made the Greek philosophy of the age feel that there was something akin to it here. In the final utterances of religious metaphysics ecclesiastical Christianity, with the exception of a few compromises, is thrown off as a husk. The objects of religious knowledge have no history or rather, and this is a genuinely Gnostic and Neoplatonic idea, they have only a supramundane one. This necessarily gave rise to the assumption of an esoteric and exoteric form of the Christian religion, for it is only behind the statutory, positive religion of the Church that religion itself is found. Origen gave the clearest expression to this assumption, which must have been already familiar in the Alexandrian school of catechists, and convinced himself that it was correct, because he saw that the mass of Christians were unable to grasp the deeper sense of Scripture, and because he realised the difficulties of the exegesis. On the other hand, in solving the problem of adapting the different points of his heterodox system of thought to the regula fidei, he displayed the most masterly skill. He succeeded in finding an external connection, because, though the construction of his theory proceeded from the top downwards, he could find support for it on the steps of the regula fidei, already developed by Irenæus into the history of salvation.707 The system itself is to be, in principle and in every respect, monistic, but, as the material world, though created by God out of nothing, merely appears as a place of punishment and purification for souls, a strong element

Tertullian. This is a necessary result of “Scripture theology” when one takes it up in earnest. Tertullian assumes, for example, that there must be a Christian doctrine of dreams. Why? Because we read of dreams in the Holy Scriptures. 705 In c. Cels. III. 61 it is said (Lommatzsch XVIII., p. 337): ἐπέμσθη οὗν Θεὸς λόγος καθὸ μὲν ἰατρὸς τοῖς ἁμαρτωλοῖς, καθὸ δὲ διδάσκαλος θείων μυστηρίων τοῖς ἤδη καθαροῖς καὶ μηκέτι ἁμαρτάνουσιν. See also what follows. In Comment. in John I. 20 sq. the crucified Christ, as the Christ of faith, is distinguished from the Christ who takes up his abode in us, as the Christ of the perfect. See 22 (Lomm. I. p. 43): καὶ μακάριοι γε ὅσοι δεόμενοι τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοιοῦτοι γεγόνασιν, ὡς μηκέτι αὐτοῦ χρῄζειν ἰατροῦ τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας θεραπεύοντος, μηδὲ ποιμένος, μηδὲ ἀπολυτρώσεως, ἀλλὰ σοσίας καὶ λόγου καὶ δικαιοσύνης, ἢ εἴ τι ἄλλο τοῖς διὰ τελειότητα χωρεῖν αὐτοῦ τὰ κάλλιστα δυναμένοις. Read also c. Cels. II. 66, 69: IV. 15, 18: VI. 68. These passages show that the crucified Christ is no longer of any account to the Gnostic, and that he therefore allegorises all the incidents described in the Gospels. Clement, too, really regards Christ as of no importance to Gnostics except as a teacher. 706 Comment. in Joh. I. 9, Lomm. I. p. 20. The “mysteries” of Christ is the technical term for this theology and, at bottom, for all theology. For, in respect of the form given to it, revelation always appears as a problem that theology has to solve. What is revealed is therefore either to be taken as immediate authority (by the believer) or as a soluble problem. One thing, accordingly, it is not, namely, something in itself evident and intelligible. 707 See Nitzsch, Dogmengeschichte, p. 136.

212

History of Dogma - Volume II

344

345

346

Adolf Harnack

of dualism is inherent in the system, as far as its practical application is concerned.708 The prevailing contrast is that between the one transcendent essence and the multiplicity of all created things. The pervading ambiguity lies in the twofold view of the spiritual in so far as, on the one hand, it belongs to God as the unfolding of his essence, and, on the other, as being created, is contrasted with God. This ambiguity, which recurs in all the Neoplatonic systems and has continued to characterise all mysticism down to the present day, originates in the attempt to repel Stoic pantheism and yet to preserve the transcendental nature of the human spirit, and to maintain the absolute causality of God without allowing his goodness to be called in question. The assumption that created spirits can freely determine their own course is therefore a necessity of the system; in fact this assumption is one of its main presuppositions709 and is so boldly developed as to limit the omnipotence and omniscience of God. But, as from the empirical point of view the knot is tied for every man at the very moment he appears on earth, and since the problem is not created by each human being as the result of his own independent will, but lies in his organisation, speculation must retreat behind history. So the system, in accordance with certain hints of Plato, is constructed on the same plan as that of Valentinus, for example, to which it has an extraordinary affinity. It contains three parts: (1) The doctrine of God and his unfoldings or creations, (2) the doctrine of the Fall and its consequences, (3) the doctrine of redemption and restoration.710 Like Denis, however, we may also, in accordance with a premised theory of method, set forth the system in four sections, viz., Theology, Cosmology, Anthropology, Teleology. Origen’s fundamental idea is “the original indestructible 708

To Origen the problem of evil was one of the most important; see Book III. of περὶ ἀρχῶν and c. Cels. VI. 53-59. He is convinced (1) that the world is not the work of a second, hostile God; (2) that virtues and the works arising from them are alone good in the proper sense of the word, and that nothing but the opposite of these is bad; (3) that evil in the proper sense of the word is only evil will (see c. Cels. IV. 66: VI. 54). Accordingly he makes a very decided distinction between that which is bad and evils. As for the latter he admits that they partly originate from God, in which case they are designed as means of training and punishment. But he saw that this conception is insufficient, both in view of individual passages of Holy Scripture and of natural experience. There are evils in the world that can be understood neither as the result of sin nor as means of training. Here then his relative, rational view of things comes in, even with respect to the power of God. There are evils which are a necessary consequence of carrying out even the best intentions (c. Cels. VI. 53: τὰ κακὰ ἐκ παρακολουθήσεως γεγένηται τῆς πρὸς τὰ προηγούμενα): “Evils, in the strict sense, are not created by God; yet some, though but few in comparison with the great, well-ordered whole of the world, have of necessity adhered to the objects realised; as the carpenter who executes the plan of a building does not manage without chips and similar rubbish, or as architects cannot be made responsible for the dirty heaps of broken stones and filth one sees at the sites of buildings; (l.c., c. 55). Celsus also might have written in this strain. The religious, absolute view is here replaced by a rational, and the world is therefore not the best absolutely, but the best possible. See the Theodicy in περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 17-22. (Here, and also in other parts, Origen’s Theodicy reminds us of that of Leibnitz; see Denis, l.c., p. 626 sq. The two great thinkers have a very great deal in common, because their philosophy was not of a radical kind, but an attempt to give a rational interpretation to tradition.) But “for the great mass it is sufficient when they are told that evil has not its origin in God” (IV. 66). The case is similar with that which is really bad. It is sufficient for the multitude to know that that which is bad springs from the freedom of the creature, and that matter which is inseparable from things mortal is not the source and cause of sin (IV. 66, see also III. 42: τὸ κυρίως μιαρὸν ἀπὸ κακίας τοιυυτόν ἐστι. Öύσις δὲ σώματος οὐ μιαρά· οὐ γὰρ ᾗ σύσις σώματός ἐστι, τὸ γεννητικὸν τῆς μιαρότητος ἔχει τὴν κακιάν); but a closer examination shows that there can be no man without sin (III. 61) because error is inseparable from growth and because the constitution of man in the flesh makes evil unavoidable (VII. 50). Sinfulness is therefore natural and it is the necessary prius. This thought, which is also not foreign to Irenæus, is developed by Origen with the utmost clearness. He was not content with proving it, however, but in order to justify God’s ways proceeded to the assumption of a Fall before time began (see below). 709 See Mehlhorn, Die Lehre von der menschlichen Freiheit nach Origenes (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II., p. 234 ff.) 710 The distinction between Valentinus and Origen consists in the fact that the former makes an aeon or, in other words, a part of the divine pleroma, itself fall, and that he does not utilise the idea of freedom. The outline of Origen’s system cannot be made out with complete clearness from the work περὶ ἀρχῶν, because he endeavoured to treat each of the first three parts as a whole.

213

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

unity of God and all spiritual essence.” From this it necessarily follows that the created spirit after fall, error, and sin must ever return to its origin, to being in God. In this idea we have the key to the religious philosophy of Origen.

347

The only sources for obtaining a knowledge of the truth are the Holy Scriptures of both Testaments. No doubt the speculations of Greek philosophers also contain truths, but these have only a propædeutic value and, moreover, have no certainty to offer, as have the Holy Scriptures, which are a witness to themselves in the fulfilment of prophecy.711 On the other hand Origen assumes that there was an esoteric deeper knowledge in addition to the Holy Scriptures, and that Jesus in particular imparted this deeper wisdom to a few;712 but, as a correct Church theologian, he scarcely made use of this assumption. The first methodical principle of his exegesis is that the faith, as professed in the Church in contradistinction to heresy, must not be tampered with.713 But it is the carrying out of this rule that really forms the task of the theologian. For the faith itself is fixed and requires no particular presentation; it never occurred to Origen to assume that the fixing of the faith itself could present problems. It is complete, clear, easily teachable, and really leads to victory over sensuality and sin (see c. Cels. VII. 48 and cf. other passages), as well as to fellowship with God, since it rests on the revelation of the Logos. But, as it remains determined by fear and hope of reward so, as “uninformed and irrational faith” (πίστις ἰδιωτική and ἄλογος) it only leads to a “somatic Christianity” χριστιανισμός σωματικός). It is the task of theology, however, to decipher “spiritual Christianity” (χριστιανισμός πνευματικός) from the Holy Scriptures, and to elevate faith Origen’s four principles are God, the World, Freedom, Revelation (Holy Scripture). Each principle, however, is brought into relation with Christ. The first part treats of God and the spirits, and follows the history of the latter down to their restoration. The second part treats of the world and humanity, and likewise closes with the prospect of the resurrection, punishment in hell, and eternal life. Here Origen makes a magnificent attempt to give a conception of bliss and yet to exclude all sensuous joys. The third book treats of sin and redemption, that is, of freedom of will, temptation, the struggle with the powers of evil, internal struggles, the moral aim of the world, and the restoration of all things. A special book on Christ is wanting, for Christ is no “principle”; but the incarnation is treated of in II. 6. The teachers of Valentinus’ school accordingly appear more Christian when contrasted with Origen. If we read the great work περὶ ἀρχῶν, or the treatise against Celsus, or the commentaries connectedly, we never cease to wonder how a mind so clear, so sure of the ultimate aim of all knowledge, and occupying such a high standpoint, has admitted in details all possible views down to the most naïve myths, and how he on the one hand believes in holy magic, sacramental vehicles and the like, and on the other, in spite of all his rational and even empirical views, betrays no doubt of his abstract creations. But the problem that confronts us in Origen is that presented by his age. This we realise on reading Celsus or Porphyry (see Denis l.c., p. 613: “Toutes les théories d’Origène, même les plus imaginaires, représent l’état intellectuel et moral du siècle où il a paru”). Moreover, Origen is not a teacher who, like Augustine, was in advance of his time, though he no doubt anticipated the course of ecclesiastical development. This age, as represented by its greatest men, sought to gain a substructure for something new, not by a critical examination of the old ideas, but by incorporating them all into one whole. People were anxious to have assurance, and, in the endeavour to find this, they were nervous about giving up any article of tradition. The boldness of Origen, judged as a Greek philosopher, lies in his rejection of all polytheistic religions. This made him all the more conservative in his endeavours to protect and incorporate everything else. This conservatism welded together ecclesiastical Christianity and Greek culture into a system of theology which was indeed completely heterodox. 711 The proof from prophecy was reckoned by Origen among the articles belonging to faith, but not to Gnosis (see for ex. c. Cels. II. 37); but, like the Apologists, he found it of great value. As far as the philosophers are concerned, Origen always bore in mind the principle expressed in c. Cels. VII. 46: πρὸς ταῦτα δ᾽ἡμεῖς φήσομεν οἱ μελετήσαντες μηδενὶ ἀπεχθάνεσθαι τῶν καλῶς λεγομένων; κἂν οἱ ἔξω τῆς πίστεως λέγωσι καλῶς. In that same place it is asserted that God in his love has not only revealed himself to such as entirely consecrate themselves to his service, but also to such as do not know the true adoration and reverence which he requires. But as remarked above, p. 338, Origen’s attitude to the Greek philosophers is much more reserved than that of Clement. 712 See, for ex., c. Cels. VI. 6, Comment in Johann. XIII. 59, Lomm. II., p. 9 sq. 713 Περὶ ἀρχῶν preface.

214

History of Dogma - Volume II

348

Adolf Harnack

to knowledge and clear vision. This is effected by the method of Scripture exegesis which ascertains the highest revelations of God.714 The Scripture has a threefold sense because, like the cosmos, alongside of which it stands like a second revelation, as it were, it must contain a pneumatic, psychic, and somatic element. The somatic or historical sense is in every case the first that must be ascertained. It corresponds to the stage of mere faith and has consequently the same dignity as the latter. But there are instances where it is to be given up and designated as a Jewish and fleshly sense. This is to be assumed in all cases where it leads to ideas opposed to the nature of God, morality, the law of nature, or reason.715 Here one must judge (see above) that such objectionable passages were meant to incite the searcher to a deeper investigation. The psychic sense is of a moral nature: in the Old Testament more especially most narratives have a moral content, which one can easily find by stripping off the history as a covering; and in certain passages one may content oneself with this meaning. The pneumatic sense, which is the only meaning borne by many passages, an assertion which neither Philo nor Clement ventured to make in plain terms, has with Origen a negatively apologetic and a positively didactic aim. It leads to the ultimate ideas which, once attained, are self-evident, and, so to speak, pass completely over into the mind of the theologian, because they finally obtain for him clear vision and independent possession.716 When the Gnostic has attained this stage, he may throw away the ladders by which he has reached this height.717 He is then inwardly united with God’s Logos, and from this union obtains all that he requires. In most passages Origen presupposed the similarity and equal value of all parts of the Holy Scriptures; but in some he showed that even inspiration has its stages and grades, according to the receptivity and worthiness of each prophet, thus applying his relative view of all matters of fact in such cases also. In Christ the full revelation of the Logos was first expressed; his Apostles did not possess the same inspiration as he,718 and among the Apostles and apostolic men differences in the degrees of inspiration are again to be assumed. Here Origen set the example of making a definite distinction between a heroic age of the Apostles and the succeeding period. This laid the foundation for an assumption through which the later Church down to our time has appeased her conscience and freed herself from demands that she could not satisfy.719

714

On Origen’s exegetical method see Kihn, Theodor v. Mopsu. p. 20 ff., Bigg, l.c. p. 131 ff. On the distinction between his application of the allegorical method and that of Clement see specially p. 134 f. of the latter work. 715 Origen noted several such passages in the very first chapter of Genesis Examples are given in Bigg, p. 137 f. 716 Bigg, l.c., has very appropriately named Origen’s allegorism “Biblical alchemy”. 717 To ascertain the pneumatic sense, Origen frequently drew analogies between the domain of the cosmic and that of the spiritual. He is thus a forerunner of modern idealistic philosophers, for example, Drummond: “To Origen allegorism is only one manifestation of the sacramental mystery of nature (Bigg, p. 134). 718 See Hom. in Luc. XXIX., Lomm. V., p. 193 sq. 719 Since Origen does not, as a rule, dispute the literal meaning of the Scriptures, he has also a much more favourable opinion of the Jewish people and of the observance of the law than the earlier Christian authors (but see Iren. and Tertull.). At bottom he places the observance of the law quite on the same level as the faith of the simple Christians. The Apostles also kept the law for a time, and it was only by degrees that they came to understand its spiritual meaning. They were also right to continue its observance during their mission among the Jews. On the other hand, he considers the New Testament a higher stage than the Old both in its literal and its spiritual sense. See c. Cels. II. 1-4, 7, 75: IV. 31 sq.: V. 10, 30, 31, 42 sq., 66: VII. 26.

215

History of Dogma - Volume II

349

350

Adolf Harnack

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD AND HIS SELF-UNFOLDINGS OR CREATIONS.720 The world points back to an ultimate cause and the created spirit to an eternal, pure, absolutely simple, and unchangeable spirit, who is the original source of all existence and goodness. so that everything that exists only does so in virtue of being caused by that One, and is good in so far as it derives its essence from the One who is perfection and goodness. This fundamental idea is the source of all the conclusions drawn by Origen as to the essence, attributes, and knowableness of God. As the One, God is contrasted with the Manifold; but the order in the Manifold points back to the One. As the real Essence, God is opposed to the essences that appear and seem to vanish, and that therefore have no real existence, because they have not their principle in themselves, but testify: “We have not made ourselves.” As the absolutely immaterial Spirit, God is contrasted with the spirit that is clogged with matter, but which strives to get back to him from whom it received its origin. The One is something different from the Manifold; but the order, the dependence, and the longing of that which is created point back to the One, who can therefore be known relatively from the Manifold. In sharpest contrast to the heretical Gnosis, Origen maintained the absolute causality of God, and, in spite of all abstractions in determining the essence of God, he attributed self-consciousness and will to this superessential Essence (in opposition to Valentinus, Basilides, and the later Neoplatonists).721 The created is one thing and the Self-existent is another, but both are connected together; as the created can only be understood from something self-existent, so the self-existent is not without analogy to the created. The Self-existent is in itself a living thing; it is beyond dispute that Origen with all his abstractions represented the Deity, whom he primarily conceived as a constant substance, in a more living, and, so to speak, in a more personal way than the Greek philosophers. Hence it was possible for him to produce a doctrine of the attributes of God. Here he did not even shrink from applying his relative view to the Deity, because, as will be seen, he never thinks of God without revelation, and because all revelation must be something limited. The omnipresence of God indeed suffers from no limitation. God is potentially every. where; but he is everywhere only potentially; that is, he neither encompasses nor is encompassed.

720

In opposition to the method for obtaining a knowledge of God, recommended by Alcinous (c. 12), Maximus Tyr. (XVII. 8), and Celsus (by analysis [apophat.], synthesis [kataphat.], and analogy), Origen, c. Cels. VII. 42, 44, appeals to the fact that the Christian knows God better, namely, in his incarnate Son. But he himself, nevertheless, also follows the synthetic method. 721 In defining the superessential nature of the One, Origen did not go so far as the Basilidians (Philosoph. VII. 20, 21) or as Plotinus. No doubt he also regards the Deity as ἐπέκεινα τῆς ὀυσίας (c. Cels. VII. 42-51; περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 1; Clement made a closer approach to the heretical abstractions of the Gnostics inasmuch as he still more expressly renounced any designation of God; see Strom. V. 12, 13), but he is not βύθος and σιγή, being rather a self-comprehending Spirit, and therefore does not require a hypostasis (the νοῦς) before he can come to himself. Accordingly the human intellect is not incapable of soaring up to God as the later Neoplatonists assert; at least vision is by no means so decidedly opposed to thought, that is, elevated above it as something new, as is held by the Neoplatonists and Philo before them. Origen is no mystic. In accordance with this conception Origen and Clement say that the perfect knowledge of God can indeed be derived from the Logos alone (c. Cels. VII. 48, 49: VI. 65-73; Strom. V. 12. 85: VI. 15. 122), but that a relative knowledge may be deduced from creation (c. Cels. VII. 46). Hence they also spoke of an innate knowledge of God (Protrept. VI. 68; Strom. V. 13. 78), and extended the teleological proof of God furnished by Philo (περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 1. 6; c. Cels. I. 23). The relatively correct predicates of God to be determined from revelation are his unity (c. Cels. I. 23), his absolute spirituality (πνεῦμα ἀσώματος, ἄϋλος, ἀσχημάτιστος) — this is maintained both in opposition to Stoicism and anthropomorphism; see Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 1, Origen’s polemic against Melito’s conception of God, and Clem., Strom. V. 11. 68: V. 12. 82, — his unbegottenness, his immortality (this is eternity conceived as enjoyment; the eternity of God itself, however, is to be conceived, according to Clement, as that which is above time; see Strom. II. 2. 6), and his absolute causality. All these concepts together constitute the conception of perfection. See Fischer, De Orig. theologia et cosmologia, 1840.

216

History of Dogma - Volume II

351

352

Adolf Harnack

Nor is he diffused through the universe, but, as he is removed from the limits of space, so also he is removed from space itself.722 But the omniscience and omnipotence of God have a limit, which indeed, according to Origen, lies in the nature of the case itself. In the first place his omnipotence is limited through his essence, for he can only do what he wills;723 secondly by logic, for omnipotence cannot produce things containing an inward contradiction: God can do nothing contrary to nature, all miracles being natural in the highest sense724 — thirdly, by the impossibility of that which is in itself unlimited being comprehended, whence it follows that the extent of everything created must be limited725 — fourthly, by the impossibility of realising an aim completely and without disturbing elements.726 Omniscience has also its corresponding limits; this is specially proved from the freedom of spirits bestowed by God himself. God has indeed the capacity of foreknowledge, but he knows transactions beforehand because they happen; they do not happen because he knows them.727 That the divine purpose should be realised in the end necessarily follows from the nature of the created spirit itself, apart from the supporting activity of God. Like Irenæus and Tertullian Origen very carefully discussed the attributes of goodness and justice in God in opposition to the Marcionites.728 But his exposition is different. In his eyes goodness and justice are not two opposite attributes, which can and must exist in God side by side; but as virtues they are to him identical. God rewards in justice and punishes in kindness. That it should go well with all, no matter how they conduct themselves, would be no kindness; but it is kindness when God punishes to improve, deter, and prevent. Passions, anger, and the like do not exist in God, nor any plurality of virtues; but, as the Perfect One, he is all kindness. In other places, however, Origen did not content himself with this presentation. In opposition to the Marcionites, who declared Christ and the Father of Christ to be good, and the creator of the world to be just, he argued that, on the contrary, God (the foundation of the world) is good, but that the Logos-Christ, in so far as he is the pedagogus, is just.729 From the perfect goodness of God Origen infers that he reveals or communicates himself, from his immutability that he always reveals himself. The eternal or never beginning communication of perfection to other beings is a postulate of the concept “God”. But, along with the whole fraternity of those professing the same philosophy, Origen assumed that the One, in becoming the Manifold and acting in the interests of the Manifold, can only effect his purpose by divesting himself of absolute apathy and once more assuming a form in which he can act, that is, procuring for himself an adequate organ — the Logos. The content of Origen’s teaching about this Logos was not essentially different from that of Philo and was therefore quite as contradictory; only in his case everything is more sharply defined and the hypostasis of the Logos (in opposition to the 722

Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 1. 3. C. Cels. V. 23. 724 L.c. 725 Περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 9. 1: “Certum est, quippe quod præfinito aliquo apud se numero creaturas fecit: non enim, ut quidam volunt, finem putandum est non habere creaturas; quia ubi finis non est, nec comprehensio ulla nec circumscriptio esse potest. Quod si fuerit utique nec contineri vel dispensari a deo, quæ facta sunt, poterunt. Naturaliter nempe quicquid infinitum fuerit, et incomprehensibile erit.” In Matth., t. 13., c. 1 fin., Lomm. III., p. 209 sq. 726 See above, p. 343, note 2. 727 See c. Cels. II. 20. 728 Clement also did so; see with respect to Origen περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 5, especially § 3 sq. 729 See Comment. in Johann. I. 40, Lomm. I. p. 77 sq. I cannot agree that this view is a rapprochement to the Marcionites (contrary to Nitzsch’s opinion, l.c., p. 285). The confused accounts in Epiph., H. 43. 13 are at any rate not to be taken into account. 723

217

History of Dogma - Volume II

353

354

Adolf Harnack

Monarchians) more clearly and precisely stated.730 Nevertheless the personal independence of the Logos is as yet by no means so sharply defined as in the case of the later Arians. He is still the Consciousness of God, the spiritual Activity of God. Hence he is on the one hand the idea of the world existing in God, and on the other the product of divine wisdom originating with the will of God. The following are the most important propositions.731 The Logos who appeared in Christ, as is specially shown from Joh. I. 1 and Heb. I. 1, is the perfect image732 of God. He is the Wisdom of God, the reflection of his perfection and glory, the invisible image of God. For that very reason there is nothing corporeal in him733 and he is therefore really God, not αὐτόθεος, nor ὁ Θεὸς, nor ἄναρχος αρχή (“beginningless beginning”), but the second God.734 But, as such, immutability is 730

Clement’s doctrine of the Logos, to judge from the Hypotyposes, was perhaps different from that of Origen. According to Photius (Biblioth. 109) Clement assumed two Logoi (Origen indeed was also reproached with the same; see Pamphili Apol., Routh, Reliq. S., IV., p. 367), and did not even allow the second and weaker one to make a real appearance on earth; but this is a misunderstanding (see Zahn, Forschungen III., p. 144). Λέγεται μέν — these are said to have been the words of a passage in the Hypotyposes — κὰι ὁ ὑιὸς λόγος ὁμωνύμως τῷ τατρικῷ λόγῳ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ σὰρξ γενόμενος, οὐδὲ μὴν ὁ πατρῷος λόγος, ἀλλὰ δύναμίς τις τοῦ Θεοῦ. οἷον ἀπόρροια τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ νοῦς γενόμενος τὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων καρδίας διαπεσοίτηκε. The distinction between an impersonal Logos-God and the Logos-Christ necessarily appeared as soon as the Logos was definitely hypostatised. In the so-called Monarchian struggles of the 3rd century the disputants made use of these two Logoi, who formed excellent material for sophistical discussions. In the Strom. Clement did not reject the distinction between a λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and προσορικός (on Strom. V. 1. 6. see Zahn, l.c., p. 145 against Nitzsch), and in many passages expresses himself in such a way that one can scarcely fail to notice a distinction between the Logos of the Father and that of the Son. “The Son-Logos is an emanation of the Reason of God, which unalterably remains in God and is the Logos proper.” If the Adumbrationes are to be regarded as parts of the Hypotyposes, Clement used the expression ὁμοούσιος for the Logos, or at least an identical one (See Zahn, Forschungen III., pp. 87-138 f.). This is the more probable because Clement, Strom. 16. 74, expressly remarked that men are not μέρος θεοῦ καὶ τῷ Θοῷ ὁμοούσιοι, and because he says in Strom. IV. 13. 91: εἰ ἐπὶ τὸ καταλῦσαι θάνατον ἀφικνεῖται τὸ διαφέρον γένος, οὐχ ὁ Χριστὸς τὸν θάνατον κατήργησεν, εἰ μὴ καὶ αὐτὸς αὐτοῖς ὁμοούσιος λεχθείη. One must assume from this that the word was really familiar to Clement as a designation of the community of nature, possessed by the Logos, both with God and with men. See Protrept. 10. 110: ὁ θεῖος λόγος, ὁ φανερώτατος ὄντως Θεός, ὁ τῷ δεσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων ἐξισωθείς). In Strom. V. 1. 1 Clement emphatically declared that the Son was equally eternal with the Father: οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ἄνευ υἱοῦ· ἅμα γὰρ τῷ πατήρ υἱοῦ πατήρ (see also Strom. IV. 7. 58: ἓν μὲν τὸ ἀγέννητον ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ἓν δὲ καὶ τὸ προγεννηθὲν δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, and Adumbrat. in Zahn, l.c., p. 87, where 1 John I. 1 is explained: “principium generationis separatum ab opificis principio non est. Cum enim dicit “quod erat ab initio” generationem tangit sine principio filii cum patre simul exstantis.” See besides the remarkable passage, Quis dives salv. 37: Θεῷ τὰ τῆς ἀγάπης μυστήρια, καὶ τότε ἐποπτεύσεις τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ὃν ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς Θεὸς μόνος ἐξηγήσατο· ἔστι δὲ κὰι αὐτὸς ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη καὶ δι᾽ ἀγάπην ἡμῖν ἀνεκράθη· καὶ τὸ μὲν ἄρρητον ἀυτοῦ πατήρ, τὸ δὲ ἡμῖν συμπαθὲς γέγονε μήτηρ· ἀγαπήσας ὁ πατὴρ ἐθηλύνθη, καὶ τούτου μέγα σημεῖον, ὃν ἀυτὸς ἐγέννησεν ἐξ αὑτοῦ καὶ ὁ τεχθείς ἑξ ἀγάπης καρπὸς ἀγάπη, But that does not exclude the fact that he, like Origen, named the Son κτίσμα (Phot., l.c.). In the Adumbrat. (p. 88) Son and Spirit are called “primitivæ e virtutes ac primo creatæ, immobiles exsistentes secundum substantiam”. That is exactly Origen’s doctrine, and Zahn (i.e., p. 99) has rightly compared Strom. V. 14. 89: VI. 7. 58; and Epit. ex Theod. 20 The Son stands at the head of the series of created beings (Strom. VII. 2. 5; see also below), but he is nevertheless specifically different from them by reason of his origin. It may be said in general that the fine distinctions of the Logos doctrine in Clement and Origen are to be traced to the still more abstract conception of God found in the former. A sentence like Strom. IV. 25. 156 (ὁ μὲν οὖν Θεὸς ἀναπόδεικτος ὣν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιςτημονικός, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς σοφία τέ ἐστι καὶ ἐπιστήμη) will hardly be found in Origen I think. Cf. Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 45 ff. 731 See Schultz, l.c., p. 51 ff. and Jahrbuch für protestantische Theologie I. pp. 193 ff. 369 ff. 732 It is very remarkable that Origen περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 1 in his presentation of the Logos doctrine, started with the person of Christ, though he immediately abandoned this starting-point “Primo illud nos oportere scire”, so this chapter begins, “Quod aliud est in Christo deitatis eius natura, quod est unigenitus filius patris, et alia humana natura, quam in novissimis temporibus pro dispensatione suscepit. Propter quod videndum primo est, quid sit unigenitus filius dei.” 733 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 2, 6. 734 The expression was familiar to Origen as to Justin (see Dial. c. Tryph). See c. Cels. V. 39: Καὶ δεύτερον οὖν λέγωμεν Θεόν· ἴστωσαν, ὅτι τὸν δεύτερον Θεὸν οὐκ ἄλλο τι λέγομεν, ἢ τὴν περιεκτικὴν πασῶν ἀρετῶν ἀρετὴν καὶ τὸν περιεκτικὸν παντὸς οὑτινοσοῦν λόγου τῶν κατὰ φύσιν καὶ προηγουμένως γεγενημένων,

218

History of Dogma - Volume II

355

Adolf Harnack

one of his attributes, that is, he can never lose his divine essence, he can also in this respect neither increase nor decrease (this immutability, however, is not an independent attribute, but he is perfect as being an image of the Father’s perfection).735 Accordingly this deity is not a communicated one in the sense of his having another independent essence in addition to this divine nature; but deity rather constitutes his essence: ὁ σωτὴρ οὐ κατὰ μετουσίαν, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἐστί Θεός736 (“the Saviour is not God by communication, but in his essence”). From this it follows that he shares in the essence of God, therefore of the Father, and is accordingly ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρί (“the same in substance with the Father”) or, seeing that, as Son, he has come forth from the Father, is engendered from the essence of the Father.737 But having proceeded, like the will, from the Spirit, he was always with God; there was not a time when he was not,738 nay, even this expression is still too weak. It would be an unworthy idea to think of God without his wisdom or to assume a beginning of his begetting. Moreover, this begetting is not an act that has only once taken place, but a process lasting from all eternity; the Son is always being begotten of the Father.739 It is the theology of Origen which Gregory Thaumaturgus has thus summed up:740εἷς κύριος, μόνος ἐκ μόνου, Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, χαρακτὴρ καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς θεότητος, λόγος ἔνεργος, σοφία τῆς τῶν ὅλων συστάσεως περιεκτικὴ καὶ δύναμις τῆς ὅλης κτίσεως ποιντική, ὑιὸς ἀληθινὸς πατρός, ἀόρατος ἀοράτου καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἀθάνατος ἀθανάτου καὶ ἀἴδιος ἀϊδίου. (“One Lord, one from one, God from God, impress and image of Godhead, energetic word, wisdom embracing the entire system of the universe and power producing all creation, true Son of a true Father, the invisible of the invisible and incorruptible of the incorruptible, the immortal of the immortal, the eternal of the eternal”). The begetting is an indescribable act which can only be represented by inadequate images: it is no

735

Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 13 has been much corrupted by Rufinus. The passage must have been to the effect that the Son is indeed αγαθός, but not, like the Father, ἀπαραλλάκτως ἀγαθός. 736 Selecta in Psalm., Lomm. XIII., p. 134; see also Fragm. comm. in ep. ad Hebr., Lomm. V., p. 299 sq. 737 L.c.: “Sic et sapientia ex deo procedens, ex ipsa substantia dei generatur. Sic nihilominus et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhœæ esse dicitur aporrhœa gloriæ omnipotentis pura quædam et sincera. Quæ utræque similitudines (see the beginning of the passage) manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantiæ esse filio cum patre. Aporrhœa enim ὁμοούσιος videtur, id est, unius substantiæ cum illo corpore, ex quo est vel aporrhœa vel vapor.” In opposition to Heracleon Origen argues (in Joh. XIII. 25., Lomm. II., p. 43 sq.) that we are not homousios with God: ἐπιστήσωμεν δέ, εἰ μὴ σφόδρα ἐστὶν ἀσεβὲς ὁμοουσίους τῇ ἀγεννήτῳ φύσει καὶ παμμακαρίᾳ εἶναι λέγειν τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν πνεύματι τῶ Θεῶ. On the meaning of ὁμοουσίος, see Zahn, Marcell., pp. 11-32. The conception decidedly excludes the possibility of the two subjects connected by it having a different essence; but it says nothing about how they came to have one essence and in what measure they possess it. On the other hand it abolishes the distinction of persons the moment the essence itself is identified with the one person. Here then is found the Unitarian danger, which could only be averted by assertions. In some of Origen’s teachings a modalistic aspect is also not quite wanting. See Hom. VIII. in Jerem. no. 2: Τὸ μὲν ὑποκείμενον ἕν ἐστι, ταῖς δὲ ἐπινοίαις τὰ πολλὰ ὀνόματα ἐπὶ διαφόρων. Conversely, it is also nothing but an appearance when Origen (for ex. in c. Cels. VIII. 12) merely traces the unity of Father and Son to unity in feeling and in will. The charge of Ebionitism made against him is quite unfounded (see Pamphili Apol., Routh IV. p. 367). 738 Οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, de princip. I. 2. 9; in Rom. I. 5. 739 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 2-9. Comm. in ep. ad. Hebr. Lomm. V., p. 296: “Nunquam est, quando filius non fuit. Erat autem non, sicut de æterna luce diximus, innatus, ne duo principia lucis videamur inducere, sed sicut ingenitæ lucis splendor, ipsam illam lucem initium habens ac fontem, natus quidem ex ipsa; sed non erat quando non erat.” See the comprehensive disquisition in περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 28, where we find the sentence: “hoc autem ipsum, quod dicimus, quia nunquam fuit, quando non fuit, cum venia audiendum est” etc. See further in Jerem. IX. 4, Lomm. XV., p. 212: τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης οὑχὶ ἅπαξ γεγέννηται, καὶ οὐχι γὲννᾶται . , . καὶ ἀεὶ γεννᾶται ὁ σωτὴρ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός; see also other passages. 740 See Caspari, Quellen, Vol. IV., p. 10.

219

History of Dogma - Volume II

356

357

Adolf Harnack

emanation — the expression προβολή is not found, so far as I know741 — but is rather to be designated as an act of the will arising from an inner necessity, an act which for that very reason is an emanation of the essence. But the Logos thus produced is really a personally existing being; he is not an impersonal force of the Father, though this still appears to be the case in some passages of Clement, but he is the “sapientia dei substantialiter subsistens742 (“the wisdom of God substantially existing”) “figura expressa substantia: patris” (express image of the Father’s substance”), “virtus altera in sua proprietate subsistens” (a second force existing in its own characteristic fashion “). He is, and here Origen appeals to the old Acts of Paul, an “animal vivens” with an independent existence.743 He is another person,744 namely, the second person in number.745 But here already begins Origen’s second train of thought which limits the first that we have set forth. As a particular hypostasis, which has its “first cause” (πρῶτον αἴτιον) in God, the Son is “that which is caused” (αἱτιατόν), moreover as the fulness of ideas, as he who comprehends in himself all the forms that are to have an active existence, the Son is no longer an absolute simplex like the Father.746 He is already the first stage of the transition from the One to the Manifold, and, as the medium of the world-idea, his essence has an inward relation to the world, which is itself without beginning.747 As soon therefore as the category of causality is applied — which moreover dominates the system — and the particular contemplation of the Son in relation to the Father gives way to the general contemplation of his task and destination, the Son is not only called κτίσμα and δημιούργημα, but all the utterances about the quality of his essence receive a limitation. We nowhere find the express assertion that this quality is inferior or of a different kind when compared with that of God; but these utterances lose their force when it is asserted that complete similarity between Father and Son only exists in relation to the world. We have to acknowledge the divine being that appeared in Christ to be the manifestation of the Deity; but, from God’s standpoint, the Son is the hypostasis appointed by and subordinated to him.748 The Son stands between the uncreated One and the created Many; in so far as unchangeableness is an attribute of self-existence he does not possess it.749 It is evident why Origen was obliged to conceive the Logos exactly as he did; it was only in this form that the idea answered the purpose for which it was intended. In the description of the essence of the Logos much more heed continues to be given to his creative than to his redeeming significance. Since it was only a teacher that Origen ultimately required for the purpose of redemption, he could 741

In περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 28 the prolatio is expressly rejected (see also I. 2. 4) as well as the “conversio partis alicuius substantiæ dei in filium” and the “procreatio ex nullis substantibus.” 742 L.c. I. 2. 2. 743 L.c. I. 2. 3. 744 De orat. 15: Ἔτερος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν καὶ ὑποκείμενον ὁ υἱός ἐστι τοῦ πατρός. This, however, is not meant to designate a deity of a hybrid nature, but to mark the personal distinction. 745 C. Cels. VIII. 12.: δύο τῇ ὑποστάσει πράγματα. This was frequently urged against the Monarchians in Origen’s commentaries; see in Joh. X. 21: II. 6 etc. The Son exists κατ᾽ ἰδίαν τῆς οὐσίας περιγραφήν. Not that Origen has not yet the later terminology οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, ὐποκείμενον, πρόσωπον. We find three hypostases in Joh. II. 6. Lomm. I., p. 109, and this is repeatedly the case in c. Cels. 746 In Joh. I. 22, Lomm. I., p. 41 sq.: ὁ Θεὸς μέν οὖν πάντη ἕν ἐστι καὶ ἁπλοῦν ὁ δὲ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν διὰ τὰ πολλά. The Son is ἰδέα ἰδεῶν, σύστημα θεωρημάτων ἐν αὐτῶ (Lomm. I., p. 127). 747 See the remarks on the saying: “The Father is greater than I,” in Joh. XIII. 25, Lomm. II., p. 45 sq. and other passages. Here Origen shows that he considers the homoousia of the Son and the Father just as relative as the unchangeability of the Son. 748 Περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 2. 6 has been corrupted by Rufinus; see Jerome ep. ad Avitum. 749 See περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 13 (see above, p. 354, note 3).

220

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

unfold the nature and task of the Logos without thinking of Christ, whose name indeed he frequently mentions in his disquisitions, but whose person is really not of the slightest importance there.750

358

359

In order to comply with the rule of faith, and for this reason alone, for his speculation did not require a Spirit in addition to the Logos, Origen also placed the Spirit alongside of Father and Son. All that is predicated about him by the Church is that he is equal to the other persons in honour and dignity, and it was he that inspired both Prophets and Apostles; but that it is still undecided whether he be created or uncreated, and whether he too is to be considered the Son of God or not.751 As the third hypostasis, Origen reckoned him part of the constant divine essence and so treated him after the analogy of the Son, without producing an impressive proof of the necessity of this hypostasis. He, however, became the Holy Spirit through the Son, and is related to the latter’s the latter is related to the Father; in other words he is subordinate to the Son; he is the first creation of the Father through the Son.752 Here Origen was following an old tradition. Considered quantitively therefore, and this according to Origen is the most important consideration, the Spirit’s sphere of action is the smallest. All being has its principle in the Father, the Son has his sphere in the rational, the Holy Spirit in the sanctified, that is in the Church; this he has to rule over and perfect Father, Son, and Spirit form a τρίας (“triad”)753 to which nothing may be compared; they are equal indignity and honour, and the substance they possess is one. If the following is not one of Rufinus’ corrections, Origen said754: Nihil in trinitate maius minusve dicendum est cum unius divinitatis fons verbo ac ratione sua teneat universa”755 (“nothing in the Trinity is to be called greater or less, since the fountain of one divinity holds all his parts by word and reason”). But, as in Origen’s sense the union of these only exists because the Father alone is the “source of deity” (πηγὴ τῆς θεότητος) and principle of the other two hypostases, the Trinity is in truth no homogeneous one, but one which, in accordance with a “subtle emanation idea”, has degrees within it. This Trinity, which in the strict sense remains a Trinity of revelation, except that revelation belongs to the essence of God, is with Origen the real secret of the faith, the mystery beyond all mysteries. To deny it shows a Jewish, carnal feeling or at least the greatest narrowness of conception. The idea of createdness was already more closely associated with the Holy Ghost than with the Logos. He is in a still clearer fashion than the Son himself the transition to the series of ideas and spirits that having been created by the Son, are in truth the unfolding of his fulness. They form the next stage after the Holy Spirit. In assuming the existence of such beings as were required by his philosophical system, Origen appealed to the Biblical doctrine of angels, which he says is expressly acknowledged in the Church.756 With Clement even the association of the Son and Holy Ghost with 750

Athanasius supplemented this by determining the essence of the Logos from the redeeming work of Christ. See περὶ ἀρχῶν præf. and in addition to this Hermas’ view of the Spirit. 752 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 3. The Holy Spirit is eternal, is ever being breathed out, but is to be termed a creature. See also in Joh. II. 6, Lomm. I., p. 109 sq.: τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα διὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐγένετο, πρεσβυτέρου (logically) παρ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦ λόγου τυγχάνοντος. Yet Origen is not so confident here as in his Logos doctrine. 753 See περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 3, 5-8. Hence Origen says the heathen had known the Father and Son, but not the Holy Spirit (de princip. I. 3: II. 7). 754 L.c. § 7. 755 See Hom. in Num. XII. 1, Lomm. X, p. 127: “Est hæc trium distinctio personarum in patre et filio et spiritu sancto, quæ ad pluralem puteorum numerum revocatur. Sed horum puteorum unum est fous. Una enim substantia est et natura trinitatis.” 756 Περὶ ἀρχῶν præf. 751

221

History of Dogma - Volume II

360

361

Adolf Harnack

the great angelic spirits is as yet not altogether avoided, at least in his expressions.757 Origen was more cautious in this respect.758 The world of spirits appears to him as a series of well-arranged, graded energies, as the representative of created reason. Its characteristic is growth, that is, progress (προκοπή).759 Growth is conditioned by freedom: “omnis creatura rationabilis laudis et culpæ capax: laudis, si secundum rationem, quam in se habet, ad meliora proficiat, culpæ, si rationem recti declinet”760 (“every rational creature is capable of meriting praise or blame — praise, if it advance to better things according to the reason it possesses in itself, blame, if it avoid the right course”). As unchangeableness and permanence are characteristic of the Deity, so freedom is the mark of the created spirit.761 In this thesis Origen goes beyond the assumption of the heretical Gnostics just as much as he does in his other proposition that the creaturely spirit is in no sense a portion of the divine (because it is changeable762 ); but in reality freedom, as he understands it, is only the capacity of created spirits to determine their own destiny for a time. In the end, however, they must turn to that which is good, because everything spiritual is indestructible. Sub specie æternitatis, then, the mere communication of the divine element to the created spirit763 is not a mere communication, and freedom is no freedom; but the absolute necessity of the created spirit’s developing itself merely appears as freedom. Yet Origen himself did not draw this conclusion, but rather based everything on his conception that the freedom of naturæ rationabiles consisted in the possibilitas utriusque, and sought to understand the cosmos, as it is, from this freedom. To the naturæ rationabiles, which have different species and ordines, human souls also belong. The whole of them were created from all eternity; for God would not be almighty unless he had always produced everything764; in virtue of their origin they are equal, for their original community with the Logos permits of no diversity765; but, on the other hand, they have received different tasks and their development is consequently different. In so far as they are spirits subject to change, they are

757

From Hermas, Justin, and Athenagoras we learn how, in the 2nd century, both in the belief of uneducated lay-Christians and of the Apologists, Son, Spirit, Logos, and angels under certain circumstances shaded off into one another. To Clement, no doubt, Logos and Spirit are the only unchangeable beings besides God. But, inasmuch as there is a series which descends from God to men living in the flesh, there cannot fail to be elements of affinity between Logos and Spirit on the one hand and the highest angels on the other, all of whom indeed have the capacity and need of development. Hence they have certain names and predicates in common, and it frequently remains uncertain, especially as regards the theophanies in the Old Testament, whether it was a high angel that spoke, or the Son through the angel. See the full discussion in Zahn, Forschungen, III., p. 98 f. 758 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 5. 759 So also Clement, see Zahn, l.c. 760 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 5. 2. 761 It was of course created before the world, as it determines the course of the world. See Comm. in Matth. XV, 27, Lomm. III., p. 384 sq. 762 See Comm. in Joh. XIII. 25, Lomm. II., p. 45: we must not look on the human spirit as ὁμοούσιος with the divine one. The same had already been expressly taught by Clement. See Strom., II. 16. 74: ὁ Θεὸς οὐδεμίαν ἔχει πρὸς ἡμᾶς συσικὴν σχέσιν ὡς οἱ τῶν αἱρέσεων κτίσται θέλουσιν. Adumbr., p. 91 (ed. Zahn). This does not exclude God and souls having quodammodo one substance. 763 Such is the teaching of Clement and Origen. They repudiated the possession of any natural, essential goodness in the case of created spirits. If such lay in their essence, these spirits would be unchangeable. 764 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 10: “Quemadmodum pater non potest esse quis, si filius non sit, neque dominus quis esse potest sine possessione, sine servo, ita ne omnipotens quidem deus dici potest, si non sint, in quos exerceat potentatum, et deo ut omnipotens ostendatur deus, omnia subsistere necesse est.” (So the Hermogenes against whom Tertullian wrote had already argued). “Nam si quis est, qui velit vel sæcula aliqua vel spatia transisse, vel quodcunque aliud nominare vult, cum nondum facta essent, quæ facta sunt, sine dubio hoc ostendet, quod in illis sæculis vel spatiis omnipotens non erat deus et postmodum omnipotens factus est.” God would therefore, it is said in what follows, be subjected to a προκοπή, and thus be proved to be a finite being. III. 5. 3. 765 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 8.

222

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

burdened with a kind of bodily nature,766 for it is only the Deity that is without a body. The element of materiality is a necessary result of their finite nature, that is, of their being created; and this applies both to angels and human souls.767 Now Origen did not speculate at all as to how the spirit world might have developed in ideal fashion, a fact which it is exceedingly important to recognise; he knows nothing at all about an ideal development for all, and does not even view it as a possibility. The truth rather is that as soon as he mentions the naturæ rationabiles, he immediately proceeds to speak of their fall, their growth, and their diversities. He merely contemplates them in the given circumstances in which they are placed (see the exposition in περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 9. 2).

362

THEDOCTRINEOFTHEFALLANDITSCONSEQUENCES. All created spirits must develop. When they have done so, they attain perfection and make way for new dispensations and worlds.768 In the exercise of their freedom, however, disobedience, laxity, laziness, and failure make their appearance among them in an endless multiplicity of ways.769 The disciplining and purifying of these spirits was the purpose for which the material world was created by God.770 It is therefore a place of purification, ruled and harmoniously arranged by God’s wisdom.771 Each member of the world of spirits has received a different kind of material nature in proportion to his degree of removal from the Creator. The highest spirits, who have virtually held fast by that which is good, though they too stand in need of restitution, guide the world, are servants of God (ἄγγελοι), and have bodies of an exceedingly subtle kind in the form of a globe (stars). The spirits that have fallen very deeply (the spirits of men) are banished into material bodies. Those that have altogether turned against God have received very dark bodies, indescribably ugly, though not visible. Men therefore

766

Here, however, Origen is already thinking of the temporary wrong development, that is of growth. See περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 7. Created spirits are also of themselves immaterial, though indeed not in the sense that this can be said of God who can never attach anything material to himself. 767 Angels, ideas (see Phot. Biblioth. 109), and human souls are most closely connected together, both according to the theory of Clement and Origen and also to that of Pantænus before them (see Clem. eclog. 56, 57); and so it was taught that men become angels (Clem. Strom. VI. 13. 107). But the stars also, which are treated in great detail in περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 7, belong to the number of the angels. This is a genuinely Greek idea. The doctrine of the preëxistence of human souls was probably set forth by Clement in the Hypotyposes. The theory of the transmigration of souls was probably found there also (Phot. Biblioth. 109). In the Adumbrat., which has been preserved to us, the former doctrine is, however, contested and is not found in the Stromateis VI. 16. 1. sq. 768 Phot. Biblioth. 109: Κλήμης πολλοὺς πρὸ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ κόσμους τερατεύεται. This cannot be verified from the Strom. Orig., περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 3. 769 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 5 and the whole 3rd Book. The Fall is something that happened before time began. 770 The assumption of uncreated matter was decidedly rejected by Origen (περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 1, 2). On the other hand Clement is said to have taught it in the Hypotyposes (Phot., l.c.: ὕλην ἄχρονον δοξάζει); this cannot be noticed in the Strom.; in fact in VI. 16. 147 he vigorously contested the view of the uncreatedness of the world. He emphasised the agreement between Plato and Moses in the doctrine of creation (Strom. II. 16. 74 has nothing to do with this). According to Origen, matter has no qualities and may assume the most diverse peculiarities (see, e.g., c. Cels. III. 41). 771 This conception has given occasion to compare Origen’s system with Buddhism. Bigg. (p. 193) has very beautifully said: “Creation, as the word is commonly understood, was in Origen’s views not the beginning, but an intermediate phase in human history. Æons rolled away before this world was made; æons upon æons, days, weeks, months and years, sabbatical years, jubilee years of æons will run their course, before the end is attained. The one fixed point in this gigantic drama is the end, for this alone has been clearly revealed,” “God shall be all in all.” Bigg also rightly points out that Rom. VIII. and 1 Cor. XV. were for Origen the key to the solution of the problems presented by creation.

223

History of Dogma - Volume II

363

364

Adolf Harnack

are placed between the angels and demons, both of whom try to influence them. The moral struggle that man has to undergo within himself is made harder by the demons, but lightened by the angels,772 for these spiritual powers are at all times and places acting both upon the physical and the spiritual world. But everything is subject to the permission of the divine goodness and finally also to the guidance of divine providence, though the latter has created for itself a limit in freedom.773 Evil, however, and it is in this idea that Origen’s great optimism consists, cannot conquer in the end. As it is nothing eternal, so also it is at bottom nothing real; it is “nonexistent” (οὐκ ὄν) and “unreal” (ἀνυπόστατον).774 For this very reason the estrangement of the spirits from God must finally cease; even the devil, who, as far as his being is concerned, resulted from God’s will, cannot always remain a devil. The spirits must return to God, and this moment is also the end of the material world, which is merely an intermediate phase.775 According to this conception the doctrine of man, who in Origen’s view is no longer the sole aim of creation to the same extent as he is with the other Fathers,776 assumes the following form: The essence of man is formed by the reasonable soul, which has fallen from the world above. This is united with the body by means of the animal soul. Origen thus believes in a threefold nature of man. He does so in the first place, because Plato holds this theory, and Origen always embraced the most complicated view in matters of tradition, and secondly, because the rational soul can never in itself be the principle of action opposed to God, and yet something relatively spiritual must be cited as the cause of this action. It is true that we also find in Origen the view that the spirit in man has itself been cooled down into a soul, has been, as it were, transformed into a soul; but there is necessarily an ambiguity here, because on the one hand the spirit of man is said to have chosen a course opposed to God, and, on the other, that which is rational and free in man must be shown to be something remaining intact.777 Man’s struggle consists in the endeavour of the two factors forming 772

The popular idea of demons and angels was employed by Origen in the most comprehensive way, and dominates his whole view of the present course of the world. περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 2 and numerous passages in the Commentaries and Homilies, in which he approves the kindred views of the Greeks as well as of Hermas and Barnabas. The spirits ascend and descend; each man has his guardian spirit, and the superior spirits support the inferior (περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 6). Accordingly they are also to be reverenced (θεραπεύεσθαι); yet such reverence as belongs to a Gabriel, a Michael, etc., is far different from the adoration of God (c. Cels. VIII. 13). 773 Clement wrote a special work περὶ προνοίας (see Zahn, Forschungen III., p. 39 ff.), and treated at length of προνοία in the Strom.; see Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 1; de orat. 6 etc. Evil is also subject to divine guidance; see Clem., Strom. I. 17. 8187: IV. 12. 86 sq. Orig. Hom. in Num. XIV., Lomm. X., p. 163: “Nihil otiosum, nihil inane est apud deum, quia sive bono proposito hominis utitur ad bona sive malo ad necessaria.” Here and there, however, Origen has qualified the belief in Providence, after the genuine fashion of antiquity (see c. Cels. IV. 74). 774 Περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 9. 2: “Recedere a bono, non aliud est quam effici in malo. Ceterum namque est, malum esse bono carere. Ex quo accidit, ut in quanta mensura quis devolveretur a bono, in tantam mensuram malitiæ deveniret.” In the passage in Johann. II. 7, Lomm. I., p. 115, we find a closely reasoned exposition of evil as ἀνυπόστατον and an argument to the effect that τὰ πονηρά are — μὴ ὄντα. 775 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 5. 3: III. 6. The devil is the chief of the apostate angels (c. Cels. IV. 65). As a reasonable being he is a creature of God l.c., and in Joh. II. 7, Lomm., l.c.). 776 Origen defended the teleology culminating in man against Celsus’ attacks on it; but his assumption that the spirits of men are only a part of the universal spirit world is, as a matter of fact, quite akin to Celsus’ view. If we consider the plan of the work περὶ ἀρχῶν we easily see that to Origen humanity was merely an element in the cosmos. 777 The doctrine of man’s threefold constitution is also found in Clement. See Pædag. III. 1. 1; Strom V. 14. 94: VI. 16. 134. (quite in the manner of Plato). Origen, who has given evidence of it in all his main writings, sometimes calls the rational part spirit, sometimes ψυχὴ λογική, and at other times distinguishes two parts in the one soul. Of course he also professes to derive his

224

History of Dogma - Volume II

365

Adolf Harnack

his constitution to gain control of his sphere of action. If man conquers in this struggle he attains likeness to God; the image of God he bears beyond danger of loss in his indestructible, rational, and therefore immortal spirit.778 Victory, however, denotes nothing else than the subjugation of the instincts and passions.779 No doubt God affords help in the struggle, for nothing good is without God,780 but in such a way as not to interfere with freedom. According to this conception sin is a matter of necessity in the case of fallen spirits; all men are met with as sinners and are so, for they were already sinners.781 Sin is rooted in the whole earthly condition of men; it is the weakness and error of the spirit parted from its origin.782 The idea of freedom, indeed, is supposed to be a feature which always preserves the guilty character of sin; but in truth it becomes a mere appearance783 it does not avail against the constitution of man and the sinful habit propagated in human society.784 All must be sinners at first,785 for that is as much their destiny as is the doom of death which is a necessary consequence of man’s material nature.786

The Doctrine of Redemption and Restoration.

psychology from the Holy Scriptures. The chief peculiarity of his speculation consists in his assumption that the human spirit, as a fallen one, became as it were a soul, and can develop from that condition partly into a spirit as before and partly into the flesh (see περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 4. 1 sq.: II. 8. 1-5). By his doctrine of the preëxistence of souls Origen excluded both the creation and traducian hypotheses of the origin of the soul. 778 Clement (see Strom. II. 22. 131) gives the following as the opinion of some Christian teachers: τὸ μὲν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα εὐθέως κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν εἰληφέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τὸ καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν δὲ ὕστερον κατὰ τὴν πελείωσιν μέλλειν ἀπολαμβάνειν, Orig. c. Cels. IV. 30: ἐποίησε δ᾽ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν ἤδη. 779 This follows from the fundamental psychological view and is frequently emphasised. One must attain the σωφορσύνη. 780 This is emphasised throughout. The goodness of God is shown first in his having given the creature reason and freedom, and secondly in acts of assistance, which, however, do not endanger freedom. Clem., Strom. VI. 12. 96: ἡμᾶς ἐξ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι. 781 See above, p. 344, and p. 361, note 5. Origen continually emphasised the universality of sin in the strongest expressions: c. Cels. III. 61-66 VII. 50; Clem., Pæd. III. 12. 93: τὸ ἐξαμαρτάνειν πᾶσιν ἔμφυτον. 782 See Clem., Strom. VII. 16. 101: μυρίων γοῦν ὄντων κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ἅ πράσσουσιν ἄνθρωποι σχεδὸν δύο εἰσὶν ἀρχαὶ πάσης ἁμαρτίας, ἄγνοια καὶ ἀσθένεια, ἄμφω δὲ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν, τῶν μήτε ἐθελόντων μανθάνειν μήτε αὖ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας κρατεῖν. Two remedies correspond to this (102): ἡ γνῶσις τε καὶ ἡ τῆς ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν μαρτυρίας ἐναργὴς ἀπόδειξις and ἡ κατὰ λὸγον ἄσκησις ἐκ πίστεώς τε καὶ φόβου παιδαγωγουμένη, or otherwise expressed: ἡ θεωρία ἡ ἐπιστημονική and ἡ πρᾶξις, which lead to perfect love. 783 Freedom is not prejudiced by the idea of election that is found here and there, for this idea is not worked out. In Clem., Strom. VI. 9. 76, it is said of the friend of God, the true Gnostic, that God has destined (προώρισεν) him to sonship before the foundation of the world. See VII. 17. 107. 784 C. Cels. III. 69. 785 It is both true that men have the same freedom as Adam and that they have the same evil instincts. Moreover, Origen conceived the story of Adam symbolically. See c. Cels. IV. 40; περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 16; in Levit. hom. VI. 2. In his later writings, after he had met with the practice of child baptism in Cæsarea and prevailed on himself to regard it as apostolic, he also assumed the existence of a sort of hereditary sin orginating with Adam, and added it to his idea of the preëxisting Fall. Like Augustine after him, he also supposed that there was an inherent pollution in sexual union; see in Rom. V. 9: VII. 4; in Lev. hom. VIII. 3; in Num. hom. 2 (Bigg, p. 202 f.). 786 Nevertheless Origen assumes that some souls are invested with flesh, not for their own sins, but in order to be of use to others. See in Job. XIII, 43 ad fin II. 24, 25; in Matth. XII. 30.

225

History of Dogma - Volume II

366

367

368

Adolf Harnack

In the view of Clement and Origen the proposition: “God wishes us to be saved by means of ourselves” (ὁ Θεὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι) is quite as rue as the other statement that no spirit can be saved without entering into fellowship with the Logos and submitting to his instruction.787 They moreover hold that the Logos, after passing through his various stages of revealing activity (law of nature, Mosaic law), disclosed himself in the Gospel in a manner complete and accessible to all, so that this revelation imparts redemption and eternal happiness to all men, however different their capacities may be. Finally, it is assumed that not only men but all spiritual creatures, from the radiant spirits of heaven down to the dusky demons, have the capacity and need of redemption; while for the highest stage, the “spiritual Church”, there is an eternal Gospel which is related to the written one as the latter is to the law. This eternal Gospel is the first complete revelation of God’s highest intentions, and lies hidden in the Holy Scriptures.788 These elements compose Origen’s doctrine of revelation in general and of Christ in particular.789 They presuppose the sighing of the creature and the great struggle which is more especially carried on upon earth, within the human breast, by the angels and demons, virtues and vices, knowledge and passion, that dispute the possession of man. Man must conquer and yet he cannot do so without help. But help has never been wanting. The Logos has been revealing himself from the beginning. Origen’s teaching concerning the preparatory history of redemption is founded on the doctrines of the Apologists; but with him everything takes a more vivid form, and influences on the part of the heretical Gnosis are also not lacking. Pure spirits, whom no fault of their own had caused to be invested with bodies, namely, the prophets, were sent to men by the Logos in order to support the struggling and to increase knowledge. To prepare the way of salvation the Logos chose for himself a whole people, and he revealed himself among all men. But all these undertakings did not yet lead to the goal. The Logos himself was obliged to appear and lead men back. But by reason of the diverse nature of the spirits, and especially of men, the redeeming work of the Logos that appeared could not fail to be a complicated one. In the case of some he had really to show them the victory over the demons and sin, a view which beyond dispute is derived from that of Valentinus. He had, as the “Godman,” to make a sacrifice which represented the expiation of sin, he had to pay a ransom which put an end to the devil’s sovereignty over men’s souls, and in short he had to bring a redemption visible and intelligible to all.790 To the rest, however, as divine teacher and hierophant he had to reveal the depths of knowledge, and to impart in this very process a new principle of life, so that they might now partake of his life and themselves become divine through being interwoven 787

Origen again and again strongly urged the necessity of divine grace. See on this point Bigg, pp. 207 ff., 223 f. Origen is the father of Joachim and all spiritualists. 789 See Knittel, Orig. Lehre von der Menschwerdung (Tübinger Theologische Quartalschrift, 1872). Ramers, Orig. Lehre von der Auferstehung des Fleisches, 1851. Schultz, Gottheit Christi, pp. 51-62. 790 With regard to this point we find the same explanation in Origen as in Irenæus and Tertullian, and also among the Valentinians, in so far as the latter describe the redemption necessary for the Psychici. Only, in this instance also, everything is more copious in his case, because he availed himself of the Holy Scriptures still more than these did, and because he left out no popular conception that seemed to have any moral value. Accordingly he propounded views as to the value of salvation and as to the significance of Christ’s death on the cross, with a variety and detail rivalled by no theologian before him. He was, as Bigg (p. 209 ff.) has rightly noticed, the first Church theologian after Paul’s time that gave a detailed theology of sacrifices. We may mention here the most important of his views. (1) The death on the cross along with the resurrection is to be considered as a real, recognisable victory over the demons, inasmuch as Christ (Col. II. 14) exposed the weakness of his enemies (a very frequent aspect of the matter). (2) The death on the cross is to be considered as an expiation offered to God. Here Origen argued that all sins require expiation, and, conversely, that all innocent blood has a greater or less importance according to the value of him 788

226

History of Dogma - Volume II

369

Adolf Harnack

with the divine essence. Here, as in the former case, restoration to fellowship with God is the goal; but, as in the lower stage, this restoration is effected through faith and sure conviction of the reality of a historical fact — namely, the redeeming death of Christ, — so, in the higher stage, it is accomplished through knowledge and love, which, soaring upward beyond the Crucified One, grasp the eternal essence of the Logos, revealed to us through his teaching in the eternal Gospel.791 What the Gnostics merely represented as a more or less valuable appearance — namely, the historical work of Christ — was to Origen no appearance but truth. But he did not view it as the truth, and in this he agrees with the Gnostics, but as a truth, beyond which lies a higher. That historical work of Christ was a reality; it is also indispensable for men of more limited endowments, and not a matter of indifference to the perfect; but the latter no longer require it for their personal life. Here also Origen again contrived to reconcile contradictions and thus acknowledged, outdid, reconciled, and united both the theses of the Gnostics and those of orthodox Christians. The object and goal of redemption are the same for all, namely, the restoration of the created spirit to God and participation in the divine life. In so far as history is a struggle between spirits and demons, the

who gives up his life. (3) In accordance with this the death of Christ has also a vicarious signification (see with regard to both these conceptions the treatise Exhort. ad martyr., as well as c. Cels. VIII. 17: I. 31; in Rom. t. III. 7, 8, Lomm. VI.; pp. 196-216 etc.). (4) The death of Christ is to be considered as a ransom paid to the devil. This view must have been widely diffused in Origen’s time; it readily suggested itself to the popular idea and was further supported by Marcionite theses. It was also accepted by Origen who united it with the notion of a deception practised on the devil, a conception first found among the Basilidians. By his successful temptation the devil acquired a right over men. This right cannot be destroyed, but only bought off. God offers the devil Christ’s soul in exchange for the souls of men. This proposal of exchange was, however, insincere, as God knew that the devil could not keep hold of Christ’s soul, because a sinless soul could not but cause him torture. The devil agreed to the bargain and was duped. Christ did not fall into the power of death and the devil, but overcame both. This theory, which Origen propounded in somewhat different fashion in different places (see Exhort. ad martyr. 12; in Matth. t. XVI. 8, Lomm. IV., p. 27; t. XII. 28, Lomm. III., p. 175; t. XIII. 8, 9, Lomm. III., pp. 224-229; in Rom. II. 13, Lomm. VI., p. 139 sq. etc.), shows in a specially clear way the conservative method of this theologian, who would not positively abandon any idea. No doubt it shows at the same time how uncertain Origen was as to the applicability of popular conceptions when he was dealing with the sphere of the Psychici. We must here remember the ancient idea that we are not bound to sincerity towards our enemies. (5) Christ, the God who became flesh, is to be considered as high priest and mediator between God and man (see de Orat. 10, 15). All the above-mentioned conceptions of Christ’s work were, moreover, worked out by Origen in such a way that his humanity and divinity are necessary inferences from them. In this case also he is characterised by the same mode of thought as Irenæus. Finally, let us remember that Origen adhered as strongly as ever to the proof from prophecy, and that he also, in not a few instances, regarded the phrase, “it is written”, as a sufficient court of appeal (see, for example, c. Cels. II. 37). Yet, on the other hand, behind all this he has a method of viewing things which considerably weakens the significance of miracles and prophecies. In general it must be said that Origen helped to drag into the Church a great many ancient (heathen) ideas about expiation and redemption, inasmuch as he everywhere found some Bible passage or other with which he associated them. While he rejected polytheism and gave little countenance to people who declared: εὐσεβέστεροί ἐσμεν καὶ Θεὸν καὶ τὰ ἄγάλματα σέβοντες (Clemens Rom., Hom. XI. 12), he had for all that a principal share in introducing the apparatus of polytheism into the Church (see also the way in which he strengthened angel and hero worship) 791 See above, p. 342, note 1, on the idea that Christ, the Crucified One, is of no importance to the perfect. Only the teacher is of account in this case. To Clement and Origen, however, teacher and mystagogue are as closely connected as they are to most Gnostics. Christianity is μάθησις and μυσταγωγία, and it is the one because it is the other. But in all stages Christianity has ultimately the same object, namely, to effect a reconciliation with God, and deify man. See c. Cels. III. 28: Ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τὴν καταβᾶσαν εἰς ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν καὶ εἰς ἀνθρωπίνας περιστάσεις δύναμιν, καὶ ἔναλαβοῦσαν ψυχὴν καὶ σ ἀνθρῶπινον, μα ἑώρων ἐκ τοῦ πιστεόεσθαι μετὰ τῶν θειοτέρων συμβαλλομένην εἰς σωτηρίαν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν· ὁρῶσιν, ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου ἤρξατο θεία καὶ ἀνθρωπίνη συνυφαίνεσθαι φύσις· ἴν᾽ ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη τῇ πρὸς τὸ θειότερον κοινωνίᾳ γένηται θεία οὐκ ἐν μόνῳ τῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς μετὰ τοõ πιστεύειν ἀναλαμβάνουσι βίον, ὅν Ἰησοῦς ἐδίδαξενα.

227

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

death of Christ on the cross is the turning-point of history, and its effects extend even into heaven and hell.792

370

On the basis of this conception of redemption Origen developed his idea of Christ. Inasmuch as he recognised Christ as the Redeemer, this Christ, the God-man, could not but be as many-sided as redemption is. Only through that masterly art of reconciling contradictions, and by the aid of that fantastic idea which conceives one real being as dwelling in another, could there be any apparent success in the attempt to depict a homogeneous person who in truth is no longer a person, but the symbol of the various redemptions. That such an acute thinker, however, did not shrink from the monstrosity his speculation produced is ultimately to be accounted for by the fact that this very speculation afforded him the means of nullifying all the utterances about Christ and falling back on the idea of the divine teacher as being the highest one. The whole “humanity” of the Redeemer together with its history finally disappears from the eyes of the perfect one. What remains is the principle, the divine Reason, which became known and recognisable through Christ. The perfect one, and this remark also applies to Clement’s perfect Gnostic, thus knows no “Christology”, but only an indwelling of the Logos in Jesus Christ, with which the indwellings of this same Logos in men began. To the Gnostic the question of the divinity of Christ is of as little importance as that of the humanity. The former is no question, because speculation, starting above and proceeding downwards, is already acquainted with the Logos and knows that he has become completely comprehensible in Christ; the latter is no question, because the humanity is a matter of indifference, being the form in which the Logos made himself recognisable. But to the Christian who is not yet perfect the divinity as well as the humanity of Christ is a problem, and it is the duty of the perfect one to solve and explain it, and to guard this solution against errors on all sides. To Origen, however, the errors are already Gnostic Docetism on the one hand, and the “Ebionite” view on the other.793 His doctrine was accordingly as follows: As a pure unchangeable spirit, the Logos could not unite with matter, because this as μὴ ὄν would have depotentiated him. A medium was required. The Logos did not unite with the body, but with a soul, and only through the soul with the body. This soul was a pure one; it was a created spirit that had never fallen from God, but always remained in faithful obedience to him, and that had chosen to become a soul in order to serve the purposes of redemption. This soul then was always devoted to the Logos from the first and had never renounced fellowship with him. It was selected by the Logos for the purpose of incarnation and that because

792

From this also we can very clearly understand Origen’s aversion to the early Christian eschatology. In his view the demons are already overcome by the work of Christ. We need only point out that this conception must have exercised a important influence on his frame of mind and on politics. 793 Clement still advocated docetic views without reservation. Photius (Biblioth. 109) reproached him with these (μὴ σαρκωθῆναι τὸν λόγον ἀλλὰ δόξαι), and they may be proved from the Adumbrat, p. 87 (ed Zahn): “fertur in traditionibus — namely, in the Acta of Lucius — quoniam Iohannes ipsum corpus (Christi), quod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui præbuisse discipuli,” and likewise from Strom. VI. 9. 71 and III. 7. 59. Clement’s repudiation’ of the Docetists in VII. 17. 108 does not affect the case, and the fact that he here and there plainly called Jesus a man, and spoke of his flesh (Pæd. II. 2. 32: Protrept. X. 110) matters just as little. This teacher simply continued to follow the old undisguised Docetism which only admitted the apparent reality of Christ’s body. Clement expressly declared that Jesus knew neither pain, nor sorrow, nor emotions, and only took food in order to refute the Docetists (Strom. VI. 9. 71). As compared with this, Docetism in Origen’s case appears throughout in a weakened form; see Bigg, p. 191.

228

History of Dogma - Volume II

371

Adolf Harnack

of its moral dignity. The Logos became united with it in the closest way; but this connection, though it is to be viewed as a mysteriously real union, continues to remain perfect only because of the unceasing effort of will by which the soul clings to the Logos. Thus, then, no intermixture has taken place. On the contrary the Logos preserves his impassibility, and it is only the soul that hungers and thirsts, struggles and suffers. In this, too, it appears as a real human soul, and in the same way the body is sinless and unpolluted, as being derived from a virgin; but yet it is a human one. This humanity of the body, however, does not exclude its capacity of assuming all possible qualities the Logos wishes to give it; for matter of itself possesses no qualities. The Logos was able at any moment to give his body the form it required, in order to make the proper impression on the various sorts of men. Moreover, he was not enclosed in the soul and body of Christ; on the contrary he acted everywhere as before and united himself, as formerly, with all the souls that opened themselves to him. But with none did the union become so close as with the soul, and consequently also with the body of Jesus. During his earthly life the Logos glorified and deified his soul by degrees and the latter acted in the same way on his body. Origen contrived to arrange the different functions and predicates of the incarnate Logos in such a way that they formed a series of stages which the believer becomes successively acquainted with as he advances in knowledge. But everything is most closely united together in Christ. This union (κοινωνία, ἕνωσις, ἀνακράσις) was so intimate that Holy Writ has named the created man, Jesus, the Son of God; and on the other hand has called the Son of God the Son of Man. After the resurrection and ascension the whole man Jesus appears transformed into a spirit, is completely received into the Godhead, and is thus identical with the Logos.794 In this conception one may be tempted to point out all possible “heresies”: — the conception of Jesus as a heavenly man — but all men are heavenly; — the Adoptianist (“Ebionite”)

372

794

See the full exposition in Thomasius, Origenes, p. 203 ff. The principal passages referring to the soul of Jesus are de princip. II. 6: IV. 31; c. Cels. II. 9. 20-25. Socrates (H. E. III. 7) says that the conviction as to Jesus having a human soul was founded on a μυστικὴ παράδοσις of the Church, and was not first broached by Origen. The special problem of conceiving Christ as a real θεάνθρωπος in contradistinction to all the men who only possess the presence of the Logos within them in proportion to their merits, was precisely formulated by Origen on many occasions. See περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 29 sq. The full divine nature existed in Christ and yet, as before, the Logos operate! wherever he wished (l. c., 30): “non ita sentiendum est, quod omnis divinitatis eius maiestas intra brevissimi corporis claustra conclusa est, ita ut omne verbum dei et sapientia eius ac substantialis veritas ac vita vel a patre divulsa sit vel intra corporis eius coercita et conscripta brevitatem nec usquam præterea putetur operata; sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis debet esse confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus a paterna substantia, quæ ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio.” On the perfect ethical union of Jesus’ soul with the Logos see περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 6. 3: “anima Iesu ab initio creaturæ et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhærens et tota totum recipiens atque in eius lucem splendoremque ipsa cedens facta est cum ipso principaliter unus spiritus;” II. 6. 5: “anima Christi ita elegit diligere iustitiam, ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter ei atque inseparabiliter inhæreret, ita ut propositi firmitas et affectus immensitas et dilectionis inexstinguibilis calor omnem sensum conversionis atque immutationis abscinderet, et quod in arbitrio erat positum, longi usus affectu iam versum sit in naturam.” The sinlessness of this soul thus became transformed from a fact into a necessity, and the real God-man arose, in whom divinity and humanity are no longer separated. The latter lies in the former as iron in the fire II. 6. 6. As the metal capax est frigoris et caloris so the soul is capable of deification. “Omne quod agit, quod sentit, quod intelligit, deus est,” “nec convertibilis aut mutabilis dici potest” (l.c.). “Dilectionis merito anima Christi cum verbo dei Christus efficitur.” (II. 6. 4). Τίς μᾶλλον τῆς Ἰησοῦ ψυχῆς ἢ κἂν παραπλησίως κακόλληται τῷ κυρίῳ; ὕπερ εἰ οὕτως ἔχει οὐκ εἰσὶ δύο ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πρὸς τὸν πάσης κτίσεως πρωτότοκον Θεὸν λόγον (c. Cels. VI. 47). The metaphysical foundation of the union is set forth in περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 6. 2: “Substantia animæ inter deum carnemque mediante — non enim possibile erat dei naturam corpori sine mediatore miscere — nascitur deus homo, illa substantia media exsistente, cui utique colitra naturam non erat corpus assumere. Sed neque rursus anima illa, utpote substantia rationabilis, contra naturam habuit, capere deum.” Even during his historical life the body of Christ was ever more and more glorified, acquired therefore wonderful powers, and appeared

229

History of Dogma - Volume II

373

374

Adolf Harnack

Christology — but the Logos as a person stands behind it; — the conception of two Logoi, a personal and an impersonal; the Gnostic separation of Jesus and Christ; and Docetism. As a matter of fact Origen united all these ideas, but modified the whole of them in such a way that they no longer seem, and to some extent are not, what they turn out to be when subjected to the slightest logical analysis. This structure is so constituted that not a stone of it admits of being a hair’s-breadth broader or narrower. There is only one conception that has been absolutely unemployed by Origen, that is, the modalistic view. Origen is the great opponent of Sabellianism, a theory which in its simplicity frequently elicited from him words of pity; otherwise he made use of all the ideas about Christ that had been formed in the course of two hundred years. This becomes more and more manifest the more we penetrate into the details of this Christology. We cannot, however, attribute to Origen a doctrine of two natures, but rather the notion of two subjects that become gradually amalgamated with each other, although the expression “two natures” is not quite foreign to Origen.795 The Logos retains his human nature eternally,796 but only in the same sense in which we preserve our nature after the resurrection. The significance which this Christological attempt possessed for its time consists first in its complexity, secondly in the energetic endeavour to give an adequate conception of Christ’s humanity, that is, of the moral freedom pertaining to him as a creature. This effort was indeed obliged to content itself with a meagre result: but we are only justified in measuring Origen’s Christology by that of the Valentinians and Basilidians, that is, by the scientific one that had preceded it. The most important advance lies in the fact that Origen set forth a scientific Christology in which he was able to find so much scope for the humanity of Christ. Whilst within the framework of the scientific Christologies this humanity had hitherto been conceived as something indifferent or merely apparent, Origen made the first attempt to incorporate it with the various speculations without prejudice to the Logos, God in nature and person. No Greek philosopher probably heeded what Irenæus set forth respecting Christ as the second Adam, the recapitulatur generis humani; whereas Origen’s speculation could not be overlooked. In this case the Gnosis really adopted the idea of the incarnation, and at the same time tried to demonstrate the conception of the Godman from the notions of unity of will and love. In the treatise against Celsus, moreover, Origen went the reverse way to work and undertook to show, and this not merely by help of the proof from prophecy, that the predicate deity

differently to men according to their several capacities (that is a Valentinian idea, see Exc. ex Theod.7); cf. c. Cels. I. 32-38: II. 23, 64: IV. 15 sq.: V. 8, 9, 23. All this is summarised in III. 41: “Ον μὲν νομίζομαν καὶ πεπείσμεθα ἀρχῆθεν εἶναι Θεοῦ καὶ υἱὸν Θεοῦ, οὗτος ὁ αὐτολόγος ἐστὶ καὶ ἡ αὐτοσοφία καὶ ἡ αὐτοαλήθεια· τὸ δὲ θνητὸν αὐτοῦ σῶμα καὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἐν αὐῷ ψυχὴν τῇ πρὸς ἐκεῖνον οὐ μόνον κοινωνίᾳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑνώσει καὶ ἀνακράσει, τὰ μέγιστά φαμεν προσειληφέναι καὶ τῆς ἐκείνου θεότητος κακοινωνηκότα εἰς Θεὸν μεταβεβηκέναι Origen then continues and appeals to the philosophical doctrine that matter has no qualities and can assume all the qualities which the Creator wishes to give it. Then follows the conclusion: εἰ ὑγιῆ τὰ τοιαῦτα, τί θαυμαστόν, τὴν ποίοτητα τοῦ θνητοῦ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν σώματος προνοίᾳ Θεοῦ βουληθέντος μεταβαλεῖν εἰς αιθέριον καὶ θείαν ποιότητα; The man is now the same as the Logos. See in Joh. XXXII. 17, Lomm. II., p. 461 sq; Hom. in Jerem. XV. 6, Lomm. XV., p. 288: εἰ καὶ ἦν ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐ δαμῶς ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος. 795 In c. Cels. III. 28, Origen spoke of an intermingling of the divine and human natures, commencing in Christ (see page 368, note 1). See I. 66 fin.; IV. 15, where any ἀλλάττεσθαι καὶ μεταπλάττεσθαι of the Logos is decidedly rejected; for the Logos does not suffer at all. In Origen’s case we may speak of a communicatio ideomatum (see p. 190 f.). 796 In opposition to Redepenning.

230

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

applied to the historical Christ.797 But Origen’s conception of Christ’s person as a model (for the Gnostic) and his repudiation of all magical theories of redemption ultimately explain why he did not, like Tertullian, set forth a doctrine of two natures, but sought to show that in Christ’s case a human subject with his will and feelings became completely merged in the Deity. No doubt he can say that the union of the divine and human natures had its beginning in Christ, but here he virtually means that this beginning is continued in the sense of souls imitating the example of Christ. What is called the real redemption supposed to be given in him is certainly mediated in the Psychic through his work, but the person of Christ which cannot be known to any but the perfect man is by no means identified with that real redemption, but appears as a free moral personality, inwardly blended with the Deity, a personality which cannot mechanically transfer the content of its essence, though it can indeed exercise the strongest impression on mind and heart. To Origen the highest value of Christ’s person lies in the fact that the Deity has here condescended to reveal to us the whole fulness of his essence, in the person of a man, as well as in the fact that a man is given to us who shows that the human spirit is capable of becoming entirely God’s. At bottom there is nothing obscure and mystical here; the whole process takes place in the will and in the feelings through knowledge.798 375

This is sufficient to settle the nature of what is called personal attainment of salvation. Freedom precedes and supporting grace follows. As in Christ’s case his human soul gradually united itself with the Logos in proportion as it voluntarily subjected its will to God, so also every man receives grace according to his progress. Though Clement and Origen did not yet recommend actual exercises according to definite rules, their description of the gradations by which the soul rises to God already resembles that of the Neoplatonists, except that they decidedly begin with faith as the first stage. Faith is the first step and is our own work.799 Then follows the religious contemplation of visible things, and from this the soul advances, as on the steps of a ladder, to the contemplation of the substantiæ rationabiles, the Logos, the knowable essence of God, and the whole fulness of the Deity.800 She retraces her steps upwards along the path she formerly passed over as a fallen spirit. But, when left to her own resources, she herself is everywhere weak and powerless; she requires

797

This idea is found in many passages, especial in Book III., c. 22-43, where Origen, in opposition to the fables about deification, sought to prove that Christ is divine because he realised the aim of founding a holy community in humanity. See, besides, the remarkable statement in III. 38 init. 798 A very remarkable distinction between the divine and human element in Christ is found in Clement Pæd. I. 3. 7: πάντα ὀνίνησιν ὁ κύριος καὶ πάντα ὠφελεῖ καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὡς Θεός, τὰ μὲν ἁμαρτήματα ὡς Θεὸς ἀφιείς, εἰς δί τὸ μὴ ἐξαμαρτάνειν παιδαγωγῶν ὡς ἄνθρωπος.. 799 “Fides in nobis; mensura fidei causa accipiendarum gratiarum” is the fundamental idea of Clement and Origen (as of Justin); “voluntas humana præcedit”. In Ezech. hom. I. c. 11: “In tua potestate positum est, ut sis pales vel frumentum”. But all growth in faith must depend on divine help. See Orig. in Matth. series 69, Lomm. IV., p. 372: “Fidem habenti, quæ est ex nobis, dabitur gratia fidei quæ est per spiritum fidei, et abundabit; et quidquid habuerit quis ex naturali creatione, cum exercuerit illud, accipit id ipsum et ex gratia dei, ut abundet et firmior sit in eo ipso quod habet”; in Rom. IV. 5, Lomm. VI., p. 258 sq.; in Rom. IX. 3, Lomm. VII., p. 300 sq. The fundamental idea remains: ὁ Θεὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι. 800 This is frequent in Clement; see Orig. c. Cels. VII. 46.

231

History of Dogma - Volume II

376

377

Adolf Harnack

at every stage the divine grace, that is, enlightenment.801 Thus a union of grace and freedom takes place within the sphere of the latter, till the “contemplative life” is reached, that joyous ascetic contemplativeness, in which the Logos is the friend, associate, and bridegroom of the soul, which now, having become a pure spirit, and being herself deified, clings in love to the Deity.802 In this view the thought of regeneration in the sense of a fundamental renewal of the Ego has no place;803 still baptism is designated the bath of regeneration. Moreover, in connection with the consideration of main Biblical thoughts (God as love, God as the Father, Regeneration, Adoption, etc.) we find in both Clement and Origen passages which, free from the trammels of the system, reproduce and set forth the preaching of the Gospel in a surprisingly appropriate way.804 It is evident that in Origen’s view there can be no visible means of grace; but it likewise follows from his whole way of thinking that the symbols attending the enlightening operation of grace are not a matter of indifference to the Christian Gnostic, whilst to the common man they are indispensable.805 In the same way he brought into play the system of numerous mediators and intercessors with God, viz., angels and dead and living saints, and counselled an appeal to them. In this respect he preserved a heathen custom. Moreover, Origen regards Christ as playing an important part in prayer, particularly as mediator and high priest. On prayer to Christ he expressed himself with great reserve. Origen’s eschatology occupies a middle position between that of Irenæus and the theory of the Valentinian Gnostics, but is more akin to the latter view. Whilst, according to Irenæus, Christ reunites and glorifies all that had been severed, though in such a way that there is still a remnant eternally damned; and, according to Valentinus, Christ separates what is illegitimately united and saves the spirits alone, Origen believes that all spirits will be finally rescued and glorified, each in the form of its individual life, in order to serve a new epoch of the world when sensuous matter disappears of itself. Here he rejects all sensuous eschatological expectations.806 He accepted the formula, “resurrection of the flesh”, only because it was contained in the doctrine of the Church; but, on the strength of 1. Cor. XV. 44, he interpreted it as the rising of a “corpus spiritale”, which will lack all material attributes and even all the members that have sensuous functions, and which

801

See Clem., Strom. V. 1. 7: χάριτι σωζόμεθα, οὐκ ἄνευ μέντοι τῶν καλῶν ἔργων. VII. 7. 48: V. 12. 82, 13. 83: εἴτε τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν αὐτεξούσιον εἰς γνῶσιν ἀφικόμενον τἀγαθοῦ σκιρτᾷ τε καὶ πηδᾷ ἁπὲρ τὰ ἐσκαμμένα, πλὴν οὐ χάριτος ἄνευ τῆς ἐξαιρέτου πτεροῦταί τε καὶ ἀνίσταται καὶ ἄνω τῶν ὑπερκειμένων αἴρεται ἡ ψυχή; The amalgamation of freedom and grace. Quis div. salv. 21. Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 2. 2: In bonis rebus humanum propositum solum per se ipsum imperfectum est ad consummationem boni, adiutorio namque divino ad perfecta quæque perducitur. III. 2. 5, 1. 18; Selecta in Ps. 4, Lomm. XI., p. 450: τὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ ἀγαθεν μικτόν ἐστιν ἐκ τε τῆς προαιρέσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς συμπνεούσης θείας δυνάμεως τῷ τά άλλιστα προελομένῳ. The support of grace is invariably conceived as enliglitenment; but this enlightenment enables it to act on the whole life. For a more detailed account see Landerer in the Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, Vol. II., Part 3, p. 500 ff., and Wörter, Die christliche Lehre von Gnade und Freiheit bis auf Augustin, 1860. 802 This goal was much more clearly described by Clement than by Origen; but it was the latter who, in his commentary on the Song of Solomon, gave currency to the image of the soul as the bride of the Logos. Bigg (p. 188 f.): “Origen, the first pioneer in so many fields of Christian thought, the father in one of his many aspects of the English Latitudinarians, became also the spiritual ancestor of Bernard, the Victorines, and the author of the “De imitatione”, of Tauler and Molinos and Madame de Guyon.” 803 See Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte I., p. 467. 804 See e.g., Clem. Quis dives salv. 37 and especially Pædag. I. 6. 25-32; Orig. de orat. 22 sq. — the interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer. This exegesis begins with the words: “It would be worth while to examine more carefully whether the so-called Old Testament anywhere contains a prayer in which God is called Father by anyone; for till now we have found none in spite of all our seeking . . . Constant and unchangeable sonship is first given in the new covenant.” 805 See above, p. 339 f. 806 See περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 11.

232

History of Dogma - Volume II

378

Adolf Harnack

will beam with radiant light like the angels and stars.807 Rejecting the doctrine that souls sleep,808 Origen assumed that the souls of the departed immediately enter Paradise,809 and that souls not yet purified pass into a state of punishment, a penal fire, which, however, like the whole world, is to be conceived as a place of purification.810 In this way also Origen contrived to reconcile his position with the Church doctrines of the judgment and the punishments in hell; but, like Clement, he viewed the purifying fire as a temporary and figurative one; it consists in the torments of conscience.811 In the end all the spirits in heaven and earth, nay, even the demons, are purified and brought back to God by the Logos-Christ,812 after they have ascended from stage to stage through seven heavens.813 Hence Origen treated this doctrine as an esoteric one: “for the common man it is sufficient to know that the sinner is punished.”814 This system overthrew those of the Gnostics, attracted Greek philosophers, and justified ecclesiastical Christianity. If one undertook to subject it to a new process of sublimation from the standpoint given in the “contemplative life”, little else would be left than the unchangeable spirit, the created spirit, and the ethic. But no one is justified in subjecting it to this process.815 The method according to which Origen preserved whatever appeared valuable in the content of tradition is no less significant than his system of ethics and the great principle of viewing everything created in a relative sense. Supposing minds of a radical cast, to have existed at the close of the history of ancient civilisation, what would have been left to us? The fact of a strong and undivided religious interest attaching itself to the traditions of the philosophers and of the two Testaments was the condition — to use Origen’s own language — that enabled a new world of spirits to arise after the old one had finished its course.

379

During the following century Origen’s theology at first acted in its entirety. But it likewise attained this position of influence, because some important propositions could be detached from their original connection and fitted into a new one. It is one of the peculiarities of this ecclesiastical philosophy of religion that the most of its formulæ could be interpreted and employed in utramque partem. The several propositions could be made to serve very different purposes not only by being halved, but also by being grouped. With this the relative unity that distinguishes the system no doubt vanished; but how many are there who strive after unity and completeness in their theory of the world? Above all, however, there was something else that necessarily vanished, as soon as

807

See περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 10. 1-3. Origen wrote a treatise on the resurrection, which, however, has not come down to us, because it was very soon accounted heretical. We see from c. Cels. V. 14-24 the difficulties he felt about the Church doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh. 808 See Eusebius, H. E. VI. 37. 809 Orig., Hom. II. in Reg. I., Lomm. XI., p. 317 sq. 810 C. Cels. V. 15: VI. 26; in Lc. Hom. XIV., Lomm. V., p. 136: "Ego puto, quod et post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento eluente nos atque purgante". Clem., Strom. VII. 6. 34: φαμὲν δ᾽ ἡμεῖς ἁγιάζειν τὸ πῦρ, οὐ τὰ κρέα, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἁμαρτωλοὺς ψυχάς, πῦρ οὐ τὸ παμφάγον καὶ βάναυσον, ἀλλὰ τὸ φρόνιμον λέγοντες (cf. Heraclitus and the Stoa), τὸ διικνούμενον διὰ ψυχῆς τῆς διερχομένης τὸ πῦρ. For Origen cf. Bigg, p. 229 ff. There is another and intermediate stage between the punishments in hell and regnum dei. 811 See περὶ ἀρχ. II. 10. 4-7; c. Cels. l.c. 812 See περὶ ἀρχ. I. 6. 1-4: III. 6. 1-8; c . Cels. VI. 26. 813 On the seven heavens in Clem. see Strom. V. 11. 77 and other passages. Origen does not mention them, so far as I know. 814 c. Cels. l.c. 815 We would be more justified in trying this with Clement.

233

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

people meddled with the individual propositions, and enlarged or abridged them. We mean the frame of mind which produced them, that wonderful unity between the relative view of things and the absolute estimate of the highest good attainable by the free spirit that is certain of its God. But a time came, nay, had already come, when a sense of proportion and relation was no longer to be found.

380

In the East the history of dogma and of the Church during the succeeding centuries is the history of Origen’s philosophy. Arians and orthodox, critics and mystics, priests who overcame the world and monks who shunned it but were eager for knowledge816 could appeal to this system and did not fail to do so. But, in the main problem that Origen set for the Church in this religious philosophy of his, we find a recurrence of that propounded by the so-called Gnosticism two generations earlier. He solved it by producing a system which reconciled the faith of the Church with Greek philosophy; and he dealt Gnosticism its death-blow. This solution, however, was by no means intended as the doctrine of the Church, since indeed it was rather based on the distinction between Church belief and theology, and consequently on the distinction between the common man and the theologian. But such a distinction was not permanently tenable in a Church that had to preserve its strength by the unity and finality of a revealed faith, and no longer tolerated fresh changes in the interpretation of its possession. Hence a further compromise was necessary. The Greek philosophy, or speculation, did not attain real and permanent recognition within the Church till a new accommodation, capable of being accounted both Pistis and Gnosis, was found between what Origen looked on as Church belief and what he regarded as Gnosis. In the endeavours of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus were already found hesitating, nay, we may almost say naïve, attempts at such an accommodation; but ecclesiastical traditionalism was unable to attain complete clearness as to its own position till it was confronted with a philosophy of religion that was no longer heathen or Gnostic, but had an ecclesiastical colouring. But, with this prospect, we have already crossed the border of the third century. At its beginning there were but few theologians in Christendom who were acquainted with speculation, even in its fragmentary form. In the course of the century it became a recognised part of the orthodox faith, in so far as the Logos doctrine triumphed in the Church. This development is the most important that took place in the third century; for it denoted the definite transformation of the rule of faith into the compendium of a Greek philosophical system, and it is the parallel of a contemporaneous transformation of the Church into a holy commonwealth (see above, chapter 3).

816

See Bornemann, In investiganda monachatus origine quibus de causis ratio habenda sit Origenis. Gottingæ 1885.

234

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

Indexes Index of Scripture References Genesis 1:2 Exodus 3 Leviticus 5   5 Deuteronomy 17:12 Judges 5 1 Samuel 8:7 Psalms 4   87:5 Proverbs 3:19   8:22 Isaiah 53:5   61:1 Matthew 4:1-25   10:23   10:34   10:35   11:19   12:30   13:29   16:1-27   16:1-28   16:1-28   16:18   16:18-19   17   19:14   23:34   23:37 Luke 1:4   1:35   10:16   10:16 John 1:1   1:1   1:1   1:14   10:1-42   10:30   14:16-21   14:16-21   14:23   14:23   14:26   14:26   15:20-26   16:7-15   17:1-26   18:22 Acts 2:1-47   4:27   10:38   23:4-5 Romans 1:8   3:23   5:9   7:4   8:1-39   8:3   14:4   16:14 1 Corinthians 3:2   7:1-40   12:3   12:28   15:1-58   15:1-58   15:1-58   15:3   15:4   15:23-28   15:44   15:45   15:50   15:50 Galatians 4:26 Ephesians 2:15   3   5:14   41   43   74   210

235

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

Philippians 4:3 Colossians 2:8   2:14   535 1 Timothy 3:15 2 Timothy 3:16 Hebrews 1:1 2 Peter 3:16 1 John 1:1 2 John 1:7-11 Jude 1:3 Revelation 1:3

Index of Greek Words and Phrases •   μ  μ    μ    •                          •                      • μ      μ                          . •       μ     •      •                                                   •           •           •     μ        •                             •                              •            •               ,                         μ   ,                                   •         ,           •         •                            , •                μ

236

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•        •          •       •   μ      •                      ,                    •               •              •                            •                              μ •                                     μ        •                     μ                         μ       ,                                   μ                              μ                     μ     •            •          μ                                                                        •                                 μμ                       μ  μ    •       •        •                   . •     μ       •         μ                                  μ     •       μ                 μ                ,         μ                        μ                   μ          •             •   μ  μ    μ                  =              •   μ  μ    μ    •                                   μ          μ     •              •          •    μ           ,             ,                 •     •         •          •              •                    •        •                 •       •             •       ,              •                        μ                                                 . •                                                 •    μ                                    μ                 •        •                               .

237

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•                                                                                   μ  ,                              μ           ,                          μ                    μ     μ                                          ,                                                                                                                            μ            ,                    μ      õ                μ            ,                    . •                •                             ,                                                 μ                        . •      μ                               •                                    μ                •                            •            μ                                 μ        •             •                                                        μ        •                     μ                 μ                                        μ     •         •          μ                    μ             • μ                                     μ                           • μ   μ                                •                                             μ              •                  —                 •               μμ                          9;                  μ        μ  μ     μ     •               μ          μ  , μ                              •                             μ    •                                                      μ     μ                                          •       •                               . . . .       μ   ,                  μ                        μ  . •            ,             ,            ,          •                    •   μ                        μ               μ        ,                          μ                               μ      μ           •                                                                 μ            μ                                                        μ   , μ                                  μ μ        . •           •        μ     ,    μ                     μ                                 μμ                                              μ          . •                                              ,                μ          . •                                                          μ         •   μ                           ,                                                  •                  •                                                                                                                                                    .                                                                                        . •                            •           μ          ; V. 10. 66:                                                                  . •        ,                                    μ                              .                       μ     μ                              ,         μ                                                              . . .                              et qui filius dei est filius hominis factus est,                                                                         . •         μ         ,                                , μ                     ,          ,           μ                                                           μ                 ,                                          . 238

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•                                              μ                                 ;                    μ               ,      μ ,         ,                .       μ        ,                   ;              ,                                            ,        ;                            μ                        μ               ;             μ         !              !              !         ,                                                   ;                                                                           ;               ,             ! •    .          •    .     . •         μ                 μ  ,             •                                μ                                          ,                 ,                         ,                                 .                      μ                       •         μ                  ,        μ                               ,                                                      μ     . . .                       μ       μ                   . •            μ         μ                                            μ      μ                                     μ                       ,                            ,                          μμ    ,                                                           . •                                 μ                                          ,                             ,             ,              .                               ,                                     μ                 ,                                                     ,                       •                                     •     K                       μ                             μ . •                             μ                          •                        μ         , μ        ,         ,                                μ     •            ,               ,       μ                                     μ            μ          ,               ,             ,                           μ . •            μ                              •                 ,                                          •                    •                                                          ,     μ              ,              •                         •    μ                       •                      • μ                • μ                . •                          μ            •                                      . •               μ •                                                                                                     μ   •                             μ                                                  μ                                     •                                 μ                           •                         ,                 . •                              •                    •                                                                  , μ                 ,                μ                     .                                             •           ,            •       •                           μ                            . 239

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•               μ                         •             μ       •                •                    •              μ      •      μ                        . •      μ             •                                                      μ    •                                    •                   •          μ        μ       •     μ               •        •                  μ                μ     • μ                          •          μ                         μ                    . . .       ,                        μ            ,                                                                           . •       —                  —             •                    • μ                              μ   μ                                . •                              .        μ                                             ,                              .         ,    μ                            ,                    μ        .        μ                                         μ                      .              μ                                                                                    μ            μ                             μ                                                         . •          ,      μ      μ             •       μ                                           •      μ        •      μ    • μ        •       μ                           •                                      μ                   ,                        μ          μ                 . •                   μ    . •             —                . •                         . •             •                            , μ           μ                   •      μ      μ                           •      μ      μ                          . •      μ                                         μ                •          μ              μ                                                     . •                                       •      •     ,                     . . .,                ,                 •          , μ          240

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•                                                                       , . . . •                               . •                  μ  ,            μ         •                      •                   μ                          •                                      •            ,                       ,                               •          μ  ,        μ       μ                  μ •      μ         •                    •                    •                           •                     (              ) •                   •                                   •                                     . •        • μ                                            μ      ,                                 μ • μ                             •   μ                                     •          μ                •               μ        ,                            •             • μ        • μ        • μ        • μ        • μ                 • μ        •            •                    •                 μ                                     μ        ,                     . . . •                      ,                                                  ,                        •                          μ     μ               μ       μ     •                              μ  ,                      • μ                                                        ,     μ   μ                                  μ                                                     μ     .                                             μ                        •                                        . •                               , μ                        •      μ          •                                μ                           ,       μ                                                            . •                                     •                                                 •       μ        μ                                                           . 241

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•                                     . . . (I. 5). Nevertheless               •                     . •                     ,         μ                             . . .                                                                       . •                     •              μ                                  μ      μ      ,                  μ                            ,                             •                                  ,                           .             μ                                                              ,        μ                                      μ                                               μ         •                                                         μ               μ         ,                                                , μ                      μ        .                                                       μ            . . .                      ,                                                             . •        μ     μ                      μ   . . .            μ     μ        μ                             •                                   μ                          μ           ,                •   μ                                              μ                                       •                            μ               •      μ                      •  μ     •“ μ            μ         ,                  μ              ,                                                  μ          μ                       ,       μ                                        •                      μ                      ,           μ                          μ             ,                         μ .                μ        ,                                                                                                                 μ             ;          μ               ,            ,                                ,                                   μ                                           μ            μ                                              .                                                                μ             ;    ,            ,                                           ,                                 μ  .              μ                                              μ   ,    μ                       μ                                                                 ,                                                μ                                                                                                 μ                                      —                                         —                                                                                       ,                                 ,                                                                                                                               ,                                  μ                                          ,         μ                                                                                                                                                                        . •   μ                            ,                                               . •              •                     •       •       •        •   . •                                                     ,                                                                                                    .                                       μ         ,               μ       ;    ,                                                          , μ        μ                                               ,                                       μ                       ,                               . •                                   ,                                     μ •                                                                          ;      ,        μ      ,                                             ,               ,                             ,      μ                                  ,                                                                                                      μ   .         μ               ,                                       .                ,                     ,                               μ                             . 242

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•                    μ                                 μ             ,                              μ                            .                            ,                      ,                          μ                                  μ                                                   μ       .                                     ,                                            ;     μ                     μ                μ     ,                                       μ         μ         •                              . •               ,                        μ            μ  .                      ,                                   ,      μ       μ            μ             μ                          μ  ,                                                 ,                                             μ                   ,              ,         .     μ                                                  ,                      ,                                    .          μ          μ            .                μ    μ  ,                              μ                          ,       μ              μ                                                               .               μ                    μ             ,                                                                          ,                                               μ                                       . •                 •                 μ         . •                  μ       ,                                           ,    μ                   μ                                                            μ                    μ                      ,       μ     μ             μ                             ,            μ      μ    ,                                                                •                μ          •                      •              μ                         μ        ,                    , μ                  . •                                                                     ,                                μ      . •   μ   μ                     ,                      μ       . •                     μ                ,                                       μ  ,                                                                                                           μ           μ    , •                                           μ          ,       μ ,                                      ,     μ                                      μ          ,                              μ                  μ           μ            . •                                                                            (scil. than the regula fidei)                                                                                      .                                                               μ                      ,                          . •                                                                                                                               μ          .                                  μ   μ                        ,                                                                    .                                    μ                                                     μ       . •          μ                                  ,                        μ              μ     ,                          ,                                            ,        μ                          μ          ,          μ                             μ    .                              μ                      ,             ,                ,                        ,                               ,                ,                   .                          ,                             .                                        μ               μ             .                               ,         , μ               μ             .                                   ,        μ                                      ,                                   ,                                ,                               μ            ,           μ                 μ    ,                       μ     μ μ    ,     μ                 μ     .                                                         . •        •          •       •

243

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•   μ                      μ            ,     μ                              . . .          μ       μ                     μ               ,                                                      μ    μ                .                                            ,                                  . •   μ                      μ    μ                •        μ   •                     •         ,                                      μ                          μ  ,              μ         μ             μ                     μ   ,                                      μ                                                              ,           μ        μ                                                                μ                    μ        μ        μ    μ          μ  ,                    •                                         •                               μ                                                                            ,                                    μ    ,               μ                                                                                                               ,                                                     ,                               , μ                                μ                                           . •                      ,                                  μ                       μ     •                     •                             ,                                     μ                                                      μ                         μ                μ   . •   μ     μ   μ             μ                                    ,                                                                          μ                                                    μ             ,                              ,    μ         μ                                                                 μ             •           •           •                                           μ                                        μ         μ                  .           μ                                                   ,                          .                                                                                       .                             μ                                 μ                                      .                                ,    μ                                                 μ               μ             ,                               μ               .                                  μ            ,     (           )                μ                    .       ,        ,    μ    μ                 μ             ,            μ                           ,                              μ  ,                                           . •                                           μ                                                     μ                . . .                             μ               . •                                                              ,                                             •                               ,                                    μ ,                                   μ                                     μ                                              μ                                                                           μ              μ        μ  ,                       μ  , . . . •    μ                                                         ;                                                                                             •   μ         μ            ,                               μ                 •        μ         ,                  ;                   ;                     μ                                          ;                                       ,                                                              ,                              ,                μ           .                                                    μ    .                                     μ            μ                                                    μ                                                             .                                μ        μ                        μ                     μ      μ  .                                 ,        μ                         .   ,      μ                      ,       μ                .                           •                             μ    μ    . 244

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•                        μ   •                                        •         μ                            ,                                                   •                     ”. •        μ                                                                  •                                                                •        μ               . •         •         •                                                                               μ                        •                                   •         •                         ,                                                        μ                                           •       •         •      •           μ    μ    •       •            μ                     •       •                •      •     . •                  •       •  μ         •                   μ   μ    μ           μ   μ            μ    μ                  ,     μ                       ,                  μ         μ                                                . . .                                                                                                                     . . .                                      ,                                                              •    μ                                                               •                      μ    μ          μ   ,                             μ •                     μ    •                                    . •                    μ    , μ                                                                                       •                  •  μ      μ •                                                                              •           μ                                   μ                                                                                   μ  μ   •           •      μ            •      μ         μ    μ        μ   μ    •                                          •            •                      245

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•                            •      μ                         ˙       μ        ˙   μ     μ         μ         μ  . •    μ    •               . •   μ       •      μ    •                                                        ,                                   ,    μ                  μ                •                  ,       μ     ,                                           μ                              μ                                          •                                                                                                                   ,                     μ           μ                       ,                                                        . •        μ ,                                        μ     •                  ,               μ                 . •        •                                     ,            μ                                μ                       •       •                                                             •      μ         μ    μ                                                                 . •           μ                               μ                                            μμ   ,                                                                                  μ                  •                         •         •    . . •          , μ        μ    ,             ,                                ,              ,                                                 μ                            ,                     ,                                                                              . •               μ                       μ             •                     •              •           •          and         . •                 . •             •      μ            , μ                   μ ,       μ          ,     , μ           •       ,                                           . •                                                μ       μ                       ,                                                  μ                             μ    ,             ,                       •               μ   μ                  ,                               μ    ,      μ                ,          μ               .                                        μ                                          . •     μ •     μ              •   μ          •       •                                  ,                                 , μ                                               ,                         μ                                                                         ,              μ                             .                             μ                     μ                246

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•    μ                   μ                                         ,    μ                                                          , μ       μ    , μ                ,                                      ,                                                             μ      •                    ,      μ          ,                                                                 ,                        μ                  μ                     •               μ          μ                     ,                        μ     ,                         μ          . . . •                         μ                  •              μ                                           ,                   •                      μ                                         μ            . . . •          •     .      •                •       μ                   μ    •          μ         μ        μ                                  ,     μ         μ        . . .     μ                   μ μ                 •                                      μ        μ                                                            μ            •                •                    •                 ,                    •                     •                       •                   ,                       •                     •                                •     μ                                     μ  ,                          μ                                                                        μ     μ     . •     μ    μ   •                         •                               =      .       •             •                                 •    μ           μ   •              •        ,       ,           •   μ     •    μ •                   •                   . •      •                     μ              . . . •      •                 •                                         μ     •     ,     ,     μ ,       •            μ                          μ                 μ          μ                     μ    ,                   μ                       μ   . •       247

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•                   •                   •               •        μ      μ        •μ       •μ       and μ          •μ                     μ        •μ    •μ      •μ                              ,             ,              ,    μ                                          μ               . . ., •μ       μ   ,        μ   μ            μ           μ                •μ                                 •μ     ,             ,              ,                          μ   •μ           ,                     ,         ,                            •μ                         μ                      •μ                                                                       •μ          μ              •μ              μ                     •μ    μ    •μ               •μ            •μ         •μ                       μ           . . .   μ         μõ         μõ       •μ                                                                              •μ  μ μ •μ                                                                       •μ  μ                                 and                                                               μ           . •μ        ,            •μ                          μ                                                    μ      ,                    , μ          μ  ,     μ              μ         μ                μ           . •μ                 μ               ,          μ      . •μ         •μ          •μ                 •μ         •  μ   •  μ                         ,                                                       μ                        •   μ  ,   μ        and         •     •  μ        •      μ   •      μ        •      μ            •      μ   . 248

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•      μ    •      μ    •                               μ                          •   μ           μ   •         μ                     μ           . •             μ                                                                    μ     •                      μ                        . •   μ                 μ                                                                      ,                                          ,                        μ                             μ                                              μ         μ    •   μ                                   ,              μ       ,                μ                                  μ           ,                      μ . . . •                     . •        μ                μ      μ       μ  . •                   ,                  μ              •                                     μ                            μ                  •       μ                                                    ,                                           μ                                                   . •   μ                         μ                         •   μ                        ,                   ,        μ     μ                                    ,                                      . •                                                            μ                  μ    . “         ”,      , “           ,    μ         μ                    ”,                               ,           ,                             μ                                                 . •                             μ                      . •       •     ,          ,       μ    ,          •         μ      μ  ,                                                μ  . •                                                                              μ            •                    μ                                                                                                                            •                                         . •          μ                         μ                ,       μ                                   μ      . •                                                                  ,    μ   μ    μ                  ,           μ    μ                               . •                            . •       μ                        ,          μ               μ                                                ,                       μ                  .                    μ                                                                     .                                            μ                            . •                                             . •       •             μ      •                •           μ       •           μ           •                  ,                           ,                    μ ,                •                        μ                                     μ                             μ                        . . .                     ,               μ                             •                     •          249

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•                                          μ         •                  •                                                           μ         μ     . •                                •                                   •                    μ                                                                                                                   •         •                                      •                                                     •           •           •        . •                                                μ                       ,                    ,                                          μ               •                                 . •              •                  •                                  •                                   . •    μ •    μ    μ    ,      ,     μ        •    μ       •    μ      •      •                     μ                                             ,                                            •                                                μ                  ;                            μ                     .                  μ                                     μ           (                        μ       ).                                                                                         .                                          . •                                •         . •        μ                                        •                            μ  μ       ,                                       ,      μ     μ               . •                            •              μ        μ      μ            μ                                 μ    ;                                    . •                                                              μ                       ,      ,       •              •                •                   μ                     ” and not “                       ”. •          •         •        •     μ        μ           μ                                              ,                                    μ                            μ                                                        μ      . •       μ   •              [to be understood in a local sense]                μ     —        μ               250

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•        •        •           •       μ    •      μ                      μ              •                                                                         ,               μ    μ                           ,           μ   ,         μ                          •     •    μ       μ      •     μ •     μ        μ      •     μ        μ      •     μ        μ     ? •     μ            •     μ               •       •                                         μ                                    , but    μ    •                    μ                                     μ      •              •      . •         •          •                              , •                                                        μ    •          •       μ                                     μ               . •        •                                                     μ    ,          μ                     •          μ                               ,                   . , .                                       •          ,               ,            ,               ,               ,              ,       μ        ,                 •             μ                      ,             •                       μ •                            μ                     μ                •      μ               μ     . •              •                                    μ                     μ      μ     •          μ                         μ           . •                            •                    μ •                      •          μ                              . Ö          μ        μ                     μ         ,                   μ                          •   μ                                                             ,         μ                                     μ            μ      , •                         •                  μ      251

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•                      •                      μ                                                  μ                   μ                        μ   . •        μ                           ” •                •                                                                                                                                                   . •                            μ   •                             •                                . •            μ          •                                              ,            ,                          μ  . •                                                              μ              •                   •                      μ    •         μ    μ              . •                   •    μ                                   μ            •           μ                             . •                     •         μ            •              •         μ        μμ                        μ     •                        . . .,                                                                                    ,                        μ    . •                                                                  •                                            .                              •                            μ μ  μ     . •      •       •       • .       .    . •   μ               •                                         •  μ      μ                   ,           ,          μ              ,             μ                  ,              μ            •          μ              μ                                                 ,                                               ,                                             . . .                                              μ  ,                     μ                       . •             •           μ   ,          μ                     . •          μ       μ       •          μ     μ       •              •            •                      •                       •. . .                                               μ    μ           •See            252

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

Index of Latin Words and Phrases •. . . nisi quoniam auctoritas divini verbi ad suscipiendum hominem interim conquiescens nec se suis viribus exercens, deiicit se ad tempus atque deponit, dum hominem fert, quem suscepit •. . . si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo nec sacrificium pro dormitione eius celebraretur •. . . ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet terrenorum pariter atque cælestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens pignora et deum homini et hominem deo copularet, ut merito filius dei per assumptionem carnis filius hominis et filius hominis per receptionem dei verbi filius dei effici possit •. . . ut neque homo Christo subtrahatur, neque divinitas negetur . . . utrumque in Christo confoederatum est, utrumque coniunctum est et utrumque connexum est . . . pignerata in illo divinitatis et humilitatis videtur esse concordia . . . qui mediator dei et hominum effectus exprimitur, in se deum et hominem sociasse reperitur . . . nos sermonem dei scimus indutum carnis substantiam . . . lavit substantiam corporis et materiam carnis abluens, ex parte suscepti hominis, passione •Absolutio mortes •Acta omnium apostolorum •Adhuc manifestavit oportere nos cum vocatione (i.e. •Aguntur præterea per Græcias certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quæ et altiora quæque in commune tractantur, et ipsa repræsentatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur. •Alias autem esset nostrum insensatum bonum, quod esset inexercitatum. Sed et videre non tantum nobis esset desiderabile, nisi cognovissemus quantum esset malum non videre; et bene valere autem male valentis experientia honorabilius efficit, et lucem tenebrarum comparatio et vitam mortis. Sic et cœleste regnum honorabilius est his qui cognoverunt terrenum. •Austero dei præcepto miscent seniores aquatam traditionem •Bene quod idem veniet de cælis qui est passus . . . et agnoscent qui eum confixerunt, utique ipsam carnem in quam sævierunt, sine qua nec ipse esse poterit et agnosci •Bonorum dei unus est titulus, salus hominum •Calicis aut panis nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxie patimur •Carnem et spiritum iam in semetipso Christus fœderavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum sponsæ comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis nomine sequetur animam caro . . . Caro est sponsa, quæ in Christo spiritum sponsum per sanguinem pacta est •Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogamiæ debitores, ex pristina dei lege, quæ nos tunc in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit. •Certum est, quippe quod præfinito aliquo apud se numero creaturas fecit: non enim, ut quidam volunt, finem putandum est non habere creaturas; quia ubi finis non est, nec comprehensio ulla nec circumscriptio esse potest. Quod si fuerit utique nec contineri vel dispensari a deo, quæ facta sunt, poterunt. Naturaliter nempe quicquid infinitum fuerit, et incomprehensibile erit. •Ceterum manente forma regulæ fidei in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras, et tractes, et omnem libidinem curiositatis effundas, si quid tibi videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari •Ceterum manente forma regulæ in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras at tractes. •Character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus apostoli eam quæ in unoquoque loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt, quæ pervenit usque ad nos, etc. 253

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•Christi generatio sic erat •Christi nomen non ex natura veniens, sed ex dispositione. •Christus deus dominus deus noster, sed dei filius •Christus deus et homo •Christus dicit ad apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes præpositos, qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt: qui audit vos me audit. •Christus ex verbi et carnis coniunctione concretus •Christus libertatem hominibus restauravit et attribuit incorruptelæ hæreditatem. •Christus naturalia legis (which are summed up in the commandment of love) extendit et implevit . . . plenitudo et extensio . . . necesse fuit, auferri quidem vincula servitutis, superextendi vero decreta libertatis •Christus per passionem reconciliavit nos deo. •Christus prædicavit novam legem et novam promissionem regni cœlorum •Constat omnem doctrinam quæ cum ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiæ ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a deo accepit. •Cornelius sedit intrepidus Romæ in sacerdotali cathedra eo tempore: cum tyrannus infestus sacerdotibus dei fanda adque infanda comminaretur, cum multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret levari adversus se æmulum principem quam constitui Romæ dei sacerdotem. •Creator Christum, sermonem suum, intuens hominem futurum, Faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram •Crucifixus est dei filius, non pudet quia pudendum est; et mortuus est dei filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile est •Cum Christus ‘Ego’ dicit (John X. 30 •Cum aquam ingressi Christianam fidem in legis suæ verba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et pompæ et angelis eius ore nostro contestamur. •Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, quæ est ab apostolis, quæ per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos, etc. •Cum perceperunt eam quæ ab eo est libertatem et participant visionem eius et audierunt sermones eius et fruiti sunt muneribus ab eo, non iam requiretur, quid novius attulit rex super eos, qui annuntiaverunt advenum eius . . . Semetipsum enim attulit et ea quæ prædicta sunt bona. •Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, præcipue circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri . . . veniant ergo parvuli, dum adolescunt; veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniant docentur; fiant Christiani, cum Christum nosse potuerint. Quid festinat innocens ætas ad remissionem peccatorum? Cautius agetur in sæcularibus, ut cui substantia terrena non creditur, divina credatur . . . Si qui pondus intelligant baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem. •Cur descendit salvator in hunc mundum? •Curavit desuper et ab exordio consuevit thronus apostolicus iniqua perferentes defensare et eos qui in evitabiles factiones inciderunt, adiuvare et humi iacentes erigere, secundum possibilitatem, quam habetis; causa autem rei, quod sensum rectum tenetis et inconcussam servatis erga dominum nostrum Iesum Christum fidem, nec non etiam indissimulatam universis fratribus et omnibus in nomine Christi vocatis tribuitis caritatem, etc. •Custodiatur       μ    •De episcopis peregrinis, qui in urbem solent venire, placuit iis locum dari ut offerant. 254

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•De his quidem delictis, de quibus ipsæ scripturæ increpant patriarchas et prophetas, nos non oportere exprobare eis . . . de quibus autem scripturæ non increpant (scil. delictis), sed simpliciter sunt posits, nos non debere fieri accusatores, sed typum quærere. •De tua nunc sententia quæro, unde hoc ius ecclesiæ usurpes. Si quia dixerit Petro dominus: Super hanc petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam, tibi dedi claves regni cælestis, vel, Quæcumque alligaveris vel solveris in terra, erunt alligata vel soluta in cœlis, id circo præsumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et alligandi potestatem? •Decalogum si quis non fecerit, non habet salutem •Dei nomen quasi naturale divinitatis potest in omnes communicari quibus divinitas vindicatur. •Dei spiritus et dei sermo et dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus, utrumque Iesus Christus. •Dei verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus, ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster . . . unus Iesus Christus, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans . . . in semetipsum primatum assumens . . . universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore. •Deus stetit in synagoga deorum . . . de patre et filio et de his, qui adoptionem perceperunt, dicit: hi autem sunt ecclesia. Hæc enim est synagoga dei •Dicemus autem adversus eos: utramne hi omnes qui prædicti sunt, cum quibus eadem dicentes arguimini (Scil. “ye Gnostics with the philosophers”), cognoverunt veritatem aut non cognoverunt? Et si quidem cognoverunt, superflua est salvatoris in hunc mundum descensio. Ut (lege “ad”) quid enim descendebat? •Dilectionis merito anima Christi cum verbo dei Christus efficitur. •Dum enim putas, omnes abs te abstineri posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti. •Eas ego acclesias proposui, quas et ipsi apostoli vel apostolici viri condiderunt, et puto ante quosdam •Ecclesiæ, quæ licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicæ deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinæ. •Ego non ad scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est aut parum certa. •Ego puto, quod et post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento eluente nos atque purgante •Est ergo deus pater omnium institutor et creator, solus originem nesciens(!), invisibilis, immensus, immortalis, æternus, unus deus(!), . . . ex quo quando ipse voluit, sermo filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aëris aut tono coactæ de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolatæ a deo virtutis agnoscitur, cuius sacræ et divinæ nativitatis arcana nec apostolus didicit . . . , filio soli nota sunt, qui patris secreta cognovit. Hic ergo cum sit genitus a patre, semper est in patre. Semper autem sic dico, ut non innatum, sed natum probem; sed qui ante omne tempus est, semper in patre fuisse discendus est, nec enim tempus illi assignari potest, qui ante tempus est; semper enim in patre, ne pater non semper sit pater: quia et pater illum etiam præcedit, quod necesse est, prior sit qua pater sit. Quoniam antecedat necesse est eum, qui habet originem, ille qui originem nescit. Simul ut hic minor sit, dum in illo esse se scit habens originem quia nascitur, et per patrem quamvis 255

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

originem habet qua nascitur, vicinus in nativitate, dum ex eo patre, qui solus originem non habet, nascitur . . . , substantia scilicet divina, cuius nomen est verbum . . . , deus utique procedens ex deo secundam personam efficiens, sed non eripiens illud patri quod unus est deus . . . Cuius sic divinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inæqualitate divinitatis duos deos reddidisse videatur . . . Dum huic, qui est deus, omnia substrata traduntur et cuncta sibi subiecta filius accepta refert patri, totam divinitatis auctoritatem rursus patri remittit, unus deus ostenditur verus et æternus pater, a quo solo hæc vis divinitatis emissa, etiam in filium tradita et directa rursus per substantiæ communionem ad patrem revolvitur. •Est hæc trium distinctio personarum in patre et filio et spiritu sancto, quæ ad pluralem puteorum numerum revocatur. Sed horum puteorum unum est fous. Una enim substantia est et natura trinitatis. •Et non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide, liberum et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit (that is, respected) dominus, dicens: Secundum fidem tuam fiat tibi. •Et nos autem sermoni atque rationi itemque virtuti, per quæ omnia molitum deum ediximus, propriam substantiam spiritum inscribimus, cui et sermo insit pronuntianti et ratio adsit disponenti et virtus præsit perficienti. Hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum et idcirco filium dei et deum dictum ex unitate substantiæ, nam et deus spiritus (that is, the antemundane Logos is the Son of God). Et cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa; sed sol erit in radio, quia solis est radius nec separator substantia sed extenditur (cf. adv. Prax. 8). Ita de spiritu spiritus et deo deus ut lumen de lumine accensum. Manet integra et indefecta materiæ matrix, etsi plures inde traduces qualitatis mutueris: ita et quod de deo profectum est, deus est et dei filius et unus ambo. Ita et de spiritu spiritus et de deo deus modulo alternum numerum, gradu non statu fecit, et a matrice non recessit sed excessit. Iste igitur dei radius, ut retro semper prædicabatur, delapsus in virginem quandam et in utero eius caro figuratus nascitur homo deo mixtus. Caro spiritu instructa nutritur, adolescit, adfatur, docet, operatur et Christus est. •Et quia dominus naturalia legis, per quæ homo iustificatur, quæ etiam ante legisdationem custodiebant qui fide iustificabantur et placebant deo non dissolvit etc. •Et quia passionis eius mentionem in sacrificiis omnibus facimus, passio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerrimus, nihil aliud quam quod ille fecit facere debemus •Et quidem apud antecessores nostros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pacis mœchis non putaverunt et in totem pænitentiæ locum contra adulteria cluserunt, non tamen a co-episcoporum suorum collegio recesserunt aut catholicæ ecclesiæ unitatem ruperunt, ut quia apud alios adulteris pax dabatur, qui non dabat de ecclesia separaretur. •Et quoniam quidam interdum nihil sibi dicunt esse cum lege, quam Christus non dissolvit, sed adimplevit, interdum quæ volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that continually), plane et nos sic dicimus legem, ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum, quæ nec patres sustinere valuerunt, concesserint, quæ vero ad iustitiam spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum et ampliata. •Et scimus, quales sint carnalium commodorum suasoriæ, quam facile dicatur: Opus est de totis præcordiis credam, diligam deum et proximum tanquam me. In his enim duobus præceptis tota lex pendet et prophetæ, non in pulmonum et intestinorum meorum inanitate. •Etiam in traditionis obtentu exigenda est auctoritas scripta. •Evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successionem ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveravit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. 256

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•Exempto reatu eximitur et pœna. •Exposui opiniones omnium ferme philosophorum . . . , ut quivis arbitretur, aut nunc Christianos philosophos esse aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos. •Fidem habenti, quæ est ex nobis, dabitur gratia fidei quæ est per spiritum fidei, et abundabit; et quidquid habuerit quis ex naturali creatione, cum exercuerit illud, accipit id ipsum et ex gratia dei, ut abundet et firmior sit in eo ipso quod habet •Fides in nobis; mensura fidei causa accipiendarum gratiarum •Fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis •Filius dei filius hominis factus •Filius dei hominis filius factus, ut per eum adoptionem percipiamus, portante homine et capiente et complectente filium dei. •Fuit tempus, cum patri filius non fuit •Gloria dei vivens homo, vita autem hominis visio dei •Gloria hominis deus, operationes vero dei et omnis sapientiæ eius et virtutis receptaculum homo. •Hæc ergo, quæ in servitutem et in signum data sunt illis, circumscripsit novo libertatis testamento. Quæ autem naturalia et liberalia et communia omnium, auxit et dilatavit, sine invidia largiter donans hominibus per adoptionem, patrem scire deum . . . auxit autem etiam timorem: filios enim plus timere oportet quam servos •Hæc est salutis agnitio quæ deerat eis, quæ est filii dei agnitio . . . agnitio salutis erat agnitio filii dei, qui et salus et salvator et salutare vere et dicitur et est. •Hæc regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos quæstiones. •Hæretici nullum habent consortium nostræ disciplinæ, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est præceptum, quia non idem deus est nobis et illis, nec unus Christus, id est idem, ideoque nec baptismus unus, quia non idem; quem cum rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent, nec capit numerari, quod non habetur; ita nec possunt accipere quia non habent. •Hoc si qui putaverit, me          •Id quod erat semper liberum et suæ potestatis in homine semper servavit deus et sua exhortatio, ut iuste iudicentur qui non obediunt ei quoniam non obedierant, et qui obedierunt et crediderunt ei, honorentur incorruptibilitate. •Iesu generatio sic erat •Iesus Christus propter immensam suam dilectionem factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse •Igitur quæcumque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcumque autem ut indigna reprehenditis deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro. •Igitur secundum magnitudem non est cognoscere deum, impossibile est enim mensurari patrem; secundum autem dilectionem eius — hæc est enim quæ nos per verbum eius perducit ad deum — obedientes ei semper discimus quoniam est tantus deus etc. •Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est: Milies centies centena milia adsistebant ei, et milies centena milia apparebant ei, nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta milia virtutum procuratur: quale est ut deus divisionem et dispersionem pati videatur in filio et spiritu sancto, secundum et tertium sortitis locum, tam consortibus substantiæ patris, quam non patitur in tot angelorum numero? 257

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•In bonis rebus humanum propositum solum per se ipsum imperfectum est ad consummationem boni, adiutorio namque divino ad perfecta quæque perducitur. •In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei; et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans, uti sicut in supercælestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps est verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum primatum assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesiæ, universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore. •In quantum enim deus nullius indiget, in tantum homo indiget dei communione. Hæc enim gloria hominis, perseverare et permanere in dei servitute. •In tua potestate positum est, ut sis pales vel frumentum •Invisibile filii pater, visibile autem patris filius. •Ipsum verbum dei incarnatum suspensum est super lignum. •Itaque tot ac tantæ ecclesiæ una est ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes prima et omnes apostolicæ, dum una omnes. Probant unitatem communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio •Itaque utriusque substantiæ census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem” etc. Then: “Quæ proprietas conditionum, divinæ et humanæ, æqua utique naturæ cuiusque veritate disjuncta est. •Jam ergo alius erit qui videbatur, quia non potest idem invisibilis definiri qui videbatur, et consequens erit, ut invisibilem patrem intellegamus pro plenitudine maiestatis, visibilem vero filium agnoscamus pro modulo derivationis. •Jesus Christus factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse •Jesus Christus, vere homo, vere deus •Legimus omnem scripturam ædificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. •Levitæ et sacerdotes sunt discipuli omnes domini. •Lex et prophetæ usque ad Johannem •Lex evangelii •Libri et epistolæ Pauli viri iusti •Libri evangeliorum et epistolæ Pauli viri sanctissimi apostoli •Lucas non solum prosecutor sed et cooperarius fuit Apostolorum •Manifesta est sententia Iesu Christi apostolos suos mittentis et ipsis solis potestatem a patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus eadem potestatex ecclesiam domini gubernantes et credentium fidem baptizantes •Maria cooperans dispositioni (dei) •Maria obediens et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est salutis •Monarchia in tot nominibus constituta est, in quot deus voluit. •Mors nostra dissolvi non potuit, nisi domini passione, nec vita restitui sine resurrectione ipsius •Moysis literæ sunt verba Christi. •Nam cum dominus adveniens sanasset illa, quæ Adam portaverit vulnera et venena serpentis antiqua curasset, legem dedit sano et præcepit, ne ultra iam peccaret, ne quid peccanti gravius eveniret; coartati eramus et in angustum innocentiæ præscriptione conclusi, nec haberet quid fragilitatis humanæ infirmitas adque imbecillitas faceret, nisi iterum pietas divina subveniens

258

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

iustitiæ et misericordiæ operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendæ salutis aperiret, ut sordes postmodum quascumque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus. •Nam ita inter se nostræ religionis gradus artifex sævitia diviserat, ut laicos clericis separatos tentationibus sæculi et terroribus suis putaret esse cessuros •Nam si quis est, qui velit vel sæcula aliqua vel spatia transisse, vel quodcunque aliud nominare vult, cum nondum facta essent, quæ facta sunt, sine dubio hoc ostendet, quod in illis sæculis vel spatiis omnipotens non erat deus et postmodum omnipotens factus est. •Necesse et igitur pauca de Christo ut deo . . . Jam ediximus deum universitatem hanc mundi verbo et ratione et virtute molitum. Apud vestros quoque sapientes       •Negat scriptura quod non notat •Nihil adeo est quod obduret mentes hominum quam simplicitas divinorum operum, quæ in actu videtur, et magnificentia, quæ in effecta repromittitur, ut hinc quoque, quoniam tanta simplicitate, sine pompa, sine apparatu novo aliquo, denique sine sumptu homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus non multo vel nihilo mundior resurgit, eo incredibilis existimetur consecutio æternitatis. Mentior, si non e contrario idolorum solemnia vel arcana de suggestu et apparatu deque sumptu fidem at auctoritatem sibi exstruunt. •Nihil in trinitate maius minusve dicendum est cum unius divinitatis fons verbo ac ratione sua teneat universa •Nihil otiosum, nihil inane est apud deum, quia sive bono proposito hominis utitur ad bona sive malo ad necessaria. •Nihil tam dignum deo quam salus hominis. •Nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum •Nisi Marcion Christum non sabiectum patri infert. •Nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet, sed nec eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. Apostolos domini habemus auctores, qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt, sed acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus assignaverunt. •Non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum dii, quamvis deus secundum simplicitatem bonitatis suæ hoc fecerit, nequis eum putet invidiosum aut impræstantem. “Ego,” inquit, “dixi, estis et filii excelsi omnes, nobis autem potestatem divintatis divinitatis baiulare non sustinentibus” . . . Oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere, post deinde vinci et absorbi mortale ab immortalitate et corruptibile ab incorruptibilitate, et fieri hominem secundum imaginem at similitudinem dei, agnitione accepta bone et mali. •Non competebat ex semine humano dei filium nasci, ne, si totus esset filius hominis, non esset et dei filius, nihilque haberet amplius Salomone, ut de Hebionis opinione credendus erat. Ergo iam dei filius ex patris dei semine, id est spiritu, ut esset et hominis filius, caro ei sola competebat ex hominis came sumenda sine viri semine. Vacabat enim semen viri apud habentem dei semen. •Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alius poterat enarrare nobis, quæ sunt patris, nisi proprium ipsius verbum . . . Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes et per auditum nostrum vocem eius percipientes, ut imitatores quidem operum, factores autem sermonum eius facti, communionem habeamus cum ipso •Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. . . . Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes, •Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundum gratiam dei datur 259

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est; sed secundum gratiam dei datur. •Non enim poteramus aliter incorruptelam et immortalitatem percipere, nisi adunati fuissemus incorruptelæ et immortalitati. Quemadmodum autem adunari possumus incorruptelæ et immortalitati, nisi prius incorruptela et immortalitas facta fuisset id quod et nos, ut absorberetur quod erat corruptibile ab incorruptela et quod erat mortale ab immortalitate, ut filiorum adoptionem perciperemus? •Non homo propter conditionem, sed conditio facta est propter hominem. •Non quod in aquis spiritum sanctum consequamur, sed in aqua emundati sub angelo spiritui sancto præparamur. •Non sacrificia sanctificant hominem; non enim indiget sacrificio deus; sed conscientia eius qui offert sanctificat sacrificium, pura exsistens, et præstat acceptare deum quasi ab amico •Non solum de his, quæ usque ad adventum Christi scripta sunt, hæc Spiritus sanctus procuravit, sed . . . eadem similiter etiam in evangelistis et apostolis fecit. Nam ne illas quidem narrationes, quas per eos inspiravit, absque huiuscemodi, quam supra exposuimus, sapientiæ sua arte contexuit. Unde etiam in ipsis non parva promiscuit, quibus historialis narrandi ordo interpolatus, vel intercisus per impossibilitatem sui reflecteret atque revocaret intentionem legentis ad intelligentiæ interioris examen. •Nullus inter multos eventus unus est . . . quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum •Nunquam est, quando filius non fuit. Erat autem non, sicut de æterna luce diximus, innatus, ne duo principia lucis videamur inducere, sed sicut ingenitæ lucis splendor, ipsam illam lucem initium habens ac fontem, natus quidem ex ipsa; sed non erat quando non erat. •Omne quod agit, quod sentit, quod intelligit, deus est •Omnes enim ii valde posteriores sunt quam episcopi, quibus apostoli tradiderunt ecclesias. •Panis iste, quem deus verbum corpus suum esse fatetur, verbum est nutritorium animarum, verbum de deo verbo procedens et panis de pane cœ’esti . . . Non enim panem illum visibilem, quem tenebat in manibus, corpus suum dicebat deus verbum, sed verbum, in cuius mysterio fuerat panis ille frangendus; nec potum illum visibilem sanguinem suum dicebat, sed verbum in cuius mysterio potus ille fuerat effundendus •Paracletus solus antecessor, quia solus post Christum •Parce unicæ spei totius orbis. •Pater tota substantia est, filius vero derivatio totius et portio •Petro primum dominus, super quem ædificavit ecclesiam et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit. •Petrus Iesum ipsum esse filium dei testificatus est, qui et unctus Spiritu Sancto Iesus dicitur. •Petrus non sibi vindicavit aliquid insolenter aut adroganter adsumpsit, ut diceret se principatum tenere et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere. •Philosophorum supercilia contemnimus, quos corruptores et adulteros novimus . . . nos, qui non habitu sapientiam sed mente præferimus, non eloquimur magna sed vivimus, gloriamur nos consecutos, quod illi summa intentione quæsiverunt nec invenire potuerunt. Quid ingrati sumus, quid nobis invidemus, si veritas divinitatis nostri temporis rate maturuit? •Primo illud nos oportere scire •Principalitas

260

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•Principari enim debet in omnibus et dominari voluntas dei, reliqua autem omnia huic cedere et subdita esse et in servitium dedita •Prophetiam expulit, paracletum fugavit •Propterea misit pater filium suum e cœlo sine corpore (this is said in opposition to the Valentinian view), ut, postquam incarnatus esset in, utero virginis et natus esset homo, vivificaret hominem et colligeret membra eius quæ mors disperserat, quum hominem divideret •Providentiam habet deus omnium propter hoc et consilium dat: consilium autem dans adest his, qui morum providentiam hibent. Necesse est igitur ea quæ providentur et gubernantur cognoscere suum directorem; quæ quidem non sunt irrationalia neque vana, sed habent sensibilitatem perceptam de providentia dei. Et propter hoc ethnicorum quidam, qui minus illecebris ac voluptatibus servierunt, et non in tantum superstitione idolorum coabducti sunt, providentia eius moti licet tenuiter, tamen conversi sunt, ut dicerent fabricatorem huius universitatis patrem omnium providentem et disponentem secundum nos mundum. •Quæcunque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcunque autem ut indigna reprehenditis, deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro, miscente in semetipso hominem et deum in virtutibus deum, in pusillitatibus hominem, ut tantum homini conferat quantum deo detrahit. •Quæritur quemadmodum emissi sunt reliqui æones? Utrum uniti ei qui emiserit, quemadmodum a sole radii, an efficabiliter et partiliter, uti sit unusquisque eorum separatim et suam figurationem habens, quemadmodum ab homine homo . . . Aut secundum germinationem, quemadmodum ab arbore rami? Et utrum eiusdem substantiæ exsistebant his qui se emiserunt, an ex altera quadam substantia substantiam habentes? Et utrum in eodem emissi sunt, ut eiusdem temporis essent sibi? . . . Et utrum simplices quidam et uniformes et undique sibi æquales et similes, quemadmodum spiritus et lumina emissa sunt, an compositi et differentes •Qua enim ratione filiorum adoptionis eius participes esse possemus, nisi per filium eam quæ est ad ipsum recepissemus ab eo communionem, nisi verbum eius communicasset nobis caro factum? Quapropter et per omnem venit ætatem, omnibus restituens eam quæ est ad deum communionem. •Quamquam cum duæ substantiæ censeantur in Christo Iesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam •Quando incarnatus est filius homo et homo factus longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem præstans, ut quod perdideramus in Adam id est secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse dei, hoc in Christo Iesu reciperemus. •Quapropter eis, qui in ecclesia sunt, presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab apostolis; qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt. •Quare innocens ætas festinat ad baptismum? •Quare,” says Irenæus III. 21. 10 — “igitur non iterum sumpsit limum deus sed ex Maria operatus est plasmationem fieri? Ut non alia plasmatio fieret neque alia, esset plasmatio quæ salvaretur, sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudine? •Quattuor evv. dom. nostri J. Chr. et epp. S. Pauli ap. et omnis divinitus inspirata scriptura. •Quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem, æqua lance disposita virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam,

261

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•Quemadmodum pater non potest esse quis, si filius non sit, neque dominus quis esse potest sine possessione, sine servo, ita ne omnipotens quidem deus dici potest, si non sint, in quos exerceat potentatum, et deo ut omnipotens ostendatur deus, omnia subsistere necesse est. •Qui Acta Apostolorum non recipiunt, nec spiritus Sancti esse possunt, qui necdum spiritum sanctum possunt agnoscere discentibus missum, sed nec ecclesiam se dicant defendere qui quando et quibus incunabulis institutum est hoc corpus probare non habent. •Quibus faciebat deus hominem similem? Filio quidem, qui erat induturas hominem . . . Erat autem ad cuius imaginem faciebat, ad filii scilicet, qui homo futurus certior et verior imaginem suam fecerat dici hominem, qui tunc de limo formari habebat, imago veri et similitudo. •Quicunque erga eum custodiunt dilectionem, suam his præstat communionem. Communio autem dei vita et lumen et fruitio eorum quæ sunt apud deum bonorum. Quicumque autem absistunt secundum sententiam suam ab eo, his eam quæ electa est ab ipsis separationem inducit. Separatio autem dei mors, et separatio lucis tenebræ, et separatio dei amissio omnium quæ sunt apud eum bonorum. •Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academiæ et ecclesiæ? •Quid simile philosophus et Christianus? Græciæ discipulus et cœli? •Quidnam est hoc novum mysterium? iudex iudicatur et quietus est; invisibilis videtur neque erubescit: incomprehensibilis prehenditur neque indignatur, incommensurabilis mensuratur neque repugnat; impassibilis patitur neque ulciscitur; immortalis moritur, neque respondit verbum, cœlestis sepelitur et id fert. •Quidquid retro fuerat, aut demutatum est (per Christum), ut circumcisio, aut suppletum ut reliqua lex, aut impletum ut prophetia, aut perfectum ut fides ipsa. Omnia de carnalibus in spiritalia renovavit nova dei gratia superducto evangelio, expunctore totius retro vetustatis. •Quis enim negabit, deum corpus esse, etsi deus spiritus est? spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie •Quod aliud est in Christo deitatis eius natura, quod est unigenitus filius patris, et alia humana natura, quam in novissimis temporibus pro dispensatione suscepit. Propter quod videndum primo est, quid sit unigenitus filius dei. •Quod permittitur, bonum non est •Quod vero ad Novatiani personam pertinet, scias nos primo in loco nec curiosos esse debere quid ille doceat, cum foris docent; quisquis ille est et qualiscunque est, christianus non est, qui in Christi ecclesia non est. •Quodsi quæ Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum Theclæ ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse. •Quodsi voluerint respondere et Philippi deinceps quattuor filias prophetasse et prophetam Agabum reperiri et in divisionibus spiritus inter apostolos et doctores et prophetas quoque apostolo scribente formatos, etc. •Quomodo multæ mansiones apud patrem, si non pro varietate meritorum. •Quoniam iniuste dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus dei omnipotentis, alienavit nos contra naturam diabolus. •Quos personæ ratio invicem dividit, eosdem rursus invicem religionis ratio conducit; et quamvis idem atque ipsi non sint, dum idem sentiunt, ipsum sunt, et cum duo sint, unum sunt

262

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•Recedere a bono, non aliud est quam effici in malo. Ceterum namque est, malum esse bono carere. Ex quo accidit, ut in quanta mensura quis devolveretur a bono, in tantam mensuram malitiæ deveniret. •Recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquæ, prima nativitate contraxit •Recipite interim hanc fabulam, similis est vestris. •Sacrificare •Scripturæ quidem perfecta sunt, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius dictæ, nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a verbo dei et spiritu eius, secundum hoc et scientia mysteriorum eius indigemus. •Secundum id quod verbum dei homo erat ex radice Iesse et filius Abrahæ, secundum hoc requiescebat spiritus dei super eum . . . secundum autem quod deus erat, non secundum gloriam iudicabat. •Sed aiunt quidam, satis deum habere, si corde et animo suspiciatur, licet actu minus fiat; itaque se salvo metu et fide peccare, hoc est salva castitate matrimonia violare etc. •Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura Pastoris, quæ sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter aprocrypha et falsa iudicaretur •Sed cum extollimur et inflamur adversus clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc omnes sacerdotes, quia ‘sacerdotes nos deo et patri fecit’. Cum ad peræquationem disciplinæ sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas. •Sed enim invenimus illum directo et deum et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente (Ps. LXXXVII. 5 •Sed nec inter consuetudines dispicere voluerunt illi sanctissimi antecessores •Sed non eam te (animam) advoco, quæ scholis format, bibliothecis exercitata, academiis et porticibus Atticis pasta sapientiam ructas. Te simplicem et rudem et impolitam et idioticam compello, qualem te habent qui te solam habent . . . Imperitia tua mihi opus est, quoniam aliquantulæ peritiæ tuæ nemo credit. •Sed non putet institutionem unusquisque antecessoris commovendam. •Sed quoniam valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximæ et antiquissimæ et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Paulo et Petro Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ ecclesiæ, eam quam habet ab apostolis traditionem et annuntiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo vel per sibiplacentiam malam vel vanam gloriam vel per cæcitatem et malam sententiam, præterquam oportet, colligunt. Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quæ est ab apostolis traditio. •Sequitur animam nubentem spiritui caro; o beatum connubium •Si Adam iam non reverteretur ad vitam, sed in totum proiectus esset morti, victus esset dens et superasset serpentis nequitia voluntatem dei. Sed quoniam deus invictus et magnanimis est, magnanimem quidem se exhibuit etc. •Si autem Italiæ adiaces habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas præsto est. •Si autem et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium quæ requiruntur, cogitet, quia homo est in infinitum minor deo et qui ex parte (cf. II. 28.) acceperit gratiam et qui nondum æqualis vel similis sit factori 263

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•Si autem subit vos huiusmodi sensus, ut dicatis: Quid igitur novi dominus attulit veniens? cognoscite, quoniam omnem novitatem attulit semetipsum afferens, qui fuerat annuntiatus. •Si autem velut a lumine lumina accensa sunt . . . velut verbi gratia a facula faculæ, generatione quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem autem substantiæ cum sint cum principe emissionis ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et pater ipsorum participabit passiones. Neque enim quæ postea accensa est facula, alterum lumen habebit quam illud quod ante eam fuit. •Si de aliqua modica quæstione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt . . . quid autem si neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant ecclesias? •Si hæc ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, quæ cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum . . . Superest ergo ut demonstremus an hæc nostra doctrina, cujus regulam supra edidimus, de apostolorum traditione censeatur . . . Communicamus cum ecclesiis catholicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa. •Si mendacium deprehenditur Christi caro . . . nec passiones Christi fidem merebuntur. Eversum est igitur totum dei opus. Totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors Christi, negatur, quam tam impresse apostolus demendat, utique veram, summum eam fundamentum evangelii constituens et salutis nostræ et prædictionis sum •Si propter substantiam omnes succedunt animæ in refrigerium, et superfluum est credere, superflua autem et discessio salvatoris; si autem propter iustitiam, iam non propter id, quod sint animæ sed quoniam sunt iustæ . . . Si enim natura et substantia salvat, omnes salvabuntur animæ; si autem iustitia et fides etc. •Sic apostoli, quos universi actus et universæ doctrinæ dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant circa dispositionem legis, quæ est secundum Moysem, ab uno et eodem significantes esse deo •Sic et in reliquis omnibus nulli similis erit omnium pater hominum pusillitati: et dicitur quidem secundum hæc propter delectionem, sentitur autem super hæc secundum magnitudinem. •Sic et sapientia ex deo procedens, ex ipsa substantia dei generatur. Sic nihilominus et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhœæ esse dicitur aporrhœa gloriæ omnipotentis pura quædam et sincera. Quæ utræque similitudines (see the beginning of the passage) manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantiæ esse filio cum patre. Aporrhœa enim μ        •Sicut de arido tritico massa una non fieri potest sine humore neque unis panis, ita nec nos multi unum fieri in Christo Iesu poteramus sine aqua quæ de cœlo est. Et sicut arida terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat: sic et nos lignum aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam sine superna voluntaria pluvia. Corpora unim nostra per lavacrum illam quæ est ad incorruptionem unitatem acceperunt, animæ autem per spiritum •Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sæculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intellegentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua       μ   •Singulis pastoribus portio gregis est adscripta, quam regit unusquisque et gubernat rationem sui actus domino redditurus •Spiritum quidem dei etiam fideles habent, sed non omnes fideles apostoli . . . Proprie enim apostoli spiritum sanctum habent, qui plene habent in operibus prophetiæ et efficacia virtutum documentisque linguarum, non ex parte, quod ceteri. 264

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•Sub specie æternitatis •Sublata ergo prædestinatione quæ non est posita, in substantia fuit Christus ante mundi institutionem •Substantia animæ inter deum carnemque mediante — non enim possibile erat dei naturam corpori sine mediatore miscere — nascitur deus homo, illa substantia media exsistente, cui utique colitra naturam non erat corpus assumere. Sed neque rursus anima illa, utpote substantia rationabilis, contra naturam habuit, capere deum. •Summa est voluntatis dei salus eorum, quos adoptavit •Surgens in came sic ascendit ad patrem. •Taceo quod figitur; in hoc enim venerat •Tam apostolus Moyses, quam et apostoli prophetæ. •Tenemur hic de somniis quoque Christianam sententiam expromere •Tertullianus ad mediam ætatem presbyter fuit ecclesiæ Africanæ, invidia postea et contumeliis clericorum Romanæ ecclesiæ ad Montani dogma delapsus. •Testimonia de Johannis evangelio congregata, quæ tibi quidam Montani sectator ingessit, in quibus salvator noster se ad patrem iturum missurumque paracletum pollicetur etc. •Traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in omni ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint videre, et habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis et successiones eorum usque ad nos . . . valde enim perfectos in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes . . . traditio Romanæ ecclesiæ, quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiata hominihus fides per successiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos. •Typum quæras •Ubi igitur charismata domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea quæ est ab apostolis ecclesiæ successio. •Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam       μ    •Unus ergo et idem spiritus qui in prophetis et apostolis, nisi quoniam ibi ad momentum, hic semper. Ceterum ibi non ut semper in illis inesset, hic ut in illis semper maneret, et ibi mediocriter distributus, hic totus effusus, ibi parce datus, hic large commodatus. •Utraque testamenta unus et idem paterfamilias produxit, verbum dei, dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui et Abrahæ et Moysi collocutus est. •Valentinus de ecclesia authenticæ regulæ abrupit •Venio itaque ad illum articulum, quem et nostri prætendunt ad ineundam curiositatem. Scriptum est, inquiunt, Quærite et invenietis •Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias Marcionis, per quas proprietatem doctrinæ suæ inducit ad edictum, ut ita dixerim, Christi, Beati mendici etc. •Verbum dei illis quidem qui ante Moysem fuerunt patriarchis secundum divinitatem et gloriam colloquebatur •Verbum dispensator paternæ gratiæ factus est ad utilitatem hominum, propter quos fecit tantas dispositiones. •Verbum potens et homo verus sanguine suo ratio nabiliter redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt . . . dei verbum non deficiens in sua iustitia, iuste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quemadmodum illa initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed

265

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, accipere quæ vellet, ut neque quod est iustum confringeretur neque antiqua plasmatio dei deperiret. •Verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster, qui et passus est pro nobis et ressurrexit propter nos . . . Unus igitur deus pater, quemadmodum ostendimus, et unus Christus Iesus dominus noster, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo. •Videamus quid (ecclesia Romanensis) didicerit, quid docuerit, cum Africanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit. Unum deum dominum novit, creatorem universitatis, et Christum Iesum ex virgine Maria filium dei creatoris, et carnis resurrectionem; legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet; inde potat fidem, eam aqua signat, sancto spiritu vestit, eucharistia pascit, martyrium exhortatur, et ita adversus hanc institutionem neminem recipit. •Videamus, quid ecclesia Romanensis cum Africanis ecclesiis contesserarit. •Videmus igitur non obesse monarchiæ filium, etsi hodie apud filium est, quia et in suo statu est apud filium, et cum suo statu restituetur patri a filio. •Videmus in aqua populum intellegi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem Christi; quando autem in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur et credentium plebs ei in quem credidit copulatur et iungitur etc. •Viderimus si secundum arcæ typum et corvus et milvus et lupus et canis et serpens in ecclesia erit. Certe idololatres in arcæ typo non habetur. Quod in arca non fuit, in ecclesia non sit •Virtus omnis ex his causam accipit, a quibus provocatur •Vox ista (Joh. I. 14 •a limine •a priori •ab ecclesia authenticæ •ab initio •actus utriusque substantiæ •ad originem dominicam et ad evangelicam adque apostolicam traditionem •adoptio •adulterium •adunitio •adunitio verbi dei ad plasma •agnitio filii •agnitio patris filius, agnitio autem filii in patre et per filium revelata •alias pater, alias filius, alias non aliud •aliquem nominare deum •aliud est substantia, aliud natura substantiæ; siquidem substantia propria est rei cuiusque, natura vero potest esse communis. Suscipe exemplum: substantia est lapis, ferrum; duritia lapidis et ferri natura substantia est. Duritia (natura) communicat, substantia discordat. Mollitia lanæ, mollitia plumæ pariant naturalia eorum, substantiva non pariant . . . Et tunc naturæ similitudo notatur, cum substantiæ dissimilitudo conspicitur.

266

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•ambæ substantiæ in statu suo quæque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operæ et exitus sui occurrerunt . . . neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in uno plane esse possunt. •amplianda adimplendaque lex •amplius aliquid respondentes quam dominus in evangelio determinavit •anima Christi ita elegit diligere iustitiam, ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter ei atque inseparabiliter inhæreret, ita ut propositi firmitas et affectus immensitas et dilectionis inexstinguibilis calor omnem sensum conversionis atque immutationis abscinderet, et quod in arbitrio erat positum, longi usus affectu iam versum sit in naturam. •anima Iesu ab initio creaturæ et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhærens et tota totum recipiens atque in eius lucem splendoremque ipsa cedens facta est cum ipso principaliter unus spiritus •animal vivens •ante et extra usum •antiquissima •antiquus ecclesiæ status in universo mundo et character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum •antistes Christi •antistes dei •apostolice •apostolicus •articulus constitutivus ecclesiæ •articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ •assumptio carnis ex virgine •auctoritas divina •auctoritas et ratio •auctoritates praecessorum eius •audio edictum esse præpositum et quidem peremptorium •baptismus non est necessarius, quibus fides satis est •baptizatus et corpore Christi pastus •benedictus papa •blasphemia •blasphemia creatoris •calicem in commemorationem domini et passionis eius offerre •capax est frigoris et caloris •capax incorruptibilitatis •capax incorruptionis et immortalitatis •captatio benevolentiæ •caro •catalogus testimoniorum •cathedra •cathedra Petri •cathedra sacerdotalis •catholica fides et religio •catholica traditio 267

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•catholicam •charisma veritatis •clerici maiores •columba s. spiritus advolat, pacem dei adferens, emissa de cœlis, ubi ecclesia est arca figurata •commixtio et communio dei et hominis •communicatio ideomatum •communicatio tua, id est catholicæ ecclesiæ unitas pariter et caritas •commutatio agnitionis •completus numerus prophetarum •complexus oppositorum •concordia episcoporum •conditio duarum substantiarum, quas Christus et ipse gestat •conscientia religionis •consecutio æternitatis •consecutio spiritus sancti •constat hominem a deo factum esse, non ex deo processisse; ex deo autem homo quomodo non processit, sic dei verbum processit •constituta in episcopo et in clero et in omnibus credentibus •consuetudo sine veritate •contesserare •convenire •convenire necesse est •conversio partis alicuius substantiæ dei in filium •corporalis et spiritalis [i.e. •corpus permixtum •corpus spiritale •credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam •culpa •cum episcopatus successione certum veritatis charisma •cunctatio baptismi •cur deus — homo •curiositas •de facto •de ira dei •de opere et eleemosynis •de pudicitia •de trinitate seu de regula fidei •de unitate ecclesiæ •de virginitate •dei •dei spiritus •deservire altari et sacrificia divina celebrare •deum corpus esse •deus 268

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•deus consilium dat continere bonum, quod perficitur ex obedientia. •deus crucifixus •deus et homo •deus factus homo •deus homo factus •deus in stultitia et impossibilitate materias operationis suæ instituit. •deus passus, deus crucifixus est •deus unus est et Christus unus et una ecclesia et cathedra una super Petrum domini voce fundata •deus, verbum, filius dei, homo, filius hominis, plasma dei •differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit ecclesiæ auctoritas et honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus. Adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tinguis et sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici •diligentia conversationis adaucta est •disciplina •disciplina sacerd. •disciplina vitæ •dispositio unitatis, quando unitas ex semetipsa [trinitatem] derivat •dispositio, distinctio, numerus •distincte agere •divisio •doctrinæ inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt Gnosticorum. •doctrina •doctrina apostolorum •doctrina regulæ •dominicæ hostiæ veritatem per falsa sacrificia profanare •dominica hostia •dominus apostolos, i. e. •dominus per passionem mortem destruxit et solvit errorem corruptionemque exterminavit, et ignorantiam destruxit, vitam autem manifestavit et ostendit veritatem et incorruptionem donavit •dominus sanavit illa quæ Adam portaverat vulnera •donum superadditum et supernaturale •duæ substantiæ •duplex adventus Christi •duplex status non confusus sed conjunctus •dux substantiæ •e sæculo excedere •eam quæ est a Maria in Evam recirculationem significans; quia non aliter quod colligatum est solveretur, nisi ipsæ compagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus, ut primæ coniunctiones solvantur per secundas, secundæ rursus liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem a secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem primæ solutionis habere locum. Et propter hoc dominus dicebat primos quidem novissimos futuros et novissimos primos. •ecclesiæ •ecclesiæ novellæ et posteræ •ecclesia 269

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum •ecclesia catholica •ecclesia credentium plebs •ecclesia est numerus episcoporum •ecclesia maxima et omnibus cognita •ecclesia principalis •ecclesia spiritus, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum •ecclesia super episcopos constituta •ecclesia una quidem est, cum perfecta est; multæ vero sunt adolescentulæ, cum adhuc instruuntur et proficiunt •ego et pater unum sumus ad substantiæ unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem dictum est •eiusdem sacramenti •episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus •episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur •episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur. •episcopus episcoporum •et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo •et homines igitur videbunt deum, ut vivant, per visionem immortales facti et pertingentes usque in deum. •et offeres pro duabus uxoribus, et commendabis illas duas per sacerdotem de monogamia ordinatum •et quoniam in nobis divina et paterna pietas apostolatus ducatum contulit et vicariam domini sedem cælesti dignatione ordinavit et originem authentici apostolatus, super quem Christus fundavit ecclesiam, in superiore nostro portamus. •et sic unus deus pater ostenditur, qui est super omnia et per omnia et in omnibus; super omnia pater quidem et ipse est caput Christi •etiam laicis ius est”), ut possit baptismo suo peccata hominis qui baptizatur abluere •eum odivit deus, qui seduxit hominem, ei vero qui seductus est, sensim paullatimque misertus est. •evangelicæ et apostolicæ litteræ •ex originis vitio •ex parte accepimus gratiam •ex professo •ex substantia dei •ex una substantia esse omnia, id est Abraham et Moysem et prophetas, etiam ipsum dominum. •expositio legitima •extra ecclesiam •extra ecclesiam nulla salus •fœdus spei •fabricator qui fecit mundum per semitipsum, hoc est per verbum et per sapientiam suam •factum esse •factus est quod sumus nos •falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eorum adseverando •falsum testimonium •fertur in traditionibus 270

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•fidelissimus sequester dei et hominum, qui et homini deum et hominem deo reddet •fides apostolica •fides aucta est •fides catholica •fides credenda •fides et iustitia •fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis •figura expressa substantia: patris •filius dei •filius dei et filius hominis •filius dei factus filius hominis •filius dei filius hominis factus •filius dei filius hominis factus est propter nos •filius dei miscens in semetipso hominem et deum •filius dei passus est propter nos •filius dei passus est ut nos filios dei faceret, et filius hominis (scil. the Christians) pati non vult esse dei filius possit. •filius est in patre et habet in se patrem •filius miscens in semetipso hominem et deum, ut tantum homini conferat, quantum deo detrahit. Conversabatur deus, ut homo divina agere doceretur. Ex æquo agebat deus cum homine, ut homo ex æquo agere cum deo posset. •filius portio plenitudinis •forum publicum •fraus •fuit tempus, cum ei filius non fuit. •gratia •hæc sunt initia hæreticorum et ortus adque conatus schismaticorum, ut præpositum superbo tumore contemnant •hæretici nolunt Christum secundam esse personam post patrem, sed ipsum patrem •habere non potest deum patrem qui ecclesiam non habet matrem •habitus •hic est enim legitimus dei filius qui ex ipso deo est, qui, dum sanctum illud (Luke I. 35 •hinc est quod neque idololatriæ neque sanguini pax ab ecclesiis redditur. •his qui inquieti erant in eremo dans aptissimam legem . . . per omnes transiens verbum omni conditioni congruentem et aptam legem conscribens •hoc autem ipsum, quod dicimus, quia nunquam fuit, quando non fuit, cum venia audiendum est •homicidium •homo •homo deo mixtus •homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus •homo initio in Adam inobediens per mortem percussus est •homo inspiratus •homo rationabilis et secundum hoc similis deo liber in arbitrio factus et suæ potestatis, ipse sibi causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum aliquando autem palea fiat. 271

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•id verbum filium eius appellatum, in nomine dei varie visum a patriarchis, in prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spiritu patris dei et virtute in virginem Mariam, carnem factum •idololatria •immensum patrem in filio mensuratum; mensura enim patris filius, quoniam et capit eum. •impossibile est sine deo discere deum •in apostolis quidem dicunt spiritum sanctum fuisse, paracletum non fuisse, et paracletum plura in Montano dixisse quam Christum in evangelio protulisse. •in ecclesia posuit deus universam operationem spiritus; caius non sunt participes omnes qui non concurrunt ad ecclesiam . . . ubi enim ecclesia, ibi et spiritus dei, et ubi spiritus dei, illic ecclesia et omnis gratia •in foro publico •in nuce •in ordinatione ecclesiasticæ disciplinæ sanctificatæ erant •in qua •in thesi •in uno et altero ecclesia est, ecelesia vero Christus •incarnatus •infans •infanti remittintur non propria sed aliena peccata. •inlicere •inquisitio universitatis •institutio •instrumentum divinæ litteraturæ •instrumentum ecclesiæ •inter domesticos •ipso facto •ita fit, ut interdum ille qui foras mittitur intus sit, et ille foris, qui intus videtur retineri. •ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur •item b. apostolus Johannes nec ipse ullam hæresin aut schisma discrevit aut aliquos speciatim separes posuit •iudices vice Christi •iustitia opus est, ut promereri quis possit deum iudicem: præceptis eius et monitis obtemperandum est, ut accipiant merita nostra mercedem. •lamentationes •lamentationes, ieiunia, eleemosynæ •lavacrum regenerationis et sanctificationis •legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet. •lex •lex et doctrina •lex evangelica •lex prædocuit hominem sequi oportere Christum •libellatici •liberæ sententiæ ab initio est homo et liberæ sententiæ est deus, cuius ad similitudinem factus est. •libertatem restauravit 272

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•liberum arbitrium •literæ pacis •locum magisterii apostolorum •longa hominum expositio •magisterium •magna mater •maior est legisdatio quæ in libertatem, quam quæ data est in servitutem •matrix et radix ecclesiæ catholicæ •maxima •merces •merita •meritum •minores •modicum delictum illuc luendum •mutatis mutandis •nam et ipsa ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est trinitas unius divinitatis, pater et filius et spiritus sanctus. Illam ecclesiam congregat quam dominus in tribus posuit. Atque ita exinde etiam numerus omnis qui in hanc fidem conspiraverint ecclesia ab auctore et consecratore censetur. Et ideo ecclesia quidem delicta donabit, sed ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum •nasci se deus in utero patitur. •nasci se voluit deus •naturæ rationabiles •natura •natura hominis •naturalia legis •naturaliter similis deo •navigare audent et ad Petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides apostolo prædicante laudata est (see epp. 30. 2, 3: 60. 2), ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum. •ne accedas ad me, quoniam mundus sum; non enim accepi uxorem, nec est sepulcrum patens guttur meum, sed sum Nazarenus dei non bibens vinum sicut illi •ne forte, ex quo martyres non fiunt et hostiæ sanctorum non offeruntur pro peccatis nostris, peccatorum nostrorum remissionem non mereamur. •ne mater quidem ecclesia præteritur •nec convertibilis aut mutabilis dici potest •nemo tibi persuadeat; nemo semetipsum decipiat: extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur. •nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino unquam fuit •neque enim aliunde hæreses obortæ sunt aut nata sunt schismata, quam quando sacerdoti dei non obtemperatur •neque enim spiritus sine aqua separatim operari potest nec aqua sine spiritu male ergo sibi quidem interpretantur ut dicant, quod per manus impositionem spiritum sanctum accipiant et sic recipiantur, cum manifestum sit utroque sacramento 273

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum •noli me tangere •non enim infectus es, o homo, neque semper coëxsistebas deo, sicut proprium eius verbum. •non est pax illi ab episcopo necessaria habituro gloriæ suæ (scil. martyrii) pacem et accepturo maiorem de domini dignatione mercedem •non est una nobis et schismaticis symboli lex neque eadem interrogatio; nam cum dicunt, credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam, mentiuntur •non ita sentiendum est, quod omnis divinitatis eius maiestas intra brevissimi corporis claustra conclusa est, ita ut omne verbum dei et sapientia eius ac substantialis veritas ac vita vel a patre divulsa sit vel intra corporis eius coercita et conscripta brevitatem nec usquam præterea putetur operata; sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis debet esse confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus a paterna substantia, quæ ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio. •non sic de substantia corporis ipsius exprimimus, ut solum tantum hominem illum esse dicamus, sed ut divinitate sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta etiam deum illum teneamus •non tunc cœpit filius dei, exsistens semper apud patrem •nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? . . . adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tınguıs et sacerdos es tibi solus, sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici. •nos autem Iesus summus sacerdos sacerdotes deo patri suo fecit . . . vivit unicus pater noster deus et mater ecclesia, . . certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati •nos sumus veri adoratores et veri sacerdotes, qui spiritu orantes spiritu sacrificamus; •nova lex •nova promissio regni cœlorum •novissima lex •novum testamentum •novum testamentum libertatis •numerus •numerus episcoparum •o felix culpa •oblatio •officia humiliationis •omne quod est, corpus est sui generis; nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est. •omnem ecclesiam •omnes iusti sacerdotalem habent ordinem •omni ecclesiæ dei et credentium populo sacerdotium datum. •omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt •omnis creatura rationabilis laudis et culpæ capax: laudis, si secundum rationem, quam in se habet, ad meliora proficiat, culpæ, si rationem recti declinet •opera et eleemosynæ •oportet vero mundari et sanctificari aquam prius a sacerdote •oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere •opuscula •ordines •ordines minores 274

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•ordo episcoporum per successionem ab initio decurrens •origo authentici •par excellence •particularia legis •passio dominis •pater conditionem simul et verbum suum portans •pater generis humani verbum dei •patibilis •peccando promeremur •peccata purgare et hominem sanctificare aqua sola non potest, nisi habeat et spiritum sanctum. •peccato alterius inquinari alterum et idololatriam delinquentis ad non delinquentem transire •per adoptionem •per diabolum homo a primordio circumventus, ut præceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum suæ etiam damnationis traducem fecit. •per episcopos solos peccata posse dimitti •per verbum eius Iesum Christum. •perficere, solvere, demutare •permixtio •perseverantes in servitute pristinæ inobedientiæ moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo dei patris neque per filium percipientes libertatem . . . privantur munere eius, quod est vita æterna: non recipientes autem verbum incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et sunt debitores mortis, antidotum vitæ non accipientes. Ad quos verbum ait, suum munus gratiæ narrans: •personales substantias extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat. •plasma dei •plebs credentium •pondus baptismi •pondus peccati •pontifex maximus •possibilitas utriusque •posterius •potentior principalitas •potest ecclesia donare delictum, sed non faciam •potestas apostolorum •potestas reconciliandi iratum deum. •præcepta dominica •præcessorum auctoritates •præfectus urbis •præsens numen •præsertim cum animadvertat, scripturam evangelicam utramque istam substantiam in unam nativitatis Christi foederasse concordiam •preces •predestinatione •primitivæ e virtutes ac primo creatæ, immobiles exsistentes secundum substantiam 275

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•princeps æmulus •principalitas •principium evangelii •principium generationis separatum ab opificis principio non est. Cum enim dicit “quod erat ab initio” generationem tangit sine principio filii cum patre simul exstantis. •prius •pro magnitudine sua debet Carthaginem Roma præcedere •procedere •promereri deum •promereri deum (iudicem) •promereri deum judicem post baptismum sacrificiis •prophetæ proprii •proprietates iudaicæ literaturæ •propter eos vero, qui nunc peccant, Christus non iam morietur •propter hominem iudicatus est iudex, impassibilis passus est? •quæ aliam regulam fidei superducerent •quæ ante oculos nostros occurrunt •qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus, quando habeat in ecclesiæ administratione voluntatis suæ arbitrium liberum unusquisque præpositus, rationem actus sui domino redditurus. •quemadmodum igitur erit homo deus, qui nondum factus est homo? •qui gloriosum corpus Christi, quantum in ipsis est, interficiunt, non habentes dei dilectionem suamque utilitatem potius considerantes quam unitatem ecclesiæ. •qui nimis probat nihil probat. •qui potest capere capiat, inquit, id est qui non potest discedat. •qui sunt extra veritatem •quia eucharistia habet    μ      •quod alligavit virgo Eva per incredulitatem, hoc virgo Maria solvit per fidem •quodammodo •quomodo finis legis Christus, si non et initium eius esset •quoniam Iohannes ipsum corpus (Christi), quod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui præbuisse discipuli •quoniam cum caro et sanguis non obtinere regnum dei scribitur, non carnis substantia damnata est, quæ divinis manibus ne periret, exstructa est, sed sola carnis culpa •quoniam pro magnitudine sua •radix et mater •ratio •realiter •recapitulatio •recapitulatio per Christum •recapitulatur generis humani •receptior •reformavit humanum genus •regeneratio hominis •regnum dei 276

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•regulæ •regula •regula disciplinæ •regula doctrinæ •regula fidei •regula sacramenti •regula veritatis •remissio delictorum •renati ex aqua et pudicitia •restitutio •restitutio ad similitudinem dei •sacerdos •sacerdos dei •sacerdotalïs dignitas •sacerdotale officium •sacerdotalia munera •sacerdotalis ordo •sacerdotium •sacramentum •sacramentum absolutionis •sacramentum baptismi et eucharistiæ •sacramentum ordinis •sacramentum sacrificii dominici •sacramentum unitatis •sacrificati •sacrificium •sacrificium celebrare •salus et salvator et salutare •sancti et docti homines •sanctificatio •sanctus minister •sanguinem Christi offerre •sanguis Christi •sanguis quod est cognitio •sapientia dei substantialiter subsistens •satisfacere •satisfacere deo •satisfacere, meritum, sacramentum, vitium originis etc., etc. •scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo et si qui cum episcopo non sit in ecclesia non esse •secundum dilectionem •secundum nullam sententiam hæreticorum verbum dei caro factum est •secundus a deo consititutus, perseverans in sua forma •semen Abrahæ ecclesia 277

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•semper apud patrem •semper autem coëxsistens filius patri, olim et ab initio semper revelat patrem et angelis et archangelis et potestatibus et virtutibus et omnibus, quibus vult revelari deus •septem maculas capitalium delictorum •sermo •servetur ecclesiastica prædicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita et usque ad praesens in ecclesiis permanens: illa sola credenda est veritas, quæ in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione •si Christus Jesus dominus et deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos dei patris et sacrificium patri se ipsum obtulit et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem præcepit, utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur et sacrificium verum et plenum tunc offert in ecclesia deo patri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse •si in aliquo in ecclesia nutaverit et vacillaverit veritas •sic homo cum deo, dum caro hominis cum spiritu dei. •sicut lavacro aquæ salutaris gehennæ ignis extinguitur, ita eleemosynis adque operationibus iustus delictorum flamma sopitur, et quia semel in baptismo remissa peccatorum datur, adsidua et iugis operatio baptismi instar imitata dei rursus indulgentiam largiatur. •signum et vinculum •sine quâ non •species •speciosior quam verior •spes fidei •spiritum Christus cum verbo sponte dimisit, prævento carnificis officio. •spiritus sanctus in filium dei, filium hominis factum, descendit cum ipso assuescens habitare in genere humano. •status quo ante •stuprum •sub condicione mortis •substantiæ rationabiles •substantia •substantia omnium voluntas dei •successio Petri •successio apostolica •summus sacerdos •sunt qui ignobilem et degenerem vitam ducunt, qui et fide et actibus et omni conversatione sua perversi sunt. Neque enim possibile est, ad liquidum purgari ecclesiam, dum in terris est, ita ut neque impius in ea quisquam, neque peccator residere videatur, sed sint in ea omnes sancti et beati, et in quibus nulla prorsus peccati macula deprehendatur. Sed sicut dicitur de zizaniis: Ne forte eradicantes zizania simul eradicetis et triticum, ita etiam super its dici potest, in quibus vel dubia vel occulta peccata sunt . . . Eos saltem eiiciamus quos possumus, quorum peccata manifesta sunt. Ubi enim peccatum non est evidens, eiicere de ecclesia neminem possumus. •super Petrum fundata •supergredientes legem humani generis et antequam fiant homines, iam volunt similes esse factori deo et nullam esse differentiam infecti dei et nunc facti hominis. 278

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•superunum ædificat ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat, tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis eiusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit •tam enim scriptura etiam deum adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum hominem adnuntiat deum, tam hominem descripsit Iesum Christum, quam etiam deum quoque descripsit Christum dominum. •tam ex domini evangelio quam ex apostoli litteris •termini •tertium numen divinitatis et tertium nomen maiestatis •tertium quid •tertius est spiritus a deo et filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus a frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus a flumine et tertius a sole apex ex radio. Nihil tamen a matrice alienatur a qua proprietates suas ducit. Ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a patre decurrens et monarchiæ nihil obstrepit et       μ    •tessera hospitalitas •testamentum libertatis •theologia physica, mythica •toleramus radium eius pro temperatura portionis, quæ in terram inde porrigitur. •tota substantia •traditio dominica •traditio seniorum •traditio unius sacramenti •tres unum sunt, non unus •trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituit, unitas irrationaliter collecta hæresim facit •typice et temporaliter et mediocrius •tyrannico terrore •ubi tres, id est pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quæ trium corpus est •ubique præclara est ecclesia; ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt spiritum •una columba •una dominatio •una ecclesia a Christo domino nostro super Petrum origine unitatis et ratione fundata •una est enim salus et unus deus; quæ autem formant hominem, præcepta multa et non pauci gradus, qui adducunt hominem ad deum •una natura •una persona •una substantia •una substantia, tres personæ •unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici. •ungi quoque necesse est eum qui baptizatus est, ut accepto chrismate, i.e. •unguentem patrem et unctum filium et unctionem, qui est spiritus •unigenitus filius venit ad nos, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans. •unitas disciplinæ •unitas ecclesiæ •unitas sacerdotalis •unitatem a domino et per apostolos nobis successoribus traditam 279

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

•unius et eiusdem substantiæ. •unius substantiæ •unus deus et unum baptismum et una ecclesia in cœlis •urbs æterna urbs sacra •ut fratres nostros in mente habeatis orationibus vestris et eis vicem boni operis in sacrificiis et precibus repræsentetis, subdidi nomina singulorum. •ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione substantiæ. •uti virgo esset regeneratio nostra spiritaliter ab omnibus inquinamentis sanctificata per Christum. •utramque partem •utraque substantia et carnis et spiritus Christi •utrosque dei appellatione signavit spiritus, et eum qui ungitur filium et eum, qui ungit, id est patrem. •vademecum •verba “his scripturis” suspecta sunt, cum interpres in c. II. 3 ex suis inseruerit “quod dictum est” •verbum caro factum •verbum caro factus •verbum caro figuratus . . . homo deo mixtus •verbum dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, qui est dominus noster Jesus Christus. •verbum naturaliter quidem invisibile •verbum portatum a patre •verbum universorum potestatem habet a patre •vere et semper et austerius •veritas •veritas, hoc est dei filii doctrina •veterem legem libertatis hominis manifestavit, quia liberum eum deus fecit ab initio, habentem suam potestatem sicut et suam animam ad utendum sententia dei voluntarie et non coactum a deo . . . posuit in homine potestatem electionis quemadmodum in angelis (et enim angeli rationabiles), ut hi quidem qui obedissent iuste bonum sint possidentes, datum quidem a deo, servatum vero ab ipsis •viaticum mortis •vice versâ •virginis senectæ •virginitas Mariæ in partu •virtus altera in sua proprietate subsistens •visio dei •vivi et defuncti •voluntas humana præcedit

Index of Pages of the Print Edition iii vii viii ix x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

280

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380

281

iii

HISTORY OF DOGMA BY

DR. ADOLPH HARNACK ORDINARY PROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, BERLIN

TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION

BY

NEIL BUCHANAN VOLUME II

CONTENTS. Page

CHAPTER 1. — Historical Survey The Old and New Elements in the formation of the Catholic Church The fixing of that which is Apostolic (Rule of Faith, Collection of Writings, Organization, Cultus) The Stages in the Genesis of the Catholic Rule of Faith, the Apologists 564 Irenæus, Tertullian, Hippolytus Clement and Origen Obscurities in reference to the origin of the most important Institutions Difficulties in determining the importance of individual Personalities Differences of development in the Churches of different countries 56e FIXING AND GRADUAL SECULARISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS A CHURCH I.

1-18 2 5 7 9 11 15 16 17 18168

CHAPTER II. — The setting up of the Apostolic Standards for Ecclesiastical 18-93 Christianity. The Catholic Church A. The transformation of the Baptismal Confession into the Apostolic Rule of Faith Necessities for setting up the Apostolic Rule of Faith The Rule of Faith is the Baptismal Confession definitely interpreted Estimate of this transformation Irenæus Tertullian viiiResults

of the transformation Slower development in Alexandria: Clement and Origen B. The designation of selected writings read in the Churches as New Testament Scriptures or, in other words, as a collection of Apostolic Writings Plausible arguments against the statement that up to the year 150 there was no New Testament in the Church. Sudden emergence of the New Testament in the Muratorian Fragment, in (Melito) Irenæus and Tertullian. Conditions under which the New Testament originated. aef Relation of the New Testament to the earlier writings that were read in the Churches Causes and motives for the formation of the Canon, manner of using

20-38 21 24 27 27 29 53c 31 32 38-67 38 43 45 47 51

and results of the New Testament The Apostolic collection of writings can be proved at first only in those Churches in which we find the Apostolic Rule of Faith; probably there was no New Testament in Antioch about the year 200, nor in Alexandria (Clement) Probable history of the genesis of the New Testament in Alexandria up to the time of Origen ADDENDUM. The results which the creation of the New Testament produced in the following period C. The transformation of the Episcopal Office in the Church into an Apostolic Office. The History of the remodelling of the conception of the Church The legitimising of the Rule of Faith by the Communities which were founded by the Apostles By the “Elders” By the Bishops of Apostolic Churches (disciples of Apostles) By the Bishops as such, who have received the Apostolic Charisma veritatis Excursus on the conceptions of the Alexandrians The Bishops as successors of the Apostles Original idea of the Church as the Holy Community that comes from Heaven and is destined for it The Church as the empiric Catholic Communion resting on the Law of Faith

56

60 62 67-94 67 68 69 70 70 70 73565 74

ixObscurities

in the idea of the Church as held by Irenmus and Tertullian By Clement and Origen Transition to the Hierarchical Idea of the Church

77 80 83

The Hierarchical idea of the Church: Calixtus and Cyprian

84

Appendix I. Cyprian’s idea of the Church and the actual circumst 558 ances 90 Appendix II. Church and Heresy 90 Appendix III. Uncertainties regarding the consequences of the new idea of 93 the Church CHAPTER III. — Continuation. — The Old Christianity and the New Church

94169

Introduction 94 The Original Montanism 95 The later Montanism as the dregs of the movement and as the product of a 100 compromise The opposition to the demands of the Montanists by the Catholic Bishops:

104

importance of the victory for the Church 570 History of penance: the old practice The laxer practice in the days of Tertullian and Hippolytus The abolition of the old practice in the days of Cyprian Significance of the new kind of penance for the idea of the Church; the Church no longer a Communion of Salvation and of Saints, but a condition of Salvation and a Holy Institution and thereby a corpus permixtum After effect of the old idea of the Church in Cyprian

115

Origen’s idea of the Church

116

109 110 111 113

Novatian’s idea of the Church and of penance, the Church of the Catharists 118 Conclusion: the Catholic Church as capable of being a support to society and the state 122 564 Addenda I. The Priesthood 128 ”

II. Sacrifice

131

”

III. Means of Grace. baptism and the Eucharist

138 149169

Excursus to Chapters II. and III. — Catholic and Roman x

II. FIXING AND GRADUAL HELLENISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS A SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE. CHAPTER IV. — Ecclesiastical Christia 55b nity and Philosophy. The Apologists 1. Introduction The historical position of the Apologists Apologists and Gnostics Nature and importance of the Apologists’ theology 2. Christianity as Philosophy and as Revelation Aristides Justin Athenagoras Miltiades, Melito Tatian55b Pseudo Justin, Orat. ad Gr. Theophilus

169230 169 169 170 172 177 179 179 188 190 190 193 194

Pseudo Justin, de Resurr. Tertullian and Minucius Pseudo-Justin, de Monarch Results 3. The doctrines of Christianity as the revealed and rational religion Arrangement The Monotheistic Cosmology Theology Doctrine of the Logos Doctrine of the World and of Man541 Doctrine of Freedom and Morality Doctrine of Revelation (Proofs from Prophecy) Significance of the History of Jesus Christology of Justin Interpretation and Criticism, especially of Justin’s doctrines

195 196 199 199 202 202 204 205 206 212 214 215 217 220 225

CHAPTER V. — The Beginnings of an Ecclesiastico-theological interpretation and revision of the Rule of Faith in opposition to Gnosticism, on 231the basis of the New Testament and the Christian Philosophy of 319 the Apologists; Melito, Irenæus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian afd 1.

2.

xiThe

theological position of Irenæus and of the later contemporary Church teachers Characteristics of the theology of the Old Catholic Fathers, their wavering between Reason and Tradition Loose structure of their Dogmas Irenæus’ attempt to construct a systematic theology and his fundamental theological convictions Gnostic and anti-Gnostic features of his theology Christianity conceived as a real redemption by Christ (recapitulatio) His conception of a history of salvation His historical significance: conserving of tradition and gradual hellenising of the Rule of Faith The Old Catholic Fathers’ doctrine of the Church The Antithesis to Gnosticism The “Scripture theology” as a sign of the dependence on “Gnosticism” and as a means of conserving tradition The Doctrine of God The Logos Doctrine of Tertullian and Hippolytus (Conceptions regarding the Holy Spirit)

231 231 234 236 237 239 244 244 247 247 250 253 256 261

3.

Irenæus’ doctrine of the Logos (Conceptions regard ac8 ing the Holy Spirit) The views of Irenæus regarding the destination of man, the original state, the fall and the doom of death (the disparate series of ideas in Irenæus; rudiments of the doctrine of original sin in Tertullian) The doctrine of Jesus Christ as the incarnate son of God Assertion of the complete mixture and unity of the divine and human elements Significance of Mary Tertullian’s doctrine of the two natures and its origin Rudiments of this doctrine in Irenæus The Gnostic character of this doctrine Christology of Hippolytus Views as to Christ’s work Redemption, Perfection Reconciliation Categories for the fruit of Christ’s work xii Things peculiar to Tertullian Satisfacere Deo The Soul as the Bride of Christ The Eschatology Its archaic nature, its incompatibility with speculation and the advantage of connection with that Conflict with Chiliasm in the East The doctrine ac8 of the two Testaments The influence of Gnosticism on the estimate of the two Testaments, the complexus oppositorum; the Old Testament a uniform Christian Book as in the Apologists The Old Testament a preliminary stage of the New Testament and a compound Book The stages in the history of salvation The law of freedom the climax of the revelation in Christ Results to Ecclesiastical Christianity, chiefly in the West, (Cyprian, Novatian)

262 266 267 275 275 277 279 283 286 286 288 289 292 292 293 294 294 294 297 299 300 301 304 305 309 312

CHAPTER VI. — The Transformation of the Ecclesiastical Tradition into a Philosophy of Religion, or the Origin of the Scientific Theology 319 and Dogmatic of the Church: Clement and Origen (1)

The Alexandrian Catechetical School and Clement of Alexandria 319

Schools and Teachers in the Church at the end of the second and the beginning of the third century; scientific efforts (Alogi in Asia Minor, Cappadocian Scholars, Bardesanes of Edessa, Julius Africanus, Scholars in Palestine, Rome and Carthage) The Alexandrian Catechetical School. Clement The temper of Clement and his importance in the History of Dogma; his relation to Irenus, to the Gnostics and to primitive Christianity; his philosophyof Religion Clement and Origen (2)556 The system of Origen Introductory: The personality and importance of Origen The Elements of Origen’s theology; its Gnostic features The relative view of Origen

I.

II. III.

xiv xv

His temper and final aim: relation to Greek Philosophy xiiiTheology as a Philosophy of Revelation, and a cosmological speculation Porphyry on Origen The neutralising of History, esoteric and exoteric Christianity Fundamental ideas and arrangement of his system Sources of truth, doctrine of Scripture The Doctrine of God and its unfolding Doctrine of God Doctrine of the Logos Clement’s doctrine of the Logos Doctrine of the Holy Spirit Doctrine of Spirits Doctrine of the Fall and its consequences Doctrine of Man Doctrine of Redemption and Restoration The notions necessary to the Psychical The Christ 564 ology The Appropriation of Salvation The Eschatology Concluding Remarks: The importance of this system to the following period

320

323 324 331 332 332 334 334, 336 335 340 341 342 343 346572 349 349 352 352 357 359 361 363 365 367 369 375 377 378

DIVISION I. BOOK II. THE LAYING OF THE FOUNDATIONS xvi

1

CHAPTER I. HISTORICAL SURVEY. THE second century of the existence of Gentile-Christian communities was characterised by the victorious conflict with Gnosticism and the Marcionite Church, by the gradual development of an ecclesiastical doctrine, and by the decay of the early Christian enthusiasm. The general result was the establishment of a great ecclesiastical association, which, forming at one and the same time a p 564 olitical commonwealth, school and union for worship, was based on the firm foundation of an “apostolic” law of faith, a collection of “apostolic” writings, and finally, an “apostolic” organisation. This institution was the Catholic Church.1 In opposition to Gnosticism and Marcionitism, the main articles forming the estate and possession of orthodox Christianity were raised to the rank of apostolic regulations and laws, and thereby placed beyond all discussion and assault. At first the innovations introduced by this were not of a material, but of a formal, character. Hence they were not noticed by any of those who had never, or only in a vague fashion, been elevated to the feeling and idea of freedom and independence in religion. 2How great the innovations actually were, however, may be measured by

1

Aubé (Histoire des Persécutions de l’Eglise, Vol. II. 1878, pp. 1-68) has given a survey of the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma. The disquisitions of Renan in the last volumes of his great historical work are excellent, though not se 564 ldom exaggerated in particular points. See especially the concluding observations in Vol. VII. cc. 28-34. Since the appearance of Ritschl’s monograph on the genesis of the old Catholic Church, a treatise which, however, forms too narrow a conception of the problem, German science can point to no work of equal rank with the French. Cf. Sohm’s Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. which, however, in a very one-sided manner, makes the adoption of the legal and constitutional arrangements responsible for all the evil in the Church.

the fact that they signified a scholastic tutelage of the faith of the individual Christian, and restricted the immediateness of religious feelings and ideas to the narrowest limits. But the conflict with the so-called Montanism showed that there were still a considerable n 564 umber of Christians who valued that immediateness and freedom; these were, however, defeated. The fixing of the tradition under the title of apostolic necessarily led to the assumption that whoever held the apostolic doctrine was also essentially a Christian in the apostolic sense. This assumption, quite apart from the innovations which were legitimised by tracing them to the Apostles, meant the separation of doctrine and conduct, the preference of the former to the latter, and the transformation of a fellowship of faith, hope, and discipline into a communion “eiusdem sacramenti”, that is, into a union which, like the philosophical schools, rested on a doctrinal law, and which was subject to a legal code of divine institution.2

2

Sohm (p. 160) declares: “The foundation of Catholicism is the divine Church law to which it lays claim.” In many other passages he even seems to express the opinion that the Church law of itself, even when not represented as divine, is the hereditary enemy of the true Church and at the same time denotes the essence of Catholicism. See, e.g., p. 2: “The whole essence of Catholicism consists in its declaring legal institutions to be necessary to the Church.” Page 700: “The essence of Church law is incompatible ac8 with the essence of the Church.” This thesis really characterises Catholicism well and contains a great truth, if expressed in more careful terms, somewhat as follows: The assertion that there is a divine Church law (emanating from Christ, or, in other words, from the Apostles), which is necessary to the spiritual character of the Church and which in fact is a token of this very attribute, is incompatible with the essence of the Gospel and is the mark of a pseudo-Catholicism.” But the thesis contains too narrow a view of the case. For the divine Church law is only one feature of the essence of the Catholic Church, though a very important element, which Sohm, as a jurist, was peculiarly capable of recognising. The whole essence of Catholicism, however, consists in the deification of tradition generally. The declaration that the empirical institutions of the Church, created for and necessary to this purpose, are apostolic, a declaration which amalgamates them with the essence and content of the Gospel and places them beyond all criticism, is the peculiarly “Catholic” feature. Now, as a great part of these institutions cannot be inwardly appropriated and cannot really amalgamate with faith and piety, it is selfevident that such portions become legal ordinances, to which obedience must be rendered. For no other relation to these ordinances can be conceived. Hence the legal regulations and the corresponding slavish devotion come to have such immense scope in Catholicism, and well-nigh express its essence. But behind this is found the more general conviction that the empirical Church, as it actually exists, is the authentic, pure, and infallible creation: its doctrine, its regulations, its religious ceremonial are apostolic. Whoever doubts that renounces Christ. Now, if, as in the case of the Reformers, this conception be recognised as erroneous and unevangelical, the result must certainly be a

The movement which resulted in the Catholic Church owes its right to a place in the history of Christianity to the victory 3over Gnosticism and to the preservation of an important part of early Christian tradition. If Gnosticism in all its phases was the violent attempt to drag Ch 564 ristianity down to the level of the Greek world, and to rob it of its dearest possession, belief in the Almighty God of creation and redemption, then Catholicism, inasmuch as it secured this belief for the Greeks, preserved the Old Testament, and supplemented it with early Christian writings, thereby saving — as far as documents, at least, were concerned — and proclaiming the authority of an important part of primitive Christianity, must in one respect be acknowledged as a conservative force born from the vigour of Christianity. 4 If we put aside abstract considerations and merely look at the facts of the given situation, we cannot but admire a creation which first broke up the various outside forces assailing Christianity, and in which the highest blessings of this faith have always continued to be accessible. If the founder of the Christian religion had deemed belief in the Gospel and a life in accordance with it to be compatible with membership of the Synagogue and observance of

strong detestation of “the divine Church law.” Indeed, the inclination to sweep away all Church law is quite intelligible, for when you give the devil your little finger he takes the whole hand. But, on the other hand, it cannot be imagined how communities are to exist on earth, propagate themselves, and train men without regulations; and how regulations are to exist without resulting in the formation of a code of laws. In truth, such regulations have at no time been wanting in Christian communities, and have always possessed the character of a legal code. Sohm’s distinction, that in the oldest period there was no “law”, but only a “regulation”, is artificial, though possessed of a certain degree of truth; for the regulation has one aspect in a circle of like-minded enth 547 usiasts, and a different one in a community where all stages of moral and religious culture are represented, and which has therefore to train its members. Or should it not do so? And, on the other hand, had the oldest Churches not the Old Testament and the διατά of the Apostles? Were these no code of laws? Sohm’s proposition: “The essence of Church law is incompatible with the essence of the Church,” does not rise to evangelical clearness and freedom, but has been formed under the shadow and ban of Catholicism. I am inclined to call it an Anabaptist thesis. The Anabaptists were also in the shadow and ban of Catholicism; hence their only course was either the attempt to wreck the Church and Church history and found a new empire, or a return to Catholicism. Hermann Bockelson or the Pope! But the Gospel is above the question of Jew or Greek, and therefore also above the question of a legal code. It is reconcilable with everything that is not sin, even with the philosophy of the Greeks. Why should it not be also compatible with the monarchical bishop, with the legal code of the Romans, and even with the Pope, provided these are not made part of the Gospel.

the Jewish law, there could at least be no impossibility of adhering to the Gospel within the Catholic Church. Still, that is only one side of the case. The older Catholicism never clearly put the question, “What is Christian?” Instead of answering that question it rather laid down rules, the r 564 ecognition of which was to be the guarantee of Christianism. This solution of the problem seems to be on the one hand too narrow and on the other too broad. Too narrow, because it bound Christianity to rules under which it necessarily languished; too broad, because it did not in any way exclude the introduction of new and foreign conceptions. In throwing a protective covering round the Gospel, Catholicism also obscured it. It preserved Christianity from being hellenised to the most extreme extent, but, as time went on, it was forced to admit into this religion an ever greater measure of secularisation. In the interests of its world-wide mission it did not indeed directly disguise the terrible seriousness of religion, but, by tolerating a less strict ideal of life, it made it possible for those less in earnest to be considered Christians, and to regard themselves as such. It permitted the genesis of a Church, which was no longer a communion of faith, hope, and discipline, but a political commonwealth in which the Gospel merely had a place beside other things.3 In ever increasing measure it invested all the form 564 s which this secular commonwealth required with apostolic, that is, indirectly, with divine authority. This course disfigured Christianity and made a knowledge of what is Christian an obscure and difficult matter. But, in Catholicism, religion for the first time obtained a formal dogmatic system. Catholic Christianity 5discovered the formula which reconciled faith and knowledge. This formula satisfied humanity for centuries, and the blessed effects which it accomplished continued to operate even after it had itself already become a fetter. Catholic Christianity grew out of two converging series of developments. In the one were set up fixed outer standards for determining what is Christian, and these standards were proclaimed to be apostolic institutions. The baptismal confession was exalted to an apostolic rule of faith, that is, to an apostolic law of faith. A collection of apostolic writings was formed from those read in the Churches, and this compilation was placed on an equal footing with the Old Testament. The episcopal and monarchical constitution was declared to be apostolic, and the attribute of

ac4 3In the formation of the Marcionite Church we have, on the other hand, the attempt to create a rigid œcumenical community, held together solely by religion. The Marcionite Church therefore had a founder, the Catholic has none.

successor of the Apostles was conferred on the bishop. Finally, the religious ceremonial developed into a celebration of mysteries, which was in like manner traced back to the A 564 postles. The result of these institutions was a strictly exclusive Church in the form of a communion of doctrine, ceremonial, and law, a confederation which more and more gathered the various communities within its pale, and brought about the decline of all nonconforming sects. The confederation was primarily based on a common confession, which, however, was not only conceived as “law,” but was also very soon supplemented by new standards. One of the most important problems to be investigated in the history of dogma, and one which unfortunately cannot be completely solved, is to show what necessities led to the setting up of a new canon of Scripture, what circumstances required the appearance of living authorities in the communities, and what relation was established between the apostolic rule of faith, the apostolic canon of Scripture, and the apostolic office. The development ended with the formation of a clerical class, at whose head stood the bishop, who united in himself all conceivable powers, as teacher, priest, and judge. He disposed of the powers of Christianity, guaranteed its purity, and therefore in every respect held the Christian laity in tutelage. But even apart from the content which Christianity here received, this process in itself represents a progressive secularising of the Church 564 . This would be self-evident enough, even if it 6were not confirmed by noting the fact that the process had already been to some extent anticipated in the so-called Gnosticism (See vol. I. p. 253 and Tertullian, de præscr. 35). But the element which the latter lacked, namely, a firmly welded, suitably regulated constitution, must by no means be regarded as one originally belonging and essential to Christianity. The depotentiation to which Christianity was here subjected appears still more plainly in the facts, that the Christian hopes were deadened, that the secularising of the Christian life was tolerated and even legitimised, and that the manifestations of an unconditional devotion to the heavenly excited suspicion or were compelled to confine themselves to very narrow limits. But these considerations are scarcely needed as soon as we turn our attention to the second series of developments that make up the history of this period. The Church did not merely set up dykes and walls against Gnosticism in order to ward it off externally, nor was she satisfied with defending against it the facts which were the objects of her belief and hope; but, taking the creed for granted, she began to follow this heresy into its own special territory and to combat it with a scientific theology. T 55f hat was a necessity

which did not first spring from Christianity’s own internal struggles. It was already involved in the fact that the Christian Church had been joined by cultured Greeks, who felt the need of justifying their Christianity to themselves and the world, and of presenting it as the desired and certain answer to all the pressing questions which then occupied men’s minds. The beginning of a development which a century later reached its provisional completion in the theology of Origen, that is, in the transformation of the Gospel into a scientific system of ecclesiastical doctrine, appears in the Christian Apologetic, as we already find it before the middle of the second century. As regards its content, this system of doctrine meant the legitimising of Greek philosophy within the sphere of the rule of faith. The theology of Origen bears the same relation to the New Testament as that of Philo does to the Old. What is here presented as Christianity is in fact the idealistic religious philosophy of the age, attested by divine revelation, made accessible to all by the incarnation of the Logos, and purified from any 7connection with Greek mythology and gross polytheism. 569 1 A motley multitude of primitive Christian ideas and hopes, derived from both Testaments, and too brittle to be completely recast, as yet enclosed the kernel. But the majority of these were successfully manipulated by theological art, and the traditional rule of faith was transformed into a system of doctrine, in which, to some extent, the old articles found only a nominal place.4 This hellenising of ecclesiastical Christianity, by which we do not mean the Gospel, was not a gradual process; for the truth rather is that it was already accomplished the moment that the reflective Greek confronted the new religion which he had accepted. The Christianity of men like Justin, Athenagoras, and Minucius is not a whit less Hellenistic than that of Origen. But yet an important distinction obtains here. It is twofold. In the first place, those

4

The historian who wishes to determine the advance made by Græco-Roman humanity in the third and fourth centuries, under the influence of Catholicism and its theology, must above all keep in view the fact that gross polytheism and immoral mythology were swept away, spiritual monotheism brought near to all, and the ideal of a divine life and the hope of an eternal one made certain. Philosophy also aimed at that, but it was not able to establish a community of men on these foundations. 5 Luther, as is well known, had a very profound impression of the distinction between Biblical Christianity and the theology of the Fathers, who followed the theories of Origen. See, for example, Werke, Vol. LXII. p. 49, quoting Proles: “When the word of God comes to the Fathers, me thinks it is as if milk were filtered through a coal sack, where the milk must become black and spoiled.”

Apologists did not yet find themselves face to face with a fixed collection of writings having a title to be ac8 reverenced as Christian; they have to do with the Old Testament and the “Teachings of Christ” (διδάγµατα Χριστοῦ). In the second place, they do not yet regard the scientific presentation of Christianity as the main task and as one which this religion itself demands. As they really never enquired what was meant by “Christian,” or at least never put the question clearly to themselves, they never claimed that their scientific presentation of Christianity was the first proper expression of it that had been given. Justin and his contemporaries make it perfectly clear that they consider the traditional faith existing in the churches to be complete and pure and in itself requiring no scientific revision. In a word, the gulf which existed 8between the religious thought of philosophers and the sum of Christian tradition is still altogether unperceived, because that tradition was not yet fixed in rigid forms, because no religious utterance testifying to monotheism, virtue, and reward was as yet threatened by any control, and finally, because the speech of philosophy was only understood by a small minority in the Church, though its interests and aims were not unknown to most. Christian thinkers were therefore still free to divest of their direct religious value all realistic and historical elements of the tradition, while still retaining them as parts of a huge apparatus of proof, which accomplished what was really the only thing that many sought in Christianity, viz., the assurance that the theory of the world obtained from other sources was the truth. The danger which here threatened Christianity as a religion was scarcely less serious than that which had been caused to it by the Gnostics. These remodelled tradition, the Apologists made it to some extent inoperative without attacking it. The latter were not disowned, but rather laid the foundation of Church theology, and determined the circle of interests within which it was to move in the future.6 But the problem which the Apologists solved almost offhand, namely, the task of showing that Christianity was the perfect and certain philosophy, because it rested on revelation, and that it was the highest scientific knowledge of God and the world, was to be rendered more difficult. To these difficulties all that primitive Christianity has up to the present transmitt ac8 ed to the Church of succeeding times contributes its share. The conflict with 6

They were not the first to determine this circle of interests. So far as we can demonstrate traces of independent religious knowledge among the so-called Apostolic Fathers of the post-apostolic age, they are in thorough harmony with the theories of the Apologists, which are merely expressed with precision and divested of Old Testament language.

Gnosticism made it necessary to find some sort of solution to the question, “What is Christian?” and to fix this answer. But indeed the Fathers were not able to answer the question confidently and definitely. They therefore made a selection from tradition and contented themselves with making it binding on Christians. Whatever was to lay claim to authority in the 9Church had henceforth to be in harmony with the rule of faith and the canon of New Testament Scriptures. That created an entirely new situation for Christian thinkers, that is, for those trying to solve the problem of subordinating Christianity to the Hellenic spirit. That spirit never became quite master of the situation; it was obliged to accommodate itself to it.7 The work first began with the scientific treatment of individual articles contained in the rule of faith, partly with the view of disproving Gnostic conceptions, partly for the purpose of satisfying the Church’s own needs. The framework in which these articles were placed virtually continued to be the apologetic theology, for this maintained a doctrine of God and the world, which seemed to correspond to the earliest tradition as much as it ran counter to the Gnostic theses. (Melito), Irenæus, Tertullian and Hippolytus, aided more or less by tradition on the one hand and by philosophy on the other, opposed to the Gnostic dogmas about Christianity the articles of the baptismal confession interpreted as a rule of faith, these articles being developed into doctrines. Here they undoubtedly learned very much from the Gnostics and Marcion. If we define ecclesiastical dogmas as propositions handed down in the creed of the Church, shown to exist in the Holy Scriptures of both Testaments, and rationally reproduced and formulated, then the men we have just mentioned

585 7It was only after the apostolic tradition, fixed in the form of a comprehensive collection, seemed to guarantee the admissibility of every form of Christianity that reverenced that collection, that the hellenising of Christianity within the Church began in serious fashion. The fixing of tradition had had a twofold result. On the one hand, it opened the way more than ever before for a free and unhesitating introduction of foreign ideas into Christianity, and, on the other hand, so far as it really also included the documents and convictions of primitive Christianity, it preserved this religion to the future and led to a return to it, either from scientific or religious considerations. That we know anything at all of original Christianity is entirely due to the fixing of the tradition, as found at the basis of Catholicism. On the supposition — which is indeed an academic consideration — that this fixing had not taken place because of the non-appearance of the Gnosticism which occasioned it, and on the further supposition that the original enthusiasm had continued, we would in all probability know next to nothing of original Christianity to-day. How much we would have known may be seen from the Sheph aa9 erd of Hermas.

were the first to set up dogmas8 — dogmas but no 10system of dogmatics. As yet the difficulty of the problem was by no means perceived by these men either. Their peculiar capacity for sympathising with and understanding the traditional and the old still left them in a happy blindness. So far as they had a aaf theology they supposed it to be nothing more than the explanation of the faith of the Christian multitude (yet Tertullian already noted the difference in one point, certainly a very characteristic one, viz., the Logos doctrine). They still lived in the belief that the Christianity which filled their minds required no scientific remodelling in order to be an expression of the highest knowledge, and that it was in all respects identical with the Christianity which even the most uncultivated could grasp. That this was an illusion is proved by many considerations, but most convincingly by the fact that Tertullian and Hippolytus had the main share in introducing into the doctrine of faith a philosophically formulated dogma, viz., that the Son of God is the Logos, and in having it made the articulus constitutivus ecclesiæ. The effects of this undertaking can never be too highly estimated, for the Logos doctrine is Greek philosophy in nuce, though primitive Christian views may have been subsequently incorporated with it. Its introduction into the creed of Christendom, which was, strictly speaking, the setting up of the first dogma in the Church, meant the future conversion of the rule of faith into a philosophic system. But in yet another respect Irenæus and Hippolytus denote an immense advance beyond the Apologists, which, paradoxically enough, results both from the progress of Christian Hellenism and from a deeper study of the Pauline theology, that is, emanates from the controversy with Gnosticism. In them a religious and realistic idea takes the place of the moralism of the Apologists, namely, the deifying of the human race through the incarnation of the Son of God. The apotheosis of mortal man through his acquisition of immortality (divine life) is the idea of salvation which was taught in the ancient mysteries. It is here adopted as a Christian one, supported by the Pauline theology (especially as contained in the Epistle to the Ephesians), and brought into the closest 11connection with the historical Christ, the Son of God and Son of man (filius dei et filius hominis). What the heathen faintly hoped for as a possibility was here announced as certain, and indeed as having already taken place. What a message! This conception was to become the central

8

So far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the idea of dogmas, as individual theorems characteristic of Christianity, and capable of being scholastically proved, originated with the Apologists. Even as early as Justin we find tendencies to amalgamate historical material and natural theology.

Christian idea of the future. A long time, however, elapsed before it made its way into the dogmatic system of the Church.9 But meanwhile the huge gulf which existed between both Testaments and the rule of faith on the one hand, and the current ideas of the time on the other, had been recognized in Alexandria. It was not indeed felt as a gulf, for then either the one or the other would have had to be given up, but as a problem. If the Church tradition contained the assurance, not to be obtained elsewhere, of all that Greek culture knew, hoped for, and prized, and if for that very reason it was regarded as in every respect inviolable, then the absolutely indissoluble union of Christian tradition with the Greek philosophy of religion was placed beyond all doubt. But an immense number of problems were at the same time raised, especially when, as in the case of the Alexandrians, heathen syncretism in the entire breadth of its development was united with the doctrine of the Church. The task, which had been begun by Philo and carried on by Valentinus and his school, was now undertaken in the Church. Clement led the way in attempting a solution of the problem, but the huge task proved too much for him. Origen took it up under more difficult circumstances, and in a certain fashion brought it to a conclusion. He, the rival of the Neoplatonic philosophers, the Christian Philo, wro 564 te the first Christian dogmatic, which competed with the philosophic systems of the time, and which, founded on the Scriptures of both Testaments, presents a peculiar union of the apologetic theology of a Justin and the Gnostic theology of a Valentinus, 12while keeping steadily in view a simple and highly practical aim. In this dogmatic the rule of faith is recast and that quite consciously. Origen did not conceal his conviction that Christianity finds its correct expression only in scientific knowledge, and that every form of Christianity that lacks theology is but a meagre kind with no clear consciousness of its own content. This conviction plainly shows that Origen was dealing with a different kind of Christianity, though his view that a mere relative distinction existed here may have its justification in the fact, that the untheological Christianity of the age with which he compared his own was already permeated

9

It is almost completely wanting in Tertullian. That is explained by the fact that this remarkable man was in his inmost soul an old-fashioned Christian, to whom the Gospel was conscientia religionis, disciplina vitæ and spes fidei, and who found no sort of edification in Neoplatonic notions, but rather dwelt on the ideas “command”, “performance”, “error”, “forgiveness”. In Irenæus also, moreover, the ancient idea of salvation, supplemented by elements derived from the Pauline theology, is united with the primitive Christian eschatology.

by Hellenic elements and in a very great measure secularised.10 But Origen, as well as Clement before him, had really a right to the conviction that the true essence of 551 Christianity, or, in other words, the Gospel, is only arrived at by the aid of critical speculation; for was not the Gospel veiled and hidden in the canon of both Testaments, was it not displaced by the rule of faith, was it not crushed down, depotentiated, and disfigured in the Church which identified itself with the people of Christ? Clement and Origen found freedom and independence in what they recognized to be the essence of the matter and what they contrived with masterly skill to determine as its proper aim, after an examination of the huge apparatus of tradition. But was not that the ideal of Greek sages and philosophers? This question can by no means be flatly answered in the negative, and still less decidedly in the affirmative, for a new significance was here given to the ideal by representing it as assured beyond all doubt, already realised in the person of Christ and incompatible with polytheism. If, as is manifestly the case, they found joy and peace in their faith and in the theory of the universe connected with it, if they prepared themselves for an eternal life and expected it with certainty, if they felt themselves to be perfect only through dependence on God, then, in spite of their Hellenism, they unquestionably came nearer to the Gospel than Irenæus with his slavish dependence on authority. 577 The setting up of a scientific system of Christian dogmatics, which 13was still something different from the rule of faith, interpreted in an Antignostic sense, philosophically wrought out, and in some parts proved from the Bible, was a private undertaking of Origen, and at first only approved in limited circles. As yet, not only were certain bold changes of interpretation disputed in the Church, but the undertaking itself, as a whole, was disapproved.11 The circumstances of the several provincial churches in the first half of the third century were still very diverse. Many communities had yet to adopt the basis that made them into Catholic ones; and in most, if not in all, the education of the clergy — not to speak of the laity — was not high enough to enable them to appreciate systematic theology. But the schools in which Origen taught

10

On the significance of Clement and Origen see Overbeck, “Über die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur” in d. Hist. Ztschr. N. F., Vol. XII. p. 417 ff. 11 Information on this point may be got not only from the writings of Origen (see especially his work against Celsus), but also and above all from his history. The controversy between Dionysius of Alexandria and the Chiliasts is also instructive on the matter.

carried on his work, similar ones were established, and these produced a number of the bishops and presbyters of the East in the last half of the third century. They had in their hands the means of culture afforded by the age, an 548 d this was all the more a guarantee of victory because the laity no longer took any part in deciding the form of religion. Wherever the Logos Christology had been adopted the future of Christian Hellenism was certain. At the beginning of the fourth century there was no community in Christendom which, apart from the Logos doctrine, possessed a purely philosophical theory that was regarded as an ecclesiastical dogma, to say nothing of an official scientific theology. But the system of Origen was a prophecy of the future. The Logos doctrine started the crystallising process which resulted in further deposits. Symbols of faith were already drawn up which contained a peculiar mixture of Origen’s theology with the inflexible Antignostic regula fidei. One celebrated theologian, Methodius, endeavoured to unite the theology of Irenæus and Origen, ecclesiastical realism and philosophic spiritualism, under the badge of monastic mysticism. The developments of the following period therefore no longer appear surprising in any respect. As Catholicism, from every point of view, is the result of 14the blending of Christianity with the ideas of antiquity, 580 1 so the Catholic dogmatic, as it was developed after the second or third century on the basis of the Logos doctrine, is Christianity conceived and formulated from the standpoint of the Greek philosophy of religion.12 This Christianity conquered the old world, and became the foundation of a new phase of history in the Middle Ages. The union of the Christian religion with a definite historical phase of human knowledge and culture may be lamented in the interest of the Christian religion, which was thereby secularised, and in the interest of the development of culture which was thereby retarded (?). But lamentations become here illfounded assumptions, as absolutely everything that we have and value is due to the alliance that Christianity and antiquity concluded in such a way that neither was able to prevail over the other. Our inward and spiritual life, which owes the least part of its content to the empiric knowledge which we have acquired, is

12

The three or (reckoning Methodius) four steps of the development of church doctrine (Apologists, Old Catholic Fathers, Alexandrians) correspond to the progressive religious and philosophical development of heathendom at that period: philosophic moralism, ideas of salvation (theology and practice of mysteries), Neoplatonic philosophy, and complete syncretism. 13 “Virtus omnis ex his causam accipit, a quibus provocatur (Tertull., de bapt. 2.)

based up to the pr 564 esent moment on the discords resulting from that union. These hints are meant among other things to explain and justify14 the arrangement chosen for the following presentation, which embraces the fundamental section of the history of Christian dogma.15 A few more remarks are, however, necessary. 15

1. One special difficulty in ascertaining the genesis of the Catholic rules is that the churches, though on terms of close connection and mutual intercourse, had no real forum publicum, though indeed, in a certain sense, each bishop was in foro publico. As a rule, therefore, we can only see the advance in the establishment of fixed forms in the shape of results, without being able to s 564 tate precisely the ways and means which led to them. We do indeed know the factors, and can therefore theoretically construct the development; but the real course of things is frequently hidden from us. The genesis of a harmonious Church, firmly welded together in doctrine and constitution, can no more have been the natural unpremeditated product of the conditions of the time than were the genesis and adoption of the New Testament canon of Scripture. But we have no direct evidence as to what communities had a special share in the development, although we know that the Roman Church played a leading part. Moreover, we can only conjecture that conferences, common measures, and synodical decisions were not wanting. It is certain that, beginning with the last quarter of the second century, there were held in the different provinces, mostly in the East, but later also in the West,

14 acd

The plan of placing the apologetic theology before everything else would have much to recommend it, but I adhere to the arrangement here chosen, because the advantage of being able to represent and survey the outer ecclesiastical development and the inner theological one, each being viewed as a unity, seems to me to be very great. We must then of course understand the two developments as proceeding on parallel lines. But the placing of the former parallel before the latter in my presentation is justified by the fact that what was gained in the former passed over much more directly and swiftly into the general life of the Church, than what was reached in the latter. Decades elapsed, for instance, before the apologetic theology came to be generally known and accepted in the Church, as is shown by the long continued conflict against Monarchianism. 15 The origin of Catholicism can only be very imperfectly described within the framework of the history of dogma, for the political situation of the Christian communities in the Roman Empire had quite as important an influence on the development of the Catholic Church as its internal conflicts. But inasmuch as that situation and these struggles are ultimately connected in the closest way, the history of dogma cannot even furnish a complete picture of this development within definite limits.

Synods in which an understanding was arrived at on all questions of importance to Christianity, including, e.g., the extent of the canon.16 2. The degree of influence exercised by particular e aba cclesiastics 16on the development of the Church and its doctrines is also obscure and difficult to determine. As they were compelled to claim the sanction of tradition for every innovation they introduced, and did in fact do so, and as every fresh step they took appeared to themselves necessary only as an explanation, it is in many cases quite impossible to distinguish between what they received from tradition and what they added to it of their own. Yet an investigation from the point of view of the historian of literature shows that Tertullian and Hippolytus were to a great extent dependent on Irenæus. What amount of innovation these men independently contributed can therefore still be ascertained. Both are men of the second generation. Tertullian is related to Irenæus pretty much as Calvin to Luther. This parallel holds good in more than one respect. First, Tertullian drew up a series of plain dogmatic formulæ which are not found in Irenæus and which proved of the greatest importance in succeeding times. Secondly, he did not attain the power, vividness, and unity of religious intuition which distinguish Irenæus. The truth rather is that, just because of his forms, he partly destroyed the unity of the matter and partly led it into a false path of development. Thirdly, he everywhere endeavoured to give a conception of Christianity which represented it as the divine law, whereas in Irenæus this idea is overshadowed by the conception of the Gospel as real redemption. The main problem therefore resolves itself into the question as to the position of Irenæus in the history of the Church. To what extent were his expositions new, to what extent were the standards he formulated already employed in the Churches, and in which of them? We cannot form to ourselves a sufficiently vivid picture of the interchange of Christian writings in the Church after

16

See Tertullian, de pudic. 10: “Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura Pastoris, quæ sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter aprocrypha et falsa iudicaretur;” de ieiun. 13: “Aguntur præterea per Græcias certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quæ et altiora quæque in commune tractantur, et ipsa repræsentatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur.” We must also take into account here the intercourse by letter, in which connection I may specially remind the reader of the correspondence between Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Euseb., H.E. IV. 23, and journeys such as those of Polycarp and Abercius to Rome. Cf. gen 564 erally Zahn, Weltverkehr und Kirche während der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1877.

the last quarter of the second century.17 Every important work speedily found its way into the churches of the chief cities in the Empire. The diffusion was not merely from East to West, though this was the general rule. At the beginning of the fourth century there was in Cæsarea a Greek translation of Tertullian’s Apology and a collection 17of Cyprian’s epistles.18 The influence of the Roman Church extended over the greater part of Christendom. Up till about the year 260 the Churches in East and West had still in some degree a common history. 3. The developments in the history of dogma within the period extending from about 150 to about 300 were by no means brought about in the different communities at the same time and in a completely analogous fashion. This fact is in great measure concealed from us, because our authorities are almost completely derived from those leading Churches that were connected with each other by constant intercourse. Yet the difference can still be clearly proved by the ratio of development in Rome, Lyons, and Carthage on the one hand, and in Alexandria on the other. Besides, we have several valuable accounts showing that in more remote provinces and communities the development was slower, and a primitive and freer condition of things much longer preserved.19 4. From the time that the clergy acquired complete sway over the Churches, that is, from the beginning of the second third of the third century, the development of the history of dogma practically took place within the ranks of that class, and was carried on by its learned men. Every mystery they set up therefore became doubly mysterious to the laity, for these did not even understand the terms, and hence it formed another new fetter. I. Fixing and Gradual Secularising of Christianity as a Church. 18

17

See my studies respecting the tradition of the Greek Apologists of the second century in the early Church in the Texte und Unters. z. Gesch. der alt christl. Litteratur, Vol. I. Part I. 2. 18 See Euseb., H.E. II. 2; VI. 43. 19 See the accounts of Christianity in Edessa and the far East generally The Acta Archelai and the ac8 Homilies of Aphraates should also be specially examined. Cf. further Euseb., H. E. VI. 12, and finally the remains of the Latin-Christian literature of the third century — apart from Tertullian, Cyprian and Novatian — as found partly under the name of Cyprian, partly under other titles. Commodian, Arnobius, and Lactantius are also instructive here. This literature has been but little utilised with respect to the history of dogma and of the Church.

I. FIXING AND GRADUAL SECULARISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS A CHURCH. Chapter II. The Setting Up of the Apostolic Standards for Ecclesiastical Christianity. The Catholic Church.

CHAPTER II. THE SETTING UP OF THE APOSTOLIC STANDARDS FOR ECCLESIASTICAL CHRISTIANITY. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.20 We may take as preface to this chapter three celebrated passages from Tertullian’s “de præscriptione hæreticorum.” In chap. 21 we find: “It is plain that all teaching that agrees with t ac8 hose apostolic Churches which are the wombs and origins of the faith must be set down as truth, it being certain that such doctrine contains that which the Church received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God.” In chap. 36 we read: “Let us see what it (the Roman Church) has learned, what it has taught, and what fellowship it has likewise had with the African Churches. It acknowledges one God the 19Lord, the creator of the universe, and Jesus Christ, the Son of God the creator, born of the Virgin Mary, as well as the resurrection of the flesh. It unites the Law and the Prophets with the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles. From these it draws its faith, and by their authority it seals this faith with water, clothes it with the Holy Spirit, feeds it with the eucharist, and encourages martyrdom. Hence it receives

20

In itself the predicate “Catholic” contains no element that signifies a secularising of the Church. “Catholic” originally means Christianity in its totality as contrasted with single congregations. Hence the concepts “all communities” and the “universal Church” are identical. But from the beginning there was a dogmatic element in the concept of the universal Church, in so far as the latter was conceived to have been spread over the whole earth by the Apostles; an idea which involved the conviction that only that could be true which was found everywhere in Christendom. Consequently, “entire or universal Christendom,” “the Church spread over the whole earth,” and “the true Church” were regarded as identical conceptions. In this way the concept “Catholic” became a pregnant one, and finally received a dogmatic and political content. As this result actually took place, it is not inappropriate to speak of pre-Catholic and Catholic Christianity.

no one who rejects this institution.” In chap. 32 the following challenge is addressed to the heretics: “Let them unfold a series of their bishops proceeding by succession from the beginning in such a way that this first bishop of theirs had as his authority and predecessor some one of the Apostles or one of the apostolic men, who, however, associated with the Apostles.”21 From the consideration of these three passages it directly follows that three standards are to be kept in view, viz., the apostolic doctrine, the apostolic canon of Scripture, and the guarantee of apostolic authority, afforded by the organisation of the Church, that is, by the episcopate, and traced back to apostolic institution. It will be seen that the Church always adopted these three standards together, that is simultaneously.22 As a matter of fact they originated in Rome and gradually made their way in the other Churches. That Asia Minor had a share in this is probable, though the question is involved in obscurity. The three Catholic 20 standards had their preparatory stages, (1) in short kerygmatic creeds; (2) in the authority of the Lord and the formless apostolic tradition as well as in the writings read in the Churches; (3) in the veneration paid to apostles, prophets, and teachers, or the “elders” and leaders of the individual c ac8 ommunities. The Transformation of the Baptismal Confession into the Apostolic Rule of Faith. A. The Transformation of the Baptismal Confession into the Apostolic Rule of Faith.

21

Translator’s note. The following is Tertullian’s Latin as given by Professor Harnack: Cap. 21: “Constat omnem doctrinam quæ cum ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiæ ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a deo accepit.” Cap. 36: “Videamus quid (ecclesia Romanensis) didicerit, quid docuerit, cum Africanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit. Unum deum dominum novit, creatorem universitatis, et Christum Iesum ex virgine Maria filium dei creatoris, et carnis resurrectionem; legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet 560 ; inde potat fidem, eam aqua signat, sancto spiritu vestit, eucharistia pascit, martyrium exhortatur, et ita adversus hanc institutionem neminem recipit.” Chap. 32: “Evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successionem ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveravit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem.” 22 None of the three standards, for instance, were in the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, which belong to the third century and are of Syrian origin; but instead of them the Old Testament and Gospel on the one hand, and the bishop, as the God of the community, on the other, are taken as authorities.

It has been explained (vol. I. p. 157) that the idea of the complete identity of what the Churches possessed as Christian communities with the doctrine or regulations of the twelve Apostles can already be shown in the earliest Gentile-Christian literature. In the widest sense the expression, κανὼν τῆς παραδόσεως (canon of tradition), originally included all that was traced back to Christ himself through the medium of the Apostles and was of value for the faith and life of the Church, together with everything that was or seemed her inalienable possession, as, for instance, the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. In the narrower sense that canon consisted of the history and words of Jesus. In so far as they formed the content of faith they were the faith itself, that is, the Christian truth; in so far as this faith was to determine the essence of everything Christian, it might be termed κανὼν τῆς πίστεως, κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας (canon of the faith, canon of the truth).23 But the very fact that the extent of what was regarded as tradition of the Apostles was quite undetermined ensured the possibility of the highest degree of freedom; it was also still allowable to give expression to 21Christian inspiration and to the intuition of enthusiasm without any regard to tradition. We now know that before the violent conflict with Gnosticism short formulated summaries of the faith had already grown out of the missionary practice of the Church (catechising). The shortest formula was that which defined the Christian faith as belief in the Father, Son, and Spirit.24 It appears to have been universally current in Christendom about the year 150. In the solemn

23 acc

See Zahn, Glaubensregel und Taufbekenntniss in der alten Kirche in the Zeitschrift f. Kirchl. Wissensch. u. Kirchl. Leben, 1881, Part 6, p. 302 ff., especially p. 314 ff. In the Epistle of Jude, v. 3, mention is made of the ἅπαξ παραδοθεῖσα τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστις and in v. 20 of “building yourselves up in your most holy faith.” See Polycarp, ep. III. 2 (also VII. 2; II. 1). In either case the expressions κανὼν τῆς πίστεως, κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας, or the like, might stand for πίστις, for the faith itself is primarily the canon; but it is the canon only in so far as it is comprehensible and plainly defined. Here lies the transition to a new interpretation of the conception of a standard in its relation to the faith. Voigt has published an excellent investigation of the concept ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας cum synonymis. (Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimont. Kampfes, 1891, pp. 184-205). 24 In Hermas, Mand. I., we find a still shorter formula which only contains the confession of the monarchy of God, who created the world, that is the formula πιστέυω εἰς ἕνα θεὸν παντακράτορα, which did not originate with the baptismal ceremony. But though at first the monarchy may have been the only dogma in the strict sense, the mission of Jesus Christ beyond doubt occupied a place alongside of it from the beginning; and the new religion was inconceivable without this.

transactions of the Church, therefore es 564 pecially in baptism, in the great prayer of the Lord’s Supper, as well as in the exorcism of demons,25 fixed formulæ were used. They embraced also such articles as contained the most important facts in the history of Jesus.26 We know definitely that not later than about the middle of the second century (about 140 A.D.) the Roman Church possessed a fixed creed, which every candidate for baptism had to profess;27 and something similar must also have existed 22in Smyrna and other Churches of Asia Minor about the year 150, in some cases, even rather earlier. We may suppose that formulæ of similar plan and extent wer ac8 e also found in other provincial Churches about this time.28 Still it is neither probable that all the then existing communities possessed such creeds, nor that those who used them had formulated them in such a rigid way as the Roman Church had done. The proclamation of the history of Christ predicted in the Old Testament, the κήρυγµα τῆς ἀληθέιας, also accompanied the short baptismal formula without being expressed in set terms.29

25

See on this point Justin, index to Otto’s edition. It is not surprising that formulæ similar to those used at baptism were employed in the exorcism of demons. However, we cannot immediately infer from the latter what was the wording of the baptismal confession. Though, for example, it is an established fact that in Justin’s time demons were exorcised with the words: “In the name of Jesus Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate,” it does not necessarily follow from this that these words were also found in the baptismal confession. The sign of the cross 564 was made over those possessed by demons; hence nothing was more natural than that these words should be spoken. Hence they are not necessarily borrowed from a baptismal confession. 26 These facts were known to every Christian. They are probably also alluded to in Luke I. 4. 27 The most important result of Caspari’s extensive and exact studies is the establishment of this fact and the fixing of the wording of the Romish Confession. (Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und wenig beachtete Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols u d. Glaubensregels. 3 Vols. 1866-1875. Alte u. neue Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols u. d. Glaubensregel, 1879). After this Hahn, Bibliothek d. Symbole u. Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche. 2 Aufl. 1877; se aab e also my article “Apostol. Symbol” in Herzog’s R.E., 2nd. ed., as well as Book I. of the present work, Chap. III. § 2. 28 This supposition is based on observation of the fact that particular statements of the Roman Symbol, in exactly the same form or nearly so, are found in many early Christian writings. See Patr. App. Opp. I. 2, ed. 2, pp. 115-42. 29 The investigations which lead to this result are of a very complicated nature and cannot therefore be given here. We must content ourselves with remarking that all Western baptismal formulæ (creeds) may be traced back to the Roman, and that there was no universal Eastern creed on parallel lines with the latter. There is no mistaking the importance which, in these circumstances, is to be attributed to the Roman symbol and Church as regards the development of Catholicism.

Words of Jesus and, in general, directions for the Christian life were not, as a rule, admitted into the short formulated creed. In the recently discovered “Teaching of the Apostles” (∆ιδαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων) we have no doubt a notable attempt to fix the rules of Christian life as traced back to Jesus through the medium of the Apostles, and to elevate them into the foundation of the confederation of Christian Churches; but this undertaking, which could not but have led the development of Christianity into other paths, did not succeed. That the formulated creeds did not express the principles of conduct, but the facts on which Christians based their faith, was an unavoidable necessity. Besides, the universal agreement of all earnest and thoughtful minds on the question of Christian morals was practically assured.30 Objection was not taken to the principles 23of morality — at least this was not a primary consideration — for there were many Greeks to whom they did not seem foolishness, but to the adoration of Christ as he was represented in tradition and to the Church’s worship of a God, who, as creator of the world and as a speaking and visible being, appeared to the Greeks, with their ideas of a purely spiritual deity, to be interwoven with the world, and who, as the God worshipped by the Jews also, seemed clearly distinct 546 from the Supreme Being. This gave rise to the mockery of the heathen, the theological art of the Gnostics, and the radical reconstruction of tradition as attempted by Marcion. With the freedom that still prevailed Christianity was in danger of being resolved into a motley mass of philosophic speculations or of being completely detached from its original conditions. “It was admitted on all sides that Christianity had its starting-point in certain facts and sayings; but if any and every interpretation of those facts and sayings was possible, if any system of philosophy might be taught into which the words that expressed them might be woven, it is clear that there could be but little cohesion between the members of the Christian communities. The problem arose and pressed for an answer: What

30

This caused the pronounced tendency of the Church to the formation of dogma, a movement for which Paul had already paved the way. The development of Christianity, as attested, for example, by the ∆ιδαχή, received an additional factor in the dogmatic tradition, which soon gained the upper hand. The great reaction is then found in monasticism. Here again the rules of morality become the prevailing feature, and therefore the old Christian gnomic literature attains in this movement a second period of vigour. In it again dogmatics only form the background for the strict regulation of life. In the instruction given as a preparation for baptism the Christian moral commandments were of course always inculcated, and the obligation to observe these was expressed in the renunciation of Satan and all his works. In consequence of this, there were also fixed formulæ in these cases.

should be the basis of Christian union? But the problem was for a time insoluble. For there was no standard and no court of appeal.” From the very beginning, when the differences in the various Churches began to threaten their unity, appeal was probably made to the Apostles’ doctrine, the words of the Lord, tradition, “sound doctrine”, definite facts, such as the reality of the human nature (flesh) of Christ, and the reality of his death and resurrection. 582 1 In instruction, in exhortations, and above all in opposing erroneous doctrines and moral aberrations, 24 this precept was inculcated from the beginning: ἀπολίπωµεν τὰς κενὰς καὶ µαταίας φροντίδας, καὶ ἔλθωµεν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐυκλεῆ καὶ σεµνὸν τῆς παραδόσεως ἡµῶν κανόνα (“Let us leave off vain and foolish thoughts and betake ourselves to the glorious and august canon of our tradition”). But the very question was: What is sound doctrine? What is the content of tradition? Was the flesh of Christ a reality? etc. There is no doubt that Justin, in opposition to those whom he viewed as pseudo-Christians, insisted on the absolute necessity of acknowledging certain definite traditional facts and made this recognition the standard of orthodoxy. To all appearance it was he who began the great literary struggle for the expulsion of heterodoxy (see his σύνταγµα κατὰ πασῶν τῶν γεγενηµένων ἁιρέσεων); but, judging from those w ac8 ritings of his that have been preserved to us, it seems very unlikely that he was already successful in finding a fixed standard for determining orthodox Christianity.31

31

See the Pastoral Epistles, those of John and of Ignatius; also the epistle of Jude, 1 Clem. VII., Polycarp, ad Philipp. VII., II. 1, VI. 3, Justin. 32 In the apologetic writings of Justin the courts of appeal invariably continue to be the Old Testament, the words of the Lord, and the communications of prophets; hence he has hardly insisted on any other in his anti-heretical work. On the other hand we cannot appeal to the observed fact that Tertullian also, in his apologetic writings, did not reveal his standpoint as a churchman and opponent of heresy; for, with one exception, he did not discuss heretics in these tractates at all. On the contrary Justin discussed their position even in his apologetic writings; but nowhere, for instance, wrote anything ac8 similar to Theophilus’ remarks in “ad Autol.,” II. 14. Justin was acquainted with and frequently alluded to fixed formulæ and perhaps a baptismal symbol related to the Roman, if not essentially identical with it. (See Bornemann. Das Taufsymbol Justins in the Ztschr. f. K. G. Vol. III. p. 1 ff.), but we cannot prove that he utilised these formulæ in the sense of Irenæus and Tertullian. We find him using the expression ὀρθογνώµονες in Dial. 80. The resurrection of the flesh and the thousand years’ kingdom (at Jerusalem) are there reckoned among the beliefs held by the ὀρθεγνώµονες κατὰ πάντα Χριστιανοί. But it is very characteristic of the standpoint taken up by Justin that he places between the heretics inspired by demons and the orthodox a class of Christians to whom he gives the general testimony that they are τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ ἐυσεβοῦς γνώµης, though they are not fully

The permanence of the communities, however, depended on the discovery of such a standard. They were no longer held together by the conscientia religionis, the unitas disciplinæ, and the fœdus spei. The Gnostics were not solely to blame for that. 25They rather show us merely the excess of a continuous transformation which no community could escape. The gnosis which subjected religion to a critical examination awoke in proportion as religious life from generation to generation lost its warmth and spontaneity. There was a time when the majority of Christians knew themselves to be such, (1) because they had the “Spirit” and found in that an indestructible guarantee of their Christian position, (2) because they observed all the commandments of Jesus (εντολαὶ Ἰησοῦ). But when these guarantees died away, and when at the same time the most diverse doctrines that were threatening to break up the Church were preached in the name of Christianity, the fixing of tradition necessarily became the supreme task. Here, as in every other case, the tradition was not fixed till after it had been to some extent departed from. It was just the Gnostics themselves who took the lead in a fixing process, a plain proof that the setting up of dogmatic formulæ has always been the support of new formations. But the example set by the Gnostics was the very thing that rendered the problem difficult. Where was a beginning to be made? “There is a kind of unconscious logic in the minds of masses of men when great questions are abroad, which some one thinker throws into suitable form.”33 There could be no doubt that the needful thing was to fix what was “apostolic”, for the one certain thing was that Christianity was based on a divine revelation which had been transmitted through 564 the medium of the Apostles to the Churches of the whole earth. It certainly was not a single individual who hit on the expedient of affirming the fixed forms employed by the Churches in their solemn transactions to be apostolic in the strict sense. It must have come about by a natural process. But the confession of the Father, Son, and Spirit and the kerygma of Jesus Christ had the most prominent place among these forms. The special emphasising of these articles, in opposition to the Gnostic and Marcionite undertakings, may also be viewed as the result of the “common sense” of all those who clung to the belief that the Father of Jesus Christ was the creator of the world, and 26that the Son of God really appeared in the flesh. But that was not everywhere sufficient, for, even admitting that about the period

orthodox in so far as they reject one important doctrine. Such an estimate would have been impossible to Irenæus and Tertullian. They have advanced to the principle that he who violates the law of faith in one point is guilty of breaking it all. 33 Hatch, “Organisation of the Church”, p. 96.

between 150 and 180 A.D. all the Churches had a fixed creed which they regarded as apostolic in the strict sense — and this cannot be proved, — the most dangerous of all Gnostic schools, viz., those of Valentinus, could recognise this creed, since they already possessed the art of explaining a given text in whatever way they chose. What was needed was an apostolic creed definitely interpreted; for it was only by the aid of a definite interpretation that the creed could be used to repel the Gno ab6 stic speculations and the Marcionite conception of Christianity. In this state of matters the Church of Rome, the proceedings of which are known to us through Irenæus and Tertullian, took, with regard to the fixed Roman baptismal confession ascribed to the Apostles, the following step: The Antignostic interpretation required by the necessities of the times was proclaimed as its selfevident content; the confession, thus explained, was designated as the “Catholic faith” (“fides catholica”), that is the rule of truth for the faith; and its acceptance was made the test of adherence to the Roman Church as well as to the general confederation of Christendom. Irenæus was not the author of this proceeding. How far Rome acted with the cooperation or under the influence of the Church of Asia Minor is a matter that is still obscure,34 and will probably never be determined with certainty. What the Roman community accomplished practically was theoretically established by Irenæus35 and Tertullian. The former proclaimed the baptismal confession, definitely interpreted and expressed in an Antignostic form, to be the apostolic rule of truth (regula veritatis), and tried 27to prove it so. He based his demonstration on the theory that this series of doctrines embodied the faith of the churches founded by the Apostles, and that these communities had always preserved the apostolic teaching unchanged (see under C). Viewed historically, this thesis, which preserved Christianity from complete dissolution, is based on two unproved assumptions and on a confusion of ideas. It is not demonstrated that any creed emanated from the Apostles, nor that the Churches they founded always preserved their teaching in its original form; the creed

34

We can only conjecture that some teachers in Asia Minor contemporary with Irenæus, or even of older date, and especially Melito, proceeded in like manner, adhering to Polycarp’s exclusive attitude. Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, H. E. IV. 23. 2, 4) may perhaps be also mentioned. 35 Irenæus set forth his theory in a great work, adv. hæres., especially in the third book. Unfortunately his treatise, λόγος εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγµ 564 ”, probably the oldest treatise on the rule of faith, has not been preserved Euseb., H. E. V. 26.)

itself, moreover, is confused with its interpretation. Finally, the existence of a fides catholica, in the strict sense of the word, cannot be justly inferred from the essential agreement found in the doctrine of a series of communities. ada 36 But, on the other hand, the course taken by Irenæus was the only one capable of saving what yet remained of primitive Christianity, and that is its historical justification. A fides apostolica had to be set up and declared identical with the already existing fides catholica. It had to be made the standard for judging all particular doctrinal opinions, that it might be determined whether they were admissible or not. The persuasive power with which Irenæus set up the principle of the apostolic “rule of truth,” or of “tradition” or simply of “faith,” was undoubtedly, as far as he himself was concerned, based on the facts that he had already a rigidly formulated creed before him and that he had no doubt as to its interpretation.37 The rule 28of truth (also ἡ ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κηρυσσοµένη ἀλήθεια “the truth proclaimed by the Church;” and τὸ τῆς ἀληθέιας σωµάτιον, “the body of the truth”) is the old baptismal confession well known to the communities for which he immediately writes. (See I. 9. 4; οὕτω δέ καὶ ὁ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκλινῆ ἐν ἑαυτῷ κατέχων ὃν διὰ τοῦ βαπτρίσµατος εἴληφε, “in like manner he also who retains immovably in his heart the rule of truth which he received through baptism”); because it is this, it is apostolic, firm and immovable.38

36

Irenæus indeed asserts in several passages that all Churches — those in Germany, Iberia, among the Celts, in the East, in Egypt, in Lybia and Italy; see I. 10. 2; III. 3. 1; III. 4. 1 sq. — possess the same apostolic kerygma; but “qui nimis probat nihil probat.” The extravagance of the expressions shows that a dogmatic theory is here at work. Nevertheless this is based on the correct view that the Gnostic speculations are foreign to Christianity and of later date. 37 We must further point out here that Irenæus not only knew the tradition of the Churches of Asia Minor and Rome, but that he had sat ac8 at the feet of Polycarp and associated in his youth with many of the “elders” in Asia. Of these he knew for certain that they in part did not approve of the Gnostic doctrines and in part would not have done so. The confidence with which he represented his antignostic interpretation of the creed as that of the Church of the Apostles was no doubt owing to this sure historical recollection. See his epistle to Florinus in Euseb., H. E. V. 20 and his numerous references to the “elders” in his great work. (A collection of these may be found in Patr. App. Opp. I. 3, p. 105 sq.) 38 Caspari’s investigations leave no room for doubt as to the relation of the rule of faith to the baptismal confession. The baptismal confession was not a deposit resulting from fluctuating anti-heretical rules of faith; but the latter were the explanations of the

By the fixing of the rule of truth, the formulation of which in the case of Irenæus (I. l0. 1, 2) naturally follows the arrangement of the (Roman) baptismal confession, the most importan 54c t Gnostic theses were at once set aside and their antitheses established as apostolic. In his apostolic rule of truth Irenæus himself already gave prominence to the following doctrines:39 29the unity of God; the identity of the supreme God with the Creator; the identity of the supreme God with the God of the Old Testament; the unity of Jesus Christ as the Son of the God who created the world; the essential divinity of Christ; the incarnation of the Son of God; the prediction of the entire history of Jesus through the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament; the reality of that history; the bodily reception (ἔνσαρκος ἀνάληψις) of Christ into heaven; the visible return of Christ; the resurrection of all flesh (ἀνάστασις πάσης σαρκὸς, πάσης ἀνθρωπότητος), the universal judgment. These dogmas, the antitheses of the Gnostic regulæ, aca 1 were consequently, as apostolic and therefore also as Catholic, removed beyond all discussion.

baptismal confession. The full authority of the confession itself was transferred to every elucidation that appeared necessary, in so far as the needful explanation was regarded as given with authority. Each momentary formula employed to defend the Church against heresy has therefore the full value of the creed. This explains the fact that, beginning with Irenæus’ time, we meet with differently formulated rules of faith, partly in the same writer, and yet each is declared to be the rule of faith. Zahn is virtually right when he says, in his essay quoted above, that the rule of faith is the baptismal confession. But, so far as I can judge, he has not discerned the dilemma in which the Old Catholic Fathers were placed, and which they were not able to conceal. This dilemma arose from the fact that the Church needed an apostolic creed, expressed in fixed formulæ and at the same time definitely interpreted in an anti-heretical sense; whereas she only possessed, and this not in all churches, a baptismal confession, contained in fixed formulæ but not interpreted, along with an ecclesiastical tradition which was not formulated, although it no doubt excluded the most offensive Gnostic doctrines. It was not yet possible for the Old Catholic Fathers to frame and formulate that doctrinal confession, and they did not attempt it. The only course therefore was to assert that an elastic collection of doctrines which were ever being formulated anew, was a fixed standard in so far as it was based on a fixed creed. But this dilemma — we ab1 do not know how it was viewed by opponents — proved an advantage in the end, for it enabled churchmen to make continual additions to the rule of faith, whilst at the same time continuing to assert its identity with the baptismal confession. We must make the reservation, however, that not only the baptismal confession, but other fixed propositions as well, formed the basis on which particular rules of faith were formulated. 39 Besides Irenæus I. 10. 1, 2, cf. 9. 1-5; 22. 1: II. 1. 1; 9. 1; 28. 1; 32. 3, 4: III. I-4; 11. 1; 12. 9; 15. 1; 16. 5 sq.; 18. 3; 24. 1: IV. 1. 2; 9. 2; 20. 6; 33. 7 sq.: V. Præf. 12. 5; 20. 1. 40 See Iren. I. 31. 3: II. Præf. 19. 8.

Tertullian followed Irenæus in every particular. He also interpreted the (Romish) baptismal confession, represented it, thus explained, as the regula fidei,41 and transferred to the latter the attributes of the confession, viz., its apostolic origin (or origin from Christ), as well as its fixedness and completeness.42 Like Irenæus, though still more stringently, he also endeavoured to prove that the formula had descended from Christ, that is, from the Apostles, and was incorrupt. He based his demonstration on the alleged incontestable facts that it contained the faith of those Churches founded by the Apostles, that in these communities a corruption of doctrine was inconceivable, because in them, as could be proved, the Apostles had always had successors, and that the other Churches were in communion with them (see under C). In a more definite way than Irenæus, Tertullian conceives the rule of faith as a rule for the faith,43 as the law given 30to faith,44 also as a “regula doctrinæ” or “doctrina regulæ” (here the creed itself is quite plainly the regula), and even simply as “doctrina” or “institutio”.

41

This expression is not found in Irenæus, but is very common in Tertullian. See de præscr. 13: “Hæc regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos quæstiones.” 43 See l. c. 14: “Ceterum manente forma regulæ in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras at tractes.” See de virg. vol. 1. 57b 44See 1. c. 14: “Fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis,” and de vir. vol. 1. 45 See de præscr. 21: “Si hæc ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, quæ cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum . . . Superest ergo ut demonstremus an hæc nostra doctrina, cujus regulam supra edidimus, de apostolorum traditione censeatur . . . Communicamus cum ecclesiis catholicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa.” De præscr. 32: “Ecclesiæ, quæ licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicæ deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinæ.” That Tertullian regards the baptismal confession as identical with the regula fidei, just as Irenæus does, is shown by the fact that in abe de spectac. 4 (“Cum aquam ingressi Christianam fidem in legis suæ verba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et pompæ et angelis eius ore nostro contestamur.”) the baptismal confession is the lex. He also calls it “sacramentum” (military oath) in ad mart. 3; de idolol. 6; de corona 11; Scorp. 4. But he likewise gives the same designation to the interpreted baptismal confession (de præscr. 20, 32; adv. Marc. IV. 5); for we must regard the passages cited as referring to this. Adv. Marc. I. 21: “regula sacramenti”; likewise V. 20, a passage specially instructive as to the fact that there can be only one regula. The baptismal confession itself had a fixed and short form (see de spectac. 4; de corona, 3: “amplius aliquid respondentes quam dominus in evangelio determinavit”; de bapt. 2: “homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus”; de bapt. 6, 11; de orat. 2 etc.). We can still prove that, apart from a subsequent alteration, it was the Roman confession that was used in Carthage in the days of 42

54b 1 As to the content of the regula, it was set forth by Tertullian in three passages.46 It is essentially the same as in Irenæus. But Tertullian already gives prominence within the regula to the creation of the universe out of nothing,47 the creative instrumentality of the 31Logos,48 his origin before all creatures, 591 49 a definite theory of the Incarnation,50 the preaching by Christ of a nova lex and a nova promissio regni cœlorum,51 and finally also the Trinitarian economy of God.52 Materially, therefore, the advance beyond Irenæus is already very significant. Tertullian’s regula is in point of fact a 566 doctrina. In attempting to bind the communities to this he represents them as schools.53 The apostolic “lex et doctrina” is to be regarded as inviolable by every Christian. Assent to it decides the Christian character of the individual. Thus the Christian disposition and life come to be a matter which is separate from this and subject to particular conditions. In this way the essence of religion was split up — the most fatal turning-point in the history of Christianity.

Tertullian. In de præscr. 26 Tertullian admits that the Apostles may have spoken some things “inter domesticos”, but declares that they could not be communications “quæ aliam regulam fidei superducerent.” 46 De præscr. 13; de virg. vol.1; adv. Prax. 2. The latter passage is thus worded: “Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam ὀικονοµίαν dicimus, ut unici dei sit et filius sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt et sine quo factum est nihil, hunc missum a patre in virginem et ex ea natum, hominem et deum, filium hominis et filium dei et cognominatum Iesum Christum, hunc passum, hunc mortuum et sepultum secundum scripturas et resuscitatum a patre et in cœlo resumptum sedere ad dextram patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos; qui exinde miserit secundum promissionem suam a patre spiritum s. paracletum sanctificatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in patrem et filium et spiritum s. Hanc regulam ab initio evangelii decucurrisse.” 47 De præscr. 13. 48 L. c. 49 L. c. 50 L. c.: “id verbum filium eius appellatum, in nomine dei varie visum a patriarchis, in prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spiritu patris dei et virtute in virginem Mariam, carnem factum,” etc. ada 51L. c. 52 Adv. Prax. 2: “Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam ὀικονοµίαν dicimus, ut unici dei sit et filius sermo ipsius,” etc. 53 But Tertullian also knows of a “regula disciplinæ” (according to the New Testament) on which he puts great value, and thereby shows that he has by no means forgotten that Christianity is a matter of conduct. We cannot enter more particularly into this rule here.

But we are not of course to suppose that at the beginning of the third century the actual bond of union between all the Churches was a fixed confession developed into a doctrine, that is, definitely interpreted. This much was gained, as is clear from the treatise de præscriptione and from other evidence, that in the communities with which Tertullian was acquainted, mutual recognition and brotherly intercourse were made to depend on assent to formulæ which virtually coincided with the Roman 564 baptismal confession. Whoever assented to such a formula was regarded as a Christian brother, and was entitled to the salutation of peace, the name of brother, and hospitality.54 32In so far as Christians confined themselves to a doctrinal formula which they, however, strictly applied, the adoption of this practice betokened an advance. The scattered communities now possessed a “lex” to bind them together, quite as certainly as the philosophic schools possessed a bond of union of a real and practical character55 in the shape of certain briefly formulated doctrines. In virtue of the common apostolic lex of Christians the Catholic Church became a reality, and was at the same time clearly marked off from the heretic sects. But more than this was gained, 54c in so far as the Antignostic interpretation of the formula, and consequently a “doctrine”, was indeed in some measure involved in the lex. The extent to which this was the case depended, of course, on the individual community or its leaders. All Gnostics could not be excluded by the wording of the confession; and, on the other hand, every formulated faith leads to a formulated doctrine, as soon as it is set up as a critical canon. What we observe in Irenæus and Tertullian must have everywhere taken place in a greater or less degree; that is to say, the authority of the confessional formula must have been extended to statements not found in the formula itself.

54

Note here the use of “contesserare” in Tertullian. See de prascr.2o: “Itaque tot ac tantæ ecclesiæ una est ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes prima et omnes apostolicæ, dum una omnes. Probant unitatem communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio hospitalitatis, quæ iura non alia ratio regit quam eiusdem sacramenti una traditio.” De præscr. 36: “Videamus, quid ecclesia Romanensis cum Africanis ecclesiis contesserarit.” 55 We need not here discuss whether and in what way the model of the philosophic schools was taken as a standard. But we may refer to the fact that from the middle of the second century the Apologists, that is the Christian philosophers, had exercised ac8 a very great influence on the Old Catholic Fathers. But we cannot say that 2. John 7-11 and Didache XI. 1 f. attest the practice to be a very old one. These passages only show that it had preparatory stages; the main element, namely, the formulated summary of the faith, is there sought for in vain.

We can still prove from the works of Clement of Alexandria that a confession claiming to be an apostolic law of faith,56 ostensibly comprehending the whole essence of Christianity, was not set up in the different provincial Churches at one and the 57b 1 33same time. From this it is clearly manifest that at this period the Alexandrian Church neither possessed a baptismal confession similar to that of Rome, nor understood by “regula fidei” and synonymous expressions a collection of beliefs fixed in some fashion and derived from the apostles.57 Clement of Alexandria in

56

Herein lay the defect, even if the content of the law of faith had coincided completely with the earliest tradition. A man like Tertullian knew how to protect himself in his own way from this defect, but his attitude is not typical. 57 Hegesippus, who wrote about the time of Eleutherus, and was in Rome about the middle of the second century (probably somewhat earlier than Irenæus), already set up the apostolic rule of faith as a standard. This is clear from the description of his work in Euseb., H. E. IV. 8. 2 (ἐν πέντε συγγράµµασιν τὴν ἀπλανῆ παράδοσιν τ9;ῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγµατος ὑποµνηµατισάµενος) as well as from the fragments of this work (l.c. IV. 22. 2, 3: ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος and § 5 ἐµέρισαν τὴν ἕνωσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας φθοριµαίοις λόγοις κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ; see also § 4). Hegesippus already regarded the unity of the Church as dependent on the correct doctrine. Polycrates (Euseb., H. E. V. 24. 6) used the expression ὁ κανὼν τῆς πίστεως in a very wide sense. But we may beyond doubt attribute to him the same conception with regard to the significance of the rule of faith as was held by his opponent Victor The Antimontanist (in Euseb. H. E. V. 16. 22.) will only allow that the martyrs who went to death for the κατὰ ἀλήθειαν πίστις were those belonging to the Church. The regula fidei is not here meant, as in this case it was not a subject of dispute. On the other hand, the anonymous writer in Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 6, 13 understood by τὸ ἐκκλησιαστικὸν φρόνηµα or ὁ κανὼν ύ aaf ῆς ἀρχαίας πίστεως the interpreted baptismal confession, just as Irenæus and Tertullian did. Hippolytus entirely agrees with these (see Philosoph. Præf., p. 4. V. 50 sq. and X. 32-34). Whether we are to ascribe the theory of Irenæus to Theophilus is uncertain. His idea of the Church is that of Irenæus (ad Autol. II. 14): δέδωκεν ὁ Θεὸς τῷ κόσµῳ κυµαινοµένῳ καὶ χειµαζοµένῳ ὑπὸ τῶν ἁµαρτηµάτων τὰς συναγωγάς, λεγοµένας δὲ ἐκκλησίας ἁγίας, ἐν αἷς καθάπερ λιµέσιν εὐόρµοις ἐν νήσοις ἁι διδασκαλίαι τῆς αληθείας ἐισίν . . . Καὶ ὥσπερ αὖ νῆσοι εἰσιν ἕτεραι πετρώδεις καὶ ἄνυδροι καὶ ἔκαρποι καὶ θηριώδεις καὶ ἀοίκητοι ἐπὶ βλάβῃ τῶν πλεόντων . . . οὕτως εἰσὶν αἱ διδασκαλίαι τῆς πλάνης, λέγω δὲ τῶν αἱρέσεων αἳ ἐξαπολλύουσιν τοὺς προσίοντας αὐταῖς. 58 This has been contested by Caspari (Ztschr. f. Kirchl. Wissensch. 1886, Part. 7, p. 352 ff.: “Did the Alexandrian Church in Clement’s time possess a baptismal confession or not”?); but his arguments have not convinced me. Caspari correctly shows that in Clement the expression “ecclesiastical canon” denotes the summary of the Catholic faith and of the Catholic rule of conduct; but he goes on to trace the baptismal confession, and that in a fixed form, in the expression ἡ περὶ τῶν µεγίστων ὁµολογία, Strom. VII. 15. 90

his Stromateis appeals to the holy (divine) 34Scriptures, to the teaching of the Lord,59 and to the standard tradition which he designates by a great variety of names, though he never gives its content, because he regards the whole of Christianity in its present condition as needing to be reconstructed by gnosis, and therefore as coming under the head of tradition. 565 1 In one respect therefore, as compared with Irenæus and Tertullian, he to some extent represents an earlier stand-point; he stands midway between them and Justin. From this author he is chiefly distinguished by the fact that he employs sacred Christian writings as well as the Old Testament, makes the true Gnostic quite as dependent on the former as on the latter and has lost that naïve view of tradition, that is, the complete content of Christianity, which Irenæus and Tertullian still had. As is to be expected, Clement too assigns the ultimate authorship of the tradition to the Apostles; but it is characteristic that he neither does this of such set purpose as Irenæus and Tertullian, nor thinks it necessary to prove that the Church had presented the apostolic tradition intact. But as he did not extract from the tradition a fixed complex of fundamental propositions, so also he failed to recognise the importance of its publicity and catholicity, and rather placed an esoteric alongside of an exoteric tradition. Although, like Irenæus and Tertullian, his attitude is throughout determined by opposition to the Gnostics and Marcion, he supposes it possible to refute them 564 by giving to the Holy Scriptures a scientific exposition which must not oppose the κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας, that is, the Christian common sense, but receives from it only certain guiding rules. But this attitude of Clement would be simply inconceivable if the Alexandrian Church of his time had already employed the fixed standard applied in

(see remarks on this passage below), and is supported in this view by Voigt, l. c. p. 196 ff. I also regard this as a baptismal confession; but it is questionable if it was definitely formulated, and the passage is not conclusive on the point. But, supposing it to be definitely formulated, who can prove that it went further than the formula in Hermas, Mand. I. with the addition of a mere mention of the Son and Holy Spirit. That a free kerygma of Christ and some other matter were added to Hermas, Mand. I. may still be proved by a reference to Orig., Comm. in Joh. XXXII. 9 (see the passage in vol. I. p. 155.). 59 Ἡ κυριακὴ διδασκαλία, e.g., VI. 15. 124; VI. 18. 165; VII. 10. 57; VII. 15. 90; VII. 18. 165, etc. 60 We do not find in Clement the slightest traces of a baptismal confession related to the Roman, unless we reckon the Θεὸς παντοκράτωρ or εἷς Θ. π. as such. But this designation of God is found everywhere and is not characteristic of the baptismal confession. In the lost treatise on the Passover Clement expounded the “παραδόσεις τῶν ἀρχάιων πρεσβυτέρων” which had been transmitted to him.

those of Rome, Carthage

acb 61

35and

Lyons.61 Such a standard did not

Considering the importance of the matter it is necessary to quote as copiously as possible from original sources. In Strom. IV. 15. 98, we find the expression ὁ κανὼν τῆς πίστεως; but the context shows that it is used here in a quite general sense. With regard to the statement of Paul: “whatever you do, do it to the glory of God,” Clement remarks ὅσα ὑπὸ τὸν κανόνα τῆς πίστεως ποιεῖν ἐπιτέτραπται. In Strom. I. 19. 96; VI. 15. 125; VI. 18. 165; VII. 7. 41; VII. 15. 90; VII. 16. 105 we find ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας (ἐκκλησιαστικός). In the first passage that canon is the rule for the right observance of the Lord’s Supper. In the other passages it describes no doubt the correct doctrine, that is, the rule by which the orthodox Gnostic has to be guided in contrast with the heretics who are guided by their own desires (it is therefore parallel to the διδασκαλία τοῦ κυρίου); but Clement feels absolutely no need to mention wherein this ecclesiastical canon consists. In Strom IV. 1.3; VI. 15. 124; VI. 15. 131; VII. 16. 94; we find the expression ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθέιας. In the first passage it is said: ἡ γοῦν κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα γνωστικῆς παραδόσεως φυσιολογία, µᾶλλον δὲ ἐποπτεία, ἐκ τοῦ περὶ κοσµογονίας ἤρτηται λόγου. ἐνθένδε ἀναβαίνουσα ἐπὶ τὸ θεολογικὸν εἶδος. Here no one can understand by the rule of truth what Tertullian understood by it. Very instructive is the second passage in which Clement is dealing with the right and wrong exposition of Scripture. He says first: παρακαταθήκη ἀποδιδοµένη Θεῷ ἡ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου διδασκαλίαν διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀυτοῦ τῆς θεοσεβοῦς παραδόσεως σύνεσίς τε καὶ συνάσκησις; then he demands that the Scriptures be interpreted κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα, or τ. ἐκκλησ. καν.; and continues (125): κανὼν δὲ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἡ συνῳδία καὶ ἡ συµφωνία νόµου τε καὶ προφητῶν τῇ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου παρουσίαν παραδιδοµένῃ διαθήκῃ. Here then the agreement of the Old Testament with the Testament of 564 Christ is described as the ecclesiastical canon. Apart from the question as to whether Clement is here already referring to a New Testament canon of Scripture, his rule agrees with Tertullian’s testimony about the Roman Church: “legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet.” But at any rate the passage shows the broad sense in which Clement used the term “ecclesiastical canon.” The following expressions are also found in Clement: ἡ ἀληθὴς τῆς µακαρίας διδασκαλίασ παράδοσις (I. 1. 11), ἁι ἅγιαι παραδόσεις (VII. 18. 110), ἡ εὐκλεὴς καὶ σεµνὸς τῆς παραδόσεως κανών (all gnosis is to be guided by this, see also ἡ κατὰ τὴν θείαν παράδοσιν φιλοσοφία, I, 1. 15. I: 11. 52., also the expression ἡ θεία παράδοσις (VII. 16. 103), ἡ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ παράδοσις (VII. 16. 95), ἁι τοῦ Χριστοῦ παραδνσεις (VII. 16. 99), ἡ τοῦ κυρίου παράδοσις (VII. 17. 106: VII. 16. 104), ἡ θεοσεβὴς παράδοσις (VI. 15. 124). Its content is not more precisely defined, and, as a rule, nothing more can be gathered from the context than what Clement once calls τὸ κοινὸν τῆς πίστεύ ac8 (VII. 16. 97). Where Clement wishes to determine the content more accurately he makes use of supplementary terms. He speaks, e.g., in III. 10. 66 of the κατὰ ἀληθείαν εὐαγγελικὸς κανών, and means by that the tradition contained in the Gospels recognised by the Church in contradistinction to that found in other gospels (IV. 4. 15: κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου = κατὰ τ. εὐαγγ.). In none of these formulæ is any notice taken of the Apostles. That Clement (like Justin) traced back the public tradition to the Apostles is a

exist; but Clement made no distinction in the yet unsystematised tradition, even between faith and discipline, because as a theologian he was not able to identify himself with any single

matter of course and manifest from I. 1. 11, where he gives an account of his early teachers (οἱ µὲν τὴν ἀληθῆ τῆς µακαρίας σώζοντες διδασκαλίας παράδοσιν εὐθὺς ἀπὸ Πέτρου τε καὶ Ἰακώβου, Ἰωάννου τε καὶ Παύλου τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων, παῖς παρὰ πατρὸς ἐκδεχόµενος ἧκον δὴ σὺν θεῷ καὶ εἰς ἡµᾶς τὰ προγονικὰ ἐκεῖνα καὶ ἀποστολικὰ καταθησόµενοι σπέρµατα). Clement does not yet appeal to a hierarchical tradition through the bishops, but adheres to the natural one through the teachers, though he indeed admits an esoteric tradition alongside of it. On one occasion he also says that the true Gnostic keeps the ἀποστολικὴ καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ὀρθοτοµία τῶν δογµάτων (VII. 16. 104). He has no doubt that: µία ἡ πάντων γέγονε τῶν ἀποστόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις (VII. 17. 108). But all that might just as well have been written in the first half of the second century. On the tracing back of the Gnosis, the esoteric tradition, to the Apostles see Hypotyp. in Euseb., H. E. II. 1. 4, Strom. VI. 15. 131: αὐτίκα διδάξαντος τοῦ σωτῆρος τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἡ τῆς ἐγγράφου ἄγραφος ἤδη καὶ εἰς ἡµᾶς διαδίδοται παράδοσις. VI. 7. 61: ἡ γνωσις δὲ αὐτὴ ἡ κατὰ διαδοχὰς (this is the only place where I find this expression) εἰς ὀλίγους ἐκ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀγράφως παραδοθεῖσα κατελήλυθεν, ibid ἡ γνωστικὴ παράδοσις; VII. 10. 55: ἡ γνῶσις ἐκ παραδόσεως διαδιδοµένη τοῖς ἀξίους σφᾶς ἀυτοὺς τῆς διδασκαλίας παρεχοµένοις οἷο 564 ν παρακαταθήκη ἐγχειρίζεται. In VII. 17. 106 Clement has briefly recorded the theories of the Gnostic heretics with regard to the apostolic origin of their teaching, and expressed his doubts. That the tradition of the “Old Church”, for so Clement designates the orthodox Church as distinguished from the “human congregation” of the heretics of his day, is throughout derived from the Apostles, he regards as so certain and self-evident that, as a rule, he never specially mentions it, or gives prominence to any particular article as apostolic. But the conclusion that he had no knowledge of any apostolic or fixed confession might seem to be disproved by one passage. It is said in Strom. VII. 15. 90: Μή τι οὖν, εἰ καὶ παραβαίη τις συνθήκας καὶ τὴν ὁµολογίαν παρέλθοι τὴν πρὸς ἡµᾶς, διὰ τὸν ψευσάµενον τὴν ὁµολογίαν ἀφεξόµεθα τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ἡµεῖς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἀψευδεῖν χρὴ τὸν ἐπιεικῆ καὶ µηδὲν ὧν ὑπέσχηται ἀκυροῦν κἂν ἄλλοι τινὲς παραβαίνωσι συνθήκας, οὕτως καὶ ἡµᾶς κατὰ µηδένα τρόπον τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν παραβα ac8 ίνειν προσήκει κανόνα καὶ µάλιστα τὴν περὶ τῶν µεγίστων ὁµολογίαν ἡµεῖς µὲν φυλάττοµεν, οἱ δὲ παραβαίνουσι. But in the other passages in Clement where ὀµολογίαν appears it nowhere signifies a fixed formula of confession, but always the confession in general which receives its content according to the situation (see Strom. IV. 4. 15; IV. 9. 71; III. 1. 4: ἐγκράτεια σώµατος ὐπεροψία κατὰ τὴν πρὸς θεὸν ὁµολογίαν. In the passage quoted it means the confession of the main points of the true doctrine. It is possible or probable that Clement was here alluding to a confession at baptism, but that is also not quite certain. At any rate this one passage cannot prove that Clement identified the ecclesiastical canon with a formulated confession similar to or identical with the Roman, or else such identification must have appeared more frequently in his works.

article of it without 36hesitation, and because he ascribed to the true Gnostic the ability to fix and guarantee the truth of Christian doctrine. Origen, although he also attempted to refute the heretics chiefly by a scientific exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, exhibits 37an attitude which is already more akin to that of Irenæus and T 564 ertullian than to that of Clement. In the preface to his great work, “De principiis,” he prefixed the Church doctrine as a detailed apostolic rule of faith, and in other instances also he appealed to the apostolic teaching.62 It may be assumed that in the time of Caracalla and Heliogabalus the Alexandrian Christians had also begun to adopt the principles acted upon in Rome and other communities.63 The Syrian Churches, or at least a part of them, followed still later.64 There can be no doubt that, from the last decades of the third century onward, one and the same confession, identical not in its wording, but in its main features, prevai 557 led in the great confederation of Churches extending from Spain to the Euphrates and from Egypt to beyond the Alps.65 It was the basis of the confederation, and therefore also a passport, mark of 62

De princip. 1. I. præf. § 4-10., IV. 2. 2. Yet we must consider the passage already twice quoted, namely, Com. in John. XXXII. 9, in order to determine the practice of the Alexandrian Church at that time. Was this baptismal confession not perhaps compiled from Herm., Mand. I., and Christological and theological teachings, so that the later confessions of the East with their dogmatic details are already to be found here? 63 That may be also shown with regard to the New Testament canon. Very important is the declaration of Eusebius (H. E. VI. 14) that Origen, on his own testimony, paid a brief visit to Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, “because he wished to become acquainted with the ancient Church of the Romans.” We learn from Jerome (de vir. inl. 61) that Origen there became acquainted with Hippolytus, who even called attention to his presence in the church in a sermon. That Origen kept up a connection with Rome still later and followed the conflicts there with keen interest may be gathered from his works. (See Döllinger, “H 564 ippolytus und Calixtus” p. 254 ff.) On the other hand, Clement was quite unacquainted with that city. Bigg therefore l.c. rightly remarks: “The West is as unknown to Clement as it was to his favourite Homer.” That there was a formulated πίστις καὶ ὁµολογία in Alexandria about 250 A.D. is shown by the epistle of Dionysius (Euseb., H. E. VII. 8) He says of Novatian, ἀνατρέπει τὴν πρὸ λούτρου πίστιν καὶ ὁµολογίαν. Dionysius would hardly have reproduced this Roman reproach in that way, if the Alexandrian Church had not possessed a similar πίστις. 64 The original of the Apostolic Constitutions has as yet no knowledge of the Apostolic rule of faith in the Western sense. 65 The close of the first homily of Aphraates shows how simple, antique, and original this confession still was in outlying districts at the beginning of the fourth century. On the other hand, there were oriental communities where it was already heavily weighted with theology.

recognition, etc., for the orthodox Christians. 38The interpretation of this confession was fixed in certain ground features, that is, in an Antignostic sense. But a definite theological interpretation was also more and more enforced. By the end of the third century there can no longer have been any considerable number of outlying communities where the doctrines of the pre-existence of Christ and the identity of this pre-existent One with the divine Logos were not recognised as the orthodox belief.66 They may have first become an apostolic confession of faith “ through the Nicene Creed. But even this creed was not adopted all at once. ad5 The designation of selected writings read in the Churches as New Testament Scriptures or, in other words, as a collection of Apostolic Writings. B. The designation of selected writings read in the churches as New Testament Scriptures or, in other words, as a collection of apostolic writings.67 Every word and every writing which testified of the κύριος (Lord) was originally regarded as emanating from him, that is, from his spirit: Ὅθεν ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται ἐκεῖ Κύριός ἐστιν. (v. 66

Cf. the epistles of Cyprian, especially ep. 69. 70. When Cyprian speaks (69. 7) of one and the same law which is held by the whole Catholic Church, and of one symbol with which she administers baptism (this is the first time we meet with this expression), his words mean far more than the assertion of Irenæus that the confession expounded by him is the guiding rule in all Churches; for in Cyprian’s time the intercourse of most Catholic communities with each other was so regulated that the state of things in each was to some extent really known. Cf. also Novatian, “de trinitate seu de regula fidei,” as well as the circular letter of the Synod of Antioch referring to the Metropolitan Paul (Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. 6 . . . ἀποστὰς τοῦ κανόνος ἐπὶ κίβδηλα καὶ νόθα διδάγµατα µετελήλυθεν, and the homilies of Aphraates. The closer examination of the last phase in the development of the confession of faith during this epoch, when the apostolic confessions received an interpretation in accordance with the theology of Origen, will be more conveniently left over till the close of our description (see chap. 7 fin). 67 See the histories of the canon by Credner, Reuss, Westcott, Hilgenfeld, Schmiedel, Holtzmann, and Weiss; the latter two, which to some extent supplement each other, are specially instructive. To Weiss belongs the merit of having kept Gospels and Apostles clearly apart in the preliminary history of the canon (see Th. L. Z. 1886. Nr. 24); Zahn, Gesch. des N. Tlichen Kanons, 2 vols, 1888 ff.; Harnack, Das Neue Test. um d. J. 200, 1889; Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimontan. Kampfes, 1891, p. 236 ff.; Weizsäcker, Rede bei der akad. Preisvertheilung, 1892. Nov.; Köpp 564 el, Stud. u. Krit. 1891, p. 102 ff.; Barth, Neue Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1893, p. 56 ff. The following account gives only a few aspects of the case, not a history of the genesis of the canon.

(Didache IV. I; 39 see also 1 Cor. XII. 3). Hence the contents were holy.68 In this sense the New Testament is a “residuary product,” just as the idea of its inspiration is a remnant of a much broader view. But on the other hand, the New Testament is a new creation of the Church,69 inasmuch as it takes its place alongside of the Old — which through it has become a complicated book for Christendom, — as a Catholic and apostolic collection of Scriptures containing and attesting the truth. Marcion had founded his conception of Christianity on a new canon of Scripture,70 which seems to have enjoyed the same authority among his followers as was ascribed to the Old Testament in orthodox Christendom. In the Gnostic schools, which likewise rejected the Old Testament altogether or in part, Evangelic and Pauline writings were, by the m ac8 iddle of the second century, treated as sacred texts and made use of to confirm

68

“Holy” is not always equivalent to “possessing absolute authority.” There are also various stages and degrees of “holy.” 69 I beg here to lay down the following principles as to criticism of the New Testament. (1) It is not individual writings, but the whole book that has been immediately handed down to us. Hence, in the case of difficulties arising, we must first of all enquire, not whether the title and historical setting of a book are genuine or not, but if they are original, or were only given to the wo aba rk when it became a component part of the collection. This also gives us the right to assume interpolations in the text belonging to the time when it was included in the canon, though this right must be used with caution. (2) Baur’s ‘tendency-criticism’ has fallen into disrepute; hence we must also free ourselves from the pedantry and hair-splitting which were its after effects. In consequence of the (erroneous) assumptions of the Tübingen school of critics a suspicious examination of the texts was justifiable and obligatory on their part. (3) Individual difficulties about the date of a document ought not to have the result of casting suspicion on it, when other good grounds speak in its favour; for, in dealing with writings which have no, or almost no accompanying literature, such difficulties cannot fail to arise. (4) The condition of the oldest Christianity up to the beginning of the second century did not favour literary forgeries or interpolations in support of a definite tendency. (5) We must remember that, from the death of Nero till the time of Trajan, very little is known of the history of the Church except the fact that, by the end of this time, Christianity had not only spread to an astonishing extent, but also had become vigorously consolidated. 70 The novelty lies first in the idea itself, secondly in the form in which it was worked out, inasmuch as Marcion would only admit the authority of one Gospel to the exclusion of all the rest, and added the Pauline epistles which had originally little to do with the conception of the apostolic doctrinal tradition of the Church.

their theological 40speculations.71 On the other hand, about the year 150 the main body of Christendom had still no collection of Gospels and Epistles possessing equal authority with the Old Testament, and, apart from Apocalypses, no new writings at all, which as such, that is, as sacred texts, were regarded as inspired and authoritative.72 Here we leave 41out of consideration that their

71

It is easy to understand that, wherever there was criticism of the Old Testament, the Pauline epistles circulating in the Church would be thrust into the foreground. The same thing was done by the Manichæans in the Byzantine age. 72 572 Four passages may be chiefly appealed to in support of the opposite view, viz., 2 Peter III. 16; Polycarp ep. 12. I; Barn. IV. 14; 2 Clem. II. 4. But the first is put out of court, as the second Epistle of Peter is quite a late writing. The second is only known from an unreliable Latin translation (see Zahn on the passage: ‘verba “his scripturis” suspecta sunt, cum interpres in c. II. 3 ex suis inseruerit “quod dictum est”’), and even if the latter were faithful here, the quotation from the Psalms prefixed to the quotation from the Epistle to the Ephesians prevents us from treating the passage as certain evidence. As to the third passage (µήποτε, ὡς γέγραπται, πολλοὶ κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρεθῶµεν), it should be noted that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, although he makes abundant use of the evangelic tradition, has nowhere else described evangelic writings as γραφή, and must have drawn from more sources than the canonic Gospels. Here, therefore, we have an enigma which may be solved in a variety of ways. It seems worth noting that it is a saying of the Lord which is here in question. But from the very beginning words of the Lord were equally reverenced with the Ol ac8 d Testament (see the Pauline Epistles), This may perhaps explain how the author — like 2 Clem. II. 4: ἑτέρα δὲ γραφὴ λέγει· ὅτι οὖκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁµαρτωλούς — has introduced a saying of this kind with the same formula as was used in introducing Old Testament quotations. Passages, such as Clem. XIII. 4: λέγει ὁ θέος· οὑ χάρις ὑµῖν εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε κ.τ.λ. would mark the transition to this mode of expression. The correctness of this explanation is confirmed by observation of the fact that the same formula as was employed in the case of the Old Testament was used in making quotations from early Christian apocalypses, or utterances of early Christian prophets in the earliest period. Thus we already read in Ephesians V. 14: διὸ λέγει· ἔγειρε ὁ καθεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός. That, certainly, is a saying of a Christian prophet, and yet it is introduced with the usual “λέγει”. We also find a saying of a Christian prophet in Clem. XXIII. (the saying is more complete in 2 Clem. XI.) introduced with the words: ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη, ὅπου λέγει. These examples may be multiplied still further. From all this we may perhaps assume that the trite formulæ of quotation “γραφὴ γέγραπται,” etc., were applied wherever reference was made to sayings of the Lord and of prophets that were fixed in writings, even when the documents in question had not yet as a whole obtained canonical authority. Finally, we must also draw attention to the following: — The Epistle of Barnabas belongs to Egypt; and there probably, contrary to my former opinion, we must also look for the author of the second Epistle of Clement. There is much to favour the view that in Egypt Christian writings

content is a testimony of the Spirit. From the works of Justin it is to be inferred that the ultimate authorities were the Old Testament, the words of the Lord, and the communications of Christian prophets.73 The memoirs of the Apostles (ἀποµνηµονέυµατα τῶν ἀποστόλων = τὰ εύαγγέλια) owed their significance solely to the fact that they recorded the words and history of the Lord and bore witness to the fulfilment of Old Testament predictions. There is no mention whatever of apostolic epistles as holy writings of standard authority.74 But we learn further from Justin that the Gospels as well as the Old Testament were read in public worship (Apol. I. 67) and that our first three Gospels were already in use. We can, moreover, gather from other sources that other Christian writings, early and late, were more or less regularly read in Christian meetings.75 Such writings naturally possessed a high deg ac8 ree of authority. As the Holy Spirit and the Church are inseparable, everything that edifies the Church originates with the Holy Spirit,76 which in this, as well as every other respect, is inexhaustibly rich. Here, however, two interests were predominant from the beginning, that of immediate spiritual edification and that of attesting and certifying the Christian 42Kerygma (ἡ ἀσφάλεια τῶν λόγων). The ecclesiastical canon was the result of the latter interest, not indeed in consequence of a process of collection, for individual communities had already made a far larger

were treated as sacred texts, without being united into a collection of equal rank with the Old Testament. (See below on this point.) 73 See on Justin Bousset. Die Evv. — Citate Justins. Gött., 1891. We may also infer from the expression of Hegesippus (Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 3; Stephanus Gobarus in Photius, Bibl. 232. p. 288) that it was not Christian writings, but the Lord himself, who was placed on an equality with Law and Prophets. V 558 ery instructive is the formula: “Libri et epistolæ Pauli viri iusti” (αἱ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς βίβλοι καὶ αἱ προσεπιτούτοις ἐπιστολαὶ Παύλου τοῦ ὁσίου ἀνδρός), which is found in the Acta Mart. Scillit. anno 180 (ed. Robinson, Texts and Studies, 1891, I. 2, p. 114 f.), and tempts us to make certain conclusions. In the later recensions of the Acta the passage, characteristically enough, is worded: “Libri evangeliorum et epistolæ Pauli viri sanctissimi apostoli” or “Quattuor evv. dom. nostri J. Chr. et epp. S. Pauli ap. et omnis divinitus inspirata scriptura.” 74 It is worthy of note that the Gnostics also, though they quote the words of the Apostles (John and Paul) as authoritative, place the utterances of the Lord on an unattainable height. See in support of this the epistle of Ptolemy to Flora. ad4 75Rev. I. 3; Herm. Vis II. 4; Dionys. Cor. in Euseb., IV. 23. 11. 76 Tertullian, this Christian of the primitive type, still reveals the old conception of things in one passage where, reversing 2 Tim. III. 16, he says (de cultu fem. I. 3) “Legimus omnem scripturam ædificationi habilem divinitus inspirari.”

compilation,77 but, in the first instance, through selection, and afterwards, but not till then, through addition. We must not think that the four Gospels now found in the canon had attained full canonical authority by the middle of the second century, for the fact — easily demonstrable — that the texts were still very freely dealt with about this period is in itself a proof of this.78 Our first three Gospels contain passages and corrections that could hardly have been fixed before about the year 150. Moreover, Tatian’s attempt to create a new Gospel from the four shews that the text of these was not yet fixed.79 We may remark that he was the first in whom we find the Gospel of John80 alongside of the Synoptists, and these four the only ones recognised. From the assault of the “A ac5 logi” on the Johannine Gospel we learn that about 160 the whole of our four Gospels had not been definitely recognised even in Asia Minor. Finally, we must refer to the Gospel of the Egyptians, 43 the use of which was not confined to circles outside the Church.81 From the middle of the second century the Encratites stood midway between the larger Christendom and the Marcionite Church as well as the Gnostic schools. We hear of some of these using the Gospels as canonical writings side by side with the Old

77

The history of the collection of the Pauline Epistles may be traced back to the first century (1 Clem. XLVII. and like passages). It follows from the Epistle of Polycarp that this native of Asia Minor had in his hands all the Pauline Epistles (quotations are made from nine of the latter; these nine imply the four that are wanting, yet it must remain an open question whether he did not yet possess the Pastoral Epistles in their present form), also 1 Peter, 1 John (though he has not named the authors of these), the first Epistle of Clement and the Gospels. The extent of the writings read in churches which Polycarp is thus seen to have had approaches pretty nearly that of the later recognised canon. Compare, however, the way in which he assumes sayings from those writings to be well known by introducing them with “εἰδότες” (I. 3; IV. 1; V. 1). Ignatius likewise shows himself to be familiar with the writings which were subsequently united to form the New Testament. We see from the works of Clement, that, at the end of the second century, a great mass of Christian writings were collected in Alexandria and were used and honoured. 78 It should also be pointed out that Justin most probably used the Gospel of Peter among the ἀποµνηµονεύµατα; see Tex 564 te u. Unters. IX. 2. 79 See my article in the Zeitschr. f. K. Gesch. Vol. IV. p. 471 ff. Zahn (Tatian’s Diatessaron, 1881) takes a different view. 80 Justin also used the Gospel of John, but it is a disputed matter whether he regarded and used it like the other Gospels. 81 The Sabellians still used it in the third century, which is a proof of the great authority possessed by this Gospel in Christian a ab4 ntiquity. (Epiph., H. 62. 2.)

Testament, though they would have nothing to do with the Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles.82 But Tatian, the prominent Apologist, who joined them, gave this sect a more complete canon, an important fact about which was its inclusion of Epistles of Paul. Even this period, however, still supplies us with no testimony as to the existence of a New Testament canon in orthodox Christendom, in fact the rise of the so-called “Montanism” and its extreme antithesis, the “Alogi”, in Asia Minor soon after the middle of the second century proves that there was still no New Testament canon there; for, if such an authoritative compilation had existed, these movements could not have arisen. If we gather together all the indications and evidence bearing on the subject, we shall indeed be ready to expect the speedy appearance in the Church of a kind of Gospel canon comprising the four Gospels;83 but we are prepared neither for this being formally placed on an equality with the Old Testament, nor for its containing apostolic writings, which as yet are only found in Marcion and the Gnostics. The canon emerges quite suddenly in an allusion of Melito of Sardis preserved by Eusebius,84 567 the meaning of which is, however, still dubious; in the works of Irenæus and Tertullian; and in the so-called Muratorian Fragment. There is no direct account of its origin 44and scarcely any indirect; yet it already appears as something to all intents and purposes finished and complete.85 Moreover, it emerges in the same ecclesiastical district where we were first able to show the existence of the apostolic regula fidei. We hear nothing of any authority belonging to the compilers, because we learn nothing at all of such persons.86 And yet the collection is regarded by Irenæus

82

Euseb., H. E. IV. 29. 5. In many regions the Gospel canon alone appeared at first, and in very many others it long occupied a more prominent place than the other canonical writings. Alexander of Alexandria, for instance, still calls God the giver of the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels (Theodoret, I. 4). 84 Euseb., H. E. II. 26. 13. As Melito speaks here of the ἀκρίβεια τῶν παλαιῶν βιβλίων, and of τὰ βιβλία τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης, we may assume that he knows τὰ βιβλία τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης. 85 We may here leave undiscussed the hesitancy with regard to the admissibility of particular books. That the Pastoral Epistles had a fixed place in the canon almost from the very first is of itself a proof that the date of its origin cannot be long before 180. In connection with this, however, it is an important circumstance that Clement makes the general statement that the heretics reject the Epistles to Timothy (Strom. II. 12. 52: οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων τὰς πρὸς Τιµόθεον ἀθετοῦσιν ἐπιστολάς). They did not happen to be at the disposal of the Church at all till the middle of the second century. 56c 86Yet see the passage from Tertullian quoted, p. 15, note 1; see also the “receptior”, de pudic. 20, the cause of the rejection of Hermas in the Muratorian 83

and Tertullian as completed. A refusal on the part of the heretics to recognise this or that book is already made a severe reproach against them. Their Bibles are tested by the Church compilation as the older one, an ac8 d the latter itself is already used exactly like the Old Testament. The assumption of the inspiration of the books; the harmonistic interpretation of them; the idea of their absolute sufficiency with regard to every question which can arise and every event which they record; the right of unlimited combination of passages; the assumption that nothing in the Scriptures is without importance; and, finally, the allegorical interpretation: are the immediately observable result of the creation of the canon.87 45

The probable conditions which brought about the formation of the New Testament canon in the Church, for in this case we are only dealing with probabilities, and the interests which led to and remained associated with it can only be briefly indicated here.88

Fragment and Tertull. de bapt. 17: “Quodsi quæ Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum Theclæ ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse.” The hypothesis that the Apostles themselves (or the apostle John) compiled the New Testament was definitely set up by no one in antiquity and therefore need not be discussed. Augustine (c. Faustum XXII. 79) speaks frankly of “sancti et docti homines” who produced the New Testament. We can prove by a series of testimonies that the idea of the Church having compiled the New Testament writings was in no way offensive to the Old Catholic Fathers. As a rule, indeed, they are silent on the matter. Irenæus and Tertullian already treat the collection as simply existent. ad4 87Numerous examples may be found in proof of all these points, especially in the writings of Tertullian, though such are already to be met with in Irenæus also. He is not yet so bold in his allegorical exposition of the Gospels as Ptolemæus whom he finds fault with in this respect; but he already gives an exegesis of the books of the New Testament not essentially different from that of the Valentinians. One should above all read the treatise of Tertullian “de idololatria” to perceive how the authority of the New Testament was even by that time used for solving all questions. 88 I cannot here enter into the disputed question as to the position that should be assigned to the Muratorian Fragment in the history of the formation of the canon, nor into its interpretation, etc. See my article “Das Muratorische Fragment und die Entstehung einer Sammlung apostolisch-katholischer Schriften” in the Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. III. p. 358 ff. See also Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, 1880; Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschrift f. Wissensch. Theol. 1881, part 2; Schmiedel, Art. “Kanon” in Ersch. u. Gruber’s Encykl., 2 Section, Vol. XXXII. p. 309 ff.; Zahn, Kanongeschichte, Vol. II. p. 1 ff. I leave the fragment and the conclusions I have drawn from it almost entirely out of account here. The following sketch will show that the objections of Overbeck have not been without influence on me.

The compilation and formation of a canon of Christian writings by a process of selection89 was, so to speak, a kind of involuntary undertaking of the Church in her conflict with Marcion and the Gnostics, as is most plainly proved by the 46warnings of the Fathers not to dispute with the heretics about the Holy Scriptures,90 although the New Testament was already in existence. That conflict necessitated the formation of a new Bible. The exclusion of particular persons on the strength of some apostolic standards, and by reference to the Old Testament, could not be justified by the Church in her own eyes and those of her opponents, so long as she herself recognised that there were apostolic writings, and so long as these heretics appealed to such. She was compelled to claim exclusive possession of everything that had a right to the name “apostolic,” t ac8 o deny it to the heretics, and to shew that she held it in the highest honour. Hitherto she had “contented” herself with proving her legal title from the Old Testament, and, passing over her actual origin, had dated herself back to the

89

The use of the word “canon” as a designation of the collection is first plainly demonstrable in Athanasius (ep. fest. of the year 365) and in the 59th canon of the synod of Laodicea. It is doubtful whether the term was already used by Origen. Besides, the word “canon” was not applied even to the Old Testament before the fourth century. The name “New Testament” (books of the New Testament) is first found in Melito and Tertullian. For other designations of the latter see Rönsch, Das N. T. Tertullian’s ac4 p. 47 f. The most common name is “Holy Scriptures”. In accordance with its main components the collection is designated as τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος (evangelicæ et apostolicæ litteræ); see Tertullian, de bapt. 15: “tam ex domini evangelio quam ex apostoli litteris.” The name “writings of the Lord” is also found very early. It was already used for the Gospels at a time when there was no such thing as a canon. It was then occasionally transferred to all writings of the collection. Conversely, the entire collection was named, after the authors, a collection of apostolic writings, just as the Old Testament Scriptures were collectively called the writings of the prophets. Prophets and Apostles (= Old and New Testament) were now conceived as the media of God’s revelation fixed in writing (see the Muratorian Fragment in its account of Hermas, and the designation of the Gospels as “Apostolic memoirs” already found in Justin.) This grouping became exceedingly important. It occasioned new speculations about the unique dignity of the Apostles and did away with the old collocation of Apostles and Prophets (that is Christian prophets). By this alteration we may measure the revolution of the times. Finally, the new collection was also called “the writings of the Church” as distinguished from the Old Testament and the writings of the heretics. This expression and its amplifications shew that it was the Church which selected these writings. 90 Here there is a distinction between Irenæus and Tertullian. The former disputed with heretics about the interpretation of the Scriptures, the latter, although he has read Irenæus, forbids such dispute. He cannot therefore have considered Irenæus’ efforts as successful.

beginning of all things. Marcion and the Gnostics were the first who energetically pointed out that Christianity began with Christ, and that all Christianity was really to be tested by the apostolic preaching, that the assumed identity of Christian common sense with apostolic Christianity did not exist, and (so Marcion said) that the Apostles contradicted themselves. This opposition made it necessary to enter into the questions raised by their opponents. But, in point of content, the problem of proving the contested identity was simply insoluble, because it was endless and subject to question on every particular point. The “unconscious logic,” that is the logic of self-preservation, could only prescribe an expedient. The Church had to collect everything apostolic and declare herself to be its only legal possessor. She was obliged, moreover, to amalgamate the apostolic with the canon of the Old Testament in such a way as to fix the exposition 47from the very first, But what writings were apostolic? From the middle of the second century great numbers of writings named after the Apostles had already been in circulation, and there were often different recensions of one and the same writing.91 Versions which contained docetic elements and exhortations to the most pronounced asceticism had even made their way into the public worship of the Church. Above all, therefore, it was necessary to determine (1) what writings were really apostolic, (2) what form or recension should be regarded as apostolic. The selection was made by the Church, that is, primarily, by the churches of Rome and Asia Minor, which had still an unbroken history up to the days of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. In making this choice, the Church limited herself to the writings that were used in public worship, and only admitted what the tradition of the elders justified her in regarding as genuinely apostolic. The principle on which she proceeded was to reject as spurious all writings, bearing the names of Apostles, that contained any-thing contradictory to Christian common sense, that is, to the rule of faith — hence admission was refused to all books in which the God of the Old Testament, his creation, etc., ap aba peared to be depreciated, — and to exclude all recensions of apostolic writings that seemed to endanger the Old Testament and the monarchy of God. She retained, therefore, only those writings which bore the names of Apostles, or anonymous writings to which she considered herself justified in attaching such names,92

91

The reader should remember the different recensions of the Gospels and the complaints made by Dionysius of Corinth (in Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 12). acc 92That the text of these writings was at the same time revised is more than probable, especially in view of the beginnings and endings of many New Testament writings, as well as, in the case of the Gospels, from a comparison of the canonical text

and whose contents were not at variance with the orthodox 48creed or attested it. This selection resulted in the awkward fact that besides the four Gospels there was almost nothing but Pauline epistles to dispose of, and therefore no writings or almost none which, as emanating from the twelve Apostles, could immediately confirm the truth of the ecclesiastical Kerygma. This perplexity was removed by the introduction of the Acts of the Apostles93 and in some cases also the Epistles of Peter and John, though that of Peter was not recognised at Rome at first. As a collection this group is the most interesting in the new compilation. It gives it the stamp of Catholicity, unites the Gospels with the Apostle (Paul),

with the quotations dating from the time when there was no canon. But much more important still is the perception of the fact that, in the course of the second century, a series of writings which had originally been circulated anonymously or under the name of an unknown author were ascribed to an Apostle and were also slightly altered in accordance with this. In what circumstances or at what time this happened, whether it took place as early as the beginning of the second century or only immediately before the formation of the canon, is in almost every individual case involved in obscurity; but the fact itself, of which unfortunately the Introductions to the New Testament still know so little, is, in my opinion, incontestable. I refer the reader to the following examples, without indeed being able to enter on the proof here (see my edition of the “Teaching of the Apostles” p. 106 ff). (1) The Gospel of Luke seems not to have been known to Marcion under this name, and to have been called so only at a later date. (2) The canonical Gospels of Matthew and Mark do not claim, through their content, to originate with these men; they were regarded as apostolic at a later period. (3) The so-called Epistle of Barnabas was first attributed to the Apostle Barnabas by tradition. (4) The Apocalypse of Hermas was first connected with an apostolic Hermas by tradition (Rom. XVI. 14). (5) The same thing took place with regard to the first Epistle of Clement (Philipp. IV. 3). (6) The Epistle to the Hebrews, originally the writing of an unknown author or of Barnabas, was transformed into a writing of the Apostle Paul (Overbeck zur Gesch. des Kanons, 1880), or given out to be such. (7) The Epistle of James, originally the communication of an early Christian prophet, or a collection of ancient holy addresses, first seems to have received the name of James in tradition. (8) The first Epistle of Peter, which originally appears to have been written by an unknown follower of Paul, first received its present name from tradition. The same thing perhaps holds good of the Epistle of Jude. Tradition was similarly at work, even at a later period, as may for example be recognised by the transformation of the epistle “de virginitate” into two writings by Clement. The critics of early Christia ac8 n literature have created for themselves insoluble problems by misunderstanding the work of tradition. Instead of asking whether the tradition is reliable, they always wrestle with the dilemma “genuine or spurious”, and can prove neither. 93 As regards its aim and contents, this book is furthest removed from the claim to be a portion of a collection of Holy Scriptures. Accordingly, so far as we know, its reception into the canon has no preliminary history.

and, by subordinating his Epistles to the “Acta omnium apostolorum”, makes them witnesses to the particular tradition that was required and divests them of every thing suspicious and insufficient.94 The Church, however, found 49the selection

94

People were compelled by internal and external evidence (recognition of their apostolicity; example of the Gnostics) to accept the epistles of Paul. But, from the Catholic point of view, a canon which comprised only the four Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, would have been at best an edifice of two wings without the central structure, and therefore incomplete and uninhabitable. The actual novelty was the bold insertion into its midst of a book, which, if everything is not deceptive, had formerly been only in private use, namely, the Acts of the Apostles, which some associated with an Epistle of Peter and an Epistle of John, others with an Epistle of Jude, two Epistles of John, and the like. There were now (1) writings of the Lord which were at the same time regarded as ἀποµνηµονεύµατα of definite Apostles; (2) a book which contained the acts and preaching of all the Apostles, which historically legitimised Paul, and at the same time gave hints for the explanation of “difficult” passages in his Epistle; (3) the Pauline Epistles increased by the compilation of the Pastoral ones, documents which “in ordinatione ecclesiasticæ disciplinæ sanctificatæ erant.” The Acts of the Apostles is thus the key to the understanding of the Catholic canon and at the same time shows its novelty. In this book the new collection had its bond of cohesion, its Catholic element (apostolic tradition), and the guide for its exposition. That the Acts of the Apostles found its place in the canon faute de mieux is clear from the extravagant terms, no 564 t at all suited to the book, in which its appearance there is immediately hailed. It is inserted in place of a book which should have contained the teaching and missionary acts of all the 12 Apostles; but, as it happened, such a record was not in existence. The first evidence regarding it is found in the Muratorian fragment and in Irenæus and Tertullian. There it is called “acta omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt, etc.” Irenæus says (III. 14. 1): “Lucas non solum prosecutor sed et cooperarius fuit Apostolorum, maxime autem Pauli”, and makes use of the book to prove the subordination of Paul to the twelve. In the celebrated passages, de præscr. 22, 23: adv. Marc. I. 20; IV. 2-5; V. 1-3, Tertullian made a still more extensive use of the Acts of the Apostles, as the Antimarcionite book in the canon. One can see here why it was admitted into that collection and used against Paul as the Apostle of the heretics. The fundamental thought of Tertullian is that no one who fails to recognise the Acts of the Apostles has any right to recognise Paul, and that to elevate him by himself into a position of authority is unhistorical and absolutely unfounded fanaticism. If the διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων was needed as an authority in the earlier time, a book which contained that authority was required ac8 in the later period; and nothing else could be found than the work of the so-called Luke. “Qui Acta Apostolorum non recipiunt, nec spiritus Sancti esse possunt, qui necdum spiritum sanctum possunt agnoscere discentibus missum, sed nec ecclesiam se dicant defendere qui quando et quibus incunabulis institutum est hoc corpus probare non habent.” But the greater part of the heretics remained obstinate. Neither Marcionites, Severians, nor the later Manicheans recognised the Acts of the Apostles. To some extent they replied by setting up other histories of Apostles in opposition to it, as was done later by a fraction of

facilitated by the fact that the content of the early Christian writings was for the most part unintelligible to the Christendom of the time, whereas the late and spurious additions were betrayed not only by heretical theologoumena, but also and above all by their profane lucidity. Thus arose a collection of apostolic writings, which in extent may not have been strikingly distinguished from the list of writings that for 50more than a generation had formed the chief and favourite reading in the communities. ad6 1 The new collection was already exalted to a high place by the use of other writings being prohibited either for purposes of general edification

the Ebionites and even by the Marcionites. But the Church also was firm. It is perhaps the most striking phenomenon in the history of the formation of the canon that this late book, from the very moment of its appearance, asserts its right to a place in the collection, just as certainly as the four Gospels, though its position varied. In Clement of Alexandria indeed the book is still pretty much in the background, perhaps on a level with the κήρυγµα Πέτρου, but Clement has no New Testament at all in the strict sense of the word; see below. But at the very beginning the book stood where it is to-day, i.e., immediately after the Gospels (see Muratorian Fragment, Irenæus, etc.). The parallel creation, the group of Catholic Epistles, acquired a much more dubious position than the Acts of the Apostles, and its place was never really settled. Its germ is probably to be found in two Epistles of John (viz., 1st and 3rd) which acquired dignity along with the Gospel, as well as in the Epistle of Jude. These may have given the impulse to create a group of narratives about the twelve Apostles from anonymous writings of old Apostles, prophets, and teachers. But the Epistle of Peter is still wanting in the Muratorian Fragment, nor do we yet find the group there associated with the Acts of the Apostles. The Epistle of Jude, two Epistles of John, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter form the unsymmetrical conclusion of this oldest catalogue of the canon. But, all the same writings, by Jude, John, and Peter are here found side by side; thus we have a preparation for the future arrangement made in different though similar fashion by Irenæus and again altered by Tertullian. The genuine Pauline Epistles appear enclosed on the one hand by the Acts of the Apostles and the Catholic Epistles, and on the other by the Pastoral ones, which in their way are also “Catholic.” That is the character of the “Catholic” New Testament which is confirmed by the earliest use of it (in Irenæus and Tertullian). In speaking above of the Acts of the A ac8 postles as a late book, we meant that it was so relatively to the canon. In itself the book is old and for the most part reliable. 95 There is no doubt that this was the reason why to all appearance the innovation was scarcely felt. Similar causes were at work here as in the case of the apostolic rule of faith. In the one case the writings that had long been read in the Church formed the basis, in the other the baptismal confession. But a great distinction is found in the fact that the baptismal confession, as already settled, afforded an elastic standard which was treated as a fixed one and was therefore extremely practical; whilst, conversely, the undefined group of writings hitherto read in the Church was reduced to a collection which could neither be increased nor diminished.

or for theological ends.96 But the causes and motives which led to 51its being formed into a canon, that is, being placed on a footing of complete equality with the Old Testament, may be gathered partly from the earlier history, partly from the mode of using the new Bible and partly from the results attending its compilation. First, Words of the Lord and prophetic utterances, including the written records of these, had always possessed standard authority in the Church; there were therefore parts of the collection the absolute authority of which was undoubted from the first.97 Secondly, what was called “Preaching of the Apostles,” “Teaching of the Apostles,” etc., was likewise regarded from the earliest times as completely harmonious as well as authoritative. There had, however, been absolutely no motive for fixing this in documents, because Christians supposed they possessed it in a state of purity and reproduced it freely. The moment the Church was called upon to fix this teaching authentically, and this denotes a decisive revolution, she was forced to have recourse to writings, whether she would or not. The attributes formerly applied to the testimony of the Apostles, so long as it was not collected and committed to writing, had now to be transferred to the written records they had left. Thirdly, Marcion had already taken the lead in forming Christian writings into a canon in the strict sense of the word. Fourthly, the interpretation was at once fixed by forming the apostolic writings into a canon, and placing them on an equality with the Old Testament, as well as by subordinating troublesome writings to the Acts of the Apostles. Considered by themselves these writings, especially the Pauline Epistles, presented the greatest difficulties. We can see even yet from Irenæus and Tertullian that the duty of accommodating herself to these Epistles was forced upon ac8 the Church by Marcion and the heretics, and that, but for this constraint, her method of satisfying herself as to her relationship to them would hardly have taken the shape of incorporating them with the canon.98 52This shows most clearly that the collection of writings must not be traced to the Church’s

96

At the beginning, that is about 180, it was only in practice, and not in theory, that the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles possessed equal authority. Moreover, the name New Testament is not yet found in Irenæus, nor do we yet find him giving an exact idea of its content. See Werner in the Text. u. Unters. z. altchristl. Lit. Gesch. Bd. VI. 2. 97 See above, p. 40, note 2. 98 We have ample evidence in the great work of Irenæus as to the difficulties he found in many passages of the Pauline Epistles, which as yet were almost solely utilised as sources of doctrine by such men as Marcion, Tatian, and theologians of the school of Valentinus. The diffic ac8 ulties of course still continued to be felt in the period which followed. (See, e.g., Method, Conviv. Orat. III. 1, 2.)

effort to create for herself a powerful controversial weapon. But the difficulties which the compilation presented so long as it was a mere collection vanished as soon as it was viewed as a sacred collection. For now the principle: “as the teaching of the Apostles was one, so also is the tradition” (µια ἡ πάντων γέγονε τῶν ἀποστόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις)” was to be applied to all contradictory and objectionable details.99 It was now imperative to explain one writing by another; the Pauline Epistles, for example, were to be interpreted by the Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles.100 Now was required what Tertullian calls the “mixture” of the Old and New Testaments,101 in consequence of which the full recognition of the knowledge got from the old Bible was regarded as the first law for the interpretation of the new. The formation of the new collection into a canon was therefore an immediate and unavoidable necessity if doubts of all kinds were to be averted. These were abundantly excited by the exegesis of the heretics; they were got rid of by making the writings into a canon. Fifthly, the early Christian enthusiasm more and more decreased in the course of the second century; not only did Apostles, prophets, and teachers die out, but t ac8 he religious mood of the majority of Christians was changed. A reflective piety took the place of the instinctive religious enthusiasm which made those who felt it believe that they themselves possessed the Spirit.102 Such a piety requires rules; at the same time, however, it is characterised by the perception that it has not the active and spontaneous character which it ought to have, but has to prove its 53legitimacy in an indirect and “objective” way. The breach with tradition, the deviation from the original state of things is felt and recognised. Men, however, conceal from themselves their own defects, by placing the representatives of the past on an unattainable height, and forming such an estimate of their qualities as makes it unlawful and impossible for those of the present generation, in the interests of their own comfort, to compare themselves with them. When matters reach this point, great suspicion attaches to those who hold

99

Apollinaris of Hierapolis already regards any contradiction between the (4) Gospels as impossible. (See Routh, Reliq. Sacr. I. p. 150.) 100 See Overbeck, “Ueber die Auffassung des Streites des Paulus mit Petrus in Antiochien bei den Kirchenvätern,” 1897, p. 8. 101 See also Clement Strom. IV. 21. 124; VI. 15. 125. The expression is also frequent in Origen, e.g., de princip. præf. 4. 102 The Roman Church in her letter to that of Corinth designates her own words as the words of God (1 Clem. LIX. 1) and therefore requires obedience “τοῖς ὑφ᾽ ἡµῶν γεγραµµένοις διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος” (LXIII. 2).

fast their religious independence and wish to apply the old standards. Not only do they seem arrogant and proud, but they also appear disturbers of the necessary new arrangement which has its justification in the fact of its being unavoidable. This development of the matter was, moreover, of the greatest significance for the history of the canon. Its creation very speedily resulted in the opinion that the time of divine revelation had gone past and was exhausted in the Apostles, that is, in the records left by them. We cannot prove with certainty that the canon was formed to confirm this opinion, but we can show that it was very soon used to oppose those Christians who professed to be prophets or appealed to the continuance of prophecy. The influence which the canon exercised in this respect is the most decisive and important. That which Tertullian, as a Montanist, asserts of one of his opponents: “Prophetiam expulit, paracletum fugavit” (“he expelled prophecy, he drove away the Paraclete”), can be far more truly said of the New Testament which the same Tertullian as a Catholic recognised. The New Testament, though not all at once, put an end to a situation where it was possible for any Christian under the inspiration of the Spirit to give authoritative disclosures and instructions. It likewise prevented belief in the fanciful creations with which such men enriched the history of the past, and destroyed their pretensions to r 564 ead the future. As the creation of the canon, though not in a hard and fast way, fixed the period of the production of sacred facts, so it put down all claims of Christian prophecy to public credence. Through the canon it came to be acknowledged that all post-apostolic Christianity is only of a mediate and particular kind, and can therefore never be itself a standard. 54The Apostles alone possessed the Spirit of God completely and without measure. They only, therefore, are the media of revelation, and by their word alone, which, as emanating from the Spirit, is of equal authority with the word of Christ, all that is Christian must be tested.103

103

Tertull., de exhort. 4: “Spiritum quidem dei etiam fideles habent, sed non omnes fideles apostoli . . . Proprie enim apostoli spiritum sanctum habent, qui plene habent in operibus prophetiæ et efficacia virtutum documentisque linguarum, non ex parte, quod ceteri.” Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 21. 135: “Ἕκαστος Ἅ ac7 διον ἔχει χάρισµα ἀπὸ θεοῦ, ὁ µὲν οὑτως, ὁ δὲ οὑτως, ὁι ἀπόστολοι δὲ ἐν πᾶσι πεπληρωµένοι; Serapion in Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3: ἡµεῖς καὶ τὸν Πάτρον καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀποστόλους ἀποδεχόµεθα ὡς Χριστόν. The success of the canon here referred to was an undoubted blessing, for, as the result of enthusiasm, Christianity was menaced with complete corruption, and things and ideas, no matter how alien to its spirit, were able to obtain a lodgment under its protection. The removal of this danger, which was in some measure averted by the canon, was indeed coupled with great disadvantages, inasmuch as believers were referred in

The Holy Spirit and the Apostles became correlative conceptions (Tertull., de pudic. 21). The Apostles, however, were more and more overshadowed by the New Testament Scriptures; and this was in fact an advance beyond the earlier state of things, for what was known of the Apostles? Accordingly, as authors of these writings, they and the Holy Spirit became correlative conceptions. This led to ac8 the assumption that the apostolic writings were inspired, that is, in the full and only intelligible sense attached to the word by the ancients.104 By this assumption the Apostles, viewed as prophets, received a significance quite equal to that of Old Testament writers.105 But, though Irenæus and Tertullian placed both parties on a level, they preserved a distinction between them by basing the whole authority of the New Testament on its apostolic origin, the concept “apostolic” being much more comprehensive than that 55of “prophet.” These men, being Apostles, that is men chosen by Christ himself and entrusted with the proclamation of the Gospel, have for that reason received the Spirit, and their writings are filled with the Spirit. To the minds of Western Christians the primary feature in the collection is its apostolic authorship.106 This implies inspiration also, because the Apostles cannot be inferior to the writers of the Old Testament. For that very reason they could, in a much more radical way, rid the new collection of everything that was not apostolic. They even rejected writings which, in their form, plainly claimed the character of inspiration; and this was evidently done because they did not attribute to them the degree of authority which, in their view, only belonged to that which was apostolic.107 The new canon

legal fashion to a new book, and the writings contained in it were at first completely obscured by the assumption that they were inspired and by the requirement of an “expositio legitima.” 104 See Tertull., de virg. vol. 4, de resurr. 24, de ieiun. 15, de pudic. 12. Sufficiency is above all included in the concept “inspiration” (see for ex. Tertull., de monog. 4: “Negat scriptura quod non notat”), and the same measure of authority belongs to all parts (see Iren., IV. 28. 3. Nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum”). 105 The direct designation “prophets” was, however, as a rule, avoided. The conflict with Montanism made it expedient to refrain from this name; but see Tertullian, adv. Marc. IV. 24: “Tam apostolus Moyses, quam et apostoli prophetæ.” 106 Compare also what the author of the Muratorian Fragment says in the passage about the Shepherd of Hermas. 565 107This caused the most decisive breach with tradition, and the estimate to be formed of the Apocalypses must at first have remained an open question. Their fate was long undecided in the West; but it was very soon settled that they could have no claim to public recognition in the Church, because their authors had not that fulness of the Spirit which belongs to the Apostles alone.

of Scripture set up by Irenæus and Tertullian primarily professes to be nothing else than a collection of apostolic writings, which, as such, claim absolute authority.108 It takes its place beside the apostolic rule of faith; and by this faithfully preserved 56possession, the Church scattered over the world proves herself to be that of the Apostles. But we are very far from being able to show that such a rigidly fixed collection of apostolic writings existed everywhere in the Church about the year 200. It is indeed continually asserted that the Antiochian and Alexandrian Churches had at that date a New Testament which, in extent and authority, essentially coincided with that of the Roman Church; but this opinion is not well founded. As far as the Church of Antioch is immediately concerned, the letter of Bishop Serapion (whose episcopate lasted from about 190 to about 209), given in Eusebius (VI. 12), clearly shows that Cilicia and probably also Antioch itself as yet possessed no such thing as a completed New Testament. It is evident that Serapion already holds the Catholic principle that all words of Apostles possess the same value to the Church as words of the Lord; but a completed collection of apostolic writings was not yet at his disposal.109 Hence it is very improbable that Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, who died as early as the reign of Commodus, presupposed such a collection. Nor, in point of fact, do the statements in the treatise “ad Autolycum” point to a completed

108

The disputed question as to whether all the acknowledged apostolic writings were regarded as canonical must be answered in the affirmative in reference to Irenæus and Tertullian, who conversely regarded no book as canonical unless written by the Apostles. On the other hand, it appears to me that no certain opinion on this point can be got from the Muratorian Fragment. In the end the Gospel, Acts, Kerygma, an ac8 d Apocalypse of Peter as well as the Acts of Paul were rejected, a proceeding which was at the same time a declaration that they were spurious. But these three witnesses agree (see also App. Constit. VI. 16) that the apostolic regula fidei is practically the final court of appeal, inasmuch as it decides whether a writing is really apostolic or not, and inasmuch as, according to Tertullian, the apostolic writings belong to the Church alone, because she alone possesses the apostolic regula (de præscr. 37 ff.). The regula of course does not legitimise those writings, but only proves that they are authentic and do not belong to the heretics. These witnesses also agree that a Christian writing has no claim to be received into the canon merely on account of its prophetic form. On looking at the matter more closely, we see that the view of the early Church, as opposed to Montanism, led to the paradox that the Apostles were prophets in the sense of being inspired by the Spirit, but that they were not so in the strict sense of the word. 109 The fragment of Serapion’s letter given in Eusebius owes its interest to the fact that it not only shows the progress made at this time with the formation of the canon at Antioch, but also what still remained to be done.

New Testament.110 Theophilus makes diligent use of the Epistles of Paul and mentions the evangelist John (C. I. 1.) as one of the bearers of the Spirit. But with him the one canonical court of appeal is the Scriptures of the Old Testament, that is, the writings of the Prophets (bearers of the Spirit). These Old Testament Prophets, however, are continued in a further group of “bearers of the Spirit”, which we cannot definitely determine, but which at any rate included the authors of the four Gospels and the writer of the Apocalypse. It is remarkable that Theophilus has never mentioned the Apostles. Though he perhaps regards them all, including Paul, as “bearers of the Spirit”, yet we have no indication that he looked on their Epistles as canonical. The different way he uses the Old 564 57Testament and the Gospels on the one hand and the Pauline Epistles on the other is rather evidence of the contrary. Theophilus was acquainted with the four Gospels (but we have no reference to Mark), the thirteen Epistles of Paul (though he does not mention Thessalonians), most probably also with the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as 1st Peter and the Revelation of John. It is significant that no single passage of his betrays an acquaintance with the Acts of the Apostles.111 It might certainly seem venturesome, on the basis of the material found in Theophilus and the original document of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, to conclude that the formation of a New Testament canon was not everywhere determined by the same interest and therefore did not everywhere take a similar course. It might seem hazardous to assume that the Churches of Asia Minor and Rome began by creating a fixed canon of apostolic writings, which was thus necessarily declared to be inspired, whereas other communities applied or did not deny the ac8 notion of inspiration to a great number of venerable and

110

See my essay “Theophilus v. Antiochien und das N. T.” in the Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. XI. p 1 ff. 111 The most important passages are Autol. II. 9. 22: ὅθεν διδάσκουσιν ἡµᾶς αἱ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ καὶ πάντες οἱ πνευµατοφόροι, ἐξ ὧν Ἰωάννης λέγει κ.τ.λ. (follows John I. 1) III. I2: καὶ περὶ 564 αιοσύνης, ἧς ὁ νόµος εἴρηκεν, ἀκόλουθα εὑρίσκεται καὶ τὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἔχειν, διὰ τὸ τούς πάντας πνευµατοφόρους ἑνὶ πνέυµατι θεοῦ λελαληκέναι; III. 13: ὁ ἅγιος λόγος — ἡ ἑυαγγέλιος φωνή.; III. 14.: Ἠσαΐας — τὸ δὲ εὐαγγέλιον — ὁ θεῖος λόγος. The latter formula is not a quotation of Epistles of Paul viewed as canonical, but of a divine command found in the Old Testament and given in Pauline form. It is specially worthy of note that the original of the six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, written in Syria and belonging to the second half of the third century, knows yet of no New Testament. In addition to the Old Testament it has no authority but the “Gospel.”

ancient writings not rigidly defined, and did not make a selection from a stricter historical point of view, till a later date. But the latter development not only corresponds to the indication found in Justin, but in my opinion may be verified from the copious accounts of Clement of Alexandria.112 In the entire literature of Greeks and barbarians Clement distinguishes between profane and sacred, i. e., inspired 58writings. As he is conscious that all knowledge of truth is based on inspiration, so all writings, that is all parts, paragraphs, or sentences of writings which contain moral and religious truth are in his view inspired.113 This opinion, however, does not exclude a distinction between these writings, but rather requires it. (2) The Old Testament, a fixed collection of books, is regarded by Clement, as a whole and in all its parts, as the divine, that is, inspired book par excellence. (3) As Clement in theory distinguishes a new covenant from the old, so also he distinguishes the books of the new covenant from those of the old. (4) These books to which he applies the formula “Gospel” (τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον) and “Apostles” (ὁι ἀπόστολοι) are likewise viewed by him as inspired, but he does not consider them as forming a fixed collection. (5) Unless all appearances are deceptive, it was, strictly speaking, only the four Gospels that he considered and treated as completely on a level with the Old Testament. The formula: ὁ νόµος καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον (“the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel”) is frequently found, and everything else, even the apostolic writings, is judged by this group.114 He does not consid 52f er even the Pauline Epistles to be a court of appeal of equal value with the Gospels, though he occasionally describes

112

There has as yet been no sufficient investigation of the New Testament of Clement. The information given b aa4 y Volkmar in Credner’s Gesch. d. N.Tlichen Kanon, p. 382 ff., is not sufficient. The space at the disposal of this manual prevents me from establishing the results of my studies on this point. Let me at least refer to some important passages which I have collected. Strom. I. §§ 28, 100; II. §§ 22, 28, 29; III. §§ 11, 66, 70, 71, 76, 93, 108; IV. §§ 2, 91, 97, 105, 130, 133, 134, 138, 159; V. §§ 3, 17, 27, 28, 30, 31, 38, 80, 85, 86; VI. §§ 42, 44, 54, 59, 61, 66-68, 88, 91, 106, 107, 119, 124, 125, 127, 128, 133, 161, 164; VII. §§ 1, 14, 34, 76, 82, 84, 88, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107. As to the estimate of the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement of Rome as well as of the Shepherd, in Clement, see the Prolegg. to my edition of the Opp. Patr. Apost. 113 According to Strom. V. 14. 138 even the Epicurean Metrodorus uttered certain words ἐνθέως; but on the other hand Homer was a prophet against his will. See Pæd. I. 6. 36, also § 51. 114 In the Pæd. the Gospels are regularly called ἡ γραφή, but this is seldom the case with the Epistles. The word “Apostle” is used in quoting these.

them as γραφάι.115 59A further class of writings stands a stage lower than the Pauline Epistles, viz., the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. It would be wrong to say that Clement views this group as an appendix to the New Testament, or as in any sense Antilegomena. This would imply that he assumed the existence of a fixed collection whose parts he considered of equal value, an assumption which cannot be proved.116 (6) As to certain books, such as the “Teaching of the Apostles,” the “Kerygma of Peter,” etc., it remains quite doubtful what authority Clement attributed to them. afd 117 He quotes the ∆ιδαχή as γραφή. (7) In determining and estimating the sacred books of the New Testament Clement is manifestly influenced by an ecclesiastical tradition, for he recognises four Gospels and no more because that was the exact number handed down. This tradition had already applied the name “apostolic” to most Christian writings which were to be considered as γραφαί, but it had given the concept “apostolic” a far wider content than Irenæus and Tertullian,118 although it had not been able to include all the new writings which were regarded as sacred under this idea. (Hermas). At the time Clement wrote, the Alexandrian Church can neither have held the principle that all writings of the Apostles must be read in the Church and form a decisive court of appeal like the Old Testament, nor have believed that nothing but the Apostolic — using this word also in its wider sense — has any claim to authority among Christians. We willingly admit the great

115

It is also very interesting to note that Clement almost nowhere illustrates the parabolic character of the Holy Scriptures by quoting the Epistles, but in this connection employs the Old Testament and the Gospels, just as he almost never allegorises passages from other writings. 1 Cor. III. 2 is once quoted thus in Pæd. I. 6. 49: τὸ ἐν τῷ ἀποστόλῳ ἅγιον πνεῦµα τῇ τοῦ κυρίου ἀποχρώµενον φωνῇ λέγει. We can hardly conclude from Pæd. I. 7. 61 that Clement called Paul a “prophet.” 116 It is worthy of special note that Clem., Pæd. II. 10. 3; Strom. II. 15. 67 has criticised an interpretation given by the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, although he calls Barnabas an Apostle. 117 In this category we may also include the Acts of the Apostles, which is perhaps used like the κήρυγµα. It is quoted in Pæd. II. 16. 56; Strom. I. 50, 89, 91, 92, 153, 154; III. 49; IV. 97; V. 75, 82; VI. 63, 101, 124, 165. 118 acb The “seventy disciples” were also regarded as Apostles, and the authors of writings the names of which did not otherwise offer a guarantee of authority were likewise included in this category. That is to say, writings which were regarded as valuable and which for some reason or other could not be characterised as apostolic in the narrower sense were attributed to authors whom there was no reason for denying to be Apostles in the wider sense. This wider use of the concept “apostolic” is moreover no innovation. See my edition of the Didache, pp. 111-118.

degree of freedom 60and peculiarity characteristic of Clement, and freely acknowledge the serious difficulties inseparable from the attempt to ascertain from his writings what was regarded as possessing standard authority in the Church. Nevertheless it may be assumed with certainty that, at the time this author wrote, the content of the New Testament canon, or, to speak more correctly, its reception in the Church and exact attributes had not yet been finally settled in Alexandria. The condition of the Alexandrian Church of the time may perhaps be described as follows: Ecclesiastical custom had attributed an authority to a great number of early Christian writings without strictly defining the nature of this authority or making it equal to that of the Old Testament. Whatever professed to be inspired, or apostolic, or ancient, or edifying was regarded as the work of the Spirit and therefore as the Word of God. The prestige of these writings increased in proportion as Christians became more incapable of producing the lik 564 e themselves. Not long before Clement wrote, however, a systematic arrangement of writings embodying the early Christian tradition had been made in Alexandria also. But, while in the regions represented by Irenæus and Tertullian the canon must have arisen and been adopted all at once, so to speak, it was a slow process that led to this result in Alexandria. Here also the principle of apostolicity seems to have been of great importance for the collectors and editors, but it was otherwise applied than at Rome. A conservative proceeding was adopted, as they wished to insure as far as possible the permanence of ancient Christian writings regarded as inspired. In other words, they sought, wherever practicable, to proclaim all these writings to be apostolic by giving a wider meaning to the designation and ascribing an imaginary apostolic origin to many of them. This explains their judgment as to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and how Barnabas and Clement were described by them as Apostles.119 Had this undertaking succeeded in the Church, a much more extensive canon would have resulted 61 ac8 than in the West. But it is more than questionable whether it was really the intention of those first

119

The formation of the canon in Alexandria must have had some connection with the same process in Asia Minor and in Rome. This is shown not only by each Church recognising four Gospels, but still more by the admission of thirteen Pauline Epistles. We would see our way more clearly here, if anything certain could be ascertained from the works of Clement, including the Hypotyposes, as to the arrangement of the Holy Scriptures; but the attempt to fix this arrangement is necessarily a dubious one, because Clement’s “canon of the New Testament” was not yet finally fixed. It may be compared to a half-finished statue whose bust is already completely chiselled, while the under parts are still embedded in the stone.

Alexandrian collectors to place the great compilation thus produced, as a New Testament, side by side with the Old, or, whether their undertaking was immediately approved in this sense by the Church. In view of the difference of Clement’s attitude to the various groups within this collection of γραφαί, we may assert that in the Alexandrian Church of that time Gospels and Apostles were indeed ranked with the Law and the Prophets, but that this position of equality with the Old Testament was not assigned to all the writings that were prized either on the score of inspiration or of apostolic authority. The reason of this was that the great collection of early Christian literature that was inspired and declared to be apostolic could hardly have been used so much in public worship as the Old Testament and the Gospels. Be this as it may, if we understand by the New Testament a fixed collection, equally authoritative throughout, of all the writings that were regarded as genuinely apostolic, that is, those of the original Apostles and Paul, then the Alexandrian Church at the time of Clement did not yet possess such a book; but the process which led to it had begun. She had come much nearer this goal by the time of Origen. At that period the writings included in the New Testament of the West were all regarded in Alexandria as equally authoritative, and also stood in every respect on a level with the Old Testament. The principle of apostolicity was more strictly conceived and more surely applied. Accordingly the extent of “Holy Scripture” was already limited in the days of Origen. Yet we have to thank the Alexandrian Church for giving us the seven Catholic Epistles. But, measured by the canon of the Western Church, which must have had a share in the matter, this sifting process was by no means complete. The inventive minds of scholars 62designated a group of writings in the Alexandrian canon as “Antilegomena.” The historian of dogma can take no great interest in the succeeding development, which first led to the canon being everywhere finally fixed, so far as we can say that this was ever the case. For the still unsettled dispute as to the extent of the canon did not essentially affect its use and authority, and in the following period the continuous efforts to establish a harmonious and strictly fixed canon were solely determined by a regard to tradition. The results are no doubt of great importance to Church history, because they show u 564 s the varying influence exerted on Christendom at different periods by the great Churches of the East and West and by their learned men. Addendum. — The results arising from the formation of a part of early Christian writings into a canon, which was a great and

meritorious act of the Church,120 notwithstanding the fact that it was forced on her by a combination of circumstances, may be summed up in a series of antitheses. (1) The New Testament, or group of “apostolic” writings formed by selection, preserved from destruction one part, and undoubtedly the most valuable one, of primitive Church literature; but it caused all the rest of these writings, as being intrusive, or spurious, or superfluous, to be more and more neglected, so that they ultimately perished.121 (2) The New Testament, though not all at once, put a ac8 n end to the composition of works which claimed an authority binding on Christendom’ (inspiration); but it first made possible the production of secular Church literature and neutralised the extreme dangers attendant on writings of this kind. By making room for all kinds of writings that did not oppose it, it enabled the Church to utilise all the elements of Greek culture. At the same 63 time, however, it required an ecclesiastical stamp to be placed on all the new Christian productions due to this cause.122 (3) The New Testament obscured the historical meaning and the historical origin of the writing contained in it, especially the Pauline Epistles, though at the same time it created the conditions for a thorough study of all those documents. Although primarily the new science of theological exegesis in the Church did more than anything else to neutralise the historical value of the New Testament writings, yet, on the other hand, it immediately commenced a critical restoration of their original sense. But, even apart from theological science, the New Testament enabled original Christianity to exercise here and there a quiet and gradual effect on the doctrinal development of the Church, without indeed being able to exert a dominant influence on the natural development of the traditional

120

No greater creative act can be mentioned in the whole history of the Church than the formation of the apostolic collection and the assigning to it of a position of equal rank with the Old Testament. 121 The history of early Christian writings in the Church which were not definitely admitted into the New Testament is instructive on this point. The fate of some of these may be described as tragical. Even when they were not branded as downright forgeries, the 564 writings of the Fathers from the fourth century downwards were far preferred to them. 122 See on this point Overbeck “Abhandlung über die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur, l.c., p. 469.” Nevertheless, even after the creation of the New Testament canon, theological authorship was an undertaking which was at first regarded as highly dangerous. See the Antimontanist in Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 3: δεδιὼς καὶ ἐξευλαβούµενος, µή πη δόξω πρὶν ἐπισυγγράφειν ἤ ἐπιδιατάσσεσθαι τῷ τῆς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου καινῆς διαθήκης λόγῳ, We find similar remarks in other old Catholic Fathers (see Clemen. Alex.).

system. As the standard of interpretation for the Holy Scriptures was the apostolic regula fidei, always more and more precisely explained, and as that regula, in its Antignostic and philosophicotheological interpretation, was regarded as apostolic, the New Testament was explained in accordance with the conception of Christianity that had become prevalent in the Church. At first therefore the spirit of the New Testament could only assert itself in certain undercurrents and in the recognition of particular truths. But the book did not in the least ward off the danger of a total secularising of Christianity. (4) The New Testament opposed a barrier to the enthusiastic manufacture of “facts.” But at the same time its claim to be a collection of inspired writings123 naturally resulted i 564 n principles of interpretation (such as the principle of unanimity, of unlimited combination, of absolute clearness and sufficiency, and of allegorism) which were necessarily 64followed by the manufacture of new facts on the part of theological experts. (5) The New Testament fixed a time within which divine revelation ceased, and prevented any Christian from putting himself into comparison with the disciples of Jesus. By doing so it directly promoted the lowering of Christian ideals and requirements, and in a certain fashion legitimised this weakening of religious power. At the same time, however, it maintained the knowledge of these ideals and requirements, became a spur to the conscience of believers, and averted the danger of Christianity being corrupted by the excesses of enthusiasm. (6) The fact of the New Testament being placed on a level with the Old proved the most effective means of preserving to the latter its canonical authority, which had been so often assailed in the second century. But at the same time it brought about an examination of the relation between the Old and New Testaments, which, however, also involved an enquiry into the connection between Christianity and pre-christian revelation. The immediate result of this investigation was not only a theological exposition of the Old Testament, but a ac8 lso a theory which ceased to view the two Testaments as of equal authority and subordinated the Old to the New. This result, which can be plainly seen in Irenæus, Tertullian, and Origen, led to exceedingly important consequences.124 It gave

123

ac4 But how diverse were the expositions; compare the exegesis of Origen and Tertullian, Scorp. II. 124 On the extent to which the Old Testament had become subordinated to the New and the Prophets to the Apostles, since the end of the second century, see the following passage from Novatian, de trinit. 29: “Unus ergo et idem spiritus qui in prophetis et apostolis, nisi quoniam ibi ad momentum, hic semper. Ceterum ibi non ut semper in illis

some degree of insight into statements, hitherto completely unintelligible, in certain New Testament writings, and it caused the Church to reflect upon a question that had as yet been raised only by heretics, viz., what are the marks which distinguish Christianity from the Old Testament religion? An historical examination imperceptibly arose; but the old notion of the inspiration of the Old Testament confined it to the narrowest limits, and in fact always continued to forbid it; for, as before, appeal was constantly made to the Old Testament as a Christian book which contained all the truths of religion in a perfect form. Nevertheless the conception 125 65of the Old Testament was here and there full of contradictions. (7) The fatal identification of words of the Lord and words of the Apostles (apostolical tradition) had existed before the creation of the New Testament, though this proceeding gave it a new range and content and a new significance. But, with the Epistles of Paul included, the New Testament elevated the highest expression of the consciousness of redemption into a guiding principle, and by admitting Paulinism into the canon it introduced a wholesome ferment into the history of the Church. (8) By creating the New Testament and claiming exclusive possession of it the Church deprived the non-Catholic communions of every apostolic foundation, just as she had divested Judaism of every legal title by taking possession of the Old Testament; but, by raising the New Testament to standard authority, she created the armoury which supplied the succeeding period with the keenest weapons against herself.126 The place of the Gospel was taken by a book with exceedingly varied contents, which theoretica 564 lly acquired the same authority as the Gospel. Still, the Catholic Church never became a religion “of the book”, because every inconvenient text

inesset, hic ut in illis semper maneret, et ibi mediocriter distributus, hic totus effusus, ibi parce datus, hic large commodatus.” 125 That may be shown in all the old Catholic Fathers, but most plainly perhaps in the theology of Origen. Moreover, the subordination of the Old Testament revelation to the Christian one is not simply a result of the creation of the New Testament, but may be explained by other causes; see chap. 5. If the New Testament had not been formed, the Church would perhaps have obtained a Christian Old Testament with numerous interpolations — tendencies in this direction were not wanting; see vol. I. p. 114 f. — and increased in extent by the admission of apocalypses. The creation of the New Testament preserved the purity of the Old, for it removed the need of doing violence to the latter in the interests of Christianity. 126 The Catholic Church had from the beginning a very clear consciousness of the dangerousness of many New Testament writings, in fact she made a virtue of necessity in so far as she set up a theory to prove the unavoidableness of this danger. See Tertullian, de præscr. passim, and de resurr. 63.

could be explained away by the allegoric method, and because the book was not made use of as the immediate authority for the guidance of Christians, this latter function being directly discharged by the rule of faith.127 66In practice it continued to be the rule for the New Testament to take a secondary place in apologetic writings and disputes with heretics.128 On the other hand it was regarded (1) as the directly authoritative document for the direction of the Christian life,129 ab7 and (2) as the final court of appeal in all the conflicts that arose within the sphere of the rule of faith. It was freely applied in the second stage of the Montanist struggle, but still more in the controversies about Christology, that is, in the conflict with the Monarchians. The apostolic writings belong solely to the Church, because she alone has preserved the apostolic doctrine (regula). This was declared to the heretics and therewith all controversy about Scripture, or the sense of Scripture passages, was in principle declined. But within the Church herself the Holy Scripture was regarded as the supreme and completely independent tribunal against which not even an old tradition could be appealed to; and the rule πολιτεύεσθαι κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (“live according to the Gospel”) held good in every respect. Moreover, this formula, which is rarely replaced by the other one, viz., κατὰ τὴν καινὴν διαθήκην (“according to the New Testament”), shows that the words of the Lord, as in the earlier period, continued to be the chief standard of life and conduct.

568 127To a certain extent the New Testament disturbs and prevents the tendency to summarise the faith and reduce it to its most essential content. For it not only puts itself in the place of the unity of a system, but frequently also in the place of a harmonious and complete creed. Hence the rule of faith is necessary as a guiding principle, and even an imperfect one is better than a mere haphazard reliance upon the Bible. 128 We must not, however, ascribe that to conscious mistrust, for Irenæus and Tertullian bear very decided testimony against such an idea, but to the acknowledgment that it was impossible to make any effective use of the New Testament Scriptures in arguments with educated non-Christians and heretics. For these writings could carry no weight with the former, and the latter either did not recognise them or else interpreted them by different r 54a ules. Even the offer of several of the Fathers to refute the Marcionites from their own canon must by no means be attributed to an uncertainty on their part with regard to the authority of the ecclesiastical canon of Scripture. We need merely add that the extraordinary difficulty originally felt by Christians in conceiving the Pauline Epistles, for instance, to be analogous and equal in value to Genesis or the prophets occasionally appears in the terminology even in the third century, in so far as the term “divine writings” continues to be more frequently applied to the Old Testament than to certain parts of the New. 129 Tertullian, in de corona 3, makes his Catholic opponent say: “Etiam in traditionis obtentu exigenda est auctoritas scripta.”

The transformation of the Episcopal Office in the Church into an Apostolic Office. The History of the remodeling of the conception of the Church. 67

C. The transformation of the episcopal office in the Church into an apostolic office. The history of the remodeling of the conception of the Church.130 I. It was not sufficient to prove that the rule of faith was of apostolic origin, i.e., that the Apostles had set up a rule of faith. It had further to be shown that, up to the present, the Church had always maintained it unchanged. This demonstration was all the more necessary because the heretics also claimed an apostolic origin for their regulæ, and in different ways tried to adduce proof that they alone possessed a guarantee of inheriting the Apostles’ doctrine in all its purity.131 575 An historical demonstration was first attempted by the earliest of the old Catholic Fathers. They pointed to communities of whose apostolic origin there could be no doubt, and thought it could not reasonably be denied that those Churches must have preserved apostolic Christianity in a pure and incorrupt form. The proof that the Church had always held fast by apostolic Christianity depended on the agreement in doctrine between the other communities and these.132 But Irenæus as well as Tertullian felt that a special demonstration was needed to show that the Churches founded by the Apostles had really at all times faithfully preserved their genuine teaching. General considerations, as, for instance, the notion that Christianity would otherwise have temporarily perished, or “that one event among many is as good as none; but when one and the same feature is found among many, it is not an aberration but a tradition” (“Nullus inter multos eventus unus est . . . quod apud multos unum ac8 68invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum”) and similar ones which Tertullian does not fail to mention, were not sufficient. But the dogmatic conception

130

Hatch, Organisation of the early Christian Church, 1883. Harnack, Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel, 1884. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. 1892. 131 Marcion was the only one who did not claim to prove his Christianity from traditions inasmuch as he rather put it in opposition to tradition. This disclaimer of Marcion is in keeping with his renunciation of apologetic proof, whilst, conversely, in the Church the apologetic proof, and the proof from tradition adduced against the heretics, were closely related. In the one case the truth of Christianity was proved by showing that it is the oldest religion, and in the other the truth of ecclesiastical Christianity was established from the thesis that it is the oldest Christianity, viz., that of the Apostles. 132 ad3 See Tertullian, de præscr. 20, 21, 32.

that the ecclesiæ (or ecclesia) are the abode of the Holy Spirit,133 was incapable of making any impression on the heretics, as the correct application of this theory was the very point in question. To make their proof more precise Tertullian and Irenæus therefore asserted that the Churches guaranteed the incorruptness of the apostolic inheritance, inasmuch as they could point to a chain of “elders,” or, in other words, an “ordo episcoporum per successionem ab initio decurrens,” which was a pledge that nothing false had been mixed up with it.134 This thesis has quite as many aspects as the conception of the “Elders,” e.g., disciples of the Apostles, disciples of the disciples of the Apostles, bishops. It partly 69preserves a historic and partly assumes a dogmatic character. The former aspect appears in the appeal made to the foundation of Churches by Apostles, and in the argument that each series of successors were faithful disciples of those before them and therefore ultimately of the Apostles themselves. But no historical consideration, no appeal to the “Elders” was capable of

133

This theory is maintained by Irenæus and Tertullian, and is as old as the association of the ἁγία ἐκκλησία and the πνεῦµα ἅγιον. Just for that reason the distinction they make between Churches founded by the Apostles and those of later origin is of chief value to themselves in their arguments against heretics. This distinction, it may be remarked, is clearly expressed in Tertullian alone. Here, for example, it is of importance that the Church of Carthage derives its “authority” from that of Rome (de præscr. 36). 134 Tertull., de præscr. 32 (see p. 19). Iren., III. 2. 2: “Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, quæ est ab apostolis, quæ per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos, etc.” III. 3. 1: “Traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in omni ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint videre, et habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis et successiones eorum usque ad nos . . . valde enim perfectos in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes . . . traditio Romanæ ecclesiæ, quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiata hominihus fides per successiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos.” III. 3. 4, 4. 1: “Si de aliqua modica quæstione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt . . . quid autem si neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant ecclesias?” IV. 33. 8: “Character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus apostoli eam quæ in unoquoque loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt, quæ pervenit usque ad nos, etc.” V. 20. 1: “Omnes enim ii valde posteriores sunt quam episcopi, quibus apostoli tradiderunt ecclesias.” IV. 26. 2: “Quapropter eis, q 564 ui in ecclesia sunt, presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab apostolis; qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt.” IV. 26. 5: “Ubi igitur charismata domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea quæ est ab apostolis ecclesiæ successio.” The declaration in Luke X. 16 was already applied by Irenæus (III. praef.) to the successors of the Apostles.

affording the assurance sought for. Hence even in Irenæus the historical view of the case had clearly changed into a dogmatic one. This, however, by no means resulted merely from the controversy with the heretics, but was quite as much produced by the altered constitution of the Church and the authoritative position that the bishops had actually attained. The idea was that the Elders, i.e., the bishops, had received “cum episcopatus successione certum veritatis charisma,” that is, their office conferred on them the apostolic heritage of truth, which was therefore objectively attached to this dignity as a charism. This notion of the transmissibility of the charism of truth became associa 548 ted with the episcopal office after it had become a monarchical one, exercising authority over the Church in all its relations;135 and after the bishops had proved themselves the strongest supports of the communities against the attacks of the secular power and of 136 70heresy. In Irenæus and Tertullian, however, we only find the

135

For details on this point see my edition of the Didache, Proleg., p. 140. As the regula fidei has its preparatory stages in the baptismal confession, and the New Testament in the collection of writings read in the Churches, so the theory that the bishops receive and guarantee the apostolic heritage of truth has its preparatory stage in the old idea that God has bestowed on the Church Apostles, prophets, and teachers, who always communicate his word in its full purity. The functions of these persons devolved by historical developmen aba t upon the bishop; but at the same time it became more and more a settled conviction that no one in this latter period could be compared with the Apostles. The only true Christianity, however, was that which was apostolic and which could prove itself to be so. The natural result of the problem which thus arose was the theory of an objective transference of the charisma veritatis from the Apostles to the bishops. This notion preserved the unique personal importance of the Apostles, guaranteed the apostolicity, that is, the truth of the Church’s faith, and formed a dogmatic justification for the authority already attained by the bishops. The old idea that God bestows his Spirit on the Church, which is therefore the holy Church, was ever more and more transformed into the new notion that the bishops receive this Spirit, and that it appears in their official authority. The theory of a succession of prophets, which can be proved to have existed in Asia Minor, never got beyond a rudimentary form and speedily disappeared. 136 This theory must have been current in the Roman Church before the time when IrenHus wrote; for the list of Roman bishops, which we find in Irenæus and which he obtained from Rome, must itself be considered as a result of that dogmatic theory. The first half of the list must have been concocted, as there were no monarchical bishops in the strict sense in the first century (see my treatise: “Die ältesten christlichen Datirungen und die Anfänge einer bischöflichen Chronographic in Rom.” in the report of the proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 1892, p. 617 ff.). We do not know whether such lists were drawn up so early in the other churches of apostolic origin (Jerusalem?). Not till the beginning of the 3rd century have we proofs of that being done,

first traces of this new theory. The old notion, which regarded the Churches as possessing the heritage of the Apostles in so far as they possess the Holy Spirit, continued to exercise a powerful influence on these writers, who still united the new dogmatic view with a historical one, at least in controversies with the heretics. Neither Irenæus, nor Tertullian in his earlier writings, ae4 1 asserted that the transmission of the charisma veritatis to the bishops had really invested them with the apostolic office in its full sense. They had indeed, according to Irenæus, received the “locum magisterii apostolorum” (“place of government of the Apostles”), but nothing more. It is only the later writings of Tertullian, dating from the reigns of Caracalla and Heliogabalus, which show that the bishop of Rome, who must have had imitators in this respect, claimed for his office the full authority of the apostolic office. Both Calixtus and his rival Hippolytus described themselves as successors of the Apostles in the full sense of the word, and claimed for themselves in that capacity much more than a mere guaranteeing of the purity of Christianity. Even Tertullian did not question this last menticned attribute of the bishops.137 Cyprian found the theory already in

whereas the Roman community, as early as Soter’s time, had a list of bishops giving the duration of each episcopate. Nor is there any evidence before the 3rd century of an attempt to invent such a list for Churches possessing no claim to have been founded by Apostles. 137 We do not yet find this assertion in Tertullian’s treatise “de præscr.” 138 Special importance attaches to Tertullian’s treatise “de pudicitia,” which has not been sufficiently utilised to explain the development of the episcopate and the pretensions at that time set up by the Roman bishop. It shows clearly that Calixtus claimed for himself as bishop the powers and rights of the Apostles in their full extent, and that Tertullian did not deny that the “doctrina apostolorum” was inherent in his office, but merely questioned the “potestas apostolorum.” It is very significant that Tertullian (c. 21) sneeringly addressed him as “apostolice” and reminded him that “ecclesia spiritus, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum.” What rights Calixtus had already claimed as belonging to the apostolic office may be ascertained from Hippol. Philos. IX. 11. 12. But the introduction to the Philosophoumena proves that Hippolytus himself was at one with his opponent in supposing that the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, had received the attributes of the latter: Τὰς αἱρέσεις ἕτερος οὐκ ἐλέγξει, ἢ τὸ ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ παραδοθὲν ἅγιον πνεῦµα, οὗ τυχόντες πρότεροι οἱ ἀπόστολοι µετέδοσαν τοῖς ὀρθῶς πεπιστευκόσιν ὧν ἡµεῖς δίαδοχοι τυγχάνοντες τῆς τε ἀυτῆς χάριτος µετέχοντες ἀρχιερατείας τε καὶ διδασκαλίας καὶ φρουροὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κελογισµένοι ὀυκ ὀφθαλµῷ νυστάζοµεν, ὀυδὲ λόγον ὀρθὸν σιωπῶµεν, κ.τ.λ. In these words we have an immense advance beyond the conception of Irenæus. This advance, of course, was first made in practice, and the corresponding theory followed. How greatly the prestige and power of the bishops had increased in the first 3rd part of the 3rd century may be seen by comparing the edict of Maximinus Thrax with the earlier ones (Euseb., H. E. VI. 28; see

also the genuine Martyr. Jacobi, Mariani, etc., in Numidia c. to [Ruinart, Acta mart. p. 272 edit. Ratisb.]): “Nam ita inter se nostræ religionis gradus artifex sævitia diviserat, ut laicos clericis separat ac8 os tentationibus sæculi et terroribus suis putaret esse cessuros” that is, the heathen authorities also knew that the clergy formed the bond of union in the Churches). But the theory that the bishops were successors of the Apostles, that is, possessed the apostolic office, must be considered a Western one which was very slowly and gradually adopted in the East. Even in the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, composed about the end of the 3rd century, which represents the bishop as mediator, king, and teacher of the community, the episcopal office is not yet regarded as the apostolic one. It is rather presbyters, as in Ignatius, who are classed with the Apostles. It is very important to note that the whole theory of the significance of the bishop in determining the truth of ecclesiastical Christianity is completely unknown to Clement of Alexandria. As we have not the slightest evidence that his conception of the Church was of a hierarchical and anti-heretical type, so he very rarely mentions the ecclesiastical officials in his works and rarest of all the bishops. These do not at all belong to his conception of the Church, or at least only in so far as they resemble the English orders (cf. Pæd. III, 12. 97, presbyters, bishops, deacons, widows; Strom. VII. 1. 3; III. 12. 90, presbyters, deacons, laity; VI. I3. 106, presbyters, deacons; VI. 13. 107, bishops, presbyters, deacons; Quis dives 42, bishops and presbyters). On the other hand, according to Clement, the true Gnostic has an office like that of the Apostles. See Strom. VI. 13. 106, 107: ἔξεστιν οὖν καὶ νῦν ταῖς κυριακαῖς ἐνασκήσαντας ἐντολαῖς κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τελείως βιώσαντας καὶ γνωστικῶς εἰς τῆν ἐκλογὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐγγραφῆναι. οὗτος πρεσβύτερός ἐστι τῷ ὄντι τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ δίακονος ἀληθὴς τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ βουλήσεως. Here we see plainly that the servants of the earthly Church, as such, have nothing to do with the true Church and the heavenly hierarchy). Strom. VII. 9, 52 says: the true Gnostic is the mediator with God. In Strom. VI. 14. 108; VII. 12. 77 we find the words: ὁ γνωστικὸς οὗτος συνελόντι ἐιπεῖν τὴν ἀποστολικὴν ἀπουσίαν ανταναπληροῖ, κ.τ.λ. Clement could not have expressed him-self in this way if the office of bishop had at that time been as much esteemed in the Alexandrian Church, of which he was a presbyter, as it was at Rome and in other Churches of the West ac8 (see Bigg l.c. l01). According to Clement the Gnostic as a teacher has the same significance as is possessed by the bishop in the West; and according to him we may speak of a natural succession of teachers. Origen in the main still held the same view as his predecessor. But numerous passages in his works and above all his own history shew that in his day the episcopate had become stronger in Alexandria also, and had begun to claim the same attributes and rights as in the West (see besides de princip. praef. 2: “servetur ecclesiastica prædicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita et usque ad praesens in ecclesiis permanens: illa sola credenda est veritas, quæ in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione” — so in Rufinus, and in IV. 2. 2: τοῦ κανόνος τῆς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ διαδοχὴν τ. ἀποστόλων ὀυρανίου ἐκκλησίας). The state of things here is therefore exactly the same as in the case of the apostolic regula fidei and the apostolic canon of scripture. Clement still represents an earlier stage, whereas by Origen’s time the revolution has been completed. Wherever this was so, the theory that the monarchical episcopate was based on apostolic institution was the natural

existence, but was the first to develop it definitely and to eradicate every 71remnant of the historical argument in its favour. The conception of the Church was thereby subjected to a further transformation. (2) The transformation of the idea of the Church by Cyprian completed the radical changes that had been gradually taking 139 72place from the last half of the second century. In order to understand them it is necessary to go back. It was only with slowness and hesitation that the theories of the Church followed the actual changes in her history. It may be said that the idea of the Church always remained a stage behind the condition reached in practice. That may be seen in the whole course of the history of dogma up to the present day. The essential character of Christendom in its first period was a new holy life and a sure hope, both based on repentance 73towards God and faith in Jesus Christ and brought about by the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Church, that is, 564 the Holy Spirit and the holy Church, were inseparably connected. The Church, or, in other words, the community of all believers, attains her unity through the Holy Spirit. This unity manifested itself in brotherly love and in the common relation to a common ideal and a common hope.140 The assembly of all Christians is realised in the Kingdom of God, viz., in heaven; on earth Christians and the Church are dispersed and in a foreign land. Hence, properly speaking, the Church herself is a heavenly community inseparable from the heavenly Christ.

result. This idea led to the assumption — which, however, was not an immediate consequence in all cases — that the apostolic office, and therefore the authority of Jesus Christ himself, was continued in the episcopate: “Manifesta est sententia Iesu Christi apostolos suos mittentis et ipsis solis potestatem a patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus eadem potestatex ecclesiam domini gubernantes et credentium fidem baptizantes (Hartel, Opp. Cypr. I. 459). 139 See Rothe, Die Anfänge der christlichen Kirche und ihrer Verfassung, 1837. Kestlin, Die Katholische Auffassung von der Kirche in ihrer ersten Ausbildung in the Deutsche Zeitschrift für christliche Wissenschaft und christliches Leben, 1855. Ritschl, Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche,” 2nd ed., 1857. Ziegler, Des Irenäus Lehre von der Autorität der Schrift, der Tradition und der Kirche, 1868. Hackenschmidt, Die Anfänge des katholischen Kirchenbegriffs, 1874. Hatch-Harnack, Die Gesellschaftsverfassung der christlichen Kirche im Alterthum, 1883. Seeberg, Zur Geschi 70c chte des Begriffs der Kirche, Dorpat, 1884. Söder, Der Begriff der Katholicität der Kirche und des Glaubens, 1881. O. Ritschl, Cyprian von Karthago und die Verfassung der Kirche, 1885. (This contains the special literature treating of Cyprian’s conception of the Church). Sohm, l.c. 140 See Hatch, l.c. pp. 191, 253.

Christians believe that they belong to a real super-terrestrial commonwealth, which, from its very nature, cannot be realised on earth. The heavenly goal is not yet separated from the idea of the Church; there is a holy Church on earth in so far as heaven is her destination.141 Every individual congregation is to be an image of the ac8 heavenly Church.142 Reflections were no doubt made on the contrast between the empirical community and the heavenly Church whose earthly likeness it was to be (Hermas); but these did not affect the theory of the subject. Only the saints of God, whose salvation is certain, belong to her, for the essential thing is not to be called, but to be, a Christian. There was as yet no empirical universal Church possessing an outward legal title that could, so to speak, be detached from the personal Christianity of the individual Christian.143 All the lofty 74designations which Paul, the so-called Apostolic Fathers, and Justin gathered from the Old Testament and applied to the Church, relate to the holy community which originates in heaven and returns thither.144 But, in consequence of the naturalising of Christianity in the world and the repelling of heresy, a formulated creed was made the basis of the Church. This confession was also recognised as a foundation of her unity and guarantee of her truth, and in certain

141

See vol. I. p. 150 f. Special note should be given to the teachings in the Shepherd, in the 2nd Epistle of Clement and in the ∆ιδαχή. 142 This notion lies at the basis of the exhortations of Ignatius. He knows nothing of an empirical union of the different communities into one Church guaranteed by any law or office. The bishop is of importance only for the individual community, and has nothing to do with the essence of the Church; nor does Ignatius view the separate communiti 564 es as united in any other way than by faith, charity, and hope. Christ, the invisible Bishop, and the Church are inseparably connected (ad Ephes. V. 1; as well as 2nd Clem. XIV.), and that is ultimately the same idea as is expressed in the associating of πνεῦµα and ἐκκλησία. But every individual community is an image of the heavenly Church, or at least ought to be. 143 The expression “Catholic Church” appears first in Ignatius (ad Smyrn. VIII. 2): ὅπου ἄν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ τὸ πλῆθος ἔστω· ὥστερ ὅπου ἄν ῇ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. But in this passage these words do not yet express a new conception of the Church, which represents her as an empirical commonwealth. Only the individual earthly communities exist empirically, and the universal, i.e., the whole Church, occupies the same position towards these as the bishops of the individual communities do towards the Lord. The epithet ⍊564 καθολικός” does not of itself imply any secularisation of the idea of the Church. 144 The expression “invisible Church” is liable to be misunderstood here, because it is apt to impress us as a mere idea, which is certainly not the meaning attached to it in the earliest period.

respects as the main one. Christendom protected itself by this conception, though no doubt at a heavy price. To Irenæus and Tertullian the Church rests entirely on the apostolic, traditional faith which legitimises her.145 But this faith itself appeared as a law and aggregate of doctrines, all of which are of equally fundamental importance, so that their practical aim became uncertain and threatened to vanish (“fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis”). The Church herself, however, became a union based on the true doctrine and visible in 564 it; and this confederation was at the same time enabled to realise an actual outward unity by means of the apostolic inheritance, the doctrinal confession, and the apostolic writings. The narrower and more external character assumed by the idea of the Church was concealed by the fact that, since the latter half of the second century, Christians in 75all parts of the world had really united in opposition to the state and “heresy”, and had found compensation for the incipient decline of the original lofty thoughts and practical obligations in the consciousness of forming an œcumenical and international alliance. The designation “Catholic Church” gave expression to the claim of this world-wide union of the same faith to represent the true Church.146 This expression corresponds to the powerful

145

It was thus regarded by Hegesippus in whom the expression “ἡ ἕνωσις τῆς ἐκκλησίας” is first found. In his view the ἐκκλησία is founded on the ὁρθὸς ζόγος transmitted by the Apostles. The innovation does not consist in the emphasis laid upon faith, for the unity of faith was always supposed to be guaranteed by the possession of the one Spirit and the same hope, bu 564 t in the setting up of a formulated creed, which resulted in a loosening of the connection between faith and conduct. The transition to the new conception of the Church was therefore a gradual one. The way is very plainly prepared for it in 1 Tim. III. 15: οἶκος θεοῦ ἐκκλησία, στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωµα τῆς αληθείας. 146 The oldest predicate which was given to the Church and which was always associated with it, was that of holiness. See the New Testament; Barn. XIV. 6; Hermas, Vis. I. 3, 4; I. 6; the Roman symbol; Dial. 119; Ignat. ad Trall. inscr.; Theophil., ad Autol., II. 14 (here we have even the plural, “holy churches”); Apollon. In Euseb., H. E. V. 18. 5; Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 13; V. 4; de pudicit. 1; Mart. Polyc. inscr.; Alexander Hieros. in Euseb., H. E. VI. 11. 5; Clemens Alex.; Cornelius in Euseb., VI. 43. 6; Cyprian. But the holiness (purity) of the Church was already referred by Hegesippus (Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 4) to its pure doctrine: ἐκάλουν τὴ ac8 ἐκκλησίαν παρθένον· οὔπω γὰρ ἔφθαρτο ἀκοαῖς µαταίαις. The unity of the Church according to Hegesippus is specially emphasised in the Muratorian Fragment (line 55); see also Hermas; Justin; Irenæus; Tertullian, de præscr. 20; Clem. Alex., Strom. VII. 17. 107. Even before Irenæus and Tertullian the universality of the Church was emphasised for apologetic purposes. In

position which the “great Church” (Celsus), or the 76“old” Church (Clemens Alex.) had attained by the end of the second century, as compared with the Marcionite Church, the school sects, the Christian associations of all kinds, and the independent Chris ac8 tians. This Church, however, was declared to be apostolic, i.e., founded in its present form by Christ through the Apostles. Through this idea, which was supported by the old enthusiastic notion that the Apostles had already proclaimed the Gospel to all the world, it came to be completely forgotten how Christ and his Apostles had exercised their ministry, and an empirical conception of the Church was created in which the idea of a holy life in the Spirit could no longer be the ruling one. It was taught that Christ received from God a law of faith, which, as a new lawgiver, he imparted to the Apostles, and that they, by transmitting the truth of which they were the depositaries, founded the one Catholic Church (Iren. III. 4. I). The latter, being guardian of the apostolic heritage, has the assurance of possessing the Spirit; whereas all communities other than herself, inasmuch as they have not received that deposit, necessarily lack the Spirit and are therefore separated from Christ

so far as universality is a proof of truth, “universal” is equivalent to “orthodox.” This signification is specially clear in expressions like: ἡ ἐν Σµύρνῃ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία (Mart. Polyc. XVI. 2). From Irenæus, III. 15, 2, we must conclude that the Valentinians called their ecclesiastical opponents “Catholics.” The word itself is not yet found in Irenæus, but the idea is there (sec I. 10. 2; II. 9. 1, etc., Serapion in Euseb., H. E. V. 19: πᾶσα ἡ ἐν κόςµῳ ἀδελφότης). Καθολικός is found as a designation of the orthodox, visible Church in Mart. Polyc. inscr.: αἱ κατὰ πάντα τόπον τῆς ἁγίας καὶ καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας παροικίαι; 19. 2;16. 2 (in all these passages, however, it is probably an interpolation, as I have shown in the “Expositor” for Dec. 1885, p. 410 f.); in the Muratorian Fragment 61, 66, 69; in the anonymous writer in Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 9. in Tertull. frequently, e.g., de præscr. 26, 30; adv. Marc. III. 22: IV. 4; in Clem. Alex., Strom. VII. 17. 106, 107; in Hippol. Philos. IX. 12; in Mart. Pionii 2, 9, 13, 19; in Cornelius in Cypr., epp. 49. 2; and in Cyprian. The expression “catholica traditio” occurs in Tertull., de monog. 2, “fides catholica” in Cyprian ep. 25, “κανὼν καθολικός;” in the Mart. Polyc. rec. Mosq. fin. and Cypr. ep. 70. 1, “catholica fides et religio” in the Mart. Pionii 18. In the earlier Christian literature the word καθολικός occurs in various connections in the following passages: in fragments of the Peratae (Philos. V. 16), and in Herakleon, e.g., in Clement, Strom. IV. 9. 71; in Justin, Dial., 81, 102; Athenag., 27; Theophil., I. 13; Pseudojustin, de monarch. 1, ( . δόξα); Iren., III. 11, 8; Apollon. in Euseb., H. E. IV. 18. 5, Tertull., de fuga 3; adv. Marc. II. 17; IV. 9; Clement, Strom., IV. 15. 97; VI. 6.47; 7. 57; 8. 67. The addition “catholicam” found its way into the symbols of the West only at a comparatively late period. πᾶσαι αἱ ἐκκλησίαι, ἐκκλησίαι κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν, ἐκκλησίαι αἱ ἐν κόσµῳ, αἱ ὑφ᾽ οὐράνου, etc.

and salvation.147 Hence one must be a member of this Church in order to be a partaker of salvation, because in her alone one can find the creed which must be recognised as the condition of redemption.148 Consequently, in proportion as the faith became a doctrine of faith, the Catholic Church interposed herself as an empiric power between the individual and salvation. She became a condition of salvation; 77but the result was that she ceased to be a sure communion of the saved and of saints (see on this point the following chapter). It was quite a logical proceeding when about the year 220 Calixtus, a Roman bishop, started the theory that there must be wheat and tares in the Catholic Church and that the Ark of Noah with its clean and unclean beasts was her type.149 The departure from the old idea of the Church appears completed in this statement. But the following facts must not be overlooked: — First, the new conception of the Church was not yet a hierar 564 chical one. Secondly, the idea of the union and unity of all believers found here magnificent expression. Thirdly, the development of the communities into one solid Church also represents the creative power of the Christian spirit. Fourthly, through the consolidation effected in the Church by the rule of faith the Christian religion was in some measure preserved from enthusiastic extravagancies and arbitrary misinterpretation. Fifthly, in consequence of the regard for a Church founded on the doctrine of faith the specific significance of redemption by Christ, as distinguished from natural religion and that of the Old Testament, could no longer be lost to believers. Sixthly, the independence of each individual community had a wide scope not only at the end of the second but also in the third century.150 Consequently, though

147

Very significant is Tertullian’s expression in adv. Val. 4: “Valentinus de ecclesia authenticæ regulæ abrupit,” (but probably this still refers specially to the Roman Church). 148 Tertullian called the Church mother (in Gal. IV. 26 the heavenly Jerusalem is called “mother”); see de orat. 2: “ne mater quidem ecclesia præteritur”, de monog. 7; adv. Marc. V. 4 (the author of the letter in Euseb., H. E. V. 2. 7, I. 45, had already done this before him). In the African Church the symbol was thus worded soon after Tertullian’s time: “credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam” (see Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 2nd ed. p. 29 ff.) On the other hand Clement of Alexandria abd (Strom. VI. 16. 146) rejected the designation of the Church, as “mother”: µήτηρ δέ οὐχ, ὥς τινες ἐκδεδώκασιν, ἡ ἐκκλησία, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ θεία γνώσις καὶ ἡ σοφία (there is a different idea in Pæd. I. 5. 21 and 6. 42: µήτηρ παρθένος· ἐκκλησίαν ἐµοὶ φίλον ἀυτὴν καλεῖν). In the Acta Justini c. 4 the faith is named “mother.” 149 Hippol. Philos. IX. 12 p. 460. 150 The phraseology of Irenæus is very instructive here. As a rule he still speaks of Churches (in the plural) when he means the empirical Church. It is already otherwise with Tertullian, though even with him the old custom still lingers.

the revolution which led to the Catholic Church was a result of the situation of the communities in the world in general and of the struggle with the Gnostics and Marcion in particular, and though it was a fatal error to identify the Catholic and apostolic Churches, this change did not t ac8 ake place without an exalting of the Christian spirit and an awakening of its self-consciousness. But there was never a time in history when the conception of the Church, as nothing else than the visible communion of those holding the correct apostolic doctrine, was clearly grasped or exclusively emphasised. In Irenæus and Tertullian we rather find, on the one hand, that the old theory of the 78Church was still to a great extent preserved and, on the other, that the hierarchical notion was already making its appearance. As to the first point, Irenæus frequently asserts that the Spirit and the Church, that is, the Christian people, are inseparable; that the Spirit in divers ways continually effects whatever she needs; that she is the totality of all true believers, that all the faithful have the rank of priests; that outside the holy Church there is no salvation, etc.; in fact these doctrines form the very essence of his teaching. But, since she was also regarded as the visible institution for objectively preserving and communicating the truth, and since the idea of the Church in contradistinction to heresy was necessarily exhausted in this as far as Irenæus was concerned, the old theories of the matter could not operate correctively, but in the end only served to glorify the earthly Catholic Church.151 The proposition that truth is only to be found in the Church and that she and the Holy Spirit are inseparable must be understood in Irenæus as already referring to the Catholic Church in contradistinction to every other calling itself Christian.152 As to the second point, it cannot be denied that, though Irenæus desires to maintain that the only essential part of the idea of the Church is the fact of her being the depository of the truth, he was no longer able to confine himself to this (see above). The episcopal succession and the transmission to the bishops of the 151

The most important passages bearing on this are II. 31. 3: III. 24. 1 (see the whole section, but especially: “in ecclesia posuit deus universam operationem spiritus; caius non sunt participes omnes qui non concurrunt ad ecclesiam . . . ubi enim ecclesia, ibi et spiritus dei, et ubi spiritus dei, illic ecclesia et omnis gratia”); III. 11.8: στύ καὶ στή ἐκκλησίας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ πνεῦµα ζωῆς: IV. 8.1: “semen Abrahæ ecclesia”., IV. 8.3: “omnes iusti sacerdotalem habent ordinem”; IV. 36.2: “ubique præclara est ecclesia; ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt spiritum”; IV. 33.7: ἐκκλησία µέγα καὶ ἔνδοξον σῶµα τοῦ Χριστοῦ; IV. 26. 1 sq.: V. 20. 1.: V. 32.: V. 34.3., “Levitæ et sacerdotes sunt discipuli omnes domini.” 55c 152Hence the repudiation of all those who separate themselves from the Catholic Church (III. 11. 9; 24. 1: IV. 26. 2; 33. 7).

magisterium of the Apostles were not indeed of any direct importance to his idea of the Church, but they were of consequence for the preservation of truth and therefore indirectly for the idea of the Church also. To Irenæus 564 , however, that theory was still 79nothing more than an artificial line; but artificial lines are really supports and must therefore soon attain the value of foundations.153 Tertullian’s conception of the Church was essentially the same as that of Irenæus; but with the former the idea that she is the outward manifestation of the Spirit, and therefore a communion of those who are spiritual, at all times continued to operate more powerfully than with the latter. In the last period of his life Tertullian emphasised this theory so vigorously that the Antignostic idea of the Church being based on the “traditio unius sacramenti” fell into the background. Consequently we find nothing more than traces of the hierarchical conception of the Church in Tertullian. But towards the end of his life he found himself face to face with a fully developed theory of this kind. This he most decidedly rejected, and, in doing so, advanced to such a conception of ecclesiastical orders, and therefore also of the episcopate, as clearly involved hi ac8 m in a contradiction of the other theory — which he also never gave up — viz., that the bishops, as the class which transmits the rule of faith, are an apostolic institution and therefore necessary to the Church.154

153

On IV. 33. 7 see Seeberg, l.c., p. 20, who has correctly punctuated the passage, but has weakened its force. The fact that Irenaeus was here able to cite the “antiquus ecclesiæ status in universo mundo et character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum”, etc., as a second and independent item alongside of the apostolic doctrine is, however, a proof that the transition from the idea of the Church, as a community united by a common faith, to that of a hierarchical institution was already revealing itself in his writings. abc 154 The Church as a communion of the same faith, that is of the same doctrine, is spoken of in de præscr. 20; de virg. vol. 2. On the other hand we find the ideal spiritual conception in de bapt. 6: “ubi tres, id est pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quæ trium corpus est”; 8: “columba s. spiritus advolat, pacem dei adferens, emissa de cœlis, ubi ecclesia est arca figurata”; 15: “unus deus et unum baptismum et una ecclesia in cœlis”; de pænit. 10: “in uno et altero ecclesia est, ecelesia vero Christus”; de orat. 28: “nos sumus veri adoratores et veri sacerdotes, qui spiritu orantes spiritu sacrificamus;” Apolog. 39; de exhort. 7: “differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit ecclesiæ auctoritas et honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus. Adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tinguis et sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici” (the same idea, only not so definitely expressed, is already found in de bapt. 17); de monog. 7: “nos autem Iesus summus sacerdos sacerdotes deo patri suo fecit . . . vivit unicus pater noster deus et mater ecclesia, . . certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati”: 12; de pudic. 21: “nam et ipsa ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est

80

From the disquisitions of Clement of Alexandria we see how vigorous the old conception of the Church, as the heavenly communion of the elect and believing, still continued to be about the year 200. This will not appear strange after what we have already said as to Clement’s views about the rule of faith, the New Testament, and the episcopate. It is evident that his philosophy of religion led him to give a new interpretation to the original ideas. Yet the old form of these notions can be more easily made out from his works than from those of Irenæus.155 Up to the 15th Chapter of the 7th Book of his great work, the Stromateis, and in the Pædagogus, Clement simply speaks of the Church in the sense of the Epistle to the Ephesians and the Shepherd of Hermas. She is a heavenly formation, continued in that which appears on earth as her image. Instead of distinguishing two Churches Clement sees one, the product of God’s will aiming at the salvation of man — a Church which is to be on earth as it is in heaven, and of which faith forms the subjective and the Logos the objective bond of union. But, beginning with Strom. VII. 15 (see especially 17), where he is influenced by opposition to the heretics, he suddenly identifies this Church with the single old Catholic one, that is, with the visible “Church” in opposition to the heretic sects. Thus the empirical interpretation of the Church, which makes her the institution in possession of the true doctrine, was also completely adopted by Clement; but as yet he employed it simply in polemics and not in positive teachings. He neither reconciled nor seemingly felt the contradiction in the statement that the Church is to be at one and the same time the assembly of the elect and the empiric universal Church. At any rate he made 81as yet no unconditional acknowledgment of the Catholic Church, because he was still able to attribute independent value to Gnosis 560 , that is, to independent piety as he understood it.156 Consequently, as regards

trinitas unius divinitatis, pater et filius et spiritus sanctus. Illam ecclesiam congregat quam dominus in tribus posuit. Atque ita exinde etiam numerus omnis qui in hanc fidem conspiraverint ecclesia ab auctore et consecratore censetur. Et ideo ecclesia quidem delicta donabit, sed ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum”; de anima 11, 21. Contradictions in detail need not surprise us in Tertullian, since his whole position as a Catholic and as a Montanist is contradictory. 155 The notion that the true Gnostic can attain the same position as the Apostles also preserved Clement from thrusting the ideal conception of the Church into the background. 156 Some very significant remarks are found in Clement about the Church which is the object of faith. See Pæd. I. 5. 18, 21; 6. 27: ὡς γὰρ τὸ θέληµα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐργον ἐστὶ καὶ τοῦτο κόσµος ὀνοµάζεται, οὕτω καὶ τὸ βούληµα αὐτοῦ ἀνθρώπων ἐστὶ σωτηρία, καὶ

the conception of the Church, the mystic Gnosis exercised the same effect as the old religious enthusiasm from which in other respects it differs so much.157 The hierarchy has still no significance as far as Clement’s idea of the Church is concerned.158 At first Origen entirely agrees with Clement in regard to this conception. He also starts with the theory that the Church is essentially a heavenly communion and a holy communion of believers, and keeps this idea constantly before him. acc 1 When

τοῦτο ἐκκλησία κέκληται — here an idea which Hermas had in his mind (see Vol. I., p. 180. note 4) is pregnantly and excellently expressed. Strom. II. 12. 55; IV. 8. 66: εἰκὼν τῆς οὐρανίου ἐκκλησίας ἡ ἐπίγειος, διόπερ εὐχόµεθα καὶ ἐπί γῆς γενέσθαι τὸ θέληµα τοῦ Θεοῦ ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ; IV. 26. 172: ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑπὸ λόγου ἀπολιόρκητος ἀτυράννητος πόλις ἐπὶ γῆς, θέληµα θεῖον ἐπὶ γῆς, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ; VI. 13. 106, 107; VI. 14. 108: ἡ ἀνωτάτω ἐκκλησία, καθ᾽ ἥν ὁι φιλόσοφοι συνάγονται τοῦ Θεοῦ; VII. 5. 29: πῶς οὐ κυρίως τὴν ἐις τιµὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν ἁγίαν γενοµένην ἐκκλησία 564 ιἑρὸν ἂν ἔιποιµεν Θεοῦ τὸ πολλοῦ ἄξιον . . . ὀυ γὰρ νῦν τὸν τόπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἄθροισµα τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἐκκλησίαν καλῶ; VII. 6. 32; VII. I. 68: ἡ πνευµαρικὴ ἐκκλησία. The empirical conception of the Church is most clearly formulated in VII. 17. 107; we may draw special attention to the following sentences: φανερὸν οἶµαι γεγενῆσθαι µίαν εἶναι τὴν ἀληθῆ ἐκκλησίαν τὴν τῷ ὄντι ἀρχάιαν, εἰς ἥν ὁι κατὰ πρόθεσιν δίκαιοι ἐγκαταλέγονται, ἑνὸς γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἑνὸς τοῦ κυρίου . . . τῇ γοῦν τοῦ ἑνὸς φύσει συγκληροῦται ἐκκλησία ἡ µία, ἣν εἰς πολλὰς κατατέµνειν βιάζονται αἱρέσεις. 157 It may, however, be noted that the old eschatological aim 564 has fallen into the background in Clement’s conception of the Church. 158 A significance of this kind is suggested by the notion that the orders in the earthly Church correspond to those in the heavenly one; but this idea, which afterwards became so important in the East, was turned to no further account by Clement. In his view the “Gnostics” are the highest stage in the Church. See Bigg, l.c., p. l00. 159 De princip. IV. 2. 2: ἡ οὐράνιος ἐκκλησία; Hom. IX. in Exod. c. 3: “ecclesia credentium plebs”; Hom. XI. in Lev. c. 5; Hom. VI. in Lev. c. 5; ibid. Hom. IX.: “omni ecclesiæ dei et credentium populo sacerdotium datum.”: T.XIV. in Mt. c. 17: c. Cels. VI. 48: VI. 79; Hom. 52b VII. in Lk.; and de orat. 31 a twofold Church is distinguished (ὥστε εἶναι ἐπι τῶν ἁγίων συναθροιζοµένων διπλῆν ἐκκλησίαν τὴν µὲν ἀνθρώπων, τὴν δὲ ἀγγέλων). Nevertheless Origen does not assume two Churches, but, like Clement, holds that there is only one, part of which is already in a state of perfection and part still on earth. But it is worthy of note that the ideas of the heavenly hierarchy are already more developed in Origen (de princip. I. 7). He adopted the old speculation about the origin of the Church (see Papias, fragm. 6; 2 Clem. XIV.). Socrates (H. E. III. 7) reports that Origen, in the 9th vol. of his commentary on Genesis, compared Christ with Adam and Eve with the Church, and remarks that Pamphilus’ apology for Origen stated that this allegory was not new: ὀυ πρῶτον Ὠριγένην ἐπὶ ταύτην τὴν πραγµατείαν ἐλθεῖν φασίν,

opposing heretics, he also, like Clement, cannot help identifying her with the Catholic Church, because the latter contains the true doctrine, though he likewise 82refrains from acknowledging any hierarchy.160 But Origen is influenced by two further considerations, which are scarcely hinted at in Clement, but which were called forth by the actual course of events and signified a further development in the idea of the Church. For, in the first place, Origen saw himself already compelled to examine closely the distinction between the essence and the outward appearance of the Church, and, in this process, reached results which again called in question the identification of the Holy Church with the empiric Catholic one (see on this point the following chapter). Secondly, in consequence of the extraordinary extension and powerful position attained by the Catholic Church by the time of Philip the Arabian, Origen, giving a new interpretation to a very old Christian notion and making use of a Platonic conception,161 arrived at the idea that she was the earthly Kingdom of God, destined to enter the world, to absorb the Roman Empire and indeed all mankind, and to unite and take the place of the various secular states.162 This magnificent idea, which regards the Church as κόσµος τοῦ κόσµου,163 denoted indeed a complete departure from the original theory of the subject, determined by eschatological considerations; though we must not forget 83th 562 at Origen still demanded a really holy Church and a new polity. Hence, as he also distinguishes the various degrees of connection with the Church,164 we already find in his theory a combination of all the features that became essential parts of the conception of the Church in subsequent times, with the exception of the clerical element.165

ἀλλὰ τὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας µυστικὴν ἑρµηνεῦσαι παράδοσιν. A great many more of these speculations are to be found in the 3rd century. See, e.g., the Acts of Peter and Paul 29. 59d 160De princip. IV. 2. 2; Hom. III. in Jesu N. 5: “nemo tibi persuadeat; nemo semetipsum decipiat: extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur.” The reference is to the Catholic Church which Origen also calls τὸ ὅλον σῶµα τῶν συναγωγῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. 161 Hermas (Sim. I.) has spoken of the “city of God” (see also pseudo-Cyprian’s tractate “de pascha computus”); but for him it lies in Heaven and is the complete contrast of the world. The idea of Plato here referred to is to be found in his Republic. 162 564 See c. Cels. VIII. 68-75. 163 Comment. in Joh. VI. 38. 164 Accordingly he often speaks in a depreciatory way of the ὄχλος τῆς ἐκκλησίας (the ignorant) without accusing them of being unchristian (this is very frequent in the books c. Cels., but is also found elsewhere). 165 Origen, who is Augustine’s equal in other respects also, and who anticipated many 564 of the problems considered by the latter, anticipated prophetically this Father’s view of the City of God — of course as a hope (c. Cels. viii. 68 f.). The Church is also viewed

3. The contradictory notions of the Church, for so they appear to us, in Iremeus and Clement and still more in Tertullian and Origen, need not astonish any one who bears in mind that none of these Fathers made the Church the subject of a theological theory.166 aca Hence no one as yet thought of questioning the old article: I believe in a holy Church.” But, at the same time, actual circumstances, though they did not at first succeed in altering the Church’s belief, forced her to realise her changed position, for she had in point of fact become an association which was founded on a definite law of doctrine and rejected everything that did not conform to it. The identifying of this association with the ideal Church was a matter of course,167 but it was quite as natural to take no immediate theoretical notice of the identification except in cases where it was absolutely necessary, that is, in polemics. In the latter case the unity of faith and hope became the unity of the doctrine of faith, and the Church was, in this instance, legitimised by the possession of the apostolic tradition instead of by the realising of that tradition in heart and life. From the principle that had been set 84up it necessarily followed that the apostolic inheritance on which the truth and legitimacy of the Church was based, could not but remain an imperfect court of appeal until living authorities could be pointed to in this court, and until every possible cause of strife and separation was settled by reference to it. An empirical community cannot be ruled by a traditional written word, but only by persons; for the written law will always separate and split. If it has such persons, however, it can tolerate within it a great amount of individual differences, provided that the leaders subordinate the interests of the whole to their own ambition. We have seen how Irenæus and Tertullian, though they in all earnestness represented the fides catholica and ecclesia catholica as inseparably connected,168 were already compelled to have

as τὸ κατὰ Θεον πολίτευµα in Euseb., H. E. V. Præf. § 4, and at an earlier period in Clement. 166 This was not done even by Origen, for in his great work “de principiis” we find no section devoted to the Church. 167 It is frequently represented in Protestant writers that the mistake consisted in this identification, whereas, if we once admit this criticism, the defect is rather to be found in the development itself which took place in the Church, that is, in its secularisation. No one thought of the de 55f sperate idea of an invisible Church; this notion would probably have brought about a lapse from pure Christianity far more rapidly than the idea of the Holy Catholic Church. 168 Both repeatedly and very decidedly declared that the unity of faith (the rule of faith) is sufficient for the unity of the Church, and that in other things there must be freedom (see above all Tertull., de orat., de bapt., and the Montanist writings). It is all the

recourse to bishops in order to ensure the apostolic doctrine. The conflicts within the sphere of the rule of faith, the struggles with the so-called Montanism, but finally and above all, the existing situation of the Church in the third century with regard to the world within her pale, made the question of or 564 ganisation the vital one for her. Tertullian and Origen already found themselves face to face with episcopal claims of which they highly disapproved and which, in their own way, they endeavoured to oppose. It was again the Roman bishop169 who first converted the proposition that the bishops are direct successors of the Apostles and have the same “locus magisterii” (“place of government”) into a theory which declares that all apostolic powers have devolved on the bishops and that these have therefore peculiar rights and duties in virtue of their office.170 Cyprian added to this the corresponding theory of the Church. 85In one decisive point, however, he did not assist the secularising process which had been completed by the Roman bishop, in the interest of Catholicity as well as in that of the Church’s existence (see the followin ac8 g chapter). In the second half of the third century there were no longer any Churches, except remote communities, where the only requirement was to preserve the Catholic faith; the bishops had to be obeyed. The idea of the one episcopally organised Church became the main one and overshadowed the significance of the doctrine of faith as a bond of unity. The Church based on the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, the vicegerents of God, is herself the legacy of the Apostles in virtue of this her foundation. This idea was never converted into a rigid theory in the East, though the reality to which it corresponded was not the less certain on that account. The fancy that the earthly hierarchy was the image of the heavenly was the only part that began to be taken in real earnest. In the West, on the other hand, circumstances compelled the Carthaginian bishop to set up a finished theory.171 According to Cyprian, the Catholic

more worthy of note that, in the case of a question in which indeed the customs of the different countries were exceedingly productive of confusion, but which was certainly not a matter of faith, it was again a bishop of Rome, and that as far back as the 2nd century, who first made the observance of the Roman practice a condition of the unity of the Church and treated non-conformists as heterodox (Victor; see Euseb., H. E. V. 24). On the other hand Irenæus says: ἡ διαφωνία τῆς νηστέιας τὴν ὁµόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησι. aa7 169 On Calixtus see Hippolyt., Philos. IX. 12, and Tertull., de pudic. 170 See on the other hand Tertull., de monog., but also Hippol., l.c. 171 Cyprian’s idea of the Church, an imitation of the conception of a political empire, viz., one great aristocratically governed state with an ideal head, is the result of the

Church, to which all the lofty predictions and predicates in the Bible apply (see Hartel’s index under “ecclesia”), is the one institution of salvation outside of which there is no redemption 86(ep. 73. 21). She is this, moreover, not only as the community possessing the true apostolic faith, for this definition does not exhaust her conception, but as a harmoniously organised federation.172 This Church therefore rests entirely on the episcopate, which sustains her,173 because it is the continuance of the apostolic office and is equipped with all the power of the Apostles.174 Accordingly, the union of individuals with the Church, and therefore with Christ, is effected only by obedient dependence on the bishop, i.e., such a conne 564 ction alone makes one a

conflicts through which he passed. It is therefore first found in a complete form in the treatise “de unitate ecclesiæ” and, above all, in his later epistles (Epp. 43 sq. ed. Hartel). The passages in which Cyprian defines Church as “constituta in episcopo et in clero et in omnibus credentibus” date from an earlier period, when he himself essentially retained the old idea of the subject. Moreover, he never regarded those elements as similar and of equal value. The limitation of the Church to the community ruled by bishops was the result of the Novatian crisis. The unavoidable necessity of excluding orthodox Christians from the ecclesiastical communion, or, in other words, the fact that such orthodox Christians had separated themselves from the majority guided by the bishops, led to the setting up of a new theory of the Church, which therefore resulted from stress of circumstances just as much as the antignostic conception of the matter held by Irenæus. Cyprian’s notion of the relation between the whole body of the Church and the episcopate may, however, be also understood as a generalisation of the old theory about the connection between the individual community and the bishop. This already contained an œcumenical element, for, in fact, every separate community was regarded as a copy of the one Church, and its bishop therefore as the representative of God (Christ). 172 We need only quote one passage here — but see also epp. 69. 3, 7 sq.: 70. 2: 73. 8– ep. 55. 24: “Quod vero ad Novatiani personam pertinet, scias nos primo in loco nec curiosos esse debere quid ille doceat, cum foris docent; quisquis ille est et qualiscunque est, christianus non est, qui in Christi ecclesia non est.” In the famous sentence (ep. 74. 7; de unit. 6): “habere non potest deum patrem qui ecclesiam non habet matrem,” we must understand the Church held together by the sacramentum unitatis, i.e., by her constitution. Cyprian is fond of referring to Korah’s faction, who nevertheless held the same faith as Moses. 173 Epp. 4. 4: 33. 1: “ecclesia super episcopos constituta”; 43. 5: 45. 3: “unitatem a domino et per apostolos nobis successoribus traditam”; 46. 1: 66. 8: “scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo et si qui cum episcopo non sit in ecclesia non esse”; de unit. 4. 174 According to Cyprian the bishops are the sacerdotes κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν and the iudices vice Christi. See epp. 59. 5: 66. 3 as well as c. 4: “Christus dicit ad apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes præpositos, qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt: qui audit vos me audit.” Ep. 3. 3: “dominus apostolos, i. e., episcopos elegit”; ep. 75. 16.

member of the Church. But the unity of the Church, which is an attribute of equal importance with her truth, because this union is only brought about by love,175 primarily appears in the unity of the episcopate. For, according to Cyprian, the episcopate has been from its beginning undivided and has continued to be 87so in the Church, in so far as the bishops are appointed and guided by God, are on terms of brotherly intercourse and exchange, and each bishop represents the whole significance of the episcopate.176 Hence the individual bishops are no longer to be considered primarily as leaders of their special communities, but as the foundation of the one Church. Each of these prelates, however, provided he keeps within the association of the bishops, preserves the independent right of regulating the circumstances of his ow 564 n diocese.177 But it also follows that 88the bishops of those

That is a fundamental idea and in fact the outstanding feature of the treatise ⍊564 de unitate”. The heretics and schismatics lack love, whereas the unity of the Church is the product of love, this being the main Christian virtue. That is the ideal thought on which Cyprian builds his theory (see also epp. 45. 1: 55. 24: 69. 1 and elsewhere), and not quite wrongly, in so far as his purpose was to gather and preserve, and not scatter. The reader may also recall the early Christian notion that Christendom should be a band of brethren ruled by love. But this love ceases to have any application to the case of those who are disobedient to the authority of the bishop and to Christians of the sterner sort. The appeal which Catholicism makes to love, even at the present day, in order to justify its secularised and tyrannical Church, turns in the mouth of hierarchical politicians into hypocrisy, of which one would like to acquit a man of Cyprian’s stamp. 176 Ep. 43. 5: 55. 24: “episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus”; de unit. 5: “episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in soli ac8 dum pars tenetur.” Strictly speaking Cyprian did not set up a theory that the bishops were directed by the Holy Spirit, but in identifying Apostles and bishops and asserting the divine appointment of the latter he took for granted their special endowment with the Holy Spirit. Moreover, he himself frequently appealed to special communications he had received from the Spirit as aids in discharging his official duties. 177 Cyprian did not yet regard uniformity of Church practice as a matter of moment — or rather he knew that diversities must be tolerated. In so far as the concordia episcoporum was consistent with this diversity, he did not interfere with the differences, provided the regula fidei was adhered to. Every bishop who adheres to the confederation has the greatest freedom even in questions of Church discipline and practice (as for instance in the baptismal ceremonial); see ep. 59. 14: “Singulis pastoribus portio gregis est adscripta, quam regit unusquisque et gubernat rationem sui actus domino redditurus”; 55. 21: “Et quidem apud antecessores nostros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pacis mœchis non putaverunt et in totem pænitentiæ locum contra adulteria cluserunt, non tamen a co-episcoporum suorum collegio recesserunt aut catholicæ ecclesiæ unitatem ruperunt, ut quia apud alios adulteris pax dabatur, qui non dabat de ecclesia separaretur.” According to ep. 57. 5 Catholic bishops, who insist on the 175

communities founded by the Apostles themselves can raise no claim to any special dignity, since the unity of the episcopate as a continuation of the apostolic office involves the equality of all bishops.178 However, a special importance attaches to the Roman see, because it is the seat of the Apostle to whom Christ first granted apostolic authority in order to show with unmistakable plainness the unity of these powers and the corresponding unity of the Church that rests on them; and further because, from her historical origin, the Church of this see had become the mother and root of the Catholic Church spread over the earth. In a severe crisis which Cyprian had to pass through in his own diocese he appealed to the Roman Church (the Roman bishop) in a manner which made it appear as if co 564 mmunion with that Church was in itself the guarantee of truth. But in the controversy about heretical baptism with the Roman bishop Stephen, he emphatically denied the latter’s pretensions to exercise special rights over the Church in

strict practice of penance, but do not separate themselves from the unity of the Church, are left to the judgment of God. It is different in the case referred to in ep. 68, for Marcion had formally joined Novatian. Even in the disputed question of heretical baptism (ep. 72. 3) Cyprian declares to Stephen (See 69. 17: 3. 26; Sententiæ episc., præfat.): “qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus, quando habeat in ecclesiæ administratione voluntatis suæ arbitrium liberum unusquisque præpositus, rationem actus sui domino redditurus.” It is therefore plain wherein the unity of the episcopate and the Church actually consists; we may say that it is found in the regula, in the fixed purpose not to give up the unity in spite of all differences, and in the principle of regulatin 564 g all the affairs of the Church “ad originem dominicam et ad evangelicam adque apostolicam traditionem” (ep. 74. 10). This refers to the New Testament, which Cyprian emphatically insisted on making the standard for the Church. It must be taken as the guide, “si in aliquo in ecclesia nutaverit et vacillaverit veritas”; by it, moreover, all false customs are to be corrected. In the controversy about heretical baptism, the alteration of Church practice in Carthage and Africa, which was the point in question — for whilst in Asia heretical baptism had for a very long time been declared invalid (see ep. 75. 19) this had only been the case in Carthage for a few years — was justified by Cyprian through an appeal to veritas in contrast to consuetudo sine veritate. See epp. 71. 2, 3: 73. 13, 23: 74. 2 sq.: 9 (the formula originates with Tertullian; see de virg. vel. 1-3). The veritas, however, is to be learned from the Gospel and words of the Apostles: “Lex evangelii”, “præcepta dominica”, and synonymous expressions are very frequent in Cyprian, more frequent than reference to the regula or to the symbol. In fact there was still no Church dogmatic, ac8 there being only principles of Christian faith and life, which, however, were taken from the Holy Scriptures and the regula. 178 Cyprian no longer makes any distinction between Churches founded by Apostles, and those which arose later (that is, between their bishops).

consequence of the Petrine succession.179 Finally,

179

89although

The statement that the Church is “super Petrum fundata” is very frequently made by Cyprian (we find it already in Tertullian, de monog.); see de habitu virg. 10; Epp. 59. 7: 66. 8: 71. 3: 74. 11: 73. 7. But on the strength of Matth. XVI. he went still farther; see ep. 43. 5: “deus unus est et Christus unus et una ecclesia et cathedra una super Petrum domini voce fundata”; ep. 48. 3 (ad Cornel.): “communicatio tua, id est catholicæ ecclesiæ unitas pariter et caritas”; de unit. 4: “superunum ædificat ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat, tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis eiusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit”; ep. 70. 3: “una ecclesia a Christo domino nostro super Petrum origine unitatis et ratione fundata” (“with regard to the origin and constitution of the unity” is the translation of this last passage in the “Stimmen aus Maria Laach,” 1877, part 8, p. 355; but “ratio” cannot mean that); ep. 73. 7: “Petro primum dominus, super quem ædificavit ecclesiam et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit.” The most emphatic passages are ep. 48. 3, where the Roman Church is called “matrix et radix ecclesiæ catholicæ” (the expression “radix et mater” in ep. 45. I no doubt also refers to her), and ep. 59. 14: “navigare audent et ad Petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides apostolo prædicante laudata est (see epp. 30. 2, 3: 60. 2), ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum.” We can see most clearly from epp. 67. 5 and 68 what rights were in point of f 564 act exercised by the bishop of Rome. But the same Cyprian says quite naïvely, even at the time when he exalted the Roman cathedra so highly (ep. 52. 2), “quoniam pro magnitudine sua debeat Carthaginem Roma præcedere.” In the controversy about heretical baptism Stephen like Calixtus (Tertull., de pudic. I) designated himself, on the ground of the successio Petri and by reference to Matth. XVI., in such a way that one might suppose he wished to be regarded as “episcopus episcoporum” (Sentent. epist. in Hartel I., p. 436). He expressly claimed a primacy and demanded obedience from the “ecclesiæ novellæ et posteræ” (ep. 71. 3). Like Victor he endeavoured to enforce the Roman practice “tyrannico terrore” and insisted that the unitas ecclesiæ required the observance of this Church’s practice in all communities. But Cyprian opposed him in the most decided fashion, and maintained the principle that every bishop, as a member of the episcopal confederation based on the regula and the Holy Scriptures, is responsible for his practice to God alone. This he did in a way which left no room for any special and actual authority of the Roman see alongside of the others. Besides, he expressly rejected the conclusions drawn by Stephen from eb0 the admittedly historical position of the Roman see (ep. 71.3): “Petrus non sibi vindicavit aliquid insolenter aut adroganter adsumpsit, ut diceret se principatum tenere et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere.” Firmilian, ep. 75, went much farther still, for he indirectly declares the successio Petri claimed by Stephen to be of no importance (c. 17), and flatly denies that the Roman Church has preserved the apostolic tradition in a specially faithful way. See Otto Ritschl, 1.c., pp. 92 ff., 110-141. In his conflict with Stephen Cyprian unmistakably took up a position inconsistent with his former views as to the significance of the Roman see for the Church, though no doubt these were ideas he

Cyprian exalted the unity of the organisation of the Church above the unity of the doctrine of faith, he preserved the Christian element so far as to assume in all his statements that the bishops display a moral and Christian conduct in keeping with their office, and that otherwise they have ipso facto forfeited it.180 Thus, according to Cyprian, the episcopal office does not confer any indelible character, though Calixtus and other. bishops of Rome after him presupposed this attribute. (For more details on this point, as well as with regard to t 560 he contradictions 90that remain unreconciled in Cyprian’s conception of the Church, see the following chapter, in which will be shown the ultimate interests that lie at the basis of the new idea of the Church). Appendix I. Cyprian’s idea of the Church and the actual circumstances. ADDENDUM I. The great confederation of Churches which Cyprian presupposes and which he terms the Church was in truth not complete, for it cannot be proved that it extended to any regions beyond the confines of the Roman Empire or that it even embraced all orthodox and episcopally organised communities within those bounds.181 But, further, the conditions of the confederation, which only began to be realised in the full sense in the days of Constantine, were never definitely formulated — before the fourth century at least.182 Accordingly, the idea of the one exclusive Church, embracing all Christians and founded on the bishops, was always a mere theory. But, in so far as it is not the idea, but its realisation to which Cyprian here attaches sole importance, his dogmatic conception appears to be refuted by actual circumstances.183

had expressed at a critical time when he stood shoulder to shoulder with the Roman bishop Cornelius. 180 See specially epp. 65, 67, 68. 181 Hatch l.c., p. 189 f. 182 The gradual union of the provincial communities into one Church may be studied in a very interesting way in the ecclesiastical Fasti (records, martyrologies, calendars, etc.), though these studies are as yet only in an incipient stage. See De Rossi , Roma Sotter, the Bollandists in the 12th vol. for October; Stevenson, Studi in Italia (1879), pp. 439, 458; the works of Nilles; Egli, Altchristl. Studien 1887 (Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1887, no. 13): Duchesne, Les sources du Martyrol. Hieron. Rome 1885, bat above all the latter’s study: Mémoire sur l’origine des diocèses épiscopaux dans l’ancienne Gaule, 1890. The history of the unification of liturgies from the 4th century should also be studied. 183 There were communities in the latter half of the 3rd century, which can be proved to have been outside the confederation, although in perfect harmony with it in point of

Appendix II. Church and Heresy. II. The idea of heresy is always decided by the idea of the Church. The designation ἅιρεσις an adherence to something 91selfchosen in opposition to the acknowledgment of something objectively handed down, and assumes that this is the particular thing in which the apostasy consists. Hence all those who call themselves Christians and yet do not adhere to the traditional apostolic creed, but give themselves up to vain and empty doctrines, are regarded as heretics by Hegesippus, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement, and Origen. These doctrines are as a rule traced to the devil, that is, to the non-Christian religions and speculations, or to wilful wickedness. Any other interpretation of their origin would at once have been an acknowledgment that the opponents of the Church had a right to their opinions,184 and such an explanation is not quite foreign to Origen in one of his lines of argument.185 Hence the orthodox party were perfectly consistent in attaching no value to any sacrament186 or acts esteemed in their belief (see the interesting case in Euseb., H.E. VII. 24. 6). Conversely, there were Churches in the confederation whose faith did not in all respects correspond with the Catholic regula as already expounded. But the fact that it was not the dogmatic system, but the practical constitution and principles of the Church, as based on a still elastic creed, which formed the ultimate determining factor, was undoubtedly a great gain; for a system of dogmatics developed beyond the limits of the Christian kerygma can only separate. Here, however, all differences of c44 faith had of course to be glossed over, for the demand of Apelles: µὴ δεῖν ὅλως ἐξετάζειν τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ᾽ ἕκαστον, ὡς πεπίστευκα, διαµένειν· σωθήσεσθαι γὰρ τοὺς ἐπὶ τὸν ἐσταυρωµένον ἡλπικότας κ.τ.λ., was naturally regarded as inadmissible. 184 Hence we need not be surprised to find that the notion of heresy which arose in the Church was immediately coupled with an estimate of it, which for injustice and harshness could not possibly be surpassed in succeeding times. The best definition is in Tertull., de præscr. 6: “Nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet, sed nec eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. Apostolos domini habemus auctores, qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt, sed acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus assignaverunt.” 185 See Vol. I., p. 224, note 1. 186 We already find this idea in Tertullian; see de bapt. 15: “Hæretici nullum habent consortium nostræ disciplinæ, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est præceptum, quia non idem deus est nobis et illis, nec unus Christus, id est idem, ideoque nec baptismus unus, quia non idem; quem cum rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent, nec capit numerari, quod non habetur; ita nec possunt accipere quia non habent.” Cyprian passed the same judgment on all schismatics, even on the Novatians, and like Tertullian maintained the invalidity of heretical baptism. This question agitated the Church as early as the end of the 2nd century, when Tertullian already wrote against it in Greek.

own communion, when these were performed by heretics; 580 1 and this was a practical application of the saying that the devil could transform himself into an angel of light.187 92

But the Fathers we have named did not yet completely identify the Church with a harmoniously organised institution. For that very reason they do not absolutely deny the Christianity of such as take their stand on the rule of faith, even when these for various reasons occupy a position peculiar to themselves. Though we are by no means entitled to say that they acknowledged orthodox schismatics, they did not yet venture to reckon them simply as heretics.188 If it was desired to get rid of these, an effort was made to impute to them some deviation from the rule of faith; and und ac8 er this pretext the Church freed herself from the Montanists and the Monarchians.189 Cyprian was the first to proclaim the identity of heretics and schismatics, by making a man’s Christianity depend on his belonging to the great episcopal Church confederation.190 But, both in East 93and West, this theory of his

187

As far as possible the Christian virtues of the heretics were described as hypocrisy and 564 love of ostentation (see e.g., Rhodon in Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 2 and others in the second century). If this view was untenable, then all morality and heroism among heretics were simply declared to be of no value. See the anonymous writer in Eusebius, H. E. V. 16. 21, 22; Clem., Strom. VII. 16. 95; Orig., Comm. ad Rom. I. X., c. 5; Cypr., de unit. 14, 15; ep. 73. 21 etc. 188 Tertull., de præscr. 3-6. 189 Irenæus definitely distinguishes between heretics and schismatics (III. 11. 9: IV. 26. 2; 33. 7), but also blames the latter very severely, “qui gloriosum corpus Christi, quantum in ipsis est, interficiunt, non habentes dei dilectionem suamque utilitatem potius considerantes quam unitatem ecclesiæ.” Note a8e the parallel with Cyprian. Yet he does not class them with those “qui sunt extra veritatem,” i.e., “extra ecclesiam,” although he declares the severest penalties await them. Tertullian was completely preserved by his Montanism from identifying heretics and schismatics, though in the last years of his life he also appears to have denied the Christianity of the Catholics (?). 190 Read, on the one hand, the Antimontanists in Eusebius and the later opponents of Montanism; and on the other, Tertull., adv. Prax.; Hippol., c. Noët; Novatian, de trinitate. Even in the case of the Novatians heresies were sought and found (see Dionys. Alex., in Euseb., H. E. VII. 8, where we find distortions and wicked misinterpretations of Novatian doctrines, and many later opponents). Nay, even Cyprian himself did not disdain to join in this proceeding (see epp. 69. 7: 70. 2). The Montanists at Rome were placed by Hippolytus in the catalogue of heretics (see the Syntagma and Philosoph.). Origen was uncertain whether to reckon them among schismatics or heretics (see in Tit. Opp. IV., p. 696). 191 Cyprian plainly asserts (ep. 3. 3): “hæc sunt initia hæreticorum et ortus adque conatus schismaticorum, ut præpositum superbo tumore contemnant” (as to the early

became established only by very imperceptible degrees, and indeed, strictly speaking, the process was never completed at all. The distinction between heretics and schismatics was preserved, because it prevented a public denial of the old principles, because it was advisable on political grounds to treat certain schismatic communities with indulgence, and because it was always possible in case of need to prove heresy against the schismatics.192 Appendix III. Uncertainties regarding the consequences of the new idea of the Church. III. As soon as the empiric Church ruled by the bishops was proclaimed to be the foundation of the Christian religion, we have the fundamental premises for the conception that everything progressively adopted by the Church, all her functions, institutions, and liturgy, in short, all her continuously changing arrangements were holy and apostolic. But the courage to draw all the conclusions here was restrained by the fact that certain portions of tradition, such as the New Testament canon of Scripture and the apostolic doctrine, had been once for all exalted to an unapproachable height. Hence it was only with slowness and hesitation that Christians accepted the inferences from the idea of the Church in the remaining directions, and these conclusions always continued to be hampered with some degree of uncertainty. The idea of the παράδοσισ ἄγραφος (un-written tradition); i.e., that every custom, however recent, within the sphere of outward regulations, of public worship, disc 564 ipline, etc., is as holy and apostolic as the Bible and the “faith”, never succeeded in gaining

history of this conception, which undoubtedly has a basis of truth, see Clem., ep. ad Cor. 1. 44; Ignat.; Hegesippus in Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 5; Tertull., adv. Valent. 4; de bapt. 17; Anonymus in Euseb; H. E. V. 16. 7; Hippolyt. ad. Epiphan. H. 42. 1; Anonymus in Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 12; according to Cyprian it is quite the common one); see further ep. 59. 3: “neque enim aliunde hæreses obortæ sunt aut nata sunt schismata, quam quando sacerdoti dei non obtemperatur”; epp. 66. 5: 69. 1: “item b. apostolus Johannes nec ipse ullam hæresin aut schisma discrevit aut aliquos speciatim separes posuit”; 52. 1:73. 2: 74. 11. Schism and heresy are always identical. 59e 192Neither Optatus nor Augustine take Cyprian’s theory as the starting-point of their disquisitions, but they adhere in principle to the distinction between heretic and schismatic. Cyprian was compelled by his special circumstances to identify them, but he united this identification with the greatest liberality of view as to the conditions of ecclesiastical unity (as regards individual bishops). Cyprian did not make a single new article an “articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ”. In fact he ultimately declared — and this may have cost him struggle enough — that even the question of the validity of heretical baptism was not a question of faith.

complete acceptance. In this case, complicated, uncertain, and indistinct assumptions were the result. 94

Chapter III. Continuation. The Old Christianity and the New Church.

CHAPTER III. CONTINUATION. THE OLD CHRISTIANITY AND THE NEW CHURCH. 1. THE legal and political forms by which the Church secured herself against the secular power and heresy, and still more the lower moral standard exacted from her members in consequence of the naturalisation of Christianity in the world, called forth a reaction soon after the middle of the second century. This movement, which first began in Asia Minor and then spread into other regions of Christendom, aimed at preserving or restoring the old feelings and conditions, and preventing Christendom from being secularised. This crisis (the so-called Montanist struggle) and the kindred one which succeeded produced the following results: The Church merely regarded herself all the more strictly as a legal community basing the truth of its title on its historic and objective foundations, and gave a correspondingly new interpretation aba to the attribute of holiness she claimed. She expressly recognised two distinct classes in her midst, a spiritual and a secular, as well as a double standard of morality. Moreover, she renounced her character as the communion of those who were sure of salvation, and substituted the claim to be an educational institution and a necessary condition of redemption. After a keen struggle, in which the New Testament did excellent service to the bishops, the Church expelled the Cataphrygian fanatics and the adherents of the new prophecy (between 180 and 220); and in the same way, during the course of the third century, she caused the secession of all those Christians who made the truth of the Church depend on a stricter administration of moral discipline. Hence, apart from the heretic and Montanist sects, there existed in the Empire, after the middle of the second 95century, two great but numerically unequal Church confederations, both based on the same rule of faith and claiming the title “ecclesia catholica”, viz., the confederation which Constantine afterwards chose for his support, and the Novatian Catharist one. In Rome, however, the beginning of the great disruption goes back to the time of

Hippolytus and Calixtus; yet the schism of Novatian must not be considered as an immediate continuation of that of Hippolytus. 2. The so-called Montanist reaction193 was itself subjected to a similar change, in accordance with the advancing ecclesiastical development of Christendom. It was originally the violent undertaking of a Christian prophet, Montanus, who, supported by prophetesses, felt called upon to realise the promises held forth in the Fourth Gospel. He explained these by the Apocalypse, and declared that he himself was the Paraclete whom Christ had promised — that Paraclete in whom Jesus Christ himself, nay, even God the Father Almighty, comes to his own to guide them to all truth, to gather those that are dispersed, and to bring them into one flock. His main effort therefore was to make Christians give up the local and civil relations in which they lived, to collect them, and create a new undivided Christian commonwealth, which, separated from the world, should prepare itself for the descent of the Jerusalem from above. 572 1

193

See Ritschl, 1. c.; Schwegler, Der Montanismus, 1841; Gottwald, De Montanismo Tertulliani, 1862; Réville, Tertull. et le Montanisme, in the Revue des Deux Mondes of 1st Novr. 1864; Stroehl ac8 in, Essai sur le Montanisme, 1870; De Soyres, Montanism and the Primitive Church, 1878; Cunningham, The Churches of Asia, 1880; Renan, Les Crises du Catholicisme Naissant in the Revue des Deux Mondes of 15th Febr. 1881; Renan, Marc Aurèle, 1882, p. 208 ff.; Bonwetsch, Geschichte des Montanismus, 1881; Harnack, Das Mönchthum, seine Ideale und seine Geschichte, 3rd. ed., 1886; Belck, Geschichte des Montanismus, 1883; Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimontanistischen Kampfes, 1891. Further the articles on Montanism by Möller (Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie), Salmon (Dictionary of Christian Biography), and Harnack (Encyclopedia Britannica). Weizsäcker in the Theologische Litteraturzeitung, 1882, no. 4; Bonwetsch, Die Prophetie im apostolischen und nachapostolischen Zeitalter in the Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben, 1884, Parts 8, 9; M. von Engelhardt, Die ersten Versuche zur Aufrichtung des wahren Christenthums in einer Gemeinde von Heiligen, Riga, 1881. 194 In certain vital points the conception of the original nature and history of Montanism, as sketched in the following account, does not correspond with that traditionally current. To establish it in detail would lead us too far. It may be noted that the mistakes in estimating the original character of this movement arise from a superficial examination of the oracles preserved to us and from the unjustifiable practice of interpreting them in accordance with their later application in the circles of Western Montanists. A completely new organisation of Christendom, beginning with the Church in Asia, to be brought about by its being detached from the bonds of the communities and collected into one region, was the main effort of Montanus. In this way he expected to restore to the Church a spiritual character and fulfil the promises contained in John. That is clear from Euseb., V. 16 ff. as well as from the later history of Montanism in its native land (see Jerome, ep. 41; Epiphan., H. 49. 2 etc.). In itself, however, apart from its

96

The natural resistance offered to the new prophets with this extravagant message — especially by the leaders of communities, and the persecutions to which the Church was soon after subjected under Marcus Aurelius, led to an intensifying of the eschatological expectations that beyond doubt had been specially keen in Montanist circles from the beginning. For the New Jerusalem was soon to come down from heaven in visible form, and establish itself in the spot which, by direction of the Spirit, had been chosen for Christendom in Phrygia.195 Whatever amount of peculiarity the movement lost, in so far as the ideal of an assembly of all Christians proved incapable of being realised or at least only possible within narrow limits, was abundantly restored in the last decades of the second century by the strength and courage that the news of its spread in Christendom gave to the earnest minded to unite and offer resistance aa9 to the ever increasing tendency of the Church to assume a secular and political character. Many entire communities 97in Phrygia and Asia recognised the divine mission of the prophets. In the Churches of other provinces religious societies were formed in which the predictions of these prophets were circulated and viewed as a Gospel, though at the same time they lost their effect by being so treated. The confessors at Lyons openly expressed their full sympathy with the movement in Asia. The bishop of Rome was on the verge of acknowledging the Montanists to be in full communion with the Church. But among themselves there was no longer, as at the beginning, any question of a new organisation in the strict sense of the word, and of a radical remodelling of Christian society.196 Whenever Montanism

particular explanation in the case of Montanus, the endeavour to detach Christians from the local Church unions has so little that is striking about it, that one rather wonders at being unable to point to any parallel in the earliest history of the Church. Wherever religious enthusiasm has been strong, it has at all times felt that nothing hinders its aba effect more than family ties and home connections. But it is just from the absence of similar undertakings in the earliest Christianity that we are justified in concluding that the strength of enthusiastic exaltation is no standard for the strength of Christian faith. (Since these words were written, we have read in Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel [see Georgiades in the journal Ἐκκλ. ἀληθεία, 1885, p. 52 sq.] very interesting accounts of such undertakings in the time of Septimius Severus. A Syrian bishop persuaded many brethren with wives and children to go to meet Christ in the wilderness; and another in Pontus induced his people to sell all their possessions, to cease tilling their lands, to conclude no more marriages etc., because the coming of the Lord was nigh at hand). 195 Oracle of Prisca in Epiph. H. 49. 1. 196 Even in its original home Montanism must have accommodated itself to circumstances at a comparatively early date — which is not in the least extraordinary. No

comes before us in the clear light of history it rather appears as a religious movement already deadened, though still very powerful. Montanus and his prophetesses had set no limits to their enthusiasm; nor were there as yet any fixed barriers in Christendom that could have restrained them.197 The Spirit, the Son, nay, the Father himself had appeared in them and spoke through them.198 Imagination pictured 98Christ bodily in female form to the eyes of Prisca.199 The most extravagant promises were

doubt the Montanist Churches in Asia and Phrygia, to which the bishop of Rome had already issued literæ pacis, were now very different from the original followers of the prophets (Tertull., adv. Prax. 1). When Tertullian further reports that Praxeas at the last moment prevented them from being recognised by the bishop of Rome, “falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eorum adseverando”, the “falsehood about the Churches” may simply have consisted in an account of the original tendencies of the Montanist sect. The whole unique history which, in spite of this, Montanism undoubtedly passed through in its original home is, however, explained by the circumstance that there were districts there, where all Christians belonged to that sect (Epiph., H. 51. 33; cf. also the later history of Novatianism). In their peculiar Church organisation (patriarchs, stewards, bishops), these sects preserved a record of their origin. ad6 197Special weight must be laid on this. The fact that whole communities became followers of the new prophets, who nevertheless adhered to no old regulation, must above all be taken into account. 198 See Oracles 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 17, 18, 21 in Bonwetsch, l.c., p. 197 f. It can hardly have been customary for Christian prophets to speak like Montanus (Nos. 3-5): ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ταντοκράτωρ καταγινόµενος ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, or ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ἦλθον or ἐγὼ εἰµί ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ ὁ παράκλητος, though Old Testament prophecy takes an analogous form. Maximilla says on one occasion (No. 11); ἀπέστειλέ µε κύριος τούτου τοῦ πόνου καὶ τῆς συνθήκης καὶ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας αἱρετιστήν; and a second time (No. 12): διώκοµαι ὡς λύκος ἐκ προβάτων˙ οὐκ εἰµὶ λύκς˙ ῥῆµά εἰµί καὶ πνεῦµα καὶ δύναµις. The two utterances do not exclude, but include, one another (cf. also No. 10: ἐµοῦ µὴ ἀκούσητε ἀλλὰ Χριστοῦ ἀκούσατε). From James IV. V. and Hermas, and from the Didache, on the other hand, we can see how the prophets of Christian communities may have usually spoken. 199 L.c., no. 9: Χριστὸς ἐν ἰδέᾳ γυναικὸς ἐσχηµατισµένος. How variable must the misbirths of the Christian imagination have been in this respect also! Unfortunately almost everything of that kind has been lost to us because it has been suppressed. The fragments of the once highly esteemed Apocalypse of Peter are instructive, for they still attest that the existing remains of early Christian ac8 literature are not able to give a correct picture of the strength of religious imagination in the first and second centuries. The passages where Christophanies are spoken of in the earliest literature would require to be collected. It would be shown what naive enthusiasm existed. Jesus appears to believers as a child, as a boy, as a youth, as Paul etc. Conversely, glorified men appear in visions with the features of Christ.

given.200 These prophets spoke in a loftier tone than any Apostle ever did, and they were even bold enough to overturn apostolic regulations. 583 201 They set up new commandments for the Christian life, regardless of any tradition,202 and they inveighed against the main body of 99Christendom.203 They not only proclaimed themselves as prophets, but as the last prophets, as notable prophets in whom was first fulfilled the promise of the sending of the Paraclete.204 These Christians as yet knew nothing

200

See Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 9. In Oracle No. 2 an evangelical promise is repeated in a heightened form; but see Papias in Iren., V. 33. 3 f. 201 We may unhesitatingly act on the principle that the Montanist elements, as they appear in Tertullian, are, in all cases, found not in a strengthened, but a weakened, form. So, when even Tertullian still asserts that the Paraclete in the new prophets could overturn or change, and actually did change, regulations of the Apostles, there is no doubt that the new prophets themselves did not adhere to apostolic dicta and had no hesitation in deviating from them. Cf., moreover, the direct declarations on this point in Hippolytus (Syntagma and Philos. VIII. 19) and in Didymus (de trin. III. 41. 2). 202 The precepts for a Christian life, if we may so speak, given by the new prophets, cannot be determined from the compromises on which the discipline of the later Montanist societies of the Empire were based. Here they sought for a narrow line between the Marcionite and Encratite mode of life and the common church practice, and had no longer the courage and the candour to proclaim the “e sæculo excedere”. Sexual purity and the renunciation of the enjoyments of life were the demands of the new prophets. But it is hardly likely that they prescribed precise “laws”, for t 527 he primary matter was not asceticism, but the realising of a promise. In later days it was therefore possible to conceive the most extreme demands as regulations referring to none but the prophets themselves, and to tone down the oracles in their application to believers. It is said of Montanus himself (Euseb., H. E. V. 18. 2): ὁ διδάξας λύσεις γάµων, ὁ νηστείας νοµοθετήσας; Prisca was a παρθένος (l.c. § 3); Proculus, the chief of the Roman Montanists, “virginis senectæ” (Tert., adv. Val. 5). The oracle of Prisca (No. 8) declares that sexual purity is the preliminary condition for the oracles and visions of God; it is presupposed in the case of every “sanctus minister”. Finally, Origen tells us (in Titum, Opp. IV. 696) that the (older) Cataphrygians said: “ne accedas ad me, quoniam mundus sum; non enim accepi uxorem, nec est sepulcrum patens guttur meum, sed sum Nazarenus dei non bibens vinum sicut illi”. But an express legal direction to abolish marriage cannot have existed in the collection of oracles possessed by Tertullian. But who can guarantee that they were not already corrected? Such an assumption, however, is not necessary. b05 203Euseb., V. 16. 9: V. 18. 5. 204 It will not do simply to place Montanus and his two female associates in the same category as the prophets of primitive Christian Churches. The claim that the Spirit had descended upon them in unique fashion must have been put forth by themselves with unmistakable clearness. If we apply the principle laid down on p. 98, note 3, we will find that — apart from the prophets’ own utterances — this is still clearly manifest from the

works of Tertullian. A consideration of the following facts will remove all doubt as to the claim of the new prophets to the possession of an unique mission. (1) From the beginning both opponents and followers constantly applied the title “New Prophecy” to the phenomenon in question (Euseb., V. 16. 4: V. 19. 2; Clem., Strom. IV. 13. 93; Tertull., monog. 14, ieiun. 1, resurr. 63, Marc. III. 24: IV. 22, Prax. 30; Firmil. ep. 75. 7; alii). (2) Similarly, the divine afflatus was, from the first, constantly designated as the “Paraclete” (Orac. no. 5; Tertull. passim; Hippol. passim; Didymus etc.). (3) Even in the third century the Montanist congregations of the Empire must still have doubted whether the Apostles had possessed this Paraclete or not, or at least whether this had been the case in the full sense. Tertullian identifies the Spirit and the Paraclete and declares that the Apostles possessed the latter in full measure — in fact as a Catholic he could not do otherwise. Nevertheless he calls Montanus etc. “prophetæ proprii” of the Spirit (pudic. 12; see Acta Perpet. 21). On the contrary we find in Philos. VIII. 19: ὑπὲρ δὲ ἀποστόλους καὶ πᾶν χάρισµα ταῦτα τὰ γύναια δοξάζουσιν, ὡς τολµᾶν πλεῖόν τι Χριστοῦ ἐν τούτοις λέγειν τινὰς αὐτῶν γεγονέναι. Pseudo-Tertullian says: “in apostolis quidem dicunt spiritum sanctum fuisse, paracletum non fuisse, et paracletum plura in Montano dixisse quam Ch 547 ristum in evangelio protulisse.” In Didymus, 1.c., we read: τοῦ ἀποστόλου γράψαντος κ.τ.λ., ἐκεῖνοι λέγουσιν τὸν Μοντανὸν ἐληλυθέναι καὶ ἐσχηκέναι τὸ τέλειον τὸ τοῦ παρακλήτου, τοῦτ᾽ τὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος. (4) Lastly, the Montanists asserted that the prediction contained in John XIV. ff. had been fulfilled in the new prophecy, and that from the beginning, as is denoted by the very expression “Paraclete.” What sort of mission they ascribed to themselves is seen from the last quoted passage, for the promises contained in it must be regarded as the enthusiastic carrying out of Montanus’ programme. If we read attentively John XIV. 16-21, 23, 26: ae5 XV. 20-26: XVI. 7-15, 25 as well as XVII. and X.; if we compare the oracles of the prophets still preserved to us; if we consider the attempt of Montanus to gather the scattered Christians and really form them into a flock, and also his claim to be the bearer of the greatest and last revelations that lead to all truth; and, finally, if we call to mind that in those Johannine discourses Christ designated the coming of the Paraclete as his own coming in the Paraclete and spoke of an immanence and unity of Father, Son, and Paraclete, which one finds re-echoed in Montanus’ Oracle No. V., we cannot avoid concluding that the latter’s undertaking is based on the impression made on excited and impatient prophets by the promises contained in the Gospel of John, understood in an apocalyptic and realistic sense, and also by Matt. XXIII. 34 (see Euseb., V. 16. 12 sq.). The correctness of this interpretation is proved by the fact that the first decided opponents of the Montanists in Asia — the so-called “Alogi” (Epiph., H. 51) — rejected both the Gospel and Revelation of John, that is, regarded them as written by some one else. Montanism therefore shows us the first and — up till about 180 — really the only impression made by the Gospel of John on non-Gnostic Gentile Christians; and what a remarkable one it was! It has a parallel in Marcion’s conception of Paulinism. Here we obtain glimpses of a state of matters which probably explains why these writings were made innocuous in the canon. To the view advanced here it cannot be objected that the later adherents of the new prophets founded their claims on the recognised gift of prophecy in the Church, or on a prophetic succession (Euseb., H. E. V. 17. 4; Proculus in the same author, II. 25. 7: III.

of the “absoluteness of 100 ac7 a historically complete revelation of Christ as the fundamental condition of Christian consciousness;” they only felt a Spirit to which they yielded unconditionally and without reserve. But, after they had quitted the scene, their followers sought and found a kind of compromise. The Montanist congregations that sought for recognition in Rome, whose part was taken by the Gallic confessors, and whose principles gained a footing in North Africa, may have stood in the same relation to the original adherents of the new prophets and to these prophets themselves, as the Mennonite communities did to the primitive Anabaptists and their empire in Münster. The “Montanists” outside of Asia Minor acknowledged to the fullest extent the legal position of the great Church. They declared their adherence 101to the apostolic “regula” and the New Testament canon.205 The organisation of the Churches, and, above all, the position of the bishops as successors of the Apostles and guardians of doctrine were no longer disputed. The distinction between them and the main body of Christendom, from which they were unwilling to secede, was their belief in the new prophecy of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, which was contained, in its final form, in written

31. 4), nor that Tertullian, when it suits him, simply regards the new prophecy as a restitutio (e.g., in Monog. 4); for these assumptions merely represent the unsuccessful attempt to legitimise this phenomenon within the Catholic Church. In proof of the fact that Montanus appealed to the Gospel of John 564 see Jerome, Ep. 41 (Migne, I. p. 474), which begins with the words: “Testimonia de Johannis evangelio congregata, quæ tibi quidam Montani sectator ingessit, in quibus salvator noster se ad patrem iturum missurumque paracletum pollicetur etc.” In opposition to this Jerome argues that the promises about the Paraclete are fulfilled in Acts II., as Peter said in his speech, and then continues as follows: “Quodsi voluerint respondere et Philippi deinceps quattuor filias prophetasse et prophetam Agabum reperiri et in divisionibus spiritus inter apostolos et doctores et prophetas quoque apostolo scribente formatos, etc.” 205 We are assured of this not only by Tertullian, but also by the Roman Montanist Pro ac8 culus, who, like the former, argued against heretics, and by the testimony of the Church Fathers (see, e.g., Philos. VIII. 19). It was chiefly on the ground of their orthodoxy that Tertullian urged the claim of the new prophets to a hearing; and it was, above all, as a Montanist that he felt himself capable of combating the Gnostics, since the Paraclete not only confirmed the regula, but also by unequivocal utterances cleared up ambiguous and obscure passages in the Holy Scriptures, and (as was asserted) completely rejected doctrines like the Monarchian (see fuga 1, 14; corona 4; virg. vel. 1; Prax. 2, 13, 30; resurr. 63; pud. 1; monog. 2; ieiun. 10, 11). Besides, we see from Tertullian’s writings that the secession of the Montanist conventicles from the Church was forced upon them.

records and in this shape may have produced the same impression as is excited by the fragments of an exploded bomb.206 In this new prophecy they recognised a subsequent revelation of God, which for that very reason assumed the existence of a previous one. This after-revelation professed to decide the practical questions which, at the end of the second century, were burning topics throughout all Christendom, and for which no direct divine law could hitherto be adduced, in the form of a strict injunction. Herein lay the importance of the new prophecy for its adherents in the Empire, and for this reason they believed in it.207 53c The belief in the efficacy of the Paraclete, 102who, in order to establish a relatively stricter standard of conduct in Christendom during the latter days, had, a few decades before, for several years given his revelations in a remote corner of the Empire, was the dregs of the original enthusiasm, the real aspect of which had been known only to the fewest. But the diluted form in which this force remained was still a mighty power, because it was just in the generation between 190 and 220 that the secularising of the Church had made the greatest strides. Though the followers of the new prophecy merely insisted on abstinence from second marriage, on stricter regulations with regard to fasts, on a stronger manifestation of the Christian spirit in daily life, in morals and customs, and finally on

206

The question as to whether the new prophecy had or had not to be recognised as such became the decisive one (fuga 1, 14; coron. 1; virg. vel. 1; Prax. 1; pudic. 11; monog. 1). This prophecy was recorded in writing (Euseb., V. 18. 1; Epiph., H. 48. 10; Euseb., VI. 20). The putting of this question, however, denoted a fundamental weakening of conviction, which was accompanied by a corresponding falling off in the application of the prophetic utterances. 207 The situation that preceded the acceptance of the new prophecy in a portion of Christendom may be studied in Tertullian’s writings “de idolol.” and “de spectac.” Christianity had already been conceived as a nova lex throughout the whole Church, and this lex had, moreover, been clearly defined in its bearing on the faith. But, as regards outward conduct, there was no definite lex, and arguments in favour both of strictness and of laxity were brought forward from the Holy Scriptures. No divine ordinances about morality could be adduced against the progressive secularising of Christianity; but there was need of statutory commandments ac8 by which all the limits were clearly defined. In this state of perplexity the oracles of the new prophets were gladly welcomed; they were utilised in order to justify and invest with divine authority a reaction of a moderate kind. More than that — as may be inferred from Tertullian’s unwilling confession — could not be attained; but it is well known that even this result was not reached. Thus the Phrygian movement was employed in support of undertakings, that had no real connection with it. But this was the form in which Montanism first became a factor in the history of the Church. To what extent it had been so before, particularly as regards the creation of a New Testament canon (in Asia Minor and Rome), cannot be made out with certainty.

the full resolve not to avoid suffering and martyrdom for Christ’s name’s sake, but to bear them willingly and joyfully,208 yet, under the given circumstances, these requirements, in spite of the express repudiation of everything “Encratite,” ae0 209 implied a demand that directly endangered the conquests already made by the Church and impeded the progress of the new propaganda.210 The people who put forth these demands, expressly based them on the injunctions of the Paraclete, and really lived in accordance with them, were not permanently capable of maintaining their position in the Church. In fact, the endeavour to found these demands 103on the legislation of the Paraclete was an undertaking quite as strange, in form and content, as the possible attempt to represent the wild utterances of determined anarchists as the programme of a constitutional government. It was of no avail that they appealed to the confirmation of the rule of faith by the Paraclete; that they demonstrated the harmlessness of the new prophecy, thereby involving themselves in contradictions;211 that they showed all

208

See Bonwetsch, l.c., p. 82-108. This is the point about which Tertullian’s difficulties are greatest. Tatian is expressly repudiated in de ieiun. 15. 210 Tertullian (de monog.) is not deterred by such a limitation: “qui potest capere capiat, inquit, id est qui non potest discedat.” 211 It is very instructive, but at the same time very painful, to trace Tertullian’s endeavours to reconcile the irreconcilable, in other words, to show that the prophecy is new and yet not so; that it does not impair the full authority of the New Testament and yet supersedes it. He is forced to maintain the theory that the Paraclete stands in the same relation to the Apostles as ac8 Christ does to Moses, and that he abrogates the concessions made by the Apostles and even by Christ himself; whilst he is at the same time obliged to reassert the sufficiency of both Testaments. In connection with this he hit upon the peculiar theory of stages in revelation — a theory which, were it not a mere expedient in his case, one might regard as the first faint trace of a historical view of the question. Still, this is another case of a dilemma, furnishing theology with a conception that she has cautiously employed in succeeding times, when brought face to face with certain difficulties; see virg. vel. 1; exhort. 6; monog. 2, 3, 14; resurr. 63. For the rest, Tertullian is at bottom a Christian of the old stamp; the theory of any sort of finality in revelation is of no use to him except in its bearing on heresy; for the Spirit continually guides to all truth and works wherever he will. Similarly, his only reason for not being an Encratite is that this mode of life had already been adopted by heretics, and become associated with dualism. But the conviction that all religion must have the character of a fixed law and presupposes definite regulations — a belief not emanating from primitive Christianity, but from Rome — bound him to the Catholic Church. Besides, the contradictions with which he struggled were by no means peculiar to him; in so far as the Montanist societies accepted the Catholic regulations, they weighed on them all, and in all probability crushed them out of existence. In Asia Minor, where the breach took place 209

honour to the New Testament; and that they did not insist on the oracles of the Paraclete being inserted in it.212 As soon as they proved the earnestness of their temperate 104but far-reaching demands, a deep gulf that neither side could ignore opened up between them and their opponents. Though here and there an earnest effort was made to avoid a schism, yet in a short time this became unavoidable; for variations in rules of conduct make fellowship impossible. The lax Christians, who, on the strength of their objective possession, viz., the apostolic doctrine and writings, sought to live comfort-ably by conforming to the ways of the world, necessarily sought to rid themselves of inconvenient societies and inconvenient monitors;213 575 and they could only do so by reproaching the latter with heresy and unchristian assumptions. Moreover, the followers of the new prophets could not permanently recognise the Churches of the “Psychical,”214 which rejected the “Spirit” and extended their toleration so far as to retain even whoremongers and adulterers within their pale. In the East, that is, in Asia Minor, the breach between the Montanists and the Church had in all probability broken out before the question of Church discipline and the right of the bishops had yet been clearly raised. In Rome and Carthage this question

earlier, the sect held its ground longer. In North Africa the residuum was a remarkable propensity to visions, holy dreams, and the like. The feature which forms the peculiar characteristic of the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas is still found in a similar shape in Cyprian himself, who makes powerful use of visions and dreams; and in the genuine African Acts of the Martyrs, dating from Valerian’s time, which are unfortunately little studied. See, above all, the Acta Jacobi, Mariani etc., and the Acta Montani, Lucii etc. (Ruinart, Acta Mart. edit Ratisb. 1859, p. 268 sq., p. 275 sq.) 212 Nothing is known of attempts at a formal incorporation of the Oracles with the New Testament. Besides, the Montanists could dispense with this because they distinguished the commandments of the Paraclete as “novissima lex” from the “novum aa7 testamentum.” The preface to the Montanist Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas (was Tertullian the author?) showed indeed the high value attached to the visions of martyrs. In so far as these were to be read in the Churches they were meant to be reckoned as an “instrumentum ecclesiæ?” in the wider sense. 213 Here the bishops themselves occupy the foreground (there are complaints about their cowardice and serving of two masters in the treatise de fuga). But it would be very unjust simply to find fault with them as Tertullian does. Two interests combined to influence their conduct; for if they drew the reins tight they gave over their flock to heresy or heathenism. This situation is already evident in Hermas and dominates the resolutions of the Church leaders in succeeding generations (see below). 214 The distinction of “Spiritales” and “Psychici” on the part of the Montanists is not confined to the West (see Clem., Strom. IV. 13. 93); we find it very frequently in Tertullian. In itself it did not yet lead to the formal breach with the Catholic Church.

completed the rupture that had already taken place between the conventicles and the Church (de pudic. 1. 21). Here, by a peremptory edict, the bishop of Rome claimed the right of forgiving sins as successor of the Apostles; and declared that he would henceforth exercise this right in favour of repentant adulterers. Among the Montanists this claim was 105violently contested both ac8 in an abstract sense and in this application of it. The Spirit the Apostles had received, they said, could not be transmitted; the Spirit is given to the Church; he works in the prophets, but lastly and in the highest measure in the new prophets. The latter, however, expressly refused to readmit gross sinners, though recommending them to the grace of God (see the saying of the Paraclete, de pud. 21; “potest ecclesia donare delictum, sed non faciam”). Thus agreement was no longer possible. The bishops were determined to assert the existing claims of the Church, even at the cost of her Christian character, or to represent the constitution of the Catholic Church as the guarantee of that character. At the risk of their own claim to be Catholic, the Montanist sects resisted in order to preserve the minimum legal requirements for a Christian life. Thus the opposition culminated in an attack on the new powers claimed by the bishops, and in consequence awakened old memories as to the original state of things, when the clergy had possessed no importance.215 But the ultimate motive was the effort to stop the continuous secularising of the Christian life and to preserve the virginity of the Church as a holy community.216 In his latest writings Tertullian vigorously

215

A contrast to the bishops and the regular congregational offices existed in primitive Montanism. This was transmitted in a weakened form to the later adherents of the new prophecy (cf. the Gallic confessors’ strange letter of recommendation on behalf of Irenæus in Euseb., H. E. V. 4), and finally broke forth with renewed vigour in opposition to the measures of the lax bishops (de pudic. 21; de exhort. 7; Hippolytus against Calixtus). The ecclesia, represented as numerus episcoparum, no longer preserved its prestige in the eyes of Tertullian. 216 See here particularly, de pudicitia 1, where Tertullian sees the virginity of the Church not in pure doctrine, but in strict precepts for a holy life. As will have been seen in this account, the oft debated question as to whether Montanism was an innovation or merely a reaction does not admit of a simple answer. In its original shape it was undoubtedly an innovation; but it existed at the end of a period when one cannot very well speak of innovations, because no bounds had yet been set to subjective religiosity. Montanus decidedly went further than any Christian prophets known to us; Hermas, too, no doubt gave injunctions, as a prophet, which gave rise to innovations in Christendom; but these fell short of Montanus’ proceedings. In its later shape, however, Montanism was to all intents and purposes a reaction, which aimed at maintaining or reviving an older state of things. So far, however, as this was to be done by legislation, by a

106defended

a position already lost, and carried with him to the grave the old strictness of conduct insisted on by the Church.

Had victory remained with the stricter party, which, though not invariably, appealed to the injunctions of the Paraclete,217 the Church would have been rent asunder and decimated. The great opportunist party, however, was in a very difficult position, since their opponents merely seemed to be acting up to a conception that, in many respects, could not be theoretically disputed. The problem was how to carry on with caution the work of naturalising Christianity in the world, and at the sam 564 e time avoid all appearance of innovation which, as such, was opposed to the principle of Catholicism. The bishops therefore assailed the form of the new prophecy on the ground of innovation;218 they sought to throw suspicion on its content; in some cases even Chiliasm, as represented by the Montanists, was declared to have a Jewish and fleshly character.219 They tried to show that the moral demands of their opponents were extravagant, that they savoured of the ceremonial law (of the Jews), were opposed to Scripture, and were derived from the worship of Apis, Isis, and the mother of the Gods.220 To the 107claim ac8 of furnishing the Church with authentic oracles of God, set up by their antagonists, the bishops opposed the newly formed canon; and declared that everything binding on Christians was contained in the utterances of the Old

novissima lex, we have an evident innovation analogous to the Catholic development. Whe ab1 reas in former times exalted enthusiasm had of itself, as it were, given rise to strict principles of conduct among its other results, these principles, formulated with exactness and detail, were now meant to preserve or produce that original mode of life. Moreover, as soon as the New Testament was recognised, the conception of a subsequent revelation through the Paraclete was a highly questionable and strange innovation. But for those who acknowledged the new prophecy all this was ultimately nothing but a means. Its practical tendency, based as it was on the conviction that the Church abandons her character if she does not resist gross secularisation at least, was no innovation, but a defence of the most elementary requirements of primitive Christianity in opposition to a Church that was always more and more becoming a new thing. 217 There were of course a great many intermediate stages between the extremes of laxity and rigour, and the new prophecy was by no means recognised by all those who had strict views as to the principles of Christian polity; see the letters of Dionysius of Corinth in Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. Melito, the prophet, eunuch, and bishop, must also be reckoned as one of the stricter party, but not as a Montanist. We must judge similarly of Irenæus. 218 Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 17. The life of the prophets themselves was subsequently subjected to sharp criticism. 219 This was first done by the so-called Alogi who, however, had to be repudiated. 220 De ieiun. 12, 16.

Testament prophets and the Apostles. Finally, they began to distinguish between the standard of morality incumbent on the clergy and a different one applying to the laity,221 as, for instance, in the question of a single marriage; and they dwelt with increased emphasis on the glory of the heroic Christians, belonging to the great Church, who had distinguished themselves by asceticism and joyful submission to martyrdom. By these methods they brought into disrepute that which had once been dear to the whole Church, but was now of no further service. In repudiating supposed abuses they more and more weakened the regard felt for the thing itself, as, for example, in the case of the so-called Chiliasm,222 congregational prophecy and the spiritual independence of the laity. But none of these things could be absolutely rejected; hence, for example, Chiliasm remained virtually unweakened (though subject to limitations223) in the West and certain districts of the East; whereas prophecy lost its force so much that it appeared harmless and therefore died away.224 108However, the most

221

Tertullian protested against this in the most energetic manner. It is well known that in the 3rd century the Revelation of John itself was viewed with suspicion and removed from the canon in wide circles in the East. 223 In the West the Chiliastic hopes were little or not at all affected by the Montanist struggle. C ac8 hiliasm prevailed there in unimpaired strength as late as the 4th century. In the East, on the contrary, the apocalyptic expectations were immediately weakened by the Montanist crisis. But it was philosophical theology that first proved their mortal enemy. In the rural Churches of Egypt Chiliasm was still widely prevalent after the middle of the 3rd century; see the instructive 24th chapter of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Book VII. “Some of their teachers,” says Dionysius, “look on the Law and the Prophets as nothing, neglect to obey the Gospel, esteem the Epistles of the Apostles as little worth, but, on the contrary, declare the doctrine contained in the Revelation of John to be a great and a hidden mystery.” There were even temporary disruptions in the Egyptian Church on account of Chiliasm (see Chap. 24. 6). 224 “Lex et prophetæ usque ad Johannem” now became the motto. Churchmen spoke of a “completus numerus prophetarum” (Muratorian Fragment), and formulated the proposition that the prophets corresponded to the pre-Christian stage of revelation, but the Apostles to the Christian; and that in addition to this the apostolic age was also particularly distinguished by gifts of the Spirit. “Prophets and Apostles” now replaced “Apostles, prophets, and teachers,” as the court of appeal. Under such circumstances prophecy might still indeed exist; but it could no longer be of a kind capable of ranking, in the remotest degree, with the authority of the Apostles in point of importance. Hence it was driven into a corner, became extinct, or at most served only to support the measures of the bishops. In order to estimate the great revolution in the spirit of the times let us compare the utterances of Irenæus and Origen about gifts of the Spirit and prophecy. Irenaeus still expressed himself exactly like Justin (Dial. 39, 81, 82, 88); he says (II. 32. 4: V. 6. 1): καθὼς καὶ πολλῶν ἀκούοµεν ἀδελφῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ προφητικὰ 222

effective means of legitimising the present state of things in the Church was a circumstance closely connected with the formation of a canon of early Christian writings, viz., the distinction of an epoch of revelation, along with a corresponding classical period of Christianity unattainable by later generations. This period was connected with the present by means of the New Testament and the apostolic office 55c of the bishops. This later time was to regard the older period as an ideal, but might not dream of really attaining the same perfection, except at least through the medium of the Holy Scriptures and the apostolic office, that is, the Church. The place of the holy Christendom that had the Spirit in its midst was taken by the ecclesiastic institution possessing the “instrument of divine literature” (“instrumentum divinæ litteraturæ”) and the spiritual office. Finally, we must mention another factor that hastened the various changes; this was the theology of the Christian philosophers, which attained importance in the Church as soon as she based her claim on and satisfied her conscience with an objective possession. 3. But there was one rule which specially impeded the naturalisation of the Church in the world and the transformation of a communion of the saved into an institution for obtaining 109salvation, viz., the regulation that excluded gross sinners from Christian membership. Down to the beginning of the third century, in so far as the backslider did not atone for his guilt225 ad0 by public confession before the authorities (see Ep. Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. 1 ff.), final exclusion from the Church was still the penalty of

χαρίσµατα ἐχόντων κ.τ.λ. Origen on the contrary (see numerous passages, especially in the treatise c. Cels.), looks back to a period after which the Spirit’s gifts in the Church ceased. It is also a very characteristic circumstance that along with the naturalisation of Christianity in the world, the disappearance of charisms, and the strug 564 gle against Gnosticism, a strictly ascetic mode of life came to be viewed with suspicion. Euseb., H. E. V. 3 is especially instructive on this point. Here it is revealed to the confessor Attalus that the confessor Alcibiades, who even in captivity continued his ascetic practice of living on nothing but bread and water, was wrong in refraining from that which God had created and thus become a “τύπος σκανδάλου” to others. Alcibiades changed his mode of life. In Africa, however, (see above, p. 103) dreams and visions still retained their authority in the Church as important means of solving perplexities. 225 Tertullian, adv. Marc. IV. 9, enumerates “septem maculas capitalium delictorum,” namely, “idololatria”, “blasphemia”, “homicidium”, “adulterium” “stuprum”, “falsum testimonium”, “fraus”. The stricter treatment probably applied to all these seven offences. So far as I know, the lapse into heresy was not placed in the same category in the first centuries; see Iren. III. 4. 2 ac8 ; Tertull., de præser. 30 and, above all, de pudic. 19 init.; the anonymous writer in Euseb., H. E. V. 28. 12, from which passages it is evident that repentant heretics were readmitted.

relapse into idolatry, adultery, whoredom, and murder; though at the same time the forgiveness of God in the next world was reserved for the fallen provided they remained penitent to the end. In theory indeed this rule was not very old. For the oldest period possessed no theories; and in those days Christians frequently broke through what might have been counted as one by appealing to the Spirit, who, by special announcements — particularly by the mouth of martyrs and prophets — commanded or sanctioned the readmission of lapsed members of the community (see Hermas).226 Still, the rule corresponded to the ancient notions that Christendom is a communion of saints, that there is no ceremony invariably capable of replacing baptism, that is, possessing the same value, and that God alone can forgive sins. The practice must on the whole have agreed with this rule; but in the course of the latter half of the second century it became an established custom, in the case of a first relapse, to allow atonement to be made once for most sins and perhaps indeed for all, on condition of public confession.227

226

Hermas based the admissibility of a second atonement on a definite divine revelation to this effect, and did not expressly discuss the admission of gross sinners into the Church generally, but treated of their reception into that of the last days, which he believed had already arrived. See particulars on this point in my article “Lapsi”, in Herzog Real-Encyklopädie, 2 ed. Cf. Preuschen, Tertullian’s Schriften de pænit. et de pudic. mit Rücksicht auf die Bussdisciplin, 1890; Rolffs, Indulgenz-Edict des Kallistus, 1893. 227 In the work de pænit. (7 ff.) Tertullian treats this as a fixed Church regulation. K. Müller, Kirchengeschichte I. 1892 p. 114, rightly remarks: “He who desired this expiation continued in the wider circle of the Church, in her “antechamber” indeed, but as her member in the wider sense. This, however, did not exclude the possibility of his being received again, even in this world, into the ranks of those possessing full Christian privileges, — after the performance of penance or exhomologesis. But there was no kind of certainty as to that taking place. Meanwhile this exhomologesis itself underwent a transformation which in Tertullian includes a whole series of basal religious ideas. It is no longer a mere expression of inward feeling, confession to God and the brethren, but is essentially performance. It is the actual attestation of heartfelt sorrow, the undertaking to satisfy God by works of self-humiliation and abnegation, which he can accept as a voluntarily endured punishment and therefore as a substitute for the penalty that naturally awaits the sinner. It is thus the means of pacifying God, appeasing his anger, and gaining his favour again — with the consequent possibility of readmission into the Church. I say the possibility, for readmission does not always follow. Participation in the future kingdom may be hope 564 d for even by him who in this world is shut out from full citizenship and merely remains in the ranks of the penitent. In all probability then it still continued the rule for a person to remain till death in a state of penance or exhomologesis. For readmission continued to involve the assumption that the Church had in some way or other become certain that God had forgiven the sinner, or in other words

For this, appeal was probably made 110to Hermas, who very likely owed his prestige to the service he here unwittingly rendered. We say “unwittingly,” for he could scarcely have intended such an application of his precepts, though at bottom it was not directly opposed to his attitude. In point of fact, however, this practice introduced something closely approximating to a second baptism. Tertullian indeed (de pænit. 12) speaks unhesitatingly of two planks of salvation.228 Moreover, if we consider that in any particular case the decision as to the deadly nature of the sin in question was frequently atten 53c ded with great difficulty, and certainly, as a rule, was not arrived at with rigorous exactness, we cannot fail to see that, in conceding a second expiation, the Church was beginning to abandon the old idea that Christendom was a community of 111saints. Nevertheless the fixed practice of refusing whoremongers, adulterers, murderers, and idolaters readmission to the Church, in ordinary cases, prevented men from forgetting that there was a boundary line dividing her from the world. This state of matters continued till about 220.229 In reality the rule was first infringed by the peremptory edict of bishop Calixtus, who, in order to avoid breaking up his community, granted readmission to those who had fallen into sins of the flesh. Moreover, he claimed this power of readmission as a right appertaining to the bishops as successors of the Apostles, that is, as possessors of the Spirit and the power of the keys. af0 1 At Rome that she had power to grant this forgiveness in virtue of the Spirit dwelling in her, and that this readmission therefore involved no violation of her holiness.” In such instances it is first prophets and then martyrs that appear as organs of the Spirit, till at last it is no longer the inspired Christian, but the professional medium of the Spirit, viz., the priest, who decides everything. 228 In the 2nd century even endeavours at a formal repetition of baptism were not wholly lacking. In Marcionite congregations repetition of baptism is said to have taken place (on the Elkesaites see Vol. I. p. 308). One can only wonder that 564 there is not more frequent mention of such attempts. The assertion of Hippolytus (Philos. IX. 12 fin.) is enigmatical: Ἐπὶ Kαλλίστου πρώτω τετόλµηται δεύτερον ἀυτοῖς βάπ . 229 See Tertull., de pudic. 12: “hinc est quod neque idololatriæ neque sanguini pax ab ecclesiis redditur.” Orig., de orat. 28 fin; c. Cels. III. 50. 230 It is only of whoremongers and idolaters that Tertullian expressly speaks in de pudic. c. I. We must interpret in accordance with this the following statement by Hippolytus in Philos. IX. 12: Κάλλιστος πρῶτος τὰ πρὸς τὰς ἡδονὰς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συγχωρεῖν ἐ 526 πενόησε, λέγων πᾶσιν ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ ἀφίεσθαι ἁµαρτίας. The aim of this measure is still clear from the account of it given by Hippolytus, though this indeed is written in a hostile spirit. Roman Christians were then split into at least five different sects, and Calixtus left nothing undone to break up the unfriendly parties and enlarge his own. In all probability, too, the energetic bishop met with a certain measure of success.

this rescript led to the secession headed by Hippolytus. But, between 220 and 250, the milder practice with regard to the sins of the flesh became prevalent, though it was not yet universally accepted. This, however, resulted in no further schism (Cyp., ep. 55. 21). But up to the year 250 no concessions were allowed in the case of relapse into idolatry.231 These were first occasioned by the Decian persecution, since in many towns those who had abjured Christianity were more numerous than those who adhered to it.232 The majority of the bishops, part of them with hesitation, agreed on new principles.233 112To begin with, permission was given to absolve repentant apostates on their deathbed. Next, a distinction was made between sacrificati and libellatici, the latter being more mildly treated. Finally, the possibility of readmission was conceded under certain severe conditions to all the lapsed, a casuistic proceeding was adopted in regard to the laity, and strict measures — though this was not the universal rule — were only adopted towards the clergy. In consequence of this innovation, which logically resulted in the gradual cessation of the belief that there can be only one repentance after baptism — an assumption that was untenable in principle — Novatian’s schism took place and speedily rent the Church in twain. But, even in cases where unity was maintained, many communities observed the stricter practice down to the fifth century.234 What made it difficult to introduce this change by regular l 564 egislation was the authority to forgive sins in God’s stead, ascribed in primitive times to the inspired, and at a later period to the confessors in virtue of their special relation to Christ or the Spirit (see Ep. Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. 1 ff.; Cypr. epp.; Tertull. de pudic. 22). The confusion occasioned by the confessors after the Decian persecution led to the non-recognition of any rights of “spiritual” persons other than the bishops. These confessors had frequently abetted laxity of conduct, whereas, if we consider the measure of secularisation found among the great mass of Christians, the penitential discipline

From Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 6, one might be inclined to conclude that, even in Marcus Aurelius’ time, Dionysius of Corinth had issued lax injunctions similar to those of Calixtus. But it must not he forgotten that we have nothing but Eusebius’ report; and it is just in questions of this kind that his accounts are not reliable. 231 No doubt persecutions were practically unknown in the period between 220 and 260. b06 232See Cypr., de lapsis. 233 What scruples were caused by this innovation is shown by the first 40 letters in Cyprian’s collection. He himself had to struggle with painful doubts. 234 Apart from some epistles of Cyprian, Socrates, II. E. V. 22, is our chief source of information on this point. See also Conc. Illib. can. 1, 2, 6-8, 12, 17, 18-47, 70-73, 75.

insisted on by the bishops is remarkable for its comparative severity. The complete adoption of the episcopal constitution coincided with the introduction of the unlimited right to forgive sins.235 113

4. The original conception of the relation of the Church to salvation or eternal bliss was altered by this development. According to the older notion the Church was the sure communion of salvation and of saints, which rested ac8 on the forgiveness of sins mediated by baptism, and excluded everything unholy. It is not the Church, but God alone, that forgives sins, and, as a rule, indeed, this is only done through baptism, though, in virtue of his unfathomable grace, also now and then by special proclamations, the pardon coming into effect for repentant sinners, after death, in heaven. If Christendom readmitted gross sinners, it would anticipate the judgment of God, as it would thereby assure them of salvation. Hence it can only take back those who have been excluded in cases where their offences have not been committed against God himself, but have consisted in transgressing the commandments of the Church, that is, in venial sins.236 But in course of time it was just in lay circles that faith in God’s grace became weaker trust in the Church stronger. He whom the Church abandoned was lost to the world; therefore she must not abandon him. This state of things was expressed in the new interpretation of the proposition, “no salvation outside the Church” (“extra ecclesiam nulla salus”), viz., the Church alone saves from damnation which is otherwise certain. In this conception the nature

235

See my article “Novatian” in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, 2nd ed. One might be tempted to assume that the introduction of the practice of unlimited forgiveness of sins was an “evangelical reaction” against the merciless legalism which, in the case of the Gentile Church indeed, had established itself from the beginning. As a matter of fact the bishops and the laxer party appealed to the New Testament in justification of their practice. This had already been done by the followers of Calixtus and by himself. See Philos. IX. 12: φάσκοντες Χριστὸν ἀφιέναι τοῖς εὐδοκοῦσι; Rom. XIV. 4 and Matt. XIII. 29 were also quoted. Before this Tertuilian’s opponents who favoured laxity had appealed exactly in the same way to numerous Bible texts, e.g., Matt. X. 23: XI. 19 etc., see de monog., de pudic., de ieiun. Cyprian is also able to quote many passages from the Gospels. However, as the bishops and their party did not modify their conception of baptism, but rather maintained in principle, as before, that baptism imposes only obligations for the future, the “evangelical reaction” must not be estimated very highly; (see below, p. 117, and my essay in th ac8 e Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Vol. I., “Die Lehre von der Seligkeit allein durch den Glauben in der alten Kirche.” 236 The distinction of sins committed against God himself, as we find it in Tertullian, Cyprian, and other Fathers, remains involved in an obscurity that I cannot clear up.

of the Church is depotentiated, but her powers are extended. If she is the institution which, according to Cyprian, is the indispensable preliminary condition of salvation, she can no longer be a sure communion of the saved; in other words, she becomes an institution from which proceeds the communion of saints; she includes both saved and unsaved. Thus her religious character consists in her being the indispensable 114medium, in so far as she alone guarantees to the individual the possibility of redemption. From this, however, it immediately follows that the Church would anticipate the judgment of God if she finally excluded anyone from her membership who did not give her up of his own accord; whereas she could never prejudge the ultimate destiny of a man by readmission.237 But it also follows that the Church must possess a means of repairing any injury upon earth, a means of equal value with baptism, namely, a sacrament of the forgiveness of sins. With this she 559 acts in God’s name and stead, but — and herein lies the inconsistency — she cannot by this means establish any final condition of salvation. In bestowing forgiveness on the sinner she in reality only reconciles him with herself, and thereby, in fact, merely removes the certainty of damnation. In accordance with this theory the holiness of the Church can merely consist in her possession of the means of salvation: the Church is a holy institution in virtue of the gifts with which she is endowed. She is the moral seminary that trains for salvation and the institution that exercises divine powers in Christ’s room. Both of these conceptions presuppose political forms; both necessarily require priests and more especially an episcopate. (In de pudic. 21 Tertullian already defines the position of his adversary by the saying, “ecclesia est numerus episcoporum.”) This episcopate by its unity guarantees the unity of the Church and has received the power to forgive sins (Cyp., ep. 69. 11). The new conception of the Church, which was a necessary outcome of existing circumstances and which, we may remark, was not formulated in contradictory terms by Cyprian, but by Roman bishops, ac2 1 was the first thing that gave a fundamental

237

Cyprian never expelled any one from the Church, unless he had attacked the authority of the bishops, and thus in the opinion of this Father placed himself outside her pale by his own act. 238 Hippol., Philos. IX. 12: Καὶ παραβολὴν τῶν ζιζανίων πρὸς τοῦτο ἔφη ὁ Κάλλιστος λέγεσθαι· Ἄφετε τὰ ζιζάνια συναύξειν τῷ σιτῷ τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοὺς ἁµαρτάνοντας. Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ Νῶε εἰς ὁµοίωµα ἐκκλησίας ἔφη γεγονέναι, ἐν ᾗ καὶ κύνες καὶ λύκοι καὶ κόρακες κὰι πάντα τὰ καθαρὰ καὶ ἀκάθαρτα. ὁύτω φάσκων δεῖν εἶναι ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ὁµοίως· καὶ ὅσα πρὸς τοῦτο δυνατὸς ἦν

115religious

significance to the separation of clergy and laity. The powers exercised by bishops and priests were thereby fixed and hallowed. No doubt the old order of things, which gave laymen a share in the administration of moral discipline, still continued in the third century, but it became more and more a mere form. The bishop became the practical vicegerent of Christ; he disposed of the power to bind and to loose. But the recollection of the older form of Christianity continued to exert an influence on the Catholic Church of the third century. It is true that, if we can trust Hippolytus’ account, Calixtus had by this time firmly set his face against the older idea, inasmuch as he not only defined the Church as essentially a mixed body (corpus permixtum), but also asserted the unlawfulness of deposing the bishop even in case of mortal sin.239 But we do not find that definition in Cyprian, and, what is of more importance, he still required a definite degree of active Christianity as a sine quâ non in the case of bishops; and assumed it as a self-evident necessity. He who does not give evidence of this forfeits his episcopal office ipso facto.240 Now if we consider 116that Cyprian makes the Church, as the body of believers (plebs credentium), so dependent on the bishops, that the latter are the only Christians not under tutelage, the demand in question denotes a great deal. It carries out the old idea of the Church in a certain

συνάγειν ὁύτως ἡρµήνευσεν. From Tertull., de idolol. 24, one cannot help assuming that even before the year 200 the laxer sort in Carthage had already appealed to the Ark. (“Viderimus si secundum arcæ typum et corvus et milvus et lupus et canis et serpens in ecclesia erit. Certe idololatres in arcæ typo non habetur. Quod in arca non fuit, in ecclesia non sit”). But we do not know what form this took and what inferences they drew. Moreover, we have here a very instructive example of th aac e multitudinous difficulties in which the Fathers were involved by typology: the Ark is the Church, hence the dogs and snakes are men. To solve these problems it required an abnormal degree of acuteness and wit, especially as each solution always started fresh questions. Orig. (Hom. II. in Genes. III.) also viewed the Ark as the type of the Church (the working out of the image in Hom. I. in Ezech., Lomm. XIV. p. 24 sq., is instructive); but apparently in the wild animals he rather sees the simple Christians who are not yet sufficiently trained — at any rate he does not refer to the whoremongers and adulterers who must be tolerated in the Church. The Roman bishop Stephen again, positively insisted on Calixtus’ conception of the Church, whereas Cornelius followed Cyprian (see Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 10), who never declared sinners to be a necessary part of the Church in the same fashion as Calixtus did. (See the following note and Cyp., epp. 67. 6; 68. 5). 239 Philos., 1.c,: Κάλλιστος ἐδογµάτισεν ὅπως εἰ ἐπίσκοπος ἁµάρτοι τι, εἰ καὶ πρὸς θάνατον, µὴ δεῖν κατατίθεσθαι. That Hippolytus is not exaggerating here is evident from Cyp., epp. 67, 68; for these passages make it very probable that Stephen also assumed the irremovability of a bishop on account of gross sins or other failings. 240 See Cypr., epp. 65, 66, 68; also 55. 11.

fashion, as far as the bishops are concerned. But for this very reason it endangers the new conception in a point of capital importance; for the spiritual acts of a sinful bishop are invalid; 575 1 and if the latter, as a notorious sinner, is no longer bishop, the whole certainty of the ecclesiastical system ceases. Moreover, an appeal to the certainty of God’s installing the bishops and always appointing the right ones241 is of no avail, if false ones manifestly find their way in. Hence Cyprian’s idea of the Church — and this is no dishonour to him — still involved an inconsistency which, in the fourth century, was destined to produce a very serious crisis in the Donatist struggle.242 The view, however — which Cyprian never openly expressed, and which was merely the natural inference from his theory — that the Catholic Church, though the “one dove” (“una columba”), is in truth n abe ot coincident with the number of the elect, was clearly recognised and frankly expressed by Origen before him. Origen plainly distinguished between spiritual and fleshly members of the Church; and spoke of such as only belong to her outwardly, but are not Christians. As these are finally overpowered by the gates of hell, Origen does not hesitate to class them as merely seeming members of the Church. Conversely, he contemplates the possibility of a person being expelled from her fellowship and yet remaining a member in 117the eyes of God.243 Nevertheless he by no means attained to clearness

241

This is asserted by Cyprian in epp. 65. 4 and 67. 3; but he even goes on to declare that everyone is polluted that has fellowship with an impure priest, and takes part in the offering celebrated by him. ae4 242On this point the greatest uncertainty prevails in Cyprian. Sometimes he says that God himself instals the bishops, and it is therefore a deadly sin against God to criticise them (e.g., in ep. 66. 1); on other occasions he remembers that the bishops have been ordained by bishops; and again, as in ep. 67. 3, 4, he appears to acknowledge the community’s right to choose and control them. Cf. the sections referring to Cyprian in Reuter “Augustinische Studien” (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. VII., p. 199 ff.). 243 The Donatists were quite justified in appealing to Cyprian, that is, in one of his two aspects. 244 Origen not only distinguishes between different groups within the Church as judged by their spiritual understanding and moral development (Comm. in Matt. Tom. XI. at Chap. XV. 29; Hom. II. in Genes. Chap. 3; Hom. in Cantic. Tom. I. at Chap. I. 4: “ecclesia una quidem est, cum perfecta est; multæ vero sunt adolescentulæ, cum adhuc instruuntur et proficiunt”; Hom. III. in Levit. Chap. iii.), but also between spiritual and carnal members (Hom. XXVI. in Num. Chap. vii.) i.e., between true Christians and those who only bear that name without heartfelt faith — who outwardly take part in everything, but bring forth fruits neither in belief nor conduct. Such Christians he as little views as belonging to the Church as does Clement of Alexandria (see Strom. VII. 14. 87, 88). To him they are like the Jebusites who were left in Jerusalem; they have no part in the

on the point, in which case, moreover, he would have been the first to do so; nor did he give an impulse to further reflection on the problem. Besides, speculations were of no 118use here. The Church with her priests, her holy books, and gifts of grace, that is, the moderate secularisation of Christendom corrected by the means of grace, was absolutely needed in order to prevent a complete lapse into immorality.245

promises of Christ, but are lost (Comm. in Matt. T. XII. c. xii.). It is the Church’s task to remove such members, whence we see that Origen was far from sharing Calixtus’ view of the Church as a corpus permixtum; but to carry out this process so perfectly that only the holy and the saved remain is a work beyond ac0 the powers of human sagacity. One must therefore content oneself with expelling notorious sinners; see Hom. XXI. in Jos., c. i.: “sunt qui ignobilem et degenerem vitam ducunt, qui et fide et actibus et omni conversatione sua perversi sunt. Neque enim possibile est, ad liquidum purgari ecclesiam, dum in terris est, ita ut neque impius in ea quisquam, neque peccator residere videatur, sed sint in ea omnes sancti et beati, et in quibus nulla prorsus peccati macula deprehendatur. Sed sicut dicitur de zizaniis: Ne forte eradicantes zizania simul eradicetis et triticum, ita etiam super its dici potest, in quibus vel dubia vel occulta peccata sunt . . . Eos saltem eiiciamus quos possumus, quorum peccata manifesta sunt. Ubi enim peccatum non est evidens, eiicere de ecclesia neminem possumus.” In this way indeed very many wicked people remain in the Church (Comm. in Matt. T. X. at c. xiii. 47 f.: µὴ ξενιζῶµεθα, ἐάν ὁρῶµεν ἡµῶν τὰ ἀθροίσµατα πεπληρωµένα καὶ πονηρῶν); but in his work against Celsus Origen already propounded that empiric and relative theory of the Christian Churches which views them as simply “better” than the societies and civic communities existing alongside of them. The 29th and 30th chapters of the 3rd book against Celsus, in which he compares the Christians with the other population of Athens, Corinth, and Alexandria, and the heads of congregations with the councillors and mayors of these cities, are exceedingly instructive and attest the revolution of the times. In conclusion, however, we must point out that Origen expressly asserts that a person unjustly excommunicated remains a member of the Church in God’s eyes; see Hom. XIV. in Levit. c. iii.: “ita fit, ut interdum ille qui foras mittitur intus sit, et ille foris, qui intus videtur retineri.” Döllinger (Hippolytus and Calixtus, page 254 ff.) has correctly concluded that Origen followed the disputes between Hippolytus and Calixtus in Rome, and took the side of the former. Origen’s trenchant remarks about the pride and arrogance of the bishops of large towns (in Matth. XI. 9. 15: XII. 9-14: XVI. 8. 22 and elsewhere, e.g., de orat. 28, Hom. VI. in Isai. c. i., in Joh. X. 16), and his denunciation of such of them as, in order to glorify God, assume a mere distinction of names between Father and Son, are also correctly regarded by Langen as specially referring to the Roman ecclesiastics (Geschichte der römischen Kirche I. p. 242). Thus Calixtus was opposed by the three greatest theologians of the age — Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen. 56c 245If, in assuming the irremovability of a bishop even in case of mortal sin, the Roman bishops went beyond Cyprian, Cyprian drew from his conception of the Church a conclusion which the former rejected, viz., the invalidity of baptism administered by nonCatholics. Here, in all likelihood, the Roman bishops were only determined by their

But a minority struggled against this Church, not with speculations, but by demanding adherence to the old practice with regard to lapsed members. Under the leadership of the Roman presbyter, Novatian, this section formed a coalition in the Empire that opposed the Catholic confederation.246 Their adherence to the old system of Church discipline involved a reaction against the secularising process, which did not seem to be tempered by the spiritual powers of the bishops. Novatian’s conception of the Church, of ecclesiastical absolution and the rights of the priests, and in short, his notion of the power of the keys is different from that of his opponents. This is clear from, a variety of considerations. For he (with his followers) assigned to the Church the right and duty of expelling gross sinners once for all; ad2 1 he denied her the authority to absolve 119idolaters, but left these to the forgiveness of God who alone has the power of pardoning sins committed against himself; and he asserted: “non est pax illi ab episcopo necessaria habituro gloriæ suæ (scil. martyrii) pacem et accepturo maiorem de domini dignatione mercedem,” — “the absolution of the bishop is not needed by him who will receive the peace of his glory (i.e., martyrdom) and will obtain a greater reward from the approbation of the Lord” (Cypr. ep. 57. 4), and on the other hand taught: “peccato alterius inquinari alterum et idololatriam delinquentis ad non delinquentem transire,” — “the one is defiled by the sin of the other and the idolatry of the transgressor passes over to him who does not transgress.” His proposition that none but God can forgive sins does not

interest in smoothing the way to a return or admission to the Church in the case of nonCatholics. In this instance they were again induced to adhere to their old practice from a consideration of the catholicity of the Church. It redounds to Cyprian’s credit that he drew and firmly maintained the undeniable inferences from his own theory in spite of tradition. The matter never led to a great dogmatic controversy. 246 As to the events during the vacancy in the R ac8 oman see immediately before Novatian’s schism, and the part then played by the latter, who was still a member of the Church, see my essay: “Die Briefe des römischen Klerus aus der Zeit. der Sedisvacanz im Jahre 250” (Abhandl. f. Weizsäcker, 1892). 247 So far as we are able to judge, Novatian himself did not extend the severer treatment to all gross sinners (see ep. 55. 26, 27); but only decreed it in the case of the lapsed. It is, however, very probable that in the later Novatian Churches no mortal sinner was absolved (see, e.g., Socrates, H. E. I. 10). The statement of Ambrosius (de pænit. III. 3) that Novatian made no difference between gross and lesser sins and equally refused forgiveness to transgressors of every kind distorts the truth as much as did the old reproach laid to his charge, viz., that he as “a Stoic” made no distinction between sins. Moreover, in excluding gross sinners, Novatian’s followers did not mean to abandon them, but to leave them under the discipline and intercession of the Church.

depotentiate the idea of the Church; but secures both her proper religious significance and the full sense of her dispensations of grace: it limits her powers and extent in favour of her content. Refusal of her forgiveness under certain circumstances — though this does not exclude the confident hope of God’s mercy — can only mean that in Novatian’s view this forgiveness is the foundation of salvation and does not merely avert the certainty of perdition. To the Novatians, then, membership of the Church is not the sine quâ non of salvation, but it really secures it in some measure. In certain cases nevertheless the Church may not anticipate the judgment of God. Now it is never by exclusion, but by readmission, that she does so. As the assembly of the baptised, who have received God’s forgiveness, the Church must be a real communion of salvation and of saints; hence she cannot endure unholy persons in her midst without losing her essence. Each gross sinner that is tolerated within her calls her legitimacy in question. But, from this point of view, the constitution of the Church, i.e., the distinction of lay and spiritual and the authority of the bishops, likewise retained nothing but the secondary importance it had in earlier times. For, according to those principles, the primary question as regards Church membership 120is not connection with the clergy (the bishop). It is rather connection with the community, fellowship with which secures the salvation that may in abb deed be found outside its pale, but not with certainty. But other causes contributed to lessen the importance of the bishops: the art of casuistry, so far-reaching in its results, was unable to find a fruitful soil here, and the laity were treated in exactly the same way as the clergy. The ultimate difference between Novatian and Cyprian as to the idea of the Church and the power to bind and loose did not become clear to the latter himself. This was because, in regard to the idea of the Church, he partly overlooked the inferences from his own view and to some extent even directly repudiated them. An attempt to lay down a principle for judging the case is found in ep. 69. 7: “We and the schismatics have neither the same law of the creed nor the same interrogation, for when they say: ‘you believe in the remission of sins and eternal life through the holy Church’, they speak falsely” (“non est una nobis et schismaticis symboli lex neque eadem interrogatio; nam cum dicunt, credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam, mentiuntur”). Nor did Dionysius of Alexandria, who endeavoured to accumulate reproaches against Novatian, succeed in forming any effective accusation (Euseb., H. E. VII. 8). Pseudo-Cyprian had just as little success (ad Novatianum). It was not till the subsequent period, when the Catholic Church had resolutely pursued the path she had entered, that the difference in principle manifested itself with unmistakable plainness. The

historical estimate of the contrast must vary in proportion as one contemplates the demands of primitive Christianity or the requirements of the time. The Novatian confederation undoubtedly preserved a valuable remnant of the old tradition. The idea that the Church, as a fellowship of salvation, must also be the fellowship of saints, (Καθαροί) corresponds to the ideas of the earliest period. The followers of Novatian did not entirely identify the political and religious attributes of the Church; they neither transformed the gifts of salvation into means of education, nor confused the reality with the possibility of redemption; and they did not completely lower 121the requirements for a holy life. But on the other hand, in view of the minimum insisted upon, the claim that they were the really evangelical party and that they fulfilled the law of Christ248 was a presumption. The one step taken to avert the secularising of the Church, exclusion of the lapsed, was certainly, considering the actual circumstances immediately following a great apostasy, a measure of radical importance; but, estimated by the Gospel and in fact simply by the demands of the Montanists fifty years before, it was remarkably insignificant. These Catharists did indeed go the length of expelling all so-called mortal sinners, because it was too crying an injustice to treat libellatici more severely than unabashed

248

The title of the evangelical life (evangelical perfection, imitation of Christ) in contrast to that of ordinary Catholic Christians, a designation which we first find among the Encratites (see Vol. I. p. 237, note 3) and Marcionites (see Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 14: “Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias Marcionis, per quas proprietatem doctrinæ suæ inducit ad edictum, ut ita dixerim, Christi, Beati mendici etc.”), and then in Tertullian (in his pre-Montanist period, see ad mart., de patient., de pænit., de idolol.; in his later career, see de coron. 8, 9, 13, 14; de fuga 8, 13; de ieiun. 6, 8, 15; de monog. 3, 5, I I; see Aubé, Les Chrétiens dans l’empire Romain de la fin des Antonins, 1881, p. 237 ff.: “Chrétiens intransigeants et Chrétiens opportunistes”) was expressly claimed by Novatian (Cypr., ep. 44. 3: “Si Novatiani se adsertores evangelii et Christi esse confitentur”; 46. 2: “nec putetis, sic vos evangelium Christi adserere”). Cornelius in Eusebius, H. E. VI. 43. 11 calls Novatian: ὁ ἐκ 564 δικητὴς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. This is exceedingly instructive, and all the more so when we note that, even as far back as the end of the second century, it was not the “evangelical”, but the lax, who declared the claims of the Gospel to be satisfied if they kept God in their hearts, but otherwise lived in entire conformity with the world. See Tertullian, de spec. 1; de pænit. 5: “Sed aiunt quidam, satis deum habere, si corde et animo suspiciatur, licet actu minus fiat; itaque se salvo metu et fide peccare, hoc est salva castitate matrimonia violare etc.”; de ieiun. 2: “Et scimus, quales sint carnalium commodorum suasoriæ, quam facile dicatur: Opus est de totis præcordiis credam, diligam deum et proximum tanquam me. In his enim duobus præceptis tota lex pendet et prophetæ, non in pulmonum et intestinorum meorum inanitate.” The Valentinian Heracleon was similarly understood, see above Vol. I. p. 262.

transgressors;249 but, even then, it was still a gross self-deception to style themselves the “pure ones”, since the Novatian Churches speedily ceased to be any stricter than the Catholic in their renunciation of the world. At least we do not hear that asceticism and devotion to religious faith were very much more prominent in 122the Catharist Church than in the Catholic. On the contrary, judging from the sources that have come down to ac8 us, we may confidently say that the picture presented by the two Churches in the subsequent period was practically identical.250 As Novatian’s adherents did not differ from the opposite party in doctrine and constitution, their discipline of penance appears an archaic fragment which it was a doubtful advantage to preserve; and their rejection of the Catholic dispensations of grace (practice of rebaptism) a revolutionary measure, because it had insufficient justification. But the distinction between venial and mortal sins, a theory they held in common with the Catholic Church, could not but prove especially fatal to them; whereas their opponents, through their new regulations as to penance, softened this distinction, and that not to the detriment of morality. For an entirely different treatment of so-called gross and venial transgressions must in every case deaden the conscience towards the latter. 5. If we glance at the Catholic Church and leave the melancholy recriminations out of account, we cannot fail to see the wisdom, foresight, and comparative strictness251 with which the bishops carried out the great revolution that so depotentiated the Church as to make her capable of becoming a prop of civic society and of the state, without forcing any great changes upon them.252

249

Tertullian (de pud. 22) had already protested vigorously against such injustice. From Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History we can form a good idea of the state of the Novatian communities in Constantinople and Asia Minor. On the later history of the Catharist Church see my article “Novatian”, l.c., 667 ff. The most remarkable feature of this history is the amalgamation of Novatian’s adherents in Asia Minor with the Montanists and the absence of distinction between their manner of life and that of the Catholics. In the 4th century of course the Novatians were nevertheless very bitterly attacked. 251 This indeed was disputed by Hippolytus and Origen. 252 This last conclusion was come to after painful scruples, particularly in the East — as we may learn from the 6th and 7th books of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. For a time the majority of the Oriental bishops adopted an attitude favourable to Novatian and unfavourable to Cornelius and Cyprian. Then they espoused the cause of the latter, though without adopting the milder discipline in all cases (see the canons of Ancyra and Neocæsarea IV. sæc. init.). Throughout the East the whole question became involved in confusion, and was not decided in accordance with clear principles. In giving up the last 250

In learning to look upon the Church as a training 123school for salvation, provided with penalties and gifts of grace, and in giving up its religious independence in deference to her authority, Christendom as it existed in the latter half of the third century,253 submitted to an arrangement that was really best adapted to its own interests. In the great Church every distinction between her political a 55d nd religious conditions necessarily led to fatal disintegrations, to laxities, such as arose in Carthage owing to the enthusiastic behaviour of the confessors; or to the breaking up of communities. The last was a danger 124incurred in all cases where the attempt was made to exercise unsparing severity. A casuistic

remnant of her exclusiveness (the canons of Elvira are still very strict while those of Arles are lax), the Church became “Catholic” in quite a special sense, in other words, she became a community where everyone could find his place, provided he submitted to certain regulations and rules. Then, and not till then, was the Church’s pre-eminent importance for society and the state assured. It was no longer variance, and no longer the sword (Matt. X. 34, 35), but peace and safety that she brought; she was now capable of becoming an educative or, since there w abd as little more to educate in the older society, a conservative power. At an earlier date the Apologists (Justin, Melito, Tertullian himself) had already extolled her as such, but it was not till now that she really possessed this capacity. Among Christians, first the Encratites and Marcionites, next the adherents of the new prophecy, and lastly the Novatians had by turns opposed the naturalisation of their religion in the world and the transformation of the Church into a political commonwealth. Their demands had progressively become less exacting, whence also their internal vigour had grown ever weaker. But, in view of the continuous secularising of Christendom, the Montanist demands at the beginning of the 3rd century already denoted no less than those of the Encratites about the middle of the second, and no more than those of the Novatians about the middle of the third. The Church resolutely declared war on all these attempts to elevate evangelical perfection to an inflexible law for all, and overthrew her opponents. She pressed on in her world-wide mission and appeased her conscience by allowing a twofold morality within her bounds. Thus she created the conditions which enabled the ideal of evangelical perfection to be realised in her own midst, in the form of monasticism, without threatening her existence. “What is monasticism but an ecclesiastical institution that makes it possible to separate oneself from the world and to remain in the Church, to separate oneself from the outward Church without renouncing her, to set oneself apart for purposes of sanctification and yet to claim the highest rank among her members, to form a brotherhood and yet to further the interests of the Church?” In succeeding times great Church movements, such as the Montanist and Novatian, only succeeded in attaining local or provincial importance. See the movement at Rome at the beginning of the 4th century, of which we unfortunately know so little (Lipsius, Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe, pp. 250-255); the Donatist Revolution, and the Audiani in the East. 253 It is a characteristic circumstance that Tertullian’s de ieiun. does not assume that the great mass of Christians possess an actual knowledge of the Bible.

proceeding was necessary as well as a firm union of the bishops as pillars of the Church. Not the least important result of the crises produced by the great persecutions was the fact that the bishops in West and East were thereby forced into closer connection and at the same time acquired full jurisdiction (“per episcopos solos peccata posse dimitti”). If we consider that the archiepiscopal constitution had not only been simultaneously adopted, but had also attained the chief significance in the ecclesiastical organisation,254 we may say that the Empire Church was completed the moment that Diocletian undertook the great reorganisation of his dominions. acf 1 No doubt the old Christianity had found its place in the new Church, but it was covered over and concealed. In spite of all that, little alteration had been made in the expression of faith, in religious language; people spoke of the universal holy Church, just as they did a hundred years before. Here the development in the history of dogma was in a very special sense a development in the history of the Church. Catholicism was now complete; the Church had suppressed all utterances of individual piety, in the sense of their being binding on 125Christians, and freed herself from every feature of exclusiveness. In order to be a Christian a man no longer required in any sense to be a saint. “What made the Christian a Christian was no longer the possession of charisms, but obedience to ecclesiastical authority,” share in the gifts of the Church, and the performance of penance and good

56f 254The condition of the constitution of the Church about the middle of the 3rd century (in accordance with Cyprian’s epistles) is described by Otto Ritschl, l. c., pp. 142-237. Parallels to the provincial and communal constitution of secular society are to be found throughout. 255 To how great an extent the Church in Decius’ time was already a state within the state is shown by a piece of information given in Cyprian’s 55th epistle (c. 9.): “Cornelius sedit intrepidus Romæ in sacerdotali cathedra eo tempore: cum tyrannus infestus sacerdotibus dei fanda adque infanda comminaretur, cum multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret levari adversus se æmulum principem quam constitui Romæ dei sacerdotem.” On the other hand the legislation with regard to Christian flamens adopted by the Council of Elvira, which, as Duchesne (Mélanges Renier: Le Concile d’Elvir ac8 e et les flamines chrétiens, 1886) has demonstrated, most probably dates from before the Diocletian persecution of 300, shows how closely the discipline of the Church had already been adapted to the heathen regulations in the Empire. In addition to this there was no lack of syncretist systems within Christianity as early as the 3rd century (see the Κεστοί of Julius Africanus, and other examples). Much information on this point is to be derived from Origen’s works and also, in many respects, from the attitude of this author himself. We may also refer to relic- and hero-worship, the foundation of which was already laid in the 3rd century, though the “religion of the second order” did not become a recognised power in the Church or force itself into the official religion till the 4th.

works. The Church by her edicts legitimised average morality, after average morality had created the authority of the Church. (“La médiocrité fonda l’autorité”). The dispensations of grace, that is, absolution and the Lord’s Supper, abolished the charismatic gifts. The Holy Scriptures, the apostolic episcopate, the priests, the sacraments, average morality in accordance with which the whole world could live, were mutually conditioned. The consoling words: “Jesus receives sinners”, were subjected to an interpretation that threatened to make them detrimental to morality.256 And with all that the self-righteousness of proud ascetics was not excluded — quite the contrary. Alongside of a code of morals, to which any one in case of need could adapt himself, the Church began to legitimise a morality of self-chosen, refined sanctity, which really required no Redeemer. It was as in possession of this constitution that the great statesman found and admired her, and recognised in her the strongest support of the Empire.257 A comparison of the aims of primitive Christendom with those of ecclesi 564 astical society at the end of the third century — a comparison of the actual state of things at the different periods is hardly possible — will always lead to a disheartening result; but the parallel is in itself unjust. The truth rather is that the correct standpoint from which to judge the matter was already 126indicated by Origen in the comparison he drew (c. Cels. 111. 29. 30) between the Christian society of the third century and the nonChristian, between the Church and the Empire, the clergy and the magistrates.258 Amidst the general disorganisation of all 256

See Tertullian’s frightful accusations in de pudic. (10) and de ieiun. (fin) against the “Psychici”, i.e., the Catholic Christians. He says that with them the saying had really come to signify “peccando promeremur”, by which, however, he does not mean the Augustinian: “o felix culpa”. 257 The relation of this Church to theology, what theology she required and what she rejected, and, moreover, to what extent she rejected the kind that she accepted may be seen by reference to chap. 5 ff. We may here also direct attention to the peculiar position of Origen in the Church as well as to that of Lucian the Martyr, concerning whom Alexander of Alexandria (Theoderet, H.E. 1. 3) remarks that he was a ἀποσυνάγωγος in Antioch for a long time, namely, during the rule of three successive bishops. 258 We have already referred to the passage above. On account of its i 564 mportance we may quote it here: “According to Celsus Apollo required the Metapontines to regard Aristeas as a god; but in their eyes the latter was but a man and perhaps not a virtuous one . . . They would therefore not obey Apollo, and thus it happened that no one believed in the divinity of Aristeas. But with regard to Jesus we may say that it proved a blessing to the human race to acknowledge him as the Son of God, as God who appeared on earth united with body and soul.” Origen then says that the demons counterworked this belief, and continues: “But God who had sent Jesus on earth brought to nought all the snares and

relationships, and from amongst the ruins of a shattered fabric, a new structure, founded on the belief in one God, in a sure revelation, and in eternal life, was being laboriously raised. It gathered within it more and more all the elements still capable of continued existence; it readmitted the old world, cleansed of its grossest impurities, and raised holy 127barriers to secure its conquests against all attacks. Within this edifice justice and civic virtue shone with no greater brightness than ac3 they did upon the earth generally; but within it burned two mighty flames — the assurance of eternal life, guaranteed by Christ, and the practice of mercy. He who knows history is aware that the influence of epochmaking personages is not to be sought in its direct consequences alone, as these speedily disappear: that structure which prolonged the life of a dying world, and brought strength from the Holy One to another struggling into existence, was also partly founded on the Gospel, and but for this would neither have arisen nor attained solidity. Moreover, a Church had been created within which the

plots of the demons and aided in the victory of the Gospel of Jesus throughout the whole earth in order to promote the conversion and amelioration of men; and everywhere brought about the establishment of Churches which are ruled by other laws than those that regulate the Churches of the superstitious, the dissolute and the unbelieving. For of such people the civil population (πολιτευόµενα ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν πολέων πλήθη) of the towns almost everywhere consists.” Αἱ δὲ τοῦ Θεο ac8 ῦ Χριστῷ µαθητευθεῦσαι ἐκκλησίαι, συνεξεταζόµεναι ταῖς ὧν παροικοῦσι δήµων ἐκκλησίαις, ὡς φωστῆρας εἰσιν ἐν κόσµῳ. τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἄν ὁµολογήσαι, καὶ τοὺς χείρους τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ συγκρίσει βελτιόνων ἐλάττους πολλῷ κρείττους τυγχάνειν τῶν ἐν τοῖς δήµοις ἐκκλησιῶν; ἐκκλησία µὲν γὰρ τοῦ Θεοῦ, φέρ᾽ εἰπεῖν, ἡ Ἀθήνῃσι πραεῖά τις καὶ εὐσταθής, ἅτε Θεῷ ἀρέσκειν τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι βουλοµένη· ἡ δ᾽Αθηναίων ἐκκλησία στασιώδης καὶ οὐδαµῶς παραβαλλοµένη τῇ ἐκεῖ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ· τὸ δ᾽αὐτὸ ἐρεῖς. Περὶ ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Κορίνθῳ καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ δήµου Κορινθίων·; καὶ, φέρ᾽ εἰπεῖν, περὶ ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ, καὶ ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Ἀλεξανδρέων δήµου. Καὶ ἐὰν εὐγνώµων ᾖ ὁ τούτου ἀκούων καὶ φιλαλήθως ἐξετάθῃ τὰ πράγµατα, θαυµάσεται τὸν καὶ βουλευσάµενον καὶ ἀνύσαι δυνηθέντα πανταχοῦ συστήσασθαι ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, παροικούσασ ἒκλησίαις τῶν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πόλιν δήµων οὕτω δὲ καὶ βουλὴν ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ βουλῇ τῇ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πόλιν συνεξετάζων εὕροις ἄν ὅτι τινὲς µὲν τῆς ἐκκλησίας βουλευταὶ ἄξιοὶ εἰσι — εἵ τίς ἐστιν ἐν τῷ παντὶ πόλις τοῦ Θεοῦ — ἐν εκείνῃ πολιτεύεσθαι ὁι δὲ πανταχοῦ βουλευταὶ οὐδὲν ἄξιον τῆς ἐκ κατατάξεως ὑπεροχῆς, ἢν ὑπερέχειν δοκοῦσι τῶν πολιτῶν, φέρουσιν ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτῶν ἤθεσιν· οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἄρχοντα ἐκκλησίας ἑκάςτης πόλεως ἄρχοντι τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει συγκριτέν· ἵνα κατανοήσῃς, ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν σφόδρα ἀποτυγχανοµένων βουλεύ ac8 τῶν καὶ ἀρχόντων ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ, καὶ ῥαθυµοτέρων παρὰ τοὺς εὐτονωτέρως βιοῦντας οὐδὲν ἧττόν ἐστιν εὑρεῖν ὡς ἐπίπαν ὑπεροχήν τὴν ἐν τῇ ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς προκοπῇ παρὰ τὰ ἤθη τῶν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι βουλευτῶν καὶ ἀρχόντων.

pious layman could find a holy place of peace and edification. With priestly strife he had nothing to do, nor had he any concern in the profound and subtle dogmatic system whose foundation was now being laid. We may say that the religion of the laity attained freedom in proportion as it became impossible for them to take part in the establishment and guardianship of the official Church system. It is the professional guardians of this ecclesiastical edifice who are the real martyrs of religion, and it is they who have to bear the consequences of the worldliness and lack of genuineness pertaining to the system. But to the layman who seeks from the Church nothing more than aid in raising himself to God, this worldliness and unveracity do not exist. During the Greek period, however, laymen were only able to recognise this advantage to a limited extent. The Church dogmatic and the ecclesiastical system were still too closely connected with their own interests. It was in the Middle Ages, that the Church first became a Holy Mother and her house a house of prayer — for the Germanic peoples; for these races were really the children of — the Church, and they themselves had not helped to rear the house in which they worshipped. 128

ADDENDA. I. THE PRIESTHOOD. The completion of the old Catholic conception of the Church, as this idea was developed in the latter half of the third century, is perhaps most clearly shown in the attribute of priesthood, with which the clergy were invested and which conferred on them the greatest importance.259 The development of this conception, whose adoption is a proof that the Church had assumed a heathen complexion, cannot be more particularly treated of here. 569 260 What meaning it has 129is

259

Rïtschl, Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche pp. 362, 368, 394, 461, 555, 560, 576. Otto Ritschl, l.c., pp. 208, 218, 231. Hatch “Organisation of the early Christian Church”, Lectures 5 and 6; id., Art. “Ordination”, “Priest”, in the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. Hauck, Art. “Priester” in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, 2nd ed. Voigt, l.c., p. 175 ff. Sohm, Kirchenrecht I. p. 205 ff. Louw, Het ontstaan van het Priesterschap in de christ. Kerk, Utrecht, 1892. 260 Clement of Rome was the first to compare the conductors of public worship in Christian Churches with the priests and Levites, and the author of the ∆ιδαχή was the first to liken the Christian prophets to the high priests. It cannot, however, be shown that there were any Christian circles where the leaders were directly styled “priests” before the last quarter of the 2nd century. We can by no means fall back on Ignatius, Philad. 9, nor on Iren., IV. 8. 3, which passage is rather to be compared with . 13. 3. It is again different

shown by its application in Cyprian and the original of the first six

in Gnostic circles, which in this case, too, anticipated the secularising process; read for example the description of Marcus in Iren., I. 13. Here, mutatis mutandis, we have the later Catholic bishop, who alone is able to perform a mysterious sacrifice to whose person powers of grace are attached — the formula of bestowal was: µεταδοῦναί σοι θέλω τῆς ἐµῆς χάριτος . . . λάµβανε ἀπ᾽ εµõυ καὶ δι᾽ εµõυ χάριν, and through whose instrumentality union with Go 564 d can alone be attained: the ἀπολύτρωσις (I. 21.) is only conferred through the mystagogue. Much of a similar nature is to be found, and we can expressly say that the distinction between priestly mystagogues and laymen was of fundamental importance in many Gnostic societies (see also the writings of the Coptic Gnostics); it was different in the Marcionite Church. Tertullian (de bapt. 17) was the first to call the bishop “summus sacerdos”, and the older opinion that he merely “played” with the idea is untenable, and refuted by Pseudo-Cyprian, de aleat. 2 (“sacerdotalïs dignitas”). In his Antimontanist writings the former has repeatedly repudiated any distinction in principle of a particular priestly class among Christians, as well as the application of certain injunctions to this order (de exhort. 7: “nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? . . . adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tınguıs et sacerdos es tibi solus, sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici.”; de monog. 7). We may perhaps infer from his works that before about the year 200, the name “priest” was not yet universally applied to bishop and presbyters in Carthage (but see after this de præscr. 29, 41: sacerdotalia munera; de pud. 1, 21; de monog. 12: disciplina sacerd.; de exhort. 7: sacerdotalis ordo; ibid. 11: “et offer 564 es pro duabus uxoribus, et commendabis illas duas per sacerdotem de monogamia ordinatum; de virg. vel. 9: sacerdotale officium; Scorp. 7: sacerdos). The latest writings of Tertullian show us indeed that the name and the conception which it represents were already prevalent. Hippolytus (Philos. præf.: ὧν ἡµεῖς διάδοχοι τυγχάνοντες τῆς τε ἀυτῆς χάριτος µετέχοντες ἀρχιερατείας καὶ διδασκαλίας, see also the Arabian canons) expressly claimed high priesthood for the bishops, and Origen thought he was justified in giving the name of “Priests and Levites” to those who conducted public worship among Christians. This he indeed did with reserve (see many passages, e.g., Hom. II. in Num., Vol. II. p. 278; Hom. VI. in Lev., Vol. II. p. 211; Comment. in Joh., Vol. I. 3), but yet to a far greater extent than Clement (see Bigg, l.c., p. 214 f.). In Cyprian and the literature of the Greek Church in the immediately following period we find the designation “priest” as the regular and most customary name for the bishop and presbyters. Novatian (Jerome. de vir. inl. 70) wrote a treatise de sacerdote and another de ordinatione. The notable and momentous change of conception expressed in the idea can be traced by us through its preparatory stages almost as little a 564 s the theory of the apostolic succession of the bishops. Irenæus (IV. 8. 3, 17. 5, 18. 1) and Tertullian, when compared with Cyprian, appear here as representatives of primitive Christianity. They firmly assert the priesthood of the whole congregation. That the laity had as great a share as the leaders of the Churches in the transformation of the latter into Priests is moreover shown by the bitter saying of Tertullian (de monog. 12): “Sed cum extollimur et inflamur adversus clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc omnes sacerdotes, quia ‘sacerdotes nos deo et patri fecit’. Cum ad peræquationem disciplinæ sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas.”

books of the Apostolic Constitutions (see Book II.). The bishops (and also the presbyters) are priests, in so far as they alone are empowered to present the sacrifice as representatives of the congregation before God261 and in so far as they dispense or refuse the divine grace as representatives of God in relation to the congregation. In this sense they are also judges in God’s stead.262 The position here conceded to the 130higher clergy corresponds to that of the mystagogue in heathen religi aa8 ons, and is acknowledged to be borrowed from the latter.263 Divine grace already appears as a sacramental consecration of an objective nature, the bestowal of which is confined to spiritual personages chosen by God. This fact is no way affected by the perception that an ever increasing reference is made to the Old Testament priests as well as to the whole Jewish ceremonial and ecclesiastical regulations.264 It is true that there is no other respect in which Old

261

See Sohm, I. p. 207. The “deservire altari et 564 sacrificia divina celebrare” (Cypr., ep. 67. 1) is the distinctive function of the sacerdos dei. It may further be said, however, that all ceremonies of public worship properly belong to him, and Cyprian has moreover contrived to show that this function of the bishop as leader of the Church follows from his priestly attributes; for as priest the bishop is antistes Christi (dei); see epp. 59. 18: 61. 2: 63. 14: 66. 5, and this is the basis of his right and duty to preserve the lex evangelica and the traditio dominica in every respect. As antistes dei, however, an attribute bestowed on the bishop by the apostolic succession and the laying on of hands, he has also received the power of the keys, which confers the right to judge in Christ’s stead and to grant or refuse the divine grace. In Cyprian’s conception of the episcopal office the successio apostolica and the position of vicegerent of Christ (of God) counterbalance each other; he also tried to amalgamate both elements (ep. 55. 8: “cathedra sacerdotalis). It is evident that as far as the inner life of each church was concerned, the latter and newer necessarily pr 55b oved the more important feature. In the East, where the thought of the apostolical succession of the bishops never received such pronounced expression as in Rome it was just this latter element that was almost exclusively emphasised from the end of the 3rd century. Ignatius led the way when he compared the bishop, in his position towards the individual community, with God and Christ. He, however, is dealing in images, but at a later period the question is about realities based on a mysterious transference. 263 Soon after the creation of a professional priesthood, there also arose a class of inferior clergy. This was first the case in Rome. This development was not uninfluenced by the heathen priesthood, and the temple service (see my article in Texte und Untersuchungen II. 5). Yet Sohm, 1. c., p. 128 ff., has disputed this, and proposed modifications, worth considering, in my view of the origin of the ordines minores. 554 264 Along with the sacerdotal laws, strictly so called, which Cyprian already understood to apply in a frightful manner (see his appeal to Deut. XVII. 12; I Sam. VIII. 7; Luke X. 16; John XVIII. 22 f.; Acts XXIII. 4-5 in epp. 3. 43, 59. 66), other Old 262

Testament commandments were incorporated with Christianity to such an extent as they were in this.265 But it can be proved that this formal adoption everywhere 131took place at a subsequent date, that is, it had practically no influence on the development itself, which was not legitimised by the commandments till a later period, and that often in a somewhat lame fashion. We may perhaps say that the development which made the bishops and elders priests altered the inward form of the Church in a more radical fashion than any other. “Gnosticism”, which the Church had repudiated in the second century, became part of her own system in the third. As her integrity had been made dependent on in-alienable objective standards, the adoption even of this greatest innovation, which indeed was in complete harmony with the secular element within her, was an elementary necessity. In regard to every sphere of Church life, and hence also in respect to the development of dogma266 and the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, the priesthood proved of the highest significance. The clerical exposition of the sacred books, with its frightful ideas, found its earliest advocate in Cyprian and had thus a most skilful champion at the very first. 584 267

Testament commandments could not fail to be introduced. Thus the commandment of tithes, which Irenæus had still asserted to be abolished, was now for the first time established (see Orion; Constit. Apost. and my remarks on . c. 13); and hence Mosaic regulations as to ceremonial cleanness were adopted (see Hippol. Canones arab. 17; Dionys. Alex., ep. canon.). Constantine was the first to base the observance of Sunday on the commandment as to the Sabbath. Besides, the West was always more hesitating in this respect than the East. In Cyprian’s time, however, the classification and dignity of the clergy were everywhere upheld by an appeal to Old Testament commandments, though reservations still continued to be made here and there. ae1 265Tertullian (de pud. I.) sneeringly named the bishop of Rome “pontifex maximus”, thereby proving that he clearly recognised the heathen colouring given to the episcopal office. With the picture of the bishop drawn by the Apostolic constitutions may be compared the ill-natured descriptions of Paul of Samosata in Euseb., VII. 30. 266 Yet this influence, in a direct form at least, can only be made out at a comparatively late period. But nevertheless, from the middle of the 3rd century the priests alone are possessed of knowledge. As µάθησις and µυσταγωγία are inseparably connected in the mysteries and Gnostic societies, and the mystagogue was at once knowing one and priest, so also in the Catholic Church the priest is accounted the knowing one. Doctrine itself became a mystery to an increasing extent. 267 Examples are found in epp. 1, 3, 4, 33, 43, 54, 57, 59, 65, 66. But see Iren., IV. 26. 2, who is little behind Cyprian here, especially when he threatens offenders with the fate of Dathan and Abiram. One of the immediate results of the formation of a priestly and spiritual class was that the independent “teachers” now shared the fate of the old “prophets” and became extinct (see my edition of the ∆ιδαχή, prolegg. pp. 131-137). It is

II. SACRIFICE. In Book I., chap. III., § 7, we have already shown what a wide field the idea of sacrifice occupied in primitive Christendom, and how it was specially connected with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The latter was regarded 132as the pure (i.e., to be presented with a pure heart), bloodless thankoffering of which Malachi had prophesied in I. 11. Priesthood and sacrifice, however, are mutually conditioned. The alteration of the concept “priest” necessarily led to a simultaneous and corresponding change in the idea of sacrifice, just as, conversely, the latter reacted on the former.268 In Irenæus and Tertullian the old conception of sacrifice, viz., that prayers are the Christian sacrifice and that the disposition of the believer hallows his whole life even 560 as it does his offering, and forms a well-pleasing sacrifice to God, remains essentially unchanged. In particular, there is no evidence of any alteration in the notion of sacrifice connected with the Lord’s Supper.269 But nevertheless we can already trace a certain degree of modification in Tertullian. Not only does he give fasting, voluntary celibacy, martyrdom, etc., special prominence among the sacrificial acts of a Christian life, and extol their religious value — as had already been done before; but he also attributes a God-propitiating significance to these performances, and plainly designates them as “merita” (“promereri deum”). To the best of my belief Tertullian was the first who definitely regarded ascetic performances as propitiatory offerings and

an instructive fact that Theoktistus of Cæsarea and Alexander of Jerusalem in order to prove in opposition to Demetrius that independent teachers were still tolerated, i.e., allowed to speak in public meetings of the Church, could only appeal to the practice of Phrygia and Lycaonia, that is, to the habit of outlying provinces where, besides, Montanism had its original seat. Euelpis in Laranda, Paulinus in Iconium, and Theodorus in Synnada, who flourished about 216, are in addition to Origen the last independent teachers (i.e., outside the ranks of the clergy) kno ac8 wn to us in Christendom (Euseb., H. E. VI. 19 fin.). 268 See Döllinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 1826. Höfling, Die Lehre der ältesten Kirche vom Opfer, p. 71 ff. Th. Harnack, Der christliche Gemeindegottesdienst im apostolischen und altkatholischen Zeitalter, p. 342 ff. Steitz, Art. “Messe” in Herzog’s Real Encyklopädie, 2nd ed. It is idle to enquire whether the conception of the “sacerdotium” or that of the “sacrificium” was first altered, because they are correlative ideas. 269 See the proof passages in Höfling, 1. c., who has also treated in detail Clement and Origen’s idea of sacrifice, and cf. the beautiful saying of Irenæus IV. 18. 3: “Non sacrificia sanctificant hominem; non enim indiget sacrificio deus; sed conscientia eius qui offert sanctificat sacrificium, pura exsistens, et præstat acceptare deum quasi ab amico” (on the offering in the Lord’s Supper see Iren. IV. 17. 5, 18. 1); Tertull., Apolog. 30; de orat. 28; adv. Marc. III. 22; IV. 1, 35: adv. Jud. 5; de virg. vel. 13.

ascribed to them the “potestas reconciliandi iratum deum.”270 568 But he himself was far from using 133this fatal theory, so often found in his works, to support a lax Church practice that made Christianity consist in out ward forms. This result did not come about till the eventful decades, prolific in new developments, that elapsed between the persecutions of Septimius and Decius; and in the West it is again Cyprian who is our earliest witness as to the new view and practice.271 In the first place, Cyprian was quite familiar with the idea of ascetic propitiations and utilised it in the interest of the Catholicity of the Church; secondly, he propounded a new theory of the offering in the cultus. As far as the first point is concerned, Cyprian’s injunctions with regard to it are everywhere based on the understanding that even after baptism no one can be without sin (de op. et eleemos. 3); and also on the firm conviction that this sacrament can only have a retrospective virtue. Hence he concludes that we must appease God, whose wrath has been 270

Cf. specially the Montanist writings; the treatise de ieiunio is the most important among them in this case; see cc. 7, 16; de resurr. 8. On the use of the word “satisfacere” and the new ideas on the point which arose in the West (cf. also the word “meritum”) see below chap. 5. 2 and the 2nd chap. of the 5th Vol. Note that the 2nd Ep. of Clement already contains the sayings: καλὸν ἐλεηµοσύνη ὡς µετάνοια ἁµαρτίας· κρείσσων νηστεία προσευχῆς, ἐλεηµοσύνη δὲ ἀµφοτέρων . . . ἐλεηµοσύνη γὰρ κούϕισµα ἁµαρτίας γίνεται (16. 4; similar ac8 expressions occur in the “Shepherd”). But they only show how far back we find the origin of these injunctions borrowed from Jewish proverbial wisdom. One cannot say that they had no effect at all on Christian life in the 2nd century; but we do not yet find the idea that ascetic performances are a sacrifice offered to a wrathful God. Martyrdom seems to have been earliest viewed as a performance which expiated sins. In Tertullian’s time the theory, that it was on a level with baptism (see Melito, 12. Fragment in Otto, Corp. Apol. IX. p. 418: δύο συνέστη τὰ ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτηµάτα παρεχόµενα, πάθος διὰ Χριστὸν καὶ βάπτισµα), had long been universally diffused and was also exegetically grounded. In fact, men went a step further and asserted that the merits of martyrs could also benefit others. This view had likewise become established long before Tertullian’s day, but was opposed by him (de pudic. 22), when martyrs abused the powers universally conceded to them. Origen went furthest here; see exhort. ad mart. 50: ὥσπερ τιµίῳ αἵµατι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἠγοράσθηµεν . . . οὕτως τῷ τιµίῳ αἵµατι τῶν µαρτύρων ἀγορασθήσονταί ; Hom. X. in Num. c. II.: “ne forte, ex quo martyres non fiunt et hostiæ sanctorum non offeruntur pro peccatis nostris, peccatorum nostrorum remissionem non mereamur.” The origin of this thought is, on the one hand, to be sought for in the wide-spread notion that the sufferings of an innocent man benefit others, and, on the other, in the belief that Christ himself suffered in the martyrs (see, e.g., ep. Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. 1. 23, 41). 271 In the East it was Origen who introduced into Christianity the rich treasure of ancient ideas that had become associated with sacrifices. See Bigg’s beautiful account in “The Christian Platonists of Alexandria,” Lect. IV.-VI.

aroused by ac8 sin, through performances of our own, that is, through offerings that bear the character of “satisfactions”. In other words we must blot out transgressions by specially meritorious deeds in order thus to escape eternal punishment. These deeds 134Cyprian terms “merita”, which either possess the character of atonements, or, in case there are no sins to be expiated, entitle the Christian to a special reward (merces).272 But, along with lamentationes and acts of penance, it is principally alms-giving that forms such means of atonement (see de lapsis, 35, 36). In Cyprian’s eyes this is already the proper satisfaction; mere prayer, that is, devotional exercises unaccompanied by fasting and alms, being regarded as “bare and unfruitful”. In the work “de opere et eleemosynis” which, after a fashion highly characteristic of Cyprian, is made dependent on Sirach and Tobias, he has set forth a detailed theory of what we may call alms-giving as a means of grace in its relation to baptism and salvation.273 However, this practice can only be viewed as a means of grace in Cyprian’s sense in so far as God has accepted it, that is, pointed it out. In itself it is a free human act. After the Decian persecution and the rearrangement of ecclesiastical affairs necessitated by it, works and alms (opera et eleemosynæ) made their way into the absolution system of the Church, and were assigned a permanent place in it.

272

Moreover, Tertullian (Scorp. 6) had already said: “Quomodo multæ mansiones apud pa ac5 trem, si non pro varietate meritorum.” 273 See c. 1: Nam cum dominus adveniens sanasset illa, quæ Adam portaverit vulnera et venena serpentis antiqua curasset, legem dedit sano et præcepit, ne ultra iam peccaret, ne quid peccanti gravius eveniret; coartati eramus et in angustum innocentiæ præscriptione conclusi, nec haberet quid fragilitatis humanæ infirmitas adque imbecillitas faceret, nisi iterum pietas divina subveniens iustitiæ et misericordiæ operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendæ salutis aperiret, ut sordes postmodum quascumque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus.” c. 2: sicut lavacro aquæ salutaris gehennæ ignis extinguitur, ita eleemosynis adque operationibus iustus delictorum flamma sopitur, et quia semel in baptismo remissa peccatorum datur, adsidua et iugis operatio baptismi instar imitata dei rursus indulgentiam largiatur.” 5, 6, 9. In c. 18 Cyprian already established an arithmetical relation between the number of alms-offerings and the blotting out of sins, and in c. 21, in accordance with an ancient idea which Tertullian and Minucius Felix, however, only applied to martyrdom, he describes the giving of alms as a spectacle for God and Christ. In Cyprian’s epistles “satisfacere deo” is exceedingly frequent. It is almost still more important to note the frequent use of the expression “promereri deum (iudicem)” in Cyprian. See de unitate 15: “iustitia opus est, ut promereri quis possit deum iudicem: præceptis eius et monitis obtemperandum est, ut accipiant merita nostra mercedem.” 18; de lapsis 31; de orat. 8, 32, 36; de mortal. 10; de op. 11, 14, 15, 26; de bono pat. 18; ep. 62. 2: 73. 10. Here it is everywhere assumed that Christians acquire God’s favour by their works.

Even 135the Christian who has forfeited his Church membership by abjuration may ultimately recover it by deeds of sacrifice, of course under the guidance and intercessory coöperation of the Church. The dogmatic dilemma we find here cannot be more clearly characterised than by simply placing the two doctrines professed by Cyprian side by side. These are: — (1) that the sinfulness common to each individual can only be once extirpated by the power of baptism derived from the work of Christ, and (2) that transgressio 564 ns committed after baptism, inclusive of mortal sins, can and must be expiated solely by spontaneous acts of sacrifice under the guidance of kind mother Church.274 A Church capable of being permanently satisfied with such doctrines would very soon have lost the last remains of her Christian character. What was wanted was a means of grace, similar to baptism and granted by God through Christ, to which the opera et eleemosynæ are merely to bear the relation of accompanying acts. But Cyprian was no dogmatist and was not able to form a doctrine of the means of grace. He never got beyond his “propitiate God the judge by sacrifices after baptism” (“promereri deum judicem post baptismum sacrificiis”), and merely hinted, in an obscure way, that the absolution of him who has committed a deadly sin after baptism emanates from the same readiness of God to forgive as is expressed in that rite, and that membership in the Church is a condition of absolution. His whole theory as to the legal nature of man’s ( 564 the Christian’s) relationship to God, and the practice, inaugurated by Tertullian, of designating this connection by terms derived from Roman law continued to prevail in the West down to Augustine’s time.275 But, during this whole interval, no book was written by a Western Churchman which made the salvation of the sinful Christian dependent on ascetic offerings of atonement, 136with so little regard to Christ’s grace and the divine factor in the case, as Cyprian’s work de opere et eleemosynis. No less significant is Cyprian’s advance as regards the idea of the sacrifice in public worship, and that in three respects. To begin with, Cyprian was the first to associate the specific offering, i.e.,

274

Baptism with blood is not referred to here. With modifications, this has still continued to be the case beyond Augustine’s time down to the Catholicism of the present day. Cyprian is the father of the Romish doctrine of good works and sacrifice. Yet is it remarkable that he was not yet familiar with the theory according to which man must acquire merita. In his mind “merits” and “blessedness” are not yet rigidly correlated ideas; but the rudiments of this view are also found in him; cf. de unit. 15 (see p. 134, note 3 ). 275

the Lord’s Supper276 with the specific priest ac8 hood. Secondly, he was the first to designate the passio dominis, nay, the sanguis Christi and the dominica hostia as the object of the eucharistic offering.277 Thirdly, he expressly represented the 137celebration of

276

“Sacrificare”, “sacrificium celebrare”, in all passages where they are unaccompanied by any qualifying words, mean to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Cyprian has never called prayer a “sacrifice” without qualifying terms; on the contrary he collocates “preces” and “sacrificium”, and sometimes also “oblatio” and “sacrificium”. The former is then the offering of the laity and the latter of the priests. 277 Cf. the whole 63rd epistle and above all c. 7: “Et quia passionis eius mentionem in sacrificiis omnibus facimus, passio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerrimus, nihil aliud quam quod ille fecit facere debemus”; c. 9.: “unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici.” 13; de unit. 17: “dominicæ hostiæ veritatem per falsa sacrificia profanare”; ep. 63. 4: “sacramentum sacrificii dominici”. The transference of the sacrificial idea to the consecrated elements, which, in all probability, Cyprian already found in existence, is ultimately based on the effort to include the element of mystery and magic in the specifically sacerdotal ceremony of sacrifice, and to make the Christian offering assume, though not visibly, the form of a bloody sacrifice, such as secularised Christianity desired. This transference, however, was the result of two causes. The first has been already rightly stated by Ernesti (Antimur. p. 94) in the words: “quia eucharistia habet ἀνάµνησιν 566 Christi mortui et sacrificii eius in cruce peracti, propter ea paullatim cœpta est tota eucharistia sacrificium dici.” In Cyprian’s 63rd. epistle it is still observable how the “calicem in commemorationem domini et passionis eius offerre” passes over into the “sanguinem Christi offerre”, see also Euseb. demonstr. I. 13: µνήµην τῆς θυσίας Χριστοῦ προσφέρειν and τὴν ἔνσαρκον τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίαν καὶ τὸ καταρτισθὲν αὐτοῦ σῶµα προσφέρειν. The other cause has been specially pointed out by Theodore Harnack (l.c., p. 409 f.). In ep. 63. 2 and in many other passages Cyprian expresses the thought “that in the Lord’s Supper nothing else is done by us but what the Lord has first done for us.” But he says that at the institution of the Supper the Lord first offered himself as a sacrifice to God the Father. Consequently the priest officiating in Christ’s stead only presents a true and perfect offering when he imitates what Christ has done (c. 14: “si Christus Jesus dominus et deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos dei patris et sacrificium patri se ipsum obtulit et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem præcepit, utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur et sacrificium verum et p ac8 lenum tunc offert in ecclesia deo patri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse”). This brings us to the conception of the repetition of Christ’s sacrifice by the priest. But in Cyprian’s case it was still, so to speak, only a notion verging on that idea, that is, he only leads up to it, abstains from formulating it with precision, or drawing any further conclusions from it, and even threatens the idea itself inasmuch as he still appears to conceive the “calicem in commemorationem domini et passionis eius offerre” as identical with it. As far as the East is concerned we find in Origen no trace of the assumption of a repeated sacrifice of Christ. But in the original of the first 6 books of the Apostolic Constitutions this conception is also wanting, although the Supper ceremonial has assumed an exclusively sacerdotal character (see II. 25: αἱ

the Lord’s Supper as an incorporation of the congregation and its individual members with Christ, and was the first to bear clear testimony as to the special importance attributed to commemoration of the celebrators (“vivi et defuncti”), though no other can be ascertained than a specially strong intercession.278 But this is really the essential effect of the sacrifice of the supper as regards the celebrators; for however much the conceptions about this ceremony might be heightened, and whatever additions might be made to its ritual, forgiveness of sins in the strict sense could not be associated with it. Cyprian’s statement that every celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a repetition or imitation of Christ’s sacrifice of himself, and that the ceremony has therefore an expiatory value remains a mere assertion, though the Romish Church still continues to 138repeat this doctrine to the present day. For the idea that partaking of the Lord’s Supper cleansed from sin like the mysteries of the Great Mother (magna mater) and Mithras, though naturally suggested by the ceremonial practice, was counteracted by the Church principles of penance and by the doctrine of baptism. As a sacrificial rite the Supper never became a ceremony equivalent in effect to baptism. But no doubt, as far as the popular conception was concerned, the solemn ritual copied from the ancient mysteries could not but attain an indescribably important significance. It is not possible, within the framework of the history of dogma, to describe the development of religious

τότε (in the old covenant) θυσίαι, νῦν εὐχαὶ καὶ δεήσεις καὶ ἐυχαριστίαι. II. 53). The passage VI. 23: ἀνρὶ θυσίας τῆς δἰ αἱµάτων τήν λογικὴν καὶ τὴν µυστικήν, ἥτις εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου συµβόλων χάριν ἐπιτελεῖται τοῦ σώµατος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵµατος, does not belong to the original document, but to the interpolator. With the exception therefore of one passage in the Apostolic Church order (printed in my edition of the Didache prolegg. p. 236) viz.: ἡ προσϕορὰ τοῦ σώµατος καὶ τοῦ αἵµατος, we possess no proofs that there was any mention in the East before Eusebius’ time of a sacrifice of Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper. From this, however, we must by no means conclude that the mystic feature in the celebration of the sacrifice had been less emphasised there. 278 In ep. 63. 13 Cyprian has illustrated the incorporation of the community with Christ by the mixture of wine and water in the Supper, because the special aim of the epistle required this: “Videmus in aqua populum intellegi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem Christi; quando autem in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur et credentium plebs ei in quem credidit copulatur et iungitur etc.” The special mention of the offerers (see already Tertullian’s work 564 s: de corona 3, de exhort. cast. 11, and de monog. 10) therefore means that the latter commend themselves to Christ as his own people, or are recommended to him as such. On the Praxis see Cyprian ep. 1. 2 “. . . si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo nec sacrificium pro dormitione eius celebraretur”; 62. 5: “ut fratres nostros in mente habeatis orationibus vestris et eis vicem boni operis in sacrificiis et precibus repræsentetis, subdidi nomina singulorum.”

ceremonial in the third century, and to show what a radical alteration took place in men’s conceptions with regard to it (cf. for example, Justin with Cyprian). But, in ac8 dealing with the history of dogma within this period, we must clearly keep in view the development of the cultus, the new conceptions of the value of ritual, and the reference of ceremonial usages to apostolic tradition; for there was plainly a remodelling of the ritual in imitation of the ancient mysteries and of the heathen sacrificial system, and this fact is admitted by Protestant scholars of all parties. Ceremonial and doctrine may indeed be at variance, for the latter may lag behind the former and vice versa, but they are never subject to entirely different conditions. III. MEANS OF GRACE, BAPTISM, and EUCHARIST. That which the Western Church of post-Augustinian times calls sacrament in the specific sense of the word (means of grace) was only possessed by the Church of the third century in the form of baptism.279 In strict theory she still held that the grace once 139bestowed in this rite could be conferred by no holy ceremony of equal virtue, that is, by no fresh sacrament. The baptised Christian has no means of grace, conferred by Christ, at his disposal, but has his law to fulfil 279

Much as the use of the word “sacramentum” in the Western Church from Tertullian to Augustine (Hahn, Die Lehre von den Sacramenten, 1864, p. 5 ff.) differs from that in the classic Romish use it is of small interest in the history of dogma to trace its various details. In the old Latin Bible µυστήροιν was translated “sacramentum” and thus the new signification “mysterious, holy ordinance or thing” was added to the meaning “oath”, “ sacred obligation”. Accordingly Tertullian already used the word to denote sacred facts, myste 564 rious and salutary signs and vehicles, and also holy acts. Everything in any way connected with the Deity and his revelation, and therefore, for example, the content of revelation as doctrine, is designated “sacrament”; and the word is also applied to the symbolical which is always something mysterious and holy. Alongside of this the old meaning “sacred obligation” still remains in force. If, because of this comprehensive use, further discussion of the word is unnecessary, the fact that revelation itself as well as everything connected with it was expressly designated as a “mystery” is nevertheless of importance in the history of dogma. This usage of the word is indeed not removed from the original one so long as it was merely meant to denote the supernatural origin and supernatural nature of the objects in question; but more than this was now intended; “sacramentum” (µυτή ) was rather intended to represent the holy thing that was revealed as something relatively concealed. This conception, however, is opposed to the Judæo-Christian idea of revelation, and is thus to be regarded as an introduction of the Greek notion. Probst (Sacramente und Sacramentalia, 1872) thinks differently. That which is mysterious and dark appears to be such an essential attribute of the divine, that even the obscurities of the New Testam 564 ent Scriptures were now justified because these writings were regarded as altogether “spiritual”. See Iren. II. 28. 1-3. Tert. de bapt. 2: “deus in stultitia et impossibilitate materias operationis suæ instituit.”

(see, e.g., Iren. IV. 27. 2). But, as soon as the Church began to absolve mortal sinners, she practically possessed in absolution a real means of grace that was equally effective with baptism from the moment that this remission became unlimited in its application.280 The notions as to this means of grace, however, continued quite uncertain in so far as the thought of God’s absolving the sinner through the priest was qualified by the other theory (see above) which asserted that forgiveness was obtained through the penitential acts of transgressors (especially baptism with blood, and next in importance lamentationes, ieiunia, eleemosynæ). In the third century there were manifold holy dispensations of grace by the hands of priests; but there was still no theory which traced the means of grace to the historical work of Christ in the same way that the grace bestowed in baptism was derived from it. From Cyprian’s e aad pistles and the anti-Novatian sections in the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions we indeed see that appeal was not unfrequently made to the power of forgiving 140sins bestowed on the Apostles and to Christ’s declaration that he received sinners; but, as the Church had not made up her mind to repeat baptism, so also she had yet no theory that expressly and clearly supplemented this rite by a sacramentum absolutionis. In this respect, as well as in regard to the sacramentum ordinis, first instituted by Augustine, theory remained far behind practice. This was by no means an advantage, for, as a matter of fact, the whole religious ceremonial was already regarded as a system of means of grace. The consciousness of a personal, living connection of the individual with God through Christ had already disappeared, and the hesitation in setting up new means of grace had only the doubtful result of increasing the significance of human acts, such as offerings and satisfactions, to a dangerous extent. Since the middle of the second century the notions of baptism281 in the Church have not essentially altered (see Vol. I. p. 206 ff.). The result of baptism was universally considered to be forgiveness of sins, and this pardon was supposed to effect an actual sinlessness which now required to be maintained.282 We

280

We have explained above that the Church already possessed this means of grace, in so far as she had occasionally absolved mortal sinners, even at an earlier period; but this possession was quite uncertain and, strictly speaking, was not a possession at all, for in such cases the early Church merely followed extraordinary directions of the Spirit. 281 Höfling, Das Sacrament der Taufe, 2 Vols., 1846. Steitz, Art. “Taufe” in Herzog’s Real Encyklopädie. Walch, Hist. pædobaptismi ac8 quattuor priorum sæculorum, 1739. 282 In de bono pudic. 2: “renati ex aqua et pudicitia,” Pseudo-Cyprian expresses idea, which, though remarkable, is not confined to himself.

frequently find “deliverance from death”, “regeneration of man”, “restoration to the image of God”, and “obtaining of the Holy Spirit”. (“Absolutio mortes”, “regeneratio hominis”, “restitutio ad similitudinem dei” and “consecutio spiritus sancti”) named along with the “remission of sins” and “obtaining of eternal life” (“remissio delictorum” and “consecutio æternitatis”). Examples are to be found in Tertullian 57f 283 adv. Marc. I. 28 and elsewhere; and Cyprian speaks of the “bath of regeneration and sanctification” (“lavacrum regenerationis et sanctificationis”). Moreover, we pretty frequently find rhetorical passages where, on the strength of New Testament texts, all possible blessings are associated with baptism.284 The constant additions to the 141baptismal ritual, a process which had begun at a very early period, are partly due to the intention of symbolising these supposedly manifold virtues of baptism,285 and partly owe their origin to the endeavour to provide

283

But Tertullian says (de bapt. 6): “Non quod in aquis spiritum sanctum consequamur, sed in aqua emundati sub angelo spiritui sancto præparamur.” 284 The disquisitions of Clement of Alexandria in Pædag. I. 6 (baptism and sonship) are very important, but he did not follow them up. It is deserving of note that the positive effects of baptism were more strongly emphasised in the East than in the West. But, on the other hand, the conception is more uncertain in the former region. 285 See Tertullian, de bapt. 7 ff.; Cypr., ep. 70. 2 (“ungi quoque necesse est eum qui baptizatus est, ut accepto chrismate, i.e., unctione esse unctus dei et habere in se gratiam Christi possit”), 74. 5 etc. “Chrism” is already found in Tertullian as well as the laying on of hands. The Roman Catholic bishop Cornelius in the notorious epistle to Fabius (Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 15), already traces the rites which accompany baptism to an ecclesiastical canon (perhaps one from Hippolytus’ collection; see can. arab. 19). After relating that Novatian in his illness had only received clinical baptism he writes: οὐ µὴν οὐδὲ τῶν λοιπῶν ἔτυχε, διαφυγὼν τὴν νόσον, ὧν χρὴ µεταλαµβάνει 559 ν κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας κανόνα, τοῦ τε σφραγισθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου. It is also remarkable that one of the bishops who voted about heretic baptism (Sentent. episcop., Cypr., opp. ed. Hartel I. p. 439) calls the laying on of hands a sacrament like baptism: “neque enim spiritus sine aqua separatim operari potest nec aqua sine spiritu male ergo sibi quidem interpretantur ut dicant, quod per manus impositionem spiritum sanctum accipiant et sic recipiantur, cum manifestum sit utroque sacramento debere eos renasci in ecclesia catholica.” Among other particulars found in Tertullian’s work on baptism (cc. 1. 12 seq.) it may moreover be seen that there were Christians about the year 200, who questioned the indispensability of baptism to salvation (baptismus non est necessarius, quibus fides satis est). The assumption that martyrdom replaces baptism (Tertull., de bapt. 16; Origen), is in itself a sufficient proof that the ideas of the “sacrament” were still uncertain As to the objection that Jesus himself had not baptised and that the Apostles had not received Christian baptism see Tert., de bapt. 11, 12.

the great mystery with fit 564 accompaniments.286 As yet the separate acts can hardly be proved to have an independent signification.287 The water was 142regarded both as the symbol of the purification of the soul and as an efficacious, holy medium of the Spirit (in accordance with Gen. I. 2; water and Spirit are associated with each other, especially in Cyprian’s epistles on baptism). He who asserted the latter did not thereby repudiate the former (see Orig. in Joann. Tom. VI. 17, Opp. IV. p. 133).288 Complete obscurity prevails 564 as to the Church’s adoption of the practice of child baptism, which, though it owes its origin to the idea of this ceremony being indispensable to salvation, is nevertheless a proof that the superstitious view of baptism had increased.289 In the time of Irenæus (II. 22. 4) and Tertullian (de bapt. 18) child baptism had already become very general and was founded on Matt. XIX. 14. We have no testimony regarding it from earlier times; Clement of Alexandria does not yet assume it. Tertullian argued against it not only because he regarded conscious faith as a needful preliminary condition, but also because he thought it advisable to delay baptism (cunctatio baptismi) on

a91 286In itself the performance of this rite seemed too simple to those who sought eagerly for mysteries. See Tertull., de bapt. 2: “Nihil adeo est quod obduret mentes hominum quam simplicitas divinorum operum, quæ in actu videtur, et magnificentia, quæ in effecta repromittitur, ut hinc quoque, quoniam tanta simplicitate, sine pompa, sine apparatu novo aliquo, denique sine sumptu homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus non multo vel nihilo mundior resurgit, eo incredibilis existimetur consecutio æternitatis. Mentior, si non e contrario idolorum solemnia vel arcana de suggestu et apparatu deque sumptu fidem at auctoritatem sibi exstruunt.” 287 But see Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 15, who says that only the laying on of hands on the part of the bishop communicates the Holy Spirit, and this ceremony must therefore follow baptism. It is probable that confirmation as a specific act did not become detached from baptism in the West till shortly before the middle of the third century. Perhaps we may assume that the Mithras cult. had an influence here. 288 See Tertullian’s superstitious remarks in de bap. 3-9 to the effect that water is the element of the Holy Spirit and of unclean Spirits etc. Melito also makes a similar statement in the fragment of his treatise on baptism in Pitra, Anal, Sacra II., p. 3 sq. Cyprian, ep. 70. 1, uses the remarkable words: “oportet vero mundari et sanctificari aquam prius a sacerdote (Tertull. still knows nothing of this: c. 17: etiam laicis ius est”), ut possit baptismo suo peccata hominis qui baptizatur abluere.” Ep. 74. 5: “peccata purgare et hominem sanctificare aqua sola non potest, nisi habeat et spiritum sanctum.” Clem. Alex. Protrept. 10. 99: λάβετε ὕδωρ λογικόν. b0a 289It was easy for Origen to justify child baptism, as he recognised something sinful in corporeal birth itself, and believed in sin which had been committed in a former life. The earliest justification of child baptism may therefore be traced back to a philosophical doctrine.

account of the responsibility involved in it (pondus baptismi). He says: “It is more advantageous to delay baptism, especially in the case of little children. For why is it necessary for the sponsors (this is the first mention of “god 559 parents “) also to be thrust into danger? . . . let the little ones therefore come when they are growing up; let them come when they are learning, when they are taught where they are coming to; let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ. Why does an age of innocence hasten to the remission of sins? People will act more cautiously in worldly affairs, so that one 143who is not trusted with earthly things is trusted with divine. Whoever understands the responsibility of baptism will fear its attainment more than its delay.”290 To all appearance the practice of immediately baptising the children of Christian families was universally adopted in the Church in the course of the third century. (Origen, Comment. in ep. ad Rom. V. 9, Opp. IV. p. 565, declared child baptism to be a custom handed down by the Apostles.) Grown up people, on the other hand, frequently postponed baptism, but this habit was disapproved.291 56f The Lord’s Supper was not only regarded as a sacrifice, but also as a divine gift.292 The effects of this gift were not 290

Translator’s note. The following is the original Latin, as quoted by Prof. Harnack: “Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, præcipue circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri . . . veniant ergo parvuli, dum adolescunt; veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniant docentur; fiant Christiani, cum Christum nosse potuerint. Quid festinat innocens ætas ad remissionem peccatorum? Cautius agetur in sæcularibus, ut cui substantia terrena non creditur, divina credatur . . . Si qui pondus intelligant baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem.” 291 Under such circumstances the recollection of the significance of baptism in the establishment of the Church fell more and more into the background (see Hermas: “the Church rests like the world upon water”; Irenæus III. 17. 2: “Sicut de arido tritico massa una non fieri potest sine humore neque unis panis, ita nec nos multi unum fieri in Christo Iesu poteramus sine aqua quæ de cœlo est. Et sicut arida terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat: sic et nos lignum aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam sine superna voluntaria pluvia. Corpora unim nostra per lavacrum illam quæ est ad incorruptionem unitatem acceperunt, animæ autem per spiritum”). The unbaptised (catechumens) also belong to the Church, when they commit themselves to her guidance and prayers. Accordingly baptism ceased more and more to be regarded as an act of initiation, and only recovered this character in the course of the succeeding centuries. In this connection the 7th (spurious) canon of Constantinople (381) is instructive: ac8 καὶ τὴν πρώτην ἡµέραν ποιοῦµεν αὐτοὺς Χριστιανούς, τὴν δὲ δευτέραν κατηχουµένους, εἶτα τὴν τρίτην ἐξορκίζοµεν αὐτοὺς κ.τ.λ. 292 Döllinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistic in dem ersten 3 Jahrhunderten, 1826. Engelhardt in the Zeitschrift für die hist. Theologie, 1842, I. Kahnis, Lehre vom Abendmahl, 1851. Rückert, Das Abendmahl, sein Wesen und seine Geschichte, 1856.

theoretically fixed, because these were excluded by the strict scheme293 144of baptismal grace and baptismal obligation. But in practice Christians more and more assumed a real bestowal of heavenly gifts in the holy food, and gave themselves over to superstitious theories. This bestowal was sometimes regarded as a spiritual and sometimes as a bodily self-communication of Christ, that is, as a miraculous implanting of divine life. Here ethical and physical, and again ethical and theoretical features were intermixed with each other. The utterances of the Fathers to which we have access do not allow us ac8 to classify these elements here; for to all appearance not a single one clearly distinguished between spiritual and bodily, or ethical and intellectual effects unless he was in principle a spiritualist. But even a writer of this kind had quite as superstitious an idea of the holy elements as the rest. Thus the holy meal was extolled as the communication of incorruption, as a pledge of resurrection, as a medium of the union of the flesh with the Holy Spirit; and again as food of the soul, as the bearer of the Spirit of Christ (the Logos), as the means of strengthening faith and knowledge, as a sanctifying of the whole personality. The thought of the forgiveness of sins fell quite into the background. This ever changing conception, as it seems to us, of the effects of partaking of the Lord’s Supper had also a parallel in the notions as to the relation between the visible elements and the body of Christ. So far as we are able to judge no one felt that there was a problem here, no one enquired whether this relation was realistic or symbolical. The symbol is the mystery and the mystery was not conceivable without a symbol. What we now-a-days understand by “symbol” is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time “symbol” denoted a thing which, in some kind of way, really is what it signifies; but, on the other hand, according to the ideas of that period, the really heavenly element lay either in or behind the visible form without being 145identical with it. Accordingly the

Leimbach, Beiträge zur Abendmahlslehre Tertullian’s, 1874. Steitz, Die Abendmahlslehre der griechischen Kirche, in the Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1864-1868; cf. also the works of Probst. Whilst Eucharist and love feast had already been separated from the middle of the 2nd century in the West, they were still united in Alexandria in Clement’s time; see Bigg, l.c., p. 103. 293 The collocation of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which, as the early Christian monuments prove, was a very familiar practice (Tert., adv. Marc. IV. 34: sacramentum baptismi et eucharistiæ; Hippol., can. arab. 38: “baptizatus et corpore Christi pastus”), was, so far as I know, justified by no Church Father on internal grounds. Considering their conception of the holy ordinances this is not surprising. They were classed together because they were instituted by the Lord, and because the elements (water, wine, bread) afforded much common ground for allegorical interpretation.

distinction of a symbolic and realistic conception of the Supper is altogether to be rejected; we could more rightly distinguish between materialistic, dyophysite, and docetic conceptions which, however, are not to be regarded as severally exclusive in the strict sense. In the popular idea the consecrated elements were heavenly fragments of magical virtue (see Cypr., de laps. 25; Euseb., H. E. VI. 44). With these the rank and file of third-century Christians already connected many superstitious notions which the priests tolerated or shared.294 The antignostic Fathers acknowledged that the consecrated food consisted of two things, an earthly (the elements) and a heavenly (the real body of Christ). They thus saw in the sacrament a guarantee of the union between spirit and flesh, which the Gnostics denied; and a pledge of the resurrection of the flesh nourished by the blood of the Lord (Justin; Iren. IV. 18. 4, 5; V. 2. 2, 3; li 564 kewise Tertullian who is erroneously credited with a “symbolical” doctrine295). Clement and Origen “spiritualise”, because, like Ignatius, they assign a spiritual significance to the flesh and blood of Christ himself (summary of wisdom). To judge from the exceedingly confused passage in Pæd. II. 2, Clement distinguishes a spiritual and a material blood of Christ. Finally, however, he sees in the Eucharist the union of the divine Logos with the human spirit, recognises, like Cyprian at a later period, that the mixture of wine with water in the symbol represents the spiritual process, and lastly does not fail to attribute to the holy food a relationship to the body.296 It is true that Origen,

294

The story related by Dionysius (in Euseb., l.c.) is especially characteristic, as the narrator was an extreme spiritualist. How did it stand therefore with the dry tree? Besides, Tertull. (de corona 3) says: “Calicis aut panis nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxie patimur”. Supe ac8 rstitious reverence for the sacrament ante et extra usum is a very old habit of mind in the Gentile Church. 295 Leimbach’s investigations of Tertullian’s use of words have placed this beyond doubt; see de orat. 6; adv. Marc. I. 14: IV. 40: III. 19; de resurr. 8. 296 The chief passages referring to the Supper in Clement are Protrept. 12. 120; Pæd. I. 6. 43: II. 2. 19 sq.: I. 5. 15: I. 6. 38, 40; Quis div. 23; Strom. V. 10. 66: I. 10. 46: I. 19. 96: VI. 14. 113: V. 11. 70. Clement thinks as little of forgiveness of sins in connection with the Supper as does the author of the Didache or the other Fathers; this feast is rather meant to bestow an initiation into knowledge and immortality. Ignatius had already said, “the body is faith, the blood is hope”. This is also Clement’s opinion; he also knows of a transubstantiation, not, however, into the real body of Christ, but into heavenly powers. His teaching was therefore that of Valentinus (see the Exc. ex. Theod. § 82, already given on Vol. i. p. 263) Strom. V. 11. 70: λογικὸν ἡµῖν βρῶµα ἡ γνῶσις; I. 20. 46: ἕνα δὴ φάγωµεν λογικῶς; V. 10. 66: βρῶσις γὰρ καὶ πόσις τοῦ θείου λόγου ἡ γνῶσις ἐστι τῆς θείας οὐσίας. Adumbrat. in epp. Joh.: “sanguis quod est cognitio”; see Bigg, i.e., p. 106 ff.

the great 146mysteriosophist and theologian of sacrifice, expressed himself in plainly “ spiritualistic” fashion; but in his eyes religious myste ac8 ries and the whole person of Christ lay in the province of the spirit, and therefore his theory of the Supper is not “symbolical”, but conformable to his doctrine of Christ. Besides, Origen was only able to recognise spiritual aids in the sphere of the intellect and the disposition, and in the assistance given to these by man’s own free and spontaneous efforts. Eating and drinking and, in general, participation in a ceremonial are from Origen’s standpoint completely indifferent matters. The intelligent Christian feeds at all times on the body of Christ, that is, on the Word of God, and thus celebrates a never ending Supper (c. Cels. VIII. 22). Origen, however, was not blind to the fact that his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was just as far removed from the faith of the simple Christian as his doctrinal system generally. Here also, therefore, he accommodated himself to that faith in points where it seemed necessary. This, however, he did not find difficult; for, though with him everything is at bottom “spiritual”, he was unwilling to dispense with symbols and mysteries, because he knew that one must be initiated into the spiritual, since one cannot learn it as one learns the lower sciences.297 But, whether we consider simple believers, the antignostic Fathers or Origen, and, moreover, whether we view the Supper as offering or sacrament, we everywhere observe that the holy ordinance had been entirely 147diverted from its original purpose and pressed into the service of the spirit of antiquity. In no other point perhaps is the hellenisation of the Gospel so evident as in this. To mention only one other example, this is also shown in the practice of child communion, which, though we first hear of it in Cyprian (Testim. III. 25; de laps. 25), can hardly be of later origin than child baptism. Partaking of the Supper seemed quite as indispensable as baptism, and the child had no less claim than the adult to a magical food from heaven.298

297

Orig. in Matth. Comment. ser. 85: “Panis iste, quem deus verbum corpus suum esse fatetur, verbum est nutritorium animarum, verbum de deo verbo procedens et panis de pane cœ’esti . . . Non enim panem illum visibilem, quem tenebat in manibus, corpus suum dicebat deus verbum, sed verbum, in cuius mysterio fuerat pa 564 nis ille frangendus; nec potum illum visibilem sanguinem suum dicebat, sed verbum in cuius mysterio potus ille fuerat effundendus”; see in Matt. XI. 14; c. Cels. VIII. 33. Hom. XVI. 9 in Num. On Origen’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper see Bigg, p. 219 ff. 298 The conception of the Supper as viaticum mortis (fixed by the 13th canon of Nicæa: περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐξοδευόντων ὁ παλαιὸς καὶ κανονικὸς νόµος φυλαχθήσεται καὶ νῦν, ὥστε εἴτις ἐξοδεύοι, τοῦ τελευταίου καὶ ἀναγκαιοτάτου ἐφοδίου µὴ ἀποστερεῖσθαι, a conception which is genuinely Hellenic and which was strengthened by

In the course of the third century a crass superstition became developed in respect to the conceptions of the Church and the mysteries connected with her. According to this notion we must subjec 564 t ourselves to the Church and must have ourselves filled with holy consecrations as we are filled with food. But the following chapters will show that this superstition and mystery magic were counterbalanced by a most lively conception of the freedom and responsibility of the individual. Fettered by the bonds of authority and superstition in the sphere of religion, free and selfdependent in the province of morality, this Christianity is characterised by passive submission in the first respect and by complete activity in the second. It may be that exegetical theology can never advance beyond an alternation between these two aspects of the case, and a recognition of their equal claim to consideration; for the religious phenomenon in which they are combined defies any explanation. But religion is in danger of being destroyed when the insufficiency of the understanding is elevated into a convenient principle of theory and life, and when the real mystery of the faith, 148viz., how one becomes a new man, must accordingly give place to the injunction that we must obediently accept the religious as a consecration, and add to this the zealous endeavour after ascetic virtue. Such, however, has been the character of Catholicism since the third century, and even after Augustine’s time it has still remained the same in its prac ac8 tice. 149

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTERS II. AND III. CATHOLIC AND ROMAN.299

the idea that the Supper was φάρµακον ἀθανασίας), the practice of benediction, and much else in theory and practice connected with the Eucharist reveal the influence of antiquity. See the relative articles in Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary ac8 of Christian Antiquities. 299 The fullest account of the “history of the Romish Church down to the pontificate of Leo I.” has been given by Langen, 1881; but I can in no respect agree (see Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1891, No. 6) with the hypotheses about the primacy as propounded by him in his treatise on the Clementine romances (1890, see especially p. 163 ff). The collection of passages given by Caspari, “Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols,” Vol. III., deserves special recognition. See also the sections bearing on this subject in Renan “Origines du Christianisme”, Vols. V.-VII., especially VII., chaps. 5, 12, 23. Sohm in his “Kirchenrecht” I. (see especially pp. 164 ff., 350 ff., 377 ff.) has adopted my conception of “Catholic “ and “Roman”, and made it the basis of further investigations. He estimates

IN investigating the development of Christianity up till about the year 270 the following facts must be specially kept in mind: In the regions subject to Rome, apart from the Judæo-Christian districts and passing disturbances, Christianity had yet an undivided history in vital questions;300 the independence of individual congregations and of the provincial groups of Churches was very great; and every advance in the development of the 150communities at the same time denoted a forward step in their adaptation to the existing conditions of the Empire. The first two facts we have mentioned have their limitations. The further apart the different Churches lay, the more various were the conditions under which they arose and flourished; the looser the relations between the towns in which they had their home the looser also was the connection between them. Still, it is evident that towards the end of the third century the development in the Church had well-nigh attained the same point everywhere — except in outlying communities. Catholicism, essentially as we conceive it now, was what most of the Churches had arrived at. Now it is an a priori probability that this transformation of Christianity, which was simply the adaptation of the Gospel to the then existing Empire, came about under the guidance of the metropolitan Church,301 the

the importance of the Roman Church still more highly, in so far as, according to him, she was the exclusive originator of Church law as well as of the Catholic form of Church constitution; and on page 381 he flatly says: “The whole Church constitution with its claim to be founded on divine arrangement was first developed in Rome and then transferred from her to the other communities.” I think this is an exaggeration. Tschirn (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, XII. p. 215 ff.) has discussed the origin of the Roman Church in the 2nd century. Much that was the common property of Christendom, or is found in every religion as it becomes older, is regarded by this author as specifically Roman. 300 No doubt we must distinguish two halves in Christendom. The firs the ecclesiastical West, includes the west coast of Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome together with their daughter Churches, that is, above all, Gaul and North Africa. The second or eastern portion embraces Palestine, Egypt, Syria, and the east part of Asia Minor. A displacement gradually arose in the course of the 3rd century. In the West the most important centres are Ephesus, Smyrna, Corinth, and Rome, cities with a Greek and Oriental population. Even in Carthage the origin 53b al speech of the Christian community was probably Greek. 301 Rome was the first city in the Empire, Alexandria the second. They were the metropolitan cities of the world (see the inscription in Kaibel, No. 1561, p. 407: θρέψε µ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρεια, µέτοικον ἔθαψε δὲ Ῥώµη, αἱ κόσµου καὶ γῆς, ὦ ξένε, µητροπόλεις). This is reflected in the history of the Church; first Rome appears, then Alexandria. The significance of the great towns for the history of dogma and of the Church will be treated of in a future volume. Abercius of Hieropolis, according to the common interpretation

Church of Rome; and that “Roman” and “Catholic” had therefore a special relation from the beginning. It might a limine be objected to this proposition that there is no direct testimony in support of it, and that, apart from this consideration, it is also improbable, in so far as, in vi 553 ew of the then existing condition of society, Catholicism appears as the natural and only possible form in which Christianity could be adapted to the world. But this is not the case; for in the first place very strong proofs can be adduced, and besides, as is shown by the development in the second century, very different kinds of secularisation were possible. In fact, if all appearances are not deceptive, the Alexandrian Church, for example, was up to the time of Septimius Severus pursuing a path of development which, left to itself, would not have led to Catholicism, but, in the most favourable circumstances, to a parallel form.302 151

It can, however, be proved that it was in the Roman Church, which up to about the year 190 was closely connected with that of Asia Minor, that all the elements on which Catholicism is based first assumed a definite form.303 (1) We know that the Roman Church possessed a precisely formulated baptismal confession, and that as early as the year 180 she declared this to be the apostolic rule by which everything is to be measured. It is, only in her case that we are really certain of this, for we can merely guess at it as regards the Church of Smyrna, that is, of Asia Minor. It was accordingly admitted that the Roman Church was able to distinguish true from false with special exactness;304 and Irenæus

(inscription V. 7 f.) designates Rome as “queen”. This was a customary appellation; see Eunap., vita Prohær. p. 90: ἡ βασιλεύουσα Ῥώµη. af1 302 In this connection we need only keep in mind the following summary of facts. Up to the end of the second century the Alexandrian Church had none of the Catholic and apostolic standards, and none of the corresponding institutions as found in the Roman Church; but her writer, Clement, was also “as little acquainted with the West as Homer”. In the course of the first half of the 3rd century she received those standards and institutions; but her writer, Origen, also travelled to Rome himself in order to see “the very old” church and formed a connection with Hippolytus; and her bishop Dionysius carried on a correspondence with his Roman colleague, who also made common cause with him. Similar particulars may also be ascertained with regard to the Syrian Church. 303 See the proofs in the two preceding chapters. Note also that these elements have an inward connection. So long as one was lacking, all were, and whenever one was present, all the others immediately made their appearance. 304 Ignatius already says that the Roman Christians are ἀποδιυλισµένοι ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀλλοτρίον χρώµατος (Rom. inscr.); he uses this expression of no others. Similar remarks are not quite rare at a later period; see, for instance, the oft-repeated eulogy that no heresy

and Tertullian appealed to her to decide the practice in Gaul and Africa. This practice, in its precisely developed form, cannot be shown to have existed in Alexandria till a later period; but Origen, who testifies to it, also bears witness to the special reverence for and connection with the Roman Church. (2) The New Testament canon, with its claim to be accounted catholic and apostolic and to possess 152exclusive authority is first traceable in her; in the other communities it can only be proved to exist at a later period. In the great Antiochian diocese there was, for instance, a Church some of whose members wished the Gospel of Peter read; in the Pentapolis group of congregations the Gospel of the Egyptians was still used in the 3rd century; Syrian Churches of the same epoch used Tatian’s Diatessaron; and the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions still makes no mention of a New Testament canon. Though Clement of Alexandria no doubt testifies that, in consequence of the common history of Christianity, the group of Scriptures read in the Roman congregations was also the same as that employed in public worship at Alexandria, he had as yet no New Testament canon before him in the sense of Irenæus and Tertullian. It was not till Origen’s time that Alexandria reached the stage already attained in Rome about forty years earlier. It must, however, be pointed out that a series of New Testament books, in the form now found in the canon and universally recognised, show marks of revision that can be traced back to the Roman Church.305 Finally, the later investigations,

ever arose in Rome. At a time when this city had long employed the standard of the apostolic rule of faith with complete confidence, namely, at the beginning of the 3rd century, we bear that a lady of rank in Alexandria, who was at any rate a Christian, lodged and entertained in her house Origen, then a young man, and a famous heretic. (See Euseb., H. E. VI. 2. 13, 14). The lectures on doctrine delivered by this heretic and the conventicles over which he presided were attended by a µυρίον πλῆθος οὐ µόνον αἱρετικῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡµετέρων. That is a very valuable piece of information which shows us a state ac0 of things in Alexandria that would have been impossible in Rome at the same period. See, besides, Dionys. Alex. in Euseb., H. E. VII. 7. 305 I must here refrain from proving the last assertion. The possibility of Asia Minor having had a considerable share, or having led the way, in the formation of the canon must be left an open question (cf. what Melito says, and the use made of New Testament writings in the Epistle of Polycarp). We will, however, be constrained to lay the chief emphasis on Rome, for it must not be forgotten that Irenæus had the closest connection with the Church of that city, as is proved by his great work, and that he lived there before he came to Gaul. Moreover, it is a fact deserving of the greatest attention that the Montanists and their decided opponents in Asia, the so-called Alogi, had no ecclesiastical canon before them, though they may all have possessed the universally acknowledged books of the Romish canon, and none other, in the shape of books read in the churches.

which show that after the third century the Western readings, th 564 at is, the Roman text, of the New Testament were adopted in the Oriental MSS. of the Bible,306 are of the utmost value here; for the most natural 153explanation of these facts is that the Eastern Churches then received their New Testament from Rome and used it to correct their copies of books read in public worship.307 (3) Rome is the first place which we can prove to have constructed a list of bishops reaching back to the Apostles (see Irenæus).308 We know that in the time of Heliogabalus such lists also existed in other communities; but it cannot be proved that these had already been drawn up by the time of ac8 Marcus Aurelius or Commodus, as was certainly the case at Rome. (4) The notion of the apostolic succession of the episcopate309 was first turned to account by the Roman bishops, and they were the first who definitely formulated the political idea of the Church in connection with this. The utterances and corresponding practical measures of Victor,310 Calixtus (Hippolytus), and Stephen are the earliest of their kind; whilst the precision and assurance with which they substituted the

306

See the Prolegg. of Westcott and Hort (these indeed give an opposite judgment), and cf. Harris, Codex Bezæ. A study of the so-called Western text of the New Testament, 1891. An exhaustive study of the oldest martyrologies has already led to important cases of agreement between Rome and the East, and promises still further revelations. See Duchesne, “Les Sources du Martyrologe Hieron.” 1885. Egli, “Altchristliche Studien, Martyrien und Martyrologieen ältester Zeit.” 1887; the same writer in the “Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie”. 1891, p. 273 ff. 307 On the relations between Edessa and Rome see the end of the Excursus. ad0 308See my treatise “Die ältesten christlichen Datirungen und die Anfänge einer bischöflichen Chronographie in Rom.” in the report of the proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 1892, pp. 617-658. I think I have there proved that, in the time of Soter, Rome already possessed a figured list of bishops, in which important events were also entered. 309 That the idea of the apostolic succession of the bishops was first turned to account or appeared in Rome is all the more remarkable, because it was not in that city, but rather in the East, that the monarchical episcopate was first consolidated. (Cf. the Shepherd of Hermas and Ignatius’ Epistles to the Romans with his other Epistles). There must therefore have been a very rapid development of the constitution in the time between Hyginus and Victor. Sohm, l.c., tries to show that the monarchical episcopate arose in Rome immediately after the composition of the First Epistle of Clement, and as a result of it; and that this city was the centre from which it spread throughout Christendom. 310 See Pseudo-Cyprian’s work “de aleat” which, in spite of remarks to the contrary, I am inclined to regard as written by Victor; cf. Texte und Untersuchungen “ V. 1; see c. 1 of this writing: “et quoniam in nobis divina et paterna pietas apostolatus ducatum contulit et vicariam domini sedem cælesti dignatione ordinavit et originem authentici apostolatus, super quem Christus fundavit ecclesiam, in superiore nostro portamus.”

political and clerical for the ideal conception of the Church, or amalgamated the two notions, as well as the decided way in which they proclaimed the sovereignty of the bishops, were not surpassed in the third century by Cyprian himself. (5) Rome was the first place, and 154that at a very early period, to date occurrences according to her bishops; and, even outside that city, churches reckoned, not according to their own, but according to the Roman episcopate.311 (6) The Oriental Churches say that two bishops of Rome compiled the chief apostolic regulations for the organisation of the Church; and this is only partially wrong.312 (7) The three great theologians of the age, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen, opposed the pretensions of the Roman bishop Calixtus; and this very attitude of theirs testified that the advance in the political organisation of the Church, denoted by the measures of Calixtus, was still an unheard-of novelty, but immediately exercised a very important influence on the attitude of other Churches. We know that the other communities imitated this advance in the succeeding decades. (8) The institution of lower orders of clergy with the corresponding distinction of clerici maior ac8 es and minores first took place in Rome; but we know that this momentous arrangement gradually spread from that city to the rest of Christendom.313 (9) The different Churches communicated with one another through the medium of Rome.314

311

See repo 556 rt of the proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 1892, p. 622 ff. To the material found there must be added a remarkable passage given by Nestle (Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1893, p. 437), where the dates are reckoned after Sixtus I. 312 Cf. the 8th book of the Apostolic Constitutions with the articles referring to the regulation of the Church, which in Greek MSS. bear the name of Hippolytus. Compare also the Arabian Canones Hippolyti, edited by Haneberg (1870) and commented on by Achelis (Texte und Untersuchungen VI. 4). Apart from the additions and alterations, which are no doubt very extensive, it is hardly likely that the name of the Roman bishop is wrongly assigned to them. We must further remember the importance assigned by the tradition of the Eastern and Western Churches to one of the earliest Roman “bishops”, Clement, as the confidant and secretary of the Apostles and as the composer and arranger of their laws. ad6 313 See my proofs in “Texte und Untersuchungen”, Vol. II., Part 5. The canons of the Council of Nicæa presuppose the distinction of higher and lower clergy for the whole Church. 314 We see this from the Easter controversy, but there are proofs of it elsewhere, e.g., in the collection of Cyprian’s epistles. The Roman bishop Cornelius informs Fabius, bishop of Antioch, of the resolutions of the Italian, African, and other Churches (Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 3: ἦλθον εἰς ἡµᾶς ἐπιστολαὶ Κορνηλὶου Ῥωµαίων ἐπισκόπου πρὸς . . .

155

From these considerations we can scarcely doubt that the fundamental apostolic institutions and laws of Catholicism were framed in the same city that in other respects imposed its authority on the whole earth; and that it was the centre from which they spread, because the world had become accustomed to receive law and justice from Rome.315 But it may be objected that the parallel development in other provinces and towns was spontaneous, though it everywhere came about at a somewhat later date. Nor do we intend to contest the assumption in this general sense; but, as I think, it can be proved that the Roman community had a direct and important share in the process and that, even in the second century, she was reckoned the first and most influential Church.316 We shall give a bird’s-eye view of the most important facts bearing on the question, in order to prove this. No other community made a more brilliant entrance into Church history than did that of Rome by the so-called First Epistle of Clement — Paul having already testified (Rom. i. 8) that the faith of this Church was spoken of throughout the whole world. That letter to the Corinthians proves that, by the end of the first century, the Roman Church had already drawn up fixed 564 rules for her own guidance, that she watched with motherly 156care over outlying communities, and that she then knew how to use language

φάβιον, δηλοῦσαι τὰ περὶ τῆς Ῥωµαίων συνόδου, καὶ τὰ δόξαντα πᾶσι τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν καὶ Ἀφρικὴν καὶ τὰς αὐτόθι χώρας. We must not forget, however, that there were also bishops elsewhere who conducted a so-called œcumenical correspondence and enjoyed great influence, as, e.g., Dionysius of Corinth and Dionysius of Alexandria. In matters relating to penance the latter wrote to a great many Churches, even as far as Armenia, and sent many letters to Rome (Euseb., H. E. VI. 46). The Catholic theologian, Dittrich — before the Vatican Decree, no doubt — has spoken of him in the following terms (Dionysius von Alexandrien , 1867, p. 26): “As Dionysius participated in the power, so also he shared in the task of the primateship.” “Along with the Roman bishop he was, above all, called upon to guard the interests of the whole Church.” 315 This conception, as well as the ideas contained in this Excursus generally, is now entirely shared by Weingarten (Zeittafeln 3rd. ed., 1888 pp. 12, 21): “The Catholic Church is essentially the work of those of Rome and Asia Minor. The Alexandrian Church an 559 d theology do not completely adapt themselves to it till the 3rd century. The metropolitan community becomes the ideal centre of the Great Church” . . . “The primacy of the Roman Church is essentially the transference to her of Rome’s central position in the religion of the heathen world during the Empire: urbs æterna urbs sacra.” 316 This is also admitted by Langen (l.c., 184 f.), who even declares that this precedence existed from the beginning.

that was at once an expression of duty, love, and authority.317 As yet she pretends to no legal title of any kind, but she knows the “commandments and ordinances” (προστάγµατα and δοκαιώµατα) of God, whereas the conduct of the sister Church evinces her uncertainty on the matter; she is in an orderly condition, whereas the sister community is threatened with dissolution; she adheres to the κανὼν τῆς παραδόσεως, whilst the other body stands in need of exhortation;318 and in these facts her claim to a 564 uthority consists. The Shepherd of Hermas also proves that even in the circles of the laity the Roman Church is impressed with the consciousness that she must care for the whole of Christendom. The first testimony of an outsider as to this community is afforded us by Ignatius. Soften as we may all the extravagant expressions in his Epistle to the Romans, it is at least clear that Ignatius conceded to them a precedence in the circle of sister Churches; and that he was well acquainted with the energy and activity displayed by them in aiding and instructing other communities.319 Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to bishop Soter, affords us a glimpse of the vast activity manifested by the Christian Church of the world’s metropolis on behalf of all Christendom and of all brethren far and near; and reveals to us the feelings of filial affection and veneration 157with which she was regarded in all Greece as well as in Antioch. This author has specially emphasised the fact that the Roman Christians are Romans, that is, are conscious of the particular duties incumbent on them as members 560 of the metropolitan Church.320 After this evidence we cannot wonder that

317

Cf. chaps. 59 and 62, but more especially 63. 56f 318At that time the Roman Church did not confine herself to a letter; she sent ambassadors to Corinth, οἵτινες µάρτυρες ἔσονται µεταξὺ ὑµῶν καὶ ἡµῶν. Note carefully also the position of the Corinthian community with which the Roman one interfered (see on this point Wrede, Untersuchungen zum I Clemensbrief, 1891.) 319 In Ignatius, Rom. inscr., the verb προκάθηµαι is twice used about the Roman Church (προκάθηται ἐν [to be understood in a local sense] τόπῳ χωρίου Ῥρωµαίων — προκαθηµένη τῆς ἀγάπης = presiding in, or having the guardianship of, love). Ignatius (Magn. 6), uses the same verb to denote the dignity of the bishop or presbyters in relation to the community. See, besides, the important testimony in Rom. II.: ἄλλους ἐδιδάξατ 54f . Finally, it must be also noted that Ignatius presupposes an extensive influence on the part of individual members of the Church in the higher spheres of government. Fifty years later we have a memorable proof of this in the Marcia-Victor episode. Lastly, Ignatius is convinced that the Church will interfere quite as energetically on behalf of a foreign brother as on behalf of one of her own number. In the Epistle of Clement to James, c. 2, the Roman bishop is called ὁ ἀληθείας προκαθεζόµενος. 320 Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 9-12; cf, above all, the words: Ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑµῖν ἔθος ἐστὶ τοῦτο, πάντας µὲν ἀδελφοὺς ποικίλως εὐεργετεῖν, ἐκκλησίαις τε πολλαῖς ταῖς κατὰ

Irenæus expressly assigned to the Church of Rome the highest rank among those founded by the Apostles.321 His famous testimony has been quite as often under- as over-estimated. Doubtless his reference to the Roman Church is introduced in such a way that she is merely mentioned by way of example, just as he also adds the allusion to Smyrna and Ephesus; but there is quite as little doubt that this example was no arbitrary selection. The truth rather is that the Roman community must have been named, because its decision was already the most authoritative and impressive in Christendom.322 Whilst giving a 158formal scheme of proof that

πᾶσαν πόλιν ἐφόδια πέµπειν . . . πετροπαράδοτον ἔθος Ῥωµαίων Ῥωµαῖοι διαφυλάττοντες. Note here the emphasis laid on Ῥωµαῖοι. 321 According to Irenæus a peculiar significance belongs to the old Jerusalem Church, in so far as all the Christian congregations sprang from her (III. 12. 5: αὗται φωνὰι τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἐξ ἧς πᾶσα ἔσχηκεν ἐκκλησία τὴς ἀρχήν· αὗται φωναὶ τῆς µητροπόλεως τῶν τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης πολιτῶν). For obvious reasons Irenæus did not speak of the Jerusalem Church of his own time. Hence that passage cannot be utilised. 322 Iren. III. 3. 1: “Sed quoniam valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximæ et antiquissimæ et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Paulo et Pet 558 ro Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ ecclesiæ, eam quam habet ab apostolis traditionem et annuntiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo vel per sibiplacentiam malam vel vanam gloriam vel per cæcitatem et malam sententiam, præterquam oportet, colligunt. Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quæ est ab apostolis traditio.” On this we may remark as follows: (1) The special importance which Irenæus claims for the Roman Church — for he is only referring to her — is not merely based by him on her assumed foundation by Peter and Paul, but on a combination of the four attributes “maxima”, “antiquissima” etc. Dionysius of Corinth also made this assumption (Euseb., II 25. 8), but applied it quite as much to the Corinthian Church. As regards capability of proving the truth of the Church’s faith, all the communities founded by the Apostles possess principalitas in relation to the others; but the Roman Church has the potentior principalitas, in so far as she excels all the rest in her qualities of 567 ecclesia maxima et omnibus cognita etc. Principalitas = “sovereign authority,” αυθεντία, for this was probably the word in the original text (see proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 9th Nov., 1893). In common with most scholars I used to think that the “in qua” refers to “Roman Church”; but I have now convinced myself (see the treatise just cited) that it relates to “omnem ecclesiam”, and that the clause introduced by “in qua” merely asserts that every church, in so far as she is faithful to tradition, i.e., orthodox, must as a matter of course agree with that of Rome. (2) Irenæus asserts that every Church, i.e., believers in all parts of the world, must agree with this Church (“convenire” is to be understood in a figurative sense; the literal acceptation “every Church must come to that of Rome” is not admissible). However, this “must” is not

assigned the same theoretical value to each Church founded by the Apostles, Irenaeus added a reference to particular circumstance, viz., that in his time many communities turned to Rome in order to testify their orthodoxy.323 As soon as we cease to obscure our vision with theories and keep in view the actual circumstances, we have no cause for astonishment. Considering the active intercourse between the various Churches and the metropolis, it was of the utmost importance to all, especially so long as they required financial aid, to be in connection with that of Rome, to receive support from her, to know she would entertain travelling brethren, and to have the power of recommending prisoners and those pining in the mines to her influential intervention. The evidence of Ignatius and Dionysius as well as the Marcia-Victor episode place this beyond doubt (see above). The efforts of Marcion and Valentinus in Rome have also a bearing on this question, and the venerable bishop, Polycarp, did not shrink from the toil 564 of a long journey to secure the valuable fellowship of the Roman Church;324 it was not Anicetus who came to Polycarp, 159but Polycarp to Anicetus. At the time when the controversy with Gnosticism ensued, the Roman Church showed all the rest an example of resolution; it was naturally to be expected that, as a necessary condition of mutual fellowship, she should require other communities to recognise the law by which she had regulated her own circumstances. No community in the Empire could regard with indifference its relationship to the great Roman Church; almost everyone had connections with her; she contained believers from all the rest. As early as 180 this Church could point to a series of bishops reaching in uninterrupted succession from the glorious apostles Paul and Peter325 down to the present time; and she alone

meant as an imperative, but = ἀνάγκη = “it cannot be otherwise.” In reference to principalitas = ἀυθεντία (see I. 31. 1: I. 26. 1) it must be remembered that Victor of Rome (l.c.) speaks of the “origo authentici apostolatus”, and Tertullian remarks of Valentinus when he apostatised at Rome, “ab ecclesia authenticæ regulæ abrupit” (adv. Valent. 4). 323 Beyond doubt his “convenire necesse est” is founded on actual circumstances. 324 On other important journeys of Christian men and bishops to Rome in the 2nd and 3rd centuries see Caspari, l.c. Above all we may call attention to the journey of Abercius of Hierapolis (not Hierapolis on the Meander) about 200 or even earlier. Its historical reality is not to be questioned. See his words in the epitaph composed by himself (V. 7 f.): εἰς Ῥώµην ὅς ἔπεµψεν ἐµὲν βασίληαν ἀθρῆσαι καὶ βασίλισσαν ιδεῖν χρυσόστολον χρυσοπέδιλον. However, Ficker raises very serious objections to the Christian origin of the inscription. 325 We cannot here discuss how this tradition arose; in all likelihood it already expresses the position which the Roman Church very speedily attained in Christendom.

maintained a brief but defi 564 nitely formulated lex, which she entitled the summary of apostolic tradition, and by reference to which she decided all questions of faith with admirable certainty. Theories were incapable of overcoming the elementary differences that could not but appear as soon as Christianity became naturalised in the various provinces and towns of the Empire. Nor was it theories that created the empiric unity of the Churches, but the unity which the Empire possessed in Rome; the extent and composition of the Græco-Latin community there; the security — and this was not the least powerful element — that accompanied the development of this great society, well provided as it was with wealth and possessed of an influence in high quarters already dating from the first century;326 as well as the care which it displayed on behalf of all Christendom. All these causes combined to convert 160the Christian communities into a real confederation under the primacy of the Roman Church (and subsequently under the leadership of her bishops 564 .). This primacy cannot of course be further defined, for it was merely a de facto one. But, from the nature of the case, it was immediately shaken, when it was claimed as a legal right associated with the person of the Roman bishop. That this theory is more than a hypothesis is shown by several facts which prove the unique authority as well as the interference of the Roman Church (that is, of her bishop). First, in the Montanist controversy — and that too at the stage when it was still almost exclusively confined to Asia Minor — the already sobered adherents of the new prophecy petitioned Rome (bishop Eleutherus) to recognise their Church, and it was at Rome that the Gallic confessors cautiously interfered in their behalf; after which a native of Asia Minor induced the Roman bishop to withdraw the letters of toleration already issued.327 In view of the facts that it was not Roman Montanists who were concerned, that Rome was

See Renan, Orig., Vol. VII., p. 70: “Pierre et Paul (réconciliés), voilà le chef-d’œuvre qui fondait la suprématie ecclésiastique de Rome clans l’avenir. Une nouvelle qualité mythique remplaçait celle de Romulus et Remus.” But it is highly probable that Peter was really in Rome like Paul (see 1 Clem. V., Ignatius ad Rom. IV.); both really performed important services to the Church there, and died as martyrs in that city. 326 The wealth of the Roman Church is also illustrated by the present of 200,000 sesterces brought her by Marcion (Tertull., de præsc abc . 30). The “Shepherd” also contains instructive particulars with regard to this. As far as her influence is concerned, we possess various testimonies from Philipp. IV. 22 down to the famous account by Hippolytus of the relations of Victor to Marcia. We may call special attention to Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans. 327 See Tertullian, adv. Prax.1; Euseb., H. E. V. 3, 4. Dictionary of Christian Biography III., p. 937.

the place where the Asiatic members of this sect sought for recognition, and 564 that it was in Rome that the Gauls interfered in their behalf, the significance of this proceeding cannot be readily minimised. We cannot of course dogmatise on the matter; but the fact can be proved that the decision of the Roman Church must have settled the position of that sect of enthusiasts in Christendom. Secondly, what is reported to us of Victor, the successor of Eleutherus, is still plainer testimony. He ventured to issue an edict, which we may already style a peremptory one, proclaiming the Roman practice with regard to the regulation of ecclesiastical festivals to be the universal rule in the Church, and declaring that every congregation, that failed to adopt the Roman arrangement,328 161was excluded from the union of the one Church on the ground of heresy. How would Victor have ventured on such an edict — though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case — unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the “common unity” (κοινὴ ἕνωσις) in the vital ques 564 tions of the faith had been an acknowledged and wellestablished fact? How could Victor have addressed such a demand to the independent Churches, if he had not been recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the κοινὴ ἕνωσις?329 Thirdly, it was Victor who formally excluded Theodotus from Church fellowship. This is the first really wellattested case of a Christian taking his stand on the rule of faith being excommunicated because a definite interpretation of it was already insisted on. In this instance the expression ὑιὸς µονογενής (only begotten Son) was required to be understood in the sense of φύσει Θεός (God by nature). It was in Rome that this first took

328

Euseb., H. E. V. 24. 9: Ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ µὲν τῆς Ῥωµαίων προεστὼς Βίκτωρ ἀθρόως τῆς Ἀσίας πάσης ἅµα ταῖς ὁµόροις ἐκκλησίαις τὰς παροικίας ἀποτόέµνειν ὡσὰν ἑτεροδοξούσας, τῆς κοινῆς ἑνώσεως πειρᾶται, καὶ στηλιτέυει γε διὰ γραµµάτων, ακοινωνέτους πάντας ἄρδην τούς ἐκεῖσε ἀνακηρύττων ἀδελφούς. Stress should be laid on two points here: (1) Victor proclaimed that the people of Asia Minor were to be excluded from the κοινὴ ἕνωσις, and not merely from the fellowship of the Roman Church; (2) he based the excommunication on the alleged heterodoxy of those Churches. See Heinichen, Melet. VIII., on Euseb., l.c. Victor’s action is parallelled by that of Stephen. Firmilian says to the latter: “Dum enim putas, omnes abs te abstineri posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti.” It is a very instructive fact that in the 4th century Rome also made the attempt to have Sabbath fasting established as an apostolic custom. See the interesting work confuted by Augustine (ep. 36), a writing which emanates from a Roman author who is unfortunately unknown to us. Cf. also Augustine’s 54th and 55th epistles. 329 Irenæus also (l.c. § 11) does not appear to have questioned Victor’s proceeding as such, but as applied to this particular case.

place. Fourthly, under Zephyrinus, Victor’s successor, the Roman ecclesiastics interfered in the Carthaginian veil dispute, making common cause with the local clergy against Tertullian; and both app ac8 ealed to the authority of predecessors, that is, above all, of the Roman bishops.330 Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, and Cyprian were 162obliged to resist the pretensions of these ecclesiastics to authority outside their own Church, the first having to contend with Calixtus, and the three others with Stephen.331 It was the Roman Church that first displayed this activity and care; the Roman bishop sprang from the community in exactly the same way as the corresponding official did in other places.332 In 330

See Tertull., de orat. 22: “Sed non putet institutionem unusquisque antecessoris commovendam.” De virg. vel. I: “Paracletus solus antecessor, quia solus post Christum”; 2: “Eas ego acclesias proposui, quas et ipsi apostoli vel apostolici viri condiderunt, et puto ante quosdam”; 3: “Sed nec inter consuetudines dispicere voluerunt illi sanctissimi antecessores”. This is also the question referred to in the important remark in Jerome, de vir. inl. 53: “Tertullianus ad mediam ætatem presbyter fuit ecclesiæ Africanæ, invidia postea et contumeliis clericorum Romanæ ecclesiæ ad Montani dogma delapsus.” ae6 331 Stephen acted like Victor and excluded almost all the East from the fellowship of the Church; see in addition to Cyprian’s epistles that of Dionysius of Alexandria in Euseb., H. E. VII. 5. In reference to Hippolytus, see Philosoph. I. IX. In regard to Origen, see the allusions in de orat. 28 fin.; in Matth. XI. 9, 15: XII. 9-14: XVI. 8, 22: XVII. 14; in Joh. X. 16; Rom. VI in Isai. c. I. With regard to Philosoph. IX. 12, Sohm rightly remarks (p. 389): “It is clear that the responsibility was laid on the Roman bishop not merely in several cases where married men were made presbyters and deacons, but also when they were appointed bishops; and it is also evident that he appears just as responsible when bishops are not deposed in consequence of their marrying. One cannot help concluding that the Roman bishop has the power of appointing and deposing not merely presbyters and deacons, but also bishops. Moreover, the impression is conveyed that this appointment and deposition of bishops takes place in Rome, for the passage contains a description of existent conditions in the Roman Church. Other communities may be deprived of their bishops by an order from Rome, and a bishop (chosen in Rome) may be sent them. The words of the passage are: ἐπὶ Καλλίστου ἤρξαντο ἐπίσκοποι καὶ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ διάκονοι δίγαµοι καὶ τρίγαµοι καθίστασθαι εἰς κλήρους· εἰ δὲ καὶ τις ἐν κλήρῳ ὤν γαµοίη, µένειν τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ ὡς µὴ ἡµαρτηκότα. 332 In the treatise “Die Briefe des römischen Klerus aus der Zeit der Sedisvacanz im Jahre 250” (Abhandlungen für Weizsäcker, 1892), I have shown how the Roman clergy kept the revenue of the Church and of the Churches in their hands, though they had no bishop. What language the Romans used in epistles 8, 30, 36 of the Cyprian collection, and how they interfered in the affairs of the Carthaginian Church! Beyond doubt the Roman Church possessed an acknowledged primacy in the year 250; it was the primacy of active participation and fulfilled duty. As yet there was no recognised dogmatic or historic foundation assigned for it; in fact it is h 564 ighly probable that this theory was still shaky and uncertain in Rome herself. The college of presbyters and deacons feels

Irenæus’ proof from prescription, however, it is already the Roman bishops that are specially mentioned.333 163Praxeas reminded the bishop of Rome of the authority of his predecessors (“auctoritates praecessorum eius”) and it was in the character of bishop that Victor acted. The assumption that Paul and Peter laboured in Rome, that is, founded the Church of that city (Dionysius, Irenæus, Tertullian, Caius), must have conferred a high degree of prestige on her bishops, as soon as the latter officials were elevated to the position of more or less sovereign lords of the communities and were regarded as successors of the Apostles. The first who acted up to this idea was Calixtus. The sarcastic titles of “pontifex maximus”, “episcopus episcoporum”, “benedictus papa” and “apostolicus”, applied to him by Tertullian in “de pudicitia” I. 13, are so many references to the fact that Calixtus already claimed ac8 for himself a position of primacy, in other words, that he associated with his own personal position as bishop the primacy

and speaks as if it were the bishop. For it was not on the bishop that the incomparable prestige of Rome was based — at least this claim was not yet made with any confidence, — but on the city itself, on the origin and history, the faith and love, the earnestness and zeal of the whole Roman Church and her clergy. 333 In Tertullian, de præsc. 36, the bishops are not mentioned. He also, like Irenæus, cites the Roman Church as one amongst others. We have already remarked that in the scheme of proof from prescription no higher rank could be assigned to the Roman Church than to any other of the group founded by the Apostles. Tertullian continues to maintain this position, but expressly remarks that the Roman Church has special authority for the Carthaginian, because Carthage had received its Christianity from Rome. He expresses the special relationship between Rome and Carthage in the following terms: ac8 Si autem Italiæ adiaces habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas præsto est.” With Tertullian, then, the de facto position of the Roman Church in Christendom did not lead to the same conclusion in the scheme of proof from prescription as we found in Irenæus. But in his case also that position is indicated by the rhetorical ardour with which he speaks of the Roman Church, whereas he does nothing more than mention Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus. Even at that time, moreover, he had ground enough for a more reserved attitude towards Rome, though in the antignostic struggle he could not dispense with the tradition of the Roman community. In the veil dispute (de virg. vel. 2) he opposed the authority of the Greek apostolic Churches to that of Rome. Polycarp had done the same against Anicetus, Polycrates against Victor, Proculus against his Roman opponents. Conversely, Praxeas in his appeal to Eleutherus (c. I.: “præcessorum auctoritates”), Caius when contending with Proculus, the Carthaginian clergy when opposing Tertullian (in the veil dispute), and Victor when contending with Polycrates set the authority of Rome against that of the Greek apostolic Churches. These struggles at the transition from the 2nd to the 3rd century are of the utmost importance. Rome was here seeking to overthrow the authority of the only group of Churches able to enter into rivalry with her those of Asia Minor, and succeeded in the attempt.

possessed by the Roman Church, which pre-eminence, however, must have been gradually vanishing in proportion to the progress of the Catholic form of organisation among the other communities. Moreover, that is evident from the form of the edict he issued (Tert. 1. c., I: “I hear that an edict has been issued and that a decisive one”, 164“audio edictum esse præpositum et quidem peremptorium”), from the grounds it assigned and from the opposition to it on the part of Tertullian. From the form, in so far as Calixtus acted here quite independently and, without previous consultation, issued a peremptory edict, that is, one settling the matter and immediately taking effect; from the grounds it assigned, in so far as he appealed in justification of his action to Matt. XVI. 18 ff.334 — the first instance of the kind recorded in history; from Tertullian’s opposition to it, because the latter treats it not as local, Roman, but as pregnant in consequences for all Christendom. But, as soon as the question took the form of enquiring whether the Roman bishop was elevated above the rest, a totally new situation arose. Even in the third century, as already shown, the Roman community, led by its bishops, still showed the rest an example in the process of giving a political constitution to the Church. It can also be proved that even far distant congregations were still being bound to the Roman Church through financial support,335 and that she was appealed to in questions of faith, just as the law of the city of Rome was invoked as the standard in civil questions.336 It 165is

334

De pudic. 21: “De tua nunc sententia quæro, unde hoc ius ecclesiæ usurpes. Si quia dixerit Petro dominus: Super hanc petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam, tibi dedi claves regni cælestis, vel, Quæcumque alligaveris vel solveris in terra, erunt alligata vel soluta in cœlis, id circo præsumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et alligandi potestatem?” Stephen did the same; see Firmilian in Cyprian ep. 75. With this should be compared the description Clement of Rome gives in his epistles to James of his own installation by Peter (c. 2). The following words are put in Peter’s mouth: Κλήµεντα τοῦτον ἐπίσκοπον ὑµῖν χειροτονῶ, ᾧ τὴν ἐµὴν τῶν λόγων πιστεύω καθέδραν . . . διὸ αὐτῷ µεταδίδωµι τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ δεσµεύειν καὶ λύειν, ἵνα περὶ πανύ 564 ὸς οὗ ἄν χειροτονήσῃ ἐπὶ γῆς ἔσται δεδογµατισµένον ἐν οὐρανοῖς. δήσει γὰρ ὅ δεῖ δεθῆναι καὶ λύσει ὅ δεῖ λυθῆναι, ὡς τὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας εἰδὼς κανόνα. 335 See Dionysius of Alexandria’s letter to the Roman bishop Stephen (Euseb., H. E. VII. 5. 2): Αἱ µέντοι Συρίαι ὅλαι καὶ ἡ Ἀραβία, οἷς ἐπαρκεῖτε ἑκάστοτε καὶ οἷς νῦν ἐπεστείλατε. 336 In the case of Origen’s condemnation the decision of Rome seems to have been of special importance. Origen sought to defend his orthodoxy in a ac8 letter written by his own hand to the Roman bishop Fabian (see Euseb., H. E. VI. 36; Jerome, ep. 84. 10). The Roman bishop Pontian had previously condemned him after summoning a “senate”; see Jerome, ep. 33 (Döllinger, Hippolytus and Calixtus, p. 259 f.). Further, it is an important fact that a deputation of Alexandrian Christians, who did not agree with the Christology

further manifest from Cyprian’s epistles that the Roman Ch ac8 urch was regarded as the ecclesia principalis, as the guardian par excellence of the unity of the Church. We may explain from Cyprian’s own particular situation all else that he said in praise of the Roman Church (see above p. 88, note 2) and specially of the cathedra Petri; but the general view that she is the “matrix et radix ecclesiæ catholicæ” is not peculiar to him, and the statement that the “unitas sacerdotalis” originated in Rome is merely the modified expression, necessitated by the altered circumstances of the Church, for the acknowledged fact that the Roman community was the most distinguished among the sister groups, and as such had had and still possessed the right and duty of watching over the unity of the whole. Cyprian himself no doubt took a further step at the time of his correspondence with Cornelius, and proclaimed the special reference of Matt. XVI. to the cathedra Petri; but he confined his theory to the abstractions “ecclesia”, “cathedra”. In him the importance of this cathedra oscillates between the significance of a once existent fact that continues to live on as a symbol, and that of a real and permanent court of appeal. Moreover, he did not go the length of declaring that any special authority within the collective Church attached to the temporary occupant of the cathedra Petri. If we remove from Cyprian’s abstractions everything to which he himself thinks there is nothing concrete corresponding, then we must above all eliminate every prerogative of the Roman bishop for the time being. What remains behind is the special position of the Roman Church, which indeed is represented by her bishop. Cyprian can say quite 166frankly: “owing to her magnitude Rome ought to have precedence over Carthage” (“pro magnitudine sua debet Carthaginem Roma præcedere”) and his theory: “the episcopate is one, and a part of it is held by each bishop for the whole” (“episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur”), virtually excludes any special prerogative belonging to a particula 564 r bishop (see also “de

of their bishop Dionysius, repaired to Rome to the Roman bishop Dionysius and formally accused the first named prelate. It is also significant that Dionysius received this complaint and brought the matter up at a Roman synod. No objection was taken to this proceeding (Athanas., de synod.). This information is very instructive, for it proves that the Roman Church was ever regarded as specially charged with watching over the observance of the conditions of the general ecclesiastical federation, the κοινὴ ἕνωσις. As to the fact that in circular letters, not excepting Eastern ones, the Roman Church was put at the head of the address, see Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. How frequently foreign bishops came to Rome is shown by the 19th canon of Arles (A.D. 314): “De episcopis peregrinis, qui in urbem solent venire, placuit iis locum dari ut offerant.” The first canon is also important in deciding the special position of Rome.

unit.” 4). Here we have reached the point that has already been briefly referred to above, viz., that the consolidation of the Churches in the Empire after the Roman pattern could not but endanger the prestige and peculiar position of Rome, and did in fact do so. If we consider that each bishop was the acknowledged sovereign of his own diocese — now Catholic, that all bishops, as such, were recognised to be successors of the Apostles, that, moreover, the attribute of priesthood occupied a prominent position in the conception of the episcopal office, and that the metropolitan unions with their presidents and synods had become completely naturalised — in short, that the rigid episcopal and provincial constitution of the Church had become an accomplished fact, so that, ultimately, it was no longer communities, but merely bishops that had dealings with each other, then we shall see that a new situation was thereby created for Rome, that is, for her bishop. In the West it was perhaps chiefly through the cooperation of Cyprian that Rome found herself face to face with a completely organised Church system. His behaviour in the controversy about heretical baptism proves that in cases of dispute he was resolved to elevate his theory of the sovereign authority of each bishop above his theory of the necessary connection wi 564 th the cathedra Petri. But, when that levelling of the episcopate came about, Rome had already acquired rights that could no longer be cancelled.337 Besides, there was 167one thing that could not be taken from the Roman Church, nor therefore from her bishop, even if she were denied the special right to Matt. XVI., viz., the possession of Rome. The site of the world’s metropolis might be shifted, but

337

Peculiar circumstances, which unfortunately we cannot quite explain, are connected with the cases discussed by Cyprian in epp. 67 and 68. The Roman bishop must have had the acknowledged power of dealing with the bishop of Arles, whereas the Gallic prelates had not this right. Sohm, p. 391 ff., assumes that the Roman bishop alone — not Cyprian or the bishops of Gaul — had authority to exclude the bishop of Arles from the general fellowship of the Church, but that, as far as the Gallic Churches were concerned, such an excommunication possessed no legal effect, but only a moral one, because in their case the bishop of Rome had only a spiritual authority and no legal power. Further, two Spanish bishops publicly appealed to the Roman see against their deposition, and Cyprian regarded this appeal as in itself correct. Finally, Cornelius says of himself in a letter (in Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 10): τῶν λοιπῶν ἐπισκόπων διαδόχους εἰς τοὺς τόπους, ἐν οἷς ἦσαν, χειροτονήσαντες ἀπεστάλκαµ 564 . This quotation refers to Italy, and the passage, which must be read connectedly, makes it plain (see, besides, the quotation in reference to Calixtus given above on p. 162), that, before the middle of the 3rd century, the Roman Church already possessed a legal right of excommunication and the recognised power of making ecclesiastical appointments as far as the communities and bishops in Italy were concerned (see Sohm, p. 389 ff.).

Rome could not be removed. In the long run, however, the shifting of the capital proved advantageous to ecclesiastical Rome. At the beginning of the great epoch when the alienation of East from West became pronounced and permanent, an emperor, from political grounds, decided in favour of that party in Antioch “with whom the bishops in Italy and the city of the Romans held intercourse” (οἷς ἄν οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν καὶ τ 564 ν Ῥωµαίων πόλιν ἐπίσκοποι τοῦ δόγµατος επιστέλλοιεν338). In this instance the 168interest of the Roman Church and the interest of the emperor coincided. But the Churches in the various provinces, being now completely organised and therefore seldom in need of any more help from outside, were henceforth in a position to pursue their

338

Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. 19. The Church of Antioch sought to enter upon an independent line of development under Paul of Samosata. Paul’s fall was the victory of Rome. We may suppose it to be highly probable, though to the best of my belief there is for the present no sure proof, that it was not till then that the Roman standards and sacraments, catholic and apostolic collection of Scriptures (see, on the contrary, the use of Scripture in the Didaskalia), apostolic rule of faith, and apostolic episcopacy attained supremacy in Antioch; but that they began to be introduced into that city ab ac8 out the time of Serapion’s bishopric (that is, during the Easter controversy). The old records of the Church of Edessa have an important bearing on this point; and from these it is evident that her constitution did not begin to assume a Catholic form till the beginning of the 3rd century, and that as the result of connection with Rome. See the Doctrine of Addai by Phillips, p. 50: “Palut himself went to Antioch and received the hand of the priesthood from Serapion, bishop of Antioch. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, himself also received the hand from Zephyrinus, bishop of the city of Rome, from the succession of the hand of the priesthood of Simon Cephas, which he received from our Lord, who was there bishop of Rome 25 years, (sic) in the days of the Cæsar, who reigned there 13 years.” (See also Tixeront, Édesse, pp. 149, 152.) Cf. with this the prominence given in the Acts of Scharbil and Barsamya to the fact that they were contemporaries of Fabian, bishop of Rome. We read there (see Rubens Duval, Les Actes de Scharbil et les Actes de Barsamya, Paris, 1889, and Histoire d’Édesse, p. 130): “Barsamya (he was bishop of Edessa at the time of Decius) lived at the time of Fabian, bishop of Rome. He had received the laying on of hands from Abschelama, who had received it from Palut. Palut had been consecrated by Serapion, bishop of Antioch, and the latter had been consecrated by Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome.” As regards the relation of the State of Rome to the Roman Church, that is, to the Roman bishop, who by the year 250 had already become a sort of præfectus urbis, with his district superintendents, the deacons, and in fact a sort of princeps æmulus, cf. (1) the recorded comments of Alexander Severus on the Christians, and especially those on their organisation; (2) the edict of Maximinus Thrax and the banishment of the bishops Pontian and Hippolytus; (3) the attitude of Philip the Arabian; (4) the remarks of Decius in Cyp. ep. 55 (see above p. 124) and his proceedings against the Roman bishops, and (5) the attitude of Aurelian in Antioch. On the extent and organisation of the Roman Church about 250 see Euseb., H. E. VI. 43.

own interest. So the bishop of Rome had step by step to fight for the new authority, which, being now based on a purely dogmatic theory and being forced to repudiate any empirical foundation, was inconsistent with the Church system that the Roman community more than any other had helped to build up. The proposition “the Roman Church always had the primacy” (“ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum”) and the statement that “Catholic” virtually means “Roman Catholic” are gross fictions, when devised in honour of the temporary occupant of the Roman see and detached from the significance of the Eternal City in profane history; but, applied 564 to the Church of the imperial capital, they contain a truth the denial of which is equivalent to renouncing the attempt to explain the process by which the Church was unified and catholicised.339 II. Fixing and Gradual Hellenising of Christianity as a System of Doctrine. 169

II. FIXING AND GRADUAL HELLENISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS A SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE. Chapter IV. Ecclesiastical Christianity and Philosophy. The Apologists.

CHAPTER IV. ECCLESIASTICAL CHRISTIANITY AND PHILOSOPHY. THE APOLOGISTS. 1. Introduction.

339

The memorable words in the lately discovered appeal by Eusebius of Dorylaeum to Leo I. (Neues Archiv., Vol. XI., part 2, p. 364 f.) are no m 550 ere flattery, and the fifth century is not the first to which they are applicable: “Curavit desuper et ab exordio consuevit thronus apostolicus iniqua perferentes defensare et eos qui in evitabiles factiones inciderunt, adiuvare et humi iacentes erigere, secundum possibilitatem, quam habetis; causa autem rei, quod sensum rectum tenetis et inconcussam servatis erga dominum nostrum Iesum Christum fidem, nec non etiam indissimulatam universis fratribus et omnibus in nomine Christi vocatis tribuitis caritatem, etc.” See also Theodoret’s letters addressed to Rome.

1. Introduction.340 THE object of the Christian Apologists, some o ac8 f whom filled ecclesiastical offices and in various ways promoted spiritual progress,341 was, as they themselves explained, to uphold the Christianity professed by the Christian Churches and publicly preached. They were convinced that the Christian faith was founded on revelation and that only a mind enlightened by God could grasp and maintain the faith. They acknowledged the Old Testament to be the authoritative source of God’s revelation, maintained that the whole human race was meant to be 170reached by Christianity, and adhered to the early Christian eschatology. These views as well as the strong emphasis they laid upon human freedom and responsibility, enabled them to attain a firm standpoint in opposition to “Gnosticism”, and to preserve their position within the Christian communities, whose moral purity and strength they regarded as a strong proof of the truth of this faith. In the endeavours of the Apologists to explain Christianity to the cultured world, we have before us the attempts of Greek churchmen to represent the Christian religion as a philosophy, and to convince outsiders that it was the highest wisdom and the absolute truth. These efforts were not rejected by the Churches like those of the so-called Gnostics, but rather became in subsequent times the foundation of the ecclesiastical dogmatic. The Gnostic speculations were repudiated, whereas those of the Apologists were accepted. The manner in which the latter set forth Christianity as a philosophy met with approval. What were the conditions under which ecclesiastical Christianity and Greek philosophy concluded the alliance which has found a place in the history of the world? How did this union attain acceptance and permanence, whilst “Gnosticism” was at first rejected? These are the two great questions the correct answers to which are of

340

Edition by Otto, 9 Vols., 1876 f. New edition of the Apologists (unfinished; only Tatian and Athenagoras by Schwarz have yet appeared) in the Texte und Untersuchungen zur altchristlichen Litteratur-Geschichte, Vol. IV. Tzschirner, Geschichte der Apologetik, 1st part, 1805; id., Der Fall des Heidenthums, 1829. Ehlers, Vis atque potestas, quam philosophia antiqua, imprimis Platonica et Stoica in doctrina apologetarum habuerit, 1859. 341 It is intrinsically probable that their works directly addressed to the Christian Church gave a more full exposition of their Christianity than we find in the Apologies. This can moreover be proved with certainty from the fragments of Justin’s, Tatian’s and Melito’s esoteric writings. But, whilst recognising this fact, we must not make the erroneous assumption that the fundamental conceptions and interests of Justin and the rest were in reality other than may be inferred from their Apologies.

fundamental importance for the understanding of the history of Christian dogma. The answers to these questions appear paradoxical. The theses of the Apologists finally overcame all scruples in ecclesiastical circles and were accepted by the Græco-Roman world, because they made Christianity rational without taking from, or adding to, its traditional historic material. The secret of the epoch-making success of the apologetic theology is thus explained: These Christian philosophers formulated the content of the Gospel in a manner which appealed to the common sens ac8 e of all the serious thinkers and intelligent men of the age. Moreover, they contrived to use the positive material of tradition, including the life and worship of Christ, in such a way as to furnish this reasonable religion with a confirmation and proof that had hitherto been eagerly sought, but sought in vain. In the theology of the Apologists, Christianity, as the religious enlightenment directly emanating from God himself, is most 171sharply contrasted with all polytheism, natural religion, and ceremonial. They proclaimed it in the most emphatic manner as the religion of the spirit, of freedom, and of absolute morality. Almost the whole positive material of Christianity is embodied in the story which relates its entrance into the world, its spread, and the proof of its truth. The religion itself, on the other hand, appears as the truth that is surely attested and accords with reason — a truth the content of which is not primarily dependent on historical facts and finally overthrows all polytheism. Now this was the very thing required. In the second century of our era a great many needs and aspirations were undoubtedly making themselves felt in the sphere of religion and morals. “Gnosticism” and Marcionite Christianity prove the variety and depth of the needs then asserting themselves within the space that the ecclesiastical historian is able to survey. Mightier than all others, however, was the longing men felt to free themselves from the burden of the past, to cast away the rubbish of cults and of unmeaning religious ceremonies, and to be assured that the results of religious philosophy, those great and simple doctrines of virtue and immortality and of the God who is a Spirit, were certain truths. He who brought the message that these ideas were realities, and who, on the strength of these realities, declared polytheism and the worship of idols to be obsolete, had the mightiest forces on his side; for the times were now ripe for this preaching. What formed the strength of the apologetic philosophy was the proclamation that Christianity both contained the highest truth, as men already supposed it to be and as they had discovered it in their own minds, and the absolutely reliable guarantee that was desired for this truth. To the quality which makes it appear meagre to us it owed its

impressiveness. The fact of its falling in with the general spiritual current of the time and making no attempt to satisfy special and deeper needs enabled it to plead the cause of spiritual monotheism and to oppose the worship of idols in the manner most easily understood. As it did not require historic and positive material to 549 describe the nature of religion and morality, this philosophy enabled the Apologists 172to demonstrate the worthlessness of the traditional religion and worship of the different nations.342 The same cause, however, made them take up the conservative position with regard to the historical traditions of Christianity. These were not ultimately tested as to their content, for this was taken for granted, no matter how they might be worded; but they were used to give an assurance of the truth, and to prove that the religion of the spirit was not founded on human opinion, but on divine revelation. The only really important consideration in Christianity is that it is revelation, real revelation. The Apologists had no doubt as to what it reveals, and therefore any investigation was unnecessary. The result of Greek philosophy, the philosophy of Plato and Zeno, as it had further developed in the empires of Alexander the Great and the Romans, was to attain victory and permanence by the aid of Christianity. Thus we view the progress of this development to-day, ae3 343 and Christianity really proved to be the force from which that religious philosophy, viewed as a theory of the world and system of morality, first received the courage to free itself from the polytheistic past and descend from the circles of the learned to the common people. This constitutes the deepest distinction between Christian philosophers like Justin and those of the type of Valentinus. The latter sought for a religion; the former, though indeed they were not very clear about their own purpose, sought assurance as to a theistic and moral conception of the world which they already possessed. At first the complexus of Christian tradition, which must have possessed many features of attraction for them, was something foreign to both. The latter, however, sought to make this tradition intelligible,. For the former it was enough that they had here a revelation before them; that this revelation 173also bore unmistakable testimony to the one God, who was a Spirit, to virtue, and to immortality; and that it was capable of convincing men and

342

That is, so far as these were clearly connected with polytheism. Where this was not the case or seemed not to be so, national traditions, both the true and the spurious, were readily and joyfully admitted into the catalogus testimoniorum of revealed truth. 343 Though these words were already found in the first edition, Clemen (Justin 1890, p. 56) has misunderstood me so far as to think that I spoke here of conscious intention on the part of the Apologists. Such nonsense of course never occurred to me.

of leading them to a virtuous life. Viewed superficially, the Apologists were no doubt the conservatives; but they were so, because they scarcely in any respect meddled with the contents of tradition. The “Gnostics”, on the contrary, sought to understand what they read and to investigate the truth of the message of which they heard. The most characteristic feature is the attitude of each to the Old Testament. The Apologists were content to have found in it an ancient source of revelation, and viewed the book as a testimony to the truth, i.e., to philosophy and virtue; the Gnostics investigated this document and examined to what extent it agreed with the new impressions they had received from the Gospel. We may sum up as follows: The Gnostics sought to determine what Christianity is as a religion, and, as they were convinced of the absoluteness of Christianity, this process led them to incorporate with it all that they looked on as sublime and holy and to remove everything they recognised to be inferior. The Apologists, again, strove to discover an authority for religious enlightenment and morality and to find the confirmation of a theory of the universe, which, if true, contained for them the certainty of eternal life; and this they found in the Christian tradition. At bottom this contrast is a picture of t ac8 he great discord existing in the religious philosophy of the age itself (see p. 129, vol. I.). No one denied the fact that all truth was divine, that is, was founded on revelation. The great question, however, was whether every man possessed this truth as a slumbering capacity that only required to be awakened; whether it was rational, i.e., merely moral truth, or must be above that which is moral, that is, of a religious nature; whether it must carry man beyond himself; and whether a real redemption was necessary. It is ultimately the dispute between morality and religion, which appears as an unsettled problem in the theses of the idealistic philosophers and in the whole spiritual conceptions then current among the educated, and which recurs in the contrast between the Apologetic and the Gnostic theology. And, 174as in the former case we meet with the most varied shades and transitions, for no one writer has developed a consistent theory, so also we find a similar state of things in the latter;344 for no Apologist quite left out of sight the idea of redemption (deliverance from the dominion of demons can only be effected by the Logos, i.e., God). Wherever the idea of freedom is strongly emphasised, the religious element, in the strict sense of the word, appears in jeopardy. This is the case with the Apologists

344

Note here particularly the attitude of Tatian, who has already introduced a certain amount of the “Gnostic” element into his; “Oratio ad Græcos”, although, he adheres in the main to the ordinary apologetic doctrines.

throughout. Conversely, wherever redemption forms the central thought, need is felt of a suprarational truth, which no longer views morality as the only aim, and which, again, requires particular media, a sacred history and sacred symbols. Stoic rationalism, in its logical development, is menaced wherever we meet the perception that the course of the world must in some way be helped, and wherever the contrast between reason and sensuousness, that the old Stoa had confused, is clearly felt to be an unendurable state of antagonism that man cannot remove by his own unaided efforts. The need of a revelation had its starting-point in philosophy here. The judgment of oneself and of the world to which Platonism led, the selfconsciousness which it awakened by the detachment of man from nature, and the contrasts which it revealed led of necessity to that frame of mind which manifested itself in the craving for a revelation. The Apologists felt this. But their rationalism gave a strange turn to the satisfaction of that need. It was not their Christian ideas which first involved them in contradictions. At t aad he time when Christianity appeared on the scene, the Platonic and Stoic systems themselves were already so complicated that philosophers did not find their difficulties seriously increased by a consideration of the Christian doctrines. As Apologists, however, they decidedly took the part of Christianity because, according to them, it was the doctrine of reason and freedom. The Gospel was hellenised in the second century in so far as the Gnostics in various ways transformed it into a Hellenic 175religion for the educated. The Apologists used it — we may almost say inadvertently — to overthrow polytheism by maintaining that Christianity was the realisation of an absolutely moral theism. The Christian religion was not the first to experience this twofold destiny on Græco-Roman soil. A glance at the history of the Jewish religion shows us a parallel development; in fact, both the speculations of the Gnostics and the theories of the Apologists were foreshadowed in the theology of the Jewish Alexandrians, and particularly in that of Philo. Here also the Gospel merely entered upon the heritage of Judaism.345 Three centuries before the appearance of Christian Apologists, Jews, who had received a Hellenic training, had already set forth the religion of Jehovah to the Greeks in that remarkably summary and spiritualised form which represents it as the absolute and highest philosophy, i.e., the knowledge of God, of virtue, and of 57d 345Since the time of Josephus Greek philosophers had ever more and more acknowledged the “philosophical” character of Judaism; see Porphyr., de abstin. anim. II. 26, about the Jews: ἅτε φιλόσοφοι τὸ γένος ὄντες.

recompense in the next world. Here these Jewish philosophers had already transformed all the positive and historic elements of the national religion into parts of a huge system for proving the truth of that theism. The Christian Apologists adopted this method, for they can hardly be said to have invented it anew.346 We see from the Jewish Sibylline oracles how wide-spread it was. Philo, however, was not only a Stoic rationalist, but a hyper-Platonic religious philosopher. In like manner, the Christian Apologists did not altogether lack this element, though in some isolated cases among them there are hardly any traces of it. This feature is most fully represented among the Gnostics. ae3 This transformation of religion into a philosophic system would not have been possible had not Greek philosophy itself happened to be in process of development into a religion. Such a transformation was certainly very foreign to the really classical time of Greece and Rome. The pious belief in the efficacy and power of the gods and in their appearances and manifestations, as well as the traditional worship, could have no bond of union 176with speculations concerning the essence and ultimate cause of things. The idea of a religious dogma which was at once to furnish a correct theory of the world and a principle of conduct was from this standpoint completely unintelligible. But philosophy, particularly in the Stoa, set out in search of this idea, and, after further developments, sought for one special religion with which it could agree or through which it could at least attain certainty. The meagre cults of the Greeks and Romans were unsuited for this. So men turned their eyes towards the barbarians. Nothing more clearly characterises the position of things in the second century than the agreement between two men so radically different as Tatian and Celsus. Tatian emphatically declares that salvation comes from the barbarians, and to Celsus it is also a “truism” that the barbarians have more capacity than the Greeks for discovering valuable doctrines.347 Everything was in fact prepared, and nothing was wanting.

346

On the relation of Christian literature to the writings of Philo, cf. Siegfried, Philo von Alexandrien, p. 303 f. 347 It is very instructive to find Celsus (Origen, c. Cels. I. 2) proceeding to say that the Greeks understood better how to judge, to investigate, and to perfect the doctrines devised by the barbarian ac3 s, and to apply them to the practice of virtue. This is quite in accordance with the idea of Origen, who makes the following remarks on this point: “When a man trained in the schools and sciences of the Greeks becomes acquainted with our faith, he will not only recognise and declare it to be true, but also by means of his scientific training and skill reduce it to a system and supplement what seems to him

About the middle of the second century, however, the moral and rationalistic element in the philosophy and spiritual culture of the time was still more powerful than the religious and mystic; for Neoplatonism, which under its outward coverings concealed the aspiration after religion and the living God, was only in its first beginnings. It was not otherwise in Christian circles. The “Gnostics” were in the minority. What the great majority of the Church felt to be intelligible and edifying above everything else was an earnest moralism.348 New and strange as the 177undertaking to represent Christianity as a philosophy might seem at first, the Apologists, so far as they were understood, appeared to advanc 564 e nothing inconsistent with Christian common sense. Besides, they did not question authorities, but rather supported them, and introduced no foreign positive materials. For all these reasons, and also because their writings were not at first addressed to the communities, but only to outsiders, the marvellous attempt to present Christianity to the world as the religion which is the true philosophy, and as the philosophy which is the true religion, remained unopposed in the Church. But in what sense was the Christian religion set forth as a philosophy? An exact answer to this question is of the highest interest as regards the history of Christian dogma. 2. Christianity as Philosophy and as Revelation. 2. Christianity as Philosophy and as Revelation. It was a new undertaking and one of permanent importance to a tradition hitherto so little concerned for its own vindication, when Quadratus and the Athenian philosopher, Aristides, presented treatises in defence of Christianity to the emperor.349 About a ac1

defective in it, when tested by the Greek method of exposition and proof, thus at the same time demonstrating the truth of Christianity. 348 See the section “Justin und die apostolischen Väter” in Engelhardt’s “Christenthum Justin’s des Martyrers”, p. 375 ff., and my article on the so-called 2nd Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte I. p. 329 ff.). Engelhardt, who on the whole emphasises the correspondences, has rather under- than over-estimated them. If the reader compares the exposition given in Book I., chap. 3, with the theology of the Apologists (see sub. 3), he will find proof of the intimate relationship that may be traced here. 349 See Euseb., H. E. IV. 3. Only one sentence of Quadratus’ Apology is preserved; we have now that of Aristides in the Syriac language; moreover, it is proved to have existed in the original language in the Historia Barlaam et Joasaph; finally, a considerable fragment of it is found in Armenian. See an English edition by Harris and Robinson in the Texts and Studies I. 1891. German translation and commentary by Raabe in the Texte

century had elapsed since the Gospel of Christ had begun to be preached. It may be said that the Apology of Aristides was a most significant opening to the second century, whilst we find Origen at its close. Marcianus Aristides expressly designates himself in his pamphlet as a philosopher of the Athenians. Since the days when the words were written: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit” (Col. II. 8), it had constantly been repeated (see, as evidence, Celsus, passim) that Christian preaching and philosophy were things entirely different, that God had chosen the fools, and that man’s duty was not to investigate and seek, but to 178believe and hope. Now a philosopher, as such, pleaded the cause of Christianity. In the summary he gave of the content of Christianity at the beginning of his address, he really spoke as a philosopher and represented this faith as a philosophy. By expounding pure monotheism and giving it the main place in his argument, Aristides gave supreme prominence to the very doctrine which simple Christians also prized as the most important.350 Moreover, in emphasing not only the supernatural character of the Christian doctrine revealed by the Son of the Most High God, but also the continuous inspiration of believers — the new race (not a new school) — he confessed in the most express way the peculiar nature of this philosophy as a divine truth. According to him Christianity is philosophy because its content is in accordance with reason, and because it gives a satisfactory and universally intelligible answer to the questions with which all real philosophers have concerned themselves. But it is no philosophy, in fact it is really the complete opposite of this, in so far as it proceeds from revelation and is propagated by the agency of God, i.e., has a supernatural and divine origin, on which alone the truth and certainty of its doctrines finally depend. This contrast to philosophy is chiefly shown in the unphilosophical form in which Christianity was first preached to the world. That is the thesis maintained by all the Apologists from Justin to Tertullian,351 and which Jewish philosophers before them propounded and defended. This proposition may certainly be expressed in a great variety of ways. In the first place, it is important whether the first or second half is emphasised, and secondly, whether that which is

und Untersuchungen IX. 1892. Eusebius says that the Apology was handed in to the emperor Hadrian; but the superscription in Syriac is addressed to the emperor Titus Hadrianus Antoninus. 350 See Hermas, Mand I. 569 351 With reservations this also holds good of the Alexandrians. See particularly Orig., c. Cels. I. 62.

“universally intelligible” is to be reckoned as philosophy at all, or is to be separated from it as that which comes by “nature”. Finally, the attitude to be taken up towards the Greek philosophers is left an open question, so that the thesis, taking up this attitude as a starting-point, may again assume various forms. But was the contradiction which it contains not felt? The content of revelation is to be 179rational; but does that which is rational require a revelation? How the proposition was understood by the different Apologists requires examination. Aristides. He first gives an exposition of monotheism and the monotheistic cosmology (God as creator and mover of the universe, as the spiritual, perfect, almighty Being, whom all things need, and who requires nothing). In the second chapter he distinguishes, according to the Greek text, three, and, according to the Syriac, four classes of men (in the Greek text polytheists, Jews, Christians, the polytheists being divided into Chaldeans, Greeks, and Egyptians; in the Syriac barbarians, Greeks, Jews, Christians), and gives their origin. He derives the Christians from Jesus Christ and reproduces the Christian kerygma (Son of the Most High God, birth from the Virgin, 12 disciples, death on the cross, burial, resurrection, ascension, missionary labours of the 12 disciples). After this, beginning with the third chapter, follows a criticism of polytheism, that is, the false theology of the barbarians, Greeks, and Egyptians (down to chapter 12). In the 13th chapter the Greek authors and philosophers are criticised, and the Greek myths, as such, are shown to be false. In the 14th chapter the Jews are introduced (they are monotheists and their ethical system is praised; but they are then reproached with worshipping of angels and a false ceremonial). In the 15th chapter follows a description of the Christians, i.e., above all, of their pure, holy life. It is they who have found the truth, because they know the creator of heaven and earth. This description is continued in chapters 16 and 17: “This people is new and there is a divine admixture in it.” The Christian writings are recommended to the emperor. Justin. 564 1 In his treatise addressed to the emperor Justin did not call himself a philosopher as Aristides had done. In espousing

352

Semisch, Justin der Märtyrer, 2 vols., 1840 f. Aubé, S. Justin, philosophe et martyr, 2nd reprint, 1875. Weizsäcker, Die Theologie des Märtyrers Justin’s in the Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologie, 1867, p. 60 ff. Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justin’s, 1878; id., “Justin”, in Herzog Real Encyklopädie. Stählin, Justin der Märtyrer , 1880. Clemen, Die religionsphilosophische Bedeutung des stoisch-christlichen Eudämonismus in Justin’s Apologie, 1890. Flemming, zur Beurtheilung des Christenthums Justin’s des Martyrers,

180the

cause of the hated and despised Christians he represented himself as a simple member of that sect. But in the very first sentence of his Apology he takes up the ground of piety and philosophy, the very ground taken up by the pious and philosophical emperors themselves, according to the judgment of the time and their own intention. In addressing them he appeals to the λόγος σώϕρων in a purely Stoic fashion. He opposes the truth — also in the Stoic manner — to the δόξαις παλαιῶν.353 It was not to be a mere captatio benevolentiæ. In that case Justin would not have added: “That ye are pious 564 and wise and guardians of righteousness and friends of culture, ye hear everywhere. Whether ye are so, however, will be shown.”354 His whole exordium is calculated to prove to the emperors that they are in danger of repeating a hundredfold the crime which the judges of Socrates had committed.355 Like a second Socrates Justin speaks to the emperors in the name of all Christians. They are to hear the convictions of the wisest of the Greeks from the mouth of the Christians. Justin wishes to enlighten the emperor with regard to the life and doctrines (βίος καὶ µαθήµατα) of the latter. Nothing is to be concealed, for there is nothing to conceal.

Justin kept this promise better than any of his successors. For that very reason also he did not depict the Chri ab8 stian Churches as schools of philosophers (cc. 61-67). Moreover, in the first passage where he speaks of Greek philosophers,356 he is merely drawing a parallel. According to him there are bad Christians and seeming Christians, just as there are philosophers who are only so ‘in name and outward show. Such men, too, were in early times called “philosophers” even when they preached atheism. To all appearance, therefore, Justin does not desire Christians to be reckoned as philosophers. But it is nevertheless significant that, in the case of the Christians, a 181phenomenon is being repeated which otherwise is only observed in the case of philosophers; and how were those whom he was addressing to understand him? In the same passage he speaks for the first time of Christ. He introduces him with the plain and intelligible formula: ὁ

1893. Duncker, Logoslehre Justin’s, 1848. Bosse, Der präexistente Christus d ac8 es Justinus, 1891. 353 Apol. I. 2, p. 6, ed. Otto. 354 Apol. I. 2, p. 6, sq. 355 See the numerous philosophical quotations and allusions in Justin Apology pointed out by Otto. Above all, he made an extensive use of Plato Apology of Socrates. 356 Apol. I. 4. p. 16, also I. 7, p. 24 sq: 1. 26.

διδάσκαλος Χριστός (“the teacher Christ”).357 Immediately thereafter he praises Socrates because he had exposed the worthlessness and deceit of the evil demons, and traces his death to the same causes which are now he says bringing about the condemnation of the Christians. Now he can make his final assertion. In virtue of “reason” Socrates exposed superstition; in virtue of the same reason, this was done by the teacher whom the Christians follow. But this teacher was reason itself; it was visible in him, and indeed it appeared bodily in him.358 Is this philosophy or is it myth? The greatest paradox the Apologist has to assert is connected by him with the most impressive remembrance possessed by his readers as philosophers. In the same sentence where he represents Christ as the Socrates of the barbarians,359 and consequently makes Christianity out to be a Socratic doctrine, he propounds the unheard of theory that the teacher Christ is the incarnate reason of God. Justin nowhere tried to soften the effect of this conviction or explain it in a way adapted to his readers. Nor did he conceal from them that his assertion admits of no speculative demonstration. That philosophy can only deal with things which ever are, because they ever were, since this world began, is a fact about which he himself is perfectly clear. No Stoic could have felt more strongly than Justin how paradoxical is the assertion that a thing is of value which has happened only once. Certain as he is that the “reasonable” emperors will regard it as a rational assumption that “Reason” is the 182Son of God,360 he knows equally well that no philosophy will bear him out in that other assertion, and that such a statement is seemingly akin to the contemptible myths of the evil demons. But there is certainly a proof which, if not speculative, is nevertheless sure. The same ancient documents, which contain the Socratic and super-Socratic wisdom of the Christians, bear witness through prophecies, which, just because they are predictions, admit

357

Apol. I. 4, p. 14. Apol. I. 5, p. 18 sq., see also I. 14 fin.: οὐ σοφιστὴς ὑπῆρχεν ἀλλὰ δύναµις Θεοῦ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἦν. 359 564 L. c.: οὐ γὰρ µόνον ἐν Ἕλλησι διὰ Σωκράτους ὑπὸ λόγου ἡλέγχθη ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν βαρβάροις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου µορφωθέντος καὶ ἀνθρώπου καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κληθέντος. 360 Celsus also admits this, or rather makes his Jew acknowledge it (Orig., c. Cels. II. 31). In Book VI. 47 he adopts the proposition of the “ancients” that the world is the Son of God. 358

of no doubt, that the teacher Christ is the incarnate reason; for history confirms the word of prophecy even in the minutest details. Moreover, in so far as these writings are in the lawful possession of the Christians, and announced at the very beginning of things that this community would appear on the earth, they testify that the Christians may in a certain fashion date themselves back to the beginning of the world, because their doctrine is as old as the earth itself (this thought is still wanting in Aristides). The new Socrates who appeared among the barbarians is therefore quite different from the Socrates of the Greeks, and for that reason also his followers are not to be compared with the disciples of the philosophers.361 From the very beginning of things a world-historical dispensation of Go ac8 d announced this reasonable doctrine through prophets, and prepared the visible appearance of reason itself. The same reason which created and arranged the world took human form in order to draw the whole of humanity to itself. Every precaution has been taken to make it easy for any one, be he Greek or barbarian, educated or uneducated, to grasp all the doctrines of this reason, to verify their truth, and test their power in life. What further importance can philosophy have side by side with this, how can one think of calling this a philosophy? And yet the doctrine of the Christians can only be compared with philosophy. For, so far as the latter is genuine, it is also 183guided by the Logos; and, conversely, what the Christians teach concerning the Father of the world, the destiny of man, the nobility of his nature, freedom and virtue, justice and recompense, has also been attested by the wisest of the Greeks. They indeed only stammered, whereas the Christians speak. These, however, use no unintelligible and unheard-of language, but speak with the words and through the power of reason. The wonderful arrangement, carried out by the Logos himself, through which he ennobled the human race by restoring its consciousness of its own nobility, compels no one henceforth to regard the reasonable as the unreasonable or wisdom as folly. But is the Christian wisdom not of divine origin? How can it in that case be natural, and what connection can exist between it and the wisdom of the Greeks? Justin bestowed the closest attention on this question, but he never for a moment doubted what the answer must be. Wherever the reasonable has revealed itself, it has always been through the

361

See Apol. II. 10 fin.: Σωκράτει οὐδεὶς ἐπείσθη ὑπὲρ τούτου τοῦ δόγµατος ἀποθνήσκειν· Χριστῷ δὲ τῷ κ ac8 αὶ ὑπὸ Σωκράτους ἀπὸ µέρους γνωσθέντι . . . οὐ φιλόσοφοι οὐδὲ φιλόλογοι µόνον ἐπείσθησαν.

operation of the divine reason. For man’s lofty endowment consists in his having had a portion of the divine reason implanted within him, and in his consequent capacity of attaining a knowledge of divine things, though not a perfect and clear one, by dint of persistent efforts after truth and virtue. When man remembers his real nature and destination, that is, when he comes to himself, the divine reason is already revealing itself in him and through him. As man’s possession conferred on him at the creation, it is at once his most peculiar property, and the power which dominates and determines his nature.362 All that is reasonable 184is based on revelation. In order to accomplish his tru 560 e destiny man requires from the beginning the inward working of that divine

362

The utterances of Justin do not clearly indicate whether the non-Christian portion of mankind has only a σπέρµα τοῦ λόγου as a natural possession, or whether this σπέ has in some cases been enhanced by the inward workings of the whole Logos (inspiration). This ambiguity, however, arises from the fact that he did not further discuss the relation between ὁ λόγος and τὸ σπέρµα τοῦ λόγου and we need not therefore attempt to remove it. On the one hand, the excellent discoveries of poets and philosophers are simply traced to τὸ ἔµϕυτον παντὶ γένει ἀνθρώπων σπέρµα τοῦ λόγου (Apol. II. 8), the µέρος σπερµατικοῦ λόγου (ibid.) which was implanted at the creation, and on which the human εὕρεσις καὶ θεωρία depend (II. 10). In this sense it may be said of them all that they “in human fashion attempted to understand and prove things by means of reason”; and Socrates is merely viewed as the πάντων εὐτονώτερος (ibid.), his philosophy also, like all pre-Christian systems, being a ϕιλοσοϕία ἁνθρώπειος (II. 15). But on the other hand Christ was known by Socrates though only ἀπὸ µέρους; for “Christ was and is the Logos who dwells in every man”. Further, according to the Apologist, the µέρος τοῦ σπερµατικοῦ θείου λόγου bestows the power of recognising whatever is related to the Logos (τό συγγενέ II. 13). Consequently it may not only be said: ὅσα παρὰ πᾶσι καλῶς είρηται ἡµῶν, τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐστί (ibid.), but, on the strength of the “participation” in reason conferred on all, it may be asserted that all who have lived with the Logos (µετὰ λό ) — an expression which must have been ambiguous — were Christians. Among the Greeks this specially applies to Socrates and Heraclitus (I. 46). Moreover, the Logos implanted in man does not belong to his nature in such a sense as to prevent us saying ὑπὸ λόγου διὰ Σωκράτους ἡλέ 564 χθη κ.τ.λ. (I. 5). Nevertheless αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος did not act in Socrates, for this only appeared in Christ (ibid). Hence the prevailing aspect of the case in Justin was that to which he gave expression at the close of the 2nd Apology (II. 15: alongside of Christianity there is only human philosophy), and which, not without regard for the opposite view, he thus formulated in II. 13 fin.: All non-Christian authors were able to attain a knowledge of true being, though only darkly, by means of the seed of the Logos naturally implanted within them. For the σπορά and µί of a thing, which are bestowed in proportion to one’s receptivity, are quite different from the thing itself, which divine grace bestows on us for our possession and imitation.”

reason which has created the world for the sake of man, and therefore wishes to raise man beyond the world to God.363 Apparently no one could speak in a more stoical fashion. But this train of thought is supplemented by something which limits it. Revelation does retain its peculiar and unique significance. For no one who merely possessed the “seed of the Logos” (σπέρµα τοῦ λόγου), though it may have been his exclusive guide to knowledge and conduct, was ever able to grasp the whole truth and impart it in a convincing manner. Though Socrates and Heraclitus may in a way be called Christians, they cannot be so designated in any real sense. Reason is clogged with unreasonableness, and the certainty of truth is doubtful wherever the whole Logos has not been acting; for man’s natural endowment with reason is too weak to oppose the powers of evil and of sense that work in the world, namely, the demons. We must ab0 185therefore believe in the prophets in whom the whole Logos spoke. He who does that must also of necessity believe in Christ; for the prophets clearly pointed to him as the perfect embodiment of the Logos. Measured by the fulness, clearness, and certainty of the knowledge imparted by the LogosChrist, all knowledge independent of him appears as merely human wisdom, even when it emanates from the seed of the Logos. The Stoic argument is consequently untenable. Men blind and kept in bondage by the demons require to be aided by a special revelation. It is true that this revelation is nothing new, and in so far as it has always existed, and never varied in character, from the beginning of the world, it is in this sense nothing extraordinary. It is the divine help granted to man, who has fallen under the power of the demons, and enabling him to follow his reason and freedom to do what is good. By the appearance of Christ this help became accessible to all men. The dominion of demons and revelation are the two correlated ideas. If the former did not exist, the latter would not be necessary. According as we form a lower or higher estimate of the pernicious results of that sovereignty, the value of revelation rises or sinks. This revelation cannot do less than give the necessary assurance of the truth, and it cannot do more than impart the power that develops and matures the inalienable natural endowment of man and frees him from the dominion of the demons. 363

“For the sake of man” (Stoic) Apol. I. 10: II. 4, 5; Dial. 41, p. 260A, Apol I. 8: “Longing for the eternal and pure life, we strive to abide in the fellowship of God, the Father and Creator of all things, and we hasten to make confession, ac8 because we are convinced and firmly believe that that happiness is really attainable.” It is frequently asserted that it is the Logos which produces such conviction and awakens courage and strength.

Accordingly the teaching of the prophets and Christ is related even to the very highest human philosophy as the whole is to the part,364 or as the certain is to the uncertain; and hence also 186as the permanent is to the transient. For the final stage has now arrived and Christianity is destined to put an end to natural human philosophy. When the perfect work is there; the fragmentary must cease. Justin gave the clearest expression to this conviction. Christianity, i.e., the prophetic teaching attested by Christ and accessible to all, puts an end to the human systems of philosophy that from their close affinity to it may be called Christian, inasmuch as it effects all and more than all that these systems have done, and inasmuch as the speculations of the philosophers, which are uncertain and mingled with error, are transformed by it into dogmas of indubitable certainty. ae4 365 The practical conclusion drawn in Justin’s treatise from this exposition is that the Christians 364

Justin has destroyed the force of this argument in two passages (I. 44. 59) by tracing (like the Alexandrian Jews) all true knowledge of the poets and philosophers to borrowing from the books of the Old Testament (Moses). Of what further use then is the σπέρµα λόγου ἔµϕυτον? Did Justin not really take it seriously? Did he merely wish to suit himself to those whom he was addressing? We are not justified in asserting this. Probably, however, the adoption of that Jewish view of the history of the world is a proof that the results of the demon sovereignty were in Justin’s estimation so serious that he no longer expected anything from the σπέρµα λόγου ἔµϕυτον when left to its own resources; and therefore regarded truth and prophetic revelation as inseparable. But this view is not the essential one in the Apology. That assumption of Justin’s is evidently dependent on a tradition, whilst his real opinion was more “liberal”. 365 Compare with this the following passages: In Apol. I. 20 are enumerated a series of the most important doctrines common to philosophers and Christians. Then follow the words: “If we then in particular respects even teach something similar to the doctrines of the philosophers honoured among you, though in many cases in a divine and more sublime way; and we indeed alone do so in such a way that the matter is proved etc.” In Apol. I. 44: II. 10. 13 uncertainty, error, and contradictions are shown to exist in the case of the greatest philosophers. The Christian doctrines are more sublime than all human philosophy (II. 15). “Our doctrines are evidently more sublime than any human teaching, because the Christ who appeared for our sakes was the whole fulness of reason” (τὸ λογικὸν το ὅλον, II. 10). “The principles of Plato are not foreign (ἀλλότ 564 ) to the teaching of Christ , but they do not agree in every respect. The same holds good of the Stoics” (II. 13). “We must go forth from the school of Plato” (II. 12). “Socrates convinced no one in such a way that he would have been willing to die for the doctrine proclaimed by him; whereas not only philosophers and philologers, but also artisans and quite common uneducated people have believed in Christ” (II. 10). These are the very people — and that is perhaps the strongest contrast found between Logos and Logos in Justin — among whom it is universally said of Christianity: δύναµις ἐστὶ τοῦ ἀρρήτου πατρὸς καὶ οὐχὶ ἀνθρωπείου κόγου κατασκευή (see also I. 14 and elsewhere.)

are at least entitled to ask the authorities to treat them as philosophers (Apol. I. 7, 20: II. 15). This demand, he says, is the more justifiable because the freedom of philosophers is enjoyed even by such people as merely bear the name, whereas in reality they set forth immoral and pernicious doctrines.366 187

In the dialogue with the Jew Trypho, which is likewise meant for heathen readers, Justin ceased to employ the idea of the existence of a “seed of the Logos implanted by nature” (σπέρµα λόγου ἔµφυτον) in every man. From this fact we recognise that he did not consider the notion of fundamental importance. He indeed calls the Christian religion a philosophy;367 but, in so far as this is

366

In Justin’s estimate of the Greek philosophers two other points deserve notice. In the first place, he draws a very sharp distinction between real and nominal philosophers. By the latter he specially means the Epicureans. They are no doubt referred to in I. 4 ac8 , 7, 26 (I. 14: Atheists). Epicurus and Sardanapalus are classed together in II. 7; Epicurus and the immoral poets in II. 12; and in the conclusion of II. 15 the same philosopher is ranked with the worst society. But according to II. 3 fin. (ἀδύνατον Κυνικῷ, αδιάφορον τὸ τέλος προθεµένῳ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι πλὴν αδιαφορίας) the Cynics also seem to be outside the circle of real philosophers. This is composed principally of Socrates, Plato, the Platonists and Stoics, together with Heraclitus and others. Some of these understood one set of doctrines more correctly, others another series. The Stoics excelled in ethics (II. 7); Plato described the Deity and the world more correctly. It is, however, worthy of note — and this is the second point — that Justin in principle conceived the Greek philosophers as a unity, and that he therefore saw in their very deviations from one another a proof of the imperfection of their teaching. In so far as they are all included under the collective idea “human philosophy”, philosophy is characterised by the conflicting opinions found within it. This view was suggested to Justin by the fact that the highest truth, which is at once allied and opposed to human philosophy, was found by him among an exclusive circle of fellow-believers. Justin showed great skill in selecting from the Gospels the passages (I. 15-17), that prove the “philosophical” life of the Christians as described by him in c. 14. Here he cannot be acquitted of colouring the facts (cf. Aristides) nor of exaggeration (see, for instance, the unqualified statement: ἅ ἔχοµεν εἰς κοινὸν φέροντες καὶ παντὶ δεοµένῳ κοινωνοῦντες). The philosophical emperors were meant here to think of the “ϕίλοις πάντα κοινά”. Yet in I. 67 Justin corrected exaggerations in his description. Justin’s reference to the invaluable benefits which Christianity confers on the state deserves notice (see particularly I. 12, 17.) The later Apologists make a similar remark. 367 Dialogue 8. The dialogue takes up a more positive attitude than the Apology, both as a whole and in detail. If we consider that both works are also meant for Christians, and that, on the other hand, the Dialogue as well as the Apology appeals to the cultur 564 ed heathen public, we may perhaps assume that the two writings were meant to present a graduated system of Christian instruction. (In one passage the Dialogue expressly refers

the case, it is “the only sure and saving philosophy”. No doubt the so-called philosophies put the right questions, but they are incapable of giving correct answers. For the Deity, who embraces all true being, and a knowledge of whom alone makes salvation possible, is only known in proportion as he reveals himself. True wisdom is therefore exclusively based on revelation. Hence it is opposed to every human philosophy, 188because revelation was only given in the prophets and in Christ.368 The Christian is the philosopher,369 because the followers of Plato 53f and the Stoics are virtually no philosophers. In applying the title “philosophy” to Christianity he therefore does not mean to bring Christians and philosophers more closely together. No doubt, however, he asserts that the Christian doctrine, which is founded on the knowledge of Christ and leads to blessedness,370 is in accordance with reason. Athenagoras. The petition on behalf of Christians, which Athenagoras, “the Christian philosopher of Athens”, presented to the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, nowhere expressly designates Christianity as a philosophy, and still less does it style the Christians philosophers.371 But, at the very beginning of his writing Athenagoras also claims for the Christian doctrines the toleration granted by the state to all philosophic tenets. ae0 372 In support of his claim he argues that the state punishes nothing but practical atheism,373 and that the “atheism” of the Christians is a doctrine about God such as had been propounded by the most distinguished philosophers — Pythagoreans, Platonists, Peripatetics, and Stoics — who, moreover, were permitted to write whatsoever they pleased on the subject of the “Deity”.374 The Apologist concedes even more: “If philosophers did not also acknowledge the existence of one God, if they did not also

to the Apology). From Justin’s time onward the apologetic polemic of the early Church appears to have adhered throughout to the same method. This consisted in giving the polemical writings directed against the Greeks the form of an introduction to Christian knowledge, and in continuing this instruction still further in those directed against the Jews. 368 Dial. 2. sq. That Justin’s Christianity is founded on theoretical scepticism is clearly shown by the introduction to the Dialogue. 369 Dial. 8: οὕτως δὴ καὶ δια̍ ab3 ταῦτα ϕιλόσοϕος ἐγώ. 370 Dial., l. c.: παρέστιν σοὶ τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντι καὶ τελείῳ γενοµένῳ εὐδαιµονεῖν. 371 See particularly the closing chapter. 372 Suppl. 2. 373 Suppl. 4. 374 Suppl. 5-7.

conceive the gods in question to be partly demons, partly matter, partly of human birth, then certainly we would be justly expelled as aliens.”375 He therefore takes up the standpoint that the state is justified in refusing to tolerate people with completely new doctrines. When we add that he everywhere assumes that the wisdom and piety of the emperors are sufficient to test 189and approve376 the truth of the Christian teaching, that he merely represents this faith itself as the reasonable doctrine,377 and that, with the exception of the resurrection of the body, he leaves all the positive and objectionable tenets of Christianity out of account, 571 1 there is ground for thinking that this Apologist differs essentially from Justin in his conception of the relation of Christianity to secular philosophy. Moreover, it is not to be denied that Athenagoras views the revelation in the prophets and in Christ as completely identical. But in one very essential point he agrees with Justin; and he has even expressed himself still more plainly than the latter, inasmuch as he does not introduce the assumption of a “seed of the Logos implanted by nature” (σπέρµα λόγου ἔµφυτον). The philosophers, he says, were incapable of knowing the full truth, since it was not from God, but rather from themselves, that they wished to learn about God. True wisdom, however, can only be learned from God, that is, from his prophets; it depends solely on revelation.378 Here also then we have a repetition of the thought that the truly rea ac5 sonable is of supernatural origin. Such is the importance attached by Athenagoras to this proposition, that he declares any demonstration of the “reasonable” to be insufficient, no matter how luminous it may appear. Even that which is most evidently true — e.g., monotheism — is not raised from the domain of mere human opinion into the sphere of undoubted certainty till it can be confirmed by revelation,379 This can be done by Christians alone. Hence they are very different from the philosophers, just as they are also distinguished from these by their manner of life.380 All the praises which Athenagoras from time to time bestows on

375 376

574

377

Suppl. 24 (see also Aristides c. 13). Suppl. 7 fin. and many other places.

E.g., Suppl. 8. 35 fin. The Crucified Man, the incarnation of the Logos etc. are wanting. Nothing at all is said about Christ. 379 Suppl. 7. 380 acd Cf. the arguments in c. 8 with c. 9 init. 381 Suppl. 11. 378

philosophers, particularly Plato.382 are consequently to be understood in a merely 190relative sense. Their ultimate object is only to establish the claim made by the Apologist with regard to the treatment of Christians by the state; but they are not really meant to bring the former into closer relationship to philosophers. Athenagoras also holds the theory that Christians are philosophers, in so far as the “philosophers” are not such in any true sense. It is only the problems they set that connect the two. He exhibits less clearness than Justin in tracing the necessity of revelation to the fact that the demon sovereignty, which, above all, reveals itself in polytheism,383 can only be overthrown by revelation; he rather emphasises the other thought (cc. 7, 9) that the necessary attestation of the truth can only be given in this way.384 567 Tatian’s385 chief aim was not to bring about a juster treatment of the Christians.386 He wished to represent their cause as the good contrasted with the bad, wisdom as opposed to error, truth in contradistinction to outward seeming, hypocrisy, and pretentious emptiness. His “Address to the Greeks” begins 191with a violent

382 383

Suppl. 23. Suppl. 18, 23-27. He, however, as well as the others, sets forth the demon theory in

detail.

384

The Apology which Miltiades addressed to Marcus Aurelius and his fellowemperor perhaps bore the title: ὑπὲρ τῆς κατά Χριστιανοὺς φιλοσοφίας (Euseb., H. E. V. 17. 5). It is certain that Melito in his Apology designated Christianity as ἡ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς φιλοσοφία (1. c., IV. 26. 7). But, while it is undeniable that this writer attempted, to a hitherto unexampled extent, to represent Christianity as adapted to the Empire, we must nevertheless beware of laying undue weight on the expression “philosophy”. What Melito means chiefly to emphasise is the fact that Christianity, which in former times had developed into strength among the barbarians, began to flourish in the provinces of the Empire simultaneously with the rise of the monarchy under Augustus, that, as fostersister of the monarchy, it increased in strength with the latter, and that this mutual relation of the two institutions had given prosperity and splendour to the state. When in the fragments preserved to us he twice, in this connection, calls Christianity “philosophy”, we must note that this expression alternates with the other “ὁ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς λόγος”, and that he uses the formula: “Thy forefat 564 hers held this philosophy in honour along with the other cults” (πρὸς ταῖς ἄλλαις θρησκείαις). This excludes the assumption that Melito in his Apology merely represented Christianity as philosophy (see also IV. 26. 5, where the Christians are called “τὸ τῶν θεοσεβῶν γένος”). He also wrote a treatise περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ. In it (fragment in the Chron. Pasch.) he called Christ Θεοῦ λόγος πρὸ αἰώνων. 385 See my treatise “Tatian’s Rede an die Griechen übers.”, 1884 (Giessener Programm). Daniel, Tatianus, 1837. Steuer, Die Gottes- und Logoslehre des Tatian, 1893. 386 But see Orat. 4 i ac8 nit., 24 fin., 25 fin., 27 init.

polemic against all Greek philosophers. Tatian merely acted up to a judgment of philosophers and philosophy which in Justin’s case is still concealed.387 Hence it was not possible for him to think of demonstrating analogies 547 between Christians and philosophers. He also no doubt views Christianity as “reasonable”; he who lives virtuously and follows wisdom receives it;388 but yet it is too sublime to be grasped by earthly perception.389 It is a heavenly thing which depends on the communication of the “Spirit”, and hence can only be known by revelation.390 But yet it is a

387

He not only accentuated the disagreement of philosophers more strongly than Justin, but insisted more energetically than that Apologist on the necessity of viewing the practical fruits of philosophy in life as a criterion; see Orat. 2, 3, 19, 25. Nevertheless Socrates still found grace in his eyes (c. 3). With regard to other philosophers he listened to foolish and slanderous gossip. 388 Orat. 13, 15 fin., 20. Tatian also gave credence to it because it imparts such an intelligible picture of the creation of the world (c. 29). 389 Orat. 12: τὰ τῆς ἡµετέρας παιδείας ἐστὶν ἀνωτέρω τῆς κοσµικῆς καταλήψεως. Tatian troubled himself very little with giving demonstrations. No other Apologist made such bold assertions. 390 See Orat. 12 (p. 54 fin.), 20 (p. 90), 25 fin., 26 fin., 29, 30 (p. 116), 13 (p. 62), 15 (p. 70), 36 (p. 142), 40 (p. 152 sq.). The section cc. 12-15 of the Oratio is very important (see also c. 7 ff.); for it shows that Tatian denied the natural immortality of the soul, declared the soul (the material spirit) to be something inherent in all matter, and accordingly looked on the distinction between men and animals in respect of their inalienable natural constitution as only one of degree. According to this Apologist the dignity of man does not consist in his natural endowments; but in the union of the h 55f uman soul with the divine spirit, for which union indeed he was planned. But, in Tatian’s opinion, man lost this union by falling under the sovereignty of the demons. The Spirit of God has left him, and consequently he has fallen back to the level of the beasts. So it is man’s task to unite the Spirit again with himself, and thereby recover that religious principle on which all wisdom and knowledge rest. This anthropology is opposed to that of the Stoics and related to the “Gnostic” theory. It follows from it that man, in order to reach his destination, must raise himself above his natural endowment; see c. 15: ἄνθρωπον λέγω τὸν πόρρω µὲν ἀνθρωπότητος πρὸς ἀυτὸν δὲ τὸν Θεὸν κεχωρηκότα. But with Tatian this conception is burdened with radical inconsistency; for he assumes that the Spirit reunites itself with every man who rightly uses his freedom, and he thinks it still possible for every person to use his freedom aright (11 fin., 13 fin., 15 fin.) So it is after all a mere assertion that the natural man is only distinguished from the beast by speech. He is also distinguished from it by freedom. And further it is only in appearance that the blessing bestowed in the “Spirit” is a donum superadditum et supernaturale 569 . For if a proper spontaneous use of freedom infallibly leads to the return of the Spirit, it is evident that the decision and consequently the realisation of man’s destination depend on human freedom. That is, however, the proposition which all the Apologists maintained. But indeed Tatian himself in his latter days seems to have

“philosophy” with definite 192doctrines (δόγµατα); 562 1 it brings nothing new, but only such blessings as we have already received, but could not retain391 owing to the power of error, i.e., the dominion of the demons.392 Christianity is therefore the philosophy in which, by virtue of the Logos revelation through the prophets,393 the rational knowledge that leads to life394 is restored. This knowledge was no less obscured among the Greek philosophers than among the Greeks generally. In so far as revelation took place among the barbarians from the remotest antiquity, Christianity may also be called the barbarian philosophy.395 Its truth is proved 193by

observed the inconsistency in which he had become involved and to have solved the problem in the Gnostic, that is, the religious sense. In his eyes, of course, the ordinary philosophy is a useless and pernicious art; philosophers make their own opinions laws (c. 27); whereas of Christians the following holds good (c. 32): λόγου τοῦ δηµοσίου καὶ ἐπιγείου κεχωρισµένοι καὶ παραγγέλµασι καὶ νόµῳ πατρὸς ἀφθαρσίας ἑπόµενοι, πᾶν τὸ ἐν δόξῃ κείµενον ἀνθρωπίνῃ παραιτούµεθα. 391 C. 31. init.: ἡ ἡµετέρα φιλοσοφία. 32 (p. 128): οἱ βου 540 λόµενοι φιλοσοφεῖν παρ᾽ ἡµῖν ἄνθρωποι. In c. 33 (p. 130) Christian women are designated αἱ παρ᾽ ἡµῖν φιλοσοφοῦσαι. C. 35: ἡ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς βάρβαρος φιλοσσοφία. 40 (p. 152): οἱ κατὰ Μωυσέα καὶ ὁµοίως αὐτῷ φιλοσοφοῦντες. 42: ὁ κατὰ βαρβάρους φιλοσοφῶν Τατιανός. The δόγµατα of the Christians: c. 1 (p. 2), 12 (p. 58), 19 (p. 86), 24 (p. 102), 27 (p. 108), 35 (p. 138), 40, 42. But Tatian pretty frequently calls Christianity “ἡ ἡµετέρα παιδεία”, once also “νοµοθεσί ” (12; cf. 40: οἱ ἡµέτεροι νόµοι), and often πολιτεί . 392 See, e.g., c. 29 fin.: the Christian doctrine gives us οὐχ ὅπερ µὴ ἐλάβοµεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπερ λαβόντες ὑπὸ τῆς πλάνης ἔχειν ἐκωλύθηµεν. 393 Tatian gave still stronger expression than Justin to the opinion that it is the demons who have misled men and rule the world, and that revelation through the prophets is opposed to this demon rule; see c. 7 ff. The demons have fixed the laws of death; see c. 15 fin. and elsewhere. 394 Tatian also cannot at bottom distinguish between revelation through the prophets and through Christ. See the description of his conversion in c. 29. where only the Old Testament writings are named, and c. 13 fin., 20 fin., 12 (p. 54) etc. 395 569 Knowledge and life appear in Tatian most closely connected. See, e.g., c. 13 mit.: “In itself the soul is not immortal, but mortal; it is also possible, however, that it may not die. If it has not attained a knowledge of that truth it dies and is dissolved with the body; but later, at the end of the world, it will rise again with the body in order to receive death in endless duration as a punishment. On the contrary it does not die, though it is dissolved for a time, if it is equipped with the knowledge of God.” 396 Barbarian: the Christian doctrines are τὰ τῶν βαρβάρων δόγµατα (c. 1): ῇ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς βάρβαρος φιλοσοφία (c. 35); ἡ εαρβαρικὴ νοµοθεσία (c. 12); γραφαὶ βαρβαρικαί (c. 29); καινοτοµεῖν τὰ βαρβάρων δόγµατα (c. 35); ὁ κατὰ βαρβάρους φιλοσοφῶν Τατιανός (c. 42); 564 Μωυσῆς πάσης βαρβάρου φιλοσοφίας ἀρχηγός (c. 31); see also c. 30, 32. In Tatian’s view barbarians and Greeks are the decisive contrasts in history.

its ancient date397 as well as by its intelligible form, which enables even the most uneducated person that is initiated in it398 to understand it perfectly.399 Finally, Tatian also states (c. 40) that the Greek sophists have read the writings of Moses and the prophets, and reproduced them in a distorted form. He therefore maintains the very opposite of what Celsus took upon him to demonstrate when venturing to derive certain sayings and doctrines of Christ and the Christians from the philosophers. Both credit the plagiarists with intentional misrepresentation or gross misunderstanding. Justin judged more charitably. To Tatian, on the contrary, the mythology of the Greeks did not appear worse than their philosophy; in both cases he saw imitations and intentional corruption of the truth.400 194

Theophilus agrees with Tatian, in so far as he everywhere appears to contrast Christianity with philosophy. The religious and moral culture of the Greeks is derived from their poets (historians) and philosophers (ad Autol. II. 3 fin. and elsewhere). However, not only do poets and philosophers contradict eac ac8 h other (II. 5); 397

See the proof from antiquity, c. 31 ff. C. 30 (p. 114): τού οὖν τὴν κατάληψιν µεµυηµένος. 399 Tatian’s own confession is very important here (c. 26): 533 “Whilst I was reflecting on what was good it happened that there fell into my hands certain writings of the barbarians, too old to be compared with the doctrines of the Greeks, too divine to be compared with their errors. And it chanced that they convinced me through the plainness of their expressions, through the unartificial nature of their language, through the intelligible representation of the creation of the world, through the prediction of the future, the excellence of their precepts, and the summing up of all kinds under one head. My soul was instructed by God and I recognised that those Greek doctrines lead to perdition, whereas the others abolish the slavery to which we are subjected in the world, and rescue us from our many lords and tyrants, though they do not give us blessings we had not already received, but rather such as we had indeed obtained, but were not able to retain in consequence of error.” Here the whole theology of the Apologists is contained in nuce; see Justin, Dial. 7-8. In Chaps. 32, 33 Tatian strongly emphasises the fact that the Christian philosophy is accessible even to the most uneducated; see Justin, Apol. II. 10; Athenag. 11 etc. 595 400The unknown author of the Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας also formed the same judgment as Tatian (Corp. Apolog., T. III., p. 2 sq., ed. Otto; a Syrian translation, greatly amplified, is found in the Cod. Nitr. Mus. Britt. Add. 14658. It was published by Cureton, Spic. Syr., p. 38 sq. with an English translation). Christianity is an incomparable heavenly wisdom, the teacher of which is the Logos himself. “It produces neither poets, nor philosophers, nor rhetoricians; but it makes mortals immortal and men gods, and leads them away upwards from the earth into super-Olympian regions.” Through Christian knowledge the soul returns to its Creator: δεῖ γὰρ ἀποκατασταθῆαι ὅθεν ἀπέστη. 398

but the latter also do not agree (II. 4. 8: III. 7), nay, many contradict themselves (III. 3). Not a single one of the so-called philosophers, however, is to be taken seriously;401 they have devised myths and follies (II. 8); everything they have set forth is useless and godless (III. 2); vain and worthless fame was their aim (III. 3). But God knew beforehand the “drivellings of these hollow philosophers” and made his preparations (II. 15). He of old proclaimed the truth by the mouth of prophets, and these deposited it in holy writings. This truth refers to the knowledge of God, the origin and history of the world, as well as to a virtuous life. The prophetic testimony in regard to it was continued in the Gospel.402 Revelation, however, is necessary because this wisdom of the philosophers and poets is really demon wisdom, for they were inspired by devils.403 Thus the most extreme contrasts appear to exist here. Still, Theophilus is constrained to confess that 195truth was not only announced by the Sibyl, to whom his remarks do not apply, for she is (II. 36): ἐν ῞Ελλησιν καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν γενοµένη προφῆτις, but that poets and philosophers, “though against their will”, also gave clear utterances regarding the justice, the judgment, and the punishments of God, as well as regarding his providence in respect to the living and the dead, or, in other words, about the most important points (II. 37, 38, 8 fin.). Theophilus gives a double explanation of this fact. On the one hand he ascribes it to the imitation of holy writings (II. 12, 37: I. 14), and on the 401

Nor is Plato “ὁ δοκῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς σεµνότερον πεφιλοσοφηκέ a92 ” any better than Epicurus and the Stoics (III. 6). Correct views which are found in him in a greater measure than in the others (ὁ δοκῶν Ἑλλήνων σοφώτερος γεγενῆσθαι), did not prevent him from giving way to the stupidest babbling (III. 16). Although he knew that the full truth can only be learned, from God himself through the law (III. 17), he indulged in the most foolish guesses concerning the beginning of history. But where guesses find a place, truth is not to be found (III. 16: εἰ δἰκασµῷ, οὐκ ἄρα ἀληθῆ ἐστὶν τὰ ὑπ̓ αὐτοῦ εἰρηµένα). 402 Theophilus confesses (I. 14) exactly as Tatian does: καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἡπίστουν τοῦτο ἔσεσθαι, ἀλλὰ νῦν κατανοήσας αὐτὰ πιστεύω, ἅµα καὶ ἐπιτυχὼν ἱεραῖς γραφαῖς τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν, οἳ καὶ προεῖπον διὰ τνεύµατος Θεοῦ τὰ προγεγονότα ᾧ τρόπῳ γέγονεν καὶ τὰ ἐνεστῷτα τίνι τρόπῳ γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἐπερχόµενα ποίᾳ τάξει ἀπαρτισθήσεται. Ἀπόδειξιν οὐν λαβὼν τῶν γινοµένων καὶ προαναπεφωνηµένων οὐκ απιστῶ; see also II. 8-10, 22, 30, 33-35: III. 10, 11, 17. Theophilus merely looks on the Gospel as a continuation of the prophetic revelations and injunctions. Of Christ, however, he did not speak at all, but only of the Logos (Pneuma), which has operated from the beginning. To Theophilus the first chapters of Genesis already contain the sum of all Christian knowledge (II. 10-32). 403 See II. 8: ὑπὸ δαιµόνων δὲ ἐµπνευσθέντες καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν φυσιωθέντες ἅ εἶπον δι᾽ αὐτῶν εἶπον.

other he admits that those writers, when the demons abandoned them (τῇ ψυχῇ ἐκνήψαντες ἐξ ἀυτῶν), of themselves displayed a knowledge of the divine sovereignty, ac8 the judgment etc., which agrees with the teachings of the prophets (II. 8). This admission need not cause astonishment; for the freedom and control of his own destiny with which man is endowed (II. 27) must infallibly lead him to correct knowledge and obedience to God, as soon as he is no longer under the sway of the demons. Theophilus did not apply the title of philosophy to Christian truth, this title being in his view discredited; but Christianity is to him the “wisdom of God”, which by luminous proofs convinces the men who reflect on their own nature.404

59a 404The unknown author of the work de resurrectione, which goes under the name of Justin (Corp. Apol., Vol. III.) has given a surprising expression to the thought that it is simply impossible to give a demonstration of truth. (Ὁ µὲν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγος ἐστὶν ἐλεύθερός τε καὶ αὐτεξούσιος, ὑπὸ µηδεµίαν βάσανον ἐλέγχου θέλων πίπτειν µηδὲ τὴν παρὰ τοῖς ἀκούουσι δἰ ἀποδειξεως ἐξέτασιν ὑποµένειν. Τὸ γὰρ εὐγενὲς αὐτοῦ καὶ πεποιθὸς αὐτῷ τῷ πέµψαντι πιστεύεσθαι θέλει). He inveighs in the beginning of his treatise against all rationalism, and on the one hand professes a sort of materialistic theory of knowledge, whilst on the other, for that very reason, he believes in inspiration and the authority of revelation; for all truth originates with revelation, since God himself and God alone is the truth. Christ revealed this truth and is for us τῶν ὅλων πίστις καὶ ἀπὸδειξις. But it is far from probable aac that the author would really have carried this proposition to its logical conclusion (Justin, Dial. 3 ff. made a similar start). He wishes to meet his adversaries “armed with the arguments of faith which are unconquered” (c. 1., p. 214), but the arguments of faith are still the arguments of reason. Among these he regarded it as most important that even according to the theories about the world, that is, about God and matter, held by the “so-called sages”, Plato, Epicurus, and the Stoics, the assumption of a resurrection of the flesh is not irrational (c. 6, p. 228 f.). Some of these, viz., Pythagoras and Plato, also acknowledged the immortality of the soul. But, for that very reason, this view is not sufficient, “for if the Redeemer had only brought the message of the (eternal) life of the soul what new thing would he have proclaimed in addition to what had been made known by Pythagoras, Plato, and the band of their adherents?” (c. 10, p. 246) This remark is very instructive, for it shows what considerations led the Apologists to adhere to the belief in the resurrection of the body. Zahn, (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. VIII., pp. 1 f., 20 f.) has lately reassigned to Justin himself the the fragment de resurr. His argument, though displaying great plausibility, has nevertheless not fully convinced me. The question is of great importance for fixing the relation of Justin to Paul. I shall not discuss Hermias’ “Irrisio Gentilium Philosophorum”, as the period when this Christian disputant flourished is quite uncertain. We still possess an early-Church Apology in Pseudo-Melito “Oratio ad Antoninum Cæsarem” (Otto, Corp. Apol. IX., p. 423 sq.). This book is preserved (written?) in the Syrian language and was addressed to Caracalla or Heliogabalus (preserved in the Cod.

196

Tertullian and Minucius Felix.405 Whilst, in the case of the Greek Apologists, the acknowledgment of revelation appears conditioned by philosophical scepticism on the one hand, and by the strong impression of the dominion of the demons on the other, the sceptical element is not only wanting in the Latin Apologists, but the Christian truth is even placed in direct opposition to the sceptical philosophy and on the side of philosophical dogmatism, i.e., Stoicism.406 Nevertheless the observations of Tertullian and Minucius Felix with regard to the essence of Christianity, viewed as philosophy and as revelation, are at bottom completely identical with the conception of the Greek Apologists, although it is undeniable that in the former case the revealed character of Christianity is placed in the background.407 The recognition of this fact is exceedingly instructive, for it proves 197that the conception of Christianity set forth by the Apologists was not an individual one, but the necessary expression of the conviction that Christian truth contains the completion and guara ac8 ntee of philosophical knowledge. To Minucius Felix (and Tertullian) Christian truth chiefly presents itself as the wisdom implanted by nature in every man (Oct. 16. 5). In so far as man possesses reason and speech and accomplishes the task of the “examination of the universe” (“inquisitio universitatis”), conditioned by this gift, he has the Christian truth, that is, he finds Christianity in his own constitution, and in the rational order of the world. Accordingly,

Nitr. Mus. Britt. Add. 14658). It is probably dependent on Justin, but it is less polished and more violent than his Apology. 405 Massebieau (Revue de l’histoire des religions, 1887, Vol. XV. No. 3) has convinced me that Minucius wrote at a later period than Tertullian and made use of his works. 406 Cf. the plan of the “Octavius”. The champion of heathenism here opposed to the Christian is a philosopher representing the standpoint of the middle Acad. emy. This presupposes, as a matter of course, that the latter undertakes the defence of the Stoical position. See, besides, the corresponding arguments in the Apology of Tertullian, e.g., c. 17, as well as his tractate: “de testimonio animæ naturaliter Christianæ”. We need merely mention that the work of Minucius is throughout dependent on Cicero’s book, “de natura deorum.” In this treatise he takes up a position more nearly akin to heathen syncretism than Tertullian. 407 In R. Kühn’s investigation (“Der Octavius des Min. Felix”, Leipzig, 1882) — the best special work we possess on an early Christian Apology from the point of view of the history of dogma — based on a very careful analysis of the Octavius, more emphasis is laid on the difference than on the agreement between Minucius and the Greek Apolog ac8 ists. The author’s exposition requires to be supplemented in the latter respect (see Theologische Litteratur-Zeitung, 1883, No. 6).

Minucius is also able to demonstrate the Christian doctrines by means of the Stoic principle of knowledge, and arrives at the conclusion that Christianity is a philosophy, i.e., the true philosophy, and that philosophers are to be considered Christians in proportion as they have discovered the truth.408 Moreover, as he represented Christian ethics to be the expression of the Stoic, and depicted the Christian bond of brotherhood as a cosmopolitan union of philosophers, who have become conscious of their natural similarity,409 the revealed character of Christianity appears to be entirely given up. This religion is natural enlightenment, the revelation of a truth contained in the world and in man, the discovery of the one God from the open book of creation. The difference between him and an Apologist like Tatian seems here to be a radical one. But, if we look more closely, we find that Minucius — and not less Tertullian — has abandoned Stoic rationalism in vital points. We may regard his apologetic aim as his excuse for clearly drawing the logical conclusions from these inconsistencies 198himself. However, these deviations of his from the doctrines of the Stoa are not merely prompted by Christianity, but rather have already become an essential component of his philosophical theory of the world. In the first place, Minucius developed a detailed theory of the pernicious activity of the demons (cc. 26, 27). This was a confession that human nature was not what it ought to be, because an evil element had penetrated it from without. Secondly, he no doubt acknowledged (I. 4: 16. 5) the natural light of wisdom in humanity, but nevertheless remarked (32. 9) that our tho 557 ughts are darkness when measured by the clearness of God. Finally, and this is the most essential point, after appealing to various philosophers when expounding his doctrine of the final conflagration of the world, he suddenly repudiated this tribunal, declaring that the Christians follow the prophets, and that philosophers “have formed this shadowy picture of distorted truth in imitation of the divine predictions of the prophets” (34). Here we have now a union of all the elements already found in the Greek Apologists; only they are, as it were, hid in the case of Minucius. But the final proof that he agreed with them in the main is found in the exceedingly contemptuous judgment which he in conclusion passed on all philosophers and indeed on philosophy

408

C. 20: Exposui opiniones omnium ferme philosophorum . . . , ut quivis arbitretur, aut nunc Christianos philosophos esse aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos.” 409 See Minucius, 31 ff. A quite similar proceeding is already found in Tertullian, who in his Apologeticum has everywhere given a Stoic colouring to Christian ethics and rules of life, and in c. 39 has drawn a complete veil over the peculiarity of the Christian societies.

generally410 (34. 5: 38. 5). This judgment is not to be explained, as in Tertullian’s case, by the fact that his Stoic opinions led him to oppose natural perception to all philosophical theory — for this, at most, cannot have been more than a secondary contributing cause, ad2 1 but by the fact that he is conscious of following revealed wisdom.411 199Revelation is necessary because mankind must be aided from without, i.e., by God. In this idea man’s need of redemption is acknowledged, though not to the same extent as by Seneca and Epictetus. But no sooner does Minucius perceive the teachings of the prophets to be divine truth than man’s natural endowment and the speculation of philosophers sink for him into darkness. Christianity is the wisdom which philosophers sought, but were not able to find.412 We may sum up the doctrines of the Apologists as follows: (1) Christianity is revelation, i.e., it is the divine wisdom, proclaimed of old by the prophets and, by reason of its origin, possessing an absolute certainty which can also be recognised in the fulfilment of their predictions. As divine wisdom Christianity is contrasted with, and puts an end to, all natural and philosophical knowledge. (2) Christianity is the enlightenment corresponding to the natural but impaired knowledge of man.413 It embraces all the elements of 410

Tertullian has done exactly the same thing; see Apolog. 46 (and de præscr. 7.) Tertull., de testim. I.: “Sed non eam te (animam) advoco, quæ scholis format, bibliothecis exercitata, academiis et porticibus Atticis pasta sapientiam ructas. Te simplicem et rudem et impolitam et idioticam compello, qualem te habent qui te solam habent . . . Imperitia tua mihi opus est, quoniam aliquantulæ peritiæ tuæ nemo credit.” 412 Tertull., Apol.46: “Quid simile philosophus et Christianus? Græciæ discipulus et cœli? 541 de præscr. 7: “Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academiæ et ecclesiæ?” Minuc. 38.5: “Philosophorum supercilia contemnimus, quos corruptores et adulteros novimus . . . nos, qui non habitu sapientiam sed mente præferimus, non eloquimur magna sed vivimus, gloriamur nos consecutos, quod illi summa intentione quæsiverunt nec invenire potuerunt. Quid ingrati sumus, quid nobis invidemus, si veritas divinitatis nostri temporis rate maturuit?” 413 Minucius did not enter closely into the significance of Christ any more than Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus; he merely touched upon it (9. 4: 29. 2). He also viewed Christianity as the teaching of the Prophets; whoever acknowledges the latter must of necessity adore the crucified Christ. Tertullian was accordingly the first Apologist after Justin who again considered it necessary to give a detailed account of Christ as the incarnation of the Logos (see the 21st chapter of the Apology in its relation to chaps. 1720). 414 Among the Greek Apologists the unknown author of the work “de Monarchial”, which bears the name of Justin, has given clearest expression to this conception. He is therefore most akin to Minucius (see chap. I.). Here monotheism is designated as the καθρολικὴ δόξα which has fallen into oblivion through bad habit; for τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης 411

truth in philosophy, whence it is the philosophy; and helps man to realise the knowledge with which he is naturally endowed. (3) Revelation of the rational was and is necessary, because man has fallen under the sway of the demons. (4) The efforts of philosophers to ascertain the right knowledge were in vain; and this is, above all, shown by the fact that they neither overthrew polytheism nor brought about a really moral life. Moreover, so far as they discovered the truth, they owed it to the prophets from whom they borrowed 200it; at least it is uncertain whether they even attained a knowledge of fragments of the truth by their own independent efforts. acb 415 But it is certain that many seeming truths in the writings of the philosophers were imitations of the truth by evil demons. This is the origin of all polytheism, which is, moreover, to some extent an imitation of Christian institutions. (5) The confession of Christ is simply included in the acknowledgment of the wisdom of the prophets; the doctrine of the truth did not receive a new content through Christ; he only made it accessible to the world and strengthened it (victory over the demons; special features acknowledged by Justin and Tertullian). (6) The practical test of Christianity is first contained in the fact that all persons are able to grasp it, for women and uneducated men here become veritable sages; secondly in the fact that it has the power of producing a holy life, and of overthrowing the tyranny of the demons. In the Apologists, therefore, Christianity served itself heir to antiquity, i.e., to the result of the monotheistic knowledge and ethics of the Greeks: Ὅσα οὖν παρὰ πᾶσικαλῶς εἴρηται, ἡµῶν τῶν Χριστιανῶν εστί” (Justin, Apol. II. 13). It traced its origin back to the beginning of the world. Everything true and good which elevates mankind springs from divine revelation, and is at the same time genuinely human, because it is a clear expression of what man finds within him and of his destination (Justin, Apol. I. 46: οἱ µετὰ λόγου βιώσαντες Χριστιανοί εἰσι, κἄν ἄθεοι ἐνοµίσθησαν, οἷον ἐν Ἕλλησι µὲν Σωκράτης καὶ Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ ὅµοιοι αὐτοῖς, ἐν βαρβάροις δὲ Ἀβραὰµ κ.τ.λ., “those that have lived with reason are Christians, even though they were accounted atheists, such as Socrates and

φύσεως τὸ κατ᾽ ἀρχὴν συζυγίαν συνέσεως καὶ σωτηρίας λαβούσης εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας θρησκείας τε τῆς εἰς τὸν ἕνα καὶ πάντων δεσπότην. According to this, then, only an awakening is required. 415 But almost all the Apologists acknowledged that heathendom possessed prophets. They recognise these in the Sibyls and the old poets. The author of the work “de Monarchia” expressed the most pronounced views in regard to this. Hermas (Vis. II. 4), however, shows that the Apologists owed this notion also to an idea that was widespread among Christian people.

Heraclitus and those similar to them among the Greeks, and Abraham etc. among the barbarians”). But everything true and good is Christian, for Christianity is nothing else than the teaching of revelation. No second formula can be imagined in which the claim of Christianity to be the religion of the world is so powerfully expressed (hence also the endeavour of the Apologists to 201reconcile Christianity and the Empire), nor, on the other hand, can we conceive of one where the specific ac8 content of traditional Christianity is so thoroughly neutralised as it is here. But the really epoch-making feature is the fact that the intellectual culture of mankind now appears reconciled and united with religion. The “dogmas” are the expression of this. Finally, these fundamental presuppositions also result in a quite definite idea of the essence of revelation and of the content of reason. The essence of revelation consists in its form: it is divine communication through a miraculous inward working. All the media of revelation are passive organs of the Holy Spirit (Athenag. Supplic. 7; PseudoJustin, Cohort. 8; Justin, Dialogue 115. 7; Apol. I. 31, 33, 36; etc.; see also Hippolytus, de Christo et Antichr. 2). These were not necessarily at all times in a state of ecstasy, when they received the revelations; but they were no doubt in a condition of absolute receptivity. The Apologists had no other idea of revelation. What they therefore viewed as the really decisive proof of the reality of revelation is the prediction of the future, for the human mind does not possess this power. It was only in connection with this proof that the Apologists considered it important to show what Moses, David, Isaiah, etc., had proclaimed in the Old Testament, that is, these names have only a chronological significance. This also explains their interest in a history of the world, in so far as this interest originated in the effort to trace the chain of prophets up to the beginning of history, and to prove the higher antiquity of revealed truth as compared with all human knowledge and errors, particularly as found among the Greeks (clear traces in Justin,416 first detailed argument in Tatian).417 If, however, strictly speaking, it is only the form and not the content of revelation that is supernatural in so far as this content coincides with that of reason, it is evident that the Apologists simply took the content of the latter for granted and stated it dogmatically. So, whether they expressed themselves in strictly Stoic fashion or not, they all essentially agree in the assumption that true religion 202and morality are the natural content of reason. Even Tatian forms no exception, thoug 564 h he himself protests against the idea.

416 417

See Justin, Apol. I. 31, Dial. 7, p. 30 etc. See Tatian, c. 31 ff.

3. The doctrines of Christianity as the revealed and rational religion. 3. The doctrines of Christianity as the revealed and rational religion. The Apologists frequently spoke of the doctrines or “dogmas” of Christianity; and the whole content of this religion as philosophy is included in these dogmas.418 According to what we have already set forth there can be no doubt about the character of 203Christian dogmas. They are the rational truths, revealed by the prophets in the Holy Scriptures, and summarised in Christ 418

In the New 564 Testament the content of the Christian faith is nowhere designated as dogma. In Clement (I. II.), Hermas, and Polycarp the word is not found at all; yet Clement (I. 20. 4, 27. 5) called the divine order of nature τά δεδογµατισµένα ὑπὸ Θεοῦ. In Ignatius (ad Magn. XIII. 1) we read: σπουδάζετε οὖν βεβαιωθῆ̃ναι ἐν τοῖς δόγµασιν τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων, but δόγµατα here exclusively mean the rules of life (see Zahn on this passage), and this is also their signification in ∆ιδαχή XI. 3. In the Epistle of Barnabas we read in several passages (I. 6: IX. 7: X. 1, 9 f.) of “dogmas of the Lord”; but by these he means partly particular mysteries, partly divine dispensations. Hence the Apologists are the first to apply the word. to the Christian faith, in accordance with the language of philosophy. They are also the first who employed the ideas θεολογεῖν and θελογί . The latter word is twice found in Justin (Dial. 56) in the sense of “aliquem nominare deum”. In Dial. 113, however, it has the more comprehensive sense of “to make religio-scientific investigations”. Tatian (10) also used the word in the first sense; on the contrary he entitled a book of which he was the author “πρὸ τοὺ ac8 ς ἀποφηναµένους τὰ περὶ Θεοῦ” and not “πρὸς τοὺς θεολογοῦντας”. In Athenagoras (Suppl. 10) theology is the doctrine of God and of all beings to whom the predicate “Deity” belongs (see also 20, 22). That is the old usage of the word. It was thus employed by Tertullian in ad nat. II. 1 (the threefold division of theology; in II. 2, 3 the expression “theologia physica, mythica” refers to this); Cohort, ad Gr. 3, 22. The anonymous writer in Eusebius (H. E. V. 28. 4, 5) is instructive on the point. Brilliant demonstrations of the ancient use of the word “theology” are found in Natorp, Thema und Disposition der aristotelischen Metaphysik (Philosophische Monatshefte, 1887, Parts 1 and 2, pp. 55-64). The title “theology”, as applied to a philosophic discipline, was first used by the Stoics; the old poets were previously called “theologians”, and the “theological” stage was the prescientific one which is even earlier than the “childhood” of “physicists” (so Aristotle speaks throughout). To the Fathers of the Church also the old poets are still οἱ παγαιοὶ θεολόγοι. But side by side with this we have an adoption of the Stoic view that there is also a philosophical theology, because the teaching of the old poets concerning the gods conceals under the veil of myth a treasure of philosophical truth. In the Stoa arose the “impossible idea of a ‘theology’ which is to be philosophy, that is, knowledge based on reason, and yet to have positive religion as the foundation of its certainty.” The Apologists accepted this, but added to it the distinction of a κοσµικὴ and θεολογικὴ σοφί .

(Χριστὸς λόγος καὶ νόµος), which in their unity represent the divine wisdom, and the recognition of which leads to virtue and eternal life. The Apologists considered it their chief task to set forth these doctrines, and hence they can be reproduced with all desirable clearness. The dogmatic scheme of the Apologists may t ab9 herefore be divided into three component parts. These are: (A) Christianity viewed as monotheistic cosmology (God as the Father of the world); (B) Christianity as the highest morality and righteousness (God as the judge who rewards goodness and punishes wickedness); (C) Christianity regarded as redemption (God as the Good One who assists man and rescues him from the power of the demons).419 Whilst the first two ideas are expressed in a clear and precise manner, it is equally true that the third is not worked out in a lucid fashion. This, as will afterwards be seen, is, on the one hand, the result of the Apologists’ doctrine of freedom, and, on the other, of their inability to discover a specific significance for the person of Christ within the sphere of revelation. Both facts again are ultimately to be explained from their moralism. The essential content of revealed philosophy is viewed by the Apologists (see A, B) as comprised in three doctrines.420 First, there is one spiritual and inexpressibly exalted God, who is Lord and Father of the world. Secondly, he requires a holy life. Thirdly, he will at last sit in judgment, and will reward the good with immortality and punish the wicked with death. The teaching concerning God, virtue, and eternal reward is traced to the prophets and Christ; but the bringing about of a virtuous 204life (of righteousness) has been necessarily left by God to men themselves; for God has created man free, and virtue can only be acquired by man’s own efforts. The prophets and Christ are therefore a source of righteousness in so far as they are teachers. But as God, that is, the divine Word (which we need not here discuss) has spoken in them, Christianity is to be defined as the Knowledge of God, mediated by the Deity himself, and as a virtuous walk in the

419

Christ has a relation to all three parts of the scheme, (1) as λό : (2) as νό , νοµοθέ and κριτή ; (3) as διδά and σωτή . 420 In the reproduction of the apologetical theology historians of dogma have preferred to follow Justin; but here they have constantly overlooked th 564 e fact that Justin was the most Christian among the Apologists, and that the features of his teaching to which particular value is rightly attached, are either not found in the others at all (with the exception of Tertullian), or else in quite rudimentary form. It is therefore proper to put the doctrines common to all the Apologists in the foreground, and to describe what is peculiar to Justin as such, so far as it agrees with New Testament teachings or contains an anticipation of the future tenor of dogma.

longing after eternal and perfect life with God, as well as in the sure hope of this imperishable reward. By knowing what is true and doing what is good man becomes righteous and a partaker of the highest bliss. This knowledge, which has the character of divine instruction, 573 1 rests on faith in the divine revelation. This revelation has the nature and power of redemption in so far as the fact is undoubted that without it men cannot free themselves from the tyranny of the demons, whilst believers in revelation are enabled by the Spirit of God to put them to flight. Accordingly, the dogmas of Christian philosophy theoretically contain the monotheistic cosmology, and practically the rules for a holy life, which appears as a renunciation of the world and as a new order of society.421 The goal is immortal life, which consists in the full knowledge and contemplation of God. The dogmas of revelation lie between the cosmology and ethics; they are indefinitely expressed so far as they contain the idea of salvation; but they are very precisely worded in so far as they guarantee the truth of the cosmology and ethics. I. The dogmas which express the knowledge of God and the world are domi ac8 nated by the fundamental idea that the world as the created, conditioned, and transient is contrasted with something 205self-existing, unchangeable and eternal, which is the first cause of the world. This self-existing Being has none of the attributes which belong to the world; hence he is exalted above every name and has in himself no distinctions. This implies, first, the unity and uniqueness of this eternal Being; secondly, his spiritual nature, for everything bodily is subject to change; and, finally, his perfection, for the self-existent and eternal requires nothing. Since, however, he is the cause of all being, himself being unconditioned, he is the fulness of all being or true being itself (Tatian 5: καθὸ πᾶσα δύναµις ὁρατῶν τε καὶ αὀράτων αὐτὸς ὑπόστασις ἦν, σὺν αὐτῲ τὰ πάντα). As the living and spiritual Being he reveals himself in free creations, which make known his omnipotence and wisdom,

421

Cicero’s proposition (de nat. deor. II. 66. 167): “nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino unquam fuit,” which was the property of all the idealistic philosophers of the age, is found in the Apologists reproduced in the most various forms (see, e.g., Tatian 29). That all knowledge of the truth, both among the prophets and those who follow their teaching, is derived from inspiration was in their eyes a matter of certainty. But here they were only able to frame a theory in the case of the prophets; for such a t aa8 heory strictly applied to all would have threatened the spontaneous character of the knowledge of the truth. 422 Justin, Apol. I. 3: Ἡµέτερον οὖν ἔργον καὶ βίου καὶ µαθηµάτων τὴν ἐπίσκεψιν πᾶσι παρέχειν.

i.e., his operative reason. These creations are, moreover, a proof of the goodness of the Deity, for they can be no result of necessities, in so far as God is in himself perfect. Just because he is perfect, the Eternal Essence is also the Father of all virtues, in so far as he contains no admixture of what is defective. These virtues include both the goodness which manifests itself in his creations, and the righteousness which gives to the creature what belongs to him, in accordance with the position he has received. On the basis of this train of thought the Apologists lay down the dogmas of the monarchy of God (τῶν ὅλων τὸ µοναρχικόν); his supramundaneness (τὸ ἄρρητον, τὸ ἀνέκφραστον, τὸ ἀχώριτον, τὸ ἀκατάληπτον, τὸ ἀπερινόητον, τὸ ἀσύγκριτον, τὸ ἀσυµβίβαστον, τὸ ἀνεκδιηγητόν; see Justin, Apol, II. 6; Theoph. I. 3); his unity (εἷς Θεός); his having no beginning (ἄναρχος, ὅτι ἀγένητος); his eternity and unchangeableness (ἀναλλοίωτος καθότι ἀθάνατος); his perfection (τέλειος); his need of nothing (ἀπροσδεήύ a94 ); his spiritual nature (πνεῦµα ὁ Θεός); his absolute causality (αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τοῦ παντὸς ἡ ὑπόστασις, the motionless mover, see Aristides c. 1); his creative activity (κτίστης τῶν πάντων); his sovereignty (δεσπότης τῶν ὅλων); his fatherhood (πατὴρ διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρὸ τῶν ὅλων) his reason-power (God as λόγος, νοῦς, πνεῦµα, σοφία); his omnipotence (παντοκράτωρ ὅτι αὐτὸς τὰ πάντα κρατεῖ καὶ ἐµπεριέχει); his righteousness and goodness (πατὴρ τῆς δικαιοσύνης καὶ πασῶν τῶν ἀρετῶν χρηστότης). These dogmas are set forth by one Apologist in a more detailed, and by another in a more concise form, 206but three points are emphasised by all. First, God is primarily to be conceived as the First Cause. Secondly, the principle of moral good is also the principle of the world. Thirdly, the principle of the world, that is, the Deity, as being the immortal and eternal, forms the contrast to the world which is the transient. In the cosmology of the Apologists the two fundamental ideas are that God is the Father and Creator of the world, but that, as uncreated and eternal, he is also the complete contrast to it.423 These dogmas about God were not determined by the Apologists from the standpoint of the Christian Church which is awaiting an introduction into the Kingdom of God; but were deduced from a contemplation of the world on the one hand (see particularly Tatian, 4; Theophilus, I. 5, 6), and of the moral nature of man on the other. But, in so far as the latter itself belongs to the sphere of created things, the cosmos is the starting-point of their

423

See the exposition of the doctrine of God in Aristides with the conclusion found in all the Apologists, that God requires no offerings and presents.

speculations. This is everywhere dominated by reason and order; afc 424 it bears the impress of the divine Logos, and that in a double sense. On the one hand it appears as the copy of a higher, eternal world, for if we imagine transient and changeable matter removed, it is a wonderful complex of spiritual forces; on the other it presents itself as the finite product of a rational will. Moreover, the matter which lies at its basis is nothing bad, but an indifferent substance created by God,425 though indeed perishable. In its constitution the world is in every respect a structure worthy of God.426 Nevertheless, according to the Apologists, the direct author of the world was not God, but the personified power of reason which they perceived 207 in the cosmos and represented as the immediate source of the universe. The motive for this dogma and the interest in it would be wrongly determined by alleging that the Apologists purposely introduced the Logos in order to separate God from matter, because they regarded this as something bad. This idea of Philo’s cannot at least have been adopted by them as the result of conscious reflection, for it does not agree with their conception of matter; nor is it compatible with their idea of God and their belief in Providence, which is everywhere firmly maintained. Still less indeed can it be shown that they were all impelled to this dogma from their view of Jesus Christ, since in this connection, with the exception of Justin and Tertullian, they manifested no specific interest in the incarnation of the Logos in Jesus. The adoption of the dogma of the Logos is rather to be explained thus: (1) The idea of God, derived by abstraction from the cosmos, did indeed, like that of the idealistic philosophy, involve the element of unity and spirituality, which implied a sort of personality; but the fulness of all spiritual forces, the essence of everything imperishable were quite as essential features of the conception; for in spite of the transcendence inseparable from the notion of God, this idea was neverthless meant to explain the ac8 world.427 Accordingly, they required a formula capable of

424

Even Tatian says in c. 19: Κόσµου µὲν γὰρ ἡ κατασκευὴ καλή, τὸ δὲ ἐν ἀυτῷ πολίτευµα φαῦλον. 425 Tatian 5: Οὔτε ἄναρχος ἡ ὕλη καθάπερ ὁ Θεός, οὐδὲ διὰ τὸ ἄναρχον καὶ αὐτὴ ἰσοδύναµος τῷ Θεῷ· γεννητὴ δὲ καὶ οὐχ ὑπό τοῦ ἄλλου γεγονυῖα· µόνον δε ὑπὸ τοῦ πάντων δηµιουργοῦ προβεβληµένη. 12. Even Justin does not seem to have taught otherwise, though that is not quite certain; see Apol. I. 10, 59, 64, 67: II. 6. Theophilus I. 4: II. 4, 10, 13 says very plainly: ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν . . . . τί δὲ µέγα, εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐξ ὑποκειµένης ὕλης ἐποίει τὸν κόσµον. 584 426Hence the knowledge of God and the right knowledge of the world are most closely connected; see Tatian 27: ἡ Θεοῦ κατάληψις ἥν ἔχω περὶ τῶν ὅλων. 427 The beginning of the fifth chapter of Tatian’s Oration is specially instructive here.

expressing the transcendent and unchangeable nature of God on the one hand, and his fulness of creative and spiritual powers on the other. But the latter attributes themselves had again to be comprehended in a unity, because the law of the cosmos bore the appearance of a harmonious one. From this arose the idea of the Logos, and indeed the latter was necessarily distinguished from God as a separate existence, as soon as the realisation of the powers residing in God was represented as beginning. The Logos is the hypostasis of the operative power of reason, which at once preserves the unity and unchangeableness of God in spite of the exercise of the powers residing in him, and renders this very exercise possible. (2) Though the Apologists believed in the divine origin of the revelation given to the prophets, on which 208all knowledge of truth is based, they could nevertheless not be induced by this idea to represent God himself as a direct actor. For that revelation presupposes a speaker and a spoken word; but it would be an impossible thought to make the fulness of all essence and the first cause of all things speak. The Deity cannot be a speaking and still less a visible person, yet according to the testimony of the prophets, a Divine Person was seen by them. The Divine Being who makes himself known on earth in audible and visible fashion can only be the Divine Word. As, however, according to the fundamental view of the Apologists the principle of religion, i.e., of the knowledge of the truth, is also the principle of the world, so that Divine Word, which imparts the right knowledge of the world, must be identical with the Divine Reason which produced the world itself. In other words, the Logos is not only the creative Reason of God, but also his revealing Word. This explains the motive and aim of the dogma of the Logos. We need not specially point out that nothing more than the precision and certainty of the Apologists’ manner of statement is peculiar here; the train of thought itself belongs to Greek philosophy. But that very confidence is the most essential feature of the case; for in fact the firm belief that the principle of the world is also that of revelation represents an important early-Christian idea, though indeed in the form of philosophical reflection. To the majority of the Apologists the theoretical content of the Christian faith i 564 s completely exhausted in this proposition. They required no particular Christology, for in every revelation of God by his Word they already recognised a proof of his existence not to be surpassed, and consequently regarded it as Christianity in nuce.428

428

According to what has been set forth in the text it is incorrect to assert that the Apologists adopted the Logos doctrine in order to reconcile monotheism with the divine honours paid to the crucified Christ. The truth rat ac8 her is that the Logos doctrine was

But the fact that the Apologists made a distinction in thesi between the prophetic Spirit of God and the Logos, without being able to make any use of this distinction, 209is a very clear instance of their dependence on the formulæ of the Church’s faith. Indeed their conception of the Logos continually compelled them to identify the Logos and the Spirit, just as they not unfrequently define Christianity as the belief in the true God and in his Son, without mentioning the Spirit.429 Further ac8 their dependence on the Christian tradition is shown in the fact that the most of them expressly designated the Logos as the Son of God.430

already part of their creed before they gave any consideration to the person of the historical Christ, and vice versâ Christ’s right to divine honours was to them a matter of certainty independently of the Logos doctrine. 429 We find the distinction of Logos (Son) and Spirit in Justin, Apol. I. 5, and in every case where he quotes formulæ (if we are not to assume the existence of interpolation in the text, which seems to me not improbable; see now also Cramer in the Theologische Studien, 1893. pp. 17 ff., 138 ff.). In Tatian 13 fin. the Spirit is represented as ὁ διάκονος τοῦ πεπονθότος Θεοῦ. The conception in Justin, Dial. 116, is similar. Father, Word, and prophetic Spirit are spoken of in Athenag. 10. The express designation τρί is first found in. Theophilus (but see the Excerpta ex Theodoto); see II. 15: αἰ τρεῖς ἡµέραι τύποι ἑισὶν τῆς τριάδος, τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ λόγου ἀυτοῦ καὶ τῆς σοφίας ἀυτοῦ; see II. 10, 18. But it is just in Theophilus that the difficulty of deciding between Logos and Wisdom appears with special plainness (II. 10). The interposition of the host of good angels between Son and Spirit found in Justin, Apol. I. 5 (see Athenag.), is exceedingly striking. We have, however, to notice, provided the text is right, (1) that this interposition is only found in a single passage, (2) that Justin wished to refute the reproach of ἀθεότης, (3) that the placing of the Spirit after the angels does not necessarily imply a position inferior to theirs, but merely a subordination to the Son and the Father common to the Spirit and the angels, (4) that the good angels were also invoked by the Christians, because they were conceived as mediators of prayer (see my remark on I. Clem. ad Corinth. LVI. 1); they might have found a place here just for this latter reason. On the significance of the Holy Spirit in the theology of Justin, see Zahn Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 228: “If there be any one theologian of the early Church who might be regarded as depriving the Holy Spirit of all scientific raison d’être at least on the ground of having no distinctive(?) activity, and the Father of all share in revelation, it is Justin.” We cannot at bo 556 ttom say that the Apologists possessed a doctrine of the Trinity. 430 To Justin the name of the Son is the most important; see also Athenag. 10. The Logos had indeed been already called the Son of God by Philo, and Celsus expressly says (Orig., c. Cels. II. 31); “If according to your doctrine the Word is really the Son of God then we agree with you;” but the Apologists are the first to attach the name of Son to the Logos as a proper designation. If, however, the Logos is intrinsically the Son of God, then Christ is the Son of God, not because he is the begotten of God in the flesh (early Christian), but because the spiritual being existing in him is the antemundane

The Logos doctrine of the Apologists is an essentially unanimous 210one. Since God cannot be conceived as without reason, ἄλογος, but as the fulness of all reason,431 he has always Logos in himself. This Logos is on the one hand the divine consciousness itself, and on the other the power (idea and energy) to which the world is due; he is not separate from God, but is contained in his essence.432 For the sake of the creation God produced (sent forth, projected) the Logos from himself, that is, he engendered433 him from his essence by a free and simple act of will (Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ πεφυκώς εξ ἑαυτοῦ. Dial. 61). Then for the first time the Logos became a hypostasis separate from God, or, in other words, he first came into existence; and, in virtue of his origin, he possesses the following distinctive features:434 211(1) The

reproduction of God (see Justin, Apol. II. 6: ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Θεοῦ, ὁ µόνος λεγόµενος κυριώς ὑιός) — a momentous expression. aa9 431Athenag., l0; Tatian, Orat. 5. 432 The clearest expression of this is in Tatian 5, which passage is also to be compared with the following: Θεὸς ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ, τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν λόγου δύναµιν παρειλήφαµεν. Ὁ γὰρ δεσπότης τῶν ὅλων, αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τοῦ παντὸς ἡ ὑπόστασις, κατὰ µὲν τὴν µηδέπω γεγενηµένην ποίησιν µόνος ἦν· καθὸ δὲ πᾶσα δύναµις, ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ἀοράτων ἀυτὸς ὑπόστασις ἦν, σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα· σὺν αὐτῷ διὰ λογικῆς δυνάµεως αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ λόγος, ὅς ἦν ἐν αὐτῷ, ὑπέστησε. Θελήµατι δέ τῆς ἁπλότητος αὐτοῦ προπηδᾷ λόγος· ὁ δὲ λόγος, ὀυ κατὰ κενοῦ χωρήσας, ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρὸς γίνεται. Τοῦτον ἴσµεν τοῦ κόσµου τὴν ἀρχήν. Γέγονε δὲ κατὰ µερισµόν, ο̦ κατὰ ἀποκοπήν· τὸ γὰρ ἀποτµηθὲν τοῦ πρώτου κεχώρισται, τὸ δὲ µερισθὲν οἰκονοµίας τὴν αἵρεσιν προσλαβὸν οὐκ ἐνδεᾶ τὸν ὅθεν εἴληπται πεπόιηκεν. Ὥστερ γὰρ ἀπὸ µιᾶς δᾳδὸς ἀνάπτεται µὲν πυρὰ πολλὰ, τῆς δὲ πρώτης δᾳδὸς διὰ τὴν ἔξαψιν τῶν πολλῶν δᾳδῶν οὐκ ἐλαττοῦται τὸ φῶς, οὕτω καὶ ὁ λόγος προελθὼν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς δυνάµεως οὐκ ἄλογον πεποίηκε τὸν γεγεννηκότα. In the identification of the divine consciousness, that is, the power of God, with the force to which the world is clue the naturalistic basis of the apologetic speculations is most clearly shown. Cf. Justin, Dial. 128, 129. 591 433The word “beget” (γεννᾶν) is used by the Apologists, especially Justin, because the name “Son” was the recognised expression for the Logos. No doubt the words ἐξερέυγεσθαι, προβάλλεσθαι, προέρχεσθαι, προπηδᾶν and the like express the physical process more exactly in the sense of the Apologists. On the other hand, however, γεννᾶν appears the more appropriate word in so far as the relation of the essence of the Logos to the essence of God is most clearly shown by the name “Son”. 434 None of the Apologists has precisely defined the Logos idea. Zahn, 1.c., p. 233, correctly remarks: “Whilst the distinction drawn between the hitherto unspoken and the spoken word of the Creator makes Christ appear as the thought of the world within the mind of God, yet he is al a90 so to be something real which only requires to enter into a new relation to God to become an active force. Then again this Word is not to be the

inner essence of the Logos is identical with the essence of God himself; for it is the product of self-separation in God, willed and brought about by himself. Further, the Logos is not cut off and separated from God, nor is he a mere modality in him. He is rather the independent product of the self- 528 unfolding of God (οἰκονοµία), which product, though it is the epitome of divine reason, has nevertheless not stripped the Father of this attribute. The Logos is the revelation of God, and the visible God. Consequently the Logos is really God and Lord, i.e., he possesses the divine nature in virtue of his essence. The Apologists, however, only know of one kind of divine nature and this is that which belongs to the Logos. (2) From the moment when he was begotten the Logos is a being distinct from the Father; he is ἀριθµῷ ἐτερόν τι, Θεὸς ἕτερος, Θεὸς δεύτερος (“something different in number, another God, a second God.”) But his personality only dates from that moment. “Fuit tempus, cum patri filius non fuit,” (“there was a time when the Father had no Son”, so Tertullian, adv. Hermog. 3).The λόγος προφορικός is for the first time a hypostasis distinct from the Father, the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος is not. b04 435 (3) The Logos has an origin, the Father has not; hence it follows that in relation to God the Logos is a creature; he is the begotten, that is, the created God, the God who has a beginning. Wherefore in rank he is below God (ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ — δεύτερος Θεός, “in the second place, 212and a second God”), the messenger and servant of God. The subordination of the Logos is not founded on the content of his essence, but on his origin. In relation to the creatures, however, the

thought that God thinks, but the thought that thinks in God. And again it is to be a something, or an Ego, in God’s thinking essence, which enters into reciprocal intercourse with something else in God; occasionally also the reason of God which is in a state of active exercise and without which he would not be rational.” Considering this evident uncertainty it appears to me a very dubious proceeding to differentiate the conceptions of the Logos in Justin, Athenagoras, Tatian, and Theophilus, as is usually done. If we consider that no Apologist wrote a special treatise on the Logos, that Tatian (c. 5) is really the only one from whom we have any precise statements, and that the elements of the conception are the same in all, it appears inadvisable to lay so great stress on the difference as Zahn, for instance, has done in the book already referred to, p. 232, f. Hardly any real difference can have. existed between Justin, Tatian, and Theophilus in the Logos doctrine proper. On the other hand Athenagoras certainly seems to have tried to eliminate the appearance of the Logos in time, and to emphasise the eternal nature of the divine relationships, without, however, reaching the position which Irenæus took up here. 435 This distinction is only found in Theophilus (II. 10); but the idea exists in Tatian and probably also in Justin, though it is uncertain whether Justin regarded the Logos as having any sort of being before the moment of his begetting.

Logos is the ἀρχή, i.e., not only the beginning but the principle of the vitality and form of everything that is to receive being. As an emanation (the begotten) he is distinguished from all creatures, for he alone is the Son;436 but, as having a beginning, he again stands on a level with them. Hence the paradoxical expression, ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρός (“first begotten work of the Father”), is here the most appropriate designation. (4) In virtue of his finite origin, it is possible and proper for the Logos to enter into the finite, to act, to speak. and to appear. As he arose for the sake of the creation of the world, he has the capacity of personal and direct revelation which does not belong to the infinite God; nay, his whole essence consists in the very fact that he is thought, word, and deed. Behind this active substitute and vicegerent, the Father stands in the darkness of the incomprehensible, and in the incomprehensible light of perfection as the hidden, unchangeable God.437 With the issuing forth of the Logos from God began the realisation of the idea of the world. The world as κόσµος νοητός is contained in the Logos. But the world is material and man ac8 ifold, the Logos is spiritual and one. Therefore the 213Logos is not himself the world, but he is its creator and in a certain fashion its archetype. Justin and Tatian used the expression “beget” (γεννᾶν) for the creation of the world, but in connections which do not admit of any importance being attached to this use. The world was created out of nothing after a host of spirits, as is assumed by most Apologists, had been created along with heaven, which is a higher, glorious world. The purpose of the creation of the world was and is

436

Justin, Apol. II. 6., Dial. 61. The Logos is not produced out of nothing, like the rest of the creatures. Yet it is evident that the Apologists did not yet sharply and precisely distinguish between begetting and creating, as the later theologians did; though some of them certainly felt the necessity for a distinction. 591 437All the Apologists tacitly assume that the Logos in virtue of his origin has the capacity of entering the finite. The distinction which here exists between Father and Son is very pregnantly expressed by Tertullian (adv. Marc. II. 27): “Igitur quæcumque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcumque autem ut indigna reprehenditis deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro.” But we ought not to charge the Apologists with the theologoumenon that it was an inward necessity for the Logos to become man. Their Logos hovers, as it were, between God and the world, so that he appears as the highest creature, in so far as he is conceived as the production of God; and again seems to be merged in God, in so far as he is looked upon as the consciousness and spiritual force of God. To Justin, however, the incarnation is irrational, and the rest of the Greek Apologists are silent about it.

the production of men, i.e., beings possessed of soul and body, endowed with reason and freedom, and therefore made in the image of God; beings who are to partake of the blessedness and perfection of God. Everything is created for man’s sake, and his own creation is a proof of the goodness of God. As beings possessed of soul and body, men are neither mortal nor immortal, but capable either of death or immortality.438 The condition on which men can attain the latter introduces us to ethics. The doctrines, that God is also the absolute Lord of matter; that evil cannot be a quality of matter, but rather arose in time and from the free decision of the spirits or angels; and finally that the world will have an end, but God can call the destroyed material into existence, just as he once created it out of nothing, appear in principle to reconcile the dualism in the cosmology. We have the less occasion to give the details here, because they are known from the philosophical systems of the period, especially Philo’s, and vary in manifold ways. All the Apologists, however, are imbued with the idea that this knowledge of God and the world, the genesis of the Logos and cosmos, are the most essential part of Christianity itself.439 This conception is really not peculiar to the Apologists: in the second century the great majority of Christians, in so far as they reflected at all, regarded 214 the monotheistic explanation of the world as a main part of the Christian religion. The theoretical view of the world as a harmonious whole, of its order, regularity and beau 564 ty; the certainty that all this had been called into existence by an Almighty Spirit; the sure hope that heaven and earth will pass away, but will give place to a still more glorious structure, were always present, and put an end to the bright and gorgeously coloured, but phantastic and vague, cosmogonies and theogonies of antiquity. 2. Their clear system of morality is in keeping with their relatively simple cosmology. In giving man reason and freedom as an inalienable possession God destined him for incorruptibility (ἀθανασία, ἀφθαρσία), by the attainment of which he was to

54e 438The most of the Apologists argue against the conception of the natural immortality of the human soul; see Tatian 13; Justin, Dial.5; Theoph. II. 27. 439 The first chapter of Genesis represented to them the sum of all wisdom, and therefore of all Christianity. Perhaps Justin had already written a commentary to the Hexaëmeron (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 169 f.). It is certain that in the second century Rhodon (Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 8), Theophilus (see his 2nd Book ad Autol.), Candidus, and Apion (Euseb., H. E. V. 27) composed such. The Gnostics also occupied themselves a great deal with Gen. I.-III.; see, e.g., Marcus in Iren. I. 18.

become a being similar to God.440 To the gift of imperishability God, however, attached the condition of man’s preserving τὰ τῆς ἀθανασίας (“the things of immortality”), i.e., preserving the knowledge of God and maintaining a holy walk in imitation of the divine perfection. This demand is as natural as it is just; moreover, ac8 nobody can fulfil it in man’s stead, for an essential feature of virtue is its being free, independent action. Man must therefore determine himself to virtue by the knowledge that he is only in this way obedient to the Father of the world and able to reckon on the gift of immortality. The conception of the content of virtue, however, contains an element which cannot be clearly apprehended from the cosmology; moral goodness consists in letting oneself be influenced in no way by the sensuous, but in living solely, after the Spirit, and imitating the perfection and purity of God. Moral badness is giving way to any affection resulting from the natural basis of man. The Apologists undoubtedly believe that virtue consists negatively in man’s renunciation of what his natural constitution of soul and body demands or impels him to. Some express this thought 215in a more pregnant and unvarnished fashion, others in a milder way. Tatian, for instance, says that we must divest ourselves of the human nature within us; but in truth the idea is the same in all. The moral law of nature of which the Apologists speak, and which they find reproduced in the clearest and most beautiful way in the sayings of Jesus,441 calls upon man to raise himself above his nature and to enter into a corresponding union with his fellow-man which is something higher than natural connections. It is not so much the law of love that is to rule everything, for love itself is only a phase of a higher law; it is the law governing the perfect and sublime Spirit, who, as being the most exalted existence on this earth, is too noble for the world. Raised already in this knowledge beyond time and space, beyond the partial and the finite, the man of God, even while upon the earth, is to hasten to the Father of Light. By equanimity, absence of desires, purity, and goodness, which are the necessary results of clear knowledge, he is to show that he has already risen above the transient through gazing on the

581 440

See Theophilus ad Aut. II. 27: Εἰ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ἀθάνατον τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς πεποιήκει, Θεὸν αὐτὸν πεποιήκει· πάλιν εἰ θνητὸν ἀυτὸν πεποιήκει ἐδόκει ἄν ὁ Θεὸς αἴτιος εἶναι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ. Οὔτε οὖν ἀθάνατον ἀυτὸν ἐποίησεν οὔτε µὴν θνητόν, ἀλλὰ δεκτικὸν ἀµφοτέρων; ἵνα, εἰ ῥέψῃ ἐπὶ τὰ τῆς ἀθανασίας τηρήσας τὴν ἑντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ, µισθὸν κοµίσηται παῤ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀθανασίαν καὶ γένηται Θεός, εἰ δ᾽ αὖ τραπῇ ἐπὶ τὰ τοῦ θανάτου πράγµατα παρακούσας τοῦ Θεοῦ, αὐτὸς ἐαυτῷ αἴτιος ᾖ τοῦ θανάτου. 441 See Justin, Apol. I. 14 ff. and the parallel passages in the other Apologists.

imperishable and through the enjoyment of knowledge, imperfect though the latter still be. If thus, a suffering hero, he has stood the test on earth, if he has become dead to the world,442 he may be sure that in the life to com 560 e God will bestow on him the gift of immortality, which includes the direct contemplation of God together with the perfect knowledge that flows from it.443 Conversely, the vicious man is given over to eternal death, and in this punishment the righteousness of God is quite as plainly manifested, as in the reward of everlasting life. 3. While it is certain that virtue is a matter of freedom, it 216is just as sure that no soul is virtuous unless it follows the will of God, i.e., knows and judges of God and all things as they must be known and judged of; and fulfils the commandments of God. This presupposes a revelation of God through the Logos. A revelation of God, complete in itself and mediated by the Logos, is found in the cosmos and in the constitution of man, he being created in his Maker’s image.444 eb4 But experience has shown that this revelation is insufficient to enable men to retain clear knowledge. They yielded to the seduction of evil demons, who, by God’s sufferance, took possession of the world, and availed themselves of man’s sensuous side to draw him away from the contemplation of the divine and lead him to the earthly.445 The results of this temptation

442

See Tatian, Orat.11. and many other passages. Along with this the Apologists emphasise the resurrection of the flesh in the strongest way as the specific article of Christian anticipation, and prove the possibility of realising this irrational hope. Yet to the Apologists the ultimate ground of their trust in this early-Christian idea is their reliance on the unlimited omnipotence of God and this confidence is a proof of the vividness of their idea of him. Nevertheless this conception assumes that in the other world there will be a return of the flesh, which on this side the grave had to be overcome and regarded as non-existent. A clearly chiliastic element is found only in Justin. 444 No uniform conception of this is found in the Apologists; see Wendt, Die Christliche Lehre von der menschlichen Vollkommenheit 1882, pp. 8-20. Justin speaks only of a heavenly destination for which man is naturally adapted. With Tatian and Theophilus it is different. 445 The idea that the demon sovereignty has led to some change in the psychological condition and capacities of man is absolutely unknown to Justin (see Wendt, l. c., p. 11 f., who has successfully defended the correct view in Engelhardt’s “Das Christenthum Justin’s des Märtyrers” pp. 92 f. 151. f. 266 f., against Stählin, “Justin der Märtyrer und 564 sein neuester Beurtheiler” 1880, p. 16 f.). Tatian expressed a different opinion, which, however, involved him in evident contradictions (see above, p. 191 ff.). The apologetic theology necessarily adhered to the two following propositions: (1) The freedom to do what is good is not lost and cannot be. This doctrine was opposed to philosophic determinism and popular fatalism. (2) The desires of the flesh resulting from 443

appeared in the facts that humanity as a whole fell a prey to error, was subjected to the bonds of the sensuous and of the demons, and therefore became doomed to death, which is at once a punishment and the natural consequence of want of knowledge of 217God.446 Hence it required fresh efforts of the Logos to free men from a state which is indeed in no instance an unavoidable necessity, though a sad fact in the case of almost all. For very few are now able to recognise the one true God from the order of the universe and from the moral law implanted in themselves; nor can they withstand the power of the demons ruling in the world and use their freedom to imitate the virtues of God. Therefore the Almighty in his goodness employed new means through the Logos to call men back from the error of their ways, to overthrow the sovereignty of the demons upon earth, and to correct the disturbed course of the world before the end has yet come. From the earliest times the Logos (the Spirit) has descended on such men as preserved their souls pure, and bestowed on them, through inspiration, knowledge of the truth (with reference to God, freedom, virtue, the demons, the origin of polytheism, the judgment) to be imparted by them to others. These are his “prophets”. Such men are rare among the Greeks (and according to some not found at all), but numerous among the barbarians, i.e., among the Jewish people. Taught by God, they announced the truth about him, and under the promptings of the Logos they also committed the revelations to writings, which therefore, as being inspired, are an authentic record of the whole truth.447 To some of

the constitution of man only become evil when they destroy or endanger the sovereignty of reason. The formal liberum arbitrium explains the possibility of sin, whilst its actual existence is accounted for by the desire that is excited by the demons. The Apologists acknowledge the universality of sin and death, but refused to admit the necessity of the former in order not to call its guilty character in question. On the other hand they are deeply imbued with the idea that the sovereignty of death is the most powerful factor in the perpetuation of sin. Their believing conviction of the omnipotence of God, as well as their moral conviction of the responsibility of man, protected them in theory from a strictly dualistic conception of the world. At the same time, like all who separate nature and morality in their ethical system, though in other respects they do not do so, the Apologists abf were obliged in practice to be dualists. 446 Death is accounted the worst evil. When Theophilus (II. 26) represents it as a blessing, we must consider that he is arguing against Marcion. Polytheism is traced to the demons; they are accounted the authors of the fables about the gods; the shameful actions of the latter are partly the deeds of demons and partly lies. 447 The Old Testament therefore is not primarily viewed as the book of prophecy or of preparation for Christ, but as the book of the full revelation which cannot be surpassed. In point of content the teaching of the prophets and of Christ is completely identical. The

the most virtuous among them he himself even appeared in human form and gave directions. He then is a Christian, who receives and follows these prophetic teachings, that have ever been proclaimed afresh from the beginning of the world down to the present time, and are summed up in the Old Testament, Such a one 218is enabled even now to rescue his soul from the rule of the demons, and may confidently expect the gift of immortality. With the majority of the Apologists “Christianity” seems to be exhausted in these doctrines; in fact, they do not even consider it necessary to mention ex professo the appearance of the Logos in Christ (see above, p. 189 ff.). But, while it is certain that they all recognised that the teachings of the prophets contained the full revelation of the truth, we would be qu 17c ite wrong in assuming that they view the appearance and history of Christ as of no significance. In their presentations some of them no doubt contented themselves with setting forth the most rational and simple elements, and therefore took almost no notice of the historical; but even in their case certain indications show that they regarded the manifestation of the Logos i ac8 n Christ as of special moment.448 For the prophetic utterances, as found from the beginning, require an attestation, the prophetic teaching requires a guarantee, so that misguided humanity may accept them and no longer take error for truth and truth for error. The strongest guarantee imaginable is found in the fulfilment of prophecy. Since no man is able to foretell what is to come, the prediction of the future accompanying a doctrine proves its divine origin. God, in his extraordinary goodness, not only inspired the prophets, through the Logos, with the doctrines of truth, but has from the beginning put numerous predictions in their mouth. These predictions were detailed and manifold; the great majority of them referred to a more prolonged appearance of the Logos in human form at the end of history, and to a future judgment. Now, so long as the predictions had not yet come to pass, the teachings of the prophets

prophetical details in the Old Testament serve only to attest the one truth. The Apologists confess that they were converted to Christianity by reading the Old Testament. Cf. Justin’s and Tatian’s confessions. Perhaps Commodian (Instruct. I. 1) is also be understood thus. 448 The Oratio of Tatian is very instructive in this respect. In this book he has nowhere spoken ex professo of the incarnation of the Logos in Christ; but in c. 13 fin. he calls the Holy Spirit “the servant of God who has suffered”, and in c. 21 init. he says: “we are not fools and do not adduce anything stupid, when we proclaim that God has appeared in human form.” Similar expressions are found in Minucius Felix. In no part of Aristides’ Apology is there any mention of the pre-Christian appearance of the Logos. The writer merely speaks of the revelation of the Son of God in Jesus Christ.

were not sufficiently impressive, for the only sure witness of the truth is its outward attestation. In the history of Christ, 219however, the majority of these prophecies were fulfilled in the most striking fashion, and this not only guarantees the fulfilment of the relatively small remainder not yet come to pass (judgment, resurrection), but also settles beyond all doubt the truth of the prophetic teachings about God, freedom, virtue, immortality, etc. In the scheme of fulfilment and prophecy even the irrational becomes rational; for the fulfilment of a prediction is not a proof of its divine origin unless it refers to something extraordinary. Any one can predict regular occurrences which always take place, Accordingly, a part of what was predicted had to be irrational. Every particular in the history of Christ has therefore a significance, not as regards the future, but as regards the past. Here everything happened that the word of the prophet might be fulfilled.” Because the prophet had said so, it had to happen. Christ’s destiny attests the ancient teachings of the prophets. Everything, however, depends on this attestation, for it was no longer the full truth that was wanting, but a convincing proof that the truth was a reality and not a fancy.449 But prophecy test 564 ifies that Christ is the ambassador of God, the Logos that has appeared in human form, and the Son of God. If the future destiny of Jesus is recorded in the Old Testament down to the smallest particular, and the book at the same time declares that this predicted One is the Son of God and will be crucified, then the paying of divine honours to this crucified man, to whom all the features of prophecy apply, is completely justified. The stage marked by Christ in the history of God’s revelation, the content of which is always the same, is therefore the highest and last, because in it the “truth along with the proof” has appeared. This circumstance explains why the truth is so much more impressive and convinces more men than formerly, especially since Christ has also made special provision for the spread of the 220truth and is himself an unequalled exemplification of a virtuous life, the principles of which have now become known in the whole world through the spread of his precepts. These statements exhaust the arguments in most of the Apologies; and they accordingly seem neither to have

56d 449

We seldom receive an answer to the question as to why this or that particular occurrence should have been prophesied. According to the ideas of the Apologists, however, we have hardly a right to put that question; for, since the value of the historical consists in its having been predicted, its content is of no importance. The fact that Jesus finds the she-ass bound to a vine (Justin, Apol. 1. 32) is virtually quite as important as his being born of a virgin. Both occurrences attest the prophetic teachings of God, freedom, etc.

contemplated a redemption by Christ in the stricter sense of the word, nor to have assumed the unique nature of the appearance of the Logos in Jesus. Christ accomplished salvation as a divi ab7 ne teacher, that is to say, his teaching brings about the ἀλλαγή and ἐπαναγωγή of the human race, its restoration to its original destination. This also seems to suffice as regards demon rule. Logically considered, the individual portions of the history of Jesus (of the baptismal Confession) have no direct significance in respect to salvation. Hence the teachings of the Christians seem to fall into two groups having no inward connection, i.e., the propositions treating of the rational knowledge of God, and the predicted and fulfilled historical facts which prove those doctrines and the believing hopes they include. But Justin at least gave token of a manifest effort to combine the historical statements regarding Christ with the philosophical and moral doctrines of salvation and to conceive Jesus as the Redeemer.450 Accordingly, if the Christian dogmatic of succeeding times is found in the connection of philosophical theology with the baptismal confession, that is, in the “scientific theology of facts”, Justin is, in a certain fashion, the first framer of Church dogma, though no doubt in a very tentative way. (1) He tried to distinguish between the appearance of the Logos in pre-Christian times and in Christ; he emphasised the fact that the whole Logos appeared only in Christ, and that the manner of this appearance has no counterpart in the past. (2) 221Justin showed in the Dialogue that, independently of the theologoumenon of the Logos, he was firmly convinced of the divinity of Christ on the ground of predictions and of the impression made by his personality.451 (3) In addition to the story of the exaltation of Christ, Justin also emphasised other portions of his history, especially the death on the cross (together with baptism and the Lord’s Supper) and tried to give them a

450

In Justin’s polemical works this must have appeared in a still more striking way. Thus we find in a fragment of the treatise πρὸ Μαρκί , quoted by Irenæus (IV. 6. 2), the sentence “unigenitus filius venit ad nos, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans.” So the theologoumenon of the recapitulatio per Ch ac8 ristum already appeared in Justin. (Vide also Dial. c. Tryph. 100.) If we compare Tertullian’s Apologeticum with his Antignostic writings we easily see how impossible it is to determine from that work the extent of his Christian faith and knowledge. The same is probably the case, though to a less extent, with Justin’s apologetic writings. 451 Christians do not place a man alongside of God, for Christ is God, though indeed a second God. There is no question of two natures. It is not the divine nature that Justin has insufficiently emphasised — or at least this is only the case in so far as it is a second Godhead — but the human nature; see Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 39 ff.

positive significance.452 He adopted the common Christian saying that the blood of Christ cleanses believers and men are healed through his wounds; and he tried to give a mystic significance to the cross. (4) He accordingly spoke of the forgiveness of sins through Christ and confessed that men are changed, through the new birth in baptism, from children of necessity and ignorance into children of purpose and understanding and forgiveness of sins.453 Von Engelhardt has, however, quite rightly noticed that these are mere words which have nothing at all corresponding to them in the general system of thought, because Justin remains convinced that the knowledge of the true God, of his will, and of his promises, or the certainty that God will always grant forgiveness to the repentant and eternal life to the righteous, is sufficient to convert the man who is master of himself. Owing to the fundamental conviction which is expressed in the formulæ, “perfect philosophy”, “divine teacher”, “new law”, “freedom”, “repentance”, “sinless life”, “sure hope”, “ 564 reward”, “immortality”, the ideas, “forgiveness of sins”, “redemption”, “reconciliation”, “new birth”, “faith” (in the Pauline sense) must remain 222words,454 or be relegated to the sphere of magic and mystery.455 Nevertheless we must not on that account overlook the intention. Justin tried to see the divine revelation not only in the sayings of the prophets, but in unique fashion in the person of

452

We find allusions in Justin where the various incidents in the history of the incarnate Logos are conceived as a series of arrangements meant to form part of the history of salvation, to paralyse mankind’s sinful history, and to regenerate humanity. He is thus a forerunner of Irenæus and Melito. 453 Even the theologoumenon of the definite number of the elect, which must be fulfilled, is found in Justin (Apol. I. 28, 45). For that reason the judgment is put off by God (II. 7). The Apology of Aristides contains a short account of the history of Jesus; his conception, birth, preaching, choice of the 12 Apostles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, sending out of the 12 Apostles are mentioned. 454 “To Justin faith is o ac8 nly an acknowledgment of the mission and Sonship of Christ and a conviction of the truth of his teaching. Faith does not justify, but is merely a presupposition of the justification which is effected through repentance, change of mind, and sinless life. Only in so far as faith itself is already a free. decision to serve God has it the value of a saving act, which is indeed of such significance that one can say, ‘Abraham was justified by faith.’ In reality, however, this took place through µετά .” The idea of the new birth is exhausted in the thought: Θεὸς καλεῖ εἰς µετάνοιαν, that of the forgiveness of sins in the idea: “God is so good that he overlooks sins committed in a state of ignorance, if man has changed his mind.” Accordingly, Christ is the Redeemer in so far as he has brought about all the conditions which make for repentance. 455 This is in fact already the case in Justin here and there, but in the main there are as yet mere traces of it: the Apologists are no mystics.

Christ, and to conceive Christ not only as the divine teacher, but also as the “Lord and Redeemer”. In two points he actually succeeded in this. By the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Justin proved that Christ, the divine teacher, is also the future judge and bestower of reward. Christ himself is able to give what he has promised — a life after death free from sufferings and sins, that is the first point. The other ac8 thing, however, which Justin very strongly emphasised is that Jesus is even now reigning in heaven, and shows his future visible sovereignty of the world by giving his own people the power to cast out and vanquish the demons in and by his name. Even at the present time the latter are put to flight by believers in Christ.456 So the redemption is no mere future one; it is even now taking place, and the revelation of the Logos in Jesus Christ is not merely intended to prove the doctrines of the rational religion, but denotes a real redemption, that is, a new beginning, in so far as the power of the demons on earth is overthrown through Christ and in his strength. Jesus Christ, the teacher of the whole 223truth and of a new law, which is the rational, the oldest, and the divine, the only being who has understood how to call men from all the different nations and in all stages of culture into a union of holy life, the inspiring One, for whom his disciples go to death, the mighty One, through whose name the demons are cast out, the risen One, who will one day reward and punish as judge, must be identical with the Son of God, who is the divine reason and the divine power. In this belief which accompanies the confession of the one God, creator of heaven and earth, Justin finds the special content of Christianity, which the later Apologists, with the probable exception of Melito, reproduced in a much more imperfect and meagre form. One thing, however, Justin in all probability did not formulate with precision, viz., the proposition that the special result of salvation, i.e., immortality, was involved in the incarnation of the Logos, in so far as that act brought about a real secret transformation of the whole mortal nature of man. With Justin, indeed, as with the other Apologists, the “salvation” (σωτηρία) consists essentially in the apportioning of eternal life to the world, which has been created mortal and in consequence of sin has fallen a prey to the natural destiny of “death”; and Christ is regarded as the bestower of incorruptibility who thus brings the creation to its goal; but as a rule Justin does not go beyond this

456

If we consider how largely the demons bulked in the ideas of the Apologists, we must rate very highly their conviction of the redeeming power of Christ and of his name, a power continuously shown in the victories over the demons. See Justin Apol. II. 6, 8; Dial. 11, 30, 35, 39, 76, 85, 111, 121; Tertull., Apol. 23, 27, 32, 37 etc. Tatian also (16 fin.) confirms it, and c. 12, p. 56, line 7 if. (ed. Otto) does not contradict this.

thought. Yet we certainly find hints pointing to the notion of a physical and magical redemption accomplished at the moment of the incarnation. See particularly the fragment in Irenæus (already quoted on page 220), whic ac3 h may be thus interpreted, and Apol. I. 66. This conception, in its most complete shape, would have to be attributed to Justin if the fragment V. (Otto, Corp. Apol. III. p. 256) were genuine.457 But the precise form of the presentation 224makes this very improbable. The question as to how, i.e., in what conceivable way, immortality can be imparted to the mortal nature as yet received little attention from Justin and the Apologists: it is the necessary result of knowledge and virtue. Their great object was to assure the belief in immortality. “Religion and morality depend on the belief in immortality or the resurrection from the dead. The fact that the Christian religion, as faith in the incarnate Son of God the creator, leads to the assurance that the maker of all things will reward piety and righteousness with the bestowal of eternal and immortal life, is the essential advantage possessed by the Christian religion over all others. The righteousness of the heathen was imperfect in spite of all their knowledge of good and evil, because they lacked the certain knowledge that the creator makes the just immortal and will consign the unjust to eternal torment.”! — placement of this note is uncertain — !458 The philosophical doctrines of God, virtue, and immortality became through the Apologists the certain content of a 457

Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justin’s, p. 432 f., has pronounced against its genuineness; see also my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 158. In favour of its genuineness see Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1883, p. 26 f. The fragments is w ac0 orded as follows: Πλάσας ὁ Θεὸς κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῆς γνώµης αὐτοῦ τὰ τῆς φύσεως ἀπῃώρησεν ἐντολῇ µιᾷ ποιησάµενος τὴν διάπειραν. Φυλάξαντα µὲν γὰρ ταύτην τῆς ἀθανάτου λήξεως πεποίηκεν ἔσεσθαι, παραβάντα δὲ τῆς ἐναντίας. Οὕτω γεγονὼς ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ πρὸς τὴν παράβασιν εὐθὺς ἐλθὼν τὴν φθορὰν φυσικῶς εἰσεδέξατο. Φύσει δὲ τῆς φθορᾶς προσγενοµένης ἀναγκαῖον ἦν ὅτι σῶσαι βουλόµενος ἦν τὴν φθοροποιὸν οὐσίαν ἀφανίσας. Τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ ἦν ἑτέρως γενέσθαι, εἰ µήπερ ἡ κατὰ φύσιν ζωὴ προσεπλάκη τῷ τὴν φθορὰν δεξαµένῳ ἀφανιζουσα µὲν τὴν φθοράν, ἀθάνατον δὲ τοῦ λοιποῦ τὸ δεξάµενον διατηροῦσα. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο τὸν λόγον ἐδέησεν ἐν σώµατι γενέσθαι, ἵνα (τοῦ θανάτου) τῆς κατὰ φύσιν ἡµᾶς φθορᾶς ἐλευθερώσῃ. Εἰ γὰρ, ὥς φατε, νεύµατι µόνον τὸν θάνατον ἡµῶν ἀπεκώλυσεν, οὐ προσῄει µὲν διὰ τὴν βούλησιν ὁ θάνατος, οὐδὲν δὲ ἧττον φθαρτοὶ πάλιν ἦµεν, φυσικὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τὴν φθορὰν περιφέροντες. 458 Schultz (Gottheit Christi, p. 41) very rightly points out that all the systems of the post-Socratic schools, so far as they practically spread among the people, invariably assume that knowledge, as such, leads to salvation, so that the bestowal of the ἀφθαρσία need not necessarily be thought so naturalistic and mystic a process as we are apt to imagine.

world-wide religion, which is Christian because Christ guarantees its certainty. They made Christianity a deistical religion for the whole world without abandoning in word at least the old “teachings and knowledge” (διδάγµατα καὶ µαθήµατα καὶ µαθήµατα) of the Christians. They thus marked out the task of “dogmatic” and, so to speak, wrote the prolegomena for every future theological system in the Church (see Von Engelhardt’s concluding observations in his “Christenthum Justin’s” pp. 447490, also Overbeck in the Historische Zeitschrift, 1880, pp. 499505.) At the same time, however, they adhered to the earlyChristian eschatology (see Justin, Melito, and, with reference to the resurrection of the flesh, the Apologists 225 569 generally), and thus did not belie their connection with early Christianity.459 Interpretation and Criticism, especially of Justin’s Doctrines. 1. The fundamental assumption of all the Apologists is that there can only be one and the same relation on earth between God and free man, and that it has been conditioned by the creation. This thought, which presupposes the idea of God’s unchangeableness, at bottom neutralises every quasi-historical and mythological consideration. According to it grace can be nothing else than the stimulation of the powers of reason existent in man; revelation is supernatural only in respect of its form, and the redemption merely enables us to redeem ourselves, just as this possibility was given at the creation. Sin, which arose through temptation, appears on the one hand as error which must almost of necessity have arisen so long as man only possessed the “germs of the Logos” (σπέρµατα τοῦ λόγου), and o ac8 n the other as the dominion of sensuousness, which was nearly unavoidable since earthly material clothes the soul and mighty demons have possession of the world. The mythological idea of the invading sway of the demons is really the only interruption of the rationalistic scheme. So far as Christianity is something different from morality, it is the antithesis of the service and sovereignty of the demons. Hence the idea that the course of the world and mankind require in some measure to be helped is the narrow foundation of the thought of revelation or redemption. The necessity of revelation and redemption was expressed in a much stronger and more decisive way by many heathen philosophers of the same period. Accordingly, not only did these long for a revelation which would give a fresh attestation to

459

Weizsäcker, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1867, p. 119, has with good reason strongly emphasised this element. See also Stählin, Justin der Märtyrer, 188, p. 63 f., whose criticism of Von Engelhardt’s book contains much that is worthy of note, though it appears to me inappropriate in the main.

old truth, but they yearned for a force, a real redemption, a præsens numen, and some new thing. Still more powerful was this longing in the case of the 226Gnostics and Marcion; compare the latter’s idea of revelation with that of the Apologists. It is probable indeed that the thought of redemption would have found stronger expression among them also, had not the task of proof, which could be best discharged by the aid of the Stoic philosophy, demanded religious rationalism. But, admitting this, the determination of the highest good itself involved rationalism and moralism. For immortality is the highest good, in so far as it is perfect knowledge — which is, moreover, conceived as being of a rational kind, — that necessarily leads to immortality. We can only find traces of the converse idea, according to which the change into the immortal condition is the prius and the knowledge the posterius. But, where this conception is the prevailing one, moralistic intellectualism is broken through, and we can now point to a specific, supernatural blessing of salvation, produced by revelation and redemption. Corresponding to the general development of religious philosophy from moralism into mysticism (transition from the second to the third century), a displacement in this direction can also be noticed in the history of Greek apologetics (in the West it was different); but this displacemcnt was never considerable and therefore cannot be clearly traced. Even later on under altered circumstances, apologetic science adhered in every respect to its old method, as being the most suitable (monotheism, morality, proof from prophecy), a circumstance which is evident, for example, from the almost complete disr 564 egard of the New Testament canon of Scripture and from other considerations besides. 2. In so far as the possibility of virtue and righteousness has been implanted by God in men, and in so far as — apart from trifling exceptions — they can actually succeed in doing what is good only through prophetic, i.e., divine, revelations and exhortations, some Apologists, following the early Christian tradition, here and there designate the transformation of the sinner into a righteous man as a work of God, and speak of renewal and regeneration. The latter, however, as a real fact, is identical with the repentance which, as a turning from sin and turning to God, is a matter of free will. As in Justin, so also in Tatian, the idea of regeneration is exhausted in the 227divine call to repentance. The conception of the forgiveness of sins is also determined in accordance with this. Only those sins can be forgiven, i.e., overlooked, which are really none, i.e., which were committed in a state of error and bondage to the demons, and were well-nigh unavoidable. The blotting out of these sins is effected in baptism, “which is the bath of regeneration in so far as it is the voluntary

consecration of one’s own person. The cleansing which takes place is God’s work i ac8 n so far as baptism was instituted by him, but it is effected by the man who in his change of mind lays aside his sins. The name of God is pronounced above him who repents of his transgressions, that he may receive freedom, knowledge, and forgiveness of his previous sins, but this effects a change only denoting the new knowledge to which the baptised person has attained.” If, as all this seems to show, the thought of a specific grace of God in Christ appears virtually neutralised, the adherence to the language of the cultus (Justin and Tatian) and Justin’s conception of the Lord’s Supper show that the Apologists strove to get beyond moralism, that is, they tried to supplement it through the mysteries. Augustine’s assertion (de predest. sanct. 27) that the faith of the old Church in the efficacy of divine grace was not so much expressed in the opuscula as in the prayers, shows correct insight. 3. All the demands, the fulfilment of which constitutes the virtue and righteousness of men, are summed up under the title of the new law. In virtue of its eternally valid content this new law is in reality the oldest; but it is new because Christ and the prophets were preceded by Moses, who inculcated on the Jews in a transient form that which was eternally valid. It is also new because, being proclaimed by the Logos that appeared in Christ, it announced its presence with the utmost impressiveness and undoubted authority, and contains the promise of reward in terms guaranteed by the strongest proof — the proof from prophecy. The old law is consequently a new one because it appears now for the first time as purely spiritual, perfect, and final. The commandment of love to one’s neighbour also belongs to the law; but it does not form its essence (still less love to God, the place of which is taken by faith, obedience, and imitation). The content of all moral demands is comprehended 228 in the commandment of perfect, active holiness, which is fulfilled by the complete renunciation of all earthly blessings, even of life itself. Tatian preached this renunciation in a specially powerful manner. There is no need to prove that no remains of Judæo-Christianity are to be recognised in these ideas about the new law. It is not Judæo-Christianity that lies behind the Christianity and doctrines of the Apologists, but Greek philosophy (Platonic metaphysics, Logos doctrine of the Stoics, Platonic and Stoic ethics), the Alexandrine-Jewish apologetics, the maxims of Jesus, and the religious speech of the Christian Churches. Justin is distinguished from Philo by ac8 the sure conviction of the living power of God, the Creator and Lord of the world, and the steadfast confidence in the reality of all the ideals which is derived from the person of Christ. We ought not, however, to blame the Apologists because to them nearly everything historical was at bottom only a

guarantee of thoughts and hopes. As a matter of fact, the assurance is not less important than the content. By dint of thinking one can conceive the highest truth, but one cannot in this way make out the certainty of its reality. No positive religion can do more for its followers than faith in the revelation through Christ and the prophets did for the Apologists. Although it chiefly proved to them the truth of that which we call natural theology and which was the idealistic philosophy of the age, so that the Church appears as the great insurance society for the ideas of Plato and Zeno, we ought not at the same time to forget that their idea of a divine spirit working upon earth was a far more lively and worthy one than in the case of the Greek philosophers. 4. By their intellectualism and exclusive theories the Apologists founded philosophic and dogmatic Christianity (Loofs: “they laid the foundation for the conversion of Christianity into a revealed doctrine.”460 If about the middle of the second century 229the short confession of the Lord Jesus Christ was regarded as a watchword, passport, and tessera hospitalitas (signum et vinculum), and if even in lay and uneducated circles it was conceived as “doctrine” in contradistinction to heresy, this transformation must have been accelerated through men, who essentially conceived Christianity as the “divine doctrine”, and by whom all its distinctive features were subordinated to this conception or neutralised. As the philosophic schools are held together by their “laws “ (νόµοι) as the “dogmas “ form the real bond between the “friends”, and as, in addition to this, they are united by veneration for the founder, so also the Christian Church appeared to the Apologists as a universal league established by a divine founder and resting on the dogmas of the perfectly known truth, a league the members of which possess definite laws, viz., the 564 eternal laws of nature for everything moral, and unite in common veneration for the Divine Master. In the “dogmas” of the Apologists, however, we find nothing more than traces of the fusion of the philosophical and historical elements; in the main 460

Loofs continues: “The Apologists, viewing the transference of the concept ‘Son’ to the preëxistent Christ as a matter of course, enabled the Christological problem of the 4th century to be started. They removed the point of departure of the Christological speculation from the historical Christ back into the preëxistence and depreciated the importance of Jesus’ life as compared with the incarnation They connected the Christology with the cosmology, but were not able to combine it with the scheme of salvation. Their Logos doctrine is not a ‘higher’ Christology than the prevailing form; it rather lags behind the genuine Christian estimate of Christ. It is not God who reveals himself in Christ, but the Logos, the depotentiated God, who as God is subordinate to the supreme Deity.”

both exist separately side by side. It was not till long after this that intellectualism gained the victory in a Christianity represented by the clergy. What we here chiefly understand by “intellectualism” is the placing of the scientific conception of the world behind the commandments of Christian morality and behind the hopes and faith of the Christian religion, and the connecting of the two things in such a way that this conception appeared as the foundation of these commandments and hopes. Thus was created the future dogmatic in the form which still prevails in the Churches and which presupposes the Platonic and Stoic conception of the world long ago overthrown by science. The attempt made at the beginning of the Reformation to free the Christian faith from this amalgamation remained at first without success. 230

Chapter V. The Beginnings of an Ecclesiastico-Theological Interpretation and Revision of the Rule of Faith in Oppoisition to Gnosticism on the the Basis of the New Testament and the Christian Philosophy of the Apologists: Melito, Iren 564 æus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian.

CHAPTER V. THE BEGINNINGS OF AN ECCLESIASTICOTHEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION AND REVISION OF THE RULE OF FAITH IN OPPOSITION TO GNOSTICISM ON THE BASIS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY OF THE APOLOGISTS: MELITO, IRENÆUS, TERTULLIAN, HIPPOLYTUS, NOVATIAN.461

461

Authorities: The works of Irenæus (Stieren’s and Harvey’s editions), Melito (Otto, Corp. Apol. IX.), Tertullian (Oehler’s and Reifferscheid’s editions), Hippolytus (Fabricius’, Lagarde’s, Duncker’s and Schneidewin’s editions), Cyprian (Hartel’s edition), Novatian (Jackson). Biographies of Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, 1873 ff. Werner, Der Paulinismus des Irenäus, 1889. Nöldechen, Tertullian, 1890. Döllinger, “Hippolytus und Kallistus,” 1853. Many monographs on Irenæus and Tertullian.

1. The theological position of Irenæus and the later contemporary Church teachers. 1. The theological position of Irenæus and the later contemporary Church teachers. GNOSTICISM and the Marcionite Church had compelled orthodox Christianity to make a selection from tradition and to make this binding on Christians as an apostolical law. Everything that laid claim to validity had henceforth to be legitimised by the faith, i.e., the baptismal confession and the New Testament canon of Scripture (see above, chap. 2, under A and B). However, mere “prescriptions” could no longer suffice here aaf . But the baptismal confession was no “doctrine”; if it was to be transformed into such it required an interpretation. We have shown above that the interpreted baptismal confession was instituted as the guide for the faith. This interpretation took its matter from the sacred books of both Testaments. It owed its guiding lines, however, 231on the one hand to philosophical theology, as set forth by the Apologists, and on the other to the earnest endeavour to maintain and defend against all attacks the traditional convictions and hopes of believers, as professed in the past generation by the enthusiastic forefathers of the Church. In addition to this, certain interests, which had found expression in the speculations of the so-called Gnostics, were adopted in an increasing degree among all thinking Christians, and also could not but influence the ecclesiastical teachers.462 The theological labours, thus initiated, accordingly bear the impress of great uniqueness and complexity. In the first place, the old Catholic Fathers, Melito,463 Rhodon,464 Irenæus,

462

The following exposition will show how much Irenæus and the later old Catholic te 564 achers learned from the Gnostics. As a matter of fact the theology of Irenæus remains a riddle so long as we try to explain it merely from the Apologists and only consider its antithetical relations to Gnosis. Little as we can understand modern orthodox theology from a historical point of view — if the comparison be here allowed — without keeping in mind what it has adopted from Schleiermacher and Hegel, we can just as little understand the theology of Irenæus without taking into account the schools of Valentinus and Marcion. 463 That Melito is to be named here follows both from Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 5, and still more plainly from what we know of the writings of this bishop; see Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, I. 1, 2, p. 240 ff.). The polemic writings of Justin and the Antignostic treatise of that “ancient” quoted by Irenæus (see Patr. App. Opp. ed. Gebhardt etc. I. 2, p. 105 sq.) may in a certain sense be viewed as the precursors of Catholic literature. We have no material a8f for judging of them with certainty. The New Testament was not yet at the disposal of their authors, and consequently there is a gap between them and Irenæus.

Hippolytus, and Tertullian were in every case convinced that all their expositions contained the universal Church faith itself and nothing else. Though the faith is identical with the baptismal confession, yet every interpretation of it derived from the New Testament is no less certain than the shortest formula.465 The creation of the New Testament furnished all at once a quite 232unlimited multitude of conceptions, the whole of which appeared as “doctrines” and offered themselves for incorporation with the “faith”. 572 1 The limits of the latter therefore seem to be indefinitely extended, whilst on the other hand tradition, and polemics too in many cases, demanded an adherence to the shortest formula. The oscillation between this brief formula, the contents of which, as a rule, did not suffice, and that fulness, which admitted of no bounds at all, is characteristic of the old Catholic Fathers we have mentioned. In the second place, these Fathers felt quite as much need of a rational proof in their arguments with their Christian opponents, as they did while contending with the heathen;466 and, being themselves children of their time, they required this proof for their own assurance and that of their fellowbelievers. The epoch in which men appealed to charisms, and “knowledge” counted as much as prophecy and vision, because it was still of the same nature, was in the main a thing of the past. abf 1 Tradition and reason had taken the place of charisms as courts of appeal. But this change had neither come to be clearly

464

See Eusebius, H. E. V. 13. Tertullian does indeed say in de præscr. 14: “Ceterum manente forma regulæ fidei in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras, et tractes, et omnem libidinem curiositatis effundas, si quid tibi videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari”; but the preceding exposition of the regula shows that scarcely any scope remained for the “curiositas”, and the one that follows proves that Tertullian did not mean that freedom seriously. 466 The most important point was that the Pauline theology, towards which Gnostics, Marcionites) and Encratites had already taken up a definite attitude, could now no longer be ignored. See Overbeck Basler Univ. — Programm, 1877. Irenæus immediately shows the influence of Paulinism very clearly. 467 See what Rhodon says about the issue of his conversation with Appelles in Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 7: ἐγὼ δὲ γελάσας κατέγνων αὐτοῦ, διότι διδάσκαλος εἶναι λέγων ὀυκ ᾔδει τὸ διδασκόµενον ὕπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ κρατύνειν. 594 468On the old “prophets and teachers” see my remarks on the , c. 11 ff., and the sections pp. 93-137, of the prolegomena to my edition of this work. The διδάσκαλοι ἀποστολικοὶ καὶ προϕητικοί (Ep. Smyrn. ap. Euseb., H. E. IV. 15. 39) became layteachers who were skilful in the interpretation of the sacred traditions. 465

recognised,469 nor was the right and scope of rational theology alongside of tradition felt to be a problem. We can indeed trace the consciousness of the danger in attempting to introduce new termini and regulations not prescribed by the Holy Scriptures.470 The bishops themselves in fact encouraged this apprehension in order to 233warn people against the Gnostics,471 and after the deluge of heresy, representatives of Church orthodoxy looked with distrust on every philosophic-theological formula.472 Such propositions of rationalistic theology as were absolutely required, were, however, placed by Irenæus and Tertullian on the same level as the hallowed doctrines of tradition, and were not viewed by them as something of a different nature. Irenæus uttered most urgent warnings against subtle speculations;473 but yet, in the naïvest way, associated with

469

In the case of Irenæus, as is well known, there was absolutely no consciousness of this, as is well remarked by Eusebius in H. E. V. 7. In support of his own writings, however, Irenæus appealed to no charisms. 470 See the passage already quoted on p. 63, note 1. 471 Irenæus and Tertullian scoffed at the Gnostic terminology in the most bitter way. 472 Tertullian, adv. Prax. 3: “Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sæculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intellegentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua οἰκονοµίᾳ esse credendum, expavescunt ad οἰκονοµίαν.” Similar remarks often occur in Origen. See also Hippol., c. Nöet. 11. 473 The danger of speculation and of the desire to know everything was impressively emphasised by Irenæus, II. 25-28. As a pronounced ecclesiastical positivist and traditionalist, he seems in these chapters disposed to admit nothing but obedient and acquiescent faith in the words of Holy Scripture, and even to reject speculations like those of Tatian, Orat. 5. Cf. the disquisitions II. 25.3: “Si autem et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium quæ requiruntur, cogitet, quia homo est in infinitum minor deo et qui ex parte (cf. II. 28.) acceperit gratiam et qui nondum æqualis vel similis sit factori; II. 26. 1: “ Ἄµείνον καὶ συµφορώτερον, ἰδιώτας καὶ ὀλιγοµαθεῖς ὑπάρχειν, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης πλησίον γενέσθαι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἤ πολυµαθεῖς καὶ ἐµπείρους δοκοῦντας εἶναι, βλασφήµους εἰς τὸν ἑαυτῶν εὑρίσκεσθαι δεσπότην, and in ad 548 dition to this the close of the paragraph, II. 27. 1: Concerning the sphere within which we are to search (the Holy Scriptures and “quæ ante oculos nostros occurrunt”, much remains dark to us even in the Holy Scriptures II. 28. 3); II. 28. 1 f. on the canon which is to be observed in all investigations, namely, the confident faith in God the creator, as the supreme and only Deity; II. 28. 2-7: specification of the great problems whose solution is hid from us, viz., the elementary natural phenomena, the relation of the Son to the Father, that is, the manner in which the Son was begotten, the way in which matter was created, the cause of evil. In opposition to the claim to absolute knowledge, i.e., to the complete discovery of all the processes of causation, which Irenæus too alone regards as knowledge, he indeed pointed out the limits of our perception, supporting his statement by Bible passages. But the ground of these limits, “ex parte accepimus gratiam”, is not an early-Christian one,

the faithfully preserved traditional doctrines and fancies of the faith theories which he likewise regarded as tradition and which, in point of form, did not differ from those of the Apologists or Gnostics. 573 1 The 234Holy Scriptures of the New Testament were the basis on which Irenæus set forth the most important doctrines of Christianity. Some of these he stated as they had been conceived by the oldest tradition (see the eschatology), others he adapted to the new necessities. The qualitative distinction between the fides credenda and theology was noticed neither by Irenæus nor by Hippolytus and Tertullian. According to Irenæus I. 10. 3 this distinction is merely quantitative. Here faith and theological knowledge are still completely intermixed. Whilst stating and establishing the doctrines of tradition with the help of the New Testament, and revising and fixing them by means of intelligent deduction, the Fathers think they are setting forth the faith itself and nothing else. Anything more than this is only curiosity not unattended with danger to Christians. Theology is interpreted faith.474 acd Corresponding to the baptismal confession there thus arose at the first a loose system of dogmas which were necessarily devoid of strict style, definite principle, or fixed and harmonious aim. In this form we find them with special plainness in Tertullian.475 This writer was still completely incapable of inwardly connecting his rational (Stoic) theology, as developed by him for apologetic purposes, with the Christological doctrines of the regula fidei, which, after the example of Irenæus, he constructed and defended from Scripture and tradition in opposition to heresy. Whenever he attempts in any place to prove 235the intrinsic necessity of these

and it shows at the same time that the bishop also viewed knowledge as the goal, though indeed he thought it could not be attained on earth. ac1 474 The same observation applies to Tertullian. Cf. his point blank repudiation of philosophy in de præsc. 7, and the use he himself nevertheless made of it everywhere. 475 In point of form this standpoint is distinguished from the ordinary Gnostic position by its renunciation of absolute knowledge, and by its corresponding lack of systematic completeness. That, however, is an important distinction in favour of the Catholic Fathers. According to what has been set forth in the text I cannot agree with Zahn’s judgment (Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 235 f.): “Irenæus is the first ecclesiastical teacher who has grasped the idea of an independent science of Christianity, of a theology which, in spite of its width and magnitude, is a branch of knowledge distinguished from others; and was also the first to mark out the paths of this science.” 476 Tertullian seems even to have had no great appreciation for the degree of systematic exactness displayed in the disquisitions of Irenæus. He did not reproduce these arguments at least, but preferred after considering them to fall back on the proof from prescription.

dogmas, he seldom gets beyond rhetorical statements, holy paradoxes, or juristic forms. As a systematic thinker, a cosmologist, moralist, and jurist rather than a theosophist, as a churchman, a masterly defender of tradition, as a Christian exclusively guided in practical life by the strict precepts and hopes of the Gospel, his theology, if by that we understand his collective theological disquisitions, is completely devoid of unity, and can only be termed a mixture of dissimilar and, not unfrequently, contradictory propositions, which admit of no comparison with the older theology of Valentinus or the later system of Origen.477 To Tertullian everything lies side by side; problems which chance to turn up are just as quickly solved. The specific faith of Christians is indeed no longer, as it sometimes seems to be in Justin’s case, a great apparatus of proof for the doctrines of the only true philosophy; it rather stands, in its own independent value, side by side with these, partly in a crude, partly in a developed form; but inner principles and aims are nearly everywhere sought for in vain.478 In spite of this he possesses inestimable importance in the history of dogma; for he developed an ac8 d created, in a disconnected form and partly in the shape of legal propositions, a series of the most important dogmatic formulæ, which Cyprian, Novatian, Hosius, and the Roman bishops of the fourth century, Ambrosius and Leo I., introduced into the general dogmatic system of the Catholic Church. He founded the terminology both of the trinitarian and of the Christological dogma; and in addition to this was the first to give currency to a series of dogmatic concepts (satisfacere, meritum, sacramentum, vitium originis etc., etc.). 236Finally it was he who at the very outset imparted to the type of dogmatic that arose in the West its momentous bias in the direction of auctoritas et ratio, and its corresponding tendency to assume a legal character (lex, formal and material), peculiarities which were

477

The more closely we study the writings of Tertullian, the more frequently we meet with inconsistencies, and that in his treatment both of dogmatic and moral questions. Such inconsistencies could not but make their appearance, because Tertullian’s dogmatising was only incidental. As far as he himself was concerned, he did not feel the slightest necessity for a systematic presentation of Christianity. 57e 478With reference to certain articles of doctrine, however, Tertullian adopted from Irenæus some guiding principles and some points of view arising from the nature of faith; but he almost everywhere changed them for the worse. The fact that he was capable of writing a treatise like the de præscr. hæret., in which all proof of the intrinsic necessity and of the connection of his dogmas is wanting, shows the limits of his interests and of his understanding.

to become more and more clearly marked as time went on.479 But, great as is his importance in this respect, it has no connection at all with the fundamental conception of Christianity peculiar to himself, for, as a matter of fact, this was already out of date at the time when he lived. What influenced the history of dogma was not his Christianity, but his masterly power of framing formulæ. It is different with Irenæus. The Christianity of this man proved a decisive factor in the history of dogma in respect of its content. If Tertullian supplied the future Catholic dogmatic with the most important part of its formulæ, Irenæus clearly sketched for it its fundamental idea, by combining the ancient notion of salvation with New Testament (Pauline) thoughts.480 Accordingly, as far as the essence of the matter is concerned, the great work of Irenæus is far superior to the theological writings of Tertullian. This appears already in the task, voluntarily undertaken by Irenæus, of giving a relatively complete exposition of the doctrines of ecclesiastical Christianity on the basis of the New Testament, in opposition to heresy. Tertullian nowhere betrayed a similar systematic necessity, which indeed, in 564 the case of the Gallic bishop too, only made its appearance as the result of polemical motives. But Irenæus to a certain degree succeeded in amalgamating philosophic theology and the statements of ecclesiastical tradition viewed as doctrines. This result followed (1) because he never lost sight of a fundamental idea to which he tried to refer everything, and (2) because he was directed by a confident view of Christianity as a religion, 237that is, a theory of its purpose. The first fundamental idea, in its all-dominating importance, was suggested to Irenæus by his opposition to Gnosticism. It is the conviction that the Creator of the world and the supreme God are one and the same.481 The other theory as to the aim of Christianity, however, is shared by Irenæus with Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion. It is the conviction that Christianity is real redemption, and that this redemption was only effected by the appearance of Christ. The working out of these two ideas is the most important feature in Irenæus’ book. As yet,

479

Further references to Tertullian in a future volume. Tertullian is at the same time the first Christian individual after Paul, of whose inward life and peculiarities we can form a picture to ourselves. His writings bring us near himself, but that cannot be said of Irenæus. 56d 480Consequently the spirit of Irenæus, though indeed strongly modified by that of Origen, prevails in the later Church dogmatic, whilst that of Tertullian is not to be traced there. 481 The supreme God is the Holy and Redeeming One. Hence the identity of the creator of the world and the supreme God also denotes the unity of nature, morality, and revelation.

indeed, he by no means really succeeded in completely adaptin ab6 g to these two fundamental thoughts all the materials to be taken from Holy Scripture and found in the rule of faith; he only thought with systematic clearness within the scheme of the Apologists. His archaic eschatological disquisitions are of a heterogeneous nature, and a great deal of his material, as, for instance, Pauline formulæ and thoughts, he completely emptied of its content, inasmuch as he merely contrived to turn it into a testimony of the oneness and absolute causality of God the Creator; but the repetition of the same main thoughts to an extent that is wearisome to us, and the attempt to refer everything to these, unmistakably constitute the success of his work.482 God the Creator and the one Jesus Christ 238are really the middle points of his theological system, and in this way he tried to assign an intrinsic significance to the several historical statements of the baptismal confession. Looked at from this point of view, his speculations were almost of an identical nature with the Gnostic.483 But, while he conceives Christianity as

482

What success the early-Christian writings of the second century had is almost completely unknown to us; but we are justi ac8 fied in saying that the five books “adv. hæreses” of Irenæus were successful, for we can prove the favourable reception of this work and the effects it had in the 3rd and 4th centuries (for instance, on Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Victorinus, Marcellus of Ancyra, Epiphanius, and perhaps Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius). As is well known, we no longer possess a Greek manuscript, although it can be proved that the work was preserved down to middle Byzantine times, and was quoted with respect. The insufficient Christological and especially the eschatological disquisitions spoiled the enjoyment of the work in later times (on the Latin Irenæus cf. the exhaustive examination of Loof: “The Manuscripts of the Latin translation of Irenæus”, in the “Studies of Church History” dedicated to Reuter, 1887). The old Catholic works written against heretics by Rhodon, Melito, Miltiades, Proculus, Modestus, Musanus, Theophilus, Philip of Gortyna, Hippolytus, and others have all been just as little preserved to us as the oldest book of this kind, the Syntagma of Justin against heresies, and the Memorabilia of Hegesippus. If we consider the criticism to which Tatian’s Christology was subjected by Arethas in the l0th century (Oratio 5 see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2 p. 95 ff.), and the depreciatory judgment passed on Chiliasm from the 3rd century downwards, and if we moreover reflect that the older polemical works directed against heretics were supplanted by later detailed ones, we have a summary of the reasons for the loss of that oldest Catholic literature. This loss indeed makes it impossible for us to form an exact estimate of the extent and intensity of the effect produced by any individual writing, even including the great work of Irenæus. 483 People are fond of speaking of the “Asia Minor” theology of Irenæus, ascribe it already to his teachers, Polycarp and the presbyters, then ascend from these to the Apostle John, and complete, though not without hesitation, the equation: John — Irenæus. By this speculation they win simply everything, in so far as the Catholic doctrine now appears as the property of an “apostolic” circle, and Gnosticism and

an explanation of the world and as redemption, his Christocentric teaching was opposed to that of the Gnostics. Since the latter started with the conception of an original dualism they saw in the empiric world a faulty combination of opposing elements,484 and therefore recognised in the redemption by Christ the separation of what was unnaturally united. Irenæus, on the contrary, who began with the idea of the absolute causality of God the Creator, saw in the empiric world faulty estrangements and separations, and therefore viewed the redemption by Christ as the reunion of things unnaturally separated — the “recapitulatio” (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις).485 This speculative 239thought, which involved the highest imaginable optimism in contrast to Gnostic pessimism, brought Irenæus into touch with certain Pauline trains of thought,486 and enabled him to adhere to the theology of the Apologists. At the same time it opened up a view of the person of Christ, which supplemented the great defect of that theology,487 surpassed the Christology of the Gnostics,488 and made it possible to utilise the Christological statements contained in certain books of the New Testament. af1 489

So far as we know at least, Irenæus is the first ecclesiastical theologian after the time of the Apologists (see Ignatius before

Antignosticism are thus eliminated. But the following arguments may be urged against this theory: (1) What we know of Polycarp by no means gives countenance to the supposi ac1 tion that Irenæus learned more from him and his fellows than a pious regard for the Church tradition and a collection of historical traditions and principles. (2) The doctrine of Irena us cannot be separated from the received canon of New Testament writings; but in the generation before him there was as yet no such compilation. (3) The presbyter from whom Irenæus adopted important lines of thought in the 4th book did not write till after the middle of the second century. (4) Tertullian owes his Christocentric theology, so far as he has such a thing, to Irenæus (and Melito?). 484 Marcion, as is well known, went still further in his depreciatory judgment of the world, and therefore recognised in the redemption through Christ a pure act of grace. 485 See Molwitz, De Ἀνακεφαλαιώσεως in Irenæi theologic potestate, Dresden, 1874. 486 See, e.g., the Epistle to the Ephesians and also the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. 487 But see the remark made above, p. 220, note 1. We might without loss give up the half of the Apologies in return for the preservation of Justin’s chief Antignostic work. 488 According to the Gnostic Christology Christ merely restores the status quo ante, according to that of Irenæus he first and alone realises the. hitherto unaccomplished destination of humanity. 489 According to the Gnostic conception the incarnation of the divine, i.e., the fall of Sophia, contains, paradoxically expressed, the element of sin; according to Irenæus’ idea the element of redemption. Hence we must compare not only the Gnostic Christ, but the Gnostic Sophia, with the Christ of the Church. Irenæus himself did so in II. 20. 3.

that) who assigned a quite specific significance to the person of Christ and in fact regarded it as the vital factor.490 That was possible for him because of his realistic view of redemption. Here, however, he did not fall into the abyss of Gnosticism, because, as a disciple of the “elders”, he adhered to the early-Christian eschatology, and because, as a follower of the Apologists, he held, along with the realistic conception of salvation, the other dissimilar theory that Christ, as the teacher, imparts 240to men, who are free and naturally constituted for fellowship with God, the knowledge which enables them to imitate God, and thus by their own act to attain communion with him. Nevertheless to Irenæus the pith of the matter is already found in the idea that Christianity is real redemption, i.e., that the highest blessing bestowed in Christianity is the deification of human nature through the gift of immortality, and that this deification includes the full knowledge and enjoying of God (visio dei). This conception suggested to him the question as to the cause of the incarnation as well as the answer to the same. The question “cur deus — homo”, which was by no means clearly formulated in the apologetic writings, in so far as in these “homo” only meant appearance among men, and the “why” was answered by referring to prophecy and the necessity of divine teaching, was by Irenæus made the central point. The reasons why the answer he gave was so highly satisfactory may be stated as follows: (1) It proved that the Christian blessing of salvation was of a specific kind. (2) It was similar in point of form to the so-called Gnostic conception of Christianity, and even surpassed it as regards the promised extent of the sphere included in the deification. (3) It harmonised with the eschatological tendency of Christendom, and at the same time was fitted to replace the material eschatological expecta 564 tions that were fading away. (4) It was in keeping with the mystic and Neoplatonic current of the time, and afforded it the highest imaginable satisfaction. (5) For the vanishing trust in the possibility of attaining the highest knowledge by the aid of reason

490

After tracing in II. 14 the origin of the Gnostic theologoumena to the Greek philosophers Irenæus con ac8 tinues § 7: “Dicemus autem adversus eos: utramne hi omnes qui prædicti sunt, cum quibus eadem dicentes arguimini (Scil. “ye Gnostics with the philosophers”), cognoverunt veritatem aut non cognoverunt? Et si quidem cognoverunt, superflua est salvatoris in hunc mundum descensio. Ut (lege “ad”) quid enim descendebat?” It is characteristic of Irenæus not to ask what is new in the revelations of God (through the prophets and the Logos), but quite definitely: Cur descendit salvator in hunc mundum?” See also lib. III. præf.: “veritas, hoc est dei filii doctrina”, III. 10. 3: “Hæc est salutis agnitio quæ deerat eis, quæ est filii dei agnitio . . . agnitio salutis erat agnitio filii dei, qui et salus et salvator et salutare vere et dicitur et est.” III. I1. 3: III. 12. 7: IV. 24.

it substituted the sure hope of a supernatural transformation of human nature which would even enable it to appropriate that which is above reason. (6) Lastly, it provided the traditional historical utterances respecting Christ, as well as the whole preceding course of history, with a firm foundation and a definite aim, and made it possible to conceive a history of salvation unfolding itself by degrees (ὀικονοµία Θεοῦ). According to this conception the central point of history was no longer the Logos as such, but Christ as the incarnate God, while at the same time the moralistic interest was balanced by a really religious one. An approach was thus made to the Pauline 241theology, though indeed in a very peculiar way and to some extent only in appearance. A more exact representation of salvation through Christ has, however, been given by Irenæus as follows: Incorruptibility is a habitus which is the opposite of our present one and abf indeed of man’s natural condition. For immortality is at once God’s manner of existence and his attribute; as a created being man is only “capable of incorruption and immortality” (“capax incorruptionis et immortalitatis”);491 thanks to the divine goodness, however, he is intended for the same, and yet is empirically “subjected to the power of death” (“sub condicione mortis”). Now the sole way in which immortality as a physical condition can be obtained is by its possessor uniting himself realiter with human nature, in order to deify it “by adoption” (“per adoptionem”), such is the technical term of Irenæus. The deity must become what we are in order that we may become what he is. Accordingly, if Christ is to be the Redeemer, he must himself be God, and all the stress must fall upon his birth as man. “By his birth as man the eternal Word of God guarantees the inheritance of life to those who in their natural birth have inherited death.”492 242But this work of Christ can be conceived as

491

See II. 24. 3, 4: “Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est; sed secundum gratiam dei datur.” Cf. what follows. Irenæus has in various places argued that human nature inclusive of the flesh is capax incorruptibilitatis, and likewise that immortality is at once a free gift and the realisation of man’s destiny. 492 Book V. pref.: “Iesus Christus propter immensam suam dilectionem factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse”: III. 6. 1: “Deus stetit in synagoga deorum . . . de patre et filio et de his, qui adoptionem perceperunt, dicit: hi autem sunt ecclesia. Hæc enim est synagoga dei,” etc.; see also what follows, III. 16. 3: “Filius dei hominis filius factus, ut per eum adoptionem percipiamus, portante homine et capiente et complectente filium dei.” III. 16. 6: “Dei verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus, ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster . . . unus Iesus Christus, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus,

et ac8 incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans . . . in semetipsum primatum assumens . . . universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore.” III. 18. 1: “Quando incarnatus est filius homo et homo factus longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem præstans, ut quod perdideramus in Adam id est secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse dei, hoc in Christo Iesu reciperemus.” Cf. the whole 18th chapter where the deepest thoughts of the Pauline Gnosis of the death on the cross are amalgamated with the Gnosis of the incarnation; see especially 18. 6, 7: “Ἥνωσεν οὖν τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ Θεῷ. Εἰ γὰρ µὴ ἄνθρωπος ἐνίκησεν τὴν ἀντίπαλον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, οὐκ ἂν δικαίως ἐνικήθη ὁ ἐχθρός. Πάλιν τε, εἰ µὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἐδωρήσατο τὴν σωτηρίαν, οὑκ ἄν βεβαίως ἔσχοµεν αὐτήν. Καὶ εἰ µὴ συνηνώθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ Θεῷ οὐκ ἂν ἡδυνήθη µετασχεῖν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας. Ἔδει γὰρ τὸν µεσίτην Θεοῦ τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς ἰδίας πρὸς ἑκατέρους οἰκειὸτητος εἰς φιλίαν καὶ ὁµόνοιαν τοὺς ἀµφοτέρους συναγαγεῖν· καὶ Θεῷ µὲν παραστῆσαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀνθρώποις δὲ γνωρίσαι τὸν Θεόν. Qua enim ratione filiorum adoptionis eius participes esse possemus, nisi per filium eam quæ est ad ipsum recepissemus ab eo communionem, nisi verbum eius communicasset nobis caro factum? Quapropter et per omnem venit ætatem, omnibus restituens eam quæ est ad deum communionem.” The Pauline ideas about sin, law, and bondage are incorporated by Irenæus in what follows. The disquisitions in capp. 19-23 are dominated by the same fundamental idea. In cap. 19 Irenæus turns to those who hold Jesus to be a mere man, “perseverantes in servitute pristinæ inobedientiæ moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo dei patris neque per filium percipientes libertatem . . . privantur munere eius, quod est vita æterna: non recipientes autem verbum incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et sunt debitores mortis, antidotum vitæ non accipientes. Ad quos verbum ait, suum munus gratiæ narrans: Ἐγὼ εἶπα, υἱοὶ ὑψίστου ἐστὲ πάντες καὶ θεοί· ὑµεῖς δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωποι ἀποθνήσκετε. Ταῦτα λέγει πρὸς ύ ac8 οὺς µὴ δεξαµένους τὴν δωρεὰν τῆς υἱοθεσίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἀτιµάζοντας τὴν σάρκωσιν τῆς καθαρᾶς γεννήσεως τοῦ λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ . . . Εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ λόγος ἄνθρωπος et qui filius dei est filius hominis factus est, ἵνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὸν λόγον χωρήσας καὶ τὴν υἱοθεσίαν λαβὼν υἱὸς γένηται Θεοῦ. Non enim poteramus aliter incorruptelam et immortalitatem percipere, nisi adunati fuissemus incorruptelæ et immortalitati. Quemadmodum autem adunari possumus incorruptelæ et immortalitati, nisi prius incorruptela et immortalitas facta fuisset id quod et nos, ut absorberetur quod erat corruptibile ab incorruptela et quod erat mortale ab immortalitate, ut filiorum adoptionem perciperemus?” III. 21. 10: Εἰ τοίνυν ὁ πρῶτος Ἀδὰµ ἔσχε πατέρα ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἐκ ππέρµατος ἐγεννήθη, εἰκὸς ἦν καὶ τὸν δεύτερον Ἀδὰµ λέγειν ἐξ Ἰωσὴφ γεγεννῆσθαι. Εἰ δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἐκ γῆς ἐλήφθη, πλάστης δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεός, ἔδει καὶ τὸν ἀνακεφαλαιούµενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πεπλασµένον ἄνθρωπον τὴν αὐτὴν ἐκείνῳ τῆς γεννήσεως ἔχειν ὁµοιότητα. Εἰς τὶ οὖν πάλιν οὐκ ἔλαβε χοῦν ὁ Θεός, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ Μαρίας ἐνήργησε τὴν πλάσιν γενέσθαι; Ἵνα µὴ ἀλλη πλάσις γένηται µηδὲ ἀλλὸ τὸ σωζόµενον ἦ, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος ἀνακεφαλαιωθῇ τηπουµένης τῆς ὁµοιότητος; III. 23. 1: IV. 38: V. 36: IV. 20: V. 16, 19-21, 22. In working out this thought Irenæus verges here and there on soteriological naturalism (see especially the disquisitions regarding the salvation of Adam, opposed to

recapitulatio because God the Redeemer is identical with God the Creator; and Christ consequently brings about a final condition which existed from the beginning in God’s plan, but could not be immediately realised in consequence of the entrance of sin. It 243is perhaps Irenæus’ highest merit, from a historical and ecclesiastical point of view, to have worked out this thought in pregnant fashion and with the simplest means, i.e., without the apparatus of the Gnostics, but rather by the aid of simple and essentially Biblical ideas. Moreover, a few decades later, he and Melito, an author unfortunately so little known to us, were already credited with this merit. For the author of the so-called “Little Labyrinth” (Euseb., H. E. V. 28. 5) can indeed boast with regard to the works of Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, etc., that they declared Christ to be God, but then continues: 56d Τὰ Εἰρηνάιου τε κὰι Μελίτωνος κὰι τῶν λοιπῶν τίς ἀγνοεῖ βιβλία, θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγέλλοντα τὸν Χριστόν (“Who is ignorant of the books of Irenæus, Melito, and the rest, which proclaim Christ to be God and man”). The progress in theological views is very precisely and appropriately expressed in these words. The Apologists also professed their belief in the full revelation of God upon earth, that is, in revelation as the teaching which necessarily leads to immortality;493 but Irenæus is the first to whom Jesus Christ, God and man, is the

Tatian’s views, in III. 23). But he does not fall into this for two reasons. In the first place, as regards the history of Jesus, he has been taught by Paul not to stop at the incarnation, but to view the work of salvation as only completed by the sufferings and death of Christ (See II. 20. 3: “dominus per passionem mortem destruxit et solvit errorem corruptionemque exterminavit, et ignorantiam destruxit, vitam autem manifestavit et ostendit veritatem et incorruptionem donavit”; III. 16. 9: III. 18. 1-7 and many other passages), that is, to regard Christ as having ac8 performed a work. Secondly, alongside of the deification of Adam’s children, viewed as a mechanical result of the incarnation, he placed the other (apologetic) thought, viz., that Christ, as the teacher, imparts complete knowledge, that he has restored, i.e., strengthened the freedom of man, and that redemption (by which he means fellowship with God) therefore takes place only in the case of those children of Adam that acknowledge the truth proclaimed by Christ and imitate the Redeemer in a holy life (V. 1. 1.: “Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alius poterat enarrare nobis, quæ sunt patris, nisi proprium ipsius verbum . . . Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes et per auditum nostrum vocem eius percipientes, ut imitatores quidem operum, factores autem sermonum eius facti, communionem habeamus cum ipso”, and many other passages. We find a combined formula in III. 5.3: “Christus libertatem hominibus restauravit et attribuit incorruptelæ hæreditatem.” 493 Theophilus also did not see further, see Wendt, l.c., 17 ff.

centre of history and faith.494 244Following the method of Valentinus, he succeeded in sketching a history of salvation, the gradual realising of the ac8 οἰκονοµία Θεοῦ culminating in the deification of believing humanity, but here he always managed to keep his language essentially within the limits of the Biblical. The various acting æons of the Gnostics became to him different stages in the saving work of the one Creator and his Logos. His system seemed to have absorbed the rationalism of the Apologists and the intelligible simplicity of their moral theology, just as much as it did the Gnostic dualism with its particoloured mythology. Revelation had become history, the history of salvation; and dogmatics had in a certain fashion become a way of looking at history, the knowledge of God’s ways of salvation that lead historically to an appointed goal.495 But, as this realistic, quasi-historical view of the subject was by no means completely worked out by Irenæus himself, since the theory of human freedom did not admit of its logical development, and since the New Testament also pointed in other directions, it did not yet become the predominating one even in the third century, nor was it consistently carried out by any one teacher. The two conceptions opposed to it, that of the early Christian eschatology and the rationalistic one, were still in vogue. The two latter were closely connected in the third century, especially in the West, whilst the mystic and realistic view was almost completely lacking there. In this respect Tertullian adopted but little from Irenæus. Hippolytus also lagged behind him. Teachers like Commodian, Arnobius, and Lactantius, however, wrote as if there had been no Gnostic movement at all, and as if no Antignostic Church theology existed. The immediate result of the work carried on by Irenus and the Antignostic teachers in the Church consisted in the fixing of tradition and in the intelligent treatment of individual doctrines, which gradually became established. The most 245important will be set forth in what follows. On the most vital point, the introduction 494

Melito’s teaching must have been similar. In a fragment attributed to him (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2 p. 255 ff.) we even find the expression “αἱ δύο οὐσίαι Χριστοῦ”. The genuineness of the fragment is indeed disputed, but, as I think, without grounds. It is certainly remarkable that the formula is not found in Irenæus (see details below). The first Syriac fragment (Otto IX. p. 419) shows that Melito also views redemption as reunion through Christ. 495 The conception of the stage by stage development of the economy of God and the co 564 rresponding idea of “several covenants” (I. 10. 3: III. 11-15 and elsewhere) denote a very considerable advance, which the Church teachers owe to the controversy with Gnosticism, or to the example of the Gnostics. In this case the origin of the idea is quite plain. For details see below.

of the philosophical Christology into the Church’s rule of faith, see Chapter 7. The manner in which Irenæus undertook his great task of expounding and defending orthodox Christianity in opposition to the Gnostic form was already a prediction of the future. The oldest Christian motives and hopes; the letter of both Testaments, incl 564 uding even Pauline thoughts; moralistic and philosophical elements, the result of the Apologists’ labours; and realistic and mystical features balance each other in his treatment. He glides over from the one to the other; limits the one by the other; plays off Scripture against reason, tradition against the obscurity of the Scriptures; and combats fantastic speculation by an appeal sometimes to reason, sometimes to the limits of human knowledge. Behind all this and dominating everything, we find his firm belief in the bestowal of divine incorruptibility on believers through the work of the God-man. This eclectic method did not arise from shrewd calculation. It was equally the result of a rare capacity for appropriating the feelings and ideas of others, combined with the conservative instincts that guided the great teacher, and the consequence of a happy blindness to the gulf which lay between the Christian tradition and the world of ideas prevailing at that time. Still unconscious of the greatest problem, Irenæus with inward sincerity sketched out that future dogmatic method according to which the theology compiled by an eclectic process is to be nothing else than the simple faith itself, this being merely illustrated and explained, developed and by that very process established, as far as “stands in the Holy Scripture”, and — let us ac8 add — as far as reason requires. But Irenæus was already obliged to decline answering the question as to how far unexplained faith can be sufficient for most Christians, though nothing but this explanation can solve the great problems, “why more covenants than one were given to mankind, what was the character of each covenant, why God shut up every man unto unbelief, why the Word became flesh and suffered, why the advent of the Son of God only took place in the last times etc.” (I. 10. 3). The relation of faith and theological Gnosis was 246fixed by Irenæus to the effect that the latter is simply a continuation of the former.496 At the same time, however, he did not clearly show how

496

It would seem from some passages as if faith and theological knowledge were according to Irenæus simply related as the “is” and the “why”. As a matter of fact, he did express himself so without being really able to maintain the relationship thus fixed; for faith itself must also to some extent include a knowledge of the reason and aim of God’s ways of salvation. Faith and theological knowledge are therefore, after all, closely interwoven with each other. Irenæus merely sought for a clear distinction, but it was

the collection of historical statements found in the confession can of itself guarantee a sufficient and tenable knowledge of Christianity. Here the speculative theories are as a matter of fact quite imbedded in the historical propositions of tradition. Will these obscurities remain when once the Church is forced to compete in its theological system with the whole philosophical science of the Greeks, or may it be expected that, instead of this system of eclecticism and compromise, a method will find acceptance which, distinguishing between faith and theology, will interpret in a new and speculative sense the whole complex of tradition? Irenæus’ process has at least this one advantage over the other method: according to it everything can be reckoned part of the faith, providing it bears the stamp of truth, without the faith seeming to alter its nature. It is incorporated in the theology of facts which the faith here appears to be.497 The latter, however, imperceptibly becomes a revealed system of doctrine and history; and though Irenæus himself always seeks to refer everything again to the “simple faith” (ψιλὴ πίστις), and to believing simplicity, that is, to the belief in the Creator and the Son of God who became man, yet it was not in his power to stop the development destined to transform the faith into knowledge of a theological system. The pronounced hellenising of the Gospel, 247brough ac8 t about by the Gnostic systems, was averted by Irenæus and the later ecclesiastical teachers by preserving a great portion of the early Christian tradition, partly as regards its letter, partly as regards its spirit, and thus rescuing it for the future. But the price of this preservation was the adoption of a series of “Gnostic” formulæ. Churchmen, though with hesitation, adopted the adversary’s way of looking at things, and necessarily did so, because as they became ever further and further removed from the early-Christian feelings and thoughts, they had always more and more lost every other point of view. The old Catholic Fathers permanently settled a great part of early tradition for Christendom, but at the same time promoted the gradual hellenising of Christianity.

impossible for him to find it in his way. The truth rather is that the same man, who, in opposition to heresy, condemned an exaggerated estimate of theoretical knowledge, contributed a great deal to the transformat ac8 ion of that faith into a monistic speculation. 497 See I. 10, 2: Καὶ οὔτε ὁ πάνυ δυνατὸς ἐν λόγῳ τῶν ἐν ταῖ ἐκκλησίαις προεστώτων ἕτερα τούτων (scil. than the regula fidei) ἐρεῖ· οὐδείς γὰρ ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον· οὔτε ὁ ἀσθενὴς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἐλαττώσει τὴν παράδοσιν. Μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς πίστεως οὔσης οὔτε ὁ πολὺ περὶ αὐτῆς δυνάµενος εἰπεῖν ἐπλεόνασεν, οὔτε ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον ἡλαττόνησε.

2. The Old Catholic Fathers’ doctrine of the Church. 2. The Doctrines of the Church. In the following section we do not intend to give a presentation of the theology of Irenæus and the other Antignostic Church teachers, but merely to set forth those points of doctrine to which the teachings of these men gave currency in succeeding times. Against the Gnostic theses498 Irenæus and his successors, apart from the proof from prescription, adduced the following intrinsic considerations: (1) In the case of the Gnostics and Marcion the Deity lacks absoluteness, because he does not embrace everything, that is, he is bounded by the kenoma or by the sphere of a second God; and also because his omnipresence, ,omniscience, and omnipotence have a corresponding limitation.499 (2) The assumption of divine emanations and of a differentiated 248divine pleroma represents the Deity as a composite, i.e.,500 finite being; and, moreover, the personification of the divine qualities is a mythological freak, the folly of wh ac8 ich is evident as soon as one also makes the attempt to personify the affections and qualities of man in a similar way.501 (3) The attempt to make out conditions existing within the Godhead is in itself absurd and audacious.502

498

See Böhringer’s careful reviews of the theology of Irenæus and Tertullian (Kirchengeschichte in Biographien, Vol. I. 1st section, 1st half (2nd ed.), pp. 378-612, 2nd half, pp. 484-739). 499 To the proof from prescription belong the arguments derived from the novelty and contradictory multiplicity of the Gnostic doctrines as well as the proofs that Greek philosophy is the original source of heresy. See Iren. II. 14. 1-6; Tertull. de præscr. 7; Apolog. 47 and other places; the Philosophoumena of Hippolytus. On Irenæus’ criticism of Gnostic theology see Kunze, Gotteslehre des Irenäus, Leipzig, 1891, p. 8 ff. 500 See Irenæus II. I. 2-4: II. 31. 1. Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 2-7. Tertullian proves that there can be neither two morally similar, n 564 or two morally dissimilar Deities; see also I. 15. 501 See Irenæus II. 13. Tertullian (ad Valent. 4) very appropriately defined the æons of Ptolemy as “personales substantias extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat.” 502 See Irenæus, l.c., and elsewhere in the 2nd Book, Tertull. adv. Valent. in several passages. Moreover, Irenæus still treated the first 8 Ptolemaic æons with more respect than the 22 following, because here at least there was some appearance of a Biblical foundation. In confuting the doctrine of æons he incidentally raised several questions (II. 17. 2), which Church theologians discussed in later times, with reference ac8 to the Son and Spirit. “Quæritur quemadmodum emissi sunt reliqui æones? Utrum uniti ei qui emiserit, quemadmodum a sole radii, an efficabiliter et partiliter, uti sit unusquisque eorum separatim et suam figurationem habens, quemadmodum ab homine homo . . . Aut

(4) The theory of the passion and ignorance of Sophia introduces sin into the pleroma itself, i.e., into the Godhead.503 With this the weightiest argument against the Gnostic cosmogony is already mentioned. A further argument against the system is that the world and mankind would have been incapable of improvement, if they had owed their origin to ignorance and sin.504 Irenæus and Tertullian employ lengthy arguments to show that a God who has created nothing is inconceivable, 249and that a Demiurge occupying a position alongside of or below the Supreme Being is self-contradictory, inasmuch as he sometimes appears higher than this Supreme Being, and sometimes so weak and limited that one can no longer look on him as a God.505 The Fathers everywhere argue on behalf of the Gnostic Demiurge and against the Gnostic supreme God. It never occurs to them to proceed in the opposite way and prove that the supreme God may be the Creator. All their efforts are rather directed to show that the Creator of the world is the only and supreme God, and that there can be no other above this one. This attitude of the Fathers is characteristic; for it proves

secundum germinationem, quemadmodum ab arbore rami? Et utrum eiusdem substantiæ exsistebant his qui se emiserunt, an ex altera quadam substantia substantiam habentes? Et utrum in eodem emissi sunt, ut eiusdem temporis essent sibi? . . . Et utrum simplices quidam et uniformes et undique sibi æquales et similes, quemadmodum spiritus et lumina emissa sunt, an compositi et differentes”? See also II. 17. 4: “Si autem velut a lumine lumina accensa sunt . . . velut verbi gratia a facula faculæ, generatione quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem autem substantiæ cum sint cum principe emissionis ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et pater ipsorum participabit passiones. Neque enim quæ postea accensa est facula, alterum lumen habebit quam illud quod ante eam fuit.” Here we have already a statement of the logical reasons, which in later times were urged against the Arian doctrine. 503 See Iren. II. 17. 5 and II. 18. 504 See Iren. II. 4. 2. 505 Tertullian in particular argued in great detail (adv. Marc. I. 9-19) that every God must, above all, have revealed himself as a creator. In opposition to Marcion’s rejection of all natural theology, he represents this science as the foundation of all religious belief. In this connection he eulogised the created world (I. 13) and at the same time (see also the 2nd Book) argued in favour of the Demiurge, i.e., of the one true God. Irenæus urged a series of acute and weighty objections to 55c the cosmogony of the Valentinians (see II. 1-5), and showed how untenable was the idea of the Demiurge as an intermediate being. The doctrines that the Supreme Being is unknown (II. 6), that the Demiurge is the blind instrument of higher æons, that the world was created against the will of the Supreme God, and, lastly, that our world is the imperfect copy of a higher one were also opposed by him with rational arguments. His refutation of the last conception is specially remarkable (II. 7). On the idea that God did not create the world from eternal matter see Tertull., adv. Hermog.

that the apologetico-philosophical theology was their fundamental assumption. The Gnostic (Marcionite) s 564 upreme God is the God of religion, the God of redemption; the Demiurge is the being required to explain the world. The intervention of the Fathers on his behalf, that is, their assuming him as the basis of their arguments, reveals what was fundamental and what was accidental in their religious teaching. At the same time, however, it shows plainly that they did not understand or did not feel the fundamental problem that troubled and perplexed the Gnostics and Marcion, viz., the qualitative distinction between the spheres of creation and redemption. They think they have sufficiently explained this distinction by the doctrine of human freedom and its consequences. Accordingly their whole mode of argument against the Gnostics and Marcion is, in point of content, of an abstract, philosophico-rational 250kind.506 As a rule they do not here carry on their controversy with the aid of reasons taken from the deeper views of religion. As soon as the rational argument fails, however, there is really an entire end to the refutation from inner grounds, at least in the case of Tertullian; and 564 the contest is shifted into the sphere of the rule of faith and the Holy Scriptures. Hence, for example, they have not succeeded in making much impression on the heretical Christology from dogmatic considerations, though in this respect Irenæus was still very much more successful than Tertullian.507 Besides, in adv. Marc. II. 27, the latter betrayed what interest he took in the preëxistent Christ as distinguished from God the Father. It is not expedient to separate the arguments advanced by the Fathers against the Gnostics from their own positive teachings, for these are throughout dependent on their peculiar attitude within the sphere of Scripture and tradition. Irenæus and Hippolytus have been rightly named Scripture theologians; but it is a strange infatuation to think that this designation characterises them as evangelical. If indeed we here understand “evangelical” in the vulgar sense, the term may be correct, only in this case it means exactly the same as “Catholic”. But if “evangelical” signifies “early-Christian”, then it must be said th 551 at Scripture theology was not the primary means of preserving the ideas of primitive Christianity; for, as the New Testament Scriptures were also regarded as inspired documents and were to be interpreted according to the regula, their content

506

But this very method of argument was without doubt specially impressive in the case of the educated, and it is these alone of whom we are here speaking. On the decay of Gnosticism after the end of the 2nd century, see Renan, Origines, Vol. VII, p. 113 ff. ad0 507 See his arguments that the Gnostics merely assert that they have only one Christ, whereas they actually possess several, III. 16. 1, 8 and elsewhere.

was just for that reason apt to be obscured. Both Marcion and the chiefs of the Valentinian school had also been Scripture theologians. Irenæus and Hippolytus merely followed them. Now it is true that they very decidedly argued against the arbitrary method of interpreting the Scriptures adopted by Valentinus, and compared it to the process of forming the mosaic picture 251of a king into the mosaic picture of a fox, and the poems of Homer into any others one might choose;508 but they just as decidedly protested against the rejection by Apelles and Marcion of the allegorical method of interpretation,509 and therefore were not able to set up a canon really capable of distinguishing their own interpretation from that of the Gnostics.510 The Scripture theology of the old Catholic Fathers has a twofold aspect. The religion of the Scripture is no longer the original form; it is the mediated, scientific one to be constructed by a learned process; it is, on its part, the strongest symptom of the secularisation that has begun. In a word, it is the religion of the school, first the Gnostic then the ecclesiastical. But it may, on the other hand, be a whole-some reaction against enthusiastic excess and moralistic frigidity; and the correct sense of the letter will from the first obtain imperceptible recognition in opposition to the “spirit” arbitrarily read into it, and at length banish this “spirit” completely. Irenæus certainly tried to mark off the Church use of the Scriptures as distinguished from the Gnostic practice. He rejects the accommodation theory of which some Gnostics availed themselves; afe 511 he emphasises more strongly than these the absolute sufficiency of the Scriptures by repudiating all esoteric doctrines;512 he rejects all distinction between different kinds of inspiration in the sacred books;513 he lays down the

508

See Iren., I. 9 and elsewhere; Tertull., de præscr. 39, adv. Valent. passim. See Tertull., adv. Marc. II. 19, 21, 22: III. 5, 6, 14, 19: V. I.; Orig. Comm. in Matth., T. XV. 3, Opp. III., p. 655; Comm. in ep. ad Rom., T. II. 12. Opp. IV., p. 494 sq.; Pseudo-Orig. Adamantius, De recta in deum fide; Orig. I. pp. 808, 817. 510 For this reason Tertullian altogether forbade exegetic disputes with the Gnostics, see de præscr. 16-19: “Ego non ad scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est aut parum certa.” 511 See Iren., III. 5. I: III. 12. 6. 512 See Iren., III. 14. 2: III. 15. 1; Tertull., de præscr. 25: “Scripturæ quidem perfecta sunt, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius dictæ, nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a verbo de 563 i et spiritu eius, secundum hoc et scientia mysteriorum eius indigemus.” 513 See Iren. II. 35. 2: IV. 34, 35 and elsewhere. Irenæus also asserted that the translation of the Septuagint (III. 21. 4) was inspired. The repudiation of different kinds of inspiration in the Scriptures likewise involved the rejection of all the critical views of 509

maxim that the obscure passages 252are to be interpreted from the clear ones, not vice versâ;514 but this principle being in itself ambiguous, it is rendered quite unequivocal by the injunction to interpret everything according to the rule of faith515 and, in the case of all objectionable passages, to seek the type.516 Not only did Irenæus explain the Old Testament allegorically, in accordance with traditional usage;517 but according to the principle: “with God there is nothing without purpose or due signification” (“nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum”) (IV. 2I. 3), he was also the first to apply the scientific and mystical explanation to the New Testament, and was consequently obliged to adopt the Gnostic exegesis, which was imperative as soon as the apostolic w 564 ritings were viewed as a New Testament. He regards the fact of Jesus handing round food to those lying at table as signifying that Christ also bestows life on the long dead generations;518 and, in the parable of the Samaritan, he interprets the host as the Spirit and the two denarii as the Father and Son.519 To Irenæus and also to Tertullian and Hippolytus all numbers, incidental circumstances, etc., in the Holy Scriptures are virtually as significant as they are to the Gnostics, and hence the only question is what hidden meaning we are to give to them. “Gnosticism” is therefore here adopted by the ecclesiastical teachers in its full extent, proving that this “Gnosicism” is nothing else than the learned construction of religion with the scientific means of those days. As soon as Church-men were forced to bring forward their proofs and proceed to put the aac same questions as the “Gnostics”, they were obliged to work by their method. Allegory, however, was required in 253order to establish the continuity of the tradition from Adam down to the present time — not merely down to Christ — against the attacks of the Gnostics and Marcion. By establishing this continuity a historical truth was really also preserved. For the rest,

the Gnostics that were concealed behind that assumption. The Alexandrians were the first who again to some extent adopted these critical principles. 514 See Iren. II. 10. 1: II. 27. 1, 2. ac3 515 See Iren. II. 25. 1. 516 Irenæus appropriates the words of an Asia Minor presbyter when he says (IV. 32. I): De his quidem delictis, de quibus ipsæ scripturæ increpant patriarchas et prophetas, nos non oportere exprobare eis . . . de quibus autem scripturæ non increpant (scil. delictis), sed simpliciter sunt posits, nos non debere fieri accusatores, sed typum quærere.” 517 See, e.g., IV. 20. 12 where he declares the three spies whom Rahab entertained to be Father, Son, and Spirit. 518 See Iren. IV. 22. 1. 519 See Iren. III. 17. 3.

the disquisitions of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus were to such an extent borrowed from their opponents that there is scarcely a problem that they propounded and discussed as the result of their own thirst for knowledge. This fact not only preserved to their works an early-Christian character as compared with those of the Alexandrians, but also explains why they frequently stop in their positive teachings, when they believe they have confuted their adversaries. Thus we find neither in Irenæus nor Tertullian a discussion of the relation of the Scriptures to the rule of faith. From the way in which they appeal to both we can deduce a series of important problems, which, however, the Fathers themselves did not formulate and consequently did not answer.520 The doctrine of God was fixed by the old Catholic Fathers for the Christendom of succeeding centuries, and in fact both the methodic directions for forming the idea of God and their results remained unchanged. With respect to the former they occupy a middle position between the renunciation of all knowledge — for God is not abyss and silence — and the attempt to fathom the depths of the Godhead.521 Tertullian, influenced by the Stoics, strongly emphasised the possibility of attaining a knowledge of God. Irenæus, following out an idea which seems to anticipate the mysticism of later theologians, made love a preliminary condition of knowledge and plainly acknowledged it as the principle of knowledge.522 God can be known from revelation, 56b 523 520

Justin had already noted certain peculiarities of the Holy Scriptures as distinguished from profane writings. Tertullian speaks of two proprietates iudaicæ literaturæ in adv. Marc. III. 5. 6. But the Alexandrians were the first to propound any kind of complete theories of inspiration. 56a 521See above p. 233, note 2, Kunze, l.c. 522 See Iren., II. 26. I, 13. 4: “Sic et in reliquis omnibus nulli similis erit omnium pater hominum pusillitati: et dicitur quidem secundum hæc propter delectionem, sentitur autem super hæc secundum magnitudinem.” Irenæus expressly says that God cannot be known as regards his greatness, i.e., absolutely, but that he can be known as regards his love, IV. 20. I: “Igitur secundum magnitudem non est cognoscere deum, impossibile est enim mensurari patrem; secundum autem dilectionem eius — hæc est enim quæ nos per verbum eius perducit ad deum — obedientes ei semper discimus quoniam est tantus deus etc.”; in IV. 20. 4 the knowledge of God “secundum dilectionem” is more closely defined by the words “per verbum eius Iesum Christum.” The ac8 statements in §§ 5 and 6 are, however, specially important: they who are pure in heart will see God. God’s omnipotence and goodness remove the impossibility of man knowing him. Man comes to know him gradually, in proportion as he is revealed and through love, until he beholds him in a state of perfection. He must be in God in order to know God: ὥσπερ οἱ βλέποντες τὸ φῶς ἐντός εἰσι τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ τῆς λαµπρότητος αὐτοῦ µετέχουσιν, οὕτως οἱ βλέποντες πὸν Θεὸν ἐντός εἰσι τοῦ Θεοῦ, µετέχοντες αὐτοῦ τῆς

254because

he has really revealed himself, that is, both by the creation and the word of revelation. Irenæus also taught that a sufficient knowledge of God, as the creator and guide, can be obtained from the creation, and indeed this knowledge always continues, so that all men are without excuse.524 In this case the prophets, the Lord himself, the Apostles, and the Church teach no more and nothing else than what must be already plain to the natural consciousness. Irenæus certainly did not succeed in reconciling this proposition with his former assertion that the knowledge of God springs from love resting on revelation. Irenæus also starts, as Apologist and Antignostic, with the God who is the First Cause. Every God who is not that is a phantom; 579 1 and every sublime religious state of mind which 255does not include the feeling of dependence upon God as the Creator is a deception. It is the extremest blasphemy to degrade God the Creator, and it is the most frightful machination of the devil that has produced the blasphemia creatoris.525 Like the Apologists, the early Catholic Fathers confess that the doctrine of God the Creator is the first and most important of the main articles of Christian faith;526 the belief

λαµπρότητος. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὁ ἀχώρητος καὶ ἀκατάληπτος καὶ ἀόρατος ὁρώµενον ἑαυτὸν . . . τοῖς πιστοῖς παρέσχεν, ἵνα ζωοποιήσῃ τοὺς χωροῦντας καὶ βλέποντας αὐτὸν διὰ πίστεως. See also what follows down to the words: µετοχὴ Θεοῦ ἐστὶ τὸ γινώσκειν Θεὸν καὶ ἀπολαύειν τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ, et homines igitur videbunt deum, ut vivant, per visionem immortales facti et pertingentes usque in deum. Sentences of this kind where rationalism is neutralised by mysticism we seek for in Tertullian in vain. 523 See Iren., IV. 6. 4: Ἐδίδαξεν ἡµᾶς ὁ κύριος, ὅτι Θεὸν εἰδέναι οὐδεὶς δύναται, µὴ οὐχὶ Θεοῦ διδάξαντος, τουτέστιν, ἄνευ Θεοῦ µὴ γινώσκεσθαι τὸν Θεόν· αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ γινώσκεσθαι τὸν Θεὸν θέληµα εἶναι τοῦ πατρός, Γνώσονται γὰρ αὐτὸν οἷς ἀν ἀποκαλύψῃ ὁ υἱός. 524 Iren. II. 6. 1, 9. 1, 27. 2: III. 25. 1: “Providentiam habet deus omnium propter hoc et consilium dat: consilium autem dans adest his, qui morum providentiam hibent. Necesse est i 53f gitur ea quæ providentur et gubernantur cognoscere suum directorem; quæ quidem non sunt irrationalia neque vana, sed habent sensibilitatem perceptam de providentia dei. Et propter hoc ethnicorum quidam, qui minus illecebris ac voluptatibus servierunt, et non in tantum superstitione idolorum coabducti sunt, providentia eius moti licet tenuiter, tamen conversi sunt, ut dicerent fabricatorem huius universitatis patrem omnium providentem et disponentem secundum nos mundum.” Tertull., de testim. animæ; Apolog. 17. 525 See Iren., IV. 6. 2; Tertull., adv. Marc. I, II. 526 See Iren., V. 26. 2. aed 527See Iren., II. 1. 1 and the Hymn II. 30. 9.

in his oneness as well as his absoluteness is the main point.528 564 God is all light, all understanding, all Logos, all active spirit;529 everything anthropopathic and anthropomorphic is to be conceived as incompatible with his nature.530 The early-Catholic doctrine of God shows an advance beyond that of the Apologists, in so far as God’s attributes of goodness and righteousness are expressly discussed, and it is proved in opposition to Marcion that 256they are not mutually exclusive, but necessarily involve each other.531

528

See Iren., III. 8. 3. Very pregnant are Irenæus’ utterances in II. 34. 4 and II. 30. 9: “Principari enim debet in omnibus et dominari voluntas dei, reliqua autem omnia huic cedere et subdita esse et in servitium dedita” . . . “substantia omnium voluntas dei;” see also the fragment V. in Harvey, Iren., Opp. II. p. 477 sq. Because everything originates with God and the existence of eternal metaphysical contrasts is therefore impossible the following proposition (IV. 2, 4), which is proved from the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, holds good: “ex una substantia esse omnia, id est Abraham et Moysem et prophetas, etiam ipsum dominum.” 529 See Iren. II. 28. 4, 5: IV. 11. 2. 530 Tertullian also makes the same demand (e.g., adv. Marc. II. 27); for his assertion “deum corpus esse” (adv. Prax. 7: “Quis enim negabit, deum corpus esse, etsi deus spiritus est? spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie”) must be compared with his realistic doctrine of the soul (de anima 6) as well as with the proposition formulated in de carne 11: “omne quod est, corpus est sui generis; nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est.” Tertullian here followed a principle of Stoic philosophy, and in this case by no means wished to teach that the Deity has a human form, since he recognised that man’s likeness to God consists merely in his spiritual qualities. On the contrary Melito ascribed to God a corporeal existence of a higher type (Eusebius mentions a work of this bisho 564 p under the title “ὁ περὶ ἐνσωµάτου Θεοῦ λόγος”, and Origen reckoned him among the ichers who recognised that man had also a likeness to God in form (in body); see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1. 2, pp. 243, 248. In the second century the realistic eschatological ideas no doubt continued to foster in wide circles the popular idea that God had a form and a kind of corporeal existence. A middle position between these ideas and that of Tertullian and the Stoics seems to have been taken up by Lactantius (Instit. div. VII. 9, 21; de ira dei 2. 18.). 531 See Iren., III. 25. 2; Tertulla adv. Marc. I. 23-28: II. 11 sq. Hippolytus briefly defined his doctrine of God in Phil. X. 32. The advance beyond the Apologists’ idea of God consists not only in the thorough discussion of God’s attributes of goodness and righteousness, but also in the view, which is now much more vigorously worked out, that the Almighty Creator has no other purpose in his world than the salvation of mankind. See the 10th Gree 564 k fragment of Irenæus (Harvey, II. p. 480); Tertull., de orat. 4: “Summa est voluntatis dei salus eorum, quos adoptavit”; de pænit. 2: “Bonorum dei unus est titulus, salus hominum”; adv. Marc. II. 27: “Nihil tam dignum deo quam salus hominis.” They had here undeniably learned from Marcion; see adv. Marc. I. 17. In the first chapters of the work de orat., however, in which Tertullian expounds the Lord’s Prayer, he succeeded in unfolding the meaning of the Gospel in a way such as was never

In the case o 55c f the Logos doctrine also, Tertullian and Hippolytus simply adopted and developed that of the Apologists, whilst Irenaus struck out a path of his own. In the Apologeticum (c. 21) Tertullian set forth the Logos doctrine as laid down by Tatian, the only noteworthy difference between him and his predecessor consisting in the fact that the appearance of the Logos in Jesus Christ was the uniform aim of his presentation.532 257He fully explained his Logos doctrine in his work against the Monarchian Praxeas.533 Here he created the formulæ of succeeding orthodoxy by introducing the ideas “substance” and “person” and by framing, despite of the most pronounced subordinationism and a purely economical conception of the Trinity, definitions of the relations between the persons which could be fully adopted in the Nicene creed. 564 534 Here also the philosophical and cosmological

possible for him elsewhere. The like remark may be made of Origen’s work de orat., and, in general, in the case of most authors who interpreted the Lord’s Prayer in the succeeding period. This prayer kept alive the knowledge of the deepest meaning of the Gospel. 532 Apol. 21: “Necesse et igitur pauca de Christo ut deo . . . Jam ediximus deum universitatem hanc mundi verbo et ratione et virtute molitum. Apud vestros quoque sapientes λόγον, id est sermonem 564 et rationem, constat artificem videri universitatis.” (An appeal to Zeno and Cleanthes follows). “Et nos autem sermoni atque rationi itemque virtuti, per quæ omnia molitum deum ediximus, propriam substantiam spiritum inscribimus, cui et sermo insit pronuntianti et ratio adsit disponenti et virtus præsit perficienti. Hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum et idcirco filium dei et deum dictum ex unitate substantiæ, nam et deus spiritus (that is, the antemundane Logos is the Son of God). Et cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa; sed sol erit in radio, quia solis est radius nec separator substantia sed extenditur (cf. adv. Prax. 8). Ita de spiritu spiritus et deo deus ut lumen de lumine accensum. Manet integra et indefecta materiæ matrix, etsi plures inde traduces qualitatis mutueris: ita et quod de deo profectum est, deus est et dei filius et unus ambo. Ita et de spiritu spiritus et de deo deus modulo alternum numerum, gradu non statu fecit, et a matrice non recessit sed excessit. Iste igitur dei radius, ut retro semper prædicabatur, delapsus in virginem quandam et in utero eius caro figuratus nascitur homo deo mixtus. Caro spiritu instructa nutritur, adolescit, adfatur, docet, operatur et Christus est.” Tertullian adds: “Recipite interim hanc fabulam, similis est vestris.” As a matter of fact the heathen ac8 most have viewed this statement as a philosophical speculation with a mythological conclusion. It is very instructive to ascertain that in Hippolytus’ book against Noëtus “the setting forth of the truth” (c. 10 ff.) he begins with the proposition: Θεός ἐβουλήθη κόσµον κτίσαι. The Logos whose essence and working are described merely went forth to realise this intention. 533 See Hagemann, Die römische Kirche (1864), p. 172 ff. 534 See my detailed exposition of the orthodox side of Tertullian’s doctrine of the Trinity (“orthodox” in the later sense of the word), in Vol. IV. There it is also shown that these formulæ were due to Tertullian’s juristic bias. The formulæ, “una substantia, tres

interest prevails; the history of salvation appears only to be the continuation of that of the cosmos. This system is distinguished from Gnosticism by the history of redemption appearing as the natural continuation of the history of creation and not simply as its correction. The thought that the unity of the Godhead is shown in the una substantia and the una dominatio was worked out by Tertullian with admirable clearness. According to him the unfolding of this one substance into several heavenly embodiments, or the administration of the divine sovereignty by emanated persons cannot endanger the 258unity; the “arrangement of the unity when the unity evolves the trinity from itself” (“dispositio unitatis, quando unitas ex semetipsa [trinitatem] derivat”) does not abolish the unity, and, moreover, the Son will some day subject himself to the Father, so that God will be all in all. 564 535 Here then the Gnostic doctrine of moons is adopted in its complete form, and in fact Hippolytus, who in this respect agrees with Tertullian, has certified that the Valentinians “acknowledge that the one is the originator of all” (“τὸν ἕνα ὁµολογοῦσιν αἴτιον τῶν πάντων”), because with them also, “the

personæ”, never alternates in his case with the others, “una natura, tres personæ”; and so it remained for a long time in the West; they did not speak of “natures” but of “substances” (“nature” in this connection is very rare down to the 5th century). What makes this remarkable is the fact that Tertullian always uses “substance” in the concrete sense “individual substance” and has even expressed himself precisely on the point. He says in de anima 32: “aliud est substantia, aliud natura substantiæ; siquidem substantia propria est rei cuiusque, natura vero potest esse communis. Suscipe exemplum: substantia est lapis, ferrum; duritia lapidis et ferri natura substantia est. Duritia (natura) communicat, substantia discordat. Mollitia lanæ, mollitia plumæ pariant naturalia eorum, substantiva non pariant . . . Et tunc naturæ similitudo notatur, cum substantiæ dissimilitudo conspicitur. Men and animals are similar natura, but not substantia.” We see that Tertullian in so far as he designated Father, Son, and Spirit as one substance expressed their unity as strongly as possible. The only idea intelligible to the majority was a juristic and political notion, viz., that the F ac8 ather, who is the tota substantia, sends forth officials whom he entrusts with the administration of the monarchy. The legal fiction attached to the concept “person” aided in the matter here. 535 See adv. Prax. 3: “Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est: Milies centies centena milia adsistebant ei, et milies centena milia apparebant ei, nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta milia virtutum procuratur: quale est ut deus divisionem et dispersionem pati videatur in filio et spiritu sancto, secundum et tertium sortitis locum, tam consortibus substantiæ patris, quam non patitur in tot angelorum numero?” (! !) c. 4: “Videmus igitur non obesse monarchiæ filium, etsi hodie apud filium est, quia et in suo statu est apud filium, et cum suo statu restituetur patri a filio.” L.c.: Monarchia in tot nominibus constituta est, in quot deus voluit.”

whole goes back to one” (“τὸ πᾶν εἰς ἕνα ανατρέχει”).536 The only difference is that Tertullian and Hippolytus limit the “economy of God” (οἰκονοµία τοῦ Θεοῦ) to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, while the Gnostics exceed this number. ad0 1 According to Tertullian “a rational conception of the Trinity constitutes truth, an irrational idea of the unity makes heresy” (“trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituit, unitas irrationaliter collecta hæresim facit”) is already the watchword of the Christian dogmatic. Now what he considers a rational conception is keeping in view the different stages of God’s economy, and distinguishing between dispositio, distinctio, numerus on the one hand and divisio on the other. At the beginning God was alone, but ratio and sermo existed within him. In a certain sense then, 259he was never alone, for he thought and spoke inwardly. If even men can carry on conversations with themselves and make themselves objects of reflection, how much more is this possible with God.537 But as yet he was the only person.538 The moment, however, that he chose to reveal himself and sent forth from himself the word of creation, the Logos came into existence as a real being, before the world and for the sake of the world. For “that which proceeds from such a great substance and has created such substances cannot itself be devoid of substance.” He is therefore to be conceived as permanently separate from God “secundus a deo consititutus, perseverans in sua forma”; but as unity of substance is to be preserved (“alias pater, alias filius, alias non aliud” — “ego et pater unum sumus ad substantiæ unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem dictum est” — “tres unum sunt, non unus” — “the Father is one person and the Son is another, different persons ac8 not different things”, “I and the Father are one refers to unity of substance, not to singleness in number” — “the three are one thing not one person”), the Logos must be related to the Father as the ray to the sun, as the stream to the source, as the stem to the root (see also Hippolytus, c. Noëtum

536

See Hippol., c. Noëtum 11. According to these doctrines the unity is sufficiently preserved (1) if the separate persons have one and the same substance, (2) if there is one possessor of the whole substance, i.e., if everything proceeds from him. That this is a remnant of polytheism ought not to be disputed. 537 Adv. Prax. 8: “Hoc si qui putaverit, me προβολὴν aliquam introducere id est prolationem rei alterius ex altera, quod facit Valentinus, primo quidem dicam tibi, non ideo non utatur et veritas vocabulo isto et re ac censu eius, quia et hæresis utitur; immo hæresis potius ex veritate accepit quod ad mendacium suum strueret”; cf. also what follows. Thus far then th ac8 eologians had got already: “The economy is founded on as many names as God willed” (c. 4). 538 See adv. Prax. 5. 539 Tertull., adv. Hermog. 3: “fuit tempus, cum ei filius non fuit.”

10).540 For that very reason “Son” is the most suitable expression for the Logos that has emanated in this way (κατὰ µερισµόν). Moreover, since he (as well as the Spirit) has the same substance as the Father (“unius substantiæ” = ὁµοούσιος) he has also the same power541 as regards the world. He has all might in heaven and earth, and he has had it ab initio, from the very beginning of time.542 On the other hand this same Son is only a part and offshoot; the Father is the whole; and in this the mystery of the economy consists. What the Son possesses has been given him by the Father; the Father is therefore greater than the Son; the Son 543 260is subordinate to the Father. “Pater tota substantia est, filius 544 vero derivatio totius et portio”. This paradox is ultimately based on a philosophical axiom of Tertullian: the whole fulness of the Godhead, i.e., the Fath ac8 er, is incapable of entering into the finite, whence also he must always remain invisible, unapproachable, and incomprehensible. The Divine Being that appears and works on earth can never be anything but a part of the transcendent Deity. This Being must be a derived existence, which has already in some fashion a finite element in itself, because it is the hypostatised Word of creation, which has an origin.545 We

540

Novatian (de trin. 23) distinguishes very decidedly between “factum esse” and “procedere”. 541 Adv. Prax. 2: “Custodiatur οἰκονοµίας sacramentum, qua unitatem in trinitatem disponit, tres dirigens, tres autem non statu, sed gradu, nec substantia, sed forma, nec potestate, sed specie, unius autem substantiæ et unius status et potestatis.” 542 See the discussions adv. Prax. 16 ff. 543 Tertull., adv. Marc. III. 6: “filius portio plenitudinis.” In another passage Textullian has ironically remarked in oppos 564 ition to Marcion (IV. 39): “Nisi Marcion Christum non sabiectum patri infert.” 544 Adv. Prax. 9. 545 See the whole 14th chap. adv. Prax. especially the words: “Jam ergo alius erit qui videbatur, quia non potest idem invisibilis definiri qui videbatur, et consequens erit, ut invisibilem patrem intellegamus pro plenitudine maiestatis, visibilem vero filium agnoscamus pro modulo derivationis.” One cannot look at the sun itself, but, “toleramus radium eius pro temperatura portionis, quæ in terram inde porrigitur.” The chapter also shows how the Old Testament theophanies must have given an impetus to the distinction between the Deity as transcendent and the Deity as making himself visible. Adv. Marc. aba II. 27: Quæcunque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcunque autem ut indigna reprehenditis, deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro, miscente in semetipso hominem et deum in virtutibus deum, in pusillitatibus hominem, ut tantum homini conferat quantum deo detrahit.” In adv. Prax. 29 Tertullian showed in very precise terms that the Father is by nature impassible, but the Son is

would assert too much, were we to say that Tertullian meant that the Son was simply the world-thought itself; his insistance on the “unius substantiæ” disproves this. But no doubt he regards the Son as the Deity depotentiated for the sake of self-communication; the Deity adapted to the world, whose sphere coincides witht he world-thought, and whose power is identical with that necessary for the world. From the standpoint of humanity this Deity is God himself, i.e., a God whom men can apprehend and who can apprehend them; but from God’s standpoint, which speculation can fix but not fathom, this Deity is a subordinate, nay, even a temporary one. Tertullian and Hippolytus know as little of an immanent Trinity 261as the Apologists; the Trinity only appears such, because the unity of the substance is very vigorously emphasised; but in truth the Trinitarian process as in the case of the Gnostics, is simply the background of the process that produces the history of the world and of salvation. This is first of all shown by the fact that in course of the process of the world and of salvation the Son grows in his sonship, that is, goes through a finite process;546 and secondly by the fact that the Son himself will one day restore the monarchy to the Father.547 These words no doubt are again spoken not from the standpoint of man, but from that of God; for so long as history lasts “the Son continues in his form.” In its point of departure, its plan, and its details this whole expositio 55e n is not distinguished from the teachings of contemporaneous and subsequent Greek philosophers,548 but merely differs in its aim. In itself absolutely unfitted to preserve the primitive Christian belief in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, its importance consists in its identification of the historical Jesus with this Logos. By its aid Tertullian united the scientific, idealistic cosmology with

capable of suffering. Hippolytus does not share this opinion; to him the Logos in himself is likewise ἀπαθής (see c. Noëtum 15). 546 According to Tertullian it is certainly an essential part of the Son’s nature to appear, teach, and thus come into connection with men; but he neither asserted the necessity of the incarnation apart from the faulty development of mankind, nor can this view be inferred from his premises. 547 See adv. Prax. 4. the only passage, however, containing this idea, which is derived from 1 Cor. XV. 548 Cf. specially the attempts of Plotinus to reconcile the abstract unity which is conceived as the principle of the universe with the manifoldness and fulness of the real and the particular (Ennead. lib. III.–V.). Plotinus employs the subsidiary notion µερισµό in the same way as Tertullian; see Hagemann l.c. p. 186 f. Plotinus would have agreed with Tertullian’s proposition in adv. Marc. III. 15: “Dei nomen quasi naturale divinitatis potest in omnes communicari quibus divinitas vindicatur.” Plotinus’ idea of hypostasis is also important, and this notion requires exact examination.

the utterances of early Christian tradition about Jesus in such a way as to make the two, as it were, appear the totally dissimilar wings of one and the same building,549 With peculiar versatility he contrived to make himself at home in both wings. 262

It is essentially otherwise with the Logos doctrine of Irenæus. Whereas Tertullian and Hippolytus developed their Logos doctrine without reference to the historical Jesus, the truth rather being that they simply add the incarnation to the already existing 56a 1

ad6 549 Following the baptismal confession, Tertullian merely treated the Holy Ghost according to the scheme of the Logos doctrine without any trace of independent interest. In accordance with this, however, the Spirit possesses his own “numerus” — “tertium numen divinitatis et tertium nomen maiestatis”, — and he is a person in the same sense as the Son, to whom, however, he is subordinate, for the subordination is a necessary result of his later origin. See cc. 2, 8: “tertius est spiritus a deo et filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus a frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus a flumine et tertius a sole apex ex radio. Nihil tamen a matrice alienatur a qua proprietates suas ducit. Ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a patre decurrens et monarchiæ nihil obstrepit et οἰκονοµίας statum protegit”; de pudic. 21. In de præscr. 13 the Spirit in relation to the Son is called “vicaria vis”. The element of personality in the Spirit is with Tertullian merely a result arising from logical deduction; see his successor Novatian de trin. 29. Hippolytus did not attribute personality to the Spirit, for he says (adv. Noët. 14): Ἕνα Θεὸν ἐρῶ, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, οἰκονοµίᾳ δὲ τρίτην τὴν χάριν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος· πατὴρ µὲν γὰρ εἷς, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, ὅτι καὶ ὁ υἱός, τὸ δὲ τρίτον τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα.” In his Logos doctrine apart from the express emphasis he lays on the creatureliness of the Logos (see Philos. X. 33: Εἰ γὰρ Θεόν σε ἡθέλησε ποῖσαι ὁ Θεός, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ λόγου τὸ παράδειγµα) he quite agrees with Tertullian. See ibid.; here the Logos is called before his coming forth “ἐνδιάθετος τοῦ παντὸς λογισµός”; he is produced ἐκ τῶν ὄντων, i.e., from the Father who then alone existed; his essence is “that he bears in himself the will of him who has begotten him” or “that he comprehends in himself the ideas previously conceived by and resting in the Father.” Cyprian in no part of his writings took occasion to set forth the Logos doctrine in a didactic way; he simply kept to the formula: “Christus deus et homo”, and to the Biblical expressions which were understood in the sense of divinity and aad preëxistence; see Testim. II. 1-10. Lactantius was still quite confused in his Trinitarian doctrine and, in particular, conceived the Holy Ghost not as a person but as “sanctificatio” proceeding from the Father or from the Son. On the contrary, Novatian, in his work de trinitate, reproduced Tertullian’s views. For details see Dorner Entwickelungsgeschichte I. pp. 563-634, Kahnis, Lehre vom heiligen Geiste; Hagemann, l.c., p. 371 ff. It is noteworthy that Tertullian still very frequently called the preëxistent Christ dei spiritus; see de orat. I: “Dei spiritus et dei sermo et dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus, utrumque Iesus Christus.”Apol. 21; adv. Prax. 26; adv. Marc. I. 10: III. 6, 16: IV. 21. 550 See Zahn, Marcellus of Ancyra, pp. 235-244. Duncker, Des heiligen Irenäus Christologie, 1843.

theory of the subject, there is no doubt that Irenæus, as a rule, made Jesus Christ, whom he views as God and man, the startingpoint of his speculation. Here he followed the Fourth Gospel and Ignatius. It is of Jesus that Irenæus almost always thinks when he speaks of the Logos or of the Son of God; and therefore he does not identify the divine element in Christ or Christ himself with the world idea or the creating Word or the Reason of God.551 That 263he nevertheless makes Logos (µονογενής, πρωτότοκος, “only begotten”, “first born”) the regular designation of Christ as the preexistent One can only be explained from the apologetic tradition which in his time was 564 already recognised as authoritative by Christian scholars, and moreover appeared justified and required by John I. 1. Since both Irenæus and Valentinus consider redemption to be the special work of Christ, the cosmological interest in the doctrine of the second God becomes sub-ordinate to the soteriological. As, however, in Irenæus’ system (in opposition to Valentinus) this real redemption is to be imagined as recapitulatio of the creation, redemption and creation are not opposed to each other as antitheses; and therefore the Redeemer has also his place in the history of creation. In a certain sense then the Christology of Irenæus occupies a middle position between the Christology of the Valentinians and Marcion on the one hand and the Logos doctrine of the Apologists on the other. The Apologists have a cosmological interest, Marcion only a soteriological, whereas Irenæus has both; the Apologists base their speculations on the Old Testament, Marcion on a New Testament, Irenæus on both Old and New. Irenæus expressly refused to investigate what the divine element in Christ is, and why another deity stands alongside of the Godhead of the F ac8 ather. He confesses that he here simply keeps to the rule of faith and the Holy Scriptures, and declines speculative disquisitions on principle. He does not admit the distinction of a Word existing in God and one coming forth from him, and opposes not only ideas of emanation in general, but also the opinion that the Logos issued forth at a definite point of time. Nor will Irenæus allow the designation “Logos” to be interpreted in the sense of the Logos being the inward Reason or the spoken Word of God. God is a simple essence and always remains in the same state; besides we ought not to hypostatise qualities.552 Nevertheless Irenæus, too, calls the preexistent Christ the Son of God, and strictly maintains the personal distinction between Father 551

Zahn, l.c., p. 238. See Iren., II. 13. 8: II. 28. 4-9: II. 12. 2: II. 13. 2, and also the important passage II. 29. 3 fin. 552

and Son. What makes 264the opposite appear to be the case is the fact that he does not utilise the distinction in the interest of cosmology.553 In Irenæus’ sense we shall have to say: The Logos is the revelation hypostasis of the Father, “the self-revelation of the self-conscious God”, and indeed the eternal self-revelation. For according to him the Son always existed with God, always revealed the Father, and it was always the full Godhead that he revealed in himself. In other words, he is God in his specific nature, truly God, and there is no distinction of essence between him and God.554 Now we might conclude from the strong 265emphasis laid on “always” that Irenæus conceived a relationship of Father and Son in the Godhead, conditioned by the essence of

553

A great many passages clearly show that Irenæus decidedly distinguished the Son from the Father, so that it is absolutely incorrect to attribute modalistic ideas to him. See III. 6. 1 and all the other passages where Irenæus refers to the Old Testament theophanies. Such are III. 6. 2: IV. 5. 2 fin.: IV. 7. 4, where the distinction is particularly plain: IV. 17. 6: II. 28. 6. 554 The Logos (Son) is the administrator and bestower of the divine grace as regards humanity, because he is the revealer of this grace, see IV. 6 (§ 7: “agnitio patris filius, agnitio autem filii in patre et per filium revelata”); IV. 5: IV. 16. 7: IV. 20. 7. He has been the revealer of God from the beginning and always remains so, III. 16. 6: IV. 13. 4 etc.: he is the antemundane revealer to the angel world, see II. 30. 9: “semper autem coëxsistens filius patri, olim et ab initio semper revelat patrem et angelis et archangelis et potestatibus et virtutibus et omnibus, quibus vult revelari deus; he has always existed with the Father, see II. 30. 9: III. 18. 1: “non tunc cœpit filius dei, exsistens semper apud patrem”; IV. 20. 3, 7, 14. 1: II. 25. 3: “non enim infectus es, o homo, neque semper coëxsistebas deo, sicut proprium eius verbum.” The Logos is God as God, nay, for us he is God himself, in so far as his work is the work of God. Thus, and not in a modalistic sense, we must understand passages like II. 30. 9: “fabricator qui fecit mundum per semitipsum, hoc est per verbum et per sapientiam suam,” or hymnlike statements such as III. 16. 6: “et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo” (see something similar in Ignatius and Melito, Otto, Corp. Apolog. IX, p. 419 sq.). Irenæus also says in III. 6. 2: “filius est in patre et habet in se patrem,” III. 6. 1.: utrosque dei appellatione signavit spiritus, et eum qui ungitur filium et eum, qui ungit, id est patrem.” He not only says that the Son has revealed the Father, but that the Father has revealed the Son (IV. 6. 3: IV. 7. 7). He applies Old Testament passages sometimes to Christ, sometimes to God, and hence in some cases calls the Father the creator, and in others the Son (“pater generis humani verbum dei”, IV. 31. 2). Irenæus (IV. 4. 2) appropriated the expression of an ancient “immensum patrem in filio mensuratum; mensura enim patris filius, quoniam et capit eum.” This expression is by no means intended to denote a diminution, but rather to signify the identity of Father and Son. In all this Irenæus adhered to an ancient tradition; but these propositions do not admit of being incorporated with a rational system.

God himself and existing independently of revelation. But the second hypostasis is viewed by him as existing from all eternity, just as much in the quality of Logos as in that of Son, and his very statement that the Logos has revealed the Father from the beginning shows that this relationship is always within the sphere of revelation. The Son then exists because he gives a revelation. Little interested as IrenÍ ac8 us is in saying anything about the Son, apart from his historical mission, naïvely as he extols the Father as the direct Creator of the universe, and anxious as he is to repress all speculations that lead beyond the Holy Scriptures, he could not altogether avoid reflecting on the problems: why there is a second deity alongside of God, and how the two are related to one another. His incidental answers are not essentially different from those of the Apologists and Tertullian; the only distinction is this incidental character. Irenæus too looked on the Son as “the hand of God”, the mediator of creation; he also seems in one passage to distinguish Father and Son as the naturally invisible and visible elements of God; he too views the Father as the one who dominates all, the head of Christ, i.e., he who bears the creation and his Logos.555 Irenæus had no opportunity of writing against 266the Monarchians, and unfortunately we possess no apologetic writings of his. It

570

555

Logos and Sophia are the hands of God (III. 21. IQ: IV. 20): also IV. 6.6: “Invisibile filii pater, visibile autem patris filius.” Judging from this passage, it is always doubtful whether Irenæus, like Tertullian, assumed that transcendency belonged to the Father in a still higher sense than to the Son, and that the nature of the Son was more adapted for entering the finite than that of the Father (on the contrary see IV. 20. 7 and especially IV. 24. 2: “verbum naturaliter quidem invisibile”). But it ought not to have been denied that there are passages, in which Irenæus hints at a subordination of the Son, and deduces this from his origin. See II. 28. 8 (the knowledge of the Father reaches further than that of the Son and the Father is greater than the Son); III. 6. 1 (the Son receives from the Father the sovereignty); IV. 17. 6 (a very important passage: the Father owns the name of Jesus Christ as his, first, because it is the name of his Son, and, secondly, because he gave it himself; V. 18. 21, 3 (“pater conditionem simul et verbum suum portans” — “verbum portatum ac8 a patre” — “et sic unus deus pater ostenditur, qui est super omnia et per omnia et in omnibus; super omnia pater quidem et ipse est caput Christi” — “verbum universorum potestatem habet a patre”). “This is not a subordination founded on the nature of the second person, but an inequality that has arisen historically,” says Zahn (l.c., p. 241); but it is doubtful whether such a distinction can be imputed to Irenæus. We have rather simply to recognise the contradiction, which was not felt by Irenæus because, in his religious belief, he places Christ on a level with God, but, as a theologian, merely touched on the problem. So also he shows remarkable unconcern as to the proof of the unity of God in view of the distinction between Father and Son.

cannot therefore be determined how he would have written, if he had had less occasion to avoid the danger of being himself led into Gnostic speculations about æons. It has been correctly remarked that with Irenæus the Godhead and the divine personality of Christ merely exist beside each other. He did not want to weigh the different problems, because, influenced as he was by the lingering effects of an early. Christian, anti-theological interest, he regarded the results of this reflection as dangerous; but, as a matter of fact, he did not really correct the premises of the problems by rejecting the conclusions. We may evidently assume (with Zahn) that, according to Irenæus, “God placed himself in the relationship of Father to Son, in order to create after his image and in his likeness the man who was to become his Son;”556 but we ought not to ask if Irenæus understood the incarnation as a definite purpose necessarily involved in the Sonship, as this question falls outside the sphere of Patristic thinking. No doubt the incarnation constantly formed the preëminent interest of Irenæus, and owing to this interest he was able to put aside or throw a veil over the mythological speculations of the Apologists ac8 regarding the Logos, and to proceed at once to the soteriological question.557

556

Irenæus very frequently emphasises the idea that the whole economy of God refers to mankind, see, e.g., I. 10. 3: ἐκδιηγεῖσθαι τὴν πραγµατείαν καὶ οἰκονοµίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι γενοµένην, IV. 20. 7: Verbum dispensator paternæ gratiæ factus est ad utilitatem hominum, propter quos fecit tantas dispositiones.” God became a creator out of goodness and love; see the beautiful expression in IV. 20. 7: “Gloria dei vivens homo, vita autem hominis visio dei,” or III. 20. 2: “Gloria hominis deus, operationes vero dei et omnis sapientiæ eius et virtutis receptaculum homo.” V. 29. 1: “Non homo propter conditionem, sed conditio facta est propter hominem.” 557 Irenæus speaks about the Holy Spirit in numerous passages. No doubt he firmly believes in the distinction of the Spirit (Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Father, Spirit of the Son, prophetic Spirit, Wisdom) from the Father and Son, and in a particular significance belonging to the Spirit, as these doctrines are found in the regula. In general the same attributes as are assigned to the Son are everywhere applicable to him; he was always with the Father before there was 564 any creation (IV. 20. 3; Irenæus applies Prov. III. 19: VIII. 22 to the Spirit and not to the Son); like the Son he was the instrument and hand of the Father (IV. pref. 4, 20. 1: V. 6. 1.). That Logos and Wisdom are to be distinguished is clear from IV. 20. 1-12 and particularly from § 12: IV. 7. 4: III. 17. 3 (the host in the parable of the Good Samaritan is the Spirit). Irenæus also tried by reference to Scripture to distinguish the work of the Spirit from that of the Logos. Thus in the creation, the guidance of the world, the Old Testament history, the incarnation, the baptism of Jesus, the Logos is the energy, the Spirit is wisdom. He also alluded to a specific ministry of the Spirit in the sphere of the new covenant. The Spirit is the principle of the new knowledge in IV. 33. 1, 7, Spirit of fellowship with God in V. 1. 1, pledge of immortality in V. 8. 1, Spirit of life in V. 18. 2. But not only does the function

267

Nothing is more instructive than an examination of Irenæus’ views with regard to the destination of man, the original state, the fall, and sin; because the heterogeneous elements of his “theology”, the apologetic and moralistic, the realistic, and the 268Biblical (Pauline), are specially apparent here, and the inconsistencies into which he was led are very plain. But these very contradictions were never eliminated from the Church doctrinal system of succeeding centuries and did not admit of being removed; hence his attitude on these points is typical.558 The apologetic and moralistic train of thought is alone developed with systematic clearness. Everything created is imperfect, just from the very fact of its having had a beginning; therefore man also. The Deity is indeed capable of bestowing perfection on man from the

of the Spirit remain very obscure for all that, particularly in the incarnation, where Irenæus was forced by the canon of the New Testament to unite what could not be united (Logos doctrine and descent of the Spirit upon Mary — where, moreover, the whole of the Fathers after Irenæus launched forth into the most wonderful speculations), but even the personality of the Spirit vanishes with him, e.g., in III. 18. 3: “ung ac8 uentem patrem et unctum filium et unctionem, qui est spiritus” (on Isaiah LXI. 1); there is also no mention of the Spirit in IV. pref. 4 fin., and IV. 1. 1, though he ought to have been named there. Father, Son, and Spirit, or God, Logos, and Sophia are frequently conjoined by Irenæus, but he never uses the formula τριά , to say nothing of the abstract formulæ of Tertullian. In two passages (IV. 20. 5: V. 36. 2) Irenæus unfolded a sublime speculation, which is inconsistent with his usual utterances. In the first passage he says that God has shown himself prophetically through the Spirit (in the Old Testament), then adoptively through the Son, and will finally show himself paternally in the kingdom of heaven; the Spirit prepares man for the Son of God, the Son leads him to the Father, but the Father confers on him immortality. In the other passage he adopts the saying of an old presbyter (Papias?) that we ascend gradually through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in the end the Son will deliver up everything to the Father, and God will be all in all. It is remarkable that, as in the case of Tertullian (see above), it is 1 Cor. XV. 23-28 that has produced this speculation. This is another clear proof, that in Irenæus the equality of Father, Son, and Spirit is not unconditional and that the eternity of Son and Spirit is not absolute. Here also we plainly perceive that the several disquisitions in Irenæus were by no means part of a complete system. Thus, in IV. 38. 2, he inverts the relationship and says that we ascend from the Son to the Spirit: Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Παῦλος Κορινθίοις φησί· γάλα ὑµᾶς ἐπότισα, οὐ βρῶµα, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡδονασθε βαστάζειν· τουτέστι, τὴν µὲν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου ἐµαθητεύθητε, οὐδήπου δὲ τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς πνεῦµα ἐπαναπαύεται ἐφ᾽ ὑµᾶς διὰ τὴν ὑµῶν ἀσθέγειαν. Here one of Origen’s thoughts appears. 558 The opinions advanced here are, of course, adumbrations of the ideas about redemption. Nöldechen (Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1885, p. 462 ff): “Die Lehre vom ersten Menschen bei den christlichen Lehrern des 2 Jahrhunderts.”

beginning, but the latter was incapable of grasping or retaining it from the first. Hence perfection, i.e., incorruptibility, which consists in the contemplation of God and is conditional on voluntary obedience, could only be the destination of man, and he must accordingly have been made capable of it.559 That destination is realised through the guidance of God 269and the free decision of man, for goodness not arising from free choice has no value. The capacity in question is on the one hand involved in man’s 559

Here the whole 38th chapter of the 4th Book is to be examined. The following sentences are perhaps the most important: Εἰ δὲ λέγει τις· οὐκ ἡδύνατο ὁ Θεὸς ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τέλειον ἀναδεῖξαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον; Γνύτω, ὅτι τῷ µὲν Θεῶ, ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ὄντι καὶ ἀγεννήτῳ ὑπάρχοντι, ὃς πρὸς ἑαυτόν, πάντα δυνατά· τὰ δὲ γεγονότα, καθὸ µετέπειτα γενέσεως ἀρχὴν ἰδίαν ἔσχε, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι δεῖ αὐτὰ τοῦ πεποιηκότος· ὀυ γὰρ ἡδύναντο ἀγέννητα εἶναι τὸ νεωστὶ γεγεννηµένα. Καθὸ δὲ µή ἐστιν ἀγέννητα, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τοῦ τελείου. Καθὸ δὲ νεώτερα, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ νήπια, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ac8 συνήθη καί αγύµναστα πρὸς τὴν τελείαν ἀγωγήν. The mother can no doubt give strong food to the child at the very beginning, but the child cannot stand it: ἄνθρωπος ἀδύνατος λαβεῖν ἀυτό· νήπιος γὰρ ἦν, see also § 24: “Non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum dii, quamvis deus secundum simplicitatem bonitatis suæ hoc fecerit, nequis eum putet invidiosum aut impræstantem. “Ego,” inquit, “dixi, estis et filii excelsi omnes, nobis autem potestatem divintatis divinitatis baiulare non sustinentibus” . . . Oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere, post deinde vinci et absorbi mortale ab immortalitate et corruptibile ab incorruptibilitate, et fieri hominem secundum imaginem at similitudinem dei, agnitione accepta bone et mali.” Ibid.: ὑποταγὴ Θεοῦ αφθαρσία, καὶ παραµονὴ ἀφθαρσίας δόξα ἀγέννητος . . . ὅρασις Θεοῦ περιποιητικὴ ἀφθαρσίας· ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ Θεοῦ. In this chapter Irenæus contemplates the manner of appearance of the Logos (as man) from the point of view of a συννηπιά . His conception of the capacity and destination of man enabled him to develop his ideas about the progressive training of the human race and about the different covenants (see below). On this point cf. also IV. 20. 5-7. The fact that, according to this way of looking at things, the Good and Divine appeared only as the destination of man — which was finally to be reached through divine guidance — but not as his nature, suggested both to Irenæus and Tertullian the distinction between “natura” and “gratia” or between “substantia” and “fides et iustitia”. In other words, they were led to propound a problem which had occurred to the Gnostics long before, and had been solved by them in a dualistic sense. See Irenæus II. 29. 1: “Si propter substantiam omnes succedunt animæ in refrigerium, et superfluum est credere, superflua autem et discessio salvatoris; si autem propter iustitiam, iam non propter id, quod sint animæ sed quoniam sunt iustæ . . . Si enim natura et substantia salvat, omnes salvabuntur animæ; si autem iustitia et fides etc. II. 34. 3: “Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundum gratiam dei datur,” II. 34. 4. Tertullian adv. Marc. III. 15: “Christi nomen non ex natura veniens, sed ex dispositione.” In Tertullian these ideas are not unfrequently opposed to each other in this way; but the relationship between them has by no means been made clear 564 .

possession of the divine image, which, however, is only realised in the body and is therefore at bottom a matter of indifference; and, on the other, in his likeness to God, which consists in the union of the soul with God’s Spirit, but only comes about when man is obedient to him. Along with this Irenæus has also the idea that man’s likeness consists in freedom. Now, as man became disobedient imme 564 diately after the creation, this likeness to God did not become perfect.560 Through the fall he lost the fellowship with God to 270which he was destined, i.e., he is forfeit to death. This death was transmitted to Adam’s whole posterity.561

560

On the psychology of Irenæus see Böhringer, p. 466 f., Wendt p. 22. The fact that in some passages he reckoned the πνεῦµα in man as the latter’s inalienable nature (e.g. II. 33. 5), though as a rule (like Tatian) he conceives it as the divine Spirit, is an evident inconsistency on his part. The εἰκών is realised in the body, the ὁµοίωσις is not given by nature, but is brought about by the union with the Spirit of God realised through obedience (V. 6. 1). The ὁµοίωσις is therefore subject to growth, and was not perfect at the beginning (see above, IV. 38. 4, where he opposes Tatian’s opinion). It is clear, especially from V. 12. 2, that it is only the πνοή, not the πνεῦµα, that is to be conceived as an original possession. On this point Irenæus appealed to 1 Cor. XV. 45. It is plain from the 37th chapter of the 4th Book, that Irenæus also views everything as ultimately dependent on man’s inalienable freedom. Alongside of this God’s goodness has scope for displ ac8 aying itself in addition to its exercise at the creation, because it guides man’s knowledge through counsel; see § 1. On Matth. XXIII. 37 Irenæus remarks: “veterem legem libertatis hominis manifestavit, quia liberum eum deus fecit ab initio, habentem suam potestatem sicut et suam animam ad utendum sententia dei voluntarie et non coactum a deo . . . posuit in homine potestatem electionis quemadmodum in angelis (et enim angeli rationabiles), ut hi quidem qui obedissent iuste bonum sint possidentes, datum quidem a deo, servatum vero ab ipsis.” An appeal to Rome II. 4-7 (!) follows. In § 2 Irenæus inveighs violently against the Gnostic doctrines of natural goodness and wickedness: πάντες τῆς αὐτῆς εἰσὶ φύσεως. In § 4 he interprets the Pauline: “omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt,” as referring to man’s inalienable freedom and to the way in which it is abused in order to work evil (!): “liberæ sententiæ ab initio est homo et liberæ sententiæ est deus, cuius ad similitudinem factus est.” § 5: “Et non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide, liberum et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit (that is, respected) dominus, dicens: Secundum fidem tuam fiat tibi.” § 4: “deus consilium dat continere bonum, quod perficitur ex obedientia.” § 3: “τὸ αὐτεξούσιον τοῦ ἀνθώπου καὶ τὸ συµβουλευτικὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ µὴ βιαζοµένου. IV. 4. 3: “homo rationabilis et secundum hoc similis deo liber in arbitrio factus et suæ potestatis, ipse sibi causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum aliquando autem palea fiat.” 561 As a matter of fact this view already belongs to the second train of thought; see particularly III. 21-23. Here in reality this merely applies to the particular individuals who chose disobedience, but Irenæus almost everywhere referred back to the fall of Adam. See, however, V. 27. 2: “Quicunque erga eum custodiunt dilectionem, suam his præstat communionem. Communio autem dei vita et lumen et fruitio eorum quæ sunt

Here Irenæus followed sayings of Paul, but adopted the words rather than the sense; for, in the first place, like the Apologists, he very strongly emphasises the elements that palliate man’s fall562 and, secondly, he contemplates the fall as having a teleological significance. It is the fall itself and not, as in Paul’s case, the 271c a98 onsequences of the fall, that he thus views; for he says that disobedience was conducive to man’s development. Man had to learn by experience that disobedience entails death, in order that he might acquire wisdom and choose freely to fulfil the commandments of God. Further, man was obliged to learn through the fall that goodness and life do not belong to him by nature as they do to God.563 Here life and death are always the ultimate question to Irenæus. It is only when he quotes sayings of Paul that he remembers sin in connection with redemption; and ethical

apud deum bonorum. Quicumque autem absistunt secundum sententiam suam ab eo, his eam quæ electa est ab ipsis separationem inducit. Separatio autem dei mors, et separatio lucis tenebræ, et separatio dei amissio omnium quæ sunt apud eum bonorum.” V. 19. 1, 1. 3, 1. 1. The subjective moralism is very 564 clearly defined in IV. 15. 2: “Id quod erat semper liberum et suæ potestatis in homine semper servavit deus et sua exhortatio, ut iuste iudicentur qui non obediunt ei quoniam non obedierant, et qui obedierunt et crediderunt ei, honorentur incorruptibilitate.” 562 Man’s sin is thoughtlessness; he is merely led astray (IV. 40. 3). The fact that he let himself be seduced under the pretext of immortality is an excuse for him; man was infans, (See above; hence it is said, in opposition to the Gnostics in IV. 38. 4: “supergredientes legem humani generis et antequam fiant homines, iam volunt similes esse factori deo et nullam esse differentiam infecti dei et nunc facti hominis.” The same idea is once more very clearly expressed in IV. 39. 3; “quemadmodum igitur erit homo deus, qui nondum factus est homo?” i.e., how could newly created man be already perfect as he was not even man, inasmuch as he did not yet know how to distinguish good and evil?). Cf. III. 23. 3, 5: “The ac8 fear of Adam was the beginning of wisdom; the sense of transgression led to repentance; but God bestows his grace on the penitent” . . . “eum odivit deus, qui seduxit hominem, ei vero qui seductus est, sensim paullatimque misertus est.” The “pondus peccati” in the sense of Augustine was by no means acknowledged by Irenæus, and although he makes use of Pauline sayings, and by preference such as have a quite different sense, he is very far from sharing Paul’s view. 563 See IV. 37. 7: “Alias autem esset nostrum insensatum bonum, quod esset inexercitatum. Sed et videre non tantum nobis esset desiderabile, nisi cognovissemus quantum esset malum non videre; et bene valere autem male valentis experientia honorabilius efficit, et lucem tenebrarum comparatio et vitam mortis. Sic et cœleste regnum honorabilius est his qui cognoverunt terrenum.” The main passage is III. 20. 1, 2, which cannot be here quoted. The fall was necessary in order that man might not believe that he was “naturaliter similis deo”. Hence God permitted the great whale to swallow man for a time. In several passages Irenæus has designated the permitting of evil as kind generosity on the part of God, see, e.g., IV. 39. 1, 37. 7.

consequences of the fall are not mentioned in this connection. “The original destination of man was not abrogated by the fall, the truth rather being that the fall was intended as a means of leading men to attain this perfection to which they were destined.”564 Moreover, the goodness of God immediately showed itself both in the removal of the tree of life and in the sentence of temporal death.565 What significance belongs to Jesus Christ within this conception is clear: he is the man who first realised in his person the destination of humanity; the Spirit of God became united with his soul and accustomed itself to dwell in men. But he is also the teacher who reforms mankind by his preaching, calls upon them too direct their still existing freedom to obedience to the divine commandments, thereby restoring, i.e., strengthening, freedom, so that humanity is thus rendered capable of receiving incorruptibility.566 One can plainly see that this is the idea of Tatian 272and Theophilus, with which Irenæus has incorporated utterances of Paul. Tertullian and Hippolytus taught essentially the same doctrine; af8 567 only Tertullian beheld the image and likeness of God expressly and exclusively in the fact that man’s will and capacity are free, and based on this freedom an argument in justification of God’s ways.568

564

See Wendt, l.c., p. 24. See III. 23. 6. 566 See V. 1. 1: “Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. . . . Neque rur 564 sus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes,” etc.; III. 23. 2, 5. 3: “libertatem restauravit”; IV. 24. 1: “reformavit humanum genus”; III. 17. 1: “spiritus sanctus in filium dei, filium hominis factum, descendit cum ipso assuescens habitare in genere humano.” III. 19. 1: IV. 38. 3: 39. 1, 2. Wendt’s summary, l.c., p. 24: “By the Logos becoming man, the type of the perfect man made its appearance,” formulates Irenæus’ meaning correctly and excludes the erroneous idea that he viewed the Logos himself as the prototype of humanity. A real divine manhood is not necessary within this train of thought; only a homo inspiratus is required. 567 See Hippol. Philos. X. 33 (p. 538 sq.): Ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸν πάντων ἄρχοντα δηµιουργῶν ἐκ πασῶν συνθέτων οὐσιῶν ἐσκεύασαν, οὐ Θεὸν θέλων ποιεῖν ἔσσηλεν, οὐδὲ ἄγγελον, ἀλλ᾽ ἄνθρύ ac1 πον. Εἰ γὰρ Θεόν σε ἡθέλησε ποιῆσαι, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ λόγου τὸ παράδειγµα· ἄνθρωπον θέλων, ἄνθρωπόν σε ἐποίησεν· εἰ δὲ θέλεις καὶ Θεὸς γενέσθαι, ὑπάκουε τῷ πεποιηκότι. The famous concluding chapter of the Philosophoumena with its prospect of deification is to be explained from this (X. 34). 568 See Tertull. adv. Marc. II. 4-11; his undiluted moralism appears with particular clearness in chaps. 6 and 8. No weight is to be attached to the phrase in chapter 4 that God by placing man in Paradise really even then put him from Paradise into the Church. This is contrary to Wendt opinion, l.c., p. 67. ff., where the exposition of Tertullian is speciosior quam verior. In adv. Marc. II. 4 ff. Wendt professes to see the first traces of 565

But, in addition to this, Irenæus developed a second train of thought. This was the outcome of his Gnostic and realistic doctrine of recapitulation, and evinces clear traces of the influence of Pauline theology. It is, however, inconsistent with the moralistic teachings unfolded above, and could only be united with them at a few points. To the Apologists the proposition: “it is impossible to learn to know God without the help of God” (“impossibile est sine deo discere deum”) was a conviction which, with the exception of Justin, they subordinated to their moralism and to which they did not give a specifically Christological signification. Irenæus understood this proposition in a Christological sense,569 and at the same time conceived the blessing of salvation imparted by Christ not only as the incorruptibility consisting in the beholding of God bestowed on obedience IV. 20. 5-7: IV. 38, but also as the divine sonship which 273has been won for us by Christ and which is realised in constant fellowship with God and dependence on him.570 No doubt he also viewed this divine sonship as consisting in the transformation of human nature; but the point of immediate importance here is that it is no longer human freedom but Christ that he contemplated in this connection. Corresponding to this he has now also a different idea of the original destination of man, of Adam, and of the results of the fall. Here comes in the mystical Adam-Christ speculation, in accordanc 564 e with the Epistles to the Ephesians and Corinthians. Everything, that is, the “longa hominum expositio”, was recapitulated by Christ in himself; in other words he restored humanity to what it originally was and again included under one head what was divided.571 If humanity is restored, then it must have lost something before and been originally in good condition. In complete contradiction to the other teachings quoted above, Irenæus now says: “What we had lost in Adam, namely, our possession of the image and likeness of God, we recover in Christ.572 Adam, however, is humanity; in other

the scholastic and Romish theory, and in de anima 16, 41 the germ of the subsequent Protestant view. 569 See IV. 5. 1, 6. 4. 570 See IV. 14. 1: “In quantum enim deus nullius indiget, in tantum homo indiget dei communione. Hæc enim gloria hominis, perseverare et permanere in dei servitute.” This statement, which, like the numerous others where Irenæus speaks of the adoptio, is opposed to moralism, reminds us of Augustine. In Irenæus’ great work, however, we can point out not a few propositions which, so to speak, bear the stamp of Augustine; see IV. 38. 3: ὑποταγὴ Θεοῦ ἀφθαρσία. 56b 571 See the passages quoted above, p. 241 f. 572 See III. 18. 1. V. 16.1 is very remarkable: Ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν χρόνοις ἐλεγετο µὲν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐκ ἐδείκνυτο δὲ, ἔτι γὰρ ἀόρατος ἦν ὁ

words, as all humanity is united and renewed through Christ so also it was already summarised in Adam. Accordingly “the sin of disobedience and the loss of salvation which Adam consequently suffered may now be viewed as belongi ac8 ng to all mankind summed up in him, in like manner as Christ’s obedience and possession of salvation are the property 274of all mankind united under him as their head.”573 In the first Adam we offended God by not fulfilling his commandments; in Adam humanity became disobedient, wounded, sinful, bereft of life; through Eve mankind became forfeit to death; through its victory over the first man death descended upon us all, and the devil carried us all away captive etc.574 Here Irenæus always means that in Adam, who represents all mankind as their head, the latter became doomed to death. In this instance he did not think of a hereditary transmission, but of a mystic unity575 as in the case of Christ, viewed as the 275second

λόγος, οὖ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐγεγόνει. διὰ τοῦτο δὴ καὶ τὴν ὁµοίωσιν ῥᾳδιως ἀπέβαλεν; see also what follows. In V. 1. 1 Irenæus even says: “Quoniam iniuste dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus dei omnipotentis, alienavit nos contra naturam diabolus.” Compare with this the contradictory passage IV. 38: “oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere” etc. (see above, p. 268), where natura hominis is conceived as the oppos ac8 ite of the divine nature. 573 See Wendt, i.e., p. 29, who first pointed out the two dissimilar trains of thought in Irenæus with regard to man’s original state, Duncker having already done so in regard to his Christology. Wendt has rightly shown that we have here a real and not a seeming contradiction; but, as far as the explanation of the fact is concerned, the truth does not seem to me to have been arrived at. The circumstance that Irenæus did not develop the mystic view in such a systematic way as the moralistic by no means justifies us in supposing that he merely adopted it superficially (from the Scriptures): for its nature admits of no systematic treatment, but only of a rhetorical and contemplative one. No further explanation can be given of the contradiction, because, strictly speaking, Irenæus has only given us fragments. 574 See V. 16. 3: ἐν τῷ πρῶτῳ Ἁδὰµ προσεκόψαµεν, µὴ ποιήσαντες αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐντολήν. IV. 34. 2: “homo initio in Adam inobediens per mortem percussus est;” III. 18. 7-23: V. 19. 1: V. 21. 1: V. 17. 1 sq. 575 Here also Irenæus keeps sin in the background; death and life are the essential ideas. Böhringer l.c., p. 484 has very rightly remarked: “We cannot say that Irenæus, in making Adam’s conduct and suffering apply to the whole human race had started from an inward, immediate experience of human sinfulness and a feeling of the need of salvation founded on this.” It is the thoughts of Paul to which Irenæus tried to accommodate himself without having had the same feeling about the flesh and sin as this Apostle. In Tertullian the mystic doctrine of salvation is rudimentary (but see, e.g., de anima 40: “ita omnis anima eo us 564 que in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur,” and other passages; but he has speculations about Adam (for the most part developments of hints given in Irenæus; see the index in Oehler’s edition), and he has a new realistic idea as to a

Adam. The teachings in III. 21. 10-23576 show what an almost naturalistic shape the religious quasi-historical idea assumed in Irenæus’ mind. This is, however, more especially evident from the assertion, in opposition to Tatian, that unless Adam himself had been saved by Christ, God would have been overcome by the devil.577 It was merely his moralistic train of thought that saved him from the conclusion that there is a restoration of all individual men. This conception of Adam as the representative of humanity corresponds to Irenæus’ doctrine of the God-man. The historical importance of this author lies in the development of the Christology. At the present day, ecclesias 564 tical Christianity, so far as it seriously believes in the unity of the divine and human in

physical taint of sin propagated through procreation. Here we have the first beginning of the doctrine of original sin (de testim. 3: “per diabolum homo a primordio circumventus, ut præceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum suæ etiam damnationis traducem fecit.” Compare his teachings in de anima 40, 41, 16 about the disease of sin that is propagated “ex originis vitio” and has become a real second nature). But how little he regards this original sin as guilt is shown by de bapt. 18: “Quare innocens ætas festinat ad baptismum?” For the rest, Tertullian discussed the relationship of flesh and spirit, sensuousness and intellect, much more thoroughly than Irenæus; he showed that flesh is not the seat of sin (de anima 40). In the same book (but see Bk. V. c. 1) he expressly declared that in this question also sure results are only to be obtained from revelation. This was an important step in the direction of secularising Christianity through “philosophy” and of emasculating the understanding through “revelation.” In regard to t ac4 he conception of sin Cyprian followed his teacher. De op. et eleem. 1 reads indeed like an utterance of Irenæus (“dominus sanavit illa quæ Adam portaverat vulnera”); but the statement in ep. 64. 5: “Recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquæ, prima nativitate contraxit” is quite in the manner of Tertullian, and perhaps the latter could also have agreed with the continuation: “infanti remittintur non propria sed aliena peccata.” Tertullian’s proposition that absolutely no one but the Son of God could have remained without sin was repeated by Cyprian (see, e.g., de op. et eleem. 3). 576 III. 22. 4 has quite a Gnostic sound . . . “eam quæ est a Maria in Evam recirculationem significans; quia non aliter quod colligatum est solveretur, nisi ipsæ compagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus, ut primæ coniunctiones solvantur per secundas, secundæ rursus liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem a secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem primæ solutionis habere locum. Et propter hoc dominus dicebat primos quidem novissimos futuros et novissimos primos.” Irenæus expresses a Gnostic idea when he on one occasion plainly says (V. 12. 3): Ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰµ πάντες ἀποθνήσκοµεν, ὅτι ψυχικοί . But Paul, too, made an approach to this thought. 577 See III. 23. 1, 2, a highly characteristic statement.

Jesus Christ and deduces the divine manhood from the work of Christ as his deification, still occupies the same standpoint as Irenæus did. Tertullian by no means matched him here; he too has the formula in a few passages, but he cannot, like Irenæus, account for its content. On the other hand we owe to him the idea of the “two natures”, which remain in their integrity — that formula which owes its adoption to the influence 276of Leo I. and at bottom contradicts Irenæus’ thought “the Son of God became the Son of man”, (“filius dei factus filius hominis”). Finally, the manner in which Irenæus tried to interpret the historical utterances about Jesus Christ from the standpoint of the Divine manhood idea, and to give them a significance in regard to salvation is also an epochmaking fact. “Filius dei filius hominis factus”, “it is one and the same Jesus Christ, not a Jesus and a Christ, nor a mere temporary union of an on and a man, but one and the same person, who created the world, was born, suffered, and ascended” — this along with the dogma of God the Creator is the c ac8 ardinal doctrine of Irenæus:578 “Jesus Christ truly man and truly God” (“Jesus Christus, vere homo, vere deus”).579 It is only the Church that adheres to this doctrine, for “none of the heretics hold the opinion that the Word of God became flesh” (“secundum nullam sententiam hæreticorum verbum dei caro factum est”).580 What therefore has to be shown is (1) that Jesus Christ is really the Word of God, i.e., is God, (2) that this Word really became man and (3) that the incarnate Word is an inseparable unity. Irenæus maintains the first statement as well against the “Ebionites” as against the Valentinians who thought that Christ’s advent was the descent of one of the many moons. In opposition to the Ebionites he emphasises the distinction between natural and adopted Sonship, appeals to the Old Testament testimony in favour of the divinity of Christ,581 and moreover argues that we would still be in the bondage of the old disobedience, if Jesus Christ had only been a man.582 In this connection he also discussed the birth from the virgin.583 He not only proved it from prophecy, but his recapitulation theory also suggested to him a parallel between Ad 561 am and Eve on the one

578

See, e.g., III. g. 3, 12. 2, 16. 6-9, 17. 4 and repeatedly 8. 2: “verbum dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, qui est dominus noster Jesus Christus.” 545 579See IV. 6. 7. 580 See III. 11. 3. 581 See III. 6. 582 See III. 19. 1, 2: IV. 33. 4: V. 1. 3 see also Tertullian against “Ebion” de carne 14, 18, 24; de præscr. 10. 33. 583 Editor: This note is missing in the footnotes.

hand and Christ 277and Mary on the other, which included the birth from the virgin.584 He argues in opposition to the Valentinians that it was really the eternal Word of God himself, who was always with God and always present to the human race, that descended.585 He who became man was not a being foreign to the world — this is said in opposition to Marcion — but the Lord of the world and humanity, the Son of God, and none other. The reality of the body of Christ, i.e., the essential identity of the humanity of Christ with our own, was continually emphasised by Irenæus, and he views the whole work of salvation as dependent on this identity.586 In the

584

See the arguments, l c., V. 19. 1: “Quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem, æqua lance disposita virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam,” and other similar ones. We find the same in Tertull., de carne 17, 20. In this connection we find in both very extravagant expressions with regard to Mary (see, e.g., Tertull., l.c. 20 fin.: “uti virgo esset regeneratio nostra spiritaliter ab omnibus inquinamentis sanctificata per Christum.” Iren. III. 21. 7: “Maria cooperans dispositioni (dei);” III. 22. 4 “Maria obediens et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est salutis” . . . “quod alligavit virgo Eva per incredulitatem, hoc virgo Maria solvit per fidem”). These, however, have no doctrinal significance; in fact the same Tertullian expressed himself in a depreciatory way about Mary in de carne 7. On the other hand it is undeniable that the later Mariolatry has one of its roots in the parallel between Eve and Mary. The Gnostic invention of the virginitas Mariæ in partu can hardly be traced in Irenæus III. 21. 4. Tertullian (de carne 23) does not seem to know anything about it as yet, and very decidedly assumed the natural character of the process. The popular conception as to the reason of Christ’s birth from a virgin, in the form still current to-day, but beneath all criticism, is already found in Tertullian de carne 18: “Non competebat ex semine humano dei filium nasci, ne, si totus esset filius hominis, non esset et dei filius, nihilque haberet amplius Salomone, ut de Hebionis opinione credendus erat. Ergo iam dei filius ex patris dei semine, id est spiritu, ut esset et hominis filius, caro ei sola competebat ex hominis came sumenda sine viri semine. Vacabat enim semen viri apud habentem dei semen.” The other theory existing side by side with this, viz., that Christ would have been a sinner if he had been begotten from the semen, whereas he could assume sinless flesh from woman is so far as I know scarcel 564 y hinted at by Irenæus and Tertullian. The fact of Christ’s birth was frequently referred to by Tertullian in order to prove Christ’s kinship to God the Creator, e.g., adv. Marc. III. 11. Hence this article of the regula fidei received a significance from this point of view also. An Encratite explanation of the birth from the Virgin is found in the old treatise de resurr. bearing Justin’s name (Otto, Corp. Apol. III., p. 220. 585 See, e.g., III. 18. 1 and many other places. See the passages named in note, p. 276. 586 So also Tertullian. See adv. Marc. III. 8: The whole work of salvation is destroyed by Docetism; cf. the work de carne Christi. Tertullian e 564 xclaims to the Docetist Marcion in c. 5: “Parce unicæ spei totius orbis.” Irenæus and Tertullian mean that Christ’s assumption of humanity was complete, but not unfrequently express themselves in such a manner as to convey the impression that the Logos only assumed flesh. This is

latter he also includes the fact that Jesus must 278have passed through and been subjected to all the conditions of a complete human life from birth to old age and death.587 Jesus Christ is therefore the Son of God who has really become the Son of man; and these are not two Christs but one, in whom the Logos is permanently united with humanity.588 Irenæus called this union “union of the Word of God with the creature” (“adunitio verbi dei ad plasma”)589 and “blending and communion of God and man” (“commixtio et communio dei et hominis”)590 279without thereby describing it any more clearly.591 He views it as perfect, for, as a

particularly the case with Tertullian, who, moreover, in his earlier time had probably quite naïve Docetic ideas and really looked upon the humanity of Christ as only flesh. See Apolog. 21: “spiritum Christus cum verbo sponte dimisit, prævento carnificis officio.” Yet Irenæus in several passages spoke of Christ’s human soul (III. 22. 1: V. 1.1) as also did Melito (τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ ἀσάνταστον τῆς ψυχῆς Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ σώµατος, τῆς καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς ἀνθρωπίνης σύσεως Otto, l.c., IX, p. 415) and Tertullian (de carne 10 ff. 13; de resurr. 53). What we possess in virtue of the creation was assumed by Christ (Iren., l.c., III. 22. 2.) Moreover, Tertullian already examined how the case stands with sin in relation to the flesh of Christ. In opposition to the opinion of the heretic Alexander, that the Catholics believe Jesus assumed earthly flesh in order to destroy the flesh of sin in himself, he shows that the Saviour’s flesh was without sin and that it is not admissible to ac7 teach the annihilation of Christ’s flesh (de carne 16; see also Irenæus V. 14. 2, 3): “Christ by taking to himself our flesh has made it his own, that is, he has made it sinless.” It was again passages from Paul (Rom. VIII. 3 and Ephes. II. 15) that gave occasion to this discussion. With respect to the opinion that it may be with the flesh of Christ as it is with the flesh of angels who appear, Tertullian remarks (de carne 6) that no angel came to die; that which dies must be born; the Son of God came to die. 587 This conception was peculiar to Irenæus, and for good reasons was not repeated in succeeding times; see II. 22: III. 17. 4. From it also Irenæus already inferred the necessity of the death of Christ and his abode in the lower world, V. 31. 1, 2. Here we trace the influence of the recapitulation idea. It has indeed been asserted (very energetically by Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 73 f.) that the Christ of Irenæus was not a personal man, but only possessed humanity. But that is decidedly incorrect, the truth merely being that Irenæus did not draw all the inferences from the personal humanity of Christ. 588 See Iren. V. 31. 2: “Surgens in came sic ascendit ad patrem.” Tertullian, de carne 24: “Bene quod idem veniet de cælis qui est passus . . . et agnoscent qui eum confixerunt, utique ipsam carnem in quam sævierunt, sine qua nec ipse esse poterit et agnosci;” see also what follows. 589 See Iren. IV. 33. 11. 590 See Iren. IV. 20. 4; see also III. 19. 1. 591 He always posits the unity in the form of a confession without describing it. See III. 16. 6, which passage may here stand for many. “Verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster, qui et passus est pro nobis et ressurrexit

rule, he will not listen to any separation of what was done by the man Jesus and by God the Word.592 The explicit formula of two substances or natures in Christ is not found in Irenæus; but Tertullian already used it. It never 280occurred to the former, just because he was not here speaking as a theologian, but expressing his belief. 58c 593 In his utterances about the God-man Tertullian

propter nos . . . Unus igitur deus pater, quemadmodum ostendimus, et unus Christus Iesus dominus noster, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo.” V. 18.1: “Ipsum verbum dei incarnatum suspensum est super lignum.” 566 592Here Irenæus was able to adopt the old formula “God has suffered” and the like; so also Melito, see Otto l.c., IX. p. 416: ὁ Θεὸς πέπονθεν ὑπὸ δεξιᾶς Ἰσραηλιτιδος (p. 422): “Quidnam est hoc novum mysterium? iudex iudicatur et quietus est; invisibilis videtur neque erubescit: incomprehensibilis prehenditur neque indignatur, incommensurabilis mensuratur neque repugnat; impassibilis patitur neque ulciscitur; immortalis moritur, neque respondit verbum, cœlestis sepelitur et id fert.” But let us note that these are not “doctrines”, but testimonies to the faith, as they were always worded from the beginning and such as could, if need were, be adapted to any Christology. Though Melito in a fragment whose genuineness is not universally admitted (Otto, l.c., p. 415 sq.) declared in opposition to Marcion, that Christ proved his humanity to the world in the 30 years before his baptism; but showed the divine nature concealed in his human nature during the 3 years of his ministry, he did not for all that mean to imply that Jesus’ divinity and humanity are in any way separated. But, though Irenæus inveighed so violently against 564 the “Gnostic” separation of Jesus and Christ (see particularly III. 16. 2, where most weight is laid on the fact that we do not find in Matth.: “Iesu generatio sic erat” but “Christi generatio sic erat”), there is no doubt that in some passages he himself could not help unfolding a speculation according to which the predicates applying to the human nature of Jesus do not also hold good of his divinity, in fact he actually betrayed a view of Christ inconsistent with the conception of the Saviour’s person as a perfect unity. We can indeed only trace this view in his writings in the form of an undercurrent, and what led to it will be discussed further on. Both he and Melito, as a rule adhered to the simple “filius dei filius hominis factus” and did not perceive any problem here, because to them the disunion prevailing in the world and in humanity was the difficult question that appeared to be solved through this very divine manhood. How closely Melito agreed with Irenæus is shown not only by the proposition (p. 419): “Propterea misit pater filium suum e cœlo sine corpore (this is said in opposition to the Valentinian view), ut, postquam incarnatus esset in, utero virginis et natus esset homo, vivificaret hominem et colligeret membra eius quæ mors disperserat, quum hominem divideret,” but also by the “propter hominem i 564 udicatus est iudex, impassibilis passus est?” (l.c.). 593 The concepts employed by Irenæus are deus, verbum, filius dei, homo, filius hominis, plasma dei. What perhaps hindered the development of that formula in his case

closely imitates Irenæus. Like the latter he uses the expression “man united with God” (“homo deo mixtus”)594 and like him he applies the predicates of the man to the Son of God.595 But he goes further, or rather, in the interest of formal clearness, he expresses the mystery in a manner which shows that he did not fully realise the religious significance of the proposition, “the Son of God made Son of man” (“filius dei filius hominis factus”). He speaks of a “corporal and spiritual, i.e., divine, substanc ab3 e of the Lord”, (“corporalis et spiritalis [i.e., divina] substantia domini”)596 of “either substance of the flesh and spirit of Christ” (“utraque substantia et carnis et spiritus Christi”), of the “creation of two substances which Christ himself also possesses”, (“conditio duarum substantiarum, quas Christus et ipse gestat”)597 and of 281the “twofold condition not blended but united in one personGod and man” (“duplex status non confusus sed conjunctus in una persona — deus et homo”.598 Here we already have in a complete

was the circumstance of his viewing Christ, though he had assumed the plasma dei, humanity, as a personal man who (for the sake of the recapitulation theory) not only had a human nature but was obliged to live through a complete human life. The fragment attributed to Irenæus (Harvey II., p. 493) in which occur the words, τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου ἑνώοει τῇ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν φυσικῇ ἑνωθέντος τῇ σακρί, is by no means genuine. How we are to understand the words: ἵνα ἐξ ἀµφοτέρων τὸ περιφανὲς τῶν φύσεων παραδειχθῇ in fragment VIII. (Harvey II., p. 479), and whether this piece belongs to Irenæus, is uncertain. Tha a9b t Melito (assuming the genuineness of the fragment) has the formula of the two natures need excite no surprise; for (1) Melito was also a philosopher, which Irenæus was not, and (2) it is found in Tertullian, whose doctrines can be shown to be closely connected with those of Melito (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 249 f.). If that fragment is genuine Melito is the first Church teacher who has spoken of two natures. 594 See Apol. 21: “verbum caro figuratus . . . homo deo mixtus; adv. Marc. II. 27: “filius dei miscens in semetipso hominem et deum;” de carne 15: “homo deo mixtus;” 18: “sic homo cum deo, dum caro hominis cum spiritu dei.” On the Christology of Tertullian cf. Schulz, Gottheit Christi, p. 74 ff. 595 De carne 5: “Crucifixus est dei filius, non pudet quia pudendum est; et mortuus est dei filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile est;” but compare the whole book; c. 5 init.: “deus crucifixus” “nasci se voluit deus”. De pat. 3: “nasci se deus in utero patitur.” The formula: “ὁ γεννηθείς, ὁµεγας Θεός is also found in Sibyll. VII. 24. 596 De carne 1, cf. ad nat. II. 4: “ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione substantiæ.” 597 De carne 18 fin. 591 598Adv. Prax. 27: “Sed enim invenimus illum directo et deum et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente (Ps. LXXXVII. 5) . . . hic erit homo et filius hominis, qui definitus est filius dei secundum spiritum . . . Videmus duplicem statum,

form the later Chalcedonian formula of the two substances in one person.599 At the same time, however, we can clearly see that Tertullian went beyond Irenæus in his exposition.600 He was, moreover, impelled to combat an antagonistic principle. Irenæus had as yet no occasion to explain in detail that the proposition “the Word became flesh” (“verbum caro 282factum”) denoted no transformation. That he excludes the idea of change, and that he puts stress on the Logos’ assumption of flesh from the Virgin is shown by many passages. 554 1 Tertullian, on the other hand, was in the first place confronted by (Gnostic) opponents who understood John’s statement in the sense of the Word’s transforming himself

non confusum sed coniunctum in una persona deum et hominem Iesum. De Christo autem differo. Et adeo salva est utriusque proprietas substantiæ, ut et spiritus res suas egerit in illo, id est virtutes et opera et signa, et caro passiones suas functa sit, esuriens sub diabolo . . . denique et mortua est. Quodsi tertium quid esset, ex utroque confusum, ut electrum, non tam distincta documenta parerent utriusque substantiæ.” In what follows the actus utriusque substantiæ are sharply demarcated: “ambæ substantiæ in statu suo quæque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operæ et exitus sui occurrerunt . . . neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in uno plane esse possunt.” See also c. 29: “Quamquam cum duæ substantiæ censeantur in Chri 564 sto Iesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam” etc. 599 Of this in a future volume. Here also two substances in Christ are always spoken of (there are virtually three, since, according to de anima 35, men have already two substances in themselves). I know only one passage where Tertullian speaks of natures in reference to Christ, and this passage in reality proves nothing; de carne 5: “Itaque utriusque substantiæ census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem” etc. Then: “Quæ proprietas conditionum, divinæ et humanæ, æqua utique naturæ cuiusque veritate disjuncta est.” 600 In the West up to the time of Leo I. the formula “de 52c us et homo”, or, after Tertullian’s time “duæ substantiæ”, was always a simple expression of the facts acknowledged in the Symbol, and not a speculation derived from the doctrine of redemption. This is shown just from the fact of stress being laid on the unmixedness. With this was associated a theoretic and apologetic interest on the part of theologians, so that they began to dwell at greater length on the unmixedness after the appearance of that Patripassianism, which professed to recognise the filius dei in the caro, that is in the deus so far as he is incarnatus or has changed himself into flesh. As to Tertullian’s opposition to this view see what follows. In contradistinction to this Western formula the monophysite one was calculated to satisfy both the salvation interest and the understanding. The Chalcedonian creed, as is admitted by Schulz, l.c., pp. 64 ff., 71 ff., is consequently to be explained from Tertullian’s view, not from that of the Alexandrians. Our readers will excuse us for thus anticipating. ad6 601“Quare,” says Irenæus III. 21. 10 — “igitur non iterum sumpsit limum deus sed ex Maria operatus est plasmationem fieri? Ut non alia plasmatio fieret neque alia, esset plasmatio quæ salvaretur, sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudine?”

into flesh, and therefore argued against the “assumption of flesh from the Virgin” (“assumptio carnis ex virgine”);602 and, in the second place, he had to do with Catholic Christians who indeed admitted the birth from the Virgin, but likewise assumed a change of God into flesh, and declared the God thus invested with flesh to be the Son.603 In this connection the same Tertullian, who in the Church laid great weight on formulæ like “the crucified God”, “God consented to be born” (“ aed deus crucifixus”, “nasci se voluit deus”) and who, impelled by opposition to Marcion and by his apologetic interest, distinguished the Son as capable of suffering from God the Father who is impassible, and imputed to him human weaknesses — which was already a further step, — sharply emphasised the “distinct function” (“distincte agere”) of the two substances in Christ and thus separated the persons. With Tertullian the interest in the Logos doctrine, on the one hand, and in the real humanity, on the other, laid the basis of that conception of Christology in accordance with which the unity of the person is nothing more than an assertion. The “deus factus homo” (“verbum caro factus”) presents quite insuperable difficulties, as soon as “theology” can no longer be banished. Tertullian smoothed over these difficulties by juristic distinctions, 283for all his elucidations of “substance” and “person” are of this nature. A somewhat paradoxical result of the defence of the Logos doctrine in the struggle against the “Patripassians” was the increased emphasis that now began to be laid on the integrity and independence of the human nature in Christ. If the only essential result of the struggle with Gnosticism was to assert the substantial reality of Christ’s body, it was Tertullian who distinguished what Christ did as man from what he did as God in order to prove that he was not a tertium quid. The discriminating intellect which was forced to receive a doctrine as a problem could not proceed otherwise. But, even before the struggle with Modalism, elements were present which repressed the naïve confidence of the utterances about the God-man. If I judge rightly, there were two features in Irenæus both of which resulted in a splitting up of the

602

See de carne 18. Oehler has misunderstood the passage and therefore mispointed it. It is as follows: “Vox ista (Joh. I. 14) quid caro factum sit contestatur, nec tamen periclitatur, quasi statim aliud sit (verbum), factum caro, et non verbum . . . Cum scriptura non dicat nisi quod factum sit, non et unde sit factum, ergo ex alio, non ex semetipso suggerit factum” etc. 603 Adv. Prax. 27 sq. In de carne 3 sq. and elsewhere Tertullian indeed argues against Marcion that God in contradistinction to all creatures can transform himself into anything and yet remain God. Hence we are not to think of a transformation in the strict sense, but of an adunitio.

conception of the perfect unity of Christ’s person. The first was the intellectual contemplation of the perfect humanity of Jesus, the second was found in certain Old and New Testament texts and the tradition connected with these.604 With regard to the first we may point out that Irenæus indeed regarded the union of the human and divine as possible only beca 564 use man, fashioned from the beginning by and after the pattern of the Logos, was an image of the latter and destined for union with God. Jesus Christ is the realisation of our possession of God’s image;605 but this 284thought, if no further developed, may be still united with the Logos doctrine in such a way that it does not interfere with it, but serves to confirm it. The case becomes different when it is not only shown that the Logos was always at work in the human race, but that humanity was gradually more and more accustomed by him (in the patriarchs and prophets) to communion with God,606 till at last the perfect man appeared in Christ. For in this view it might appear as if the really essential element in Jesus Christ were not the Logos, who has become the new Adam, but the new Adam, who possesses the Logos. That Irenæus, in explaining 564 the life of Jesus as that of Adam according to the recapitulation theory, here and there expresses himself as if he were speaking of the perfect man, is undeniable: If the acts of Christ are really to be what they seem, the man concerned in them must be placed in the foreground. But how little Irenæus thought of simply identifying the Logos with the perfect man is shown by the passage in III. 19. 3 where he writes: “ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἵνα πειρασθῇ, οὕτω καὶ λόγος ἵνα

604

So I think I ought to express myself. It does not seem to me proper to read a twofold conception into Irenæus’ Christological utterances under the pretext that Christ according to him was also the perfect man, with all the modern ideas that are usually associated with this thought (Böhringer, l.c., p. 542 ff., see Thomasius in opposition to him). af2 605See, e.g., V. 1. 3. Nitzch, Dogmengeschichte I. p. 309. Tertullian, in his own peculiar fashion, developed still more clearly the thought transmitted to him by Irenæus. See adv. Prax. 12: “Quibus faciebat deus hominem similem? Filio quidem, qui erat induturas hominem . . . Erat autem ad cuius imaginem faciebat, ad filii scilicet, qui homo futurus certior et verior imaginem suam fecerat dici hominem, qui tunc de limo formari habebat, imago veri et similitudo.” Adv. Marc. V. 8: “Creator Christum, sermonem suum, intuens hominem futurum, Faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram”; the same in de resurr. 6. But with Tertullian, too, this thought was a sudden idea and did not become the basis of further speculation. 606 Iren. IV. 14. 2 for further particulars on the point see below, where Irenæus’ views on the preparation of salvation are discussed. The views of Dorner, i.e., 492 f., that the union of the Son of God with humanity was a gradual process, are marred by some exaggerations, but are correct in their main idea.

δοξασθῇ. ἡσυχάζοντος µὲν τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῷ πειράζεσθαι καὶ σταυροῦσθαι καὶ ἀποθνήσκειν, συγγινοµένου δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν τῷ νικᾷν καὶ ὑποµένειν καὶ χρηστεύεσθαι καὶ ἀνίστασθαι καὶ ἀναλαµβάνεσθαι” (“For as he was man that he might be tempted, so also he was the Logos that he might be glorified. The Logos remained quiescent during the process of temptation, crucifixion and death, but aided the human nature when it conquered, and endured, and performed deeds of kindness, and rose again from the dead, and was received up into heaven”). From these words it is plain that Irenæu 564 s preferred to assume that the divine and human natures existed side by side, and consequently to split up the perfect unity, rather than teach a mere ideal manhood which would be at the same time a divine manhood. The “discrete agere” of the two natures proves that to Irenæus the perfect manhood of the incarnate Logos was merely an incidental quality he possessed. In reality the Logos is the perfect man 285in so far as his incarnation creates the perfect man and renders him possible, or the Logos always exists behind Christ the perfect man. But nevertheless this very way of viewing the humanity in Christ already compelled Irenæus to limit the “deus crucifixus” and to lay the foundation for Tertullian’s formulæ. With regard to the second point we may remark that there were not a few passages in both Testaments where Christ appeared as the man chosen by God and anointed with the Spirit. These as well as the corresponding language of the Church were the greatest difficulties in the way of the Logos Christology. Of what importance is an anointing with the Spirit to him who is God? What is the meaning of Christ being born by the power of the Holy Ghost? Is this formula compatible with the other, that he as the Logos himself assumed flesh from the Virgin etc.? Iren 564 æus no doubt felt these difficulties. He avoided them (III. 9. 3) by referring the bestowal of the Spirit at baptism merely to the man Jesus, and thus gave his own approval to that separation which appeared to him so reprehensible in the Gnostics.607 This separation indeed rescued to future ages the

607

“Secundum id quod verbum dei homo erat ex radice Iesse et filius Abrahæ, secundum hoc requiescebat spiritus dei super eum . . . secundum autem quod deus erat, non secundum gloriam iudicabat.” All that Irenæus said of the Spirit in reference to the person of Christ is to be understood merely as an exegetical necessity and must not be regarded as a theoretical principle (this is also the case with Tertullian). Dorner (l.c., p. 492 f.) has failed to see this, and on the basis of Irenæus’ incidental and involuntary utterances has attempted to found a speculation which represents the latter as meaning that the Holy Ghost was the medium which gradually united the Logos, who was exalted above growing and suffering, into one person with the free and growing man in Jesus Christ. In III. 12. 5-7 564 Irenæus, in conformity with Acts IV. 27: X. 38, used the

minimum of humanity that was to be retained in the person of Christ, but at the same time it laid the foundation of those differentiating speculations, which in succeeding times became the chief art and subject of dispute among theologians. The fact is that one cannot think in realistic fashion of the “deus homo factus” without thinking oneself out of it. It is exceedingly instructive 286to find that, in some passages, even a man like Irenæus was obliged to advance from the creed of the one God-man to the assumption of two independent existences in Christ, an assumption which in the earlier period has only “Gnostic” testimony in its favour. Before Irenæus’ day, in fact, none but these earliest theologians taught that Je 55f sus Christ had two natures, and ascribed to them particular actions and experiences. The Gnostic distinction of the Jesus patibilis (“capable of suffering”) and the Christ ἀπαθής (“impassible”) is essentially identical with the view set forth by Tertullian adv. Prax., and this proves that the doctrine of the two natures is simply nothing else than the Gnostic, i.e., scientific, adaptation of the formula: “filius dei filius hominis factus”. No doubt the old early-Christian interest still makes itself felt in the assertion of the one person. Accordingly we can have no historical understanding of Tertullian’s Christology or even of that of Irenæus without taking into account, as has not yet been done, the Gnostic distinction of Jesus and Christ, as well as those old traditional formulæ: “deus passus, deus crucifixus est” (“God suffered, God was crucified”).608

following other formulæ about Christ: ὁ Θεός, ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν κ.τ.λ., καὶ ὁ τούτου παῖς, ὅν ἔχρισεν ὁ Θεός — “Petrus Iesum ipsum esse filium dei testificatus est, qui et unctus Spiritu Sancto Iesus dicitur.” But Irenæus only expressed himself thus because of these passages, whereas Hippolytus not unfrequently calls Christ παῖς Θεοῦ. 608 On Hippolytus’ views of the incarnation see Dorner, l.c., I. p. 609 ff. — an account to be used with caution — and Overbeck, Quæst. Hippol. Specimen (1864), p. 47 sq. Unfortunately the latter has not carried out his intention to set forth the Christology of Hippolytus in detail. In the work quoted he has, however, shown how closely the latter in many respects has imitated Irenæus in this case also. It is instructive to see what Hippolytus has not adopted from Irenæus or what has become rudimentary with him. As a professional and learne ac8 d teacher he is at bottom nearer to the Apologists as regards his Christology than Irenæus. As an exegete and theological author he has much in common with the Alexandrians, just as he is in more than one respect a connecting link between Catholic controversialists like Irenæus and Catholic scholars like Origen. With the latter he moreover came into personal contact. See Hieron., de vir. inl. 61: Hieron., ep. ad Damas. edit. Venet. I., ep. 36 is also instructive. These brief remarks are, however, by no means intended to give countenance to Kimmel’s untenable hypothesis (de Hippol. vita et scriptis, 1839) that Hippolytus was an Alexandrian. In Hippolytus’ treatise c. Noët. we find positive teachings that remind us of Tertullian. An important passage is de

Christo et Antichristo 3 f.: εἷ γὰρ καὶ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ταῖς (Iren.), δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἡµεῖς τυχόντες τὴν διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος ἀναγέννησιν εἰς ἕνα τέλειον καὶ ἐπουράνιον ἄνθρωπον οἱ πάντες καταντῆσαι ἐπιθυµοῦµεν (see Iren.) Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄσαρκος ὢν (see Melito, Iren., Tertull.) ἐνεδύσατο τὴν ἁγίαν σάρκα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου· ὡς νύµφιος ἱµάτιον ἐξυφάνας ἑαυτῷ ἦν τῷ σταυρικῷ πάθει (Irenæus and Tertullian also make the death on the cross the object of the assumption of the flesh), ὅπως συγκεράσας τὸ θνητὸν ἡµῶν σῶµα τῇ ἑαυτοῦ δυνάµει καὶ µίξας (Iren., Tertull.) τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τὸ φθαρτὸν καὶ τὸ ἀσθενὲς τῷ ἰσχυρῷ σώσῃ τὸν ἀπολλύµενον ἄνθρωπον (Iren.). The succeeding disquisition deserves particular note, because it shows that Hippolytus has also borrowed from Irenæus the idea that the union of the Logos with humanity had already begun in a certain way in the prophets. Overbeck has rightly compared the ἀναπλάσσειν δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν Ἀδάµ, l.c., c. 26, with the ἀνακεφαλαιοῦν of Irenæus and l.c., c. 44, with Iren. II. 22, 4. For Hippolytus’ Christology Philosoph. X. 33, p. 542 and c. Noët. 10 ff. are the chief passages of additional importance. In the latter passage it is specially noteworthy that Hippolytus, in addition to many other deviations from Irenæus and Tertullian, insists on applying the full name of Son only to the incarnate Logos. In this we have a remnant of the more ancient idea and at the same time a co 564 ncession to his opponents who admitted an eternal Logos in God, but not a pre-temporal hypostasis of the Son. See c. 15: ποῖον οὖν υἱὸν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς διὰ τῆς σαρκὸς κατέπεµψεν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τὸν λόγον; ὃν υἱὸν προσηγόρευε διὰ τὸ µέλλειν αὐτὸν γενέσθαι. Καὶ τὸ κοινὸν ὅνοµα τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους φιλοστοργίας ἀναλαµβάνει ὁ υἱὸς (καίτοι τέλειος λόγος ὢν µονγενής). οὔδ᾽ ἡ σαρξ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν δίχα τοῦ λόγου ὑποστῆναι ἠδύνατο διὰ τὸ ἐν λόγῳ τὴν σύστασιν ἔχειν. οὕτως οὖν εἱς υἱὸς τέλειος Θεοῦ ἐφανερώθη. Hippolytus partook to a much greater extent than his teacher Irenæus of the tree of Greek knowledge and he accordingly speaks much more frequently than the latter of the “divine mysteries” of the faith. From the fragments and writings of this author that are preserved to us the existence of very various Christologies can be shown; and this proves that the Christology of his teacher Irenæus had not by any means yet become predominant in the Church, as we might suppose from the latter’s confident ton ac8 e. Hippolytus is an exegete and accordingly still yielded with comparative impartiality to the impressions conveyed by the several passages. For example he recognised the woman of Rev. XII. as the Church and the Logos as her child, and gave the following exegesis of the passage (de Christo et Antichristo 61): οὐ παύσεται ἡ ἐκκλησία γεννῶσα ἐκ καρδίας τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐν κόσµω ὑπὸ ἀπίστων διωκόµενον. “καὶ ἔτεκε”, φησίν, “υἱὸν ἄρρενα, ὃς µέλλει ποιµαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη”, τὸν ἄρρενα καὶ τέλειον Χριστόν, παῖδα Θεοῦ, Θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγελλόµενον ἀεί τίκτουσα ἡ ἐκκλησία διδάσκει πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. If we consider how Irenæus’ pupil is led by the text of the Holy Scriptures to the most diverse “doctrines”, we see how the “Scripture” theologians were the very ones who threatened the faith with the greatest corruptions. As the exegesis of the Valentinian schools became the mother of numerous self-contradictory Christologies, so the same result was threatened here — “doctrinæ inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt Gnosticorum.” From this standpoint Origen’s undertaking to subject the whole material of Biblical exegesis to a fixed theory appears in its historical greatness and importance.

acd But beyond doubt the prevailing conception of Christ in is the idea that there was the most complete unity between his divine and human natures; for it is the necessary consequence of his doctrine of redemption, that “Jesus Christus factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse”609 288(“Jesus Christ became what we are in order that we might become what he himself is”). But, in accordance with the recapitulation theory, Irenæus developed the “factus est quod sumus nos” in such a way that the individual portions of the life of Christ, as corresponding to what we ought to have done but did not do, receive the value of saving acts culminating in the death on the cross. Thus he not only regards Jesus Christ as “salvation and saviour and saving” (“salus et salvator et salutare”),610 but he also views his whole life as a work of salvation. All that has taken place between the conception and the ascension is an inner necessity in this work of salvation. This is a highly significant advance beyond the conception of the Apologists. Whilst in their case the history of Jesus seems to derive its importance almost solely from the fulfilment of prophecy, it acquires in Irenæus an independent and fundamental significance. Here also we recognise the influence of “Gnosis”, nay, in many places he uses the same expressions as the Gnostics, when he sees salvation accomplished, on the one hand, in the mere appearance of Jesus Christ as the second Adam, and on the other, in the simple acknowledgment of this appearance.611 But he is distinguished from them by the fact that he decidedly emphasises the personal acts of Jesus, and that he applies the benefits of Christ’s work not to the “pneumatic” ipso facto, 564 but in principle to all men, though practically only to those who listen to the Saviour’s words and adorn themselves with works of 287Irenæus

609

See other passages on p. 241, note 2. This is also reëchoed in Cyprian. See, for example, ep. 58. 6: “filius dei passus est ut nos filios dei faceret, et filius hominis (scil. the Christians) pati non vult esse dei filius possit.” 610 See III. 10. 3. 611 564 See the remarkable passage in IV. 36. 7: ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἥτις ἦν ἀσθαρσία. Another result of the Gnostic struggle is Irenæus’ raising the question as to what new thing the Lord has brought (IV. 34. 1): “Si autem subit vos huiusmodi sensus, ut dicatis: Quid igitur novi dominus attulit veniens? cognoscite, quoniam omnem novitatem attulit semetipsum afferens, qui fuerat annuntiatus.” The new thing is then defined thus: “Cum perceperunt eam quæ ab eo est libertatem et participant visionem eius et audierunt sermones eius et fruiti sunt muneribus ab eo, non iam requiretur, quid novius attulit rex super eos, qui annuntiaverunt advenum eius . . . Semetipsum enim attulit et ea quæ prædicta sunt bona.”

righteousness.612 Irenæus presented this work of Christ from various points of view. He regards it as 289the realisation of man’s original destiny, that is, being in communion with God, contemplating God, being imperishable like God; he moreover views it as the abolition of the consequences of Adam’s disobedience, and therefore as the redemption of men from death and the dominion of the devil; and finally he looks upon it as reconciliation with God. In all these conceptions Irenæus fell back upon the person of Christ. Here, at the same time, he is everywhere determined by the content of Biblical passages; in fact it is just the New Testament that leads him to these considerations, as was first the case with the Valentinians before him. How uncertain he still is as to their ecclesiastical importance is shown by the fact that he has no hesitation in reckoning the question, as to why the Word of God became flesh and suffered, among the artic 564 les that are a matter of consideration for science, but not for the simple faith (I. 10. 3). Here, therefore, he still maintains the archaic standpoint according to which it is sufficient to adhere to the baptismal confession and wait for the second coming of Christ along with the resurrection of the body. On the other hand, Irenæus did not merely confine himself to describing the fact of redemption, its content and its consequences; but he also attempted to explain the peculiar nature of this redemption from the essence of God and the incapacity of man, thus solving the question “cur deus Homo” in the highest sense.613 Finally, he adopted from Paul the thought that Christ’s real work of salvation consists in his death on the cross; and so he tried to amalgamate the two propositions, “filius dei filius hominis factus est propter nos” (“the Son of God became Son of man for us”) and “filius dei passus est propter nos” (“the Son of God suffered for us”) as the most vital ones. He did not 564 , however, clearly show which 290of these doctrines is the more important. Here the speculation of Irenæus is already involved in

612

See IV. 36. 6: “Adhuc manifestavit oportere nos cum vocatione (i.e., µετὰ τὴν κλῆσιν) et iustitiæ operibus adornari, uti requiescat super nos spiritus dei” — we must pro ac8 vide ourselves with the wedding garment. 613 The incapacity of man is referred to in III. 18. 1: III. 21. 10; III. 21-23 shows that the same man that had fallen had to be led to communion with God; V. 21. 3: V. 24. 4 teach that man had to overcome the devil; the intrinsic necessity of God’s appearing as Redeemer is treated of in III. 23. 1: “Si Adam iam non reverteretur ad vitam, sed in totum proiectus esset morti, victus esset dens et superasset serpentis nequitia voluntatem dei. Sed quoniam deus invictus et magnanimis est, magnanimem quidem se exhibuit etc.” That the accomplishment of salvation must be effected in a righteous manner, and therefore be as much a proof of the righteousness as of the immeasurable love and mercy of God, is shown in V. 1. 1: V. 21.

the same ambiguity as was destined to be the permanent characteristic of Church speculation as to Christ’s work in succeeding times. For on the one hand, Paul led one to lay all the emphasis on the death on the cross, and on the other, the logical result of dogmatic thinking only pointed to the appearance of God in the flesh, but not to a particular work of Christ that had not been already involved in the appearance of the Divine Teacher himself. Still, Irenæus contrived to reconcile the discrepancy better than his successors, because, being in earnest with his idea of Christ as the second Adam, he was able to contemplate the whole life of Jesus as redemption in so far as he conceived it as a recapitulation. We see this at once not only from his conception of the virgin birth as a fact of salvation, but also from his way of describing redemption as deliverance from the devil. For, as the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary is the recapitulating counterpart of Adam’s birth from the virgin earth, and as the obedience of the mother of Jesus is the counterpart of Eve’s disobedience, so the story of Jesus’ temptation is to him the recapitulating counterpart of the story of Adam’s te 54c mptation. In the way that Jesus overcame the temptation by the devil (Matt. IV.) Irenæus already sees the redemption of mankind from Satan; even then Jesus bound the strong one. But, whereas the devil seized upon man unlawfully and deceitfully, no in-justice, untruthfulness, or violence is displayed in the means by which Jesus resisted Satan’s temptation.614 As yet Irenæus is quite as free from the thought that the devil has real rights upon man, as he is from the immoral idea that God accomplished his work of redemption by an act of deceit. But, on the strength of Pauline passages, many of his teachings rather view redemption from the devil as accomplished by the death of Christ, and accordingly represent this death as a ransom paid to the “apostasy” for men who had fallen into captivity. He did not, however, develop this thought any further. adf 1

614

Irenæus demonstrated the view in V. 21 in great detail. According to his ideas in this chapter we must include the history of the temptation in the regula fidei. 615 See particularly V. I. 1: “Verbum potens et homo verus sanguine suo ratio nabiliter redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt . . . dei verbum non deficiens in sua iustitia, iuste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quemadmodum illa initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, accipere quæ vellet, ut neque quod est iustum confringeretur neque antiqua plasmatio dei deperiret.” We see that the idea of the blood of Christ as ransom does not possess with Irenæus the value of a fully developed theory, but is suggestive of one. But even in this fo 564 rm it appeared suspicious and, in fact, a Marcionite idea to a Catholic teacher of the 3rd century. Pseudo-

291

His idea of the reconciliation of God is just as rudimentary, and merely suggested by Biblical passages. He sometimes saw the means of reconciliation solely in obedience and in the righteous flesh” as such, at other times in the “wood.” Here also the recapitulation theory again appears: through disobedience at the tree Adam became a debtor to God, and through obedience at the tree God is reconciled.616 But teachings as to vicarious suffering on the part of Christ are not found in Irenæus, 292and his death is seldom presented from the point of view of a sacrifice offered to God.617 According to this author the reconciliation virtually consists in Christ’s restoring man to communion and friendship

Origen (Adamantius) opposed it by the following argument (De recta in deum fide, edid Wetstein 1673, Sectio I. p. 38 sq. See Rufinus’ translation in Caspari’s Kirchenhistorische Anecdota Vol. I. 1883, p. 34 sq., which in many places has preserved the right sense): Τὸν πριωµενον ἔσης, εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν; ὁ πεπρακὼς τὶς ἐστιν; ἦλθεν εἰς σὲ ὁ ἀπλοῦς µῠθος· ὅτι ὁ πωλῶν καὶ ὁ ἀγοράζων ἀδελσοί εἰσιν; εἰ κακός ὤν ὁ διάβολος τῷ ἀγαθῷ πέπρακεν, οὐκ ἔστι κακὸς ἀλλὰ ἀγαθός· ὁ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς σθονήσας τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, νῦν ὀυκ ἔτι ὑπὸ σθόνου ἄγεται, τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὴν νοµὴν παραδούς. ἔσται οὖν δίκαιος ὁ τοῦ σθόνου καὶ παντὸς κακοῦ παυσάµενος. αὐτὸς γοῦν ὁ Θεὸς εὑρίσκεται πωλήσας· µᾶλλον δὲ οἱ ἡµαρτηκότες ἑαυτοὺς ἀπηλλοτρίωσαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι διὰ τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἀυτῶν· πάλιν δὲ ἐλυ ab9 τρώθησαν διὰ τὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν ἀυτοῦ. τοῦτο γὰρ σήσιν ὁ προσήτης· Ταῖς ἁµαρτίαις ὑµῶν ἐπράθητε καὶ ταῖς ἀνοµίαις ἐξαπέστειλα τὴν µητέρα ὑµῶν. Καὶ ἄλλος πὰλιν· ∆ωρεὰν ἐπράθητε, καὶ οὐ µετὰ ἀργυρίου λυτρωθήσεσθε. Τὸ, οὐδὲ µετὰ ἀργυρίου· δηλονότι, τοῦ αἵµατος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. τοῦτο γὰρ σάσκει ὁ προσήτης (Isaiah, LIII. 5 follows). Ἐικὸς δὲ ὅτι κατὰ σὲ επρίατο δοὺς ἑαυτοῦ τὸ αἷµα· πῶς οὖν καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἡγείρετο; εἰ γὰρ ὁ λαβὼν τὴν τιµὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὸ αἷµα, ἀπέδωκεν, οὐκέτι ἐπώλησεν. Εὶ δὲ µὴ ἀπέδωκε, τῶς ἀνέστη Χριστός; οὐκέτι οὗν τό, Ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω λαβεῖν, ἵσταται; ὁ γοῦν διὰβολος κατέχει τὸ αἶµα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀντὶ τῆς τιµῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων; πολλὴ βλασσήµιος ἄνοια! σεῦ τῶν κακῶν! σεῦ τῶν κακῶν! Ἀπέθανεν, ἀνέστη ὡς δυνατὸς· ἔθηκεν ὅ ἔλαβεν· αὕτη ποία πρᾶσις; τοῦ προσήτου λέγοντος· Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεὸς καὶ διασκορπισθήτωσαν οἱ ἐχθροὶ ἀυτοῦ; Ὅπου ἀνδστασις, ἐκεῖ θάνατος! That is an argument as acute as it is true and victorious. 616 See Iren. V. 2, 3, 16. 3, 17-4. In III. 16. 9 he says: Christus per passionem reconciliavit nos deo.” It is moreover very instructive to compare the way in which Irenæus worked out the recapitulation theory with the old proof from prophecy (“this happened that the Scripture might be fulfilled”). Here we certainly have an advance; but at bottom the recapitulation theory may also be conceived as a modification of that proof. 55d 617See, e.g., IV. 5. 4: προθύµως Ἀβραὰµ τὸν ἴδιον µονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν παραχωρήσας θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ, ἵνα καὶ ὁ Θεὸς εὐδοκήσῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ σπέρµατος ἀυτοῦ παντὸς τὸν ἴδιον µονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν υἱὸν θύσίαν παρασχεῖν εἰς λύτρωσιν ἡµετέραν.

with God and procuring forgiveness of sins; he very seldom speaks of God being offended through Adam’s sin (V. 16. 3). But the incidental mention of the forgiveness of sins resulting from the redemption by Christ has not the meaning of an abolition of sin. He connects the redemption with this only in the form of Biblical and rhetorical phrases; for the vital point with him is the abolition of the consequences of sin, and particularly of the sentence of death.618 Here we have the transition to the conception of Christ’s work which makes this appear more as a completion than as a restoration. In this connection Irenæus employed the following categories: restoring of the likeness of God in humanity; abolition of death; connection and union of man with God; adoption of men as sons of God and as gods; imparting of the Spirit who now becomes accustomed to abide with men;619 imparting of a knowledge of God culminating in beholding him; bestowal of everlasting life. All these are only the different aspects of one and the same blessing, which, being of a divine order, could only be brought to us and implanted in our nature by God himself. But inasmuch as this view represents Christ not as performing a reconciling but a perfecting work, his acts are 293thrust more into the background; his work is contained in his constitution as the God-man. Hence this work has a universal significance for all men, not only as regards the present, but as regards the past from Adam downwards, in so far as they “according to their virtue in their generation have not only feared but also loved God, and have behaved justly and piously towards their neighbours, and have longed to see Christ and to hear his voice.”620 Those redeemed by

618

There are not a few passages where Irenæus said that Christ has annihilated sin, abolished Adam’s disobedience, and introduced righteousness through his obedience (III. 18. 6, 7: III. 20. 2: V. 16-21); but he only once tried to explain how that is to be conceived (III. 18. 7), and then merely reproduced Paul’s thoughts. ade 619 Irenæus has no hesitation in calling the Christian who has received the Spirit of God the perfect, the spiritual one, and in representing him, in contrast to the false Gnostic, as he who in truth judges all men, Jews, heathen, Marcionites, and Valentinians, but is himself judged by no one; see the great disquisition in IV. 33 and V. 9. 10. This true Gnostic, however, is only to be found where we meet with right faith in God the Creator, sure conviction with regard to the God-man Jesus Christ, true knowledge as regards the Holy Spirit and the economy of salvation, the apostolic doctrine, the right Church system in accordance with the episcopal succession, the intact Holy Scripture, and its uncorrupted text and interpretation (IV. 33. 7, 8). To him the true believer is the real Gnostic. 620 See IV. 22. In accordance with the recapitulation theory Christ must also have descended to the lower world. There he announced forgiveness of sins to the righteous, the patriarchs and prophets (IV. 27. 2). For this, however, Irenæus was not able to appeal

Jesus are immediately joined by him into a unity, into the true humanity, the Church, whose head he himself is.621 This Church is the communion of the Sons of God, who have attained to a contemplation of him and have been gifted with everlasting life. In this the work of Christ the God-man is fulfilled. In Tertullian and Hippolytus, as the result of New Testament exegesis, we again find the same aspects of Christ’s work as in Irenæus, only with them the mystical form of redemption recedes into the background.622

to Scripture texts, but only to statements of a presbyter. It is nevertheless expressly asserted, on the authority of Rom. III. 23, that these pre-Christian just men also could only receive justification and the light of salvation through the arrival of Christ among them. 621 See III. 16. 6: “In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei; et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans, uti sicut in supercælestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps est verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum primatum assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesiæ, universa attrahat ad semetipsum ap 564 to in tempore.” 622 There are innumerable passages where Tertullian has urged that the whole work of Christ is comprised in the death on the cross, and indeed that this death was the aim of Christ’s mission. See, e.g., de pat. 3: “Taceo quod figitur; in hoc enim venerat”; de bapt. 11: “Mors nostra dissolvi non potuit, nisi domini passione, nec vita restitui sine resurrectione ipsius”; adv. Marc. III. 8: “Si mendacium deprehenditur Christi caro . . . nec passiones Christi fidem merebuntur. Eversum est igitur totum dei opus. Totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors Christi, negatur, quam tam impresse apostolus demendat, utique veram, summum eam fundamentum evangelii constituens et salutis nostræ et prædictionis sum, 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4; he follows Paul here. But on the other hand he has also adopted from Irenæus the mystical conception of redemption — the constitution of Christ is the redemption — though with a rationalistic explanation. See adv. Marc. II. 27: “filius miscens in semetipso hominem ac8 et deum, ut tantum homini conferat, quantum deo detrahit. Conversabatur deus, ut homo divina agere doceretur. Ex æquo agebat deus cum homine, ut homo ex æquo agere cum deo posset.” Here therefore the meaning of the divine manhood of the Redeemer virtually amounts to divine teaching. In de resurr. 63 Christ is called “fidelissimus sequester dei et hominum, qui et homini deum et hominem deo reddet.” Note the future tense. It is the same with Hippolytus who in Philos. X. 34 represents the deification of men as the aim of redemption, but at the same time merely requires Christ as the lawgiver and teacher: “Καὶ ταῦτα µὲν ἐκσεύξῃ Θεὸν τὸν ὄντα διδαχθείς, ἕξεις δὲ ἀθάνατον τὸ σῶµα καὶ ἄσθαρτον ἅµα ψυχῇ, βασιλείαν ὀυρανῶν ἀπολήψῃ, ὁ ἐν γῇ βιοὺς καὶ ἐπουράνιον βασιλέα ἐπιγνούς, ἔσῃ δὲ ὁµιλητὴς Θεοῦ καὶ συγκληρονόµος Χριστοῦ, οὐκ ἐπιθυµίαις ἤ πάθεσι καὶ νόσοις δουλούµενος. Γέγονας γὰρ Θεός· ὅσα γὰρ ὑπέµεινας πάθη ἄνθρωπος ὤν, ταῦτα ἐδίδου, ὅτι ἄνθρωπος εἶ, ὅσα δὲ παρακολουθεῖ Θεῷ, ταῦτα παρέχειν ἐπήγγελται Θεὸς, ὅτι ἐθεοποιήθης, ἀθάνατος γεννηθείς. Τουτέστι τὸ Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, επιγνοὺς

τὸν πεποιηκότα Θεόν. Τὸ γὰρ ἐπιγνῶναι ἑαυτὸν ἐπιγνωσθῆναι συµβέβηκε τῷ καλουµένῳ ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ. Μὴ σιλεχθρήσητε τοίνυν ἑαυτοῖς, ἄνθρωποι, µηδὲ τὸ παλινδροµεῖν διστάσητε. Χριστὸς γὰρ ἐστιν ὁ κατὰ πάντων Θεός, ὃς τὴν ἁµαρτίαν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀποπλύνειν προέταξε, νέον τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀποτελῶν, εἰκόνα τοῦτον καλέσας ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, διὰ τύπου τὴν εἰς σὲ ἐπιδεικνύµενος στοργήν, οὗ προστάγµασιν ὑπακούσας σεµνοῖς, καὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἀγαθὸς γενόµενος µιµητής, ἔσῃ ὅµοιος ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ τιµηθείς. Οὐ γὰρ πτωχέυει Θεὸς καὶ σὲ Θεὸν ποιήσας εἰς δόξαν αὐτοῦ.” It is clear that with a conception like this, which became prevalent in the 3rd centur ac8 y, Christ’s death on the cross could have no proper significance; nothing but the Holy Scriptures preserved its importance. We may further remark that Tertullian used the expression “satisfacere deo” about men (see, e.g., de bapt. 20; de pud. 9), but, so far as I know, not about the work of Christ. This expression is very frequerit in Cyprian (for penances), and he also uses it about Christ. In both writers, moreover, we find “meritum” (eg. , Scorp. 6) and “promereri deum”. With them and with Novatian the idea of “culpa” is also more strongly emphasised than it is by the Eastern theologians. Cf. Novatian de trin. 10: “quoniam cum caro et sanguis non obtinere regnum dei scribitur, non carnis substantia damnata est, quæ divinis manibus ne periret, exstructa est, sed sola carnis culpa merito reprehensa est.” Tertullian de bapt. 5 says: “Exempto reatu eximitur et pœna.” On the other hand he speaks of fasting as “officia humiliationis”, through which we can “inlicere” God. Among these Western writers the thought that God’s anger must be appeased both by sacrifices and corresponding acts appears in a much more pronounced form than in Irenæus. This is explained by their ideas as practical churchmen and by their actual experiences in communities that were already of a very secular character. We may, moreover, point out in a general way that the views of Hippolytus are everywhere more strictly dependent on Scripture texts than those of Irenæus. That many of the latter’s speculations are not found in Hippolytus is simply explained by the fact that they have no clear scriptural basis; see Overbeck, Quæst. Hippol., Specimen p. 75, note 29. On a superficial reading Tertullian seems to have a greater variety of points of view than Irenæus; he has in truth fewer, he contrived to work the grains of gold transmitted to him in such a way as to make the form more valuable than the substance. But one idea of Tertullian, which is not found in Irenæus, and which in after times was to attain great importance in the East (after Origen’s day) and in the West (after the time of Ambrosius), may be further referred to. We mean the notion that Christ is the bridegroom and the human soul (and also the human body) the bride. This theologoumenon owes its origin to a combination of two older ones, and subsequently received its Biblical basis from the Song of Solomon. The first of these older theologoumena is the Greek philosophical notion that the divine Spirit is the bridegroom and husband of the human soul. See the Gnostics (e.g., the sublime description in the Excerpta ex Theodoto 27); Clem. ep. ad Jacob. 4. 6; as well as Tatian, Orat. 13; Tertull., de ani aa7 ma 41 fin.: “Sequitur animam nubentem spiritui caro; o beatum connubium”; and the still earlier Sap. Sal. VIII. 2 sq. An offensively realistic form of this image is found in Clem. Hom. III. 27: νύµφη γὰρ εστὶν ὁ πᾶς ἅνθρωπος, ὁπόταν τοῦ ἀληθοῦς προφήτου λευκῷ λόγῳ ἀληθείας σπειρόµενος φωτίζηται τὸν νοῦν. The second is the apostolic notion that the Church is the bride and the body of Christ. In the 2nd Epistle of Clement the latter

294

Nevertheless the eschatology as set forth by Irenæus in the fifth Book by no means corresponds to this conception of the work of Christ as a restoring and completing one; it rather appears as a remnant of antiquity directly opposed to the 295speculative interpretation of redemption, but protected by the regula fidei, the New Testament, especially Revelation, and the mater 564 ial hopes of the great majority of Christians. But it would be a great mistake to assume that Irenæus merely repeated the hopes of an earthly kingdom just because he still found them in tradition, and because they were completely rejected by the Gnostics and guaranteed by the regula and the New Testament.623 296The truth rather is that he as well as Melito, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Commodian, and Victorinus lived in these hopes no less than did Papias, the Asia Minor Presbyters and Justin.624 But this is the clearest proof theologoumenon is already applied in a modified form. Here it is said that humanity as the Church, that is human nature (the flesh), belongs to Christ as his Eve (c. 14; see also Ignat. ad Polyc. V. 2; Tertull. de monog. 11, and my notes on ∆ιδαχή XI. 11). The conclusion that could be drawn from this, and that seemed to have a basis in certain utterances of Jesus, viz., that the individual human soul together with the flesh is to be designated as the bride of Christ, was, so far as I know, first arrived at by Tertullian de resurr. 63: “Carnem et spiritum iam in semetipso Christus fœderavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum sponsæ comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis nomine sequetur animam caro . . . Caro est sponsa, quæ in Christo spiritum sponsum per sanguinem pacta est”; see also de virg. vel. 16. Notice, however, that Tertullian continually thinks of all souls together (all flesh together) rather than of the individual soul. 623 By the regula inasmuch as the words “from thence he will come to judge the quick and the dead” had a fixed place in the confessions, and the belief in the duplex adventus Christi formed one of the most important articles of Church belief in contradistinction to Judaism and Gnosticism (see the collection of passages in Hesse, “das Muratorische Fragment”, p. 112 f.). But the belief in the return of Christ to this world necessarily involved the hope of a kingdom of glory under Christ upon earth, and without this hope is merely a rhetorical flourish. adb 624 Cf. here the account already given in Book I., chap. 3, Vol. I., p. 167 ff., Book I., chap. 4, Vol. I., p. 261, Book II., chap. 3, Vol. I., p. 105 f. On Melito compare the testimony of Polycrates in Eusebius, H. E. V. 24. 5, and the title of his lost work πέρὶ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰωάννου.” Chiliastic ideas are also found in the epistle from Lyons in Eusebius, H. E. V. 1 sq. On Hippolytus see his work “de Christo et Antichristo” and Overbeck careful account (l.c., p. 70 sq.) of the agreement here existing between Irenæus and Hippolytus as well as of the latter’s chiliasm on which unfounded doubts have been cast. Overbeck has also, in my opinion, shown the probability of chiliastic portions having been removed at a later period both from Hippolytus’ book and the great work of Irenæus. The extensive fragments of Hippolytus’ commentary on Daniel are also to be compared (and especially the portions full of glowing hatred to

that all these theologians were but half-hearted in their theology, which was forced upon them, in defence of the traditional faith, by the historical situation in which they found themselves. The Christ, who will shortly come to overcome Antichrist, overthrow th 564 e Roman empire, establish in Jerusalem a kingdom of glory, and feed believers with the fat of a miraculously fruitful earth, is in fact a quite different being from the Christ who, as the incarnate 297God, has already virtually accomplished his work of imparting perfect knowledge and filling mankind with divine life and incorruptibility. The fact that the old Catholic Fathers have both Christs shows more clearly than any other the middle position that they occupy between the acutely hellenised Christianity of the theologians, i.e., the Gnostics, and the old tradition of the Church. We have indeed seen that the twofold conception of Christ and his work dates back to the time of the Apostles, for there is a vast difference between the Christ of Paul and the Christ of the supposedly inspired Jewish Apocalypses; and also that the agency in producing this conjunction may be traced back to the oldest time; but the union of a precise Christological Gnosis, such as we find in Irenæus and Tertullian, with the retention in their integrity of the imaginative series of thoughts about Antichrist, Christ as the warrior hero, the double resurrection, and the kingdom of glory in Jerusalem, is really a historical novelty. There is, however, no doubt that the strength of the old Catholic theology in opposition to the Gnostics l ab2 ies in the accomplishment of this union, which, on the basis of the New Testament, appeared to the Fathers

Rome lately discovered by Georgiades). With reference to Tertullian compare particularly the writings adv. Marc. III., adv. Jud., de resurrectione carnis, de anima, and the titles of the subsequently suppressed writings de paradiso and de spe fidelium. Further see Commodian, Carmen apolog., Lactantius, Instit. div., 1. VII., Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse. It is very remarkable that Cyprian already set chiliasm aside; cf. the conclusion of the second Book of the Testimonia and the few passages in which he quoted the last chapters of Revelation. The Apologists were silent about chiliastic hopes, Justin even denied them in Apol. I. 11, but, as we have remarked, he gives expression to them in the Dialogue and reckons them necessary to complete orthodoxy. The Pauline eschatology, especially several passages in 1 Cor. XV. (see particularly verse 50), caused great difficulties to the Fathers from Justin downwards. See Fragm. Justini IV. a Methodio supped. in Otto, Corp. Apol. III., p. 254, Iren. V. 9, Tertull. de resurr. 48 sq. According to Irenæus the heretics, who completely abandoned the early-Christian eschatology, appealed to 1 Cor. XV. 50. The idea of a kind of purgatory — a notion which does not originate with the realistic but with the philosophical eschatology — is quite plainly found in Tertullian, e.g., in de anima 57 and 58 (“modicum delictum illuc luendum”). He speaks in several passages of stages and different places of bliss; and this was a universally diffused idea (e.g., Scorp. 6).

possible and necessary. For it is not systematic consistency that secures the future of a religious conception within a church, but its elasticity, and its richness in dissimilar trains of thought. But no doubt this must be accompanied by a firm foundation, and this too the old Catholic Fathers possessed — the church system itself. As regards the details of the eschatological hopes, they were fully set forth by Irenæus himself in Book V. Apart from the belief that the returning Nero would be the Antichrist, an idea spread in the West during the third century by the Sibylline verses and proved from Revelation, the later teachers who preached chiliastic hopes did not seriously differ from the gallic bishop; hence the interpretation of Revelation is in its main features the same. It is enough therefore to refer to the fifth Book of Irenæus.625 There is

572

625

Irenæus begins with the resurrection of the body and the proofs of it (in opposition to Gnosticism). These proofs are taken from the omnipotence and goodness of God, the long life of the patriarchs, the translation of Enoch and Elijah, the preservation of Jonah and of the three men in the fiery furnace, the essential nature of man as a temple of God to which the body also belongs, and the resurrection of Christ (V. 3-7). But Irenæus sees the chief proof in the incarnation of Christ, in the dwelling of the Spirit with its gifts in us (V. 8-16), and in the feeding of our body with the holy eucharist (V. 2. 3).Then he discusses the defeat of Satan by Christ (V. 21-23), shows that the powers that be are set up by God, that the devil therefore manifestly lies in arrogating to himself the lordship of the world (V. 24), but that he acts as a rebel and robber in attempting to make himself master of it. This brings about the transition to Antichrist. The latter is possessed of the whole power of the devil, sums up in himself therefore all sin and wickedness, and pretends to be Lord and God. He is ac8 described in accordance with the Apocalypses of Daniel and John as well as according to Matth. XXIV. and 2nd Thessalonians. He is the product of the 4th Kingdom that is, the Roman empire; but at the same time springs from the tribe of Dan (V. 30. 2), and will take up his abode in Jerusalem etc. The returning Christ will destroy him, and the Christ will come back when 6000 years of the world’s history have elapsed; for “in as many days as the world was made, in so many thousands of years will it be ended” (V. 28. 3). The seventh day is then the great world Sabbath, during which Christ will reign with the saints of the first resurrection after the destruction of Antichrist. Irenæus expressly argued against such as pass for orthodox, but disregard the order of the progress of the righteous and know no stages of preparation for incorruptibility” (V. 31). By this he means such as assume that after death souls immediately pass to God. On the contrary he argues that these rather wait in a hidden place for the resurrection which takes place on the return of Christ after which the souls receive back their bodies and men now restored participate in the Saviour’s Kingdom (V. 31. 2). This Kingdom on earth precedes the universal judgment; “for it is just that they should also receive the fruits of their patience in the same creation in which they suffered tribulation”; moreover, the promise made to Abraham that Palestine would be given to him and to his seed, i.e., the Christians, must be fulfilled (V. 32). There they will eat and

no need to show in detail that 298chiliasm leads to a peculiar view of history, which is as much opposed to that resulting from the Gnostic theory of redemption, as this doctrine itself forbids the hope of a bliss to be realised in an earthly kingdom of glory. This is not the proper place to demonstrate to what extent the two have been blended, 299and how the chiliastic scheme of history has been emptied of its content and utilised in the service of theological apologetics. But the Gnostics were not the only opponents of chiliasm. Justin, even in his time, knew orthodox Christians who refused to believe in an earthly kingdom of Christ in Jerusalem, and Irenæus (V. 33 ff.), Tertullian, and Hippolytus626 expressly argued against these. Soon after the middle of the second century, we hear of an ecclesiastical party in Asia Minor, which not only repudiated chiliasm, but also rejected the Revelation of John as an untrustworthy book, and subjected it to sharp criticism. These were the so-called Alogi. ade 1 But in the second century such Christians were still in the minority in the Church. It was only in the course of the third century that chiliasm was almost completely ousted in the East. This was the result of the Montanistic controversy and the Alexandrian theology. In the West, however, it was only threatened. In this Church the first literary opponent of chiliasm and of the Apocalypse appears to have been the Roman Presbyter Caius. But his polemic did not prevail. On the other hand the learned bishops of the East in the third century used their utmost efforts to combat and extirpate chiliasm. The information given to us by Eusebius (H. E. VII. 24), from the letters of Dionysius of Alexandria, about that father’s struggles with whole communities in Egypt, who would not give up chiliasm, is of the highest interest. This account shews that wherever philosophical theology

drink with the Lord in the restored body (V. 33. 1), sitting at a table covered with food (V. 33. 2) and consuming the produce of the land, which the earth affords in miraculous fruitfulness. Here Irenæus appeals to alleged utterances of the Lord of which he had been informed by Papias (V. 33. 3, 4). The wheat will be so fat that lions lying peacefully beside the cattle will be able to feed themselves even on the chaff (V. 33. 3, 4). Such and similar promises are everywhere to be understood in a literal sense. Irenæus here expressly argues against any figurative interpretation (ibid. and V. 35). He therefore adopted the whole Jewish eschatology, the only difference being that he regards the Church as the seed of Abraham. The earthly Kingdom is then followed by the second resurrection, the general judgment, and the final end. 626 H 564 ippolytus in the lost book ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως. Perhaps we may also reckon Melito among the literary defenders of Chiliasm. 627 See Epiph., H. 51, who here falls back on Hippolytus.

had not yet made its way the chiliastic hopes were not only cherished and defended against being explained away, but were emphatically regarded as Christianity itself.628 Cultured 300theologians were able to achieve the union of chiliasm and religious philosophy; but the “simplices et idiotæ” could only understand the former. As the chiliastic hopes were gradually obliged to recede in exactly the same proportion as philosophic theology became naturalised, so also their subsidence denotes the progressive tutelage of the laity. The religion they under. stood was taken from them, and they received in return a faith they could not understand; in other words, the old faith and the old hopes decayed of themselves and the authority of a mysterious faith took their place. In this sense the extirpation or decay of chiliasm is perhaps the most momentous fact in the history of Christianity in the East. With chiliasm men also lost the living faith in the nearly impending return of Christ, and the consciousness that the prophetic spirit with its gifts is a real possession of Christendom. Such of the old hopes as remained were at most particoloured harmless fancies which, when allowed by theology, were permitted to be added to dogmatics. In the West, on the contrary, the millennial hopes retained their vigour during the whole third century; we know of no bishop there who would have opposed chiliasm. With this, however, was preserved ac8 a portion of the earliest Christianity which was to exercise its effects far beyond the time of Augustine. Finally, we have still to treat of the altered conceptions regarding the Old Testament which the creation of the New

628

In the Christian village communities of the district of Arsinoë the people would not part with chiliasm, and matters even went the length of an “apostasy” from the Alexandrian Church. A book by an Egyptian bishop, Nepos, entitled “Refutation of the allegorists” attained the highest repute. “They esteem the law and the prophets as nothing, neglect to follow the Gospels, think little of the Epistles of the Apostles, and on the contrary d ac8 eclare the doctrine set forth in this book to be a really great secret. They do not permit the simpler brethren among us to obtain a sublime and grand idea of the glorious and truly divine appearance of our Lord, of our resurrection from the dead as well as of the union and assimilation with him; but they persuade us to hope for things petty, perishable, and similar to the present in the kingdom of God.” So Dionysius expressed himself, and these words are highly characteristic of his own position and that of his opponents; for in fact the whole New Testament could not but be thrust into the background in cases where the chiliastic hopes were really adhered to. Dionysius asserts that he convinced these Churches by his lectures; but chiliasm and material religious ideas were still long preserved in the deserts of Egypt. They were cherished by the monks; hence Jewish Apocalypses accepted by Christians are preserved in the Coptic and Ethiopian languages.

produced among the early-Catholic Fathers. In the case of Barnabas and the Apologists we became acquainted with a theory of the Old Testament which represented it as the Christian 301book of revelation and accordingly subjected it throughout to an allegorical process. Here nothing specifically new could be pointed out as having been brought by Christ. Sharply opposed to this conception was that of Marcion, according to which the whole Old Testament was regarded as the proclamation of a Jewish God hostile to the God of redemption. The views of the majority of the Gnostics occupied a middle position between the two notions. These distinguished different components of the Old Testament, some of which they traced to the supreme God himself and others to intermediate and malevolent beings. In this way they both established a connection between the Old Testament, and the Christian revelation and contrived to show that the latter contained a specific novelty. This historico-critical conception, such as we specially see it in the epistle of Ptolemy to Flora, could not be accepted by the Church because it abolished strict monotheism and endangered the proof from prophecy. No doubt, however, we already find in Justin and others the beginning of a compromise, in so far as a distinction was made between the moral law of nature contained in the Old Testament — the Decalogue — and the ceremonial law; and in so far as the literal interpretation of the latter, for which a pedagogic significance was claimed, was allowed in addition to its typical or Christian sense. With this theory it was possible, on the one hand, to do some sort of justice to the historical position of the Jewish people, and on the other, though indeed in a meagre fashion, to give expression to the novelty of Christianity. The latter now appears as the new law or the law of freedom, in so far as the moral law of nature had been restored in its full purity without the burden of ceremonies, and a particular historical relation to God was allowed to the Jewish nation, though indeed more a wrathful than a covenant one. For the ceremonial regulations were conceived partly as tokens of the judgment on Israel, partly as concessions to the stiffneckedness of the people in order to protect them from the worst evil, polytheism. Now the struggle with the Gnostics and Marcion, and the creation of a New Te 564 stament had necessarily a double consequence. On the one hand, the proposition that the “Father of 302Jesus Christ is the creator of the world and the God of the Old Testament” required the strictest adherence to the unity of the two Testaments, so that the traditional apologetic view of the older book had to undergo the most rigid development; on the other hand, as soon as the New Testament was created, it was impossible to avoid seeing that this book was superior to the earlier one, and thus the theory of the novelty of the Christian doctrine worked out

by the Gnostics and Marcion had in some way or other to be set forth and demonstrated. We now see the old Catholic Fathers engaged in the solution of this twofold problem; and their method of accomplishing it has continued to be the prevailing one in all Churches up to the present time, in so far as the ecclesiastical and dogmatic practice still continues to exhibit the inconsistencies of treating the Old Testament as a Christian book in the strict sense of the word and yet elevating the New above it, of giving a typical interpretation to the ceremonial law and yet acknowledging that the Jewish people had a covenant with God. With regard to the first point, viz., the maintenance of the unity of the two Testaments, IrenÍ ac7 us and Tertullian gave a most detailed demonstration of it in opposition to Marcion,629 and primarily indeed with the same means as the older teachers had already used. It is Christ that prophesied and appeared in the Old Testament; he is the householder who produced both Old and New Testaments.630 Moreover, as the two have the same origin, their meaning is also the same. Like Barnabas the early-Catholic Fathers contrived to give all passages in the Old Testament a typical Christian sense: it is the same truth which we can learn from the prophets and again from Christ and the Apostles. With regard to the Old Testament the watchword is: “Seek the type” (“Typum quæras”).631 But they went 303a step further still. In opposition to Marcion’s antitheses and his demonstration that the God of the Old Testament is a petty being and has enjoined petty, external observances, they seek to show in syntheses that the same may be said of the New. (See Irenæus IV. 21-36). The effort of the older teachers to exclude everything outward and ceremonial is no longer met with to the same extent in Irenæus and Tertullian, at least when they are arguing and defending their position against the Gnostics. This has to be explained by two causes. In the first place Judaism (and Jewish Christianity) was at bottom no longer an enemy to be feared; they therefore ceased to make such efforts to avoid the “Jewish” conception of the Old Testament. Irenæus, for example, emphasised in the most naïve manner the observance of the Old Testament law by the early Apostles and also by Paul. This is to him a complete proof that they did not separate the Old

629

See Irenæus lib. IV. and Tertull. adv. Marc. lib. II. and III. It would be superfluous to quote passages here; two may stand for all. Iren. IV. 9. 1: “Utraque testamenta unus et idem paterfamilias produxit, verbum dei, dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui et Abrahæ et Moysi collocutus est.” Both Testaments are “unius et eiusdem substantiæ.” IV. 2. 3: “Moysis literæ sunt verba Christi.” 631 See Iren. IV. 31. 1. 630

Testament God from the Christian Deity.632 556 In connection with this we observe that the radical antijudaism of the earliest period more and more ceases. Irenæus and Tertullian admitted that the Jewish nation had a covenant with God and that the literal interpretation of the Old Testament was justifiable. Both repeatedly testified that the Jews had the right doctrine and that they only lacked the knowledge of the Son. These thoughts indeed do not attain clear expression with them because their works contain no systematic discussions involving these principles. In the second place the Church itself had become an institution where sacred ceremonial injunctions were necessary; and, in order to find a basis for these, they had to fall back on Old Testament commandments (see Vol. I., chap. 6, p. 291 ff.). In Tertullian we find this only in its most rudimentary form;633 but in 304the course of the third century these needs grew mightily634 and were satisfied. In this way the Old Testament threatened to become an authentic book of revelation to the Church, and that in a quite different and much more dangerous sense than was formerly the case with the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists. With reference to the second point, we may remark that just when the decay of antijudaism, the polemic against Marcion, and the new needs of the ecclesiastical system threatened the Church with an estimate of the Old Testament hitherto unheard of, the latter was nevertheless thrust back by the creation and authority of the New Testament, and this consequently revived the uncertain position in which the sacred book was henceforth to remain. Here also, as in every other case, the development in the Church ends with the complexus oppositorum, which nowhere allows all the conclusions to be drawn, but offers the great advantage of removing every perplexity up to a certain point. The early-Catholic Fathers adopted from Justin the distinction between the Decalogue, as the moral law of nature, and the ceremonial law; whilst the

632

Iren. III. 12. 15 (on Gal. I 55b I. 11 f.): Sic apostoli, quos universi actus et universæ doctrinæ dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant circa dispositionem legis, quæ est secundum Moysem, ab uno et eodem significantes esse deo”; see Overbeck “Ueber die Auffassung des Streits des Paulus mit Petrus bei den Kirchenvätern,” 1877, p. 8 f. Similar remarks are frequent in Irenæus. 633 Cf., e.g., de monog. 7: “Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogamiæ debitores, ex pristina dei lege, quæ nos tunc in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit.” Here also Tertullian’s Montanism had an effect. Though conceiving the directions of the Paraclete as new legislation, the Montanists would not renounce the view that these laws were in some way already indicated in the written documents of revelation. 634 Very much may be made out with regard to this from Origen’s works and the later literature, particularly from Commodian and the Apostolic Constitutions, lib. I.-VI.

oldest theologians (the Gnostics) and the New Testament suggested to them the thought of the (relative) novelty of Christianity and therefore also of the New Testament. Like Marcion they acknowledged the literal sense of the ceremonial law and God’s covenant with the Jews; and they sought to sum up and harmonise all these features in the thought of an economy of salvation and of a history of salvation. This economy and history of salvation which contained the conception of a divine accommodation and pedagogy, and which accordingly distinguished between constituent parts of different degrees of value (in the Old Testament also), is the great result presented in the main work of Irenæus and accepted by Tertullian. It is to exist beside the proof from prophecy without modifying it;635 and thus appears as something intermediate 305between the Valentinian conception that destroyed the unity of origin of the Old Testament and the old idea which neither acknowledged various constituents in the book nor recognised the peculiarities of Christianity. We are therefore justified in regarding this history of salvation approved by the Church, as well as the theological propositions of Irenæus and Tertullia 54b n generally, as a Gnosis “toned down” and reconciled with Monotheism. This is shown too in the faint gleam of a historical view that still shines forth from this “history of salvation” as a remnant of that bright light which may be recognised in the Gnostic conception of the Old Testament.636 Still, it is a striking advance that Irenæus has made beyond Justin and especially beyond Barnabas. No doubt it is mythological history that appears in this history of salvation and the recapitulating story of Jesus with its saving facts that is associated with it; and it is a view that is not even logically worked out, but ever and anon crossed by the proof from prophecy; yet for all that it is development and history. The fundamental features of Irenæus’ conception are as follow: The Mosaic law and the New Testament dispensation of grace both emanated from one and the same God, and were granted for the salvation of the human race in a form appropriate to the times. ae1 1 The two are in part different; but the difference must be

635

Where Christians needed the proof from prophecy or indulged in a devotional application of the Old Testament, everything indeed remained as before, and every Old Testament passage was taken for a Christian one, as has remained the case even to the present day. 636 With the chiliastic view of history this newly acquired theory has nothing in common. 637 Iren. III. 12. 11.

conceived as due to causes638 that do not affect the unity of the author and of the main points.639 We must make the nature of God and the nature of man our point of departure. God is always the same, man is ever advancing towards God; God is always the giver, man always the receiver;640 306God leads us ever to the highest goal; man, however, is not God from the beginning, but is destined to incorruptibility, which he is to attain step by step, advancing from the childhood stage to perfection (see above, p. 267 f.). This progress, conditioned by the nature and destination of man, is, however, dependent on the revelation of God by his Son, culminating in the incarnation of the latter and closing with the subsequent bestowal of the Spirit on the human race. In Irenæus therefore the place of the many different revelation-hypostases of the Valentinians is occupied by the one God, who stoops to the level of developing humanity, accommodates himself to it, guides it, and bestows on it increasing revelations of grace.641 The fundamental knowledge of God and the moral law of nature, i.e., natural morality, were already revealed to man and placed in his heart642 by the creator. He who preserves these, as for example the patriarchs did, is justified. (In this case Iren 561 æus leaves Adam’s sin entirely out of sight). But it was God’s will to bring men into a higher union with himself; wherefore his Son descended to men from the beginning and accustomed himself to dwell among them. The patriarchs loved God and refrained from injustice towards their neighbours; hence it was not necessary that they should be exhorted with the strict letter of the law, since they had the righteousness of the law in themselves.643 But, as far as the great majority of men are concerned, they wandered away from

638

See III. 12. 12. No commutatio agnitionis takes place, says Irenæus, but only an increased gift (IV. 11. 3); for the knowledge of God the Creator is “principium evangelii.” (III. 11. 7). 640 See IV. 11. 2 and other passages, e.g., IV. 20. 7: IV. 26. 1: IV. 37. 7: IV. 38. 1-4. 641 Several covenants I. 10. 3; four covenants (Adam, Noah, Moses, Christ) III. 11. 8; the two Testaments (Law and New Covenant) are very frequently mentioned. 642 This is very frequen e3e4 tly mentioned; see e.g., IV. 13. 1: “Et quia dominus naturalia legis, per quæ homo iustificatur, quæ etiam ante legisdationem custodiebant qui fide iustificabantur et placebant deo non dissolvit etc.” IV. 15. 1. 643 Irenæus, as a rule, views the patriarchs as perfect saints; see III. 11. 8: “Verbum dei illis quidem qui ante Moysem fuerunt patriarchis secundum divinitatem et gloriam colloquebatur”, and especially IV. 16. 3. As to the Son’s having descended from the beginning and having thus appeared to the patriarchs also, see IV. 6. 7. Not merely Abraham but all the other exponents of revelation knew both the Father and the Son. Nevertheless Christ was also obliged to descend to the lower world to the righteous, the prophets, and the patriarchs, in order to bring them forgiveness of sins (IV. 27. 2). 639

God and fell into the sorriest condition. From this moment Irenæus, keeping strictly to the Old Testament, only concerns himself with the Jewish people. These 307are to him the representatives of humanity. It is only at this period that the training of the human race is given to them; but it is really the Jewish nation that he keeps in view, and through this he differs very decidedly from such as Barnabas.644 ac3 When righteousness and love to God died out in Egypt, God led his people forth so that man might again become a disciple and imitator of God. He gave him the written law (the Decalogue), which contains nothing else than the moral law of nature that had fallen into oblivion.645 But when they made to themselves a golden calf and chose to be slaves rather than free men, then the Word, through the instrumentality of Moses, gave to them, as a particular addition, the commandments of slavery (the ceremonial law) in a form suitable for their training. These were bodily commandments of bondage which did not separate them from God, but held them in the yoke. The ceremonial law was thus a pedagogic means of preserving the people from idolatry; but it was at the same time a type of the future. Each constituent of the ceremonial law has this double signification, and both of these meanings originate with God, i.e., with Christ; for “how is Christ the end of the law, if he be not the beginning of it?” (“quomodo finis legis Christus, si non et initium eius esset”) IV. 12. 4. Everything in the law is therefore holy, and moreover we are only entitled to blame such portions of the history of the Jewish nation as Holy Scripture itself condemns. This nation was obliged to circumcise itself, keep Sabbaths, offer up sacrifices, and do whatever is related of it, so far as its action is not censured. All this belonged to the state of bondage in which men had a covenant with God and in which they also possessed 308the right faith in the one God and were taught before hand to follow his Son (IV. 12, 5; “lex prædocuit hominem sequi oportere Christum”). In addition to this, Christ continually manifested himself to the people in the prophets, through whom also he indicated the future and

644

On the contrary he agrees with the teachings of a presbyter, whom he frequently quotes in the 4th Book. To Irenæus the heathen are simply idolaters who have even forgotten the law written in the heart; wherefore the Jews stand much higher, for they only lacked the agnitio filii. See III. 5. 3: III. 10. 3: III. 12. 7 IV. 23, 24. Yet there is still a great want of clearness here. Irenæus cannot get rid of the following contradictions. The pre-Christian righteous know the Son and do not know him; they require the appearance of the Son and do not require it; and the agnitio filii seems sometimes a new, and in fact the decisive, veritas, and sometimes that involved in the knowledge of God the Creator. 645 Irenæus IV. 16. 3. See IV. 15. 1: “Decalogum si quis non fecerit, non habet salutem”.

prepared men for his appearance. In the prophets the Son of God accustomed men to be instruments of the Spirit of God and to have fellowship with the Father in them; and in them he habituated himself to enter bodily into humanity.646 Hereupon began the last stage, in which men, being now sufficiently trained, were to receive the “testamentum libertatis” and be adopted as Sons of God. By the union of the Son of God with the flesh the agnitio filii first became possible to all; that is the fundamental novelty. The next problem was to restore the law of freedom. Here a threefold process was necessary. In the first place the Law of Moses, the Decalogue, had been disfigured and blunted by the “traditio seniorum”. First of all then the pure moral law had to be restored; secondly, it was now necessary to extend and fulfil it by expressly searching out the inclinations of the heart in all cases, thus unveiling the law in its whole severity; and lastly the particularia legis, i.e., the law of bondage, had to be abolished. But in the latter 309connection Christ and the Apostles themselves avoided every transgression of the ceremonial law, in order to prove that this also had a divine origin. The non-observance of this law was first permitted to the Gentile Christians, Thus, no doubt, Christ himself is the end of the law, bu ac8 t only in so far as he has abolished the law of bondage and restored the moral law in its whole purity and severity, and given us himself. The question as to the difference between the New Testament and the Old is therefore answered by Irenæus in the following

646

As the Son has manifested the Father from of old, so also the law, and indeed even the ceremonial law, is to be traced back to him. See IV. 6. 7: IV. 12. 4: IV. 14. 2: “his qui inquieti erant in eremo dans aptissimam legem . . . per omnes transiens verbum omni conditioni congruentem et aptam legem conscribens”. IV. 4. 2. The law is a law of bondage; it was just in that capacity that it was necessary; see IV. 4. 1: IV. 9. 1: IV. 13. 2, 4: IV. 14. 3: IV. 15: IV. 16: IV. 32: IV. 36. A part of the commandments are concessions on account of hardness of heart (IV. 15. 2). But Irenæus still distinguishes very decidedly between the “people” and the prophets. This is a survival of the old view. The prophets he said knew very well of the coming of the Son of God and the granting of a new covenant (IV. 9. 3: IV. 20. 4, 5: IV. 33. 10); they understood what was typified by the ceremonial law, and to them accordingly the law had only a typical signification. Moreover, Christ himself came to them ever and anon through the prophetic spirit. The preparation for the new covenant is therefore found in the prophets and in the typical character of the old. Abraham has this peculiarity, that both Testaments were prefigured in him: the Testament of faith, because he was justified before his circumcision, and the Testament of the law. The latter occupied “the middle times”, and therefore come in between (IV. 25. 1). This is a Pauline thought, though otherwise indeed there is not much in Irenæus to remind us of Paul, because he used the moral categories, growth and training, instead of the religious ones, sin and grace.

manner. It consists (1) in the agnitio filii and consequent transformation of the slaves into children of God; and (2) in the restoration of the law, which is a law of freedom just because it excludes bodily commandments, and with stricter interpretation lays the whole stress on the inclinations of the heart.647 But in 310these two respects he finds a real addition, and hence, in his opinion, the Apostles stand higher than the prophets. He proves this higher position of the Apostles by a surprising interpretation of 1 Cor. XII. 28, conceiving the prophets named in that passage to be those of the Old Testament.648 He therefore views the two Testaments as of the same nature, but “greater is the legislation which confers liberty than that which brings bondage” (“maior est

647

The law, i.e., the ceremonial law, reaches down to John, IV. 4. 2. The New Testament is a law of freedom, because through it we are adopted as sons of God, III. 5. 3: III. 10. 5: III. 12. 5: III. 12. 14: III. 15. 3: IV. 9. 1, 2: IV. 1. 1: IV. 13. 2, 4: IV. 15. 1, 2: IV. 16. 5: IV. 18: IV. 32: IV. 34. 1: IV. 36. 2 Christ did not abolish the naturalia legis, the Decalogue, but extended and fulfilled them; here the old Gentile-Christian moral conception based on the Sermon on the Mount, prevails. Accordingly Irenæus now shows that in the case of the children of freedom the situation has become much more serious, and that the judgments are now much more threatening. Finally, he proves that the fulfilling, extending, and sharpening of the law form a contrast to the blunting of the natural moral law by the Pharisees and elders; see IV. 12. 1 ff.: “Austero dei præcepto miscent seniores aquatam traditionem”. IV. 13. 1. f.: “Christus naturalia legis (which are summed up in the commandment of love) extendit et implevit . . . plenitudo et extensio . . . necesse fuit, auferri quidem vincula servitutis, superextendi vero decreta libertatis”. That is proved in the next passage from the Sermon on the Mount: we must not only refrain from evil works, but also from evil desire. IV. 16. 5: “Hæc ergo, quæ in servitutem et in signum data sunt illis, circumscripsit novo libertatis testamento. Quæ autem naturalia et liberalia et communia omnium, auxit et dilatavit, sine invidia largiter donans hominibus per adoptionem, patrem scire deum . . . auxit autem etiam timorem: filios enim plus timere oportet quam servos”. IV. 27. 2. The new situation is a more serious one; the Old Testament believers have the death of Christ as an antidote for their sins, “propter eos vero, qui nunc peccant, Christus non iam morietur”. IV. 28. 1 f.: under the old covenant God punished “typice et temporaliter et mediocrius”, under the new, on the contrary, “vere et semper et austerius” . . . as under the new covenant “fides aucta est”, so also it is true that “diligentia conversationis adaucta est”. The imperfections of the law, the “particularia legis”, the law of bondage have been abolished by Christ, see specially IV. 16, 17, for the types are now fulfilled; but Christ and the Apostles did not transgress the law; freedom was first granted to the Gentile Christians (III. 12) and circumcision and foreskin united (III. 5. 3). But Irenæus also proved how little the old and new covenants contradict each other by showing that the latter also contains concessions that have been granted to the frailty of man; see IV. 15. 2 (1 Cor. VII.). 648 See III. 11. 4. There too we find it argued that John the Baptist was not merely a prophet, but also an Apostle.

legisdatio quæ in libertatem, quam quæ data est in servitutem”). Through the two covenants the accomplishment of salvation was to be hastened “for there is one salvation and one God; but the precepts that form man are numerous, and the steps that lead man to God are not a few; (“una est enim salus et unus deus; quæ autem formant hominem, præcepta multa et non pauci gradus, qui adducunt hominem ad deum”). A worldly king can increase his benefits to his subjects; and should it not also be lawful for God, though he is always the same, to honour continually with greater gifts those who are well pleasing to him? (IV. 9. 3). Irenæus makes no direct statement as to the further importance which the Jewish people have, and in any case regards them as of no consequence after the appearance of the covenant of freedom. Nor does this nation appear 544 any further even in the chiliastic train of thought. It furnishes the Antichrist and its holy city becomes the capital of Christ’s earthly kingdom; but the nation itself, which, according to this theory, had represented all mankind from Moses to Christ, just as if all men had been Jews, now entirely disappears.649 This conception, in spite of its want of stringency, made an immense impression, and has continued to prevail down to the present time. It has, however, been modified by a combination 311with the Augustinian doctrine of sin and grace. It was soon reckoned as Paul’s conception, to which in fact it has a distant relationship. Tertullian had already adopted it in its essential features, amplified it in some points, and, in accordance with his Montanist ideas, enriched it by adding a fourth stage (ab initio — Moses-Christ — Paraclete). But this addition was not accepted by the Church. ae8 1

649

From Irenæus’ statement in IV. 4 about the significance of the city of Jerusalem we can infer what he thought of the Jewish nation. Jerusalem is to him the vine-branch on which the fruit has grown; the latter having reached maturity, the branch is cut off and has no further importance. 650 No special treatment of Tertullian is required here, as he only differs from Irenæus in the additions he invented as a Montanist. Yet this is also prefigured in Irenæus’ view that the concessions of the Apostles had rendered the execution of the stern new law more easy. A few passages may be quoted here. De orat. 1: Quidquid retro fuerat, aut demutatum est (per Christum), ut circumcisio, aut suppletum ut reliqua lex, aut impletum ut prophetia, aut perfectum ut fides ipsa. Omnia de carnalibus in spiritalia renovavit nova dei gratia superducto evangelio, expunctore totius retro vetustatis.” (This differentiation strikingly reminds us of the letter of Ptolemy to Flora. Ptolemy distinguishes those parts of the law that originate with God, Moses, and the elders. As far as the divine law is concerned, he again distinguishes what Christ had to complete, what he had to supersede and what he had to spiritualise, that is, perficere, solvere, demutare). In the regula fidei

3. Results to Ecclesiastical Christianity, chiefly in the West, (Cyprian, Novatian). 312

3. Results to ecclesiastical Christianity.

(de præscr. 13): “Christus prædicavit novam legem et novam promissionem regni cœlorum”; see the discussions in adv. Marc. II., III., and adv. Iud.; de pat. 6: “amplianda adimplendaque lex.” Scorp. 3, 8, 9; ad uxor. 2; de monog. 7: “Et quoniam quidam interdum nihil sibi dicunt esse cum lege, quam Christus non dissolvit, sed adimplevit, interdum quæ volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that continually), plane et nos sic dicimus legem, ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum, quæ nec patres sustinere valuerunt, concesserint, quæ vero ad iustitiam spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum et ampliata.” That the new law of the new covenant is the moral law of nature in a stricter form, and that the concessions of the Apostle Paul cease in the age of the Paraclete, is a view we find still more strongly emphasised in the Montanist writings than in Irenæus. In ad uxor. 3 Tertullian had already said: “Quod permittitur, bonum non est,” and this proposition is the theme of many arguments in the Montanist writings. But the intention of finding a basis for the laws of the Paraclete, by showing that they existed in some fashion even in earlier times, involved Tertullian in many contradictions. It is evident from his writings that Montanists and Catholics in Carthage alternately reproached each other with judaising tendencies and an apostasy to heathen discipline and worship. Tertullian, in his enthusiasm for Christianity, came into conflict with all the authorities which he himself had set up. In the questions as to the relationship of the Old Testament to the New, of Christ to the Apostles, of the Apostles to each other, of the Paraclete to Christ and the Apostles, he was also of necessity involved in the greatest contradictions. This was the case not only because he went more into details than Irenæus; but, above all, because the chains into which he had thrown his Christianity were felt to be such by himself. This theologian had no greater opponent than himself, and nowhere perhaps is this so plain as in his attitude to the two Testaments. Here, in every question of detail, Tertullian really repudiated the proposition from which he starts. In reference to one point, namely, that the Law and the prophets extend down to John, see Nöldechen’s article in the Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1885, p. 333 f. On the one hand, in order to support certain trains of thought, Tertullian required the proposition that prophecy extended down to John (see also the Muratorian Fragment: completus numerus prophetarum”, Sibyll. I. 386: καὶ τότε δὴ παῦσις ἔσται µετέπειτα προφητῶν, scil. after Christ), and on the other, as a Montanist, he was obliged to assert the continued existence of prophecy. In like manner he sometimes ascribed to the Apostles a unique possession of the Holy Spirit, and at other times, adhering to a primitive Christian idea, he denied this thesis. Cf. also Barth “Tertullian’s Auffassung des Apostels Paulus und seines Verhältnisses zu den Uraposteln” (Jahrbuch für protestantische Theologie, Vol. III. p. 706 ff.). Tertullian strove to reconcile the principles of early Christianity with the authority of ecclesiastical tradition and philosophical apologetics. Separated from the general body of the Church, and making ever increasing sacrifices for the early-Christian enthusiasm, as he understood it, he wasted himself in the solution of this insoluble problem.

As we have shown, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus had no strictly systematised theology; they formulated theological propositions because their opponents were theologians. Hence the result of their labours, so far as this was accepted by the Western Church of the third century, does not appear in the adoption of a systematic philosophical dogmatic, but in theological fragments, namely, the rule of faith fixed and interpreted in an antignostic sense.651 As yet the rule of faith and theology nowhere came into collision in the Western Churches of the third century, because Irenæus and his younger contemporaries did not themselves notice any such discrepancies, but rather imagined all their teachings to be expositions of the faith itself, and did not trouble their heads about inconsistencies. If we 313wish to form a notion as to what ideas had become universally prevalent in the Church in the middle of the third century let us compare Cyprian’s work “Testimonia”, written for a layman, with Novatian’s work “De Trinitate”. In the “Testimonia” the doctrine of the two Testaments, as developed by Irenæus, forms the framework in which the individual dogmas are set. The doctrine of God, which should have been placed at the beginning, has been left out in this little book probably because the person addressed required no instruction on the point. Some of the dogmas already belong to philosophical theology in the strict sense of the word; in others we have merely a precise assertion of the truth of certain facts. All propositions are, however, supported by passages from the two Testaments and thereby proved.652 The theological counterpart to this is Novatian’s work “De Trinitate”. This first great Latin work that ap 564 peared in Rome is highly important. In regard to completeness, extent of Biblical proofs, and perhaps also its influence on succeeding times, it may in many respects be compared with Origen’s work περὶ ἀρχῶν. Otherwise indeed it differs as much from that work, as the sober, meagre theology of the West, devoid of philosophy and 651

In addition to this, however, they definitely established within the Church the idea that there is a “Christian” view in all spheres of life and in all questions of knowledge. Christianity appears expanded to an immense, immeasurable breadth. This is also Gnosticism. Thus Tertullian, after expressing various opinions about dreams, opens the 45th chapter of his work “de anima” with the words: “Tenemur hic de somniis quoque Christianam sententiam expromere”. Alongside of the antignostic rule of faith as the “doctrine” we find the casuistic system of morality and penance (the Church “disciplina”) with its media of almsgiving, fasting, and prayer; see Cypr, de op. et eleemos., but before that Hippol., Comm. in Daniel (Ἐκκλ. Ἀληθ. 1886, p. 242): οἱ εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ Θεοῦ πιστεύοντες καὶ δι᾽ ἀγαθοεργίας τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐξιλασκόµενοι. 652 In the case of Irenæus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian we already find that they observe a certain order and sequence of books when advancing a detailed proof from Scripture.

speculation, differs in general from that of the East. But it sums up in classic fashion the doctrines of Western orthodoxy, the main features of which were sketched by Tertullian in his antignostic writings and the work against Praxeas. The old Roman symbol forms the basis of the work. In accordance with this the author gives a comprehensive exposition of his doctrine of God in the first eight chapters. Chapters 9-28 form the main portion; they establish the correct Christology in opposition to the heretics who look on Christ as a mere man or as the Father himself; the Holy Scriptures furnish the material for the proofs. Chapter 29 treats of the Holy Spirit. Chapters 30 and 31 contain the recapitulation and conclusion. The whole is based on Tertullian’s treatise against Praxeas. No important argument in that work has escaped Novatian; but everything is extended, and made more systematic 314and polished. No trace of Plat ac8 onism is to be found in this dogmatic; on the contrary he employs the Stoic and Aristotelian syllogistic and dialectic method used also by his Monarchian opponents. This plan together with its Biblical attitude gives the work great outward completeness and certainty. We cannot help concluding that this work must have made a deep impression wherever it was read, although the real difficulties of the matter are not at all touched upon, but veiled by distinctions and formulæ. It probably contributed not least to make Tertullian’s type of Christology the universal Western one. This type, however, as will be set forth in greater detail hereafter, already approximates closely to the resolutions of Nicæa and Chalcedon.653 Novatian adopted Tertullian’s formulæ “one substance, three persons” (“una substantia, tres personæ”), “from the substance of God” (“ex substantia dei”), “always with the Father” (“semper apud patrem”), “God and man” (“deus et homo”), “two substances” (“dux substantiæ”), “one person” (“una persona”), as well as his expressions for the union and separation of the two natures adding to them similar ones and giving them a wider extension.654 Taking

653

It is worthy of note that there was not a single Arian ecclesiastic of note in the Novatian churches of the 4th century, so far as we know. All Novatian’s adherents, even those in the West (see Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History), were of the orthodox Nieman type. This furnishes material for reflection. 654 Owing to the importance of the matter we shall give several Christological and trinitarian disquisitions from the work “de trinitate”. The archaic attitude of this Christology and trinitarian doctrine is evident from the following considerations. (1) Like Tertullian, Novatian asserts that the Logos was indeed always with the Father, but that he only went forth from him at a definite period of time (for the purpose of creating the world). (2) Like Tertullian, he declares that Father, Son, and Spirit have one substance (that is, are ὁµοόυσιοι, the homoousia of itself never decides as to equality in dignity);

but that the Son is subordinate and obedient to the Father and the Spirit to the Son (cc. 17, 22, 24), since they derive their origin, essence, and function from the Father (the Spirit from the Son). (3) Like Tertullian, Novatian teaches that the Son, after accomplishing his work, will again become intermingled with the Father, that is, will cease to have an independent existence (c. 31); whence we understand why the West continued so long to be favourable to Marcellus of Ancyra; see also the so-called symbol of Sardika). Apart from these points and a few others of less consequence, the work, in its formulæ, exhibits a type which remained pretty constant in the West down to the time of Augustine, or, till the adoption of Johannes Damascenus’ dogmatic. The sharp distinction between “deus” and “homo” and the use that is nevertheless made of “permixtio” and synonymous words are also specially characteristic. Cap. 9: “Christus deus dominus deus noster, sed dei filius”; c. 11: “non sic de substantia corporis ipsius exprimimus, ut solum tantum hominem illum esse dicamus, sed ut divinitate sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta etiam deum illum teneamus”; c. 11 Christ has auctoritas divina, “tam enim scriptura etiam deum adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum hominem adnuntiat deum, tam hominem descripsit Iesum Christum, quam etiam deum quoque descripsit Christum dominum.” In c. 12 the term “Immanuel” is used to designate Christ as God in a way that reminds one of Athanasius; c. 13: “præsertim cum animadvertat, scripturam evangelicam utramque istam substantiam in unam nativitatis Christi foederasse concordiam”; c. 14: “Christus ex verbi et carnis coniunctione concretus”; c. 16: “. . . ut neque homo Christo subtrahatur, neque divinitas negetur . . . utrumque in Christo confoederatum est, utrumque coniunctum est et utrumque connexum est . . . pignerata in illo divinitatis et humilitatis videtur esse concordia . . . qui mediator dei et hominum effectus exprimitur, in se deum et hominem sociasse reperitur . . . nos sermonem dei scimus indutum carnis substantiam . . . lavit substantiam corporis et materiam carnis abluens, ex parte suscepti hominis, passione”; c. 17: “. . . nisi quoniam auctoritas divini verbi ad suscipiendum hominem interim conquiescens nec se suis viribus exercens, deiicit se ad tempus atque deponit, dum hominem fert, quem suscepit”; c. 18: “. . . ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet terrenorum pariter atque cælestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens pignora et deum homini et hominem deo copularet, ut merito filius dei per assumptionem carnis filius hominis et filius hominis per receptionem dei verbi filius dei effici possit”; c. 19: “hic est enim legitimus dei filius qui ex ipso deo est, qui, dum sanctum illud (Luke I. 35) assumit, sibi filium hominis annectit et illum ad se rapit atque transducit, connexione sua et permixtione sociata præstat et filium illum dei facit, quod ille naturaliter non fuit (Novatian’s teaching is therefore like that of the Spanish Adoptionists of the 8th century), ut principalitas nominis istius “filius dei” in spiritu sit domini, qui descendit et venit, ut sequela nominis istius in filio dei et hominis sit, et merito consequenter hic filius dei factus sit, dum non principaliter filius dei est, atque ideo dispositionem istam anhelus videns et ordinem istum sacramenti expediens non sic cuncta confundens, ut nullum vestigium distinctionis collocavit, distinctionem posuit dicendo. ‘Propterea et quod nascetur ex te sanctum vocabitur filius dei’. Ne si distributionem istam cum libramentis suis non dispensasset, sed in confuso permixtum reliquisset, vere occasionem hæreticis contulisset, ut hominis filium qua homo est, eundum et dei et hominis filium pronuntiare deberent . . . Filius dei, dum filium hominis in se suscepit, consequenter illum filium dei

fecit, quoniam illum filius sibi dei sociavit et iunxit, ut, dum filius hominis adhæret in nativitate filio dei, ipsa permixtionem fœneratum et mutuatum teneret, quod ex natura propria possidere non posset. Ac si facta est angeli voce, quod nolunt hæretici, inter filium dei hominisque cum sua tamen sociatione distinctio, urgendo illos, uti Christum hominis filium hominem intelligant quoque dei filium et hominem dei filium id est dei verbum deum accipiant, atque ideo Christum Iesum dominum ex utroque connexum, et utroque contextum atque concretum et in eadem utriusque substantiæ concordia mutui ad invicem fœderis confibulatione sociatum, hominem et deum, scripturæ hoc ipsum dicentis veritate cognoscant”. c. 21: “hæretici nolunt Christum secundam esse personam post patrem, sed ipsum patrem;” c. 22: “Cum Christus ‘Ego’ dicit (John X. 30), deinde patrem infert dicendo, ‘Ego et pater’, proprietatem personæ suæ id est filii a paterna auctoritate discernit atque distinguit, non tantummodo de sono nominis, sed etiam de ordine dispositæ potestatis . . . unum enim neutraliter positum, societatis concordiam, non unitatem personæ sonat . . . unum autem quod ait, ad concordiam et eandem sententiam et ad ipsam charitatis societatem pertinet, ut merito unum sit pater et filius per concordiam et per amorem et per dilectionem. Et quoniam ex patre est, quicquid illud est, filius est, manente tamen distinctione . . . denique novit hanc concordiæ unitatem est apostolus Paulus cum personarum tamen distinctione.” (Comparison with the relationship between Paul and Apollos! “Quos personæ ratio invicem dividit, eosdem rursus invicem religionis ratio conducit; et quamvis idem atque ipsi non sint, dum idem sentiunt, ipsum sunt, et cum duo sint, unum sunt”); c. 23: “constat hominem a deo factum esse, non ex deo processisse; ex deo autem homo quomodo non processit, sic dei verbum processit”. In c. 24 it is argued that Christ existed before the creation of the world and that not merely “predestinatione”, for then he would be subsequent and therefore inferior to Adam, Abel, Enoch etc. “Sublata ergo prædestinatione quæ non est posita, in substantia fuit Christus ante mundi institutionem”; c. 31: “Est ergo deus pater omnium institutor et creator, solus originem nesciens(!), invisibilis, immensus, immortalis, æternus, unus deus(!), . . . ex quo quando ipse voluit, sermo filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aëris aut tono coactæ de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolatæ a deo virtutis agnoscitur, cuius sacræ et divinæ nativitatis arcana nec apostolus didicit . . . , filio soli nota sunt, qui patris secreta cognovit. Hic ergo cum sit genitus a patre, semper est in patre. Semper autem sic dico, ut non innatum, sed natum probem; sed qui ante omne tempus est, semper in patre fuisse discendus est, nec enim tempus illi assignari potest, qui ante tempus est; semper enim in patre, ne pater non semper sit pater: quia et pater illum etiam præcedit, quod necesse est, prior sit qua pater sit. Quoniam antecedat necesse est eum, qui habet originem, ille qui originem nescit. Simul ut hic minor sit, dum in illo esse se scit habens originem quia nascitur, et per patrem quamvis originem habet qua nascitur, vicinus in nativitate, dum ex eo patre, qui solus originem non habet, nascitur . . . , substantia scilicet divina, cuius nomen est verbum . . . , deus utique procedens ex deo secundam personam efficiens, sed non eripiens illud patri quod unus est deus . . . Cuius sic divinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inæqualitate divinitatis duos deos reddidisse videatur . . . Dum huic, qui est deus, omnia substrata traduntur et cuncta sibi subiecta filius accepta refert patri, totam divinitatis auctoritatem rursus patri remittit, unus deus ostenditur verus et

his book in all we may see 315that he thereby created for the West a dogmatic vademecum, which, from its copious and well-selected quotations from Scripture, must have been of extraordinary service. The most important articles which were now fixed and transferred 316 to the general creed along with the necessary proofs, especially in the West, were: (1) the unity of God, (2) the identity of the supreme God and the creator of the world, that is, the identity of the mediators of creation and redemption, (3) 317the identity of the supreme God with the God of th 54d e Old Testament, and the declaration that the Old Testament is God’s book of revelation, (4) the creation of the world out of nothing, (5) the unity of the human race, (6) the origin of evil from freedom, and the inalienable nature of freedom, (7) the two Testaments, (8) Christ as God and Man, the unity of his personality, the truth of his divinity, the actuality of his humanity, the reality of his fate, (9) the redemption and conclusion of a covenant through Christ as the new and crowning manifestation of God’s grace to all men, (10) the resurrection of man in soul and body. But the transmission and interpretation of these propositions, by means of which the Gnostic theses were overthrown, necessarily involved the transmission of the Logos doctrine; for the doctrine of the revelation of God and of the two Testaments could not have prevailed without this theory. How this hypothesis gained acceptance in the course of the third century, and how it was the means of establishing and legitimising philosophical theology as part of the faith, will be shown in the seventh chapter. We may remark in conclusion that the religious hope which looked forward to an earthly kingdom of Christ was still the more widely diffused among the Churches of the third century; adf 1 but that the other hope, viz., that of being deified, was gaining adherents more and more. The latter result was due to men’s increasing indifference to daily life and growing aspiration after a higher one, a longing that was moreover nourished among the more cultured by the philosophy which was steadily gaining ground. The hope of deification is the expression of the idea that this world and human nature do not correspond to that exalted world which man has built up within his own mind and which he may reasonably demand to be realised, because it is only in it that

æternus pater, a quo solo hæc vis divinitatis emissa, etiam in filium tradita et directa rursus per substantiæ communionem ad patrem revolvitur.” 655 If I am not mistaken, the production or adaptation of Apocalypses did indeed abate in the third century, but acquired fresh vigour in the 4th, though at the same time allowing greater scope to the influence of heathen literature (including romances as well as hagiographical literature).

he can come to himself. The fact that Christian teachers like Theophilus, Irenæus, and Hippolytus expressly declared this to be a legitimate Christian hope and held out a sure prospect of its fulfilment 318through Christ, must have given the greatest impulse to the spread and adoption of this ecclesiastical Christianity. But, when the Christian religion was represented as the belief in the incarnation of God and as the sure hope of the deification of man, a speculation that had originally never got beyond the fringe of religious knowledge was made the central point of the system and the simple content of the Gospel was obscured.656

Chapter VI. The Transformation of the Ecclesiastical Tradition into a Philosophy of Religion, or the Origin of the Scientific Theology and Dogmatic of the Church. 319

CHAPTER VI. THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION INTO A PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, OR THE ORIGIN OF THE SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY AND DOGMATIC OF THE CHURCH. Clement and Origen. THE Alexandrian school of catechists was of inestimable importance for the transformation of the heathen empire into a Christian one, and of Greek philosophy into ecclesiastical philosophy. In the third century this school overthrew polytheism by scientific means whilst at the same time preserving everything of any value in Greek science and culture. These Alexandrians wrote for the educated people of the whole earth; they made Christianity a part of the civilisation of the world. The saying that the C 564 hristian missionary to the Greeks must be a Greek was

656

I did not care to appeal more frequently to the Sibylline oracles either in this or the preceding chapter, because the literary and historical investigation of these writings has not yet made such progress as to justify one in using it for the history of dogma. It is well known that the oracles contain rich materials in regard to the doctrine of God, Christology, conceptions of the history of Jesus, and eschatology; but, apart from the old Jewish oracles, this material belongs to several centuries and has not yet been reliably sifted.

first completely verified within the Catholic Church in the person of Origen, who at the same time produced the only system of Christian dogma possessed by the Greek Church before John Damascenus. (1) The Alexandrian Catechetical School and Clement of Alexandria. 1. The Alexandrian Catechetical School. Clement of Alexandria.657 “The work of Irenæus still leaves it undecided whether the form of the world’s literature, as found in the Christian Church, 320is destined only to remain a weapon to combat its enemies, or is to become an instrument of peaceful labour within its own territory.” With these words Overbeck has introduced his examination of Clement of Alexandria’s great masterpiece from the standpoint of the historian of literature. They may be also applied to the history of theology. As we have shown, Irenæus, Tertullian (and Hippolytus) made use of philosophical theology to expel heretical elements; but all ac8 the theological expositions that this interest suggested to them as necessary, were in their view part of the faith itself. At least we find in their works absolutely no

657

Guericke, De schola, quæ Alex. floruit catechetica 1824, 1825. Vacherot, Hist. crit. de l’école d’Alex., 1846-51. Reinkens, De Clemente Alex., 1850. Redepenning, Origenes Thl. I. p. 57 ff. Læmmer, Clem. Al. de Logo doctrina, 1855. Reuter, Clem. theolog. moralis, 1853. Cognat, Clement d’Alex. Paris, 1859. Westcott, Origen and the beginnings of Christian Philosophy (Contemporary Review, May 1879). Winter, Die Ethik des Clemens von Alex., 1882. Merk, Cl. Alex. in seiner Abhängigkeit von der griech. Philosophie, Leipzig, 1879 (see besides Overbeck, Theol. Lit. Ztg., 1879. No. 20 and cf. above all his disquisitions in the treatise “Ueber. die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur,” Hist. Ztschr. N. F., Vol. XII., pp. 455-472 Zahn, Forschungen, Vol. III. Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Oxford, 1886. Kremmer, De catal. heurematum, Lips. 1890. Wendland, Quæst. Musonianæ, Berol. 1886. Bratke, Die Stellung des Clem. Alex. z. antiken Mysterienwesen (Stud. u. Krit. 1888, p. 647 ff.). On Alexander of Jerusalem see Routh, Reliq. Sacr. T. II. p. 161 sq.; on Julius Africanus see Gelzer, Sextus Jul. Afr. I. Thl., 1880, p. 1 ff., Spitta, Der Brief des Jul. Afr. an Aristides, Halle 1877, and my article in the Real-Encykl. On Bardesanes see Hilgenfeld, B., der letzte Gnostiker, 1864, and Hort’s article in the Dictionary of Christian Biography. On the labours in scientific theology on the part of the so-called Alogi in Asia Minor and of the Roman Theodotianists see Epiph. hær. 51, Euseb., H. E. V. 28 and my article “Monarchianismus” in the R.-Encykl. f. protest. Theol. 2nd. ed., Vol. X., pp 183 ff., 188 ff. On the tendencies even of orthodox Christians to scientific theology see Tertull., de præscr. hær. 8 ff. (cf. the first words of c. 8: “Venio itaque ad illum articulum, quem et nostri prætendunt ad ineundam curiositatem. Scriptum est, inquiunt, Quærite et invenietis” etc.).

clear expression of the fact that faith is one thing and theology another, though rudimentary indications of such distinctions are found. Moreover, their adherence to the early-Christian eschatology in its entirety, as well as their rejection of a qualitative distinction between simple believers and ‘Gnostics’, proved that they themselves were deceived as to the scope of their theological speculations, and that moreover their Christian interest was virtually satisfied with subjection to the authority of tradition, with the early-Christian hopes, and with the rules for a holy life. But since about the time of Commodus, and in some cases even earlier, we can observe, even in ecclesiastical circles, the 321growing independence and might of the aspiration for a scientific knowledge and treatment of the Christian religion, that is of Christian tradition.658 There is a wish to maintain this tradition in its entirety and hence the Gnostic theses are rejected. The selection from tradition, made in opposition to Gnosticism — though indeed in accordance with its methods — and declared to be apostolic, is accepted. But there is a desire to treat the given material in a strictly scientific manner, just as the Gnostics had formerly done, that is, on the one hand to establish it by a critical and historical exegesis, and on the other to give it a philosophical form and bring it into harmony with the spirit of the times. Along with this we also find the wish to incorporate the thoughts of Paul which now possessed divine authority.659 Accordingly schools and scholastic unions now make their appearance afresh, the old schools having been expelled from the Church.660 In Asia Minor such efforts had already begun shortly before the time when the canon of holy apostolic tradition was fixe ac8 d by the ecclesiastical authorities (Alogi). From the history of Clement of Alexandria, the life of bishop Alexander, after-wards bishop of Jerusalem, and subsequently from the history of Origen (we may also mention Firmilian of Cæsarea), we learn that there was in Cappadocia about the year 200 a circle of ecclesiastics who zealously applied

658

This manner of expression is indeed liable to be misunderstood, because it suggests the idea that something new was taking place. As a matter of fact the scientific labours in the Church were merely a continuation of the Gnostic schools under altered circumstances, that is, under the sway of a tradition which was now more clearly defined and more firmly fenced round as a noli me tangere. 659 This was begun in the Church by Irenæus and Tertullian and continued by the Alexandrians. They, however, not only adopted theologoumena from Paulinism, but also acquired from Paul a more ardent feeling of religious freedom as well as a deeper reverence for love and knowledge as contrasted with lower morality. 660 We are not able to form a clear idea of the school of Justin. In the year 180 the schools of the Valentinians, Carpocratians, Tatian etc. were all outside the Church.

themselves to scientific pursuits. Bardesanes, a man of high repute, laboured in the Christian kingdom of Edessa about the same time. He wrote treatises on philosophical theology, which indeed, judged by a Western standard, could not be accounted orthodox, and directed a theological school which maintained its ground in the third 322century and attained great importance.661 In Palestine, during the time of Heliogabalus and Alexander (Severus), Julius Africanus composed a series of books on scientific theology, which were specifically different from the writings of Irenæus and Tertullian; but which on the other hand show the closest relationship in point of form to the treatises of the so-called Gnostics. His inquiries into the relationship of the genealogies of Jesus and into certain parts of the Greek Apocalypse of Daniel showed that the Church’s attention had been drawn to problems of historical criticism. In his chronography the apologetic interest is subordinate to the historical, and in his Κεστοί, dedicated to Alexander Severus (Hippolytus had already dedicated a treatise on the resurrection to the wife of Heliogabalus), we see fewer traces of the Christian than of the Greek scholar. Alexander of Ælia and Theoktistus of Cæsarea, the occupants of the two most important sees in Palestine, were, contemporaneously with him, zealous patrons of an independent science of theology. Even at that early time the former founded an important theological library; and the fragments of his letters preserved to us prove that he had caught not only the language, but also the scientific spirit of the age. In Rome, at the beginning of the third century, there was a scientific school where textual criticism of the Bible was pursued and where the works of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Euclid, and Galen were zealously read and utilised. Finally, the works of Tertullian show us that, even among the Christians of Carthage, there was no lack of such as wished to naturalise the pursuit of science within the Church; and Eusebius (H. E. 53b V. 27) has transmitted to us the titles of a series of scientific works dating as far back as the year 200 and ascribed to ecclesiastics of that period. Whilst all these phenomena, which collectively belong to the close of the second and beginning of the third century, show 323that it was indeed possible to suppress heresy in the Church, but not the impulse from which it sprang, the most striking proof of this conclusion is the existence of the so-called school of catechists in 661

On the school of Edessa see Assemani, Bibl. orient., T. III., P. II., p. 924; Von Lengerke, De Ephraemi arte hermen., p. 86 sq.; Kihn, Die Bedeutung der antiochenischen Schule etc., pp. 32 f. 79 f., Zahn, Tatian’s Diatessaron, p. 54. About the middle of the 3rd century Macarius, of whom Lucian the Martyr was a disciple, taught at this school. Special attention was given to the exegesis of the Holy Scriptures.

Alexandria. We cannot now trace the origin of this school, which first comes under our notice in the year 190,662 but we know that the struggle of the Church with heresy was concluded in Alexandria at a later period than in the West. We know further that the school of catechists extended its labours to Palestine and Cappadocia as early as the year 200, and, to all appearance, originated or encouraged scientific pursuits there. adc 1 Finally, we know that the existence of this school was threatened in the fourth decade of the third century; but Heraclas was shrewd enough to reconcile the ecclesiastical and scientific interests.663 In the Alexandrian school of catechists the whole of Greek science was taught and made to serve the purpose of Christian apologetics. Its first teacher, who is well known to us from the writings he has left, is Clement of Alexandria.664 His main work is epoch-making. “Clement’s intention is nothing 324less than an introduction to Christianity, or, speaking more correctly and in accordance with the spirit of his work, an initiation into it. The task that Clement sets himself is an introduction to what is inmost and highest in Christianity itself. He aims, so to speak, at first making Christians perfect Christians by means of a work of literature. By means of such a work he wished not merely to repeat to the Christian what life has already done for him as it is, but to elevate him to

662

Overbeck, l.c., p. 455, has very rightly remarked: “The origin of the Alexandrian school of catechists is not a portion of the Church history of the 2nd century, that has somehow been left in the dark by a mere accident; but a part of the well-defined dark region on the map of the ecclesiastical historian of this period, which contains the beginnings of all the fundamental institutions of the Church as well as those of the Alexandrian school of catechists, a school which was the first attempt to formulate the relationship of Christianity to secular science.” We are, moreover, still in a state of complete uncertainty as to the personality and teaching of Pantænus (with regard to him see Zahn, “Forschungen” Vol. III., pp. 64 ff. 77 ff.). We can form an idea of the school of catechists from the 6th Book of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and from the works of Clement and Origen. 663 On the connection of Julius Africanus with this school see Eusebius, VI. 31, As to his relations with Origen see the correspondence. Julius Africanus had, moreover, relations with Edessa. He mentions Clement in his chronicles. On the connection of Alexander and the Cappadocian circle with Pantænus, Clement, and Origen, see the 6th Book of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Alexander and Origen were disciples of Pantænus. 664 See my article “Heraklas” in the Real-Encyklopädie. 665 We have the most complete materials in Zahn, “Forschungen” Vol. III. pp. 17-176. The best estimate of the great tripartite work (Protrepticus, Pædagogus, Stromateis) is found in Overbeck, l.c. The titles of Clement’s remaining works, which are lost to us or only preserved in fragments, show how comprehensive his scientific labours were.

something still higher than what has been revealed to him by the forms of initiation that the Church has created for herself in the course of a history already dating back a century and a half.” To Clement therefore Gnosis, that is, the (Greek) philosophy of religion, is not only a means of refuting heathenism and heresy, but at the same time of ascertaining and setting forth what is highest and inmost in Christianity. He views it as such, however, because, apart from evangelical sayings, the Church tradition, both collectively and in its details, is something foreign to him; he has subjected himself to its authority, but he can only make it intellectually his own after subjecting it to a scientific and philosophical treatment.666 His great work, which has rightly been called the boldest literary undertaking in the history of the Church, 579 667 is consequently the first attempt to use Holy Scripture and the Church tradition together with the assumption that Christ as the Reason of the world is the source of all truth, as the basis of a presentation of Christianity which at once addresses itself to the cultured by satisfying the scientific demand for a philosophical ethic and theory of the world, and at the same time reveals to the believer the rich content of his faith. Here then is found, in form and content, the scientific Christian doctrine of religion which, while not contradicting the faith, does 325not merely support or explain it in a few places, but raises it to another and higher intellectual sphere, namely, out of the province of authority and obedience into that of clear knowledge and inward, intellectual assent emanating from love to God.668 Clement cannot imagine that the Christian faith, ac8 as found in tradition, can of itself produce the union of intellectual independence and devotion to God which he regards as moral perfection. He is too much of a Greek philosopher for that, and believes that this aim is only reached through knowledge. But in so far as this is only the

666

This applies quite as much to the old principles of Christian morality as to the traditional faith. With respect to the first we may refer to the treatise: “Quis dives salvetur”, and to the 2nd and 3rd Books of the Pædagogus. 667 Clement was also conscious of the novelty of his undertaking; see Overbeck, l.c., p. 464 f. The respect enjoyed by Clement as a master is shown by the letters of Alexander of Jerusalem. See Euseb., H. E. VI. 11 and specially VI. 14. Here both Pantænus and Clement are called “Father “, but whilst the former receives the title, ὁ µακάριος ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ κύριος, the latter is called: ὁ ιἑρὸς Κλήµης, κύριός µου γενόµενος καὶ ὠφελήσας µε. 668 Strom. VI. 14, 109 πλέον ἐστὶν τοῦ πιστεῦσαι τὸ γνῶναι. Pistis is γνῶσις σύντοµος τῶν κατεπειγόντων (VII. 10. 57, see the whole chapter), Gnosis is ἀπόδειξις τῶν διὰ πίστεως παρειληµµένων τῇ πίστει ἐποικοδοµουµένη (l.c.), τελείωσις ἀνθρώπου (l.c.), πίστις ἐπιστηµονική (II. 11.48).

deciphering of the secrets revealed in the Holy Scriptures through the Logos, secrets which the believer also gains possession of by subjecting himself to them, all knowledge is a reflection of the divine revelation. The lofty ethical and religious ideal of the man made perfect in fellowship with God, which Greek philosophy had developed since the time of Plato and to which it had subordinated the whole scientific knowledge of the world, was adopted and heightened by Clement, and associated not only with Jesus Christ but also with ecclesiastical Christianity. But, whilst connecting it with the Church tradition, he did not shrink from the boldest remodelling of the latter, because the preservation of its wording was to him a sufficient guarantee of the Christian character of the speculation.669 In Clement, then, ecclesiastical Christianity reached the stage that Judaism had attained in Philo, and no doubt the latter 670 326exercised great influence over him. Moreover, Clement stands on the ground that Justin had already trodden, but he has advanced far beyond this Apologist. His superiority to Justin not only consists in the fact that he changed the apologetic task that the latter had in his mind into a systematic and positive one; but above all in the circumstance that he transformed the tradition of the Christian Church, which in his days was far more extensive and more firmly established than in Justin’s time, into a real scientific dogmatic; whereas Justin neutralised the greater part of this tradition by including it in the scheme of the proof from prophecy. By elevating the idea of the Logos who is Christ into the highest principle in the religious explanation of the world and in the

669

We have here more particularly to consider those paragraphs of the Stromateis where Clement describes the perfect Gnostic: the latter elevates himself by dispassionate love to God, is raised above everything earthly, has rid himself of ignorance, the root of all evil, and already lives a life like that of the angels. See Strom. VI. 9. 71, 72: Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐνδεῖ τι ἀυτῷ πρὸς ἐξοµοίωσιν τῷ καλῷ καὶ ἀγαθῷ εἶναι· οὐδὲ ἄρα σιλεῖ τινὰ τὴν κοινὴν ταύτην σιλίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κτίστην διὰ τῶν κτισµάτων, Οὔτ᾽ οὖν ἐπιθυµίᾳ καὶ ὁρέξει τινὶ περιπίπτει οὔτε ἐνδεής ἐστι κατά γε τὴν ψυχὴν τῶν ἄλλων τινός συνὼν ἤδη δι᾽ ἀγάπης τῷ ἐραστῷ, ᾧ δὴ ᾠκείωται κατὰ τὴν αἵρεσιν καὶ τῇ ἐξ ἀσκήσεως ἕξει, τούτῳ προσεχέστερον συνεγγίζων, µακάριος ὢστε ἕνεκά γε τούτων ἐξυµοιοῦσθαι βιάζεται τῷ διδασκάλῳ εἰς ἀπαθείαν. Strom. VII. 69-83: VI. 14, 113: οὗτως δύναµιν λαβοῦσα κυριακὴν ἡ ψυχὴ µελετᾷ εἶναι Θεός, κακόν µὲν ὀυδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν ἀγνοίας εἶναι νοµίζουσα. The whole 7th Book should be read. 670 Philo is quoted by Clement several times and still more frequently made use of without acknowledgment. See the copious citations in Siegfried, Philo von Alexandrien, pp. 343-351. In addition to this Clement made use of many Greek philosophers or quoted them without acknowledgment, e.g., Musonius.

exposition of Christianity, Clement gave to this idea a much more concrete and copious content than Justin did. Christianity is the doctrine of the creation, training, and re 564 demption of mankind by the Logos, whose work culminates in the perfect Gnostics. The philosophy of the Greeks, in so far as it possessed the Logos, is declared to be a counterpart of the Old Testament law;671 and the facts contained in the Church tradition are either subordinated to the philosophical dogmatic or receive a new interpretation expressly suited to it. The idea of the Logos has a content which is on the one hand so wide that he is found wherever man rises above the level of nature, and on the other so concrete that an authentic knowledge of him can only be obtained from historical revelation. The Logos is essentially the rational law of the world and the teacher; but in Christ he is at the same time officiating priest, and the blessings he bestows are a series of holy initiations which 327alone contain the possibility of man’s raising himself to the divine life.672 While this is already clear evidence of Clement’s affinity to Gnostic teachers, especially the Valentinians, the same similarity may also be traced in the whole conception of the task (Christianity as theology), in the determination of the formal principle (inclusive of the recourse to esoteric tradition; see above, p. 35 f.),673 and in the solution of the problems. But Clement’s

671

Like Philo and Justin, Clement also no doubt at times asserts that the Greek philosophers pilfered from the Old Testament; but see Strom. I. 5. 28 sq.: πάντων µὲν ἄιτιος τῶν καλῶν ὁ Θεός, ἀλλὰ τῶν µὲν κατὰ προηγούµενον ὡς τῆς τε διαθήκης τῆς παλαιᾶς καὶ τῆς νεάς, τῶν δὲ κατ᾽ ἐπακολούθηµα ὡς τῆς σιλοσοσίας. τάχα δὲ καὶ προηγουµένως τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐδόθη τότε πρὶν ἢ τὸν κύριον καλέσαι καὶ τοὺς Ἕλληνας. ἐπαιδαγώγει γὰρ καί ἀυτὴ τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν ὡς ὁ γόµος τοὺς Ἑβραίους εἰς Χριστόν. 672 See Bratke’s instructive treatise cited above. 673 The fact that Clement appeals in support of the Gnosis to an esoteric tradition (Strom. VI. 7. 61: VI. 8. 68: VII. 10. 55) proves how much this writer, belonging as he did to a sceptical age, underestimated the efficacy of all human thought in determining the ultimate truth of things. The existence of sacred writings containing all truth was not even enough for him; the content of these writings had also to be guaranteed by divine communication. But no doubt the ultimate cause of this, as of all similar cases of scepticism, was the dim perception that ethics and religion do not at all come within the sphere of the intellectual, and that the intellect can produce nothing of religious value. As, however, in consequence of philosophical tradition, neither Philo, nor the Gnostics, nor Clement, nor the Neoplatonists were able to shake themselves free from the intellectual scheme, those things which-as they instinctively felt, but did not recognise — could really not be ascertained by knowledge at all received from them the name of suprarational and were traced to divine revelation. We may say that the extinction or pernicious extravagancies to which Greek philosophy was subjected in Neoplatonism,

great superiority to Valentinus is shown not only in his contriving to preserve in all points his connection with the faith of the main body of Christendom, but still more in his power of mastering so many problems by the aid of a single principle, that is, in the art of giving the most comprehensive presentation with the most insignificant means. Both facts are indeed most closely connected. The rejection of all conceptions that could not be verified from Holy Scripture, or at least easily reconciled with it, as well as his optimism, opposed as this was to Gnostic pessimism, proved perhaps the most effective means of persuading the Church to recognise the Christian character of a dogmatic 564 that was at least half inimical to ecclesiastical Christianity. Through 328Clement theology became the crowning stage of piety, the highest philosophy of the Greeks was placed under the protection and guarantee of the Church, and the whole Hellenic civilisation was thus at the same time legitimised within Christianity. The Logos is Christ, but the Logos is at the same time the moral and rational in all stages of development. The Logos is the teacher, not only in cases where an intelligent self-restraint, as understood by the ancients, bridles the passions and instincts and wards off excesses of all sorts; but also, and here of course the revelation is of a higher kind, wherever love to God alone determines the whole life and exalts man above everything sensuous and finite.674 What

and the absurdities into which the Christian dogmatic was led, arose from the fact that the tradition of placing the ethical and religious feelings and the development of character within the sphere of knowledge, as had been the case for nearly a thousand years, could not be got rid of, though the incongruity was no doubt felt. Contempt for empiricism, scepticism, the extravagancies of religious metaphysics which finally become mythology, have their origin here. Knowledge still continues to be viewed as the highest possession; it is, however, no longer knowledge, but character and feeling; and it must be nourished by the fancy in order to be able to assert itself as knowledge. 674 Clement was not a Neoplatonic mystic in the strict sense of the word. When he describes the highest ethical ideal, ecstasy is wanting; and the freshness with which he describes Quietism shows that he himself was no Quietist. See on this point Bigg’s third lecture, l.c., particularly p. 98 f. “. . . The silent prayer of the Quietist is in fact ecstasy, of which there is not a trace in Clement. For Clement shrank from his own conclusions. Though the father of all the Mystics he is no Mystic himself. He did not enter the “enchanted garden”, which he opened for others. If he talks of “flaying the sacrifice”, of leaving sense behind, of Epopteia, this is but the parlance of his school. The instrument to which he looks for growth in knowledge is not trance, but disciplined reason. Hence Gnosis, when once obtained, is indefectible, not like the rapture which Plotinus enjoyed but four times during his acquaintance with Porphyry, which in the experience of Theresa never lasted more than half an hour. The Gnostic is no Visionary, no Theurgist, no Antinomian.”

Gnostic moralists merely regarded as contrasts Clement, the Christian and Greek, was able to view as stages; and thus he succeeded in conceiving the motley society that already represented the Church of his time as a unity, as the humanity trained by one and the same Logos, the Pedagogue. His speculation 564 did not drive him out of the Church; it rather enabled him to understand the multiplicity of forms she contained and to estimate their relative justification; nay, it finally led him to include the history of pre-Christian humanity in the system he regarded as a unity, and to form a theory of universal history satisfactory to his mind.675 If we compare this theory with the 329rudimentary ideas of a similar kind in Irenæus, we see clearly the meagreness and want of freedom, the uncertainty and narrowness, in the case of the latter. In the Christian faith as he understood it and as amalgamated by him with Greek culture, Clement found intellectual freedom and independence, deliverance from all external authority. We need not here directly discuss what apparatus he used for this end. Irenæus again remained entangled in his apparatus, and much as he speaks of the novum testamentum libertatis, his great work little conveys the impression that its author has really attained intellectual freedom. Clement was the first to grasp the tas ac8 k of future theology. According to him this task consists in utilising the historical traditions, through which we have become what we are, and the Christian communion, which is imperative upon us as being the only moral and religious one, in order to attain freedom and independence of our own life by the aid of the Gospel; and in showing this Gospel to be the highest revelation by the Logos, who has given evidence of himself whenever man rises above the level of nature and who is consequently to be traced throughout the whole history of humanity. But does the Christianity of Clement correspond to the Gospel? We can only give a qualified affirmation to this question. For the danger of secularisation is evident, since apostasy from the Gospel would be completely accomplished as soon as the ideal of the selfsufficient Greek sage came to supplant the feeling that man lives by the grace of God. But the danger of secularisation lies in the cramped conception of Irenæus, who sets up authorities which have nothing to do with the Gospel, and creates facts of salvation which have a no less deadening effect though in a different way. If 675

What a bold and joyous thinker Clement was is shown by the almost audacious remark in Strom. IV. 22. 136: εἰ γοῦν τις καθ᾽ ὑπόθεσιν προθείη τῷ γνωστικῷ πότερον ἑλέσθαι βούλοιτο τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἢ τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν αἰωνίαν, εἴη δὲ ταῦτα κεχωρισµένα παντὸς µᾶλλον ἐν ταυτότητε ὅντα, οὐδὲ καθ᾽ ὁτιοῦν διστάσας ἕλοιτ᾽ ἂν τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ.

the Gospel is meant to give freedom and peace in God, and to accustom us to an eternal life in union with Christ Clement understood this meaning. He could justly say to his opponents: “If the things we say appear to some people diverse from the Scriptures of the Lord, let them know that they draw inspiration and life therefrom and, making these their starting-point give their meaning only, not their letter” (κἂν ἑτεροῖα τισι τῶν πολλῶν καταφαίνηται τὰ ὑφ᾽ ἡµῶν λεγόµενα τῶν κυριακῶν γραφῶν, ἰστέον ὅτι ἐκεῖθεν ἀναπνεῖ τε καὶ ζῇ καὶ τὰς 330ἀσορµὰς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔχοντα τὸν νοῦν µόνον, οὐ τὴν λέξιν, παριστᾶν ἐπαγγελλέται).676 No doubt Clement conceives the aim of the whole traditionary material to be that of Greek philosophy, but we cannot fail to perceive that this aim is blended with the object which the Gospel puts before us, namely, to be rich in God and to receive strength and life from him. The goodness of God and the responsibility of man are the central ideas of Clement and the Alexand ac8 rians; they also occupy the foremost place in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If this is certain we must avoid that searching of the heart which undertakes to fix how far he was influenced by the Gospel and how far by philosophy. But, while so judging, we cannot deny that the Church tradition was here completely transformed into a Greek philosophy of religion on a historical basis, nor do we certify the Christian character of Clement’s “dogmas” in acknowledging the evangelical spirit of his practical position. What would be left of Christianity, if the practical aim, given by Clement to this religious philosophy, were lost? A depotentiated system which could absolutely no longer be called Christian. On the other hand there were many valuable features in the ecclesiastical regula literally interpreted; and the attempts of Irenæus to extract an authoritative religious meaning from the literal sense of Church tradition and of New Testament passages must be regarded as conservative efforts of the most valuable kind. No doubt Irenæus and his theological confrères did not themselves find in Christianity that freedom which is its highest aim; but on the other hand they preserved and rescued valuable material for succeeding times. If some day trust in the methods of religious philosophy vanishes, men will revert to history, which will still be recognisable in the preserved tradition,

676

Strom. VII. 1. 1. In several passages of his main work Clement refers to those churchmen who viewed the practical and speculative concentration of Church tradition as dangerous and questioned the use of philosophy at all. See Strom. VI. 10. 80: πολλοὶ καθάπερ οἱ παῖδες τὰ µορµολυκεῖα, οὕτως δεδίασι τὴν ἑλληνικὴν σιλοσοσίαν, σοβούµενοι µὴ ἀπαγάγῃ αὐτούς. VI. 11. 93.

as prized by Irenæus and the rest, whereas it will have almost perished in the artificial interpretations due to the speculations of religious philosophers. The importance that the Alexandrian school was to attain in history of dogma is not associated with Clement, but with his disciple Origen.677 This was not because Clement was more heterodox than Origen, for that is not the case, so far as the Stromateis is concerned at least;678 but because the latter exerted an incomparably greater influence than the former; and, with an energy perhaps unexampled in the history of the Church, already mapped out all the provinces of theology by his own unaided efforts. An ac8 other reason is that Clement did not possess the Church tradition in its fixed Catholic forms as Origen did (see above, chapter 2), and, as his Stromateis shows, he was as yet incapable of forming a theological system. What he offers is portions of a theological Christian dogmatic and speculative ethic. These indeed are no fragments in so far as they are all produced according to a definite method and have the same object in view, but they still want unity. On the other hand Origen succeeded in forming a complete system inasmuch as he not only had a Catholic tradition of fixed limits and definite type to fall back upon as a basis; but was also enabled by the previous efforts of Clement to furnish a methodical treatment of this tradition.679 Now a sharp eye 331the

677

Eusebius, H. E. VI. 14. 8, tells us that Origen was a disciple of Clement. Clement’s authority in the Church continued much longer than that of Origen See Zahn, “Forschungen” III. p. 140 f. The heterodox opinions advanced by Clement in the Hypotyposes are for the most part only known to us in an exaggerated form from the report of Photius. 679 In ecclesiastical antiquity all systematising was merely relative and limited, because the complex of sacred writings enjoyed a different authority from that which it possessed in the following period. Here the reference of a theologoumenon to a passage of Scripture was of itself sufficient, and the manifold and incongruous doctrines were felt as a unity in so far as they could all be verified from Holy Scriptures. Thus the fact that the Holy Scriptures were regarded as a series of divine oracles guaranteed, as it were, a transcendental unity of the doctrines, and, in certain circumstances, relieved the framer of the system of a great part of his task. Hitherto little justice has been done to this view of the, history of dogma, though it is the only solution of a series of otherwise insoluble problems. We cannot for example understand the theology of Augustine, and necessarily create for ourselves the most difficult problems by our own fault, if we make no use of that theory. In Origen’s dogmatic and that of subsequent Church Fathers — so far as we can speak of a dogmatic in their case — the unity lies partly in the canon of Holy Scripture and partly in the ultimate aim; but these two principles interfere with each other. As far as the Stromateis of Clement is concerned, Overbeck (l.c.) has furnished the explanation of its striking plan. Moreover, how would it have been conceivable that the 678

indeed perceives that Origen 332personally no longer possessed such a complete and bold religious theory of the world as Clement did, for he was already more tightly fettered by the Church tradition, some details of which here and there led him into compromises that remind us of Irenæus; but it was in connection with his work that the development of the following period took place. It is therefore sufficient, within the framework of the history of dogma, to refer to Clement as the bold forerunner of Origen, and, in setting forth the theology of the latter, to compare it in important points with the doctrines of Clement. (2) The system of Origen. 2. The system of Origen.680 Among the theologians of ecclesiastical antiquity Origen was the most important and influential alongside of Augustine. He proved the father of ecclesiastical science in the widest sense of the word, and at the same time became the founder of that theology which reached its complete development in the fourth and fifth centuries, and which in the sixth definitely denied its author, without, however, losing the form he had impressed on it. Origen created the ecclesiastical dogmatic and made the sources of the Jewish and Christian religion the foundation of that science. The Apologists, in their day, had found everything clear in Christianity; the ant ac8 ignostic Fathers had confused the Church’s faith and the science that treats of it. Origen recognised the problem and the problems, and elevated the pursuit of Christian theology to the rank of an independent task by freeing it from its polemical aim. He could not have become 333what he did, if two generations had not preceded him in paving the way to form a mental conception of Christianity and give it a philosophical foundation. Like all epochmaking personalities, he was also favoured by the conditions in which he lived, though he had to endure violent attacks. Born of a Christian family which was faithfully attached to the Church, he

riches of Holy Scripture, as presented to the philosophers who allegorised the books, could have been mastered, problems and all, at the first attempt. 680 See the treatises of Huëtius (1668) reprinted by Lommatzsch. Thomasius, Origenes 1837. Redepenning, Origenes, 2 Vols. 1841-46. Denis, de la philosophie d’Origène, Paris 1884. Lang, Die Leiblichkeit der Vernunftwesen bei Origenes, Leipzig, 1892. Mehlhorn, Die Lehre von der menschlichen Freiheit nach Origenes (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II., p. 234 ff.). Westcott, Origenes, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography Vol. IV Möller in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, 2nd ed., Vol. XI., pp. 92-109. The special literature is to be found there as well as in Nitzsch, Dogmengeschichte I., p. 151, and Ueberweg, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, 5th ed., p. 62 f.

lived at a time when the Christian communities enjoyed almost uninterrupted peace and were being naturalised in the world; he was a member of a Christian Church where the right of scientific study was already recognised and where this had attained a fixed position in an organised school.681 He proclaimed the reconciliation of science with the Christian faith and the compatibility of the highest culture with the Gospel within the bosom of the Church, thus contributing more than any other to convert the ancient world to Christianity. But he made no compromises from shrewd calculation: it was his inmost and holiest conviction that the sacred documents of Christianity contained all the ideals of antiquity, and that the speculative conception of ecclesiastical Christianity was the only true and right one. His character was pure, his life blameless; in his work he was not only unwearied, but also unselfish. There have been few Fathers of the Church whose life-story leaves such an impression of purity behind it as that of Origen. The atmosphere which he breathed as a Christian and as a philosopher was dangerous; but his mind remained sound, and even his feeling for truth scarcely ever forsook him.682 334To us his theory of the world, surveyed in its details, presents various changing hues, like that of Philo, and at the present day we can scarcely any longer understand how he was able to unite the different materials; but, considering the solidity of his character and the confidence of his decisions, we cannot doubt that he himse ac8 lf felt the agreement of all essential parts of his system. No doubt he spoke in one way to the perfect and in another to the mass of Christian people. The narrow-minded or the

681

See his letter in Eusebius, H. E. VI. 19. 11 ff. In the polemic against Celsus it seems to us in not a few passages as if the feeling for truth had forsaken him. If we consider, however, that in Origen’s idea the premises of his speculation were unassailable, and if we further consider into what straits he was driven by Celsus, we will conclude that no proof has been advanced of Origen’s having sinned against the current rules of truth. These, however, did not include the commandment to use in disputation only such arguments as could be employed in a positive doctrinal presentation. Basilius (Ep. 210 ad prim. Neocaes) was quite ready to excuse an utterance of Gregory Thaumaturgus, that sounded suspiciously like Sabellianism, by saying that the latter was not speaking δογµατικῶς, but ἀγωνιστικῶς. Jerome also (ad Pammach. ep. 48, c. 13), after defending the right of writing γυµναστικῶς, expressly said that all Greek philosophers “have used many words to conceal their thoughts, threaten in one place, and deal the blow in another.” In the same way, according to him, Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris had acted in the dispute with Celsus and Porphyry. “Because they are sometimes compelled to say, not what they them selves think, but what is necessary for their purpose; they do this only in the struggle with the heathen.” 682

immature will at all times necessarily consider such proceedings hypocrisy, but the outcome of his religious and scientific conception of the world required the twofold language. Orthodox theology of all creeds has never yet advanced beyond the circle first mapped out by his mind. She has suspected and corrected her founder, she has thought she could lop off his heterodox opinions as if they were accidental excrescences, she has incorporated with the simple faith itself the measure of speculation she was obliged to admit, and continued to give the rule of faith a more philosophic form, fragment by fragment, in order that she might thus be able to remove the gap between Faith and Gnosis and to banish free theology through the formula of ecclesiastical dogma. But it may reasonably be questioned whether all this is progress, and it is well worth investigating whether the gap between half theological, clerical Christianity and a lay Christianity held in tutelage is more endurable than that between Gnosis and Pistis, which Origen preserved and bridged over. The Christian system of Origen683 is worked out in opposition to the systems of the Greek philosophers and of the Christian Gnostics. It is moreover opposed to the ecclesiastical enemies of science, the Christian Unitarians, and the Jews.684 But the 335science of the faith, as developed by Origen, being built up with the appliances of Philo’s science, bears unmistakable marks of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Origen speculated not only in the manner of Justin, but also in that of Valentinus and therefore likewise after the fashion of Plotinus; in fact he is characterised by the adoption of the methods and, in a certain sense, of the axioms current in the schools of Valentinus and traceable in Neoplatonism. But, as this method implied the acknowledgment of a sacred literature, Origen was an exegete who believed in the Holy Scriptures and indeed, at bottom, he viewed all theology as a methodical exegesis of Holy Writ. F 564 inally, however, since Origen, as an ecclesiastical Christian, was convinced that the Church (by which he means only the perfect and pure Church) is the sole possessor of God’s holy revelations with whose authority the faith may be justly satisfied, nothing but the two Testaments, as preserved by her, was regarded by him as the absolutely reliable

683

See, above all, the systematic main work “περὶ ἀρχῶν”. Many writings of Origen are pervaded by arguments, evincing equal discretion and patience, against the Christians who contest the right of science in the Church. In the work against Celsus, however, he was not unfrequently obliged to abandon the simple Christians. C. Celsus III. 78: V. 14-24 are particularly instructive. 684

divine revelation.685 But, in addition to these, every possession of the Church, and, above all, the rule of faith, was authoritative and holy.686 By acknowledging not only the relative correctness of the beliefs held by the great mass of simple Christians as the Valentinians did, but also the indispensableness of their faith as the foundation of speculation, Origen like Clement avoided the dilemma of becoming a heterodox Gnostic or an ecclesiastical traditionalist. He was able to maintain this standpoint, because in the fir 54d st place his Gnosis required a guaranteed sacred literature which he only found in 336the Church, and because in the second place this same Gnosis had extended its horizon far enough to see that what the heretical Gnosis had regarded as contrasts were different aspects of the same thing. The relative way of looking at things, an inheritance from the best time of antiquity, is familiar to Origen, as it was to Clement; and he contrived never to lose sight of it, in spite of the absolute attitude he had arrived at through the Christian Gnosis and the Holy Scriptures. This relative view taught him and Clement toleration and discretion (Strom. IV. 22. 139: ἡ γνῶσις ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τοὺς ἀγνοοῦντας διδάσκει τε καὶ παιδεύει τὴν πᾶσαν κτίσιν τοῦ παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ τιµᾶν, “Gnosis loves and instructs the ignorant and teaches us to honour the whole creation of God Almighty”); and enabled them everywhere to discover, hold fast, and further the good in that which was meagre and narrow, in that which was undeveloped and as yet intrinsically obscure. 561 1 As an orthodox traditionalist and decided opponent of

685

In this point Origen is already narrower than Clement. Free judgments, such as were passed by Clement on Greek philosophy, were not, so far as I know, repeated by Origen. (See especially Clement, Strom. I. 5. 28-32: 13. 57, 58 etc.); yet he also acknowledges revelations of God in Greek philosophy (see, e.g., c. Cels. VI. 3), and the Christian doctrine is to him the completion of Greek philosophy (see the remains of Origen’s lost Stromateis and Hom. XIV. in Genes. § 3; Other passages in Redepenning II., p, 324 ff.). 686 We must here content ourselves with merely pointing out that the method of scientific Scriptural exegesis also led to historico-critical investigations, that accordingly Origen and his disciples were also critics of the tradition, and that scientific theology, in addition to the task of remodelling Christianity, thus began at its very origin the solution of another problem, namely, the critical restoration of Christianity from the Scriptures and tradition and the removal of its excrescences: for these efforts, strictly speaking, do not come up for consideration in the history of dogma. 687 The theory that justified a twofold morality in the Church is now completely legitimised, but the higher form no longer appears as Encratite and eschatological, but as Encratite and philosophical. See, for example, Clement, Strom. III. 12. 82: VI. 13. 106 etc. Gnosis is the principle of perfection. See Strom. IV. 7. 54: πρόκειται δὲ τοῖς εἰς

all heresy Origen acknowledged that Christianity embraces a salvation which is offered to all men and attained by faith, that it is the doctrine of historical facts to which we must adhere, that the content of Christianity has been appropriately summarised by the Church in her rule of faith,688 and that belief is of itself sufficient for the renewal and salvation of man. But, as an idealistic philosopher, Origen transformed the whole content of ecclesiastical faith into ideas. Here he adhered to no fixed philosophical system, but, like Philo, Clement, and the Neoplatonists, adopted and adapted all that had been effected by the labours of idealistic Greek moralists since the time of Socrates. These, however, had long before transformed the Socratic saying “know thyself” into manifold rules for the right conduct of life, and associated with it a theosophy, in which man was first to attain to his true self. 558 689 These rules made the true “sage” 337abstain from occupying himself in the service of daily life and “from burdensome appearance in public”. They asserted that the mind “can have no more peculiar duty than caring for itself. This is accomplished by its not looking without nor occupying itself with foreign things, but, turning inwardly to itself, restoring its own nature to itself and thus practising righteousness.”690 Here it was taught that the wise man who no longer requires anything is nearest the Deity, because he is a partaker of the highest good through possession of his rich Ego and through his calm contemplation of the world; here moreover it was proclaimed that the mind that has freed itself from the sensuous aee 1 and lives in constant contemplation of the eternal is also in the end vouchsafed a view of the invisible and is itself deified. No one can deny that this sort of flight from the world and possession of God involves a specific secularisation of Christianity, and that the isolated and self-sufficient sage is pretty much the opposite of the poor soul that

τελείωσιν σπεύδουσιν ἡ γνῶσις ἡ λογικὴ ἧς θεµέλιος ἡ ἁγία τριὰς πιστίς, ἀγάπη, ἐλπίς. 688 See the preface to the work. 689 From the conclusion of Hippolytus’ Philosophoumena it is also evident how the Socratic Γνῶθι σεαυτόν was in that age based on a philosophy of religion and was regarded as a watchword in wide circles. See Clem. Pædag. III. 11. 1. 690 See Gregory Thaumaturgus’ panegyric on Origen, one of the most instructive writings of the 3rd century, especially cc. 11-18. 691 Yet all excesses are repudiated. See Clem. Strom. IV. 22. 138: Οὐκ ἐγκρατὴς οὗτος ἔτι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἕξει γέγονεν ἀπαθεὍ e92 ας σχῆµα θεῖον ἐπενδύσασθαι αναµένων. Similar remarks are found in Origen.

hungers after righteousness.692 Nor, on the other hand, can any one deny that concrete examples of both types are found in infinite multiplicity and might shade off into each other in this multiplicity. This was the case with Clement and Origen. To them the ethical and religious ideal is the state without sorrow, the state of insensibility to all evils, of order and peace — but peace in God. Reconciled to the course of the world, trusting in the divine Logos,693 rich in disinterested love to God and the brethen, reproducing the divine thoughts, looking up with longing to heaven its native city,694 the created spirit 338attains its likeness to God and eternal bliss. It reaches this by the victory over sensuousness, by constantly occupying itself with the divine — “Go ye believing thoughts into the wide field of eternity” — by self-knowledge and contemplative isolation, which, however, does not exclude work in the kingdom of God, that is in the Church. This is the divine wisdom: “The soul practises viewing herself as in a mirror: she displays the divine Spirit in herself as in a mirror, if she is to be found worthy of this fellowship; and she thus discovers the traces of a mysterious way to deification.”695 Origen employed the Stoic and Platonic ac8 systems of ethics as an instrument for the gradual realisation of this ideal.696 With him the mystic and ecstatic as well as the magic and sacramental element is still in the background, though it is not wanting. To Origen’s mind, however, the inadequacy of philosophical injunctions was constantly made plain by the following considerations. (1) The philosophers, in spite of their noble thoughts of God, tolerated the existence of polytheism;

692

In many passages of Clement the satisfaction in knowledge appears in a still more pronounced form than in Origen. The boldest expression of it is Strom. IV. 22. 136. This passage is quoted above on p. 328.) 693 See the beautiful prayer of the Christian Gnostic in Strom. IV. 23. 148. 694 See Strom. IV. 26. 172: Origen’s commentaries are continually interrupted by similar outbursts of feeling. 695 On deification as the ultimate aim see Clem., Strom. IV. 23. 149-155: VII. 10. 56, 13. 82, 16. 95: οὕτως ὁ τῷ κυρίῳ πειθόµενος καὶ τῇ δοθείσῃ δι᾽ ἀυτοῦ κατακολουθήσας προφητείᾳ τελέως ἐκτελεῖται κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ διδασκάλου ἐν σαρκὶ περιπολῶν Θεός. But note what a distinction Clement makes between ὁ Θεός and the perfect man in VII. 15. 88 (in contradistinction to the Stoic identification); Origen does this also. 696 Gregory (l.c., c. 13) relates that all the works of the poets and philosophers were read in Origen’s school, and that every part of these works that would stand the test was admitted. Only the works of atheists were excluded, “because these overpass the limits of human thought.” However, Origen did not judge philosophers in such an unprejudiced manner as Clement, or, to speak more correctly, he no longer valued them so highly. See Bigg, l.c., p. 133, Denis l.c. Introd.

and this was really the only fault he had to find with Plato. (2) The truth did not become universally accessible through them.697 (3) As the result of these facts they did not possess sufficient power.698 In contrast to this the divine revelation had already mastered a whole people through Moses — “Would to God the Jews had not transgressed the law, and had not slain the prophets and Jesus; we would then have had a model of that heavenly commonwealth which Plato has sought to describe”699 — and the Logos shows his universal 339power in the Church (1) by putting an end to all polytheism, and (2) by improving everyone to the extent that his knowledge and capacity admit, and in proportion as his will is inclined to, and susceptible of, that which is good.700

697

See, for example, c. Cels. V. 43: VII. 47, 59 sq. He compared Plato and other wise men to those doctors who give their attention only to cultured patients. 698 See, for example, c. Cels. VI. 2. 699 C. Cels. V. 43. 700 One of Origen’s main ideas, which we everywhere meet with, particularly in the work against Celsus (see, for example, VI. 2) is the thought that Christ has come to improve all men according to their several capacities, and to lead some to the highest knowledge. This conception appears to fall short of the Christian ideal and perhaps really does so; but as soon as we measure it not by the Gospel but by the aims of Greek philosophy, we see very clearly the progress that has been attained through this same Gospel. What Origen has in his eye is mankind, and he is anxious for the amendment not merely of a few, but of all. The actual state of things in the Church no longer allowed him to repeat the exclamations of the Apologists that all Christians were philosophers and that all were filled with the same wisdom and virtue. These exclamations were naive and inappropriate even for that time. But he could already estimate the relative progress made by mankind within the Church as compared with those outside her pale, saw no gulf between the growing and the perfect, and traced the whole advance to Christ. He expressly declared, c. Cels. III. 78, that the Christianity which is fitted for the comprehension of the multitude is not the best doctrine in an absolute, but only in a relative, sense; that the “common man”, as he expresses himself, must be reformed by the prospect of rewards and punishments; and that the truth can only he communicated to him in veiled forms and images, as to a child. The very fact, however, that the Logos in Jesus Christ has condescended so to act is to Origen a proof of the universality of Christianity. Moreover, many of the wonderful phenomena reported in the Holy Scriptures belong in his opinion to the veiled forms and images. He is very far from doing violence to his reason here; he rather appeals to mysterious powers of the soul, to powers of divination, visionary states etc. His standpoint in this case is wholly that of Celsus (see particularly the instructive disquisition in I. 48), in so far as he is convinced that many unusual things take place between heaven and earth, and that individual names, symbols etc. possess a mysterious power (see, for example, c. Cels. V. 45). The views as to the relationship between knowledge and holy initiation or sacramentum are those of the philosophers of the age. He thinks, however, that each individual case requires to be

340

Not only, however, did Origen employ the Greek ethic in its varied types, but the Greek cosmological speculation also formed

examined, that there can be no miracles not in accordance with nature, but that on the contrary everything must fit into a higher order. As the letter of the precepts in both Testaments frequently contains things contrary to reason (see περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 2. 8-27) in order to lead men to the spiritual interpretation, and as many passages contain no literal sense at all (l.c. § 12), so also, in the historical narratives, we frequently discover a mythical element from which consequently nothing but the idea is to be evolved (l.c. § 16 sq.: “Non solum de his, quæ usque ad adventum Christi scripta sunt, hæc Spiritus sanctus procuravit, sed . . . eadem similiter etiam in evangelistis et apostolis fecit. Nam ne illas quidem narrationes, quas per eos inspiravit, absque huiuscemodi, quam supra exposuimus, sapientiæ sua arte contexuit. Unde etiam in ipsis non parva promiscuit, quibus historialis narrandi ordo interpolatus, vel intercisus per impossibilitatem sui reflecteret atque revocaret intentionem legentis ad intelligentiæ interioris examen.”) In all such cases Origen makes uniform use of the two points of view, that God wished to present something even to the simple and to incite the more advanced to spiritual investigations. In some passages, however, the former point of view fails, because the content of the text is offensive; in that case it is only the second that applies. Origen therefore was very far from finding the literal content of Scripture edifying in every instance, indeed, in the highest sense, the letter is not edifying at all. He rather adopted, to its widest extent, the critical method employed by the Gnostics particularly when dealing with the Old Testament; but the distinction he made between the different senses of Scripture and between the various legitimate human needs enabled him to preserve both the unity of God and the harmony of revelation. Herein, both in this case and everywhere else, lies the superiority of his theology. Read especially c. Celsum I. 9-12. After appealing to the twofold religion among the Egyptians, Persians, Syrians, and Indians — the mythical religion of the multitude and the mystery-religion of the initiated — he lays down exactly the same distinction within Christianity, and thus repels the reproach of Celsus that the Christians were obliged to accept everything without examination. With regard to the mythical form of Christianity he merely claims that it is the most suitable among religions of this type. Since, as a matter of fact, the great majority of men have neither time nor talent for philosophy, ποία ἂν ἄλλη βελτίων µέθοδος πρὸς τὸ τοῖς πολλοῖς βοηθῆσαι εὑρεθείη, τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς ἔθνεσι παραδοθείσης (l.c., 9). This thought is quite in the spirit of antiquity, and neither Celsus nor Porphyry could have any fault to find with these arguments in point of form: all positive religions have a mythical element; the true religion therefore lies behind the religions. But the novelty which neither Celsus nor Porphyry could recognise lies in the acknowledgment that the one religion, even in its mythical form, is unique and divine, and in the demand that all men, so far as they cannot attain the highest knowledge, must subject themselves to this mythical religion and no other. In this claim Origen rejected the ancient contrast between the multitude and the initiated just as he repudiated polytheism; and in this, if I see rightly, his historical greatness consists. He everywhere recognised gradations tending in the same direction and rejected polytheism.

the complicated substructure of his religious system of morals. The Gnosis is f ac8 ormally a philosophy of revelation, that is a Scripture theology,701 and materially a cosmological speculation. On the basis of a detailed theory of inspiration, which itself, moreover, originates with the philosophers, the Holy Scriptures are so treated that all facts appear as the vehicles of ideas and only attain their highest value in this aspect. Systematic theology, 341 in undertaking its task, always starts, as Clement and Origen also did, with the conscious or unconscious thought of emancipating itself from the outward revelation and community of cultus that are the characteristic marks of positive religion. The place of these is taken by the results of speculative cosmology, which, though themselves practically conditioned, do not seem to be of this character. This also applies to Origen’s Christian Gnosis or scientific dogmatic, which is simply the metaphysics of the age. However, as he was the equal of the foremost minds of his time, this dogmatic was no schoolboy imitation on his part, but was to some extent independently developed and was worked out both in opposition to pantheistic Stoicism and to theoretical dualism. That we are not mistaken in this opinion is shown by a document ranking among the most valuable things preserved to us from the third century; we mean the judgment passed on Origen by Porphyry in Euseb., H. E. VI. 19. Every sentence is instructive,702 but the culminating point is the judgment contained in § 7: κατὰ µὲν τὸν βίον Χριστιανῶς ζῶν καὶ παρανόµως, κατὰ δὲ τὰς περὶ τῶν πραγµάτων καὶ τοῦ θείου δόξας Ἑλληνίζων καὶ τὰ Ἑλλήνων τοῖς ὀθνείοις ὑποβαλλόµενος µύθοις. (“His outward life was that of a Christian and opposed to the law, but in regard to his views of things and of the Deity, he thought like the Greeks, inasmuch as he introduced their ideas into the myths of other peoples.”) We can everywhere verify this observation from Origen’s works and particularly from the books written against Celsus, where he is continually o aaf bliged to mask his essential agreement in principles and method with the enemy of the Christians.703 The Gnosis is in fact the Hellenic one and results in that wonderful picture of the world which, though apparently a drama, is in reality

701

Bigg (l.c., p. 154) has rightly remarked: “Origen in point of method differs most from Clement, who not unfrequently leaves us in doubt as to the precise Scriptural basis of his ideas.” 702 Note, for example, § 8, where it is said that Origen adopted the allegorical method from the Stoic philosophers and applied it to the Jewish writings. On Origen’s hermeneutic principles in their relation to those of Philo see Siegfried, l.c., pp. 351-62. Origen has developed them fully and clearly in the 4th Book of περὶ ἀρχῶν . 703 See Overbeck, Theologische Literatur-Zeitung, 1878, Col. 535.

immovable, and only assumes such a complicated form here from its relation to the Holy Scriptures and the history of Christ.704 The 342Gnosis neutralises everything connected with empiric history; and if this does not everywhere hold good with regard to the actual occurrence of facts, it is at least invariably the case in respect to their significance. The clearest proof of this is (1) that Origen raised the thought of the unchangeability of God to be the norm of his system and (2) that he denied the historical, incarnate Logos any significance for “Gnostics”. To these Christ merely appears as the Logos who has been from eternity with the Father and has always acted from the beginning. He alone is the object of the knowledge of the wise man, who merely requires a perfect or, in other words, a divine teacher.705 The Gospel too only teaches the “shadow of the secrets of Christ;” but the eternal Gospel, which is also the pneumatic one, “clearly places before men’s minds all things concerning the Son of God himself, both the mysteries shown by his words, and the things of which his acts were the riddles” (σασῶς παρίστησι τοῖς νοοῦσι τὰ πάντα ἐνώπιον περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὰ παριστάµενα µυστήρια ὑπὸ τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ, τά τε πράγµατα, ὦν αἰνίγµατα ἧσαν αἱ πράξεις αὐτοῦ)706 No doubt the true theology based on revelation 343makes 704

A full presentation of Origen’s theology would require many hundreds of pages, because he introduced everything worth knowing into the sphere of theology, and associated with the Holy Scriptures, verse by verse, philosophical maxims, ethical reflexions, and results of physical science, which would require to be drawn on the widest canvas, because the standpoint selected by Origen allowed the most extensive view and the most varied judgments. The case was similar with Clement before him, and also with Tertullian. This is a necessary result of “Scripture theology” when one takes it up in earnest. Tertullian assumes, for example, that there must be a Christian doctrine of dreams. Why? Because we read of dreams in the Holy Scriptures. 705 In c. Cels. III. 61 it is said (Lommatzsch XVIII., p. 337): ἐπέµσθη οὗν Θεὸς λόγος καθὸ µὲν ἰατρὸς τοῖς ἁµαρτωλοῖς, καθὸ δὲ διδάσκαλος θείων µυστηρίων τοῖς ἤδη καθαροῖς καὶ µηκέτι ἁµαρτάνουσιν. See also what follows. In Comment. in John I. 20 sq. the crucified Christ, as the Christ of faith, is distinguished from the Christ who takes up his abode in us, as the Christ of the perfect. See 22 (Lomm. I. p. 43): καὶ µακάριοι γε ὅσοι δεόµενοι τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοιοῦτοι γεγόνασιν, ὡς µηκέτι αὐτοῦ χρῄζειν ἰατροῦ τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας θεραπεύοντος, µηδὲ ποιµένος, µηδὲ ἀπολυτρώσεως, ἀλλὰ σοσίας καὶ λόγου καὶ δικαιοσύνης, ἢ εἴ τι ἄλλο τοῖς διὰ τελειότητα χωρεῖν αὐτοῦ τὰ κάλλιστα δυναµένοις. Read also c. Cels. II. 66, 69: IV. 15, 18: VI. 68. These passages show that the crucified Christ is no longer of any account to the Gnostic, and that he therefore allegorises all the incidents described in the Gospels. Clement, too, really regards Christ as of no importance to Gnostics except as a teacher. 706 Comment. in Joh. I. 9, Lomm. I. p. 20. The “mysteries” of Christ is the technical term for this theology and, at bottom, for all theology. For, in respect of the form given to

pantheism appear overthrown as well as dualism, and here the influence of the two Testaments cannot be mistaken; but a subtle form of the latter recurs in Origen’s system, whilst the manner in which he rejected both made the Greek philosophy of the age feel that there was something akin to it here. In the final utterances of religious metaphysics ecclesiastical Christianity, with the exception of a few compromises, is thrown off as a husk. The objects of religious knowledge have no history or rather, and this is a genuinely Gnostic and Neoplatonic idea, they have only a supramundane one. This necessarily gave rise to the assumption of an esoteric and exoteric form of the Christian religion, for it is only behind the statutory, positive religion of the Church that religion itself is found. Origen gave the clearest expression to this assumption, which must have been already familiar in the Alexandrian school of catechists, and convinced himself that it was correct, because he saw that the mass of Christians were unable to grasp the deeper sense of Scripture, and because he realised the difficulties of the exegesis. On the other hand, in solving the problem of adapting the different points of his heterodox system of thought to the regula fidei, he displayed the most masterly skill. He succeeded in finding an external connection, because, though the construction of his theory proceeded from the top downwards, he could find support for it on the steps of the regula fidei, already developed by Irenæus into the history of salvation.707 The system itself is to be, in principle and in every respect, monistic, but, as the material world, though created by God out of nothing, merely appears as a place of punishment and purification for souls, a strong element of dualism is inherent in the system, as far as its practical application is concerned.708 The prevailing 344contrast is that between the one

it, revelation always appears as a problem that theology has to solve. What is revealed is therefore either to be taken as immediate authority (by the believer) or as a soluble problem. One thing, accordingly, it is not, namely, something in itself evident and intelligible. 707 See Nitzsch, Dogmengeschichte, p. 136. 708 To Origen the problem of evil was one of the most important; see Book III. of περὶ ἀρχῶν and c. Cels. VI. 53-59. He is convinced (1) that the world is not the work of a second, hostile God; (2) that virtues and the works arising from them are alone good in the proper sense of the word, and that nothing but the opposite of these is bad; (3) that evil in the proper sense of the word is only evil will (see c. Cels. IV. 66: VI. 54). Accordingly he makes a very decided distinction between that which is bad and evils. As for the latter he admits that they partly originate from God, in which case they are designed as means of training and punishment. But he saw that this conception is insufficient, both in view of individual passages of Holy Scripture and of natural

transcendent esse ac8 nce and the multiplicity of all created things. The pervading ambiguity lies in the twofold view of the spiritual in so far as, on the one hand, it belongs to God as the unfolding of his essence, and, on the other, as being created, is contrasted with God. This ambiguity, which recurs in all the Neoplatonic systems and has continued to characterise all mysticism down to the present day, originates in the attempt to repel Stoic pantheism 345and yet to preserve the transcendental nature of the human spirit, and to maintain the absolute causality of God without allowing his goodness to be called in question. The assumption that created spirits can freely determine their own course is therefore a necessity of the system; in fact this assumption is one of its main presuppositions709 and is so boldly developed as to limit the omnipotence and omniscience of God. But, as from the empirical

experience. There are evils in the world that can be understood neither as the result of sin nor as means of training. Here then his relative, rational view of things comes in, even with respect to the power of God. There are evils which are a necessary consequence of carrying out even the best intentions (c. Cels. VI. 53: τὰ κακὰ ἐκ παρακολουθήσεως γεγένηται τῆς πρὸς τὰ προηγούµενα): “Evils, in the strict sense, are not created by God; yet some, though but few in comparison with the great, well-ordered whole of the world, have of necessity adhered to the objects realised; as the carpenter who executes the plan of a building does not manage without chips and similar rubbish, or as architects cannot be made responsible for the dirty heaps of broken stones and filth one sees at the sites of buildings; (l.c., c. 55). Celsus also might have written in this strain. The religious, absolute view is here replaced by a rational, and the world is therefore not the best absolutely, but the best possible. See the Theodicy in περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 17-22. (Here, and also in other parts, Origen’s Theodicy reminds us of that of Leibnitz; see Denis, l.c., p. 626 sq. The two great thinkers have a very great deal in common, because their philosophy was not of a radical kind, but an attempt to give a rational interpretation to tradition.) But “for the great mass it is sufficient when they are told that evil has not its origin in God” (IV. 66). The case is similar with that which is really bad. It is sufficient for the multitude to know that that which is bad springs from the freedom of the creature, and that matter which is inseparable from things mortal is not the source and cause of sin (IV. 66, see also III. 42: τὸ κυρίως µιαρὸν ἀπὸ κακίας τοιυυτόν ἐστι. Öύσις δὲ σώµατος οὐ µιαρά· οὐ γὰρ ᾗ σύσις σώµατός ἐστι, τὸ γεννητικὸν τῆς µιαρότητος ἔχει τὴν κακιάν); but a closer examination shows that there can be no man without sin (III. 61) because error is inseparable from growth and because the constitution of man in the flesh makes evil unavoidable (VII. 50). Sinfulness is therefore natural and it is the necessary prius. This thought, which is also not foreign to Irenæus, is developed by Origen with the utmost clearness. He was not content with proving it, however, but in order to justify God’s ways proceeded to the assumption of a Fall before time began (see below). 709 See Mehlhorn, Die Lehre von der menschlichen Freiheit nach Origenes (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II., p. 234 ff.)

point of view the knot is tied for every man at the very moment he appears on earth, and since the problem is not created by each human being as the result of his own independent will, but lies in his organisation, speculation must retreat behind history. So the system, in accordance with certain hints of Plato, is constructed on the same plan as that of Valentinus, for example, to which it has an extraordinary affinity. It contains three parts: (1) The doctrine of God and his unfoldings or creations, (2) the doctrine of the Fall and its consequences, (3) the doctrine of redemption and restoration.710 Like Denis, 346however, we may also, in accordance

710

The distinction between Valentinus and Origen consists in the fact that the former makes an aeon or, in other words, a part of the divine pleroma, itself fall, and that he does not utilise the idea of freedom. The outline of Origen’s system cannot be made out with complete clearness from the work περὶ ἀρχῶν, because he endeavoured to treat each of the first three parts as a whole. Origen’s four principles are God, the World, Freedom, Revelation (Holy Scripture). Each principle, however, is brought into relation with Christ. The first part treats of God and the spirits, and follows the history of the latter down to their restoration. The second part treats of the world and humanity, and likewise closes with the prospect of the resurrection, punishment in hell, and eternal life. Here Origen makes a magnificent attempt to give a conception of bliss and yet to exclude all sensuous joys. The third book treats of sin and redemption, that is, of freedom of will, temptation, the struggle with the powers of evil, internal struggles, the moral aim of the world, and the restoration of all things. A special book on Christ is wanting, for Christ is no “principle”; but the incarnation is treated of in II. 6. The teachers of Valentinus’ school accordingly appear more Christian when contrasted with Origen. If we read the great work περὶ ἀρχῶν, or the treatise against Celsus, or the commentaries connectedly, we never cease to wonder how a mind so clear, so sure of the ultimate aim of all knowledge, and occupying such a high standpoint, has admitted in details all possible views down to the most naïve myths, and how he on the one hand believes in holy magic, sacramental vehicles and the like, and on the other, in spite of all his rational and even empirical views, betrays no doubt of his abstract creations. But the problem that confronts us in Origen is that presented by his age. This we realise on reading Celsus or Porphyry (see Denis l.c., p. 613: “Toutes les théories d’Origène, même les plus imaginaires, représent l’état intellectuel et moral du siècle où il a paru”). Moreover, Origen is not a teacher who, like Augustine, was in advance of his time, though he no doubt anticipated the course of ecclesiastical development. This age, as represented by its greatest men, sought to gain a substructure for something new, not by a critical examination of the old ideas, but by incorporating them all into one whole. People were anxious to have assurance, and, in the endeavour to find this, they were nervous about giving up any article of tradition. The boldness of Origen, judged as a Greek philosopher, lies in his rejection of all polytheistic religions. This made him all the more conservative in his endeavours to protect and incorporate everything else. This conservatism welded together ecclesiastical Christianity and Greek culture into a system of theology which was indeed completely heterodox.

with a premised theory of method, set forth the system in four sections, viz., Theology, Cosmology, Anthropology, Teleology. Origen’s fundamental idea is “the original indestructible unity of God and all spiritual essence.” From this it necessarily follows that the created spirit after fall, error, and sin must ever return to its origin, to being in God. In this idea we have the key to the religious philosophy of Origen. The only sources for obtaining a knowledge of the truth are the Holy Scriptures of both Testaments. No doubt the speculations of Greek philosophers also contain truth aa8 s, but these have only a propædeutic value and, moreover, have no certainty to offer, as have the Holy Scriptures, which are a witness to themselves in the fulfilment of prophecy.711 On the other hand Origen assumes that there was an esoteric deeper knowledge in addition to the Holy Scriptures, and that Jesus in particular imparted this deeper wisdom to a few;712 but, as a correct Church theologian, he scarcely made use of this assumption. The first 347methodical principle of his exegesis is that the faith, as professed in the Church in contradistinction to heresy, must not be tampered with.713 But it is the carrying out of this rule that really forms the task of the theologian. For the faith itself is fixed and requires no particular presentation; it never occurred to Origen to assume that the fixing of the faith itself could present problems. It is complete, clear, easily teachable, and really leads to victory over sensuality and sin (see c. Cels. VII. 48 and cf. other passages), as well as to fellowship with God, since it rests on the revelation of the Logos. But, as it remains determined by fear and hope of reward so, as “uninformed and irrational faith” (πίστις ἰδιωτική and ἄλογος) it only leads to a “somatic Christianity” χριστιανισµός σωµατικός). It is the task of theology, however, to decipher “spiritual Christianity” (χριστιανισµός πνευµατικός) from the Holy Scriptures, and to elevate faith to knowledge and clear vision. This

711

The proof from prophecy was reckoned by Origen among the articles belonging to faith, but not to Gnosis (see for ex. c. Cels. II. 37); but, like the Apologists, he found it of great value. As far as the philosophers are concerned, Origen always bore in mind the principle expressed in c. Cels. VII. 46: πρὸς ταῦτα δ᾽ἡµεῖς φήσοµεν οἱ µελετήσαντες µηδενὶ ἀπεχθάνεσθαι τῶν καλῶς λεγοµένων; κἂν οἱ ἔξω τῆς πίστεως λέγωσι καλῶς. In that same place it is asserted that God in his love has not only revealed himself to such as entirely consecrate themselves to his service, but also to such as do not know the true adoration and reverence which he requires. But as remarked above, p. 338, Origen’s attitude to the Greek philosophers is much more reserved than that of Clement. 712 See, for ex., c. Cels. VI. 6, Comment in Johann. XIII. 59, Lomm. II., p. 9 sq. 713 Περὶ ἀρχῶν preface.

is effected by the method of Scripture exegesis which ascertains the highest revelations of God. ae8 1 The Scripture has a threefold sense because, like the cosmos, alongside of which it stands like a second revelation, as it were, it must contain a pneumatic, psychic, and somatic element. The somatic or historical sense is in every case the first that must be ascertained. It corresponds to the stage of mere faith and has consequently the same dignity as the latter. But there are instances where it is to be given up and designated as a Jewish and fleshly sense. This is to be assumed in all cases where it leads to ideas opposed to the nature of God, morality, the law of nature, or reason.714 Here one must judge (see above) that such objectionable passages were meant to incite the searcher to a deeper investigation. The psychic sense is of a moral nature: in the Old Testament more especially most narratives have a moral content, which one can easily find by stripping off the history as a covering; and in certain 348passages one may content oneself with this meaning. The pneumatic sense, which is the only meaning borne by many passages, an assertion which neither Philo nor Clement ventured to make in plain terms, has with Origen a negatively apologetic and a positively didactic aim. It leads to the ultimate ideas which, once attained, are self-evident, and, so to speak, pass completely over into the mind of the theologian, because they finally obtain for him clear vision and independent possession.715 When the Gnostic has attained this stage, he may throw away the ladders by which he has reached this height.716 He is then inwardly united with God’s Logos, and from this union obtains all that he requires. In most passages Origen presupposed the similarity and equal value of all parts of the Holy Scriptures; but in some he showed that even inspiration has its stages and grades, according to the receptivity ac8 and worthiness of each prophet, thus applying his relative view of all matters of fact in such cases also. In Christ the full revelation of the Logos was first expressed; his Apostles did not possess the same inspiration as

714

On Origen’s exegetical method see Kihn, Theodor v. Mopsu. p. 20 ff., Bigg, l.c. p. 131 ff. On the distinction between his application of the allegorical method and that of Clement see specially p. 134 f. of the latter work. 715 Origen noted several such passages in the very first chapter of Genesis Examples are given in Bigg, p. 137 f. 716 Bigg, l.c., has very appropriately named Origen’s allegorism “Biblical alchemy”. 717 To ascertain the pneumatic sense, Origen frequently drew analogies between the domain of the cosmic and that of the spiritual. He is thus a forerunner of modern idealistic philosophers, for example, Drummond: “To Origen allegorism is only one manifestation of the sacramental mystery of nature (Bigg, p. 134).

he,718 and among the Apostles and apostolic men differences in the degrees of inspiration are again to be assumed. Here Origen set the example of making a definite distinction between a heroic age of the Apostles and the succeeding period. This laid the foundation for an assumption through which the later Church down to our time has appeased her conscience and freed herself from demands that she could not satisfy.719 I. The Doctrine of God and its unfolding. 349

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD AND HIS SELF-UNFOLDINGS OR CREATIONS.720 The world points back to an ultimate cause and the created spirit to an eternal, pure, absolutely simple, and unchangeable spirit, who is the original source of all existence and goodness. so that everything that exists only does so in virtue of being caused by that One, and is good in so far as it derives its essence from the One who is perfection and goodness. This fundamental idea is the source of all the conclusions drawn by Origen as to the essence, attributes, and knowableness of God. As the One, God is contrasted with the Manifold; but the order in the Manifold points back to the One. As the real Essence, God is opposed to the essences that appear and seem to vanish, and that therefore have no real existence, because they have not their principle in themselves, but testify: “We have not made ourselves.” As the absolutely immaterial Spirit, God is contrasted with the spirit that is clogged with matter, but which strives to get back to him from whom it received its origin. The One is something different from the Manifold; but the order, the dependence, and the longing of that which is cre 564 ated point back to the One, who

718

See Hom. in Luc. XXIX., Lomm. V., p. 193 sq. Since Origen does not, as a rule, dispute the literal meaning of the Scriptures, he has also a much more favourable opinion of the Jewish people and of the observance of the law than the earlier Christian authors (but see Iren. and Tertull.). At bottom he places the observance of the law quite on the same level as the faith of the simple Christians. The Apostles also kept the law for a time, and it was only by degrees that they came to understand its spiritual meaning. They were also right to continue its observance during their mission among the Jews. On the other hand, he considers the New Testament a higher stage than the Old both in its literal and its spiritual sense. See c. Cels. II. 1-4, 7, 75: IV. 31 sq.: V. 10, 30, 31, 42 sq., 66: VII. 26. 720 In opposition to the method for obtaining a knowledge of God, recommended by Alcinous (c. 12), Maximus Tyr. (XVII. 8), and Celsus (by analysis [apophat.], synthesis [kataphat.], and analogy), Origen, c. Cels. VII. 42, 44, appeals to the fact that the Christian knows God better, namely, in his incarnate Son. But he himself, nevertheless, also follows the synthetic method. 719

can therefore be known relatively from the Manifold. In sharpest contrast to the heretical Gnosis, Origen maintained the absolute causality of God, and, in spite of all abstractions in determining the essence of God, he attributed self-consciousness and will to this superessential Essence (in opposition to Valentinus, Basilides, and the later Neoplatonists).721 The created is one thing and the Selfexistent is another, but both are connected together; 350as the created can only be understood from something self-existent, so the self-existent is not without analogy to the created. The Selfexistent is in itself a living thing; it is beyond dispute that Origen with all his abstractions represented the Deity, whom he primarily conceived as a constant substance, in a more living, and, so to speak, in a more personal way than the Greek philosophers. Hence it was possible for him to produce a doctrine of the attributes of God. Here he did not even shrink from applying his relative view to the Deity, because, as will be seen, he never thinks of God without abf revelation, and because all revelation must be something limited. The omnipresence of God indeed suffers from no limitation. God is potentially every. where; but he is everywhere only potentially; that is, he neither encompasses nor is

721

In defining the superessential nature of the One, Origen did not go so far as the Basilidians (Philosoph. VII. 20, 21) or as Plotinus. No doubt he also regards the Deity as ἐπέκεινα τῆς ὀυσίας (c. Cels. VII. 42-51; περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 1; Clement made a closer approach to the heretical abstractions of the Gnostics inasmuch as he still more expressly renounced any designation of God; see Strom. V. 12, 13), but he is not βύθος and σιγή, being rather a self-comprehending Spirit, and therefore does not require a hypostasis (the νοῦς) before he can come to himself. Accordingly the human intellect is not incapable of soaring up to God as the later Neoplatonists assert; at least vision is by no means so decidedly opposed to thought, that is, elevated above it as something new, as is held by the Neoplatonists and Philo before them. Origen is no mystic. In accordance with this conception Origen and Clement say that the perfect knowledge of God can indeed be derived from the Logos alone (c. Cels. VII. 48, 49: VI. 65-73; Strom. V. 12. 85: VI. 15. 122), but that a relative knowledge may be deduced from creation (c. Cels. VII. 46). Hence they also spoke of an innate knowledge of God (Protrept. VI. 68; Strom. V. 13. 78), and extended the teleological proof of God furnished by Philo (περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 1. 6; c. Cels. I. 23). The relatively correct predicates of God to be determined from revelation are his unity (c. Cels. I. 23), his absolute spirituality (πνεῦµα ἀσώµατος, ἄϋλος, ἀσχηµάτιστος) — this is maintained both in opposition to Stoicism and anthropomorphism; see Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 1, Origen’s polemic against Melito’s conception of God, and Clem., Strom. V. 11. 68: V. 12. 82, — his unbegottenness, his immortality (this is eternity conceived as enjoyment; the eternity of God itself, however, is to be conceived, according to Clement, as that which is above time; see Strom. II. 2. 6), and his absolute causality. All these concepts together constitute the conception of perfection. See Fischer, De Orig. theologia et cosmologia, 1840.

encompassed. Nor is he diffused through the universe, but, as he is removed from the limits of space, so also he is removed from space itself.722 But the omniscience and omnipotence of God have a limit, which indeed, according to Origen, lies in the nature of the case itself. In the first place his omnipotence is limited through his essence, for he can only do what he wills;723 secondly by logic, for omnipotence cannot produce things containing an inward contradiction: God can do 351nothing contrary to nature, all miracles being natural in the highest sense724 — thirdly, by the impossibility of that which is in itself unlimited being comprehended, whence it follows that the extent of everything created must be limited725 — fourthly, by the impossibility of realising an aim completely and without disturbing elements.726 Omniscience has also its corresponding limits; this is specially proved from the freedom of spirits bestowed by God himself. God has indeed the capacity of foreknowledge, but he knows transactions beforehand because they happen; they do not happen because he knows them.727 ad1 That the divine purpose should be realised in the end necessarily follows from the nature of the created spirit itself, apart from the supporting activity of God. Like Irenæus and Tertullian Origen very carefully discussed the attributes of goodness and justice in God in opposition to the Marcionites.728 But his exposition is different. In his eyes goodness and justice are not two opposite attributes, which can and must exist in God side by side; but as virtues they are to him identical. God rewards in justice and punishes in kindness. That it should go well with all, no matter how they conduct themselves, would be no kindness; but it is kindness when God punishes to improve, deter, and prevent. Passions, anger, and the like do not exist in God, nor any plurality of virtues; but, as the Perfect One, he is all kindness. In other places, however, Origen did not content himself with this presentation. In opposition to the Marcionites, who declared Christ

722

Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 1. 3. C. Cels. V. 23. 724 L.c. 725 Περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 9. 1: “Certum est, quippe quod præfinito aliquo apud se numero creaturas fecit: non enim, ut quidam volunt, finem putandum est non habere creaturas; quia ubi finis non est, nec comprehensio ulla nec circumscriptio esse potest. Quod si fuerit utique nec contineri vel dispensari a deo, quæ facta sunt, poterunt. Naturaliter nempe quicquid infinitum fuerit, et incomprehensibile erit.” In Matth., t. 13., c. 1 fin., Lomm. III., p. 209 sq. 726 See above, p. 343, note 2. 727 See c. Cels. II. 20. 728 Clement also did so; see with respect to Origen περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 5, especially § 3 sq. 723

and the Father of Christ to be good, and the creator of the world to be just, he argued that, on the contrary, God (the foundation of the world) 352is good, but that the Logos-Christ, in so far as he is the pedagogus, is just.729 From the perfect goodness of God Origen infers that he reveals or communicates himself, from his immutability that he always reveals himself. The eternal or never beginning communication of perfection to other beings is a postulate of the concept “God”. But, along with the whole fraternity of those professing the same philosophy, Origen assumed that the One, in becoming the Manifold and acting in the interests of the Manifold, can only effect his purpose by divesting himself of absolute apathy and once more assuming a form in which he can act, that is, procuring for himself an adequate organ — the Logos. The content of Origen’s teaching about this Logos was not essentially different from that of Philo and was therefore quite as contradictory; only in his case everything is more sharply defined and the hypostasis of the Logos (in opposition to the Monarchi ac8 ans) more clearly and precisely stated.730 Nevertheless the personal independence 353of the Logos

729

See Comment. in Johann. I. 40, Lomm. I. p. 77 sq. I cannot agree that this view is a rapprochement to the Marcionites (contrary to Nitzsch’s opinion, l.c., p. 285). The confused accounts in Epiph., H. 43. 13 are at any rate not to be taken into account. 730 Clement’s doctrine of the Logos, to judge from the Hypotyposes, was perhaps different from that of Origen. According to Photius (Biblioth. 109) Clement assumed two Logoi (Origen indeed was also reproached with the same; see Pamphili Apol., Routh, Reliq. S., IV., p. 367), and did not even allow the second and weaker one to make a real appearance on earth; but this is a misunderstanding (see Zahn, Forschungen III., p. 144). Λέγεται µέν — these are said to have been the words of a passage in the Hypotyposes — κὰι ὁ ὑιὸς λόγος ὁµωνύµως τῷ τατρικῷ λόγῳ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ σὰρξ γενόµενος, οὐδὲ µὴν ὁ πατρῷος λόγος, ἀλλὰ δύναµίς τις τοῦ Θεοῦ. οἷον ἀπόρροια τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ νοῦς γενόµενος τὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων καρδίας διαπεσοίτηκε. The distinction between an impersonal Logos-God and the Logos-Christ necessarily appeared as soon as the Logos was definitely hypostatised. In the so-called Monarchian struggles of the 3rd century the disputants made use of these two Logoi, who formed excellent material for sophistical discussions. In the Strom. Clement did not reject the distinction between a λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and προσορικός (on Strom. V. 1. 6. see Zahn, l.c., p. 145 against Nitzsch), and in many passages expresses himself in such a way that one can scarcely fail to notice a distinction between the Logos of the Father and that of the Son. “The Son-Logos is an emanation of the Reason of God, which unalterably remains in God and is the Logos proper.” If the Adumbrationes are to be regarded as parts of the Hypotyposes, Clement used the expression ὁµοούσιος for the Logos, or at least an identical one (See Zahn, Forschungen III., pp. 87-138 f.). This is the more probable because Clement, Strom. 16. 74, expressly remarked that men are not µέρος θεοῦ καὶ τῷ

is as yet by no means so sharply defined as in the case of the later Arians. He is still the Consciousness of God, the spiritual Activity of God. Hence he is on the one hand the idea of the world existing in God, and on the other the product of divine wisdom originating with the will of God. The following are the most important propositions.731 The Logos who appeared in Christ, as is specially shown from Joh. I. 1 and Heb. I. 1, is the perfect image732 of God.

Θοῷ ὁµοούσιοι, and because he says in Strom. IV. 13. 91: εἰ ἐπὶ τὸ καταλῦσαι θάνατον ἀφικνεῖται τὸ διαφέρον γένος, οὐχ ὁ Χριστὸς τὸν θάνατον κατήργησεν, εἰ µὴ καὶ αὐτὸς αὐτοῖς ὁµοούσιος λεχθείη. One must assume from this that the word was really familiar to Clement as a designation of the community of nature, possessed by the Logos, both with God and with men. See Protrept. 10. 110: ὁ θεῖος λόγος, ὁ φανερώτατος ὄντως Θεός, ὁ τῷ δεσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων ἐξισωθείς). In Strom. V. 1. 1 Clement emphatically declared that the Son was equally eternal with the Father: οὐ µὴν οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ἄνευ υἱοῦ· ἅµα γὰρ τῷ πατήρ υἱοῦ πατήρ (see also Strom. IV. 7. 58: ἓν µὲν τὸ ἀγέννητον ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ἓν δὲ καὶ τὸ προγεννηθὲν δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, and Adumbrat. in Zahn, l.c., p. 87, where 1 John I. 1 is explained: “principium generationis separatum ab opificis principio non est. Cum enim dicit “quod erat ab initio” generationem tangit sine principio filii cum patre simul exstantis.” See besides the remarkable passage, Quis dives salv. 37: Θεῷ τὰ τῆς ἀγάπης µυστήρια, καὶ τότε ἐποπτεύσεις τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ὃν ὁ µονογενὴς υἱὸς Θεὸς µόνος ἐξηγήσατο· ἔστι δὲ κὰι αὐτὸς ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη καὶ δι᾽ ἀγάπην ἡµῖν ἀνεκράθη· καὶ τὸ µὲν ἄρρητον ἀυτοῦ πατήρ, τὸ δὲ ἡµῖν συµπαθὲς γέγονε µήτηρ· ἀγαπήσας ὁ πατὴρ ἐθηλύνθη, καὶ τούτου µέγα σηµεῖον, ὃν ἀυτὸς ἐγέννησεν ἐξ αὑτοῦ καὶ ὁ τεχθείς ἑξ ἀγάπης καρπὸς ἀγάπη, But that does not exclude the fact that he, like Origen, named the Son κτίσµα (Phot., l.c.). In the Adumbrat. (p. 88) Son and Spirit are called “primitivæ e virtutes ac primo creatæ, immobiles exsistentes secundum substantiam”. That is exactly Origen’s doctrine, and Zahn (i.e., p. 99) has rightly compared Strom. V. 14. 89: VI. 7. 58; and Epit. ex Theod. 20 The Son stands at the head of the series of created beings (Strom. VII. 2. 5; see also below), but he is nevertheless specifically different from them by reason of his origin. It may be said in general that the fine distinctions of the Logos doctrine in Clement and Origen are to be traced to the still more abstract conception of God found in the former. A sentence like Strom. IV. 25. 156 (ὁ µὲν οὖν Θεὸς ἀναπόδεικτος ὣν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιςτηµονικός, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς σοφία τέ ἐστι καὶ ἐπιστήµη) will hardly be found in Origen I think. Cf. Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 45 ff. 731 See Schultz, l.c., p. 51 ff. and Jahrbuch für protestantische Theologie I. pp. 193 ff. 369 ff. 732 It is very remarkable that Origen περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 1 in his presentation of the Logos doctrine, started with the person of Christ, though he immediately abandoned this starting-point “Primo illud nos oportere scire”, so this chapter begins, “Quod aliud est in Christo deitatis eius natura, quod est unigenitus filius patris, et alia humana natura, quam in novissimis temporibus pro dispensatione suscepit. Propter quod videndum primo est, quid sit unigenitus filius dei.”

He is the Wisdom 354of God, the reflection of his perfection and glory, the invisible image of God. For that very reason there is nothing corporeal in him733 and he is therefore really God, not αὐτόθεος, nor ὁ Θεὸς, nor ἄναρχος αρχή (“beginningless beginning”), but the second God.734 But, as such, immutability is one of his attributes, that is, he can never lose his divine essence, he can also in this respect neither increase nor decrease (this immutability, howev 564 er, is not an independent attribute, but he is perfect as being an image of the Father’s perfection).735 Accordingly this deity is not a communicated one in the sense of his having another independent essence in addition to this divine nature; but deity rather constitutes his essence: ὁ σωτὴρ οὐ κατὰ µετουσίαν, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἐστί Θεός736 (“the Saviour is not God by communication, but in his essence”). From this it follows that he shares in the essence of God, therefore of the Father, and is accordingly ὁµοούσιος τῷ πατρί (“the same in substance with the Father”) or, seeing that, as Son, he has come forth from the Father, is engendered from the essence of the Fat 548 her.737 But having

733

Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 2, 6. The expression was familiar to Origen as to Justin (see Dial. c. Tryph). See c. Cels. V. 39: Καὶ δεύτερον οὖν λέγωµεν Θεόν· ἴστωσαν, ὅτι τὸν δεύτερον Θεὸν οὐκ ἄλλο τι λέγοµεν, ἢ τὴν περιεκτικὴν πασῶν ἀρετῶν ἀρετὴν καὶ τὸν περιεκτικὸν παντὸς οὑτινοσοῦν λόγου τῶν κατὰ φύσιν καὶ προηγουµένως γεγενηµένων, 735 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 13 has been much corrupted by Rufinus. The passage must have been to the effect that the Son is indeed αγαθός, but not, like the Father, ἀπαραλλάκτως ἀγαθός. 736 Selecta in Psalm., Lomm. XIII., p. 134; see also Fragm. comm. in ep. ad Hebr., Lomm. V., p. 299 sq. 737 L.c.: “Sic et sapientia ex deo procedens, ex ipsa substantia dei generatur. Sic nihilominus et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhœæ esse dicitur aporrhœa gloriæ omnipotentis pura quædam et sincera. Quæ utræque similitudines (see the beginning of the passage) manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantiæ esse filio cum patre. Aporrhœa enim ὁµοούσιος videtur, id est, unius substantiæ cum illo corpore, ex quo est vel aporrhœa vel vapor.” In opposition to Heracleon Origen argues (in Joh. XIII. 25., Lomm. II., p. 43 sq.) that we are not homousios with God: ἐπιστήσωµεν δέ, εἰ µὴ σφόδρα ἐστὶν ἀσεβὲς ὁµοουσίους τῇ ἀγεννήτῳ φύσει καὶ παµµακαρίᾳ εἶναι λέγειν τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν πνεύµατι τῶ Θεῶ. On the meaning of ὁµοουσίος, see Zahn, Marcell., pp. 11-32. The conception decidedly excludes the possibility of the two subjects connected by it having a different essence; but it says nothing about how they came to have one essence and in what measure they possess it. On the other hand it abolishes the distinction of persons the moment the essence itself is identified with the one person. Here then is found the Unitarian danger, which could only be averted by assertions. In some of Origen’s teachings a modalistic aspect is also not quite wanting. See Hom. VIII. 734

355proceeded,

like the will, from the Spirit, he was always with God; there was not a time when he was not,738 nay, even this expression is still too weak. It would be an unworthy idea to think of God without his wisdom or to assume a beginning of his begetting. Moreover, this begetting is not an act that has only once taken place, but a process lasting from all eternity; the Son is always being begotten of the Father.739 It is the theology of Origen which Gregory Thaumaturgus has thus summed up: 56c 1εἷς κύριος, µόνος ἐκ µόνου, Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, χαρακτὴρ καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς θεότητος, λόγος ἔνεργος, σοφία τῆς τῶν ὅλων συστάσεως περιεκτικὴ καὶ δύναµις τῆς ὅλης κτίσεως ποιντική, ὑιὸς ἀληθινὸς πατρός, ἀόρατος ἀοράτου καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἀθάνατος ἀθανάτου καὶ ἀἴδιος ἀϊδίου. (“One Lord, one from one, God from God, impress and image of Godhead, energetic word, wisdom embracing the entire system of the universe and power producing all creation, true Son of a true Father, the invisible of the invisible and incorruptible of the incorruptible, the immortal of the immortal, the eternal of the eternal”). The begetting is an indescribable act which can only be represented by inadequate images: it is no emanation — the expression προβολή is not found, so far as I 356know 578 740 — but is rather to be designated as an act of the will arising from an inner necessity, an act which for that very reason is an emanation of the essence. But the Logos thus produced is really a personally existing being; he is not an impersonal force of the Father, though this still appears to be the in Jerem. no. 2: Τὸ µὲν ὑποκείµενον ἕν ἐστι, ταῖς δὲ ἐπινοίαις τὰ πολλὰ ὀνόµατα ἐπὶ διαφόρων. Conversely, it is also nothing but an appearance when Origen (for ex. in c. Cels. VIII. 12) merely traces the unity of Father and Son to unity in feeling and in will. The charge of Ebionitism made against him is quite unfounded (see Pamphili Apol., Routh IV. p. 367). 738 Οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, de princip. I. 2. 9; in Rom. I. 5. 739 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 2-9. Comm. in ep. ad. Hebr. Lomm. V., p. 296: “Nunquam est, quando filius non fuit. Erat autem non, sicut de æterna luce diximus, innatus, ne duo principia lucis videamur inducere, sed sicut ingenitæ lucis splendor, ipsam illam lucem initium habens ac fontem, natus quidem ex ipsa; sed non erat quando non erat.” See the comprehensive disquisition in περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 28, where we find the sentence: “hoc autem ipsum, quod dicimus, quia nunquam fuit, quando non fuit, cum venia audiendum est” etc. See further in Jerem. IX. 4, Lomm. XV., p. 212: τὸ ἀπαύγασµα τῆς δόξης οὑχὶ ἅπαξ γεγέννηται, καὶ οὐχι γὲννᾶται . , . καὶ ἀεὶ γεννᾶται ὁ σωτὴρ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός; see also other passages. 740 See Caspari, Quellen, Vol. IV., p. 10. 741 In περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 28 the prolatio is expressly rejected (see also I. 2. 4) as well as the “conversio partis alicuius substantiæ dei in filium” and the “procreatio ex nullis substantibus.”

case in some passages of Clement, but he is the “sapientia dei substantialiter subsistens742 (“the wisdom of God substantially existing”) “figura expressa substantia: patris” (express image of the Father’s substance”), “virtus altera in sua proprietate subsistens” (a second force existing in its own characteristic fashion “). He is, and here Origen appeals to the old Acts of Paul, an “ 564 animal vivens” with an independent existence.743 He is another person,744 namely, the second person in number.745 But here already begins Origen’s second train of thought which limits the first that we have set forth. As a particular hypostasis, which has its “first cause” (πρῶτον αἴτιον) in God, the Son is “that which is caused” (αἱτιατόν), moreover as the fulness of ideas, as he who comprehends in himself all the forms that are to have an active existence, the Son is 564 no longer an absolute simplex like the Father.746 He is already the first stage of the transition from the One to the Manifold, and, as the medium of the world-idea, his essence has an inward relation to the world, which is itself without beginning.747 357As soon therefore as the category of causality is applied — which moreover dominates the system — and the particular contemplation of the Son in relation to the Father gives way to the general contemplation of his task and destination, the Son is not only called κτίσµα and δηµιούργηµα, but all the utterances about the quality of his essence receive a limitation. We nowhere find the express assertion that this quality is inferior or of a differ ac8 ent kind when compared with that of God; but these utterances lose their force when it is asserted that complete similarity between Father and Son only exists in relation to the world. We have to acknowledge the divine being that appeared in

742

L.c. I. 2. 2. L.c. I. 2. 3. 744 De orat. 15: Ἔτερος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν καὶ ὑποκείµενον ὁ υἱός ἐστι τοῦ πατρός. This, however, is not meant to designate a deity of a hybrid nature, but to mark the personal distinction. 745 C. Cels. VIII. 12.: δύο τῇ ὑποστάσει πράγµατα. This was frequently urged against the Monarchians in Origen’s commentaries; see in Joh. X. 21: II. 6 etc. The Son exists κατ᾽ ἰδίαν τῆς οὐσίας περιγραφήν. Not that Origen has not yet the later terminology οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, ὐποκείµενον, πρόσωπον. We find three hypostases in Joh. II. 6. Lomm. I., p. 109, and this is repeatedly the case in c. Cels. 746 In Joh. I. 22, Lomm. I., p. 41 sq.: ὁ Θεὸς µέν οὖν πάντη ἕν ἐστι καὶ ἁπλοῦν ὁ δὲ σωτὴρ ἡµῶν διὰ τὰ πολλά. The Son is ἰδέα ἰδεῶν, σύστηµα θεωρηµάτων ἐν αὐτῶ (Lomm. I., p. 127). 747 See the remarks on the saying: “The Father is greater than I,” in Joh. XIII. 25, Lomm. II., p. 45 sq. and other passages. Here Origen shows that he considers the homoousia of the Son and the Father just as relative as the unchangeability of the Son. 743

Christ to be the manifestation of the Deity; but, from God’s standpoint, the Son is the hypostasis appointed by and subordinated to him.748 The Son stands between the uncreated One and the created Many; in so far as unchangeableness is an attribute of self-existence he does not possess it.749 It is evident why Origen was obliged to conceive the Logos exactly as he did; it was only in this form that the idea answered the purpose for which it was intended. In the description of the essence of the Logos much more heed continues to be given to his creative than to his redeeming significance. Since it was only a teacher that Origen ultimately required for the purpose of redemption, he could unfold the nature and task of the Logos without thinking of Christ, whose name indeed he frequently mentions in his disquisitions, but whose person is really not of the slightest importance there.750 In order to comply with the rule of faith, and for this reason alone, for his speculation did not require a Spirit in addition to the Logos, Origen also placed the Spirit alongside of Father and Son. All that is predicated about him by the Church is that he is equal to the other persons in honour and dignity, and it was he that inspired both Prophets and Apostles; but that it is still undecided 358whether he be created or uncreated, and whether he too is to be considered the Son of God or not.751 As the third hypostasis, Origen reckoned him p ac8 art of the constant divine essence and so treated him after the analogy of the Son, without producing an impressive proof of the necessity of this hypostasis. He, however, became the Holy Spirit through the Son, and is related to the latter’s the latter is related to the Father; in other words he is subordinate to the Son; he is the first creation of the Father through the Son.752 Here Origen was following an old tradition. Considered quantitively therefore, and this according to Origen is the most important consideration, the Spirit’s sphere of action is the smallest. All being has its principle in the Father, the Son has his sphere in the rational, the Holy Spirit in the sanctified, that is in the Church; this he has to rule over and perfect Father, Son, and Spirit form a τρίας

748

Περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 2. 6 has been corrupted by Rufinus; see Jerome ep. ad Avitum. See περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 13 (see above, p. 354, note 3). 750 Athanasius supplemented this by determining the essence of the Logos from the redeeming work of Christ. 751 See περὶ ἀρχῶν præf. and in addition to this Hermas’ view of the Spirit. 752 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 3. The Holy Spirit is eternal, is ever being breathed out, but is to be termed a creature. See also in Joh. II. 6, Lomm. I., p. 109 sq.: τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα διὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐγένετο, πρεσβυτέρου (logically) παρ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦ λόγου τυγχάνοντος. Yet Origen is not so confident here as in his Logos doctrine. 749

(“triad”)753 to which nothing may be compared; they are equal indignity and honour, and the substance they possess is one. If the following is not one of Rufinus’ corrections, Origen said754: Nihil in trinitate maius minusve dicendum est cum unius divinitatis fons verbo ac ratione sua teneat universa”755 (“nothing in the Trinity is to be called greater or less, since the fountain of one divinity holds all his parts by word and reason”). But, as in Origen’s sense the union of these only exists because the Father alone is the “source of deity” (πηγὴ τῆς θεότητος) and principle of the other two hypostases, the Trinity is in truth no homogeneous one, but one which, in accordance with a “subtle emanation idea”, has degrees within it. This Trinity, 554 which in the strict sense remains a 359Trinity of revelation, except that revelation belongs to the essence of God, is with Origen the real secret of the faith, the mystery beyond all mysteries. To deny it shows a Jewish, carnal feeling or at least the greatest narrowness of conception. The idea of createdness was already more closely associated with the Holy Ghost than with the Logos. He is in a still clearer fashion than the Son himself the transition to the series of ideas and spirits that having been created by the Son, are in truth the unfolding of his fulness. They form the next stage after the Holy Spirit. In assuming the existence of such beings as were required by his philosophical system, Origen appealed to the Biblical doctrine of angels, which he says is expressly acknowledged in the Church.756 With Clement even the association of the Son and Holy Ghost with the great angelic spirits is as yet not altogether avoided, at least in his expressions. ad8 1 Origen was more cautious in this

753

See περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 3, 5-8. Hence Origen says the heathen had known the Father and Son, but not the Holy Spirit (de princip. I. 3: II. 7). 754 L.c. § 7. 755 See Hom. in Num. XII. 1, Lomm. X, p. 127: “Est hæc trium distinctio personarum in patre et filio et spiritu sancto, quæ ad pluralem puteorum numerum revocatur. Sed horum puteorum unum est fous. Una enim substantia est et natura trinitatis.” 756 Περὶ ἀρχῶν præf. 757 From Hermas, Justin, and Athenagoras we learn how, in the 2nd century, both in the belief of uneducated lay-Christians and of the Apologists, Son, Spirit, Logos, and angels under certain circumstances shaded off into one another. To Clement, no doubt, Logos and Spirit are the only unchangeable beings besides God. But, inasmuch as there is a series which descends from God to men living in the flesh, there cannot fail to be elements of affinity between Logos and Spirit on the one hand and the highest angels on the other, all of whom indeed have the capacity and need of development. Hence they have certain names and predicates in common, and it frequently remains uncertain, especially as regards the theophanies in the Old Testament, whether it was a high angel

respect.758 The world of spirits appears to him as a series of wellarranged, graded energies, as the representative of created reason. Its characteristic is growth, that is, progress (προκοπή).759 Growth is conditioned by freedom: “omnis creatura rationabilis laudis et culpæ capax: laudis, si secundum rationem, quam in se habet, ad meliora proficiat, culpæ, si rationem recti declinet”760 (“every rational creature is capable of meriting praise or blame — praise, if it advance to better things according to the reason it possesses in itself, blame, if it avoid the right course”). As unchangeableness and permanence are 360characteristic of the Deity, so freedom is the mark of the created spirit.761 In this thesis Origen goes beyond the assumption of the heretical Gnostics just as much as he does in his other proposition that the creaturely spirit is in no sense a portion of the divine (because it is changeable762 ); but in reality freedom, as he understands it, is only the capacity of created spirits to determine their own destiny for a time. In the end, however, they must turn to that which is good, because everything spiritual is indestructible. ab5 Sub specie æternitatis, then, the mere communication of the divine element to the created spirit763 is not a mere communication, and freedom is no freedom; but the absolute necessity of the created spirit’s developing itself merely appears as freedom. Yet Origen himself did not draw this conclusion, but rather based everything on his conception that the freedom of naturæ rationabiles consisted in the possibilitas utriusque, and sought to understand the cosmos, as it is, from this freedom. To the naturæ rationabiles, which have different species and ordines, human souls also belong. The whole of them were created from all eternity; for God would not be almighty unless he

that spoke, or the Son through the angel. See the full discussion in Zahn, Forschungen, III., p. 98 f. 582 758Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 5. 759 So also Clement, see Zahn, l.c. 760 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 5. 2. 761 It was of course created before the world, as it determines the course of the world. See Comm. in Matth. XV, 27, Lomm. III., p. 384 sq. 568 762 See Comm. in Joh. XIII. 25, Lomm. II., p. 45: we must not look on the human spirit as ὁµοούσιος with the divine one. The same had already been expressly taught by Clement. See Strom., II. 16. 74: ὁ Θεὸς οὐδεµίαν ἔχει πρὸς ἡµᾶς συσικὴν σχέσιν ὡς οἱ τῶν αἱρέσεων κτίσται θέλουσιν. Adumbr., p. 91 (ed. Zahn). This does not exclude God and souls having quodammodo one substance. 763 Such is the teaching of Clement and Origen. They repudiated the possession of any natural, essential goodness in the case of created spirits. If such lay in their essence, these spirits would be unch ac8 angeable.

had always produced everything764; in virtue of their origin they are equal, for their original community with 361the Logos permits of no diversity765; but, on the other hand, they have received different tasks and their development is consequently different. In so far as they are spirits subject to change, they are burdened with a kind of bodily nature,766 for it is only the Deity that is without a body. The element of materiality is a necessary result of their finite nature, that is, of their being created; and this applies both to angels and human souls.767 adb Now Origen did not speculate at all as to how the spirit world might have developed in ideal fashion, a fact which it is exceedingly important to recognise; he knows nothing at all about an ideal development for all, and does not even view it as a possibility. The truth rather is that as soon as he mentions the naturæ rationabiles, he immediately proceeds to speak of their fall, their growth, and their diversities. He merely contemplates them in the given circumstances in which they are placed (see the exposition in περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 9. 2). II. Doctrine of the Fall and its consequences.

764

Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 10: “Quemadmodum pater non potest esse quis, si filius non sit, neque dominus quis esse potest sine possessione, sine servo, ita ne omnipotens quidem deus dici potest, si non sint, in quos exerceat potentatum, et deo ut omnipotens ostendatur deus, omnia subsistere necesse est.” (So the Hermogenes against whom Tertullian wrote had already argued). “Nam si quis est, qui velit vel sæcula aliqua vel spatia transisse, vel quodcunque aliud nominare vult, cum nondum facta essent, quæ facta sunt, sine dubio hoc ostendet, quod in illis sæculis vel spatiis omnipotens non erat deus et postmodum omnipotens factus est.” God would therefore, it is said in what follows, be subjected to a προκοπή, and thus be proved to be a finite being. III. 5. 3. 765 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 8. 766 Here, however, Origen is already thinking of the temporary wrong development, that is of growth. See περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 7. Created spirits are also of themselves immaterial, though indeed not in the sense that this can be said of God who can never attach anything material to himself. 767 Angels, ideas (see Phot. Biblioth. 109), and human souls are most closely connected together, both according to the theory of Clement and Origen and also to that of Pantænus before them (see Clem. eclog. 56, 57); and so it was taught that men become angels (Clem. Strom. VI. 13. 107). But the sta ac8 rs also, which are treated in great detail in περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 7, belong to the number of the angels. This is a genuinely Greek idea. The doctrine of the preëxistence of human souls was probably set forth by Clement in the Hypotyposes. The theory of the transmigration of souls was probably found there also (Phot. Biblioth. 109). In the Adumbrat., which has been preserved to us, the former doctrine is, however, contested and is not found in the Stromateis VI. 16. 1. sq.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE FALL AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. All created spirits must develop. When they have done so, they attain perfection and make way for new dispensations and worlds.768 In the exercise of their freedom, however, disobedience, laxity, laziness, and failure make their appearance among them in an endless multiplicity of ways.769 The disciplining and purifying 362of these spirits was the purpose for which the material world was created by God.770 It is therefore a place of purification, ruled and harmoniously arranged by God’s wisdom.771 Each member of the world of spirits has received a different kind of material nature in proportion to his degree of removal from the Creator. The highest spirits, who have virtually held fast by that which is good, though they too stand in need of restitution, guide the wor ac8 ld, are servants of God (ἄγγελοι), and have bodies of an exceedingly subtle kind in the form of a globe (stars). The spirits that have fallen very deeply (the spirits of men) are banished into material bodies. Those that have altogether turned against God have received very dark bodies, indescribably ugly, though not visible. Men therefore are placed between the angels and demons, both of whom try to influence them. The moral struggle that man has to undergo within himself is made harder by

768

Phot. Biblioth. 109: Κλήµης πολλοὺς πρὸ τοῦ Ἀδὰµ κόσµους τερατεύεται. This cannot be verified from the Strom. Orig., περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 3. 769 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 5 and the whole 3rd Book. The Fall is something that happened before time began. 770 The assumption of uncreated matter was decidedly rejected by Origen (περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 1, 2). On the other hand Clement is said to have taught it in the Hypotyposes (Phot., l.c.: ὕλην ἄχρονον δοξάζει); this cannot be noticed in the Strom.; in fact in VI. 16. 147 he vigorously contested the view of the uncreatedness of the world. He emphasised the agreement between Plato and Moses in the doctrine of creation (Strom. II. 16. 74 has nothing to do with this). According to Origen, matter has no qualities and may assume the most diverse peculiarities (see, e.g., c. Cels. III. 41). 771 This conception has g 564 iven occasion to compare Origen’s system with Buddhism. Bigg. (p. 193) has very beautifully said: “Creation, as the word is commonly understood, was in Origen’s views not the beginning, but an intermediate phase in human history. Æons rolled away before this world was made; æons upon æons, days, weeks, months and years, sabbatical years, jubilee years of æons will run their course, before the end is attained. The one fixed point in this gigantic drama is the end, for this alone has been clearly revealed,” “God shall be all in all.” Bigg also rightly points out that Rom. VIII. and 1 Cor. XV. were for Origen the key to the solution of the problems presented by creation.

the demons, but lightened by the angels,772 for these spiritual powers are at all times and places acting both upon 363the physical and the spiritual world. But everything is subject to the permission of the divine goodness and finally also to the guidance of divine providence, though the latter has created for itself a limit in freedom.773 Evil, however, and it is in this idea that Origen’s great optimism consists, cannot conquer in the end. As it is nothing eternal, so also it is at bottom nothing real; it is “nonexistent” (οὐκ ὄν) and “unreal” (ἀνυπόστατον).774 For this very reason the estrangement of the spirits from God must finally cease; even the devil, who, as far as his being is concerned, resulted from God’s will, cannot always remain a devil. The spirits must return to God, and this moment is also the end of the material world, which is merely an intermediate phase.775 According to this conception the doctrine of man, who in Origen’s view is no 530 longer the sole aim of creation to the same extent as he is with the other Fathers,776 assumes the following

772

The popular idea of demons and angels was employed by Origen in the most comprehensive way, and dominates his whole view of the present course of the world. περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 2 and numerous passages in the Commentaries and Homilies, in which he approves the kindred views of the Greeks as well as of Hermas and Barnabas. The spirits ac3 ascend and descend; each man has his guardian spirit, and the superior spirits support the inferior (περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 6). Accordingly they are also to be reverenced (θεραπεύεσθαι); yet such reverence as belongs to a Gabriel, a Michael, etc., is far different from the adoration of God (c. Cels. VIII. 13). 773 Clement wrote a special work περὶ προνοίας (see Zahn, Forschungen III., p. 39 ff.), and treated at length of προνοία in the Strom.; see Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 1; de orat. 6 etc. Evil is also subject to divine guidance; see Clem., Strom. I. 17. 8187: IV. 12. 86 sq. Orig. Hom. in Num. XIV., Lomm. X., p. 163: “Nihil otiosum, nihil inane est apud deum, quia sive bono proposito hominis utitur ad bona sive malo ad necessaria.” Here and there, however, Origen has qualified the belief in Providence, after the genuine fashion of antiquity (see c. Cels. IV. 74). 774 Περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 9. 2: “Recedere a bono, non aliud est quam effici in malo. Ceterum namque est, malum esse bono carere. Ex quo accidit, ut in quanta mensura quis devolveretur a bono, in tantam mensuram malitiæ deveniret.” In the passage in Johann. II. 7, Lomm. I., p. 115, we find a closely reasoned exposition of evil as ἀνυπόστατον and an argument to the effect that τὰ πονηρά are — µὴ ὄντα. 775 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 5. 3: III. 6. The devil is the chief of the apostate angels (c. Cels. IV. 65). As a reasonable being he is a creature of God l.c., and in Joh. II. 7, Lomm., l.c.). 569 776 Origen defended the teleology culminating in man against Celsus’ attacks on it; but his assumption that the spirits of men are only a part of the universal spirit world is, as a matter of fact, quite akin to Celsus’ view. If we consider the plan of the work περὶ ἀρχῶν we easily see that to Origen humanity was merely an element in the cosmos.

form: The essence of man is formed by the reasonable soul, which has fallen from the world above. This is united with the body by means of the animal soul. Origen thus believes in a threefold nature of man. He does so in the first place, 364because Plato holds this theory, and Origen always embraced the most complicated view in matters of tradition, and secondly, because the rational soul can never in itself be the principle of action opposed to God, and yet something relatively spiritual must be cited as the cause of this action. It is true that we also find in Origen the view that the spirit in man has itself been cooled down into a soul, has been, as it were, transformed into a soul; but there is necessarily an ambiguity here, because on the one hand the spirit of man is said to have chosen a course opposed to God, and, on the other, that which is rational and free in man must be shown to be something remaining intact. 596 777 Man’s struggle consists in the endeavour of the two factors forming his constitution to gain control of his sphere of action. If man conquers in this struggle he attains likeness to God; the image of God he bears beyond danger of loss in his indestructible, rational, and therefore immortal spirit.778 Victory, however, denotes nothing else than the subjugation of the instincts and passions.779 No doubt God affords help in the struggle, for nothing good is without God,780 but in such a way as not to interfere with freedom. According to this conception sin is a

777

The doctrine of man’s threefold constitution is also found in Clement. See Pædag. III. 1. 1; Strom V. 14. 94: VI. 16. 134. (quite in the manner of Plato). Origen, who has given evidence of it in all his main writings, sometimes calls the rational part spirit, sometimes ψυχὴ λογική, and at other times distinguishes two parts in the one soul. Of course he also professes to derive his psychology from the Holy Scriptures. The chief peculiarity of his speculation consists in his assumption that the human spirit, as a fallen ac8 one, became as it were a soul, and can develop from that condition partly into a spirit as before and partly into the flesh (see περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 4. 1 sq.: II. 8. 1-5). By his doctrine of the preëxistence of souls Origen excluded both the creation and traducian hypotheses of the origin of the soul. 778 Clement (see Strom. II. 22. 131) gives the following as the opinion of some Christian teachers: τὸ µὲν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα εὐθέως κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν εἰληφέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τὸ καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν δὲ ὕστερον κατὰ τὴν πελείωσιν µέλλειν ἀπολαµβάνειν, Orig. c. Cels. IV. 30: ἐποίησε δ᾽ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν ἤδη. 779 This follows from the fundamental psychological view and is frequently emphasised. One must attain the σωφορσύνη. 780 This is emphasised throughout. The goodness of God is shown first in his having given the creature reason and freedom, and secondly in acts of assistance, which, however, do not endanger freedom. Clem., Strom. VI. 12. 96: ἡµᾶς ἐξ ἡµῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι.

365matter

of necessity in the case of fallen spirits; all men are met with as sinners and are so, for they were already sinners.781 Sin is rooted in the whole earthly condition of men; it is the weakness and error of the spirit parted from its origin.782 The idea of freedom, indeed, is supposed to be a feature which always preserves the guilty character of sin; but in truth it becomes a mere appearance783 it does not avail against the constitution of man and the sinful habit propagated in human society.784 All must be sinners at first,785 for that is as much their destiny as is the doom of death which is a necessary consequence of man’s material nature.786 III. Doctrine of Redemption and Restoration. The Doctrine of Redemption and Restoration. In the view of Clement and Origen the proposition: “God wishes us to be saved by means of ourselves” (ὁ Θεὸς ἡµᾶς ἐξ

781

See above, p. 344, and p. 361, note 5. Origen continually emphasised the universality of sin in the strongest expressions: c. Cels. 553 III. 61-66 VII. 50; Clem., Pæd. III. 12. 93: τὸ ἐξαµαρτάνειν πᾶσιν ἔµφυτον. 782 See Clem., Strom. VII. 16. 101: µυρίων γοῦν ὄντων κατ᾽ ἀριθµὸν ἅ πράσσουσιν ἄνθρωποι σχεδὸν δύο εἰσὶν ἀρχαὶ πάσης ἁµαρτίας, ἄγνοια καὶ ἀσθένεια, ἄµφω δὲ ἐφ᾽ ἡµῖν, τῶν µήτε ἐθελόντων µανθάνειν µήτε αὖ τῆς ἐπιθυµίας κρατεῖν. Two remedies correspond to this (102): ἡ γνῶσις τε καὶ ἡ τῆς ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν µαρτυρίας ἐναργὴς ἀπόδειξις and ἡ κατὰ λὸγον ἄσκησις ἐκ πίστεώς τε καὶ φόβου παιδαγωγουµένη, or otherwise expressed: ἡ θεωρία ἡ ἐπιστηµονική and ἡ πρᾶξις, which lead to perfect love. ad4 783Freedom is not prejudiced by the idea of election that is found here and there, for this idea is not worked out. In Clem., Strom. VI. 9. 76, it is said of the friend of God, the true Gnostic, that God has destined (προώρισεν) him to sonship before the foundation of the world. See VII. 17. 107. 784 C. Cels. III. 69. 785 It is both true that men have the same freedom as Adam and that they have the same evil instincts. Moreover, Origen conceived the story of Adam symbolically. See c. Cels. IV. 40; περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 16; in Levit. hom. VI. 2. In his later writings, after he had met with the practice of child baptism in Cæsarea and prevailed on himself to regard it as apostolic, he also assumed the existence of a sort of hereditary sin orginating with Adam, and added it to his idea of the preëxisting Fall. Like Augustine after him, he also supposed that there was an inherent pollution in sexual union; see in Rom. V. 9: VII. 4; in Lev. hom. VIII. 3; in Num. hom. 2 (Bigg, p. 202 f.). 786 Nevertheless Origen assumes that some souls are invested with flesh, not for their own sins, but in order to be of use to others. See in Job. XIII, 43 ad fin II. 24, 25; in Matth. XII. 30.

ἡµῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι) is quite as ac8 rue as the other statement 366that no spirit can be saved without entering into fellowship with the Logos and submitting to his instruction.787 They moreover hold that the Logos, after passing through his various stages of revealing activity (law of nature, Mosaic law), disclosed himself in the Gospel in a manner complete and accessible to all, so that this revelation imparts redemption and eternal happiness to all men, however different their capacities may be. Finally, it is assumed that not only men but all spiritual creatures, from the radiant spirits of heaven down to the dusky demons, have the capacity and need of redemption; while for the highest stage, the “spiritual Church”, there is an eternal Gospel which is related to the written one as the latter is to the law. This eternal Gospel is the first complete revelation of God’s highest intentions, and lies hidden in the Holy Scriptures.788 These elements compose Origen’s doctrine of revelation in general and of Christ in particular.789 They presuppose the sighing of the creature and the great struggle which is more especially carried on upon earth, within the human breast, by the angels and demons, virtues and vices, knowledge and passion, that dispute the possession of man. Man must conquer and yet he cannot do so without help. But help has never been wanting. The Logos has been revealing himself from the beginning. Origen’s teaching concerning the preparatory history of redemption is founded on the doctrines of the Apologists; but with him everything takes a more vivid form, and influences on the part of the heretical Gnosis are also not lacking. Pure spirits, whom no fault of their own had caused to be invested with bodies, namely, the prophets, were sent to men by the Logos in order to support the struggling and to increase knowledge. To prepare the way of salvation the Logos chose for himself a whole people, and he revealed himself among all men. But all these undertakings di 564 d not yet lead to the goal. The Logos himself was obliged to appear and 367lead men back. But by reason of the diverse nature of the spirits, and especially of men, the redeeming work of the Logos that appeared could not fail to be a complicated one. In the case of some he had really to show them the victory over the demons and sin, a view which beyond dispute is derived from that of Valentinus. He had, as the “Godman,” to

787 569

Origen again and again strongly urged the necessity of divine grace. See on this point Bigg, pp. 207 ff., 223 f. Origen is the father of Joachim and all spiritualists. 789 See Knittel, Orig. Lehre von der Menschwerdung (Tübinger Theologische Quartalschrift, 1872). Ramers, Orig. Lehre von der Auferstehung des Fleisches, 1851. Schultz, Gottheit Christi, pp. 51-62. 788

make a sacrifice which represented the expiation of sin, he had to pay a ransom which put an end to the devil’s sovereignty over men’s souls, and in short he had to bring a redemption visible and intelligible to all.790 To the rest, however, as divine teacher and

790

With regard to ac8 this point we find the same explanation in Origen as in Irenæus and Tertullian, and also among the Valentinians, in so far as the latter describe the redemption necessary for the Psychici. Only, in this instance also, everything is more copious in his case, because he availed himself of the Holy Scriptures still more than these did, and because he left out no popular conception that seemed to have any moral value. Accordingly he propounded views as to the value of salvation and as to the significance of Christ’s death on the cross, with a variety and detail rivalled by no theologian before him. He was, as Bigg (p. 209 ff.) has rightly noticed, the first Church theologian after Paul’s time that gave a detailed theology of sacrifices. We may mention here the most important of his views. (1) The death on the cross along with the resurrection is to be considered as a real, recognisable victory over the demons, inasmuch as Christ (Col. II. 14) exposed the weakness of his enemies (a very frequent aspect of the matter). (2) The death on the cross is to be considered as an expiation offered to God. Here Origen argued that all sins require expiation, and, conversely, that all innocent blood has a greater or less importance according to the value of him who gives up his life. (3) In accordance with this the death of Christ has also a vicarious signification (see with regard to both these conceptions the treatise Exhort. ad martyr., as well as c. Cels. VIII. 17: I. 31; in Rom. t. III. 7, 8, Lomm. VI.; pp. 196-216 etc.). (4) The death of Christ is to be considered as a ransom paid to the devil. This view must have been widely diffused in Origen’s time; it readily suggested itself to the popular idea and was further supported by Marcionite theses. It was also accepted by Origen who united it with the notion of a deception practised on the devil, a conception first found among the Basilidians. By his successful temptation the devil acquired a right over men. This right cannot be destroyed, but only bought off. God offers the devil Christ’s soul in exchange for the souls of men. This proposal of exchange was, however, insincere, as God knew that the devil could not keep hold of Christ’s soul, because a sinless soul could not but cause him torture. The devil agreed to the bargain and was duped. Christ did not fall into the power of death and the devil, but overcame both. This theory, which Origen propounded in somewhat different fashion in different places (see Exhort. ad martyr. 12; in Matth. t. XVI. 8, Lomm. IV., p. 27; t. XII. 28, Lomm. III., p. 175; t. XIII. 8, 9, Lomm. III., pp. 224-229; in Rom. II. 13, Lomm. VI., p. 139 sq. etc.), shows in a specially clear way the conservativ ac8 e method of this theologian, who would not positively abandon any idea. No doubt it shows at the same time how uncertain Origen was as to the applicability of popular conceptions when he was dealing with the sphere of the Psychici. We must here remember the ancient idea that we are not bound to sincerity towards our enemies. (5) Christ, the God who became flesh, is to be considered as high priest and mediator between God and man (see de Orat. 10, 15). All the above-mentioned conceptions of Christ’s work were, moreover, worked out by Origen in such a way that his humanity and divinity are necessary inferences from them. In this case also he is characterised by the same mode of thought as Irenæus. Finally, let us remember that Origen adhered as

hierophant 368he had to reveal the depths of knowledge, and to impart in this very process a new principle of life, so that they might now partake of his life and themselves become divine through being interwoven with the divine essence. Here, as in the former case, restoration to fellowship with God is the goal; but, as in the lower stage, this restoration is effected th ac8 rough faith and sure conviction of the reality of a historical fact — namely, the redeeming death of Christ, — so, in the higher stage, it is accomplished through knowledge and love, which, soaring upward beyond the Crucified One, grasp the eternal essence of the Logos, revealed to us through his teaching in the eternal Gospel.791 What the Gnostics merely represented as a more or 369less valuable appearance — namely, the historical work of Christ — was to Origen no appearance but truth. But he did not view it as the truth, and in this he agrees with the Gnostics, but as a truth, beyond which lies a higher. That historical work of Christ was a reality; it is also indispensable for men of more limited endowments, and not a matter of indifference to the perfect; but the latter no longer require it for their personal life. Here also Origen again contrived to reconcile contradictions and thus acknowledged, outdid, reconciled, and united both the theses of the Gnostics and those of

strongly as ever to the proof from prophecy, and that he also, in not a few instances, regarded the phrase, “it is written”, as a sufficient court of appeal (see, for example, c. Cels. II. 37). Yet, on the other hand, behind all this he has a method of viewing things which considerably weakens the significance of miracles and prophecies. In general it must be said that Origen helped to drag into the Church a great many ancient (heathen) ideas about expiation and redemption, inasmuch as he everywhere found some Bible passage or other with which he associated them. While he rejected polytheism and gave little countenance to people who declared: εὐσεβέστεροί ἐσµεν καὶ Θεὸν καὶ τὰ ἄγάλµατα σέβοντες (Clemens Rom., Hom. XI. 12), he had for all that a principal share in introducing the apparatus of polytheism into the Church (see also the way in which he strengthened angel and hero worship) 791 See above, p. 342, note 1, on the idea that Christ, the Crucified One, is of no importance to the perfect. Only the teacher is of account in this case. To Clement and Origen, however, teacher and mystagogue are as closely connected as they are to most Gnostics. Christianity is µάθησις and µυσταγωγία, and it is the one because it is the other. But in all stages Christianity has ultimately the same object, namely, to effect a reconciliation with God, and deify man. See c. Cels. III. 28: Ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τὴν καταβᾶσαν εἰς ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν καὶ εἰς ἀνθρωπίνας περιστάσεις δύναµιν, ac8 αὶ ἔναλαβοῦσαν ψυχὴν καὶ σ µα ἀνθρῶπινον, ἑώρων ἐκ τοῦ πιστεόεσθαι µετὰ τῶν θειοτέρων συµβαλλοµένην εἰς σωτηρίαν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν· ὁρῶσιν, ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου ἤρξατο θεία καὶ ἀνθρωπίνη συνυφαίνεσθαι φύσις· ἴν᾽ ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη τῇ πρὸς τὸ θειότερον κοινωνίᾳ γένηται θεία οὐκ ἐν µόνῳ τῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς µετὰ τοõ πιστεύειν ἀναλαµβάνουσι βίον, ὅν Ἰησοῦς ἐδίδαξενα.

orthodox Christians. The object and goal of redemption are the same for all, namely, the restoration of the created spirit to God and participation in the divine life. In so far as history is a struggle between spirits and demons, the death of Christ on the cross is the turning-point of history, and its effects extend even into heaven and hell.792 On the basis of this conception of redemption Origen developed his idea of Christ. Inasmuch as he recognised Christ as the Redeemer, this Christ, the God-man, could not but be as manysided as redemption is. Only through that masterly art of reconciling contradictions, and by the aid of that fantastic idea which conceives one real being as dwelling in another, could there be any apparent success in the attempt to depict a homogeneous person who in truth is no longer a person, but the symbol of the various redemptions. That such an acute thinker, however, did not shrink from the monstrosity his speculation produced is ultimately to be accounted for by the fact that this very speculation afforded him the means of nullifying all the utterances about Christ and falling back on the idea of the divine teacher as being 549 the highest one. The whole “humanity” of the Redeemer together with its history finally disappears from the eyes of the perfect one. What remains is the principle, the divine Reason, which became known and recognisable through Christ. The perfect one, and this remark also applies to Clement’s perfect Gnostic, thus knows no “Christology”, but only an indwelling of the 370Logos in Jesus Christ, with which the indwellings of this same Logos in men began. To the Gnostic the question of the divinity of Christ is of as little importance as that of the humanity. The former is no question, because speculation, starting above and proceeding downwards, is already acquainted with the Logos and knows that he has become completely comprehensible in Christ; the latter is no question, because the humanity is a matter of indifference, being the form in which the Logos made himself recognisable. But to the Christian who is not yet perfect the divinity as well as the humanity of Christ is a problem, and it is the duty of the perfect one to solve and explain it, and to guard this solution against errors on all sides. To Origen, however, the errors are already Gnostic Docetism on the one hand, and the “Ebionite” view on the other. 792

From this also we can very clearly understand Origen’s aversion to the early Christian eschatology. In his view the demons are already overcome by the work of Christ. We need only point out that this conception must have exercised a important influence on his frame of mind and on politics. 793 Clement still advocated docetic views without reservation. Photius (Biblioth. 109) reproached him with these (µὴ σαρκωθῆναι τὸν λόγον ἀλλὰ δόξαι), and they may be

ae3 1 His doctrine was accordingly as follows: As a pure unchangeable spirit, the Logos could not unite with matter, because this as µὴ ὄν would have depotentiated him. A medium was required. The Logos did not unite with the body, but with a soul, and only through the soul with the body. This soul was a pure one; it was a created spirit that had never fallen from God, but always remained in faithful obedience to him, and that had chosen to become a soul in order to serve the purposes of redemption. This soul then was always devoted to the Logos from the first and had never renounced fellowship with him. It was selected by the Logos for the purpose of incarnation and that because of its moral dignity. The Logos became united with it in the closest way; but this 371connection, though it is to be viewed as a mysteriously real union, continues to remain perfect only because of the unceasing effort of will by which the soul clings to the Logos. Thus, then, no intermixture has taken place. On the contrary the Logos preserves his impassibility, and it is only the soul that hungers and thirsts, struggles and suffers. In this, too, it appears as a real human soul, and in the same way the body is sinless and unpolluted, as being derived from a virgin; but yet it is a human one. This humanity of the body, however, does not exclude its capacity of assuming all possible qualities the Logos wishes to give it; for matter of itself possesses no qualities. The Logos was able at any moment to give his body the form it required, in order to make the proper impression on the various sorts of men. Moreover, he was not enclosed in the soul and body of Christ; on the contrary he acted everywhere as before and united himself, as formerly, with all the souls that opened themselves to him. But with none did the union become so close as with the soul, and consequently also with the body of Jesus. During his earthly life the Logos glorified and deified his soul by degrees and the latter acted in the same way on his body. Origen contrived to arrange the different functions and predicates of the incarnate Logos in such a way that they formed a

proved from the Adumbrat, p. 87 (ed Zahn): “fertur in traditionibus — namely, in the Acta of Lucius — quoniam Iohannes ipsum corpus (Christi), quod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui præbuisse discipuli,” and likewise from Strom. VI. 9. 71 and III. 7. 59. Clement’s repudiation’ of the Docetists in VII. 17. 108 does not affect the case, and the fact that he here and there plainly called Jesus a man, and spoke of his flesh (Pæd. II. 2. 32: Protrept. X. 110) matters just as little. This teacher simply continued to follow the old undisguised Docetism which only admitted the apparent reality of Christ’s body. Clement expressly declared that Jesus knew neither pain, nor sorrow, nor emotions, and only took food in order to refute the Docetists (Strom. V ac8 I. 9. 71). As compared with this, Docetism in Origen’s case appears throughout in a weakened form; see Bigg, p. 191.

series of stages which the believer becomes successively acquainted with as he advances in knowledge. But everything is most closely united together in Christ. This union (κοινωνία, ἕνωσις, ἀνακράσις) was so intimate that Holy Writ has named the created m 564 an, Jesus, the Son of God; and on the other hand has called the Son of God the Son of Man. After the resurrection and ascension the whole man Jesus appears transformed into a spirit, is completely received into the Godhead, and is thus identical with the Logos.794 372In this conception one may be tempted to point out

794

See the full exposition in Thomasius, Origenes, p. 203 ff. The principal passages referring to the soul of Jesus are de princip. II. 6: IV. 31; c. Cels. II. 9. 20-25. Socrates (H. E. III. 7) says that the conviction as to Jesus having a human soul was founded on a µυστικὴ παράδοσις of the Church, and was not first broached by Origen. The special problem of conceiving Christ as a real θεάνθρωπος in contradistinction to all the men who only possess the presence of the Logos within them in proportion to their merits, was precisely formulated by Origen on many occasions. See περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 29 sq. The full divine nature existed in Christ and yet, as before, the Logos operate! wherever he wished (l. c., 30): “non ita sentiendum est, quod omnis divinitatis eius maiestas intra brevissimi corporis claustra conclusa est, ita ut omne verbum dei et sapientia eius ac substantialis veritas ac vita vel a patre divulsa sit vel intra corporis eius coercita et conscripta brevitatem nec usquam præterea putetur operata; sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis debet esse confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus a paterna substantia, quæ ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio.” On the perfect ethical union of Jesus’ soul with the Logos see περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 6. 3: “anima Iesu ab initio creaturæ et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhærens et tota totum recipiens atque in eius lucem splendoremque ipsa cedens facta est cum ipso principaliter unus spiritus;” II. 6. 5: “anima Christi ita elegit diligere iustitiam, ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter ei atque inseparabiliter inhæreret, ita ut propositi firmitas et affectus immensitas et dilectionis inexstinguibilis calor omnem sensum conversionis atque immutationis abscinderet, et quod in arbitrio erat positum, longi usus affectu iam versum sit in naturam.” The sinlessness of this soul thus became transformed from a fact into a necessity, and the real God-man arose, in whom divinity and humanity are no longer separated. The latter lies in the former as iron in the fire II. 6. 6. As the metal capax est frigoris et caloris so the soul is cap ac8 able of deification. “Omne quod agit, quod sentit, quod intelligit, deus est,” “nec convertibilis aut mutabilis dici potest” (l.c.). “Dilectionis merito anima Christi cum verbo dei Christus efficitur.” (II. 6. 4). Τίς µᾶλλον τῆς Ἰησοῦ ψυχῆς ἢ κἂν παραπλησίως κακόλληται τῷ κυρίῳ; ὕπερ εἰ οὕτως ἔχει οὐκ εἰσὶ δύο ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πρὸς τὸν πάσης κτίσεως πρωτότοκον Θεὸν λόγον (c. Cels. VI. 47). The metaphysical foundation of the union is set forth in περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 6. 2: “Substantia animæ inter deum carnemque mediante — non enim possibile erat dei naturam corpori sine mediatore miscere — nascitur deus homo, illa substantia media exsistente, cui utique colitra naturam non erat corpus assumere. Sed neque rursus anima illa, utpote substantia rationabilis, contra naturam habuit, capere deum.” Even during his historical life the body of Christ was ever more and more glorified, acquired therefore

all possible “heresies”: — the conception of Jesus as a heavenly man — but all men are heavenly; — the Adoptianist (“Ebionite”) Christology — but the Logos as a person stands behind it; — the conception 373of two Logoi, a personal and an impersonal; the Gnostic separation of Jesus and Christ; and Docetism. As a matter of fact Origen united all these ideas, but modified the whole of them in such a way that they no longer seem, and to some extent are not, what they turn out to be when subjected to the slightest logical analysis. This structure is so constituted that not a stone of it admits of being a hair’s-breadth broader or narrower. There is only one conception that has been absolutely unemployed by Origen, that is, the mo ac8 dalistic view. Origen is the great opponent of Sabellianism, a theory which in its simplicity frequently elicited from him words of pity; otherwise he made use of all the ideas about Christ that had been formed in the course of two hundred years. This becomes more and more manifest the more we penetrate into the details of this Christology. We cannot, however, attribute to Origen a doctrine of two natures, but rather the notion of two subjects that become gradually amalgamated with each other, although the expression “two natures” is not quite foreign to Origen.795 The Logos retains his human nature eternally,796 but only in the same sense in which we preserve our nature after the resurrection.

wonderful powers, and appeared differently to men according to their several capacities (that is a Valentinian idea, see Exc. ex Theod.7); cf. c. Cels. I. 32-38: II. 23, 64: IV. 15 sq.: V. 8, 9, 23. All this is summarised in III. 41: “Ον µὲν νοµίζοµαν καὶ πεπείσµεθα ἀρχῆθεν εἶναι Θεοῦ καὶ υἱὸν Θεοῦ, οὗτος ὁ αὐτολόγος ἐστὶ καὶ ἡ αὐτοσοφία καὶ ἡ αὐτοαλήθεια· τὸ δὲ θνητὸν αὐτοῦ σῶµα καὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἐν αὐῷ ψυχὴν τῇ πρὸς ἐκεῖνον οὐ µόνον κοινωνίᾳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑνώσει καὶ ἀνακράσει, τὰ µέγιστά φαµεν προσειληφέναι καὶ τῆς ἐκείνου θεότητος κακοινωνηκότα εἰς Θεὸν µεταβεβηκέναι Origen then continues and appeals to the philosophical doctrine that matter has no qualities and can assume all the qualities which the Creator wishes to give it. Then follows the conclusion: εἰ ὑγιῆ τὰ τοιαῦτα, τί θαυµαστόν, τὴν ποίοτητα τοῦ θνητοῦ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν σώµατος προνοίᾳ Θεοῦ βουληθέντος µεταβαλεῖν εἰς αιθέριον καὶ θείαν ποιότητα; The man is now the same as the Logos. See in Joh. XXXII. 17, Lomm. II., p. 461 sq; Hom. in Jerem. XV. 6, Lomm. XV., p. 288: εἰ καὶ ἦν ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐ δαµῶς ἐστὶν ἄνθ ac0 π . 795 In c. Cels. III. 28, Origen spoke of an intermingling of the divine and human natures, commencing in Christ (see page 368, note 1). See I. 66 fin.; IV. 15, where any ἀλλάττεσθαι καὶ µεταπλάττεσθαι of the Logos is decidedly rejected; for the Logos does not suffer at all. In Origen’s case we may speak of a communicatio ideomatum (see p. 190 f.). 796 In opposition to Redepenning.

The significance which this Christological attempt possessed for its time consists first in its complexity, secondly in the energetic endeavour to give an adequate conception of Christ’s humanity, that is, of the moral freedom pertaining to him as a creature. This effort was indeed obliged to content itself with a meagre result: but we are only justified in measuring Origen’s Christology by that of the Valentinians and Basilidians, that is, by the scientific one that had preceded it. The most important advance lies in the fact that Origen set forth a scientific Christology in which he was able to find so much scope for the humanity of Christ. Whilst within the framework of the scientific Christologies this humanity had hitherto been conceived as something 374indifferent or merely apparent, Origen made the first attempt to incorporate it with the various speculations without prejudice to the Logos, God in nature and person. No Greek philosopher probably heeded what Irenæus set forth respecting Christ as the second Adam, the recapitulatur generis humani; whereas Origen’s speculation could not be overlooked. In this case the Gnosis really adopted the idea of the incarnation, and at the same time tried to demonstrate the conception of the Godman from the notions of unity of will and love. In the treatise against Celsus, moreover, Origen went the reverse way to work and undertook to show, 564 and this not merely by help of the proof from prophecy, that the predicate deity applied to the historical Christ.797 But Origen’s conception of Christ’s person as a model (for the Gnostic) and his repudiation of all magical theories of redemption ultimately explain why he did not, like Tertullian, set forth a doctrine of two natures, but sought to show that in Christ’s case a human subject with his will and feelings became completely merged in the Deity. No doubt he can say that the union of the divine and human natures had its beginning in Christ, but here he virtually means that this beginning is continued in the sense of souls imitating the example of Christ. What is called the real redemption supposed to be given in him is certainly mediated in the Psychic through his work, but the person of Christ which cannot be known to any but the perfect man is by no means identified with that real redemption, but appears as a free moral personality, inwardly blended with the Deity, a personality which cannot mechanically transfer the content of its essence, though it can indeed exercise the ac4 strongest impression on mind and heart. To Origen the highest

797

This idea is found in many passages, especial in Book III., c. 22-43, where Origen, in opposition to the fables about deification, sought to prove that Christ is divine because he realised the aim of founding a holy community in humanity. See, besides, the remarkable statement in III. 38 init.

value of Christ’s person lies in the fact that the Deity has here condescended to reveal to us the whole fulness of his essence, in the person of a man, as well as in the fact that a man is given to us who shows that the human spirit is capable of becoming entirely God’s. At bottom there is nothing obscure 375and mystical here; the whole process takes place in the will and in the feelings through knowledge.798 This is sufficient to settle the nature of what is called personal attainment of salvation. Freedom precedes and supporting grace follows. As in Christ’s case his human soul gradually united itself with the Logos in proportion as it voluntarily subjected its will to God, so also every man receives grace according to his progress. Though Clement and Origen did not yet recommend actual exercises according to definite rules, their description of the gradations by which the soul rises to God already resembles that of the Neoplatonists, except that they decidedly begin with faith as the first stage. Faith is the first step and is our own work.799 Then follows the religious contemplation of visible things, and from this the soul advances, as on the steps of a ladder, to the contemplation of the substantiæ rationabiles, the Logos, the knowable essence of God, and the whole fulness of the Deity.800 She retraces her steps upwards along the path she formerly passed over as a fallen spirit. But, when left to her own resources, she herself is everywhere weak and powerless; she requires at every stage the divine grace, that is, enlightenment.801 Thus a 52c 376union of grace and freedom

798

A very remarkable distinction between the divine and human element in Christ is found in Clement Pæd. I. 3. 7: πάντα ὀνίνησιν ὁ κύριος καὶ πάντα ὠφελεῖ καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὡς Θεός, τὰ µὲν ἁµαρτήµατα ὡς Θεὸς ἀφιείς, εἰς δί τὸ µὴ ἐξαµαρτάνειν παιδαγωγῶν ὡς ἄνθρωπος.. 799 554 “Fides in nobis; mensura fidei causa accipiendarum gratiarum” is the fundamental idea of Clement and Origen (as of Justin); “voluntas humana præcedit”. In Ezech. hom. I. c. 11: “In tua potestate positum est, ut sis pales vel frumentum”. But all growth in faith must depend on divine help. See Orig. in Matth. series 69, Lomm. IV., p. 372: “Fidem habenti, quæ est ex nobis, dabitur gratia fidei quæ est per spiritum fidei, et abundabit; et quidquid habuerit quis ex naturali creatione, cum exercuerit illud, accipit id ipsum et ex gratia dei, ut abundet et firmior sit in eo ipso quod habet”; in Rom. IV. 5, Lomm. VI., p. 258 sq.; in Rom. IX. 3, Lomm. VII., p. 300 sq. The fundamental idea remains: ὁ Θεὸς ἡµᾶς ἐξ ἡµῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι. 800 This is frequent in Clement; see Orig. c. Cels. VII. 46. ac2 801 See Clem., Strom. V. 1. 7: χάριτι σωζόµεθα, οὐκ ἄνευ µέντοι τῶν καλῶν ἔργων. VII. 7. 48: V. 12. 82, 13. 83: εἴτε τὸ ἐν ἡµῖν αὐτεξούσιον εἰς γνῶσιν ἀφικόµενον τἀγαθοῦ σκιρτᾷ τε καὶ πηδᾷ ἁπὲρ τὰ ἐσκαµµένα, πλὴν οὐ χάριτος ἄνευ τῆς

takes place within the sphere of the latter, till the “contemplative life” is reached, that joyous ascetic contemplativeness, in which the Logos is the friend, associate, and bridegroom of the soul, which now, having become a pure spirit, and being herself deified, clings in love to the Deity.802 In this view the thought of regeneration in the sense of a fundamental renewal of the Ego has no place;803 still baptism is designated the bath of regeneration. Moreover, in connection with the consideration of main Biblical thoughts (God as love, God as the Father, Regeneration, Adoption, etc.) we find in both Clement and Origen passages which, free from the trammels of the system, reproduce and set forth the preaching of the Gospel in a surprisingly appropriate way. b04 804 It is evident that in Origen’s view there can be no visible means of grace; but it likewise follows from his whole way of thinking that the symbols attending the enlightening operation of grace are not a matter of indifference to the Christian Gnostic, whilst to the common man they are indispensable.805 In the same way he brought 377into play the system of numerous mediators and intercessors with God, viz., angels and dead and living saints, and counselled an appeal to them. In this respect he preserved a

ἐξαιρέτου πτεροῦταί τε καὶ ἀνίσταται καὶ ἄνω τῶν ὑπερκειµένων αἴρεται ἡ ψυχή; The amalgamation of freedom and grace. Quis div. salv. 21. Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 2. 2: In bonis rebus humanum propositum solum per se ipsum imperfectum est ad consummationem boni, adiutorio namque divino ad perfecta quæque perducitur. III. 2. 5, 1. 18; Selecta in Ps. 4, Lomm. XI., p. 450: τὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ ἀγαθεν µικτόν ἐστιν ἐκ τε τῆς προαιρέσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς συµπνεούσης θείας δυνάµεως τῷ τά άλλιστα προελοµένῳ. The support of grace is invariably conceived as enliglitenment; but this enlightenment enables it to act on the whole life. For a more detailed account see Landerer in the Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, Vol. II., Part 3, p. 500 ff., and Wörter, Die christliche Lehre von Gnade und Freiheit bis auf Augustin, 1860. 802 This goal was much more clearly described by Clement than by Origen; but it was the latter who, in his commentary on the Song of Solomon, gave currency to the image of the soul as the bride of the Logos. Bigg (p. 188 f.): “Origen, the first pioneer in so many fields of Christian thought, the father in one of his many aspects of the English Latitudinarians, became also the spiritual ancestor of Bernard, the Victorines, and the author of the “De imitatione”, of Tauler and Molinos and Madame de Guyon.” 57f 803 See Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte I., p. 467. 804 See e.g., Clem. Quis dives salv. 37 and especially Pædag. I. 6. 25-32; Orig. de orat. 22 sq. — the interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer. This exegesis begins with the words: “It would be worth while to examine more carefully whether the so-called Old Testament anywhere contains a prayer in which God is called Father by anyone; for till now we have found none in spite of all our seeking . . . Constant and unchangeable sonship is first given in the new covenant.” 805 See above, p. 339 f.

heathen custom. Moreover, Origen regards Christ as playing an important part in prayer, particularly as mediator and high priest. On prayer to Christ he expressed himself with great reserve. Origen’s eschatology occupies a middle position between that of Irenæus and the theory of the Valentinian Gnostics, but is more akin to the latter view. Whilst, according to Irenæus, Christ reunites and glorifies all that had been severed, though in such a way that there is still a remnant eternally damned; and, according to Valentinus, Christ separates what is illegitimately united and saves the spirits alone, Origen believes that all spirits will be finally rescued and glorified, each in the form of its individual life, in order to serve a new epoch of the world when sensuous matter disappears of itself. Here he rejects all sensuous eschatological expectations.806 He accepted the formula, “resurrection of the flesh”, only because it was contained in the doctrine of the Church; but, on the strength of 1. Cor. XV. 44, he interpreted it as the rising of a “corpus spiritale”, which will lack all material attributes and even all the members that have sensuous functions, and which will beam with radiant light like the angels and stars. aad 1 Rejecting the doctrine that souls sleep,808 Origen assumed that the souls of the departed immediately enter Paradise,809 and that souls not yet purified pass into a state of punishment, a penal fire, which, however, like the whole world, is to be conceived as a place of purification.810 In this way also 378Origen contrived to reconcile his position with the Church doctrines of the judgment and the punishments in hell; but, like Clement, he viewed the purifying fire as a temporary and figurative one; it consists in the torments of conscience.811 In the end all the spirits in heaven and earth, nay,

aca

806

See περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 11. See περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 10. 1-3. Origen wrote a treatise on the resurrection, which, however, has not come down to us, because it was very soon accounted heretical. We see from c. Cels. V. 14-24 the difficulties he felt about the Church doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh. 808 See Eusebius, H. E. VI. 37. 809 Orig., Hom. II. in Reg. I., Lomm. XI., p. 317 sq. 810 C. Cels. V. 15: VI. 26; in Lc. Hom. XIV., Lomm. V., p. 136: "Ego puto, quod et post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento eluente nos atque purgante". Clem., Strom. VII. 6. 34: φαµὲν δ᾽ ἡµεῖς ἁγιάζειν τὸ πῦρ, οὐ τὰ κρέα, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἁµαρτωλοὺς ψυχάς, πῦρ οὐ τὸ παµφάγον καὶ βάναυσον, ἀλλὰ τὸ φρόνιµον λέγοντες (cf. Heraclitus and the Stoa), τὸ διικνούµενον διὰ ψυχῆς τῆς διερχοµένης τὸ πῦρ. For Origen cf. Bigg, p. 229 ff. There is another and intermediate stage between the punishments in hell and regnum dei. 811 See περὶ ἀρχ. II. 10. 4-7; c. Cels. l.c. 807

even the demons, are purified and brought back to God by the Logos-Christ,812 after they have ascended from stage to stage through seven heavens.813 Hence Origen treated this doctrine as an esoteric one: “for the common man it is sufficient to know that the sinner is punished.”814 This system overthrew those of the Gnostics, attracted Greek philosophers, and justified ecclesiastical Christianity. If one undertook to subject it to a new process of sublimation from the standpoint given in the “contemplative life”, little else would be left than the unchangeable spirit, the created spirit, and the ethic. But no one is justified in subjecting it to this process.815 The method according to which Origen preserved whatever appeared valuable in the content of tradition is no less significant than his system of ethics and the great principle of viewing everything created in a relative sense. Supposing minds of a radical cast, to have existed at the close of the history of ancient civilisation, what would have been left to us? The fact of a strong and undivided religious interest attaching itself to the traditions of the philosophers and of the two Testaments was the condition — to use Origen’s own language — that enabled a new world of spirits to arise after the old one had finished its course. During the following century Origen’s theology at first acted in its entirety. But it likewise attained this position of influence, because some important propositions could be detached from 379their original connection and fitted into a new one. It is one of the peculiarities of this ecclesiastical philosophy of religion that the most of its formulæ could be interpreted and employed in utramque partem. The several propositions could be made to serve very different purposes not only by being halved, but also by being grouped. With this the relative unity that distinguishes the system no doubt vanished; but how many are there who strive after unity and completeness in their theory of the world? Above all, however, there was something else that necessarily vanished, as soon as people meddled with the individual propositions, and enlarged or abridged them. We mean the frame of mind which produced them, that wonderful unity between the relative view of things and the absolute estimate of the highest good attainable by the free spirit

812

See περὶ ἀρχ. I. 6. 1-4: III. 6. 1-8; c . Cels. VI. 26. On the seven heavens in Clem. see Strom. V. 11. 77 and other passages. Origen does not mention them, so far as I know. 2f0 814c. Cels. l.c. 815 We would be more justified in trying this with Clement. 813

that is certain of its God. But a time came, nay, had already come, when a sense of proportion and relation was no longer to be found. In the East the his 564 tory of dogma and of the Church during the succeeding centuries is the history of Origen’s philosophy. Arians and orthodox, critics and mystics, priests who overcame the world and monks who shunned it but were eager for knowledge816 could appeal to this system and did not fail to do so. But, in the main problem that Origen set for the Church in this religious philosophy of his, we find a recurrence of that propounded by the so-called Gnosticism two generations earlier. He solved it by producing a system which reconciled the faith of the Church with Greek philosophy; and he dealt Gnosticism its death-blow. This solution, however, was by no means intended as the doctrine of the Church, since indeed it was rather based on the distinction between Church belief and theology, and consequently on the distinction between the common man and the theologian. But such a distinction was not permanently tenable in a Church that had to preserve its strength by the unity and finality of a revealed faith, and no longer tolerated fresh changes in the interpretation of its possession. Hence a further compromise was necessar abc y. The Greek philosophy, or speculation, did not attain real and permanent recognition within 380the Church till a new accommodation, capable of being accounted both Pistis and Gnosis, was found between what Origen looked on as Church belief and what he regarded as Gnosis. In the endeavours of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus were already found hesitating, nay, we may almost say naïve, attempts at such an accommodation; but ecclesiastical traditionalism was unable to attain complete clearness as to its own position till it was confronted with a philosophy of religion that was no longer heathen or Gnostic, but had an ecclesiastical colouring. But, with this prospect, we have already crossed the border of the third century. At its beginning there were but few theologians in Christendom who were acquainted with speculation, even in its fragmentary form. In the course of the century it became a recognised part of the orthodox faith, in so far as the Logos doctrine triumphed in the Church. This development is the most important that took place in the third century; for it denoted the definite transformation of the rule of faith into the compendium of a Greek philosophical system, and it is the parallel of a

816See Bornemann, In investiganda monachatus origine quibus de causis ratio habenda sit Origenis. Gottingæ 1885.

contemporaneous transformation of the Church into a holy commonwealth (see above, chapter 3).

Indexes

Indexes Index of Scripture References

Index of Scripture References Genesis 1:2 Exodus 3 Leviticus 5 5 Deuteronomy 17:12 Judges 5 1 Samuel 8:7 Psalms 4 87:5 Proverbs 3:19 8:22 Isaiah 53:5 ad4 61:1 Matthew 4:1-25 10:23 10:34 10:35 11:19 12:30 13:29 16:1-27 16:1-28 16:1-28 16:18 16:18-19 17 19:14 23:34 23:37 Luke 1:4 1:35 10:16 10:16 John 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:14 10:1-42 10:30 14:16-21 14:16-21 14:23 14:23 14:26 14:26 15:20-26 16:7-15 17:1-26 18:22 Acts 2:1-47 4:27 10:38 23:4-5 Romans 1:8 3:23 5:9 7:4 8:1-39 ab6 8:3 14:4 16:14 1 Corinthians 3:2 7:1-40 12:3 12:28 15:1-58 15:1-58 15:1-58 15:3 15:4 15:23-28 15:44 15:45 15:50 15:50

Galatians 4:26 Ephesians 2:15 3 5:14 41 43 74 210 Philippians 4:3 Colossians 2:8 2:14 535 1 Timothy 3:15 2 Timothy 3:16 Hebrews 1:1 2 Peter 3:16 1 John 1:1 2 John 1:7-11 Jude 1:3 Revelation 1:3 Greek Words and Phrases ac4

Index of Greek Words and Phrases • • • • • • • • • • • •

ἀποµνηµονεύµατα ἁι τοῦ Χριστοῦ παραδνσεις ἡ τοῦ κυρίου παράδοσις ἡµᾶς ἐξ ἡµῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι. ὀρθογνώµονες ὁ Θεὸς ὅσα ὑπὸ τὸν κανόνα τῆς πίστεως ποιεῖν ἐπιτέτραπται Περὶ ἀρχῶν Περὶ ἀρχῶν κήρυγµα Πέτρου κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα τὰ βιβλία τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

ἀγωνιστικῶς ἀδύνατον Κυνικῷ, αδιάφορον τὸ τέλος προθεµένῳ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι πλὴν αδιαφορίας ἀθανασία, ἀφθαρσία ἀθεότης ἀκρίβεια τῶν παλαιῶν βιβλίων, ἀλλάττεσθαι καὶ µεταπλάττεσθαι ἀλλαγή ἀλλότρια ἀνάγκη ἀνάµνησιν ad1 ἀνάστασις πάσης σαρκὸς, πάσης ἀνθρωπότητος ἀνακεφαλαίωσις ἀνακεφαλαιοῦν ἀναλλοίωτος καθότι ἀθάνατος ἀναπλάσσειν δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν Ἀδάµ ἀνατρέπει τὴν πρὸ λούτρου πίστιν καὶ ὁµολογίαν ἀνρὶ θυσίας τῆς δἰ αἱµάτων τήν λογικὴν καὶ τὴν µυστικήν, ἥτις εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου συµβόλων χάριν ἐπιτελεῖται τοῦ σώµατος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵµατος ἀνυπόστατον ἀπέστειλέ µε κύριος τούτου τοῦ πόνου καὶ τῆς συνθήκης καὶ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας αἱρετιστήν ἀπόδειξις τῶν διὰ πίστεως παρειληµµένων τῇ πίστει ἐποικοδοµουµένη ἀπαθής ἀπαθής ἀπαραλλάκτως ἀγαθός. ἀπὸ µέρους ἀποδιυλισµένοι ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀλλοτρίον χρώµατος ἀπολίπωµεν τὰς κενὰς καὶ µαταίας φροντίδας, καὶ ἔλθωµεν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐυκλεῆ καὶ σεµνὸν τῆς παραδόσεως ἡµῶν κανόνα ἀπολύτρωσις ἀποµνηµονέυµατα τῶν ἀποστόλων = τὰ εύαγγέλια 551 ἀποµνηµονεύµατα ἀποστολικὴ καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ὀρθοτοµία τῶν δογµάτων ἀποσυνάγωγος ἀπροσδεής ἀριθµῷ ἐτερόν τι, Θεὸς ἕτερος, Θεὸς δεύτερος ἀρχή

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • • • • • • • •

ἀυθεντία ἀφθαρσία ἁγία ἐκκλησία ἁι ἅγιαι παραδόσεις ἄγγελοι ἄλλους ἐδιδάξατε ἄλογος ae8 ἄναρχος αρχή ἄναρχος, ὅτι ἀγένητος ἄνθρωπον λέγω τὸν πόρρω µὲν ἀνθρωπότητος πρὸς ἀυτὸν δὲ τὸν Θεὸν κεχωρηκότα. ἄνθρωπος ἀδύνατος λαβεῖν ἀυτό· νήπιος γὰρ ἦν ἅ ἔχοµεν εἰς κοινὸν φέροντες καὶ παντὶ δεοµένῳ κοινωνοῦντες ἅιρεσις ἅτε φιλόσοφοι τὸ γένος ὄντες. Ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τὴν καταβᾶσαν εἰς ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν καὶ εἰς ἀνθρωπίνας περιστάσεις δύναµιν, καὶ ἔναλαβοῦσαν ψυχὴν καὶ σ µα ἀνθρῶπινον, ἑώρων ἐκ τοῦ πιστεόεσθαι µετὰ τῶν θειοτέρων συµβαλλοµένην εἰς σωτηρίαν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν· ὁρῶσιν, ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου ἤρξατο θεία καὶ ἀνθρωπίνη συνυφαίνεσθαι φύσις· ἴν᾽ ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη τῇ πρὸς τὸ θειότερον κοινωνίᾳ γένηται θεία οὐκ ἐν µόνῳ τῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς µετὰ τοõ πιστεύειν ἀναλαµβάνουσι βίον, ὅν Ἰησοῦς ἐδίδαξενα. Ἀνακεφαλαιώσεως ἐγὼ δὲ γελάσας κατέγνων αὐτοῦ, διότι διδάσκαλος εἶναι λέγων ὀυκ ᾔδει τὸ διδασκόµενον ὕπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ κρατύνειν. ἐγὼ εἰµί ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ ὁ παράκλητος ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ταντοκράτωρ καταγινόµενος ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ἦλθο 54c ἐγκράτεια σώµατος ὐπεροψία κατὰ τὴν πρὸς θεὸν ὁµολογίαν ἐκ τῶν ὄντων ἐκάλουν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν παρθένον· οὔπω γὰρ ἔφθαρτο ἀκοαῖς µαταίαις ἐκδιηγεῖσθαι τὴν πραγµατείαν καὶ οἰκονοµίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι γενοµένην ἐκκλησία ἐκκλησία µέγα καὶ ἔνδοξον σῶµα τοῦ Χριστοῦ

• • • • • • • •

• • • • •

•

• •

• • • • •

ἐµέρισαν τὴν ἕνωσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας φθοριµαίοις λόγοις κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐµοῦ µὴ ἀκούσητε ἀλλὰ Χριστοῦ ἀκούσατε ae0 ἐν ῞Ελλησιν καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν γενοµένη προφῆτις ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ — δεύτερος Θεός ἐν πέντε συγγράµµασιν τὴν ἀπλανῆ παράδοσιν τ9;ῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγµατος ὑποµνηµατισάµενος ἐν τῷ πρῶτῳ Ἁδὰµ προσεκόψαµεν, µὴ ποιήσαντες αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐντολήν ἐνδιάθετος τοῦ παντὸς λογισµός ἐνεδύσατο τὴν ἁγίαν σάρκα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου· ὡς νύµφιος ἱµάτιον ἐξυφάνας ἑαυτῷ ἦν τῷ σταυρικῷ πάθει ἐνθέως ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν . . . . τί δὲ µέγα, εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐξ ὑποκειµένης ὕλης ἐποίει τὸν κόσµον. ἐξερέυγεσθαι, προβάλλεσθαι, προέρχεσθαι, προπηδᾶν ἐπέκεινα τῆς ὀυσίας ἐπέµσθη οὗν Θεὸς λόγος καθὸ µὲν ἰατρὸς τοῖς ἁµαρτωλοῖς, καθὸ δὲ διδάσκαλος θείων µυστηρίων τοῖς ἤδη καθαροῖς καὶ µηκέτι ἁµαρτάνουσιν ἐπὶ Καλλίστου ἤρξαντο ἐπίσκοποι καὶ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ διάκονοι δίγαµοι καὶ τρίγαµοι καθίστασθαι εἰς κλήρους· εἰ δὲ καὶ τις ἐν κλήρῳ ὤν γαµοίη, µένειν τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ ὡς µὴ ἡµαρτηκότα. ἐπαναγωγή ἐπιστήσωµεν δέ, εἰ µὴ 564 σφόδρα ἐστὶν ἀσεβὲς ὁµοουσίους τῇ ἀγεννήτῳ φύσει καὶ παµµακαρίᾳ εἶναι λέγειν τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν πνεύµατι τῶ Θεῶ. ἐποίησε δ᾽ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν ἤδη. ἑτέρα δὲ γραφὴ λέγει· ὅτι οὖκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁµαρτωλούς ἓν µὲν τὸ ἀγέννητον ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ἓν δὲ καὶ τὸ προγεννηθὲν δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο ἔνσαρκος ἀνάληψις ἔξεστιν οὖν καὶ νῦν ταῖς κυριακαῖς ἐνασκήσαντας ἐντολαῖς κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τελείως βιώσαντας καὶ γνωστικῶς εἰς τῆν ἐκλογὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐγγρ ac8 φῆναι. οὗτος πρεσβύτερός ἐστι τῷ ὄντι

• •

•

•

•

• • • •

•

τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ δίακονος ἀληθὴς τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ βουλήσεως. ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρός ἕνα δὴ φάγωµεν λογικῶς; V. 10. 66: βρῶσις γὰρ καὶ πόσις τοῦ θείου λόγου ἡ γνῶσις ἐστι τῆς θείας οὐσίας. Ἐγὼ εἶπα, υἱοὶ ὑψίστου ἐστὲ πάντες καὶ θεοί· ὑµεῖς δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωποι ἀποθνήσκετε. Ταῦτα λέγει πρὸς τοὺς µὴ δεξαµένους τὴν δωρεὰν τῆς υἱοθεσίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἀτιµάζοντας τὴν σάρκωσιν τῆς καθαρᾶς γεννήσεως τοῦ λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ . . . Εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ λόγος ἄνθρωπος et qui filius dei est filius hominis factus est, ἵνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὸν λόγον χωρήσας καὶ τὴν υἱοθεσίαν λαβὼν υἱὸς γένηται Θεοῦ. Ἐδίδαξεν ἡµᾶς ὁ κύριος, ὅτι Θεὸν εἰδέναι οὐδεὶς δύναται, µὴ οὐχὶ Θεοῦ διδάξαντος, τουτέστιν, ἄνευ Θεοῦ µὴ γινώσκεσθαι τὸν Θεόν· αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ γινώσκεσθαι τὸν Θεὸν θέληµα εἶναι τοῦ πατρός, Γνώσονται γὰρ αὐτὸν οἷς ἀν ἀποκαλύψῃ ὁ υἱός. Ἐικὸς δὲ ὅτι κατὰ σὲ επρίατο δοὺς ἑαυτοῦ τὸ αἷµα· πῶς οὖν καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἡγείρετο; εἰ γὰρ ὁ λαβὼν τὴν τιµὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὸ αἷµα, ἀπέδωκεν, οὐκέτι ἐπώλησεν. Εὶ δὲ µὴ ἀπέδωκε, τῶς ἀνέστη Χριστός; οὐκέτι οὗν τό, Ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω λαβεῖν, ἵσταται; ὁ γοῦν διὰβολος κατέχει τὸ αἶµα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀντὶ τῆς τιµῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων; πολλὴ βλασσήµιος ἄνοια! σεῦ τῶν κακῶν! σεῦ τῶν κακῶν! Ἀπέθανεν, 564 νέστη ὡς δυνατὸς· ἔθηκεν ὅ ἔλαβεν· αὕτη ποία πρᾶσις; τοῦ προσήτου λέγοντος· Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεὸς καὶ διασκορπισθήτωσαν οἱ ἐχθροὶ ἀυτοῦ; Ὅπου ἀνδστασις, ἐκεῖ θάνατος! Ἐκκλ. ἀληθεία Ἐκκλ. Ἀληθ. Ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰµ πάντες ἀποθνήσκοµεν, ὅτι ψυχικοί Ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν χρόνοις ἐλεγετο µὲν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐκ ἐδείκνυτο δὲ, ἔτι γὰρ ἀόρατος ἦν ὁ λόγος, οὖ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐγεγόνει. διὰ τοῦτο δὴ καὶ τὴν ὁµοίωσιν ῥᾳδιως ἀπέβαλεν Ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑµῖν ἔθος ἐστὶ τοῦτο, πάντας µὲν ἀδελφοὺς ποικίλως εὐεργετεῖν, ἐκκληύ ac8 ίαις τε πολλαῖς ταῖς κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν ἐφόδια πέµπειν . . .

•

•

• • • •

•

• • • •

• • • • • • • •

πετροπαράδοτον ἔθος Ῥωµαίων Ῥωµαῖοι διαφυλάττοντες. Ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ µὲν τῆς Ῥωµαίων προεστὼς Βίκτωρ ἀθρόως τῆς Ἀσίας πάσης ἅµα ταῖς ὁµόροις ἐκκλησίαις τὰς παροικίας ἀποτόέµνειν ὡσὰν ἑτεροδοξούσας, τῆς κοινῆς ἑνώσεως πειρᾶται, καὶ στηλιτέυει γε διὰ γραµµάτων, ακοινωνέτους πάντας ἄρδην τούς ἐκεῖσε ἀνακηρύττων ἀδελφούς. Ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸν πάντων ἄρχοντα δηµιουργῶν ἐκ πασῶν συνθέτων οὐσιῶν ἐσκεύασαν, οὐ Θεὸν θέλων ποιεῖν ἔσσηλεν, οὐδὲ ἄγγελον, ἀλλ᾽ ἄνθρωπον. Εἰ γὰρ Θεόν σε ἡθέλησε ποιῆσαι, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ λόγου τὸ παράδειγµα· ἄνθρωπον θέλων, ἄνθρωπόν σε ἐποίησεν· εἰ δὲ θέλεις καὶ Θεὸς γενέσθαι, ὑπάκουε τῷ πεποιηκότι Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄσαρκος ὢν Ἐπὶ Kαλλίστου πρώτω τετόλµηται δεύτερον ἀυτοῖς βάπτισµα. Ἔτερος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν καὶ ὑποκείµενον ὁ υἱός ἐστι τοῦ πατρός Ἕκαστος ἴδιον ἔχει χάρισµα ἀπὸ θεοῦ, ὁ µὲν οὑτως, ὁ δὲ οὑτως, ὁι ἀπόστολοι δὲ ἐν πᾶσι πεπληρωµένοι Ἕνα Θεὸν ἐρῶ, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, οἰκονοµίᾳ δὲ τρίτην τὴν χάριν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος· πατὴρ µὲν γὰρ εἷς, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, ὅτι καὶ ὁ υἱός, τὸ δὲ τρίτον τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα. ἡ ἀλ 564 ηθὴς τῆς µακαρίας διδασκαλίασ παράδοσις ἡ ἀνωτάτω ἐκκλησία, καθ᾽ ἥν ὁι φιλόσοφοι συνάγονται τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ ἀσφάλεια τῶν λόγων ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑπὸ λόγου ἀπολιόρκητος ἀτυράννητος πόλις ἐπὶ γῆς, θέληµα θεῖον ἐπὶ γῆς, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ ἡ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ παράδοσις ἡ ἐν Σµύρνῃ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἡ ἕνωσις τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ ἡµετέρα παιδεία ἡ ἡµετέρα φιλοσοφία. ἡ ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κηρυσσοµένη ἀλή ac7 θεια ἡ Θεοῦ κατάληψις ἥν ἔχω περὶ τῶν ὅλων. ἡ βασιλεύουσα Ῥώµη

•

•

• • • • •

• • • • • • •

ἡ γνῶσις ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τοὺς ἀγνοοῦντας διδάσκει τε καὶ παιδεύει τὴν πᾶσαν κτίσιν τοῦ παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ τιµᾶν ἡ γνῶσις ἐκ παραδόσεως διαδιδοµένη τοῖς ἀξίους σφᾶς ἀυτοὺς τῆς διδασκαλίας παρεχοµένοις οἷον παρακαταθήκη ἐγχειρίζεται ἡ γνῶσις τε καὶ ἡ τῆς ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν µαρτυρίας ἐναργὴς ἀπόδειξις ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἥτις ἦν ἀσθαρσία. ἡ γνωσις δὲ αὐτὴ ἡ κατὰ διαδοχὰς ἡ γνωστικὴ παράδοσις ἡ γοῦν κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα γνωστικῆς παραδόσεως φυσιολογία, µᾶλλον δὲ ἐποπτεία, ἐκ τοῦ περὶ κοσµογονίας ἤρτηται λόγου. ἐνθένδε ἀναβαίνουσα ἐπὶ τὸ θεολογικὸν εἶδος ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη, ὅπου λέγει ἡ γραφή ἡ διαφωνία τῆς νηστέιας τὴν ὁµόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησι. ἡ εὐκλεὴς καὶ σεµνὸς τῆς παραδόσεως κανών ἡ εαρβαρικὴ νοµοθεσία ἡ θεία παράδοσις ἡ θεοσεβὴς παράδοσις 565

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

ἡ θεωρία ἡ ἐπιστηµονική ἡ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς βάρβαρος φιλοσσοφία. ἡ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς φιλοσοφία ἡ κατὰ λὸγον ἄσκησις ἐκ πίστεώς τε καὶ φόβου παιδαγωγουµένη ἡ κατὰ τὴν θείαν παράδοσιν φιλοσοφία ἡ οὐράνιος ἐκκλησία ἡ περὶ τῶν µεγίστων ὁµολογία ἡ πνευµαρικὴ ἐκκλησία ἡ πρᾶξις ἡ προσϕορὰ τοῦ σώµατος καὶ τοῦ αἵµατος ἡµεῖς καὶ τὸν abb Πάτρον καὶ το ἦλθον εἰς ἡµᾶς ἐπιστολαὶ Κορνηλὶου Ῥωµαίων ἐπισκόπου πρὸς . . . φάβιον, δηλοῦσαι τὰ περὶ τῆς Ῥωµαίων συνόδου, καὶ τὰ δόξαντα πᾶσι τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν καὶ Ἀφρικὴν καὶ τὰς αὐτόθι χώρας. Ἠσαΐας — τὸ δὲ εὐαγγέλιον — ὁ θεῖος λόγος Ἡ κυριακὴ διδασκαλία

• •

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Ἡµέτερον οὖν ἔργον καὶ βίου καὶ µαθηµάτων τὴν ἐπίσκεψιν πᾶσι παρέχειν. Ἥνωσεν οὖν τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ Θεῷ. Εἰ γὰρ µὴ ἄνθρωπος ἐνίκησεν τὴν ἀντίπαλον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, οὐκ ἂν δικαίως ἐνικήθη ὁ ἐχθρός. Πάλιν τε, εἰ µὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἐδωρήσατο τὴν σωτηρίαν, οὑκ ἄν βεβαίως ἔσχοµεν αὐτήν. Καὶ εἰ µὴ συνηνώθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ Θεῷ οὐκ ἂν ἡδυνήθη µετασχεῖν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας. Ἔδει γὰρ τὸν µεσίτην Θεοῦ τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς ἰδίας πρὸς ἑκατέρους οἰκειὸτητος εἰς φιλίαν καὶ ὁµόνοιαν τοὺς ἀµφοτέρους συναγαγεῖν· καὶ Θεῷ µὲν παραστῆσαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀνθρώποις δὲ γνωρίσαι τὸν Θεόν. ἰδέα ἰδεῶν, σύστηµα θεωρηµάτων ἐν αὐτῶ ἵνα ἐξ ἀµφοτέρων τὸ περιφανὲς τῶν φύσεων παραδειχθῇ ὀικονοµία Θεοῦ ὀικονοµίαν ὀµολογίαν ὀρθεγνώµονες κατὰ πάντα Χριστιανοί ad5 ὀυ πρῶτον Ὠριγένην ἐπὶ ταύτην τὴν πραγµατείαν ἐλθεῖν φασίν, ἀλλὰ τὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας µυστικὴν ἑρµηνεῦσαι παράδοσιν. ὁ ἀληθείας προκαθεζόµενος. ὁ ἅγιος λόγος — ἡ ἑυαγγέλιος φωνή. ὁ ἐκδικητὴς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Θεοῦ, ὁ µόνος λεγόµενος κυριώς ὑιός ὁ Θεὸς ἡµᾶς ἐξ ἡµῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι ὁ Θεὸς ἡµᾶς ἐξ ἡµῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι. ὁ Θεὸς µέν οὖν πάντη ἕν ἐστι καὶ ἁπλοῦν ὁ δὲ σωτὴρ ἡµῶν διὰ τὰ πολλά ὁ Θεὸς οὐδεµίαν ἔχει πρὸς ἡµᾶς συσικὴν σχέσιν ὡς οἱ τῶν αἱρέσεων κτίσται θέλουσιν. ὁ Θεὸς πέπονθεν ὑπὸ δεξιᾶς Ἰσραηλιτιδος ὁ Θεός ὁ Θεός, ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν κ.τ.λ., καὶ ὁ τούτου παῖς, ὅν ἔχρισεν ὁ Θεός ὁ γεννηθείς, ὁµεγας Θεός ὁ γνωστικὸς οὗτος συνελόντι ἐιπεῖν τὴν ἀποστολικὴν ἀπουσίαν ανταναπληροῖ, κ.τ.λ. ὁ διάκονος τοῦ πεπονθότος Θεοῦ.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

ὁ διδάξας λύσεις γάµων, ὁ νηύ ac8 τείας νοµοθετήσας ὁ διδάσκαλος Χριστός ὁ δοκῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς σεµνότερον πεφιλοσοφηκέναι ὁ δοκῶν Ἑλλήνων σοφώτερος γεγενῆσθαι ὁ θεῖος λόγος, ὁ φανερώτατος ὄντως Θεός, ὁ τῷ δεσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων ἐξισωθείς ὁ ιἑρὸς Κλήµης, κύριός µου γενόµενος καὶ ὠφελήσας µε ὁ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς λόγος ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθέιας ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀρχαίας πίστεως ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας (ἐκκλησιαστικός) ὁ κανὼν τῆς πίστεως ὁ κατὰ βαρβάρους φιλοσοφῶν Τατιανός ὁ κατὰ βαρβάρους φιλοσοφῶν Τατιανός. ὁ λόγος ὁ µὲν οὖν Θεὸς ἀναπόδεικτος ὣν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιςτηµονικός, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς σοφία τέ ἐστι καὶ ἐπιστήµη ὁ µακάριος ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ κύριος ὁ νόµος καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον ὁ περὶ ἐνσωµάτου Θεοῦ λόγος ὁ σωτὴρ οὐ κατὰ µετουσίαν, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν aa2 στί Θεός ὁι ἀπόστολοι ὁµοόυσιοι ὁµοίωσις ὁµοούσιος ὁµοούσιος ὁµοούσιος τῷ πατρί ὁµοουσίος ὁρθὸς ζόγος ὄχλος τῆς ἐκκλησίας ὅθεν διδάσκουσιν ἡµᾶς αἱ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ καὶ πάντες οἱ πνευµατοφόροι, ἐξ ὧν Ἰωάννης λέγει κ.τ.λ. ὅπου ἄν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ τὸ πλῆθος ἔστω· ὥστερ ὅπου ἄν ῇ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία ὅπως συγκεράσας τὸ θνητὸν ἡµῶν σῶµα τῇ ἑαυτοῦ δυνάµει καὶ µίξας ὅσα παρὰ πᾶσι καλῶς είρηται ἡµῶν, τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐστί

•

• • • •

• • • • • •

• •

•

•

Ὁ µὲν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγος ἐστὶν ἐλεύθερός τε καὶ αὐτεξούσιος, ὑπὸ µηδεµίαν βάσανον ἐλέγχου θέλων πίπτειν µηδὲ τὴν παρὰ τοῖς ἀκούουσι δἰ ἀποδειξεως ἐξέτασιν ὑποµένειν. Τὸ γὰρ εὐγενὲς αὐτοῦ καὶ πεποιθὸς αὐτῷ τῷ πέµψαντι πιστεύεσθαι θέλει Ὅθεν ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται ἐκεῖ Κύριός ἐστιν. Ὅσα οὖν παρὰ πᾶσικαλῶς εἴρηται, ἡµῶν τῶν Χριστιανῶν εστί 58a ὑιὸς µονογενής ὑπὲρ δὲ ἀποστόλους καὶ πᾶν χάρισµα ταῦτα τὰ γύναια δοξάζουσιν, ὡς τολµᾶν πλεῖόν τι Χριστοῦ ἐν τούτοις λέγειν τινὰς αὐτῶν γεγονέναι. ὑπὲρ τῆς κατά Χριστιανοὺς φιλοσοφίας ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως ὑπὸ δαιµόνων δὲ ἐµπνευσθέντες καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν φυσιωθέντες ἅ εἶπον δι᾽ αὐτῶν εἶπον. ὑπὸ λόγου διὰ Σωκράτους ἡλέγχθη κ.τ.λ. (I. 5). Nevertheless αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος ὑποταγὴ Θεοῦ ἀφθαρσία. ὑποταγὴ Θεοῦ αφθαρσία, καὶ παραµονὴ ἀφθα abc ρσίας δόξα ἀγέννητος . . . ὅρασις Θεοῦ περιποιητικὴ ἀφθαρσίας· ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ Θεοῦ. ὕλην ἄχρονον δοξάζει ὡς γὰρ τὸ θέληµα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐργον ἐστὶ καὶ τοῦτο κόσµος ὀνοµάζεται, οὕτω καὶ τὸ βούληµα αὐτοῦ ἀνθρώπων ἐστὶ σωτηρία, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκκλησία κέκληται ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἵνα πειρασθῇ, οὕτω καὶ λόγος ἵνα δοξασθῇ. ἡσυχάζοντος µὲν τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῷ πειράζεσθαι καὶ σταυροῦσθαι καὶ ἀποθνήσκειν, συγγινοµένου δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν τῷ νικᾷν καὶ ὑποµένειν καὶ χρηστεύεσθαι καὶ ἀνίστασθαι καὶ ἀναλαµβάνεσθαι ὥσπερ οἱ βλέποντες τὸ φῶς ἐντός εἰσι τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ τῆς λαµπρότητος αὐτοῦ µετέχουσιν, οὕτως οἱ βλέποντες πὸν Θεὸν ἐντός εἰσι τοῦ Θεοῦ, µετέχοντες αὐτοῦ τῆς λαµπρότητος. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὁ ἀχώρητος καὶ ἀκατάληπτος καὶ ἀόρατος ὁρώµενον ἑαυτὸν . . . τοῖς πιστοῖς παρέσχεν, ἵνα ζωοποιήσῃ τοὺς χωροῦντας καὶ βλέποντας αὐτὸν διὰ πίστεως.

•

• •

ὥσπερ τιµίῳ αἵµατι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἠγοράσθηµεν . . . οὕτως τῷ τιµίῳ αἵµατι τῶν µαρτύρων ἀγορασθήσονταί τινες ὥστε εἶναι ἐπι τῶν ἁγίων συναθροιζοµένων διπλῆν ἐκκλησίαν τὴν µὲν ἀνθρώπων, τὴν δὲ ἀγγέλων ὧν ἡµεῖς διάδοχοι τυγχάνοντες τῆς τε ἀυτῆς χάριτος µετέχοντες ἀρχιερατείας καὶ διδασκαλίας 570

• • • •

•

ὺς ἄλλους ἀποστόλους ἀποδεχόµεθα ὡς Χριστόν ῇ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς βάρβαρος φιλοσοφία Ῥωµαῖοι “ Ἄµείνον καὶ συµφορώτερον, ἰδιώτας καὶ ὀλιγοµαθεῖς ὑπάρχειν, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης πλησίον γενέσθαι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἤ πολυµαθεῖς καὶ ἐµπείρους δοκοῦντας εἶναι, βλασφήµους εἰς τὸν ἑαυτῶν εὑρίσκεσθαι δεσπότην Αἱ δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστῷ µαθητευθεῦσαι ἐκκλησίαι, συνεξεταζόµεναι ταῖς ὧν παροικοῦσι δήµων ἐκκλησίαις, ὡς φωστῆρας εἰσιν ἐν κόσµῳ. τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἄν ὁµολογήσαι, καὶ τοὺς χείρους τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ συγκρίσει βελτιόνων ἐλάττους πολλῷ κρείττους ύ ab7 υγχάνειν τῶν ἐν τοῖς δήµοις ἐκκλησιῶν; ἐκκλησία µὲν γὰρ τοῦ Θεοῦ, φέρ᾽ εἰπεῖν, ἡ Ἀθήνῃσι πραεῖά τις καὶ εὐσταθής, ἅτε Θεῷ ἀρέσκειν τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι βουλοµένη· ἡ δ᾽Αθηναίων ἐκκλησία στασιώδης καὶ οὐδαµῶς παραβαλλοµένη τῇ ἐκεῖ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ· τὸ δ᾽αὐτὸ ἐρεῖς. Περὶ ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Κορίνθῳ καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ δήµου Κορινθίων·; καὶ, φέρ᾽ εἰπεῖν, περὶ ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ, καὶ ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Ἀλεξανδρέων δήµου. Καὶ ἐὰν εὐγνώµων ᾖ ὁ τούτου ἀκούων καὶ φιλαλήθως ἐξετάθῃ τὰ πράγµατα, θαυµάσεται τὸν καὶ βουλευσάµενον καὶ ἀνύσαι δυνηθέντα πανταχοῦ συστήσασθαι ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, παροικούσασ ἒκλησίαις τῶν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πόλιν δήµων οὕτω δὲ καὶ βουλὴν ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ βουλῇ τῇ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πόλιν συνεξετάζων εὕροις ἄν ὅτι τινὲς µὲν τῆς ἐκκλησίας βουλευταὶ ἄξιοὶ εἰσι — εἵ τίς ἐστιν ἐν τῷ παντὶ πόλις τοῦ Θεοῦ — ἐν εκείνῃ πολιτεύεσθαι ὁι δὲ πανταχοῦ βουλευταὶ οὐδὲν ἄξιον τῆς ἐκ κατατάξεως ὑπεροχῆς, ἢν ὑπερέχειν δοκοῦσι τῶν

• • • • • • • •

• •

•

πολιτῶν, φέρουσιν ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτῶν ἤθεσιν· οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἄρχοντα ἐκκλησίας ἑκάςτης πόλεως ἄρχοντι τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει συγκριτέν· ἵνα κατανοήσῃς, ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν σφόδρα ἀποτυγχανοµένων βουλευτῶν καὶ ἀρχόντων ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ, καὶ ῥαθυµοτέρων παρὰ τοὺς εὐτονωτέρως βιοῦντας οὐδὲν ἧττόν ἐστιν εὑρεῖν ὡς ἐπίπαν ὑπεροχήν τὴν ἐν τῇ ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς προκοπῇ παρὰ τὰ ἤθη τῶν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι βουλευτῶν καὶ ἀρχόντων. ad9 Αἱ µέντοι Συρίαι ὅλαι καὶ ἡ Ἀραβία, οἷς ἐπαρκεῖτε ἑκάστοτε καὶ οἷς νῦν ἐπεστείλατε. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν ∆ιδαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων ∆ιδαχή ∆ιδαχη ∆ιδαχή ∆ιδ. Εἰ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ἀθάνατον τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς πεποιήκει, Θεὸν αὐτὸν πεποιήκει· πάλιν εἰ θνητὸν ἀυτὸν πεποιήκει ἐδόκει ἄν ὁ Θεὸς αἴτιος εἶναι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ. Οὔτε οὖν ἀθάνατον ἀυτὸν ἐποίησεν οὔτε µὴν θνητόν, ἀλλὰ δεκτικὸν ἀµφοτέρων; ἵνα, εἰ ῥέψῃ ἐπὶ τὰ τῆς ἀθανασίας τηρήσας τὴν ἑντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ, µισθὸν κοµίσηται παῤ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀθανασίαν καὶ γένηται Θεός, εἰ δ᾽ αὖ τραπῇ ἐπὶ τὰ τοῦ θανάτου πράγµατα παρακούσας τοῦ Θεοῦ, αὐτὸς ἐαυτῷ αἴτιος ᾖ τοῦ θανάτου. Εἰ γὰρ Θεόν σε ἡθέλησε ποῖσαι ὁ Θεός, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ λόγου τὸ παράδειγµα Εἰ δὲ λέγει τις· οὐκ ἡδύνατο ὁ Θεὸς ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τέλειον ἀναδεῖξαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον; Γνύτω, ὅτι τῷ µὲν Θεῶ, ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ὄντι καὶ ἀγεννήτῳ ὑπάρχοντι, ὃς πρὸς ἑαυτόν, πάντα δυνατά· τὰ δὲ γεγονότα, καθὸ µετέπειτα γενέσεως ἀρχὴν ἰδίαν ἔσχε, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι δεῖ αὐτὰ τοῦ πεποιηκότος· ὀυ γὰρ ἡδύναντο ἀγέννητα εἶναι τὸ νεωστὶ γεγεννηµένα. Καθὸ δὲ µή ἐστιν ἀγέννητα, καύ ac8 ὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τοῦ τελείου. Καθὸ δὲ νεώτερα, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ νήπια, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀσυνήθη καί αγύµναστα πρὸς τὴν τελείαν ἀγωγήν. Εἰ τοίνυν ὁ πρῶτος Ἀδὰµ ἔσχε πατέρα ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἐκ ππέρµατος ἐγεννήθη, εἰκὸς ἦν καὶ τὸν

• •

• • •

• •

δεύτερον Ἀδὰµ λέγειν ἐξ Ἰωσὴφ γεγεννῆσθαι. Εἰ δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἐκ γῆς ἐλήφθη, πλάστης δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεός, ἔδει καὶ τὸν ἀνακεφαλαιούµενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πεπλασµένον ἄνθρωπον τὴν αὐτὴν ἐκείνῳ τῆς γεννήσεως ἔχειν ὁµοιότητα. Εἰς τὶ οὖν πάλιν οὐκ ἔλαβε χοῦν ὁ Θεός, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ Μαρίας ἐνήργησε τὴν πλάσιν γενέσθαι; Ἵνα µὴ ἀλλη πλάσις γένηται µηδὲ ἀλλὸ τὸ σωζόµενον ἦ, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος ἀνακεφαλαιωθῇ τηπουµένης τῆς ὁµοιότητος Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ πεφυκώς εξ ἑαυτοῦ. Θεὸς ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ, τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν λόγου δύναµιν παρειλήφαµεν. Ὁ γὰρ δεσπότης τῶν ὅλων, αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τοῦ παντὸς ἡ ὑπόστασις, κατὰ µὲν τὴν µηδέπω γεγενηµένην ποίησιν µόνος ἦν· καθὸ δὲ πᾶσα δύναµις, ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ἀοράτων ἀυτὸς ὑπόστασις ἦν, σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα· σὺν αὐτῷ διὰ λογικῆς δυνάµεως αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ λόγος, ὅς ἦν ἐν αὐτῷ, ὑπέστησε. Θελήµατι δέ τῆς ἁπλότητος αὐτοῦ προπηδᾷ λόγος· ὁ δὲ λόγος, ὀυ κατὰ κενοῦ χωρήσας, ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρὸς γίνεται. Τοῦτον ἴσµεν τοῦ κόσµου τὴν ἀρχήν. Γέγονε δὲ κατὰ µερισµόν, ο̦ κατὰ ἀποκοπήν· τὸ γὰρ ἀποτµηθὲν τοῦ πρώτου κεχώρισται, τὸ δὲ µερισθὲν οἰκον 564 οµίας τὴν αἵρεσιν προσλαβὸν οὐκ ἐνδεᾶ τὸν ὅθεν εἴληπται πεπόιηκεν. Ὥστερ γὰρ ἀπὸ µιᾶς δᾳδὸς ἀνάπτεται µὲν πυρὰ πολλὰ, τῆς δὲ πρώτης δᾳδὸς διὰ τὴν ἔξαψιν τῶν πολλῶν δᾳδῶν οὐκ ἐλαττοῦται τὸ φῶς, οὕτω καὶ ὁ λόγος προελθὼν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς δυνάµεως οὐκ ἄλογον πεποίηκε τὸν γεγεννηκότα. Θεὸς παντοκράτωρ Θεός ἐβουλήθη κόσµον κτίσαι. Θεῷ τὰ τῆς ἀγάπης µυστήρια, καὶ τότε ἐποπτεύσεις τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ὃν ὁ µονογενὴς υἱὸς Θεὸς µόνος ἐξηγήσατο· ἔστι δὲ κὰι αὐτὸς ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη καὶ δι᾽ ἀγάπην ἡµῖν ἀνεκράθη· καὶ τὸ µὲν ἄρρητον ἀυτοῦ πατήρ, τὸ δὲ ἡµῖν συµπαθὲς γέγονε µήτηρ· ἀγαπήσας Ὅ 564 πατὴρ ἐθηλύνθη, καὶ τούτου µέγα σηµεῖον, ὃν ἀυτὸς ἐγέννησεν ἐξ αὑτοῦ καὶ ὁ τεχθείς ἑξ ἀγάπης καρπὸς ἀγάπη Θεὸς καλεῖ εἰς µετάνοιαν Θεοῦ λόγος πρὸ αἰώνων

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

Κάλλιστος ἐδογµάτισεν ὅπως εἰ ἐπίσκοπος ἁµάρτοι τι, εἰ καὶ πρὸς θάνατον, µὴ δεῖν κατατίθεσθαι. Κάλλιστος πρῶτος τὰ πρὸς τὰς ἡδονὰς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συγχωρεῖν ἐπενόησε, λέγων πᾶσιν ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ ἀφίεσθαι ἁµαρτίας. Κόσµου µὲν γὰρ ἡ κατασκευὴ καλή, τὸ δὲ ἐν ἀυτῷ πολίτευµα φαῦλον. Καὶ δεύτερον οὖν λέγωµεν Θεόν· ἴστωσαν, ὅτι τὸν δεύτε ac8 ρον Θεὸν οὐκ ἄλλο τι λέγοµεν, ἢ τὴν περιεκτικὴν πασῶν ἀρετῶν ἀρετὴν καὶ τὸν περιεκτικὸν παντὸς οὑτινοσοῦν λόγου τῶν κατὰ φύσιν καὶ προηγουµένως γεγενηµένων, Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Παῦλος Κορινθίοις φησί· γάλα ὑµᾶς ἐπότισα, οὐ βρῶµα, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡδονασθε βαστάζειν· τουτέστι, τὴν µὲν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου ἐµαθητεύθητε, οὐδήπου δὲ τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς πνεῦµα ἐπαναπαύεται ἐφ᾽ ὑµᾶς διὰ τὴν ὑµῶν ἀσθέγειαν. Καὶ οὔτε ὁ πάνυ δυνατὸς ἐν λόγῳ τῶν ἐν ταῖ ἐκκλησίαις προεστώτων ἕτερα τούτων (scil. than the regula fidei) ἐρεῖ· οὐδείς γὰρ ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον· οὔτε ὁ ἀσθενὴς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἐλαττώσει τὴν παράδοσιν. Μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς πίστεως οὔσης οὔτε ὁ πολὺ περὶ αὐτῆς δυνάµενος εἰπεῖν ἐπλεόνασεν, οὔτε ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον ἡλαττόνησε. Καὶ παραβολὴν τῶν ζιζανίων πρὸς τοῦτο ἔφη ὁ Κάλλιστος λέγεσθαι· Ἄφετε τὰ ζιζάνια συναύξειν τῷ σιτῷ τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοὺς ἁµαρτάνοντας. Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ Νῶε εἰς ὁµοίωµα ἐκκλησίας ἔφη γεγονέναι, ἐν ᾗ καὶ κύνες καὶ λύκοι καὶ κόρακες κὰι πάντα τὰ καθαρὰ καὶ ἀκάθαρτα. ὁύτω φάσκων δεῖν εἶναι ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ὁµοίως· καὶ ὅσα πρὸς τοῦτο δυνατὸς ἦν συνάγειν ὁύτως ἡρµήνευσεν. Καὶ ταῦτα µὲν ἐκσεύξῃ Θεὸν τὸν ὄντα διδαχθείς, ἕξεις δὲ ἀθάνατον τὸ σῶµα καὶ ἄσθαρτον ἅµα ψυχῇ, βασιλείαν ὀυρανῶν ἀπολήψῃ, ὁ ἐν γῇ βιοὺς καὶ ἐπουράνιο abb βασιλέα ἐπιγνούς, ἔσῃ δὲ ὁµιλητὴς Θεοῦ καὶ συγκληρονόµος Χριστοῦ, οὐκ ἐπιθυµίαις ἤ πάθεσι καὶ νόσοις δουλούµενος. Γέγονας γὰρ Θεός· ὅσα γὰρ ὑπέµεινας πάθη ἄνθρωπος ὤν, ταῦτα ἐδίδου, ὅτι ἄνθρωπος εἶ, ὅσα δὲ παρακολουθεῖ Θεῷ, ταῦτα παρέχειν ἐπήγγελται

• • • • •

Θεὸς, ὅτι ἐθεοποιήθης, ἀθάνατος γεννηθείς. Τουτέστι τὸ Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, επιγνοὺς τὸν πεποιηκότα Θεόν. Τὸ γὰρ ἐπιγνῶναι ἑαυτὸν ἐπιγνωσθῆναι συµβέβηκε τῷ καλουµένῳ ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ. Μὴ σιλεχθρήσητε τοίνυν ἑαυτοῖς, ἄνθρωποι, µηδὲ τὸ παλινδροµεῖν διστάσητε. Χριστὸς γὰρ ἐστιν ὁ κατὰ πάντων Θεός, ὃς τὴν ἁµαρτίαν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀποπλύνειν προέταξε, νέον τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀποτελῶν, εἰκόνα τοῦτον καλέσας ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, διὰ τύπου τὴν εἰς σὲ ἐπιδεικνύµενος στοργήν, οὗ προστάγµασιν ὑπακούσας σεµνοῖς, καὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἀγαθὸς γενόµενος µιµητής, ἔσῃ ὅµοιος ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ τιµηθείς. Οὐ γὰρ πτωχέυει Θεὸς καὶ σὲ Θεὸν ποιήσας εἰς δόξαν αὐτοῦ. Καθαροί Καθολικός Κεστοί Κεστοί Κλήµεντα τοῦτον ἐπίσκοπον ὑµῖν χειροτονῶ, ᾧ τὴν ἐµὴν τῶν λόγων πιστεύω καθέδραν . . . διὸ αὐτῷ µεταδίδωµι τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ δεσµεύειν καὶ λύειν, ἵνα περὶ παντὸς οὗ ἄν χειροτονήσῃ ἐπὶ γῆς ἔσται δεδογµατισµένον ἐν οὐρανοῖς. δήσει γὰρ ὅ δεῖ δεθῆναι καὶ λύσει ὅ δεῖ λυθῆναι, ὡς τὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας εἰδὼς κανόνα. ad3

• • • •

•

Κλήµης πολλοὺς πρὸ τοῦ Ἀδὰµ κόσµους τερατεύεται Λέγεται µέν Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας Μή τι οὖν, εἰ καὶ παραβαίη τις συνθήκας καὶ τὴν ὁµολογίαν παρέλθοι τὴν πρὸς ἡµᾶς, διὰ τὸν ψευσάµενον τὴν ὁµολογίαν ἀφεξόµεθα τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ἡµεῖς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἀψευδεῖν χρὴ τὸν ἐπιεικῆ καὶ µηδὲν ὧν ὑπέσχηται ἀκυροῦν κἂν ἄλλοι τινὲς παραβαίνωσι συνθήκας, οὕτως καὶ ἡµᾶς κατὰ µηδένα τρόπον τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν παραβαίνειν προσήκει κανόνα καὶ µάλιστα τὴν περὶ τῶν µεγίστων ὁµολογίαν ἡµεῖς µὲν φυλάττοµεν, οἱ δὲ παραβαίνουσι Μωυσῆς πάσης βαρβάρου φιλοσοφίας ἀρχηγός

•

• •

Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐνδεῖ τι ἀυτῷ πρὸς ἐξοµοίωσιν τῷ καλῷ καὶ ἀγαθῷ εἶναι· οὐδὲ ἄρα σιλεῖ τινὰ τὴν κοινὴν ταύτην σιλίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κτίστην διὰ τῶν κτισµάτων, Οὔτ᾽ οὖν ἐπιθυµίᾳ καὶ ὁρέξει τινὶ περιπίπτει οὔτε ἐνδεής ἐστι κατά γε τὴν ψυχὴν τῶν ἄλλων τινός συνὼν ἤδη δι᾽ ἀγάπης τῷ ἐραστῷ, ᾧ δὴ ᾠκείωται κατὰ τὴν αἵρεσιν καὶ τῇ ἐξ ἀσκήσεως ἕξει, τούτῳ προσεχέστερον συνεγγίζων, µακάριος ὢστε ἕνεκά γε τούτων ἐξυµοιοῦσθαι βιάζεται τῷ διδασκάλῳ εἰς ἀπαθείαν. Οὐκ ἐγκρατὴς οὗτος ἔτι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἕξει γέγονεν ἀπαθείας σχῆµα θεῖον ἐπενδύσασθαι αναµένων Οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν 556

•

•

• •

Οὔτε ἄναρχος ἡ ὕλη καθάπερ ὁ Θεός, οὐδὲ διὰ τὸ ἄναρχον καὶ αὐτὴ ἰσοδύναµος τῷ Θεῷ· γεννητὴ δὲ καὶ οὐχ ὑπό τοῦ ἄλλου γεγονυῖα· µόνον δε ὑπὸ τοῦ πάντων δηµιουργοῦ προβεβληµένη. Ον µὲν νοµίζοµαν καὶ πεπείσµεθα ἀρχῆθεν εἶναι Θεοῦ καὶ υἱὸν Θεοῦ, οὗτος ὁ αὐτολόγος ἐστὶ καὶ ἡ αὐτοσοφία καὶ ἡ αὐτοαλήθεια· τὸ δὲ θνητὸν αὐτοῦ σῶµα καὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἐν αὐῷ ψυχὴν τῇ πρὸς ἐκεῖνον οὐ µόνον κοινωνίᾳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑνώσει καὶ ἀνακράσει, τὰ µέγιστά φαµεν προσειληφέναι καὶ τῆς ἐκείνου θεότητος κακοινωνηκότα εἰς Θεὸν µεταβεβηκέναι Περὶ ἀρχῶν Περὶ ἀρχῶν 574

•

Πλάσας ὁ Θεὸς κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῆς γνώµης αὐτοῦ τὰ τῆς φύσεως ἀπῃώρησεν ἐντολῇ µιᾷ ποιησάµενος τὴν διάπειραν. Φυλάξαντα µὲν γὰρ ταύτην τῆς ἀθανάτου λήξεως πεποίηκεν ἔσεσθαι, παραβάντα δὲ τῆς ἐναντίας. Οὕτω γεγονὼς ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ πρὸς τὴν παράβασιν εὐθὺς ἐλθὼν τὴν φθορὰν φυσικῶς εἰσεδέξατο. Φύσει δὲ τῆς φθορᾶς προσγενοµένης ἀναγκαῖον ἦν ὅτι σῶσαι βουλόµενος ἦν τὴν φθοροποιὸν οὐσίαν ἀφανίσας. Τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ ἦν ἑτέρως γενέσθαι, εἰ µήπερ ἡ κατὰ φύσιν ζωὴ προσεπλάκη τῷ τὴν

•

•

•

•

• •

φθορὰν δεξαµένῳ ἀφανιζουσα µὲν τὴν φθοράν, ἀθάνατον δὲ τοῦ λοιποῦ τὸ δεξάµενον διατηροῦσα. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο τὸν λόγον ἐδέησεν ἐν σώµατι γενέσθαι, ἵνα (τοῦ θανάτου) τῆς κατὰ φύσιν ἡµᾶς φθορᾶς ἐλ 564 ευθερώσῃ. Εἰ γὰρ, ὥς φατε, νεύµατι µόνον τὸν θάνατον ἡµῶν ἀπεκώλυσεν, οὐ προσῄει µὲν διὰ τὴν βούλησιν ὁ θάνατος, οὐδὲν δὲ ἧττον φθαρτοὶ πάλιν ἦµεν, φυσικὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τὴν φθορὰν περιφέροντες. Σωκράτει οὐδεὶς ἐπείσθη ὑπὲρ τούτου τοῦ δόγµατος ἀποθνήσκειν· Χριστῷ δὲ τῷ καὶ ὑπὸ Σωκράτους ἀπὸ µέρους γνωσθέντι . . . οὐ φιλόσοφοι οὐδὲ φιλόλογοι µόνον ἐπείσθησαν. Τὰ Εἰρηνάιου τε κὰι Μελίτωνος κὰι τῶν λοιπῶν τίς ἀγνοεῖ βιβλία, θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγέλλοντα τὸν Χριστόν Τὰς αἱρέσεις ἕτερος οὐκ ἐλέγξει, ἢ τὸ ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ παραδοθὲν ἅγιον πνεῦµα, οὗ τυχόντες πρότεροι οἱ ἀπόστολοι µετέδοσαν το ab2 ῖς ὀρθῶς πεπιστευκόσιν ὧν ἡµεῖς δίαδοχοι τυγχάνοντες τῆς τε ἀυτῆς χάριτος µετέχοντες ἀρχιερατείας τε καὶ διδασκαλίας καὶ φρουροὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κελογισµένοι ὀυκ ὀφθαλµῷ νυστάζοµεν, ὀυδὲ λόγον ὀρθὸν σιωπῶµεν, κ.τ.λ. Τίς µᾶλλον τῆς Ἰησοῦ ψυχῆς ἢ κἂν παραπλησίως κακόλληται τῷ κυρίῳ; ὕπερ εἰ οὕτως ἔχει οὐκ εἰσὶ δύο ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πρὸς τὸν πάσης κτίσεως πρωτότοκον Θεὸν λόγον Τὸ µὲν ὑποκείµενον ἕν ἐστι, ταῖς δὲ ἐπινοίαις τὰ πολλὰ ὀνόµατα ἐπὶ διαφόρων Τὸν πριωµενον ἔσης, εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν; ὁ πεπρακὼς τὶς ἐστιν; ἦλθεν εἰς σὲ ὁ ἀπλοῦς µῠθος· ὅτι ὁ πωλῶν καὶ ὁ ἀγοράζων ἀδελσοί εἰσιν; εἰ κακός ὤν ὁ διάβολος τῷ ἀγαθῷ πέπρακεν, οὐκ ἔστι κακὸς ἀλλὰ ἀγαθός· ὁ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς σθονήσας τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, νῦν ὀυκ ἔτι ὑπὸ σθόνου ἄγεται, τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὴν νοµὴν παραδούς. ἔσται οὖν δίκαιος ὁ τοῦ σθόνου καὶ παντὸς κακοῦ παυσάµενος. αὐτὸς γοῦν ὁ Θεὸς εὑρίσκεται πωλήσας· µᾶλλον δὲ οἱ ἡµαρτηκότες ἑαυτοὺς ἀπηλλοτρίωσαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι διὰ τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἀυτῶν· πάλιν δὲ ἐλυτρώθησαν διὰ τὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν ἀυτοῦ. τοῦτο γὰρ σήσιν ὁ προσήτης· Ταῖς ἁµαρτίαις ὑµῶν ἐπράθητε καὶ ταῖς ἀνοµίαις ἐξαπέστειλα τὴν

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

• • • • •

µητέρα ὑµῶν. Καὶ ἄλλος πὰλιν· ∆ωρεὰν ἐπράθητε, καὶ οὐ µετὰ ἀργυρίου λυτρωθήσεσθε. Τὸ, οὐδὲ µετὰ ἀργυρίου· δηλονότι, τοῦ αἵµατος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. τοῦτο γὰρ σάσκει ὁ προσήτης ada Χριστὸς ἐν ἰδέᾳ γυναικὸς ἐσχηµατισµένος. Χριστὸς λόγος καὶ νόµος ἅπαξ παραδοθεῖσα τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστις αἰ τρεῖς ἡµέραι τύποι ἑισὶν τῆς τριάδος, τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ λόγου ἀυτοῦ καὶ τῆς σοφίας ἀυτοῦ αἱ δύο οὐσίαι Χριστοῦ”. αἱ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς βίβλοι καὶ αἱ προσεπιτούτοις ἐπιστολαὶ Παύλου τοῦ ὁσίου ἀνδρός αἱ κατὰ πάντα τόπον τῆς ἁγίας καὶ καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας παροικίαι αἱ παρ᾽ ἡµῖν φιλοσοφοῦσαι. αἱ τότε αἱτιατόν αὐτίκα διδάξαντος τοῦ σωτῆρος τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἡ τῆς ἐγγράφου ἄγραφος ἤδη καὶ εἰς ἡµᾶς διαδίδοται παράδοσις αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τοῦ παντὸς ἡ ὑπόστασις αὐτόθεος αὗται φωνὰι τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἐξ ἧς πᾶσα ἔσχηκεν ἐκκλησία τὴς ἀρχήν· αὗται φωναὶ τῆς µητροπόλεως τῶν τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης πολιτῶν αγαθός αυθεντία βύθος βίος καὶ µαθήµατα γεννᾶν acc

• • • • • • • • •

γνῶσις σύντοµος τῶν κατεπειγόντων γραφάι γραφὴ γέγραπται γραφή γραφή. γραφαὶ βαρβαρικαί γραφαί γυµναστικῶς δέδωκεν ὁ Θεὸς τῷ κόσµῳ κυµαινοµένῳ καὶ χειµαζοµένῳ ὑπὸ τῶν ἁµαρτηµάτων τὰς συναγωγάς, λεγοµένας δὲ ἐκκλησίας ἁγίας, ἐν αἷς

• • • • •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

καθάπερ λιµέσιν εὐόρµοις ἐν νήσοις ἁι διδασκαλίαι τῆς αληθείας ἐισίν . . . Καὶ ὥσπερ αὖ νῆσοι εἰσιν ἕτεραι πετρώδεις καὶ ἄνυδροι καὶ ἔκαρποι καὶ θηριώδεις καὶ ἀοίκητοι ἐπὶ βλάβῃ τῶν πλεόντων . . . οὕτως εἰσὶν αἱ διδασκαλίαι τῆς πλάνης, λέγω δὲ τῶν αἱρέσεων αἳ ἐξαπολλύουσιν τοὺς προσίοντας αὐταῖς δύναµις ἐστὶ τοῦ ἀρρήτου πατρὸς καὶ οὐχὶ ἀνθρωπείου κόγου κατασκευή δύο συνέστη τὰ ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτηµάτα παρεχόµενα, πάθος διὰ Χριστὸν καὶ βάπτισµα δύο τῇ ὑποστάσει πράγµατα δεῖ γὰρ ἀποκατασταθῆαι ὅθεν ἀπέστη. δεδιὼς καὶ ἐξευλαβούµενος, µή πη δόξω πρὶν ἐπισυγγράφειν ἤ ἐπιδιατάσσεσθαι τῷ τῆς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου καινῆς διαθήκης λόγῳ δεσπότης τ 564 ῶν ὅλων δηµιούργηµα διὸ λέγει· ἔγειρε ὁ καθεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἡµεῖς τυχόντες τὴν διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος ἀναγέννησιν εἰς ἕνα τέλειον καὶ ἐπουράνιον ἄνθρωπον οἱ πάντες καταντῆσαι ἐπιθυµοῦµεν διατάξεις διδάγµατα Χριστοῦ διδάγµατα καὶ µαθήµατα καὶ µαθήµατα διδάσκαλοι ἀποστολικοὶ καὶ προϕητικοί διδάσκαλος διδασκαλία τοῦ κυρί ac4 υ διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων διώκοµαι ὡς λύκος ἐκ προβάτων˙ οὐκ εἰµὶ λύκς˙ ῥῆµά εἰµί καὶ πνεῦµα καὶ δύναµις. δόγµατα δόξαις παλαιῶν. δογµατικῶς δοκαιώµατα εἰ ἐπὶ τὸ καταλῦσαι θάνατον ἀφικνεῖται τὸ διαφέρον γένος, οὐχ ὁ Χριστὸς τὸν θάνατον κατήργησεν, εἰ µὴ καὶ αὐτὸς αὐτοῖς ὁµοούσιος λεχθείη εἰ ὑγιῆ τὰ τοιαῦτα, τί θαυµαστόν, τὴν ποίοτητα τοῦ θνητοῦ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν σώµατος προνοίᾳ Θεοῦ

•

• • • •

• • • •

• • • •

• • • • • • •

βουληθέντος µεταβαλεῖν εἰς αιθέριον καὶ θείαν ποιότητα εἰ γοῦν τις καθ᾽ ὑπόθεσιν προθείη τῷ γνωστικῷ πότερον ἑλέσθαι βούλοιτο τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἢ τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν αἰωνίαν, εἴη δὲ ταῦτα κεχωρισµένα παντὸς µᾶλλον ἐν ταυτότητε ὅντα, οὐδὲ καθ᾽ ὁτιοῦν διστάσας ἕλοιτ᾽ ἂν τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. εἰ δἰκασµῷ, οὐκ ἄρα ἀληθῆ ἐστὶν τὰ ὑπ̓ αὐτοῦ εἰρηµένα εἰ καὶ ἦν ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐ δαµῶς ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος. εἰδότες εἰκὼν τῆς οὐρανίου ἐκκλησίας ἡ ἐπίγειος, διόπερ εὐχόµεθα καὶ ἐπί γῆς γενέσθαι τὸ θέληµα τοῦ Θεοῦ ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ acc εἰκών εἰς ὀλίγους ἐκ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀγράφως παραδοθεῖσα κατελήλυθεν εἰς Ῥώµην ὅς ἔπεµψεν ἐµὲν βασίληαν ἀθρῆσαι καὶ βασίλισσαν ιδεῖν χρυσόστολον χρυσοπέδιλον. εἴτε τὸ ἐν ἡµῖν αὐτεξούσιον εἰς γνῶσιν ἀφικόµενον τἀγαθοῦ σκιρτᾷ τε καὶ πηδᾷ ἁπὲρ τὰ ἐσκαµµένα, πλὴν οὐ χάριτος ἄνευ τῆς ἐξαιρέτου πτεροῦταί τε καὶ ἀνίσταται καὶ ἄνω τῶν ὑπερκειµένων αἴρεται ἡ ψυχή εἷ γὰρ καὶ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ταῖς εἷς Θεός εἷς Θ. π. εἷς κύριος, µόνος ἐκ µόνου, Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, χαρακτὴρ καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς θεότητος, λόγος ἔνεργος, σοφία τῆς τῶν ὅλων συστάσεως περιεκτικὴ καὶ δύναµις τῆς ὅλης κτίσεως ποιντική, ὑιὸς ἀληθινὸς πατρός, ἀόρατος ἀοράτου καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἀθάνατος ἀθανάτου καὶ ἀἴδιος ἀϊδίου. εὐσεβέστεροί ἐσµεν καὶ Θεὸν καὶ τὰ ἄγάλµατα σέβοντες εὕρεσις καὶ θεωρία εντολαὶ Ἰησοῦ θεάνθρωπος θεολογεῖν and θελογία. θεολογικὴ σοφία. θεραπεύεσθαι

• • •

•

• • • • •

•

•

•

• • • •

θρέψε µ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρ ac8 ια, µέτοικον ἔθαψε δὲ Ῥώµη, αἱ κόσµου καὶ γῆς, ὦ ξένε, µητροπόλεις θυσίαι, νῦν εὐχαὶ καὶ δεήσεις καὶ ἐυχαριστίαι. κἂν ἑτεροῖα τισι τῶν πολλῶν καταφαίνηται τὰ ὑφ᾽ ἡµῶν λεγόµενα τῶν κυριακῶν γραφῶν, ἰστέον ὅτι ἐκεῖθεν ἀναπνεῖ τε καὶ ζῇ καὶ τὰς ἀσορµὰς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔχοντα τὸν νοῦν µόνον, οὐ τὴν λέξιν, παριστᾶν ἐπαγγελλέται κὰι ὁ ὑιὸς λόγος ὁµωνύµως τῷ τατρικῷ λόγῳ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ σὰρξ γενόµενος, οὐδὲ µὴν ὁ πατρῷος λόγος, ἀλλὰ δύναµίς τις τοῦ Θεοῦ. οἷον ἀπόρροια τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ νοῦς γενόµενος τὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων καρδίας διαπεσοίτηκε. κήρυγµα κήρυγµα τῆς ἀληθέιας κόσµος νοητός κύριος καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἡπίστουν τοῦτο ἔσεσθαι, ἀλλὰ νῦν κατανοήσας αὐτὰ πιστεύω, ἅµα καὶ ἐπιτυχὼν ἱεραῖς γραφαῖς τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν, οἳ καὶ προεῖπον διὰ τνεύµατος Θεοῦ τὰ προγεγονότα ᾧ τρόπῳ γέγονεν καὶ τὰ ἐνεστῷτα τίνι τρόπῳ γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἐπερχόµενα ποίᾳ τάξει ἀπαρτισθήσεται. Ἀπόδειξιν οὐν λαβὼν τῶν γινοµένων καὶ προαναπεφωνηµένων οὐκ απιστῶ καὶ µακάριοι γε ὅσοι δεόµενοι τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοιοῦτοι γεγόνασιν, ὡς µηκέτι αὐτοῦ χρῄζειν ἰατροῦ τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας θεραπεύοντος, µηδ ab2 ποιµένος, µηδὲ ἀπολυτρώσεως, ἀλλὰ σοσίας καὶ λόγου καὶ δικαιοσύνης, ἢ εἴ τι ἄλλο τοῖς διὰ τελειότητα χωρεῖν αὐτοῦ τὰ κάλλιστα δυναµένοις καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης, ἧς ὁ νόµος εἴρηκεν, ἀκόλουθα εὑρίσκεται καὶ τὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἔχειν, διὰ τὸ τούς πάντας πνευµατοφόρους ἑνὶ πνέυµατι θεοῦ λελαληκέναι καὶ τὴν πρώτην ἡµέραν ποιοῦµεν αὐτοὺς Χριστιανούς, τὴν δὲ δευτέραν κατηχουµένους, εἶτα τὴν τρίτην ἐξορκίζοµεν αὐτοὺς κ.τ.λ. καὶ τότε δὴ παῦσις ἔσται µετέπειτα προφητῶν καθὸ πᾶσα δύναµις ὁρατῶν τε καὶ αὀράτων αὐτὸς ὑπόστασις ἦν, σὺν αὐτῲ τὰ πάντα καθὼς καὶ πολλῶν ἀκούοµεν ἀδελφῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ προφητικὰ χαρίσµατα ἐχόντων κ.τ.λ. καθολικός

• • • •

•

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

καθολ. δόξα καθρολικὴ δόξα καινοτοµεῖν τὰ βαρβάρων δόγµατα καλὸν ἐλεηµοσύνη ὡς µετάνοια ἁµαρτίας· κρείσσων νηστεία προσευχῆς, ἐλεηµοσύνη δὲ ἀµφοτέρων . . . ἐλεηµοσύνη γὰρ κούϕισµα ἁµαρτίας γίνεται κανὼν δὲ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἡ συνῳδία καὶ ἡ συµφωνία νόµου τε καὶ προφητῶν τῇ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου παρουσίαν παραδιδοµένῃ διαθήκῃ 57a κανὼν καθολικός κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας κανὼν τῆς πίστεως, κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας κανὼν τῆς παραδόσεως κανὼν τῆς παραδόσεως κανὼν τῆς πίστεως, κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας κατὰ ἀλήθειαν πίστις κατὰ ἀληθείαν εὐαγγελικὸς κανών κατὰ µὲν τὸν βίον Χριστιανῶς ζῶν καὶ παρανόµως, κατὰ δὲ τὰς περὶ τῶν πραγµάτων καὶ τοῦ θείου δόξας Ἑλληνίζων καὶ τὰ Ἑλλήνων τοῖς ὀθνείοις ὑποβαλλόµενος µύθοις. ab9 ατὰ µερισµόν κατὰ τὴν καινὴν διαθήκην κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου = κατὰ τ. εὐαγγ κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν κατ᾽ ἰδίαν τῆς οὐσίας περιγραφήν κόσµος τοῦ κόσµου κοινὴ ἕνωσις κοινωνία, ἕνωσις, ἀνακράσις κοσµικὴ κτίσµα κτίστης τῶν πάντων λάβετε ὕδωρ λογικόν. λέγει λέγει ὁ θέος· οὑ χάρις ὑµῖν εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε κ.τ.λ. λόγον λόγος ἐνδιάθετος λόγος εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγµατος λόγος, νοῦς, πνεῦµα, σοφία λόγου τοῦ δηµοσίου καὶ ἐπιγείου κεχωρισµένοι καὶ παραγγέλµασι καὶ νόµῳ πατρὸς ἀφθαρσίας ἑπόµενοι, πᾶν τὸ ἐν δόξῃ κείµενον ἀνθρωπίνῃ παραιτούµεθα.

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

λόγος λόγος ἐνδιάθετος λόγος προφορικός λόγος σώϕρων abf λογικὸν ἡµῖν βρῶµα ἡ γνῶσις µάθησις µάθησις and µυσταγωγία µέρος θεοῦ καὶ τῷ Θοῷ ὁµοούσιοι µὴ ὄν µὴ ὄντα µὴ δεῖν ὅλως ἐξετάζειν τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ᾽ ἕκαστον, ὡς πεπίστευκα, διαµένειν· σωθήσεσθαι γὰρ τοὺς ἐπὶ τὸν ἐσταυρωµένον ἡλπικότας κ.τ.λ., µὴ ξενιζῶµεθα, ἐάν ὁρῶµεν ἡµῶν τὰ ἀθροίσµατα πεπληρωµένα καὶ πονηρῶν µὴ σαρκωθῆναι τὸν λόγον ἀλλὰ δόξαι µήποτε, ὡς γέγραπται, πολλοὶ κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρεθῶµεν µήτηρ δέ οὐχ, ὥς τινες ἐκδεδώκασιν, ἡ ἐκκλησία, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ θεία γνώσις καὶ ἡ σοφία µήτηρ παρθένος· ἐκκλησίαν ἐµοὶ φίλον ἀυτὴν καλεῖν µία ἡ πάντων γέγονε τῶν ἀποστόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις µέρος σπερµατικοῦ λόγου µέρος τοῦ σπερµατικοῦ θείου λόγου µερισµός µετὰ τὴν κλῆσιν µετὰ λόγου µετάνοια ae0 µεταδοῦναί σοι θέλω τῆς ἐµῆς χάριτος . . . λάµβανε ἀπ᾽ εµõυ καὶ δι᾽ εµõυ χάριν µετοχὴ Θεοῦ ἐστὶ τὸ γινώσκειν Θεὸν καὶ ἀπολαύειν τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ µίµηµα µια ἡ πάντων γέγονε τῶν ἀποστόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις µνήµην τῆς θυσίας Χριστοῦ προσφέρειν and τὴν ἔνσαρκον τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίαν καὶ τὸ καταρτισθὲν αὐτοῦ σῶµα προσφέρειν. µονογενής, πρωτότοκος µυρίων γοῦν ὄντων κατ᾽ ἀριθµὸν ἅ πράσσουσιν ἄνθρωποι σχεδὸν δύο εἰσὶν ἀρχαὶ πάσης ἁµαρτίας, ἄγνοια καὶ ἀσθένεια, ἄµφω δὲ ἐφ᾽ ἡµῖν, τῶν µήτε

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • •

ἐθελόντων µανθάνειν µήτε αὖ τῆς ἐπιθυµίας κρατεῖν. µυρίον πλῆθος οὐ µόνον αἱρετικῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡµετέρων. µυστήροιν µυσταγωγία µυστικὴ παράδοσις µυτήριον νόµοι νύµφη γὰρ εστὶν ὁ πᾶς ἅνθρωπος, ὁπόταν τοῦ ἀληθοῦς προφήτου λευκῷ λόγῳ ἀληθείας σπειρόµενος φωτίζηται τὸν νοῦν νόµος, νοµοθέτης and κριτής νοῦς νοµ 564 οθεσία οἰκονοµίᾳ οἰκονοµία Θεοῦ οἰκονοµία τοῦ Θεοῦ οἰκονοµίαν. οἰκονοµίας οἰκονοµία οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων τὰς πρὸς Τιµόθεον ἀθετοῦσιν ἐπιστολάς οἱ ἡµέτεροι νόµοι οἱ βουλόµενοι φιλοσοφεῖν παρ᾽ ἡµῖν ἄνθρωποι. οἱ εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ Θεοῦ πιστεύοντες καὶ δι᾽ ἀγαθοεργίας τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐξιλασκόµενοι οἱ κατὰ ac8 ωυσέα καὶ ὁµοίως αὐτῷ φιλοσοφοῦντες. οἱ µὲν τὴν ἀληθῆ τῆς µακαρίας σώζοντες διδασκαλίας παράδοσιν εὐθὺς ἀπὸ Πέτρου τε καὶ Ἰακώβου, Ἰωάννου τε καὶ Παύλου τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων, παῖς παρὰ πατρὸς ἐκδεχόµενος ἧκον δὴ σὺν θεῷ καὶ εἰς ἡµᾶς τὰ προγονικὰ ἐκεῖνα καὶ ἀποστολικὰ καταθησόµενοι σπέρµατα οἱ µετὰ λόγου βιώσαντες Χριστιανοί εἰσι, κἄν ἄθεοι ἐνοµίσθησαν, οἷον ἐν Ἕλλησι µὲν Σωκράτης καὶ Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ ὅµοιοι αὐτοῖς, ἐν βαρβάροις δὲ Ἀβραὰµ κ.τ.λ. οἱ παγαιοὶ θεολόγοι. οἵτινες µάρτυρες ἔσονται µεταξὺ ὑµῶν καὶ ἡµῶν. οἶκος θεοῦ ἐκκλησία, στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωµα τῆς αληθείας

• •

• •

•

• • • • •

•

• •

•

• •

οἷς ἄν οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν καὶ τὴν Ῥωµαίων πόλιν ἐπίσκοποι τοῦ δόγµατος επιστέλλοιεν οὐ γὰρ µόνον ἐν Ἕλλησι διὰ Σωκράτους ὑπὸ λόγου ἡλέγχθη ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν βαρβάροις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου µορφωθέντος καὶ ἀνθρώπου καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κληθέντος. οὐ µὴν οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ἄνευ υἱοῦ· ἅµα γὰρ τῷ πατήρ υἱοῦ πατήρ οὐ µὴν οὐδὲ τῶν λοιπῶν ἔτυχε, διαφυγὼν τὴν νόσον, ὧν χρὴ µεταλαµβάνειν κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας κανόνα, τοῦ τε σφραγισθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου. οὐ παύσεται 564 ἐκκλησία γεννῶσα ἐκ καρδίας τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐν κόσµω ὑπὸ ἀπίστων διωκόµενον. “καὶ ἔτεκε”, φησίν, “υἱὸν ἄρρενα, ὃς µέλλει ποιµαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη”, τὸν ἄρρενα καὶ τέλειον Χριστόν, παῖδα Θεοῦ, Θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγελλόµενον ἀεί τίκτουσα ἡ ἐκκλησία διδάσκει πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. οὐ σοφιστὴς ὑπῆρχεν ἀλλὰ δύναµις Θεοῦ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἦν. οὐκ ὄν οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, ὐποκείµενον, πρόσωπον οὐχ ὅπερ µὴ ἐλάβοµεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπερ λαβόντες ὑπὸ τῆς πλάνης ἔχειν ἐκωλύθηµεν. οὕτω δέ καὶ ὁ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκλινῆ ἐν ἑαυτῷ κατέχων Ὅ ac8 ν διὰ τοῦ βαπτρίσµατος εἴληφε οὕτως ὁ τῷ κυρίῳ πειθόµενος καὶ τῇ δοθείσῃ δι᾽ ἀυτοῦ κατακολουθήσας προφητείᾳ τελέως ἐκτελεῖται κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ διδασκάλου ἐν σαρκὶ περιπολῶν Θεός οὕτως δὴ καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ϕιλόσοϕος ἐγώ. οὗτως δύναµιν λαβοῦσα κυριακὴν ἡ ψυχὴ µελετᾷ εἶναι Θεός, κακόν µὲν ὀυδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν ἀγνοίας εἶναι νοµίζουσα. πάντα ὀνίνησιν ὁ κύριος καὶ πάντα ὠφελεῖ καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὡς Θεός, τὰ µὲν ἁµαρτήµατα ὡς Θεὸς ἀφιείς, εἰς δί τὸ µὴ ἐξαµαρτάνειν παιδαγωγῶν ὡς ἄνθρωπος. πάντες τῆς αὐτῆς εἰσὶ φύσεως. πάντων µὲν ἄιτιος τῶν καλῶν ὁ Θεός, ἀλλὰ τῶν µὲν κατὰ προηγούµενον ὡς τῆς τε διαθήκης τῆς παλαιᾶς καὶ τῆς νεάς, τῶν δὲ κατ᾽ ἐπακολούθηµα ὡς

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• • • •

τῆς σιλοσοσίας. τάχα δὲ καὶ προηγουµένως τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐδόθη τότε πρὶν ἢ τὸν κύριον καλέσαι καὶ τοὺς Ἕλληνας. ἐπαιδαγώγει γὰρ καί ἀυτὴ τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν ὡς ὁ γόµος τοὺς Ἑβραίους εἰς Χριστόν. πέρὶ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰωάννου. πίστις πίστις ἐπιστηµονική πίστις ἰδιωτική πίστις καὶ ὁµολογία πᾶσα ἡ ἐν κόςµῳ 564 ἀδελφότης πᾶσαι αἱ ἐκκλησίαι, ἐκκλησίαι κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν, ἐκκλησίαι αἱ ἐν κόσµῳ, αἱ ὑφ᾽ οὐράνου πῶς οὐ κυρίως τὴν ἐις τιµὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν ἁγίαν γενοµένην ἐκκλησίαν ιἑρὸν ἂν ἔιποιµεν Θεοῦ τὸ πολλοῦ ἄξιον . . . ὀυ γὰρ νῦν τὸν τόπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἄθροισµα τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἐκκλησίαν καλῶ πάντων εὐτονώτερος παῖς Θεοῦ παντοκράτωρ ὅτι αὐτὸς τὰ πάντα κρατεῖ καὶ ἐµπεριέχει παράδοσισ ἄγραφος παρέστιν σοὶ τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντι καὶ τελείῳ γ eb0 ενοµένῳ εὐδαιµονεῖν. παρ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦ λόγου τυγχάνοντος παραδόσεις τῶν ἀρχάιων πρεσβυτέρων παρακαταθήκη ἀποδιδοµένη Θεῷ ἡ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου διδασκαλίαν διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀυτοῦ τῆς θεοσεβοῦς παραδόσεως σύνεσίς τε καὶ συνάσκησις παρθένος πατὴρ διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρὸ τῶν ὅλων πατὴρ τῆς δικαιοσύνης καὶ πασῶν τῶν ἀρετῶν χρηστότης περὶ ἀρχῶν περὶ ἀρχῶν περὶ ἀρχ. περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐξοδευόντων ὁ παλαιὸς καὶ κανονικὸς νόµος φυλαχθήσεται καὶ νῦν, ὥστε εἴτις ἐξοδεύοι, τοῦ τελευταίου καὶ ἀναγκαιοτάτου ἐφοδίου µὴ ἀποστερεῖσθαι περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ. περὶ προνοίας πηγὴ τῆς θεότητος πιστέυω εἰς ἕνα θεὸν παντακράτορα

• • • • • • •

•

• • • •

• •

•

• • • • • • •

πλέον ἐστὶν τοῦ πιστεῦσαι τὸ γνῶναι. πνεῦµα πνεῦµα ἀσώµατος, ἄϋλος, ἀσχηµάτιστος πνεῦµα ἅγιον πνεῦµα ὁ Θεός πνοή ποία ἂν ἄλλη βελτίων µέθοδος πρὸς τὸ τοῖς πολλοῖς βοηθῆσαι εὑρεθείη, τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς ἔθνεσι παραδοθείσης ποῖον οὖν υἱὸν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς διὰ τῆς σαρκὸς κατέπεµψεν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τὸν λόγον; ὃν υἱὸν προσηγόρευε διὰ τὸ µέλλειν αὐτὸν γενέσθαι. Καὶ τὸ κοινὸν ὅνοµα τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους φιλοστοργίας ἀναλαµβάνει ὁ υἱὸς (καίτοι τέλειος λόγος ὢν µονγενής). οὔδ᾽ ἡ σαρξ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν δίχα τοῦ λόγου ὑπ 161 οστῆναι ἠδύνατο διὰ τὸ ἐν λόγῳ τὴν σύστασιν ἔχειν. οὕτως οὖν εἱς υἱὸς τέλειος Θεοῦ ἐφανερώθη. πολιτεύεσθαι κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον abf πολιτεία. πολιτευόµενα ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν πολέων πλήθη πολλοὶ καθάπερ οἱ παῖδες τὰ µορµολυκεῖα, οὕτως δεδίασι τὴν ἑλληνικὴν σιλοσοσίαν, σοβούµενοι µὴ ἀπαγάγῃ αὐτούς. πρὸς ταῖς ἄλλαις θρησκείαις πρὸς ταῦτα δ᾽ἡµεῖς φήσοµεν οἱ µελετήσαντες µηδενὶ ἀπεχθάνεσθαι τῶν καλῶς λεγοµένων; κἂν οἱ ἔξω τῆς πίστεως λέγωσι καλῶς. πρόκειται δὲ τοῖς εἰς τελείωσιν σπεύδουσιν ἡ γνῶσις ἡ λογικὴ ἧς θεµέλιος ἡ ἁγία τριὰς πιστίς, ἀγάπη, ἐλπίς πρῶτον αἴτιον πρὸς Μαρκίωνα πρὸς τοὺς ἀποφηναµένους τὰ περὶ Θεοῦ” and not “πρὸς τοὺς θεολογοῦντας”. προώρισεν προβολὴν προβολή προθύµως Ἀβραὰµ τὸν ἴδιον µονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν παραχωρήσας θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ, ἵνα καὶ ὁ Θεὸς εὐδοκήσῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ σπέρµατος ἀυτοῦ παντὸς τὸν ἴδιον µονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν υἱὸν θύσίαν παρασχεῖν εἰς λύτρωσιν ἡµετέραν.

• •

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

προκάθηµαι προκάθηται ἐν [to be understood in a local sense] τόπῳ χωρίου Ῥρωµαίων — προκαθηµένη τῆς ἀγάπης ad1 προκοπή προνοία προσορικός προστάγµατα σύνταγµα κατὰ πασῶν τῶν γεγενηµένων ἁιρέσεων σασῶς παρίστησι τοῖς νοοῦσι τὰ πάντα ἐνώπιον περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὰ παριστάµενα µυστήρια ὑπὸ τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ, τά τε πράγµατα, ὦν αἰνίγµατα ἧσαν αἱ πράξεις αὐτοῦ σιγή σπέρµα λόγου ἔµφυτον σπέρµα σπέρµα λόγου ἔµφυτον σπέρµα λόγου ἔµϕυτον σπέρµα λόγου ἔµϕυτον? σπέρµα τοῦ λόγου σπέρµατα τοῦ λόγου σπορά σπουδάζετε οὖν βεβαιωθῆ̃ναι ἐν τοῖς δόγµασιν τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων, but δόγµατα στύλος καὶ στήριγµα ἐκκλησίας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ πνεῦµα ζωῆς συννηπιάζειν σωτήρ. σωτηρία σωφορσύνη τὰ βιβλία τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης, 578 τὰ κακὰ ἐκ παρακολουθήσεως γεγένηται τῆς πρὸς τὰ προηγούµενα τὰ πονηρά τὰ τῆς ἡµετέρας παιδείας ἐστὶν ἀνωτέρω τῆς κοσµικῆς καταλήψεως. τέλειος τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ ἀσάνταστον τῆς ψυχῆς Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ σώµατος, τῆς καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς ἀνθρωπίνης σύσεως τὸ ἀπαύγασµα τῆς δόξης οὑχὶ ἅπαξ γεγέννηται, καὶ οὐχι γὲννᾶται . , . καὶ ἀεὶ γεννᾶται ὁ σωτὴρ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός

•

τὸ ἄρρητον, τὸ ἀνέκφραστον, τὸ ἀχώριτον, τὸ ἀκατάληπτον, τὸ ἀπερινόητον, τὸ ἀσύγκριτον, τὸ ἀσυµβίβαστον, τὸ ἀνεκδιηγητόν acf

• • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • • •

• • •

• • • • •

τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα διὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐγένετο, πρεσβυτέρου τὸ ἐκκλησιαστικὸν φρόνηµα τὸ ἐν τῷ ἀποστόλῳ ἅγιον πνεῦµα τῇ τοῦ κυρίου ἀποχρώµενον φωνῇ λέγει τὸ ἐξαµαρτάνειν πᾶσιν ἔµφυτον. τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον τὸ αὐτεξούσιον τοῦ ἀνθώπου καὶ τὸ συµβουλευτικὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ µὴ βιαζοµένου τὸ διικνούµενον διὰ ψυχῆς τῆς διερχοµένης τὸ πῦρ. τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος τὸ κατὰ Θεον πολίτευµα τὸ κοινὸν τῆς πίστεως τὸ κυρίως µιαρὸν ἀπὸ κακίας τοιυυτόν ἐστι. Öύσις δὲ σώµατος οὐ µιαρά· οὐ γὰρ ᾗ σύσις σώµατός ἐστι, τὸ γεννητικὸν τῆς µιαρότητος ἔχει τὴν κακιάν τὸ µὲν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα εὐθέως κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν εἰληφέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τὸ καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν δὲ ὕστερον κατὰ τὴν πελείωσιν µέλλειν ἀπολαµβάνειν, τὸ πᾶν εἰς ἕνα ανατρέχει τὸ τῆς ἀληθέιας σωµάτιον τὸ τῶν θεοσεβῶν γένος τὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ ἀγαθεν µικτόν ἐστιν ἐκ τε τῆς προαιρέσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς συµπνεούσης θείας δυ 564 άµεως τῷ τά άλλιστα προελοµένῳ. τὸν ἕνα ὁµολογοῦσιν αἴτιον τῶν πάντων” τύπος σκανδάλου τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως τὸ κατ᾽ ἀρχὴν συζυγίαν συνέσεως καὶ σωτηρίας λαβούσης εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας θρησκείας τε τῆς εἰς τὸν ἕνα καὶ πάντων δεσπότην. τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ ἐυσεβοῦς γνώµης τῇ ψυχῇ ἐκνήψαντες ἐξ ἀυτῶν τῶν ὅλων πίστις καὶ ἀπὸδειξις. τῶν ὅλων τὸ µοναρχικόν τῶν λοιπῶν ἐπισκόπων διαδόχους εἰς τοὺς τόπους, ἐν οἷς ἦσαν, ύ ac3 ειροτονήσαντες ἀπεστάλκαµεν.

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τὸ φθαρτὸν καὶ τὸ ἀσθενὲς τῷ ἰσχυρῷ σώσῃ τὸν ἀπολλύµενον ἄνθρωπον τὰ τῆς ἀθανασίας τὰ τῶν βαρβάρων δόγµατα τά δεδογµατισµένα ὑπὸ Θεοῦ. τελείωσις ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἔµϕυτον παντὶ γένει ἀνθρώπων σπέρµα τοῦ λόγου τὸ ὅλον σῶµα τῶν συναγωγῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. τὸ λογικὸν το ὅλον τὸ σπέρµα τοῦ λόγου τό συγγενές τοῖς ὑφ᾽ ἡµῶν γεγραµµένοις διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος τοῦ ἀποστόλου γράψαντος κ.τ.λ., ἐκεῖνοι λέγουσιν τὸν Μοντανὸν ἐληλυθέναι καὶ ἐσχηκέναι τὸ τέλειον τὸ τοῦ παρακλήτου, τοῦτ᾽ τὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος. τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου ἑνώοει τῇ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν φυσικῇ ἑνωθέντος τῇ σακρί τοῦ κανόνος τῆς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ διαδοχὴν τ. ἀποστόλων ὀυρανίου ἐκκλησίας τούτων οὖν τὴν κατάληψιν µεµυηµένος. τρίας τρίας τριάς 566

• • • •

•

• • •

τ. ἐκκλησ. καν. φάρµακον ἀθανασίας φάσκοντες Χριστὸν ἀφιέναι τοῖς εὐδοκοῦσι φαµὲν δ᾽ ἡµεῖς ἁγιάζειν τὸ πῦρ, οὐ τὰ κρέα, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἁµαρτωλοὺς ψυχάς, πῦρ οὐ τὸ παµφάγον καὶ βάναυσον, ἀλλὰ τὸ φρόνιµον λέγοντες φανερὸν οἶµαι γεγενῆσθαι µίαν εἶναι τὴν ἀληθῆ ἐκκλησίαν τὴν τῷ ὄντι ἀρχάιαν, εἰς ἥν ὁι κατὰ πρόθεσιν δίκαιοι ἐγκαταλέγονται, ἑνὸς γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἑνὸς τοῦ κυρίου . . . τῇ γοῦν τοῦ ἑνὸς φύσει συγκληροῦται ἐκκλησία ἡ µία, ἣν εἰς πολλὰς κατατέµνειν βιάζονται αἱρέσεις. φύσει Θεός ac5 χάριτι σωζόµεθα, οὐκ ἄνευ µέντοι τῶν καλῶν ἔργων. χριστιανισµός πνευµατικός

• • • • • • •

χριστιανισµός σωµατικός ψιλὴ πίστις ψυχὴ λογική ϕίλοις πάντα κοινά ϕιλοσοϕία ἁνθρώπειος . . . ἀποστὰς τοῦ κανόνος ἐπὶ κίβδηλα καὶ νόθα διδάγµατα µετελήλυθεν See περὶ ἀρχῶν Latin Words and Phrases

Index of Latin Words and Phrases •

• •

•

• • • •

•

. . . nisi quoniam auctoritas divini verbi ad suscipiendum hominem interim conquiescens nec se suis viribus exercens, deiicit se ad tempus atque deponit, dum hominem fert, quem suscepit . . . si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo nec sacrificium pro dormitione eius celebraretur . . . ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet terrenorum pariter atque cælestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens pignora et deum homini et hominem deo copularet, ut merito filius dei per assumptionem carnis filius hominis et filius hominis per receptionem dei verbi filius dei effici possit . . . ut neque homo Christo subtrahatur, neque divinitas negetur . . . utrumque in Christo confoederatum est, utrumque coniunctum est et utrumque connexum est . . . pignerata in illo divinitatis et humilitatis videtur esse concordia . . . qui mediator dei et hominum effectus exprimitur, in se deum et hominem sociasse reperitur . . . nos sermonem dei scimus indutum carnis substantiam . . . lavit substantiam corporis et materiam carnis abluens, ex parte suscepti hominis, passione Absolutio mortes 56a Acta omnium apostolorum Adhuc manifestavit oportere nos cum vocatione (i.e. Aguntur præterea per Græcias certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quæ et altiora quæque in commune tractantur, et ipsa repræsentatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur. Alias autem esset nostrum insensatum bonum, quod esset inexercitatum. Sed et videre non tantum nobis esset desiderabile, nisi cognovissemus quantum esset malum non videre; et bene valere autem male valentis

• •

• • •

•

•

•

• •

• • • •

experientia honorabilius efficit, et lucem tenebrarum comparatio et vitam mortis. Sic et cœleste regnum honorabilius est his qui cognoverunt terrenum. Austero dei præcepto miscent seniores aquatam traditionem Bene quod idem veniet de cælis qui est passus . . . et agnoscent qui eum confixerunt, utique ipsam carnem in quam sævierunt, sine qua nec ipse esse poterit et agnosci Bonorum dei unus est titulus, salus hominum Calicis aut panis nostri aliquid decuti in te ac8 rram anxie patimur Carnem et spiritum iam in semetipso Christus fœderavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum sponsæ comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis nomine sequetur animam caro . . . Caro est sponsa, quæ in Christo spiritum sponsum per sanguinem pacta est Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogamiæ debitores, ex pristina dei lege, quæ nos tunc in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit. Certum est, quippe quod præfinito aliquo apud se numero creaturas fecit: non enim, ut quidam volunt, finem putandum est non habere creaturas; quia ubi finis non est, nec comprehensio ulla nec circumscriptio esse potest. Quod si fuerit utique nec contineri vel dispensari a deo, quæ facta sunt, poterunt. Naturaliter nempe quicquid infinitum fuerit, et incomprehensibile erit. Ceterum manente forma regulæ fidei in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras, et tractes, et omnem libidinem curiositatis effundas, si quid tibi videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari Ceterum manente forma regulæ in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras at tractes. Character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus apostoli eam quæ in unoquoque loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt, quæ pervenit usque ad nos, etc. Christi generatio sic erat Christi nomen non ex natura veniens, sed ex dispositione. Christus deus dominus deus noster, sed dei filius Christus deus et homo

•

• • •

•

Christus dicit ad apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes præpositos, qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt: qui audit vos me audit. Christus ex verbi et carnis coniunctione concretus Christus libertatem hominibus restauravit et attribuit incorruptelæ hæreditatem. Christus naturalia legis (which are summed up in the commandment of love) extendit et implevit . . . plenitudo et extensio . . . necesse fuit, auferri quidem vincula servitutis, superextendi vero decreta libertatis Christus per passionem reconciliavit nos deo. 564

• •

•

•

•

• •

•

•

Christus prædicavit novam legem et novam promissionem regni cœlorum Constat omnem doctrinam quæ cum ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiæ ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a deo accepit. Cornelius sedit intrepidus Romæ in sacerdotali cathedra eo tempore: cum tyrannus infestus sacerdotibus dei fanda adque infanda comminaretur, cum multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret levari adversus se æmulum principem quam constitui Romæ dei sacerdotem. Creator Christum, sermonem suum, intuens hominem futurum, Faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram Crucifixus est dei filius, non pudet quia pudendum est; et mortuus est dei filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile est Cum Christus ‘Ego’ dicit (John X. 30 Cum aquam ingressi Christianam fidem in legis suæ verba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et pompæ et angelis eius ab3 ore nostro contestamur. Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, quæ est ab apostolis, quæ per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos, etc. Cum perceperunt eam quæ ab eo est libertatem et participant visionem eius et audierunt sermones eius et fruiti sunt muneribus ab eo, non iam requiretur, quid novius attulit rex super eos, qui annuntiaverunt advenum eius . . . Semetipsum enim attulit et ea quæ prædicta sunt bona.

•

• •

• • •

•

• • • •

Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, præcipue circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri . . . veniant ergo parvuli, dum adolescunt; veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniant docentur; fiant Christiani, cum Christum nosse potuerint. Quid festinat innocens ætas ad remissionem peccatorum? Cautius agetur in sæcularibus, ut cui substantia terrena non creditur, divina credatur . . . Si qui pondus intelligant baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem. Cur descendit salvator in hunc mundum? Curavit desuper et ab exordio consuevit thronus apostolicus iniqua perferentes defensare et eos qui in evitabiles factiones inciderunt, adiuvare et humi iacentes erigere, secundum possibilitatem, quam habetis; causa autem rei, quod sensum rectum tenetis et inconcussam servatis erga dominum nostrum Iesum Christum fidem, nec non etiam indissimulatam universis fratribus et omnibus in nomine Christi vocatis tribuitis caritatem, etc. Custodiatur οἰκονοµίας De episcopis peregrinis, qui in urbem solent venire, placuit iis locum dari ut offerant. De his quidem delictis, de quibus ipsæ scripturæ increpant patriarchas et prophetas, nos non oportere exprobare eis . . . de quibus autem scripturæ non increpant (scil. delictis), sed simpliciter sunt posits, nos non debere fieri accusatores, sed typum quærere. De tua nunc sententia quæro, unde hoc ius ecclesiæ usurpes. Si quia dixerit Petro dominus: Super hanc petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam, tibi dedi claves regni cælestis, vel, Quæcumque alligaveris vel solveris in terra, erunt alligata vel soluta in cœlis, id circo præsumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et alligandi potestatem? Decalogum si quis non fecerit, non habet salutem add Dei nomen quasi naturale divinitatis potest in omnes communicari quibus divinitas vindicatur. Dei spiritus et dei sermo et dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus, utrumque Iesus Christus. Dei verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus, ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster . . . unus Iesus Christus, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est,

•

•

• • • •

•

• •

invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans . . . in semetipsum primatum assumens . . . universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore. Deus stetit in synagoga deorum . . . de patre et filio et de his, qui adoptionem perceperunt, dicit: hi autem sunt ecclesia. Hæc enim est synagoga dei Dicemus autem adversus eos: utramne hi omnes qui prædicti sunt, cum quibus eadem dicentes arguimini (Scil. “ye Gnostics with the philosophers”), cognoverunt veritatem aut non cognoverunt? Et si quidem cognoverunt, superflua est salvatoris in hunc mundum descensio. Ut (lege “ad”) quid enim descendebat? Dilectionis merito anima Christi cum verbo dei Christus efficitur. Dum enim putas, omnes abs te abstineri posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti. Eas ego acclesias proposui, quas et ipsi apostoli vel apostolici viri condiderunt, et puto ante quosdam Ecclesiæ, quæ licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicæ deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinæ. Ego non ad scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est aut parum certa. Ego puto, quod et post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento eluente nos atque purgante Est ergo deus pater omnium institutor et creator, solus originem nesciens(!), invisibilis, immensus, immortalis, æternus, unus deus(!), . . . ex quo quando ipse voluit, sermo filius ac8 natus est, qui non in sono percussi aëris aut tono coactæ de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolatæ a deo virtutis agnoscitur, cuius sacræ et divinæ nativitatis arcana nec apostolus didicit . . . , filio soli nota sunt, qui patris secreta cognovit. Hic ergo cum sit genitus a patre, semper est in patre. Semper autem sic dico, ut non innatum, sed natum probem; sed qui ante omne tempus est, semper in patre fuisse discendus est, nec enim tempus illi assignari potest, qui ante tempus est; semper enim in patre, ne pater non semper sit pater: quia et pater illum etiam præcedit, quod necesse est, prior sit qua pater sit. Quoniam antecedat necesse est eum, qui habet originem, ille qui originem nescit. Simul ut hic minor

•

•

•

sit, dum in illo esse se scit habens originem quia nascitur, et per patrem quamvis originem habet qua nascitur, vicinus in nativitate, dum ex eo patre, qui solus originem non habet, nascitur . . . , substantia scilicet divina, cuius nomen est verbum . . . , deus utique procedens ex deo secundam personam efficiens, sed non eripiens illud patri quod unus est deus . . . Cuius sic divinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inæqualitate divinitatis duos deos reddidisse videatur . . . Dum huic, qui est deus, omnia substrata traduntur et cuncta sibi subiecta filius accepta refert patri, totam divinitatis auctoritatem rursus patri remittit, unus deus ostenditur verus et æternus pater, a quo solo hæc vis divinitatis emissa, etiam in filium tradita et directa rursus per substantiæ communionem ad patrem revolvitur. Est hæc trium distinctio personarum in patre et filio et spiritu sancto, quæ ad pluralem puteorum numerum revocatur. Sed horum puteorum unum est fous. Una enim substantia est et natura trinitatis. Et non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide, liberum et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit (that is, respected) dominus, dicens: Secundum fidem tuam fiat tibi. Et nos autem sermoni atque rationi itemque virtuti, per quæ omnia molitum deum ediximus, propriam substantiam spiritum inscribimus, cui et sermo insit pronuntianti et ratio adsit disponenti et virtus præsit perficienti. Hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum et idcirco filium dei et deum dictum ex unitate substantiæ, nam et deus spiritus (that is, the antemundane Logos is the Son of God). Et cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa; sed sol erit in radio, quia solis est radius nec separator substantia sed extenditur (cf. adv. Prax. 8). Ita de spiritu spiritus et deo deus ut lumen de lumine accensum. Manet integra et i ac8 ndefecta materiæ matrix, etsi plures inde traduces qualitatis mutueris: ita et quod de deo profectum est, deus est et dei filius et unus ambo. Ita et de spiritu spiritus et de deo deus modulo alternum numerum, gradu non statu fecit, et a matrice non recessit sed excessit. Iste igitur dei radius, ut retro semper prædicabatur, delapsus in virginem quandam et in utero eius caro figuratus nascitur homo deo mixtus. Caro spiritu instructa nutritur, adolescit, adfatur, docet, operatur et Christus est.

•

•

•

•

•

• •

• •

•

Et quia dominus naturalia legis, per quæ homo iustificatur, quæ etiam ante legisdationem custodiebant qui fide iustificabantur et placebant deo non dissolvit etc. Et quia passionis eius mentionem in sacrificiis omnibus facimus, passio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerrimus, nihil aliud quam quod ille fecit facere debemus Et quidem apud antecessores nostros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pacis mœchis non putaverunt et in totem pænitentiæ locum contra adulteria cluserunt, non tamen a co-episcoporum suorum collegio recesserunt aut catholicæ ecclesiæ unitatem ruperunt, ut quia apud alios adulteris pax dabatur, qui non dabat de ecclesia separaretur. Et quoniam quidam interdum nihil sibi dicunt esse cum lege, quam Christus non dissolvit, sed adimplevit, interdum quæ volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that continually), plane et nos sic dicimus legem, ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum, quæ nec patres sustinere valuerunt, concesserint, quæ vero ad iustitiam spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum et ampliata. Et scimus, quales sint carnalium commodorum suasoriæ, quam facile dicatur: Opus est de totis præcordiis credam, diligam deum et proximum tanquam me. In his enim duobus præceptis tota lex pendet et prophetæ, non in pulmonum et intestinorum meorum inanitate. Etiam in traditionis obtentu exigenda est auctoritas scripta. Evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successionem ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveravit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. Exempto reatu eximitur et pœna. Exposui opiniones omnium ferme philosophorum . . . , ut quivis arbitretur, aut nunc Christianos phil ac8 osophos esse aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos. Fidem habenti, quæ est ex nobis, dabitur gratia fidei quæ est per spiritum fidei, et abundabit; et quidquid habuerit quis ex naturali creatione, cum exercuerit illud, accipit id ipsum et ex gratia dei, ut abundet et firmior sit in eo ipso quod habet

• • • •

• • • •

•

• •

• •

• •

•

Fides in nobis; mensura fidei causa accipiendarum gratiarum Fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis Filius dei filius hominis factus Filius dei hominis filius factus, ut per eum adoptionem percipiamus, portante homine et capiente et complectente filium dei. Fuit tempus, cum patri filius non fuit Gloria dei vivens homo, vita autem hominis visio dei Gloria hominis deus, operationes vero dei et omnis sapientiæ eius et virtutis receptaculum homo. Hæc ergo, quæ in servitutem et in signum data sunt illis, circumscripsit novo libertatis testamento. Quæ autem naturalia et liberalia et communia omnium, auxit et dilatavit, sine invidia largiter donans hominibus per adoptionem, patrem scire deum . . . auxit autem etiam timorem: filios enim plus timere oportet quam servos Hæc est salutis agnitio quæ deerat eis, quæ est filii dei agnitio . . . agnitio salutis erat agnitio filii dei, qui et salus et salvator et salutare vere et dicitur et est. Hæc regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos quæstiones. Hæretici nullum habent consortium nostræ disciplinæ, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est præceptum, quia non idem deus est nobis et illis, nec unus Christus, id est idem, ideoque nec baptismus unus, quia non idem; quem cum rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent, nec capit numerari, quod non habetur; ita nec possunt accipere quia non habent. Hoc si qui putaverit, me προβολὴν Id quod erat semper liberum et suæ potestatis in homine semper servavit deus et sua exhortatio, ut iuste iudicentur qui non obediunt ei quoniam non obedierant, et qui obed 564 ierunt et crediderunt ei, honorentur incorruptibilitate. Iesu generatio sic erat Iesus Christus propter immensam suam dilectionem factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse Igitur quæcumque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcumque autem ut

•

•

•

•

•

• • • •

•

indigna reprehenditis deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro. Igitur secundum magnitudem non est cognoscere deum, impossibile est enim mensurari patrem; secundum autem dilectionem eius — hæc est enim quæ nos per verbum eius perducit ad deum — obedientes ei semper discimus quoniam est tantus deus etc. Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est: Milies centies centena milia adsistebant ei, et milies centena milia apparebant ei, nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta milia virtutum procuratur: quale est ut deus divisionem et dispersionem pati videatur in filio et spiritu sancto, secundum et tertium sortitis l ac8 ocum, tam consortibus substantiæ patris, quam non patitur in tot angelorum numero? In bonis rebus humanum propositum solum per se ipsum imperfectum est ad consummationem boni, adiutorio namque divino ad perfecta quæque perducitur. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei; et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans, uti sicut in supercælestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps est verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum primatum assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesiæ, universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore. In quantum enim deus nullius indiget, in tantum homo indiget dei communione. Hæc enim gloria hominis, perseverare et permanere in dei servitute. In tua potestate positum est, ut sis pales vel frumentum Invisibile filii pater, visibile autem patris filius. Ipsum verbum dei incarnatum suspensum est super lignum. Itaque tot ac tantæ ecclesiæ una est ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes prima et omnes apostolicæ, dum una omnes. Probant unitatem communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio Itaque utriusque substantiæ census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem” etc. Then: “Quæ proprietas

•

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

conditionum, divinæ et humanæ, æqua utique naturæ cuiusque veritate disjuncta est. Jam ergo alius erit qui videbatur, quia non potest idem invisibilis definiri qui videbatur, et consequens erit, ut invisibilem patrem intellegamus pro plenitudine maiestatis, visibilem vero filium agnoscamus pro modulo derivationis. Jesus Christus factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse Jesus Christus, vere homo, vere deus Legimus omnem scripturam ædificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. Levitæ et sacerdotes sunt discipuli omnes domini. Lex et pro 564 phetæ usque ad Johannem Lex evangelii Libri et epistolæ Pauli viri iusti Libri evangeliorum et epistolæ Pauli viri sanctissimi apostoli Lucas non solum prosecutor sed et cooperarius fuit Apostolorum Manifesta est sententia Iesu Christi apostolos suos mittentis et ipsis solis potestatem a patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus eadem potestatex ecclesiam domini gubernantes et credentium fidem baptizantes Maria cooperans dispositioni (dei) Maria obediens et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est salutis Monarchia in tot nominibus constituta est, in quot deus voluit. Mors nostra dissolvi non potuit, nisi domini passione, nec vita restitui sine resurrectione ipsius Moysis literæ sunt verba Christi. Nam cum dominus adveniens sanasset illa, ac8 quæ Adam portaverit vulnera et venena serpentis antiqua curasset, legem dedit sano et præcepit, ne ultra iam peccaret, ne quid peccanti gravius eveniret; coartati eramus et in angustum innocentiæ præscriptione conclusi, nec haberet quid fragilitatis humanæ infirmitas adque imbecillitas faceret, nisi iterum pietas divina subveniens iustitiæ et misericordiæ operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendæ salutis aperiret, ut sordes postmodum quascumque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus.

•

•

•

• •

•

•

• • • •

•

Nam ita inter se nostræ religionis gradus artifex sævitia diviserat, ut laicos clericis separatos tentationibus sæculi et terroribus suis putaret esse cessuros Nam si quis est, qui velit vel sæcula aliqua vel spatia transisse, vel quodcunque aliud nominare vult, cum nondum facta essent, quæ facta sunt, sine dubio hoc ostendet, quod in illis sæculis vel spatiis omnipotens non erat deus et postmodum omnipotens factus est. Necesse et igitur pauca de Christo ut deo . . . Jam ediximus deum universitatem hanc mundi verbo et ratione et virtute molitum. Apud vestros quoque sapientes λόγον Negat scriptura quod non notat Nihil adeo est quod obduret mentes hominum quam simplicitas divinorum operum, quæ in actu videtur, et magnificentia, quæ in effecta repromittitur, ut hinc quoque, quoniam tanta simplicitate, sine pompa, sine apparatu novo aliquo, denique sine sumptu homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus non multo vel nihilo mundior resurgit, eo incredibilis existimetur consecutio æternitatis. Mentior, si non e contrario idolorum solemnia vel arcana de suggestu et apparatu deque sumptu fidem at auctoritatem sibi exstruunt. Nihil in trinitate maius minusve dicendum est cum unius divinitatis fons verbo ac ratione sua teneat universa Nihil otiosum, nihil inane est apud deum, quia sive bono proposito hominis utitur ad bona sive malo ad necessaria. Nihil tam dignum deo quam salus hominis. Nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum Nisi Marcion Christum non sabiectum patri infert. Nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet, sed nec eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. Apostolos domini habemus auctores, qui nec ipsi 564 quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt, sed acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus assignaverunt. Non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum dii, quamvis deus secundum simplicitatem bonitatis suæ hoc fecerit, nequis eum putet invidiosum aut impræstantem. “Ego,” inquit, “dixi, estis et filii excelsi omnes, nobis autem potestatem divintatis divinitatis baiulare non sustinentibus” . . . Oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere, post deinde vinci et absorbi mortale ab immortalitate et corruptibile ab incorruptibilitate, et fieri hominem

•

•

•

• • •

• •

•

•

secundum imaginem at similitudinem dei, agnitione accepta bone et mali. Non competebat ex semine humano dei filium nasci, ne, si totus esset filius hominis, non esset et dei filius, nihilque haberet amplius Salomone, ut de Hebionis opinione credendus erat. Ergo iam dei filius ex patris dei semine, id est spiritu, ut esset et hominis filius, caro ei sola competebat ex hominis came sumenda sine viri semine. Vacabat enim semen viri apud habentem dei semen. Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alius poterat enarrare nobis, quÍ ac8 sunt patris, nisi proprium ipsius verbum . . . Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes et per auditum nostrum vocem eius percipientes, ut imitatores quidem operum, factores autem sermonum eius facti, communionem habeamus cum ipso Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. . . . Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes, Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundum gratiam dei datur Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est; sed secundum gratiam dei datur. Non enim poteramus aliter incorruptelam et immortalitatem percipere, nisi adunati fuissemus incorruptelæ et immortalitati. Quemadmodum autem adunari possumus incorruptelæ et immortalitati, nisi prius incorruptela et immortalitas facta fuisset id quod et nos, ut absorberetur quod erat corruptibile ab incorruptela et quod erat mortale ab immortalitate, ut filiorum adoptionem perciperemus? Non homo propter conditionem, sed conditio facta est propter hominem. Non quod in aquis spiritum sanctum consequamur, sed in aqua emundati sub angelo spiritui sancto præparamur. Non sacrificia sanctificant hominem; non enim indiget sacrificio deus; sed conscientia eius qui offert sanctificat sacrificium, pura exsistens, et præstat acceptare deum quasi ab amico Non solum de his, quæ usque ad adventum Christi scripta sunt, hæc Spiritus sanctus procuravit, sed . . .

• •

• • •

• • • •

• •

•

eadem similiter etiam in evangelistis et apostolis fecit. Nam ne illas quidem narrationes, quas per eos inspiravit, absque huiuscemodi, quam supra exposuimus, sapientiæ sua arte contexuit. Unde etiam in ipsis non parva promiscuit, quibus historialis narrandi ordo interpolatus, vel intercisus per impossibilitatem sui reflecteret atque revocaret intentionem legentis ad intelligentiæ interioris examen. Nullus inter multos eventus unus est . . . quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum Nunquam est, quando filius non fuit. Erat autem non, sicut de æterna luce diximus, innatus, ne duo principia lucis videamur inducere, sed sicut ingenitæ lucis splendor, ipsam illam lucem initium habe 564 ns ac fontem, natus quidem ex ipsa; sed non erat quando non erat. Omne quod agit, quod sentit, quod intelligit, deus est Omnes enim ii valde posteriores sunt quam episcopi, quibus apostoli tradiderunt ecclesias. Panis iste, quem deus verbum corpus suum esse fatetur, verbum est nutritorium animarum, verbum de deo verbo procedens et panis de pane cœ’esti . . . Non enim panem illum visibilem, quem tenebat in manibus, corpus suum dicebat deus verbum, sed verbum, in cuius mysterio fuerat panis ille frangendus; nec potum illum visibilem sanguinem suum dicebat, sed verbum in cuius mysterio potus ille fuerat effundendus Paracletus solus antecessor, quia solus post Christum Parce unicæ spei totius orbis. Pater tota substantia est, filius vero derivatio totius et portio Petro primum dominus, super quem ædificavit ecclesiam et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit. Petrus Iesum ipsum esse filium de ac8 i testificatus est, qui et unctus Spiritu Sancto Iesus dicitur. Petrus non sibi vindicavit aliquid insolenter aut adroganter adsumpsit, ut diceret se principatum tenere et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere. Philosophorum supercilia contemnimus, quos corruptores et adulteros novimus . . . nos, qui non habitu sapientiam sed mente præferimus, non eloquimur magna sed vivimus, gloriamur nos consecutos, quod illi summa intentione quæsiverunt nec invenire potuerunt. Quid ingrati sumus, quid nobis

• • •

• •

•

•

•

invidemus, si veritas divinitatis nostri temporis rate maturuit? Primo illud nos oportere scire Principalitas Principari enim debet in omnibus et dominari voluntas dei, reliqua autem omnia huic cedere et subdita esse et in servitium dedita Prophetiam expulit, paracletum fugavit Propterea misit pater filium suum e cœlo sine corpore (this is said in opposition to the Valentinian view), ut, postquam incarnatus esset in, utero virginis et natus esset homo, vivificaret hominem et colligeret membra eius quæ mors disperserat, quum hominem divideret Providentiam habet deus omnium propter hoc et consilium dat: consilium autem dans adest his, qui morum providentiam hibent. Necesse est igitur ea quæ providentur et gubernantur cognoscere suum directorem; quæ quidem non sunt irrationalia neque vana, sed habent sensibilitatem perceptam de providentia dei. Et propter hoc ethnicorum quidam, qui minus illecebris ac voluptatibus servierunt, et non in tantum superstitione idolorum coabducti sunt, providentia eius moti licet tenuiter, tamen conversi sunt, ut dicerent fabricatorem huius universitatis patrem omnium providentem et disponentem secundum nos mundum. Quæcunque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcunque autem ut indigna reprehenditis, deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro, miscente in semetipso hominem et deum in virtutibus deum, in pusillitatibus hominem, ut tantum homini conferat quantum deo detrahit. Quæritur quemadmodum emissi sunt reliqui æones? Utrum uniti ei qui emiserit, quemadmodum a sole radii, an efficabiliter et partiliter 564 , uti sit unusquisque eorum separatim et suam figurationem habens, quemadmodum ab homine homo . . . Aut secundum germinationem, quemadmodum ab arbore rami? Et utrum eiusdem substantiæ exsistebant his qui se emiserunt, an ex altera quadam substantia substantiam habentes? Et utrum in eodem emissi sunt, ut eiusdem temporis essent sibi? . . . Et utrum simplices quidam et uniformes et undique sibi æquales et similes,

•

•

•

•

• •

• •

•

•

•

quemadmodum spiritus et lumina emissa sunt, an compositi et differentes Qua enim ratione filiorum adoptionis eius participes esse possemus, nisi per filium eam quæ est ad ipsum recepissemus ab eo communionem, nisi verbum eius communicasset nobis caro factum? Quapropter et per omnem venit ætatem, omnibus restituens eam quæ est ad deum communionem. Quamquam cum duæ substantiæ censeantur in Christo Iesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam Quando incarnatus est filius homo et homo factus longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem præstans, ut quod perdideramus in Adam id est secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse dei, hoc in Christo Iesu reciperemus. Quapropter eis, q ac8 ui in ecclesia sunt, presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab apostolis; qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt. Quare innocens ætas festinat ad baptismum? Quare,” says Irenæus III. 21. 10 — “igitur non iterum sumpsit limum deus sed ex Maria operatus est plasmationem fieri? Ut non alia plasmatio fieret neque alia, esset plasmatio quæ salvaretur, sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudine? Quattuor evv. dom. nostri J. Chr. et epp. S. Pauli ap. et omnis divinitus inspirata scriptura. Quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem, æqua lance disposita virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam, Quemadmodum pater non potest esse quis, si filius non sit, neque dominus quis esse potest sine possessione, sine servo, ita ne omnipotens quidem deus dici potest, si non sint, in quos exerceat potentatum, et deo ut omnipotens ostendatur deus, omnia subsistere necesse est. Qui Acta Apostolorum non recipiunt, nec spiritus Sancti esse possunt, qui necdum spiritum sanctum possunt agnoscere discentibus missum, sed nec ecclesiam se dicant defendere qui quando et quibus incunabulis institutum est hoc corpus probare non habent. Quibus faciebat deus hominem similem? Filio quidem, qui erat induturas hominem . . . Erat autem ad cuius imaginem faciebat, ad filii scilicet, qui homo futurus

•

• • •

•

• •

• •

•

certior et verior imaginem suam fecerat dici hominem, qui tunc de limo formari habebat, imago veri et similitudo. Quicunque erga eum custodiunt dilectionem, suam his præstat communionem. Communio autem dei vita et lumen et fruitio eorum quæ sunt apud deum bonorum. Quicumque autem absistunt secundum sententiam suam ab eo, his eam quæ electa est ab ipsis separationem inducit. Separatio autem dei mors, et separatio lucis tenebræ, et separatio dei amissio omnium quæ sunt apud eum bonorum. Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academiæ et ecclesiæ? Quid simile philosophus et Christianus? Græciæ discipulus et cœli? Quidnam est hoc novum mysterium? iudex iudicatur et quietus est; invisibilis videtur neque er 561 ubescit: incomprehensibilis prehenditur neque indignatur, incommensurabilis mensuratur neque repugnat; impassibilis patitur neque ulciscitur; immortalis moritur, neque respondit verbum, cœlestis sepelitur et id fert. Quidquid retro fuerat, aut demutatum est (per Christum), ut circumcisio, aut suppletum ut reliqua lex, aut impletum ut prophetia, aut perfectum ut fides ipsa. Omnia de carnalibus in spiritalia renovavit nova dei gratia superducto evangelio, expunctore totius retro vetustatis. Quis enim negabit, deum corpus esse, etsi deus spiritus est? spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie Quod aliud est in Christo deitatis eius natura, quod est unigenitus filius patris, et alia humana natura, quam in novissimis temporibus pro dispensatione suscepit. Propter quod videndum primo est, quid sit unigenitus filius dei. Quod permittitur, bonum non est Quod vero ad Novatiani personam pertinet, scias nos primo in loco nec curiosos esse debere quid ille doceat, cum foris docent; quisquis ille est et qualiscunque est, christianus non est, qui in Christi ecclesia non est. 564 Quodsi quæ Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum Theclæ ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse.

•

• •

•

•

•

• • •

•

•

•

•

•

Quodsi voluerint respondere et Philippi deinceps quattuor filias prophetasse et prophetam Agabum reperiri et in divisionibus spiritus inter apostolos et doctores et prophetas quoque apostolo scribente formatos, etc. Quomodo multæ mansiones apud patrem, si non pro varietate meritorum. Quoniam iniuste dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus dei omnipotentis, alienavit nos contra naturam diabolus. Quos personæ ratio invicem dividit, eosdem rursus invicem religionis ratio conducit; et quamvis idem atque ipsi non sint, dum idem sentiunt, ipsum sunt, et cum duo sint, unum sunt Recedere a bono, non aliud est quam effici in malo. Ceterum namque est, malum esse bono carere. Ex quo accidit, ut in quanta mensura quis devolveretur a bono, in tantam mensuram malitiæ deveniret. 547 Recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquæ, prima nativitate contraxit Recipite interim hanc fabulam, similis est vestris. Sacrificare Scripturæ quidem perfecta sunt, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius dictæ, nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a verbo dei et spiritu eius, secundum hoc et scientia mysteriorum eius indigemus. Secundum id quod verbum dei homo erat ex radice Iesse et filius Abrahæ, secundum hoc requiescebat spiritus dei super eum . . . secundum autem quod deus erat, non secundum gloriam iudicabat. Sed aiunt quidam, satis deum habere, si corde et animo suspiciatur, licet actu minus fiat; itaque se salvo metu et fide peccare, hoc est salva castitate matrimonia violare etc. Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura Pastoris, quæ sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter aprocrypha et falsa iudicaretur ae8 Sed cum extollimur et inflamur adversus clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc omnes sacerdotes, quia ‘sacerdotes nos deo et patri fecit’. Cum ad peræquationem disciplinæ sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas. Sed enim invenimus illum directo et deum et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente (Ps. LXXXVII. 5

• •

• •

• •

• •

•

•

Sed nec inter consuetudines dispicere voluerunt illi sanctissimi antecessores Sed non eam te (animam) advoco, quæ scholis format, bibliothecis exercitata, academiis et porticibus Atticis pasta sapientiam ructas. Te simplicem et rudem et impolitam et idioticam compello, qualem te habent qui te solam habent . . . Imperitia tua mihi opus est, quoniam aliquantulæ peritiæ tuæ nemo credit. Sed non putet institutionem unusquisque antecessoris commovendam. Sed quoniam valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximæ et antiquissimæ et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Paulo et Petro Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ ecclesiæ, eam quam habet ab apostolis traditionem et annuntiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo vel per sibiplacentiam malam vel vanam gloriam vel per cæcitatem et malam sententiam, præterquam oportet, colligunt. Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quæ est ab apostolis traditio. Sequitur animam nubentem spiritui caro; o beatum connubium Si Adam iam non reverteretur ad vitam, sed in totum proiectus esset morti, victus esset dens et superasset serpentis nequitia voluntatem dei. Sed quoniam deus invictus et magnanimis est, magnanimem quidem se exhibuit etc. Si autem Italiæ adiaces habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas præsto est. Si autem et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium quæ requiruntur, cogitet, quia homo est in infinitum minor deo et qui ex parte (cf. II. 28.) acceperit gratiam et qui nondum æqualis vel similis sit factori Si autem subit vos huiusmodi sensus, ut dicatis: Quid igitur novi dominus attulit veniens? cognoscite ac8 , quoniam omnem novitatem attulit semetipsum afferens, qui fuerat annuntiatus. Si autem velut a lumine lumina accensa sunt . . . velut verbi gratia a facula faculæ, generatione quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem autem substantiæ cum sint cum principe emissionis

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et pater ipsorum participabit passiones. Neque enim quæ postea accensa est facula, alterum lumen habebit quam illud quod ante eam fuit. Si de aliqua modica quæstione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt . . . quid autem si neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant ecclesias? Si hæc ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, quæ cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum . . . Superest ergo ut demonstremus an hæc nostra doctrina, cujus regulam supra edidimus, de apostolorum traditione censeatur . . . Communicamus cum ecclesiis catholicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa. Si mendacium deprehenditur Christi caro . . . nec passiones Christi fidem merebuntur. Eversum est igitur totum dei opus. Totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors Christi, negatur, quam tam impresse apostolus demendat, utique veram, summum eam fundamentum evangelii constituens et salutis nostræ et prædictionis sum Si propter substantiam omnes succedunt animæ in refrigerium, et superfluum est credere, superflua autem et discessio salvatoris; si autem propter iustitiam, iam non propter id, quod sint animæ sed quoniam sunt iustæ . . . Si enim natura et substantia salvat, omnes salvabuntur animæ; si autem iustitia et fides etc. Sic apostoli, quos universi actus et universæ doctrinæ dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant circa dispositionem legis, quæ est secundum Moysem, ab uno et eodem significantes esse deo Sic et in reliquis omnibus nulli similis erit omnium pater hominum pusillitati: et dicitur quidem secundum hæc propter delectionem, sentitur autem super hæc secundum magnitudinem. Sic et sapientia ex deo procedens, ex ipsa substantia dei generatur. Sic nihilominus et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhœæ esse dicitur aporr ac8 hœa gloriæ omnipotentis pura quædam et sincera. Quæ utræque similitudines (see the beginning of the passage) manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantiæ esse filio cum patre. Aporrhœa enim ὁµοούσιος

•

•

•

•

• • •

• • • • • •

•

Sicut de arido tritico massa una non fieri potest sine humore neque unis panis, ita nec nos multi unum fieri in Christo Iesu poteramus sine aqua quæ de cœlo est. Et sicut arida terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat: sic et nos lignum aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam sine superna voluntaria pluvia. Corpora unim nostra per lavacrum illam quæ est ad incorruptionem unitatem acceperunt, animæ autem per spiritum Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sæculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intellegentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua οἰκονοµίᾳ Singulis pastoribus portio gregis est adscripta, quam regit unusquisque et gubernat rationem sui actus domino redditurus Spiritum quidem dei etiam fideles habent, sed non omnes fideles apostoli . . . Proprie enim apostoli spiritum sanctum habent, qui plene habent in operibus prophetiæ et efficacia virtutum documentisque linguarum, non ex parte, quod ceteri. Sub specie æternitatis Sublata ergo prædestinatione quæ non est posita, in substantia fuit Christus ante mundi institutionem Substantia animæ inter deum carnemque mediante — non enim possibile erat dei naturam corpori sine mediatore miscere — nascitur deus homo, illa substantia media exsistente, cui utique colitra naturam non erat corpus assumere. Sed neque rursus anima illa, utpote substantia rationabilis, contra naturam habuit, capere deum. Summa est voluntatis dei salus eorum, quos adoptavit Surgens in came sic ascendit ad patrem. Taceo quod figitur; in hoc enim venerat Tam apostolus Moyses, quam et apostoli prophetæ. Tenemur hic de somniis quoque Christianam sententiam expromere Tertullianus ad mediam ætatem presbyter fuit ecclesiæ ac8 Africanæ, invidia postea et contumeliis clericorum Romanæ ecclesiæ ad Montani dogma delapsus. Testimonia de Johannis evangelio congregata, quæ tibi quidam Montani sectator ingessit, in quibus salvator noster se ad patrem iturum missurumque paracletum pollicetur etc.

•

• •

• •

•

• •

•

•

•

•

Traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in omni ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint videre, et habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis et successiones eorum usque ad nos . . . valde enim perfectos in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes . . . traditio Romanæ ecclesiæ, quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiata hominihus fides per successiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos. Typum quæras Ubi igitur charismata domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea quæ est ab apostolis ecclesiæ successio. Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam ὀικονοµίαν Unus ergo et idem spiritus qui in prophetis et apostolis, nisi quoniam ibi ad momentum, hic semper. Ceterum ibi non ut semper in illis inesset, hic ut in illis semper maneret, et ibi mediocriter distributus, hic totus effusus, ibi parce datus, hic large commodatus. Utraque testamenta unus et idem paterfamilias produxit, verbum dei, dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui et Abrahæ et Moysi collocutus est. Valentinus de ecclesia authenticæ regulæ abrupit Venio itaque ad illum articulum, quem et nostri prætendunt ad ineundam curiositatem. Scriptum est, inquiunt, Quærite et invenietis Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias Marcionis, per quas proprietatem doctrinæ suæ inducit ad edictum, ut ita dixerim, Christi, Beati mendici etc. Verbum dei illis quidem qui ante Moysem fuerunt patriarchis secundum divinitatem et gloriam colloquebatur Verbum dispensator paternæ gratiæ factus est ad utilitatem hominum, propter quos fecit tantas dispositiones. Verbum potens et homo verus sanguine suo ratio nabiliter redimens nos, 564 redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt . . . dei verbum non deficiens in sua iustitia, iuste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quemadmodum illa initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim

•

•

• •

•

•

• • • • • • • •

inferentem, accipere quæ vellet, ut neque quod est iustum confringeretur neque antiqua plasmatio dei deperiret. Verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster, qui et passus est pro nobis et ressurrexit propter nos . . . Unus igitur deus pater, quemadmodum ostendimus, et unus Christus Iesus dominus noster, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo. Videamus quid (ecclesia Romanensis) didicerit, quid docuerit, cum Africanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit. Unum deum dominum novit, creatorem universitatis, et Christum Iesum ex virgi ac8 ne Maria filium dei creatoris, et carnis resurrectionem; legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet; inde potat fidem, eam aqua signat, sancto spiritu vestit, eucharistia pascit, martyrium exhortatur, et ita adversus hanc institutionem neminem recipit. Videamus, quid ecclesia Romanensis cum Africanis ecclesiis contesserarit. Videmus igitur non obesse monarchiæ filium, etsi hodie apud filium est, quia et in suo statu est apud filium, et cum suo statu restituetur patri a filio. Videmus in aqua populum intellegi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem Christi; quando autem in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur et credentium plebs ei in quem credidit copulatur et iungitur etc. Viderimus si secundum arcæ typum et corvus et milvus et lupus et canis et serpens in ecclesia erit. Certe idololatres in arcæ typo non habetur. Quod in arca non fuit, in ecclesia non sit Virtus omnis ex his causam accipit, a quibus provocatur Vox ista (Joh. I. 14 a limine a priori ab ecclesia authenticæ ab initio actus utriusque substantiæ ad originem dominicam et ad evangelicam adque apostolicam traditionem

• • • • • • • • •

•

• • •

•

• • • • • • • •

adoptio adulterium adunitio adunitio verbi dei ad plasma agnitio filii agnitio patris filius, agnitio autem filii in patre et per filium revelata alias pater, alias filius, alias non aliud aliquem nominare deum aliud est substantia, aliud natura substantiæ; siquidem substantia propria est rei cuiusque, natura vero potest esse communis. Suscipe exemplum: substantia est lapis, ferrum; duritia lapidis et ferri natura substantia est. Duritia (natura) communicat, substantia discordat. M 562 ollitia lanæ, mollitia plumæ pariant naturalia eorum, substantiva non pariant . . . Et tunc naturæ similitudo notatur, cum substantiæ dissimilitudo conspicitur. ambæ substantiæ in statu suo quæque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operæ et exitus sui occurrerunt . . . neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in uno plane esse possunt. amplianda adimplendaque lex amplius aliquid respondentes quam dominus in evangelio determinavit anima Christi ita elegit diligere iustitiam, ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter ei atque inseparabiliter inhæreret, ita ut propositi firmitas et affectus immensitas et dilectionis inexstinguibilis calor omnem sensum conversionis atque immutationis abscinderet, et quod in arbitrio erat positum, longi usus affectu iam versum sit in naturam. anima Iesu ab initio creaturæ et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhærens et tota totum recipiens atque in eius lucem splendoremque ipsa cedens facta est cum ipso principaliter unus spiritus animal vivens ab8 ante et extra usum antiquissima antiquus ecclesiæ status in universo mundo et character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum antistes Christi antistes dei apostolice apostolicus

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

articulus constitutivus ecclesiæ articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ assumptio carnis ex virgine auctoritas divina auctoritas et ratio auctoritates praecessorum eius audio edictum esse præpositum et quidem peremptorium baptismus non est necessarius, quibus fides satis est baptizatus et corpore Christi pastus benedictus papa blasphemia blasphemia creatoris calicem in commemorationem domini et passionis eius offerre capax est frigoris et caloris capax incorruptibilitatis capax incorruptionis et immortalitatis captatio benevolentiæ caro catalogus testimoniorum cathedra cathedra Petri cathedra sacerdotalis catholica fides et religio catholica traditio catholicam charisma veritatis clerici maiores 576 columba s. spiritus advolat, pacem dei adferens, emissa de cœlis, ubi ecclesia est arca figurata commixtio et communio dei et hominis communicatio ideomatum communicatio tua, id est catholicæ ecclesiæ unitas pariter et caritas commutatio agnitionis completus numerus prophetarum complexus oppositorum concordia episcoporum conditio duarum substantiarum, quas Christus et ipse gestat conscientia religionis consecutio æternitatis consecutio spiritus sancti

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

constat hominem a deo factum esse, non ex deo processisse; ex deo autem homo quomodo non processit, sic dei verbum processit constituta in episcopo et in clero et in omnibus credent ac8 ibus consuetudo sine veritate contesserare convenire convenire necesse est conversio partis alicuius substantiæ dei in filium corporalis et spiritalis [i.e. corpus permixtum corpus spiritale credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam culpa cum episcopatus successione certum veritatis charisma cunctatio baptismi cur deus — homo curiositas de facto de ira dei de opere et eleemosynis de pudicitia de trinitate seu de regula fidei de unitate ecclesiæ de virginitate dei dei spiritus deservire altari et sacrificia divina celebrare deum corpus esse deus deus consilium dat continere bonum, quod perficitur ex obedientia. deus crucifixus deus et homo deus factus homo deus homo factus deus in stultitia et impossibilitate materias operationis suæ instituit. deus passus, deus crucifixus est deus unus est et Christus unus et una ecclesia et cathedra una super Pe 558 trum domini voce fundata deus, verbum, filius dei, homo, filius hominis, plasma dei

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• •

differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit ecclesiæ auctoritas et honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus. Adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tinguis et sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici diligentia conversationis adaucta est disciplina disciplina sacerd. disciplina vitæ dispositio unitatis, quando unitas ex semetipsa [trinitatem] derivat dispositio, distinctio, numerus distincte agere divisio doctrinæ inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt Gnosticorum. doctrina doctrina apostolorum ac3 doctrina regulæ dominicæ hostiæ veritatem per falsa sacrificia profanare dominica hostia dominus apostolos, i. e. dominus per passionem mortem destruxit et solvit errorem corruptionemque exterminavit, et ignorantiam destruxit, vitam autem manifestavit et ostendit veritatem et incorruptionem donavit dominus sanavit illa quæ Adam portaverat vulnera donum superadditum et supernaturale duæ substantiæ duplex adventus Christi duplex status non confusus sed conjunctus dux substantiæ e sæculo excedere eam quæ est a Maria in Evam recirculationem significans; quia non aliter quod colligatum est solveretur, nisi ipsæ compagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus, ut primæ coniunctiones solvantur per secundas, secundæ rursus liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem a secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem primæ solutionis habere locum. Et propter hoc dominus dicebat primos quidem novissimos futuros et novissimos primos. ecclesiæ ecclesiæ novellæ et posteræ

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

•

• •

•

• • • • •

ecclesia ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum ecclesia catholica ecclesia credentium plebs ecclesia est numerus episcoporum ecclesia maxima et omnibus cognita ecclesia principalis ecclesia spiritus, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum ecclesia super episcopos constituta ecclesia una quidem est, cum perfecta est; multæ vero sunt adolescentulæ, cum adhuc instruuntur et proficiunt 575 ego et pater unum sumus ad substantiæ unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem dictum est eiusdem sacramenti episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur. episcopus episcoporum et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo et homines igitur videbunt deum, ut vivant, per visionem immortales facti et pertingentes usque in deum. et offeres pro duabus uxoribus, et commendabis illas duas per sacerdotem de monogamia ordinatum et quoniam in nobis divina et paterna pietas apostolatus ducatum contulit et vicariam domini sedem cælesti dignatione ordinavit et originem authentici apostolatus, super quem Ch 55e ristus fundavit ecclesiam, in superiore nostro portamus. et sic unus deus pater ostenditur, qui est super omnia et per omnia et in omnibus; super omnia pater quidem et ipse est caput Christi etiam laicis ius est”), ut possit baptismo suo peccata hominis qui baptizatur abluere eum odivit deus, qui seduxit hominem, ei vero qui seductus est, sensim paullatimque misertus est. evangelicæ et apostolicæ litteræ ex originis vitio ex parte accepimus gratiam

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • • • •

ex professo ex substantia dei ex una substantia esse omnia, id est Abraham et Moysem et prophetas, etiam ipsum dominum. expositio legitima extra ecclesiam extra ecclesiam nulla salus fœdus spei 56a fabricator qui fecit mundum per semitipsum, hoc est per verbum et per sapientiam suam factum esse factus est quod sumus nos falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eorum adseverando falsum testimonium fertur in traditionibus fidelissimus sequester dei et hominum, qui et homini deum et hominem deo reddet fides apostolica fides aucta est fides catholica fides credenda fides et iustitia fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis figura expressa substantia: patris filius dei filius dei et filius homini 540 s filius dei factus filius hominis filius dei filius hominis factus filius dei filius hominis factus est propter nos filius dei miscens in semetipso hominem et deum filius dei passus est propter nos filius dei passus est ut nos filios dei faceret, et filius hominis (scil. the Christians) pati non vult esse dei filius possit. filius est in patre et habet in se patrem filius miscens in semetipso hominem et deum, ut tantum homini conferat, quantum deo detrahit. Conversabatur deus, ut homo divina agere doceretur. Ex æquo agebat deus cum homine, ut homo ex æquo agere cum deo posset. filius portio plenitudinis forum publicum fraus fuit tempus, cum ei filius non fuit. 588 gratia

•

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

•

• • • •

•

• •

hæc sunt initia hæreticorum et ortus adque conatus schismaticorum, ut præpositum superbo tumore contemnant hæretici nolunt Christum secundam esse personam post patrem, sed ipsum patrem habere non potest deum patrem qui ecclesiam non habet matrem habitus hic est enim legitimus dei filius qui ex ipso deo est, qui, dum sanctum illud (Luke I. 35 hinc est quod neque idololatriæ neque sanguini pax ab ecclesiis redditur. his qui inquieti erant in eremo dans aptissimam legem . . . per omnes transiens verbum omni conditioni congruentem et aptam legem conscribens hoc autem ipsum, quod dicimus, quia nunquam fuit, quando non fuit, cum venia audiendum est homicidium homo homo deo mixtus homo in aqua demiss 564 us et inter pauca verba tinctus homo initio in Adam inobediens per mortem percussus est homo inspiratus homo rationabilis et secundum hoc similis deo liber in arbitrio factus et suæ potestatis, ipse sibi causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum aliquando autem palea fiat. id verbum filium eius appellatum, in nomine dei varie visum a patriarchis, in prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spiritu patris dei et virtute in virginem Mariam, carnem factum idololatria immensum patrem in filio mensuratum; mensura enim patris filius, quoniam et capit eum. impossibile est sine deo discere deum in apostolis quidem dicunt spiritum sanctum fuisse, paracletum non fuisse, et paracletum plura in Montano dixisse quam Christum in evangelio protulisse. in ecclesia posuit deus universam operationem spiritus; caius non sunt participes omnes qui non concurrunt ad ecclesiam . . . ubi enim e 564 cclesia, ibi et spiritus dei, et ubi spiritus dei, illic ecclesia et omnis gratia in foro publico in nuce

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

in ordinatione ecclesiasticæ disciplinæ sanctificatæ erant in qua in thesi in uno et altero ecclesia est, ecelesia vero Christus incarnatus infans infanti remittintur non propria sed aliena peccata. inlicere inquisitio universitatis institutio instrumentum divinæ litteraturæ instrumentum ecclesiæ inter domesticos ipso facto ita fit, ut inter 564 dum ille qui foras mittitur intus sit, et ille foris, qui intus videtur retineri. ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur item b. apostolus Johannes nec ipse ullam hæresin aut schisma discrevit aut aliquos speciatim separes posuit iudices vice Christi iustitia opus est, ut promereri quis possit deum iudicem: præceptis eius et monitis obtemperandum est, ut accipiant merita nostra mercedem. lamentationes lamentationes, ieiunia, eleemosynæ lavacrum regenerationis et sanctificationis legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet. lex lex et doctrina lex evangelica lex prædocuit hominem sequi oportere Christum libel ac1 latici liberæ sententiæ ab initio est homo et liberæ sententiæ est deus, cuius ad similitudinem factus est. libertatem restauravit liberum arbitrium literæ pacis locum magisterii apostolorum longa hominum expositio magisterium magna mater maior est legisdatio quæ in libertatem, quam quæ data est in servitutem

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

•

•

• • • • •

•

matrix et radix ecclesiæ catholicæ maxima merces merita meritum minores modicum delictum illuc luendum mutatis mutandis nam et ipsa ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est trinitas unius divinitatis, pater et filius et spiritus sanctus. Illam ecclesiam congregat quam dominus in tribus posuit. Atque ita exinde etiam numerus omnis qui in hanc fidem conspiraverint ecclesia ab auctore et consecratore censetur. Et ideo ecclesia quidem delicta donabit, sed ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum nasci se deus in utero patitur. nasci se voluit deus naturæ rationabiles natura natura hominis naturalia legis naturaliter similis deo navigare audent et ad Petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides apostolo prædicante laudata est (see epp. 30. 2, 3: 60. 2), ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum. 567 ne accedas ad me, quoniam mundus sum; non enim accepi uxorem, nec est sepulcrum patens guttur meum, sed sum Nazarenus dei non bibens vinum sicut illi ne forte, ex quo martyres non fiunt et hostiæ sanctorum non offeruntur pro peccatis nostris, peccatorum nostrorum remissionem non mereamur. ne mater quidem ecclesia præteritur nec convertibilis aut mutabilis dici potest nemo tibi persuadeat; nemo semetipsum decipiat: extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur. nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino unquam fuit neque enim aliunde hæreses obortæ sunt aut nata sunt schismata, quam quando sacerdoti dei non obtemperatur neque enim spiritus sine aqua separatim operari potest nec aqua sine spiritu male ergo sibi quidem interpretantur ut dicant, quod per manus impositionem

• • • •

•

•

•

• •

•

• • • • • • • • • • •

spiritum sanctum accipiant et sic recipiantur, cum manifestum sit utroque sacramento nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum aca noli me tangere non enim infectus es, o homo, neque semper coëxsistebas deo, sicut proprium eius verbum. non est pax illi ab episcopo necessaria habituro gloriæ suæ (scil. martyrii) pacem et accepturo maiorem de domini dignatione mercedem non est una nobis et schismaticis symboli lex neque eadem interrogatio; nam cum dicunt, credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam, mentiuntur non ita sentiendum est, quod omnis divinitatis eius maiestas intra brevissimi corporis claustra conclusa est, ita ut omne verbum dei et sapientia eius ac substantialis veritas ac vita vel a patre divulsa sit vel intra corporis eius coercita et conscripta brevitatem nec usquam præterea putetur operata; sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis debet esse confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus a paterna substantia, quæ ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio. non sic de substantia corporis ipsius exprimimus, ut solum tantum hominem illum esse dicamus, sed ut divinitate sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta etiam deum illum teneamus non tunc cœpit filius dei, exsistens semper apud patrem nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? . . . adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tınguıs et sacerdos es tibi solus, sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici. nos autem Iesus summus sacerdos sacerdotes deo patri suo fecit . . . vivit unicus pater noster deus et mater ecclesia, . . certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati nos sumus veri adoratores et veri sacerdotes, qui spiritu orantes spiritu sacrificamus; nova lex nova promissio regni cœlorum novissima lex novum testamentum novum testamentum libertatis numerus numerus episcoparum o felix culpa oblatio 564 officia humiliationis

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

omne quod est, corpus est sui generis; nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est. omnem ecclesiam omnes iusti sacerdotalem habent ordinem omni ecclesiæ dei et credentium populo sacerdotium datum. omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt omnis creatura rationabilis laudis et culpæ capax: laudis, si secundum rationem, quam in se habet, ad meliora proficiat, culpæ, si rationem recti declinet opera et eleemosynæ oportet vero mundari et sanctificari aquam prius a sacerdote oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere opuscula ordines ordines minores ordo episcoporum per successionem ab initio decurrens ab6 origo authentici par excellence particularia legis passio dominis pater conditionem simul et verbum suum portans pater generis humani verbum dei patibilis peccando promeremur peccata purgare et hominem sanctificare aqua sola non potest, nisi habeat et spiritum sanctum. peccato alterius inquinari alterum et idololatriam delinquentis ad non delinquentem transire per adoptionem per diabolum homo a primordio circumventus, ut præceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum suæ etiam damnationis traducem fecit. per episcopos solos peccata posse dimitti per verbum eius Iesum Christum. perficere, solvere, demutare permixtio perseverantes in servitute pristinæ inobedientiæ moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo dei patris neque per filium percipientes libertatem . . . privantur munere eius, quod est vita æterna: non recipientes autem verbum incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

sunt debitores mortis, antidotum vitæ non accipientes. Ad quos verbum ait, suum munus gratiæ narrans: personales substantias extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat. plasma dei plebs credentium pondus baptismi pondus peccati pontifex maximus possibilitas utriusque posterius potentior principalitas 578 potest ecclesia donare delictum, sed non faciam potestas apostolorum potestas reconciliandi iratum deum. præcepta dominica præcessorum auctoritates præfectus urbis præsens numen præsertim cum animadvertat, scripturam evangelicam utramque istam substantiam in unam nativitatis Christi foederasse concordiam preces predestinatione primitivæ e virtutes ac primo creatæ, immobiles exsistentes secundum substantiam princeps æmulus principalitas principium evangelii principium generationis separatum ab opificis principio non est. Cum enim dicit “quod erat ab initio” generationem tang 561 it sine principio filii cum patre simul exstantis. prius pro magnitudine sua debet Carthaginem Roma præcedere procedere promereri deum promereri deum (iudicem) promereri deum judicem post baptismum sacrificiis prophetæ proprii proprietates iudaicæ literaturæ propter eos vero, qui nunc peccant, Christus non iam morietur

• • • •

propter hominem iudicatus est iudex, impassibilis passus est? quæ aliam regulam fidei superducerent quæ ante oculos nostros occurrunt qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus, quando habeat in ecclesiæ administratione voluntatis suæ arbitrium liberum unusquisque præpositus, rationem actus sui domino redditurus. 567

• •

• • • • • • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

quemadmodum igitur erit homo deus, qui nondum factus est homo? qui gloriosum corpus Christi, quantum in ipsis est, interficiunt, non habentes dei dilectionem suamque utilitatem potius considerantes quam unitatem ecclesiæ. qui nimis probat nihil probat. qui potest capere capiat, inquit, id est qui non potest discedat. qui sunt extra veritatem quia eucharistia habet ἀνάµνησιν quod alligavit virgo Eva per incredulitatem, hoc virgo Maria solvit per fidem quodammodo quomodo finis legis Christus, si non et initium eius esset quoniam Iohannes ipsum corpus (Christi), quod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui præbuisse discipuli quoniam cum caro et sanguis non obtinere regnum dei scribitur, non car 561 nis substantia damnata est, quæ divinis manibus ne periret, exstructa est, sed sola carnis culpa quoniam pro magnitudine sua radix et mater ratio realiter recapitulatio recapitulatio per Christum recapitulatur generis humani receptior reformavit humanum genus regeneratio hominis regnum dei regulæ regula

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

regula disciplinæ regula doctrinæ regula fidei regula sacramenti regula veritatis 541 remissio delictorum renati ex aqua et pudicitia restitutio restitutio ad similitudinem dei sacerdos sacerdos dei sacerdotalïs dignitas sacerdotale officium sacerdotalia munera sacerdotalis ordo sacerdotium sacramentum sacramentum absolutionis sacramentum baptismi et eucharistiæ sacramentum ordinis sacramentum sacrificii dominici sacramentum unitatis sacrificati aee sacrificium sacrificium celebrare salus et salvator et salutare sancti et docti homines sanctificatio sanctus minister sanguinem Christi offerre sanguis Christi sanguis quod est cognitio sapientia dei substantialiter subsistens satisfacere satisfacere deo satisfacere, meritum, sacramentum, vitium originis etc., etc. scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo et si qui cum episcopo non sit in ecclesia non esse secundum dilectionem secundum nullam sententiam hæreticorum verbum dei caro factum est secundus a deo consititutus, perseverans in sua forma semen Abrahæ ecclesia semper apud patrem

•

• • •

•

• • •

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

semper autem coëxsistens filius patri, olim et ab initio semper revelat patrem et angelis et archangelis et potestatibus et virtutibus et omnibus, quibus vult revelari deus septem maculas capitalium delictorum sermo servetur ecclesiastica prædicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita et usque ad praesens in ecclesiis permanens: illa sola credenda est veritas, quæ in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione si Christus Jesus dominus et deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos dei patris et sacrificium patri se ipsum obtulit et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem præcepit, utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur et sacrificium verum et plenum tunc offert in ecclesia deo patri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse si in al ac8 iquo in ecclesia nutaverit et vacillaverit veritas sic homo cum deo, dum caro hominis cum spiritu dei. sicut lavacro aquæ salutaris gehennæ ignis extinguitur, ita eleemosynis adque operationibus iustus delictorum flamma sopitur, et quia semel in baptismo remissa peccatorum datur, adsidua et iugis operatio baptismi instar imitata dei rursus indulgentiam largiatur. signum et vinculum sine quâ non species speciosior quam verior spes fidei spiritum Christus cum verbo sponte dimisit, prævento carnificis officio. spiritus sanctus in filium dei, filium hominis factum, descendit cum ipso assuescens habitare in genere humano. status quo ante stuprum sub condicione mortis substantiæ rationabiles substantia substantia omnium voluntas dei successio Petri successio apostolica summus sacerdos

•

• •

•

•

• • • • •

• • • • • • • •

sunt qui ignobilem et degenerem vitam ducunt, qui et fide et actibus et omni conversatione sua perversi sunt. Neque enim possibile est, ad liquidum purgari ecclesiam, dum in terris est, ita ut neque impius in ea quisquam, neque peccator residere videatur, sed sint in ea omnes sancti et beati, et in quibus nulla prorsus peccati macula deprehendatur. Sed sicut dicitur de zizaniis: Ne forte eradicantes zizania simul eradicetis et triticum, ita etiam super its dici potest, in quibus vel dubia vel occulta peccata sunt . . . Eos saltem eiiciamus quos possumus, quorum peccata manifesta sunt. Ubi enim peccatum non est evidens, eiicere de ecclesia neminem possumus. super Petrum fundata supergredientes legem humani generis et antequam fiant homines, iam volunt similes esse factori deo et nullam esse differentiam infect 54b i dei et nunc facti hominis. superunum ædificat ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat, tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis eiusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit tam enim scriptura etiam deum adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum hominem adnuntiat deum, tam hominem descripsit Iesum Christum, quam etiam deum quoque descripsit Christum dominum. tam ex domini evangelio quam ex apostoli litteris termini tertium numen divinitatis et tertium nomen maiestatis tertium quid tertius est spiritus a deo et filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus a frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus a flumine et tertius a sole apex ex radio. Nihil tamen a matrice alienatur a qua proprietates suas ducit. Ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a patre decurrens et monarchiæ nihil obstrepit et οἰκονοµίας tessera hospitalitas ae1 testamentum libertatis theologia physica, mythica toleramus radium eius pro temperatura portionis, quæ in terram inde porrigitur. tota substantia traditio dominica traditio seniorum traditio unius sacramenti

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

tres unum sunt, non unus trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituit, unitas irrationaliter collecta hæresim facit typice et temporaliter et mediocrius tyrannico terrore ubi tres, id est pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quæ trium corpus est ubique præclara est ecclesia; ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt spiritum una columba una dominatio una ecclesia a Christo domino nostro super Petrum origine unitatis et ratione fundata una est enim salus et unus deus; quæ autem formant hominem, præcepta multa et non pauci gradus, qui adducunt hominem ad deum una natura una persona una substantia una substantia, tres personæ unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici. ungi quoque necesse est eum qui baptizatus est, ut accepto chrismate, i.e. unguentem patrem et unctum filium et unctionem, qui est spiritus unigenitus filius venit ad nos, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans. unitas disciplinæ unitas ecclesiæ unitas sacerdotalis unitatem a d 564 omino et per apostolos nobis successoribus traditam unius et eiusdem substantiæ. unius substantiæ unus deus et unum baptismum et una ecclesia in cœlis urbs æterna urbs sacra ut fratres nostros in mente habeatis orationibus vestris et eis vicem boni operis in sacrificiis et precibus repræsentetis, subdidi nomina singulorum. ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione substantiæ. uti virgo esset regeneratio nostra spiritaliter ab omnibus inquinamentis sanctificata per Christum. utramque partem utraque substantia et carnis et spiritus Christi

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

utrosque dei appellatione signavit spiritus, et eum qui ungitur filium et eum, qui ungit, id est patrem. vademecum verba “his scripturis” suspecta sunt, cum inte ac6 rpres in c. II. 3 ex suis inseruerit “quod dictum est” verbum caro factum verbum caro factus verbum caro figuratus . . . homo deo mixtus verbum dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, qui est dominus noster Jesus Christus. verbum naturaliter quidem invisibile verbum portatum a patre verbum universorum potestatem habet a patre vere et semper et austerius veritas veritas, hoc est dei filii doctrina veterem legem libertatis hominis manifestavit, quia liberum eum deus fecit ab initio, habentem suam potestatem sicut et suam animam ad utendum sententia dei voluntarie et non coactum a deo . . . posuit in homine potestatem electionis quemadmodum in angelis (et enim angeli rationabiles), ut hi quidem qui obedissent iuste bonum sint possidentes, datum quidem a deo, servatum vero ab ipsis viaticum mortis vice versâ virginis senectæ virginitas Mariæ in partu virtus altera in sua proprietate subsistens visio dei vivi et defuncti voluntas humana præcedit Index of Pages of the Print Edition

Index of Pages of the Print Edition iii vii viii ix 13 14 15 16 33 34 35 36 54 55 56 57 75 76 77 78 95 96 97 98 111 112 113 127 128 129 143 144 145 159 160 161 174 175 176

x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi 547 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ac9 29 30 31 32 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 79 80 81 578 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 ac4 109 110 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 54e 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 56d 188

189 205 220 236 252 267 283 299 315 330 345 361 377

190 191 206 207 221 222 237 238 253 254 268 269 284 285 300 301 316 552 331 332 346 347 362 363 378 379

192 208 223 239 255 270 286 302 317 333 348 364 380

193 209 224 240 256 271 287 303 318 334 349 365

194 210 225 241 257 272 288 304 319 335 350 366

195 211 226 242 258 273 289 305 320 336 351 367

196 212 227 243 259 274 290 306 321 337 352 368

197 213 228 244 260 275 291 307 322 338 353 369

198 199 200 201 202 203 204 ae0 214 215 216 217 218 219 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 261 262 263 264 265 acb 266 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 339 340 341 ada 342 343 344 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 370 371 372 373 374 375 376

i

HISTORY OF DOGMA BY

DR. ADOLPH HARNACK ORDINARY PROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, BERLIN

TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION

BY

NEIL BUCHANAN VOLUME III ii

iii

EDITOR’S PREFACE. THE first chapter in this volume forms the concluding chapter of the First Volume of the German Work. It answers to the Seventh Chapter of the Second Book of the first great division of the subject, which has for its aim to shew the origin of Ecclesiastical Dogma. The First Book treats of the Preparation for Dogma; the Second of the Laying of the Foundation. This Second Book begins with the second volume of the English Translation, and closes 564 with the first chapter of the third volume now published. Thereafter commences the Second Part of the Work, which deals with the Development of Dogma. The numbering of the chapters here begins anew, running on from I. to VI. The Second Volume of the German Work commences with the Second Part, and tells the story of the Development of Dogma till the time of Augustine. Only a portion of it appears in this volume. The remainder will form the contents of the Fourth Volume. The author has prefixed to the volume two prefaces, one to the first, the other to the third Edition. These are here given. The Appendix on Manichæism is the last of four which appear at the end of the first volume of the German Edition. The first three of these will be found at the end of the first volume of the English Edition. A. B. BRUCE. Glasgow, August, 1897.

iv

AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION OF VOLUME II. OF THE GERMAN WORK. THE first half of the second part of the History of Dogma is here given apart and as the second volume, because it is complete in itself, and I shall be prevented from com 564 pleting the work at once by other tasks. The account contained in the following pages would have been shorter, if I could have persuaded myself of the correctness of the opinion, that a single, all-determining thought obtained its true development in the History of Dogma from the fourth to the eighth century. This opinion dominates, apart from a few monographs, all writings on the History of Dogma, and gives a uniform impress to the accounts of Protestants and Catholics. I share it within certain limits; but these very limits, which I have endeavoured to define,1 have not yet received due attention. In the fourth century the formula that was correct, when judged by the conception of redemption of the ancient Church, prevailed; but the Fathers, who finally secured its triumph, did not give it the exposition which it originally demanded. In the fifth century, or the seventh, on the contrary, a formula that, measured by the same standard, was incorrect, prevailed; yet it was associated with an exposition that to some extent compensated for the incorrectness. In both cases, howeve 564 r, the imperfections of the conclusion, which are explained from various circumstances, became of the highest importance. For in them we find the reason why the phantom Christ did not wholly oust the historical; and, in order to overcome them, men turned anew to Philosophy, especially to Aristotle. The orthodox Church owes two things to the incorrect form in which the Trinitarian and Christological Dogma was finally stated: (1) contact with the Gospel, and (2) renewed contact with ancient science, i.e., scholasticism. v

The account of these conditions demanded a more minute discussion of the process of the History of Dogma, than is usual in the ordinary text-books. Dogma developed slowly and amid great obstacles. No single step should be overlooked in the description, and, in particular, the period between the fourth and fifth Councils

1

Vide pp. 167 ff. of this volume.

is not less important than any other. Political relationships, at no point decisive by themselves, yet everywhere required, as well as western influences, careful attention. I should have discussed them still more thoroughly, if I had not been restrained by considerations of the extent of the book. I have included the state of affairs and developments in the West, so far as they were related to, and acted upon, those in the East. In the following 564 Book I shall begin with Augustine. The scientific theological expositions of the Fathers have only been brought under review, where they appeared indispensable for the understanding of Dogma. In any case I was not afraid of doing too much here. I am convinced that a shorter description ought not to be offered to students of Theology, unless it were to be a mere guide. The history of Christian Dogma— perhaps the most complicated history of development which we can completely review—presents the investigator with the greatest difficulties; and yet it is, along with the study of the New Testament, and in the present position of Protestantism, the most important discipline for every one who seeks really to study Theology. The theologian who leaves the University without being thoroughly familiar with it, is, in the most critical questions, helplessly at the mercy of the authorities of the day. But the royal way to the understanding of the History of Dogma, opened up by F. Chr. Baur, and pursued by Thomasius, does not lead to the goal; for by it we become acquainted with the historical matter only in the abbreviated form required for the defence of the completed Dogma. The history of the development of Dogma does not offer the lofty interest, which attaches to that of its genesis. When we return 55f from the most complicated and elaborate doctrinal formulas, from the mysticism of the Cultus and Christian Neoplatonism, from the worship of saints and ceremonial ritual of the seventh and eighth centuries, back to Origen and the third century, we are astonished to find that all we have mentioned was really in existence at the earlier date. Only it existed. then amid a mass of different material, and its footing was insecure In many respects the whole historical development of Dogma from the fourth century to John of Damascus and Theodore of Studion was simply a vast process of reduction, selection, and definition. In the viEast we are no longer called upon to deal in any quarter with new and original matter, but always rather with what is traditional, derivative, and, to an increasing extent, superstitious. Yet that to which centuries devoted earnest reflection, holding it to be sacred, will never lose its importance, as long as there still exists among us a remnant of the same conditions which belonged to those times. But who could deny that those conditions—in the Church and in learning —are still powerful among us? Therefore even the

religious formulas are still in force which were created in the Byzantine age; nay, they are the dogmas κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν 569 in all Churches, so that the popular idiom is nowise wrong which with the word "dogma" primarily designates the doctrines of the Trinity and the divine humanity of Christ. The inquirer who follows the development of these dogmas after the fourth century, and who, owing to the want of originality and freshness in his material, loses pleasure in his work, is ever and again reanimated, when he considers that he has to deal with matters which have gained, and still exercise, an immense power over the feelings and minds of men. And how much it is still possible for us to learn, as free Evangelical Christians, especially after generations of scholars have dedicated to this history the most devoted industry, so that no one can enter into their labours without becoming their disciples! I know very well that it would be possible to treat the material reviewed in this book more universally than I have done. My chief purpose was to show how matters arose and were in their concrete manifestation. But the task of making dogma really intelligible in all its aspects within the limits of a History of Dogma, is after all as insoluble as any similar problem which isolates a single object from Universal History, and requires its investigation in and by itself. This limitation I need only recall. But something furthe 564 r has to be said. Dogmas, undoubtedly, admit of a process of refinement, which would bring them closer to our understanding and our feeling. But my powers are not equal to this lofty task, and even if I possessed the uncommon qualities of the psychologist and the religious philosopher, I should have hesitated about employing them in this book; for I did not wish to endanger the reliability of what I had to present by reflections, which must always remain more or less subjective. Thus I have limited myself to a few hints; these will only be found where the nature of the material itself induced me to seek for the far remote thought underlying the expression. I have throughout striven in this volume, to give such an account as vii would demand to be read connectedly; for a work on the history of dogma, which is used only for reference, has missed its highest aim. I have believed that I could not dispense with the addition of numerous notes, but the text of the book is so written that the reader, if he prefers it, may disregard them. Marburg, 14 June, 1887.

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. I HAVE subjected this volume to a thorough revision, and have sought to improve and strengthen it in 564 not a few places. May this new edition also promote the study of a historical period whose products are still held by many among us to be incapable of reform. ADOLF HARNACK. Berlin, 28 May, 1894. viii

ix

CONTENTS. FIRST PART: SECOND BOOK CONTINUED.2 CHAPTER I.—The decisive success of theological speculation in the sphere of the Rule of Faith, or, the defining of the norm of 54f the Doctrine of the Church due to the adoption of the Logos Christology 1. Introduction Significance of the Logos Doctrine Consequences

1118 1 2 3

Historical retrospect 5 Opposition to the Logos Doctrine 7 The Monarchians, within Catholicism 8 Precatholic only among the Alogi 12 Division of subject, defective information 13 2.579 Secession of Dynamistic Monarchianism, or Adoptianism 14 14 a. The so-called Alogi in Asia Minor 14 The Roman Monarchians: Theodotus the leatherworker and his 20 b. party; Asclepiodotus, Hermophilus, Apollonides. Theodotus the money-changer, also the Artemonites c. Traces of Adoptian Christology in the West after Artemas 32 Ejection of Adoptian Christology in the East.—Beryll of Bostra, Paul d. 34 of Samosata etc. Acta Archelai, Aphraates 50 3. Expulsion of Modalistic M 563 onarchianism 51 Modalistic Monarchians in Asia Minor and in the West: Noetus, 51 a. Epigonus, Cleomenes, Æschines, Praxeas, Victorinus, Zephyrinus, Sabellius, Callistus b. The last stages of Modalism in the West, and the state of Theology 73 x

Commodian, Amobius, Lactantius Theology of the West about A.D. 300 c. Modalistic Monarchians in the East: Sabellianism and the History of Philosophical Christology and Theology after Origen Various forms of Sabellianism Doctrine of Sabellius

ae5 2Vide Editor’s Preface to this volume.

77 78565 81 82 83

The fight of the two Dionysii 88 The Alexandrian training school 95 Pierius 96 Theognostus 96 Hieracas 98 Peter of Alexandria 99 Gregory Thaumaturgus 101 Theology of the f 534 uture: combination of theology of Irenæus with 104 that of Origen: Methodius Union of speculation with Realism and Traditionalism 105 Dogmatic culminating in Monachism 110 Close of the development: Identification of Faith and Theology 113 SECOND PART. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL DOGMA. FIRST BOOK. The History of the Development of Dogma as the Doctrine of the God-man on the basis of Natural Theology. 121CHAPTER I.—Historical Situation 162 Internal position of the Church at the beginning of the fourth Century 121 590 123 Relative unity of the Church as World-Church, apostolicity and secularisation Asceticism culminating in monachism as bond of unity 127 State of Theology 131 Theology influenced by Origen departs from strict monotheism 135 xi

Conservative Theology in the East Critical state of the Logos doctrine, and the epochmaking importance of Athanasius The two lines in which Dogma developed historically after Nicene Council Periods of History of Dogma, chiefly in the East First period up to A.D. 381 Second period up to A.D. 451 Third period up to A.D. 553 Fourth period up to A.D. 680 Last period and close of process of History of Dogma CHAPTER II.—Fundamental Conception of Salvation and General Outline of System of Doctrine § Conception of Redemption as deification of humanity consequent 1.56d upon Incarnation of Deity

137 138556 144 148 150 152 154 156 157 163190 163

Reasons for delay, and for acceptance in imperfect form, of dogmatic formulas corresponding to conception of Redemption § 2. Moral and Rational element in System of Doctrine. Distinction between Dogmas and Dogmatic presuppositions or conceptions Sketch of System of Doctrine and History of Dogma Supplement 1. Criticism of principle of Greek System of doctrine ” 2. Faith in Incarnation of God, and Philosophy ” 3. Greek Piety corresponding to Dogma 56d ” 4. Sources from which Greek Dogma is to be derived; Difficulty of selecting and using them; Untruthfulness and forgeries ” 5. Form to which expression of faith was subject ” 6. Details of Eschatology: agreement of Realism and Spiritualism; Obscuration of idea of Judgment CHAPTER III.—Sources of knowledge: or Scripture, Tradition and the Church Introduction Holy Scripture. Old Testament i 564 n the East 1 Old Testament in the West New Testament in the East; its close; and hesitations New Testament in the West Dogma of Inspiration and pneumatic exegesis Uncertainties of exegesis (Spiritualism and literalism)

167

172 177 178 179 179 181 185 186 191239 191 192 194 195 199 199

xii

Exegesis of Antiochenes Exegesis in the West, Augustine Uncertainties as to attributes and sufficiency of Scripture The two Testaments 2. 2. Tradition. Scripture and Tradition The creed or contents of Symbol is tradition; Development of symbol, Distinction between East and West Cultus, Constitution, and Disciplinary regulations covered by notion of Apostolic Tradition, the παράδοσις ἄγραφος Authority and representation of the Church Councils Common Sense of Church 563 "Antiquity"; Category of the "Fathers"

201 2 564 02 205 206 207 208 211 214 215 219 219

Apostolic Communities, Patriarchate Rome and the Roman Bishop: prestige in East View of innovations in the Church Summing up on general notion of Tradition Vincentius of Lerinum on Tradition 3. The Church. Notion and definition of the Church Unimportance of the Church in Dogmatics proper Reasons for considering the Church: predominance of interest in the Cultus Divisions of the One Church A.—Presuppositions of Doctrine of Redemption or Natural Theology. CHAPTER IV.—Presuppositions and Conceptions of God the Creator as Dispenser of Salvation Proofs of God, method in doctrine of God Doctrine of nature and attributes of God Cosmology The upper world Doctrine of Providence. Theodicies Doctrine of Spirits; Influence of Neoplatonism Significance of doctrine of angels in practice and cultus Criticism CHAPTER V.—Presuppositions and conceptions of man as recipient of Salvation

221 224 228 230 230 233 235 236 237565 241254 241 244 247 248 249 251 251 55c 254 255287

The common element

255

Anthropology Origin of Souls Image of God

256 259 260

xiii

Primitive State 564 Primitive State and Felicity

261 261

Doctrine of Sin, the Fall and Death

263

Influence of Natural Theology on Doctrine of Redemption

265

Blessing of Salvation something natural

266

Felicity as reward Revelation as law; rationalism Influence of rationalism on Dogma

266 267 269

Neutralising of the historical; affinity of rationalism and mysticism 270 More precise account of views of Athanasius 272 Of Gregory of Nyssa 276 Of Theodore 279566 Of John of Damascus 283 Conclusion 287 B.—The doctrine of Redemption in the Person of the God-man, in its historical development. CHAPTER VI.—Doctrine of the necessity and reality of Redemption 288through the Incarnation of the Son of God 304 The decisive importance of the Incarnation of God 288 Theory of Athanasius 290 Doctrines of Gregory of Nyssa 296 Pantheistic perversions of thought of Incarnation 299 Other teachers up to John of Damascus 30155d Was Incarnation necessary apart from sin? 303 Idea of predestination 303 Appendix. The ideas of redemption from the Devil, and atonement 305through the work of the God-man 315 Mortal sufferings of Christ 305 Christ's death and the removal of sin 306 Ransom paid to the Devil 307 Christ's death as sacrifice—vicarious suffering of punishment 308 Western views of Christ's work. Juristic categories, satisfactio 310 Christ as man the atoner 313 Appendix on Manichæism 316 xiv 571

FIRST PART: SECOND BOOK CONTINUED. 1

CHAPTER I. THE DECISIVE SUCCESS OF THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION IN THE SPHERE OF THE RULE OF FAITH, OR, THE DEFINING OF THE NORM OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH DUE TO THE ADOPTION OF THE LOGOS CHRISTOLOGY.3 1. Introduction. FROM the great work of Irenæus and the anti-gnostic writings of Tertullian, it would seem as if the doctrine of the Logos, or, the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ as a distinct person, was at the end of the second century an undisputed tenet of Church orthodoxy, and formed a universally recognised portion of the 545 baptismal confession interpreted anti-gnostically, i.e., of the rule of faith.4 But certain as it is that the Logos Christology was in the second century not merely the property of a few Christian philosophers,5 it is, on the other hand, as clear that it did not belong to the solid structure of the Catholic faith. It was not on the same footing as, e.g., the doctrines of God the Creator, the real body of Christ, the resurrection of the body, etc. The great conflicts which, after c. A.D. 170, 2were waged for more than a century within the Catholic Church rather show, that the doctrine only gradually

3

See Dorner, Entw.-Gesch. d. Lehre v. d. Person Christi, 1 Thl. 1845; Lange, Gesch. u. Entw. der Systeme der Unitarier vor der nic. Synode, 1831; Hagemann, Die römische Kirche und ihr Einfluss auf Disciplin und Dogma in den ersten drei Jahrh. 1864, (the most important and most stimulating monograph on the subject); and my art. ‘Moriarchianismus’ in Herzog’s R. E., 2nd ed., vol. X., pp. 178-213, on which the following arguments are based. 4 See Vol. II., pp. 20-38 and Iren. I. 10, 1; Tertull. De præscr. 13; Adv. Prax. 2. In the rule of faith, De virg., vel. I, there is no statement as to the pre-existence of the Son of God. 5 See Vol. I., p. 192, Note (John's Gospel, Revelation, Κή Πέ , Ignatius, and esp. Celsus in Orig. II. 31, etc.).

found its way into the creed of the Church.6 But a higher than merely Christological interest attaches to the gradual incorporation of the Logos doctrine in the rule of faith. The formula of the Logos, as it was almost universally understood, legitimised speculation, i.e., Neo-platonic philosophy, within the creed of the Church.7 When Christ was designated the incarnate Logos of God, and when this was set up as His supreme characterisation, men were directed to think of the divine in Christ as the reason of God realised in the structure of the world and the history of mankind. This implied a definite philosophical view of God, of creation, and of the world, and the baptismal confession became a compendium of scientific dogmatics, i.e., of a system of doctrine entwined with the Metaphysics of Plato and the Stoics. But at the same time an urgent impulse necessarily made itself felt to define the contents and value of the Redeemer's life and work, not, primarily, from the point of view of the proclamation of the Gospel, and the hopes of a future state, but from that of the cosmic significance attachin 564 g to his divine nature concealed in the flesh. Insomuch, however, as such a view could only really reach and be intelligible to those who had been trained in philosophical speculations, the establishing of the Logos Christology within the rule of faith was equivalent for the great mass of Christians to the setting up of a mystery, which in the first place could only make an impression through its highpitched formulas and the glamour of the incomprehensible. But as soon as a religion expresses the 3loftiest contents of its creed in formulas which must remain mysterious and unintelligible to the great mass of its adherents, those adherents come under guardians. In other words, the multitude must believe in the creed; at the same time they no longer derive from it directly the motives of their religious and moral life; and they are dependent on the theologians, who, as professors of the mysterious, alone understand and are capable of interpreting and practically applying the creed. The necessary consequence of this development was that the mysterious creed, being no longer in a position practically to

6

The observation that Irenæus and Tertullian treat it as a fixed portion of the rule of faith is very instructive; for it shows that these theologians were ahead of the Church of their time. Here we have a point given, at which we can estimate the relation of what Irenæus maintained to be the creed of the Church, to the doctrine which was, as a matter of fact, generally held at the time in the Church. We may turn this insight to acco 564 unt for the history of the Canon and the constitution, where, unfortunately, an estimate of the statements of Irenæus is rendered difficult. 7 By Neo-platonic philosophy we, of course, do not here mean Neo-platonism, but the philosophy (in method and also in part, in results), developed before Neoplatonism by Philo, Valentinus, Numenius, and others.

control life, was superseded by the authority of the Church, the cultus, and prescribed duties, in determining the religious life of the laity; while the theologians, or the priests, appeared alone as the possessor 564 s of an independent faith and knowledge. But as soon as the laity were actuated by a desire for religious independence, which produced a reaction, and yet was not powerful enough to correct the conditions out of which this state of matters arose, there made its appearance only an expedient of a conservative sort, viz., the order of the monks. As this order did not tamper with the prevailing system of the Church, the Church could tolerate it, and could even use it as a valve, by which to provide an outlet for all religious subjectivity, and for the energies of a piety that renounced the world. The history of the Church shows us, or, at any rate, lets us divine, this situation at the transition from the 3rd to the 4th century. On the one hand, we see—at least in the East—that the Christian faith had become a theology, which was regarded, to all intents without question, as the revealed faith, and only capable of being represented and expounded by "teachers". On the other hand, we find a lay Christendom tied to the priest, the cultus, the sacraments, and a ceremonial penitence, and revering the creed as a mystery. Between these arose with elemental force the order of the monks, which—apart from a few phenomena—did not attack the ecclesiastical system, and which could not be suppressed by priests and theologians, because it strove to real 564 ise on earth the object to which they themselves had subordinated the whole of theology, because it, as it were, sought to soar on wings to the same height, to 4which the steps of the long ladders constructed by theology were meant to conduct.8 Now the incorporation in the creed of philosophic (Platonic) speculation, i.e., the Hellenising of the traditional doctrines, was not the only condition, but it was certainly one of the most important of the conditions, that led to the rise of this threefold Christendom of clergy, laity, and monks, in the Church. That the Catholic Church was capable of accommodating these three orders in its midst is a proof of its power. That the combination forms up to the present day the signature of Catholic Churches is evidence, moreover, of the practical value attached by the Church to this unified differentiation. It, in fact, could not but best correspond to the different wants of men united to form a universal Church. So far as it was a consequence of the general conditions under which the Church existed in 564 the third century, we must here leave its

8

See my lecture on Monachism, 3rd ed. 1886.

origin untouched,9 but so far as it was due to the reception of philosophical speculation into the Church, its prior history must be presented. Yet it may not be superfluous to begin by noticing expressly, that the confidence with which first the Apologists identified the Logos of the philosophers and the Christ of faith, and the zeal with which the anti-gnostic Fathers then incorporated the Logos-Christ in the creed of believers, are also to be explained from a Christian interest. In their scientific conception of the world the Logos had a fixed place, and was held to be the "alter ego" of God, though at the same time he was also regarded as the representative of the Reason that operated in the Cosmos. Their conception of Christ as the appearance of the Logos in a personal form only proves that they sought to make the highest possible assertion concerning him, to justify worship being rendered him, and to demonstrate the absolute and unique nature of the contents of the Christian religion. The Christian religion was only in a position to gain the cultured, to conquer 564 Gnosticism, and to thrust aside Polytheism in the Roman empire, because it had concluded an alliance with that intellectual potentate which already swayed the minds and hearts of the 5best men, the philosophicreligious ethics of the age. This alliance found expression in the formula: Christ is word and law (Χριστὸς λόγος καὶ νόµος). The philosophic Christology arose, so to speak, at the circumference of the Church, and thence moved gradually to the centre of the Christian faith. The same is true of theology generally; its most concise description is philosophic Christology. A complete fusion of the old faith and theology, one that tranquillised the minds of the devout, was not consummated till the fourth, strictly speaking, indeed, till the fifth century (Cyril of Alexandria). Valentinus, Origen, the Cappadocians mark the stages of the process. Valentinus was very speedily ejected as a heretic. Origen, in spite of the immense influence which he exerted, was in the end unable to retain his footing in the Church. The Cappadocians almost perfected the complete fusion of the traditional faith of the Church conceived as mystery and philosophy, by removing Origen's distinction between those who knew and those who believed (Gnostic 564 s and Pistics); meanwhile they retained much that was comparatively free and looked on with suspicion by the traditionalists. Cyril's theology first marked the complete agreement between faith and philosophy, authority and speculation, an agreement which finally, in the sixth century, suppressed every independent theology. But from the end of the second century up to the closing years of the third, the fundamental

9

Yet see Vol. II., pp 564 . 122-127.

principle of philosophic theology had naturalised itself, in the very faith of the Church. This process in which, on the one hand, certain results of speculative theology became legitimised within the Church as revelations and mysteries, and on the other—as a sort of antidote—the freedom of theology was limited, is to be described in what follows. It has been shown above (Vol. I., p. 190 ff.) that about the middle of the second century there existed side by side in the Churches chiefly two conceptions of the person of Christ. In the Adoptian view Jesus was regarded as the man in whom divinity or the spirit of God dwelt, and who was finally exalted to godlike honour. In the Pneumatic conception, Jesus was looked upon as a heavenly spirit who assumed an earthly body. The latter was adopted in their speculations by the Apologists. 6The fixing of the a 54b postolic tradition, which took place in opposition to the Gnostics, as also to the so-called Montanists, in the course of the second half of the second century, did not yet decide in favour of either view.10 The Holy Scriptures could be appealed to in support of both. But those had decidedly the best of it, in the circumstances of the time, who recognised the incarnation of a special divine nature in Christ; and as certainly were the others in the right, in view of the Synoptic gospels, who saw in Jesus the man chosen to be his Son by God, and possessed of the Spirit. The former conception corresponded to the interpretation of the O. T. theophanies which had been accepted by the Alexandrians, and had proved so convincing in apologetic arguments;11 it could be supported by the testimony of a series of Apostolic writings, whose authority was absolute; 57d 12 it protected the O. T. against Gnostic

10

The points, which, as regards Christ, belonged in the second half of the second century to ecclesiastical orthodoxy, are given in the clauses of the Roman baptismal confession to which ἀληθῶς is added, in the precise elaboration of the idea of creation, in the εἷς placed alongside Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, and in the identification of the Catholic institution of the Church with the Holy Church. 11 The Christian doctrine of the Son of God could be most easily rendered acceptable to cultured heathens by means of the Logos doctrine; see the memorable confession of Celsus placed by him in the lips of his "Jew" (II. 31); ὡς εἴγε ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ὑµῖν υἱὸς ύ 564 οῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἡµεῖς ἐπαινοῦµεν; see also the preceeding: σοφίζονται οἱ Χριστιανοὶ ἐν τῷ λέγειν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι αὐτολόγον. 12 The conviction of the harmony of the Apostles, or, of all Apostolic writings, could not but result in the Christology of the Synoptics and the Acts being interpreted in the light of John and Paul, or more accurately, in that of the philosophic Christology held to be attested by John and Paul. It has been up to the present day the usual fate of the Synoptics, and with them of the sayings of Jesus, to be understood, on account of their

criticism. It, further, reduced the highest conception of the value of Christianity to a brief and convincing formula: "God became man in order that men might become gods;" and, finally,—which was not least—it could be brought, with little trouble, into line with 7the cosmological and theological tenets which had been borrowed from the religious philosophy of the age to serve as a foundation for a rational Christian theology. The adoption of the belief in the divine Logos to explain the genesis and history of the world at once decided the means by which also the divine dignity and sonship of the Redeemer were alone to be defined.13 In this procedure the theologians themselves had no danger to fear to their monotheism, even if they made the Logos more than a product of the creative will of God. Neither Justin, Tatian, nor a 564 ny of the Apologists or Fathers show the slightest anxiety on this point. For the infinite substance, resting behind the world,—and as such the deity was conceived—could display and unfold itself in different subjects. It could impart its own inexhaustible being to a variety of bearers, without thereby being emptied, or its unity being dissolved (µοναρχία κατ᾽ οἰκονοµίαν, as the technical expression has it).14

place in the Canon, in accordance with the caprices of the dogmatics prevalent at the time, Pauline and Johannine theology having assigned to it the role of mediator. The "lower" had to be explained by the "higher" (see even Clemens Alex. with his criticism of the "pneumatic", the spiritual, Fourth Gospel, as compared with the first three). In older times men transform 55c ed the sense right off; nowadays they speak of steps which lead to the higher teaching, and the dress the old illusion with a new scientific mantle. 13 But the substitution of the Logos for the, otherwise undefined, spiritual being (πνεῦµα) in Christ presented another very great advantage. It brought to an end, though not at once (see Clemens Alex.), the speculations which reckoned the heavenly personality of Christ in some way or other in the number of the higher angels or conceived it as one Æon among many. Through the definition of this "Spiritual Being" as Logos his transcendent and unique dignity was firmly outlined and assured. For the Logos was universally accepted as the Prius logically and temporally, and the causa not only of the world, but also of all powers, ideas, æons, and angels. He, therefore, did not belong—at least in every respect—to their order. 56c 14 Augustine first wrought to end this questionable monotheism, and endeavoured to treat seriously the monotheism of the living God. But his efforts only produced an impression in the West, and even there the attempt was weakened from the start by a faulty respect for the prevalent Christology, and was forced to entangle itself in absurd formulas. In the East the accommodating Substance-Monotheism of philosophy remained with its permission of a plurality of divine persons; and this doctrine was taught with such naïvety and simplicity, that the Cappadocians, e.g., proclaimed the Christian conception of God to be the just mean between the polytheism of the heathens and the monotheism of the Jews.

But, lastly, the theologians had no reason to fear for the “deity” of the Christ in whom the incarnation of that Logos was to be viewed. For the conception of the Logos was capable of the most manifold contents, and its dexterous treatment could be already supported by the most instructive precedents. This conception could be adapted to every change and accentuation of the religious interest, every deepening of speculation, as 8as to all the needs of the Cultus, nay, even to new results of Biblical exegesis. It revealed itself gradually to be a variable quantity of the most accommodatin 564 g kind, capable of being at once determined by any new factor received into the theological ferment. It even admitted contents which stood in the most abrupt contradiction to the processes of thought out of which the conception itself had sprung, i.e., contents which almost completely concealed the cosmological genesis of the conception. But it was long before this point was reached. And as long as it was not, as long as the Logos was still employed as the formula under which was comprehended either the original idea of the world, or the rational law of the world, many did not entirely cease to mistrust the fitness of the conception to establish the divinity of Christ. For those, finally, could not but seek to perceive the full deity in the Redeemer, who reckoned on a deification of man. Athanasius first made this possible to them by his explanation of the Logos, but he at the same time began to empty the conception of its original cosmological contents. And the history of Christology from Athanasius to Augustine is the history of the displacing of the Logos conception by the other, destitute of all cosmical contents, of the Son,—the history of the substitution of the immanent and absolute trinity for the economic and relative. The complete divinity of the Son was thereby secured, but in the form of a complicated and artificial spec 564 ulation, which neither could be maintained without reservation before the tribunal of the science of the day, nor could claim the support of an ancient tradition. But the first formulated opposition to the Logos Christology did not spring from anxiety for the complete divinity of Christ, or even from solicitude for monotheism; it was rather called forth by interest in the evangelical, the Synoptic, idea of Christ. With this was combined the attack on the use of Platonic philosophy in Christian doctrine. The first public and literary opponents of the Christian Logos-speculations, therefore, did not escape the reproach of depreciating, if not of destroying, the dignity of the Redeemer. It was only in the subsequent period, in a second phase of the controversy, that these opponents of the Logos Christology were able to fling back the reproach at 9its defenders. With the Monarchians the first subject of interest was the man Jesus; then came monotheism and the divine dignity of Christ. From this point,

however, the whole theological interpretation of the two first articles of the rule of faith, was again gradually involved in controversy. In so far as they were understood to refute a crude docetism and the severance of Jesus and Christ they were confirmed. But did not the doctrine 559 of a heavenly æon, rendered incarnate in the Redeemer, contain another remnant of the old Gnostic leaven? Did not the sending forth of the Logos (προβολή τοῦ λόγου) to create the world recall the emanation of the æons? Was not ditheism set up, if two divine beings were to be worshipped? Not only were the uncultured Christian laity driven to such criticisms, — for what did they understand by the "economic mode of the existence of God"? — but also all those theologians who refused to give any place to Platonic philosophy in Christian dogmatics. A conflict began which lasted for more than a century, in certain branches of it for almost two centuries. Who opened it, or first assumed the aggressive, we know not. The contest engages our deepest interest in different respects, and can be described from different points of view. We cannot regard it, indeed, directly as a fight waged by theology against a still enthusiastic conception of religion; for the literary opponents of the Logos Christology were no longer enthusiasts, but, rather, from the very beginning their declared enemies. Nor was it directly a war of the theologians against the laity, for it was not laymen, but only theologians who had adopted the creed of the laity, who opposed their brethren. 56f 15 We must 10describe it as the strenuous effort of Stoic Platonism to obtain supremacy in the theology of the Church; the victory of Plato over Zeno and Aristotle in Christian science; the history of the displacement of the historical by the pre-existent Christ, of the Christ of reality by the Christ of thought, in dogmatics; finally, as the victorious attempt to substitute the mystery of the person of Christ for the person Himself, and, by means of a theological formula unintelligible to them, to put the laity with their Christian faith under guardians — a state desired and indeed required by

15

The Alogi opposed the Montanists and all prophecy; conversely the western repre 564 sentatives of the Logos Christology, Irenæus, Tertullian and Hippolytus were Chiliasts. But this feature makes no change in the fact that the incorporation of the Logos Christology and the fading away of eschatological apocalyptic hopes went hand in hand. Theologians were able to combine inconsistent beliefs for a time; but for the great mass of the laity in the East the mystery of the person of Christ took the place of the Christ who was to have set up his visible Kingdom of glory upon earth. See especially the refutation of the Chiliasts by Origen (περὶ ἀρχ. II. II) and Dionysius Alex. (Euseb. H. E. VII. 24, 25). The continued embodiment in new visions of those eschatological hopes and apocalyptic fancies by the monks and laymen of later times, proved that the latter could not make the received mystery of dogma fruitful for their practical religion.

them to an increasing extent. When the Logos Christology obtained a complete victory, the traditional view of the Supreme deity as one person, and, along with this, every thought of the real and complete human personality of the Redeemer was in fact condemned as being intolerable in the Church. Its place was taken by “the nature” [of Christ], which without ,the person” is simply a cipher. The defeated party had right on its side, but had not succeeded in making its Christology agree with its conc 564 eption of the object and result of the Christian religion. This was the very reason of its defeat. A religion which promised its adherents that their nature would be rendered divine, could only be satisfied by a redeemer who in his own person had deified human nature. If, after the gradual fading away of eschatological hopes, the above prospect was held valid, then those were right who worked out this view of the Redeemer. In accordance with an expression coined by Tertullian, we understand by Monarchians the representatives of strict, not economic, monotheism in the ancient Church. In other words, they were theologians who held firmly by the dignity of Jesus as Redeemer, but at the same time would not give up the personal, the numerical, unity of God; and who therefore opposed the speculations which had led to the adoption of the duality or trinity of the godhead.16 In order rightly to understand 11their position in

16

This definition is, in truth, too narrow; for at least a section, if not all, of the socalled Dynamistic Monarchians recognised, besides God, the Spirit as eternal So 564 n of God, and accordingly assumed two Hypostases. But they did not see in Jesus an incarnation of this Holy Spirit, and they were therefore monarchian in their doctrine of Christ. Besides, so far as I know, the name of Monarchians was not applied in the ancient Church to these, but only to the theologians who taught that there was in Christ an incarnation of God the Father Himself. It was not extended to the earlier Dynamistic Monarchians, because, so far as we know, the question whether God consisted of one or more persons did not enter into the dispute with them. In a wider sense, the Monarchians could be taken also to include the Arians, and all those theologians, who, while they recognised the personal independence of a divine nature in Christ, yet held this nature to have been one created by God; in any case, the Arians were undoubtedly connected with Paul of Samosata through Lucian. However, it is not advisable to extend the conception so widely; for, firstly, we would thus get too far away from the old classification, and, secondly, it is not to be overlooked that, even in the case of the most thoroughgoing Arians, their Christology reacted on their doctrine of God, and their strict Monotheism was to some extent modified. Hence, both on historical and logical grounds, it is best for our purpose to understand by Monarchians those theol ac8 ogians exclusively who perceived in Jesus either a man filled, in a unique way, with the Spirit, or an incarnation of God the Father; with the reservation, that the former in certain of their groups regarded the Holy Spirit as a divine Hypostasis, and were accordingly no longer really

the history of the genesis of the dogmatics of the Church, it is decisive, as will have been already clear from the above, tha 564 t they only came to the front, after the anti-gnostic understanding of the baptismal confession had been substantially assured in the Church. It results from this that they are, generally speaking, to be criticised as men who appeared on the soil of Catholicism, and that therefore, apart from the points clearly in dispute, we must suppose agreement between them and their opponents. It is not superfluous to recall this expressly. The confusion to which the failure to note this presupposition has led and still continually leads may be seen, e.g., in the relative section in Dorner’s History of the development of the doctrine’ of the Person of Christ, or in 12Krawutzcky’s study on the origin of the Didache.17 The so-called Dynamistic Monarchians have had especially to suffer from this criticism, their teaching being comfortably disposed of as “Ebionitic”. However, imperative as it certainly is, in general, to describe the history of Monarchianism without reference to the ancient pre-Catholic controversies, and only to bring in the history of Montanism with great caution, 564 still many facts observed in reference to the earliest bodies of Monarchians that come clearly before us, seem to prove that they bore features which must be characterised as preCatholic, but not un-Catholic. This is especially true of their attitude to certain books of the New Testament. Undoubtedly we have reason even here to complain of the scantiness and uncertainty of our historical material. The Church historians have attempted to bury or distort the true history of Monarchianism to as great an extent as they passed over and obscured that of the socalled Montanism. At a very early date, if not in the first stages of the controversy, they read Ebionitism and Gnosticism into the

Monarchians in the strict sense of the term. For the rest, the expression “Monarchians” is in so far inappropriate as their opponents would also have certainly maintained the “monarchia” of God. See Tertulli., Adv. Prax. 3 f.; Epiphan. H. 62. 3: οὐ πολυθεΐαν εἰσηγούµεθα, ἀλλὰ µοναρχίαν κηρύττοµεν. They would even have cast back at the Monarchians the reproach that they were destroying the monarchy. “Ἡ µοναρχία τοῦ Θεοῦ” was in the second century a standing title in the polemics of the theologians against polytheists and Gnostics — see the passages collected from Justin, Tatian, Irenæus etc. by Coustant in his Ep. Dionysii adv. Sabell. (Routh, Reliq. Sacræ III., p. 385 f.). Tertullian has therefore by no means used the term “Monarchians” as if he were thus directly branding his opponents as heretical; he rather names them by their favourite catch-word in a spirit of irony (Adv. Prax. 10; “vanissimi Monarchiani”). The name was therefore not really synonymous with a form of heresy in the ancient Church, even if here and there it was applied to the opponents of the doctrine of the Trinity. 17 See Theol. Quartalschr. 1884, p. 547 ff. Krawutzcky holds the Didache to be at once Ebionitic and Theodotian.

theses of their opponents; they attempted to discredit their theological works as products of a specific secularisation, or as travesties, of Christianity, and they sought to portray the Monarchians themselves as renegades who had abandoned the rule of faith and the Canon. By this kind of polemics they have made it difficult for after ages to decide, among other things, whether certain peculiarities of Monarchian bodies in dealing with the Canon of the N. T. writings spring from a period when there was as yet no N. T. Canon in the strict Catholic sense, or whether these characteristics are to be regarded as deviations from an already settled authority, and ther 544 efore innovations. Meanwhile, looking to the Catholicity of the whole character of Monarchian movements, and, further, to the fact that no opposition is recorded as having been made by them to the N. T. Canon after its essential contents and authority appear to have been established; considering, finally, that the Montanists, and even the Marcionites and Gnostics, were very early charged with attempts on the Catholic Canon, we need no longer 13doubt that the Monarchian deviations point exclusively to a time when no such Canon existed; and that other “heresies”, to be met with in the older groups, are to be criticised on the understanding that the Church was becoming, but not yet become, Catholic.18 The history of Monarchianism is no clearer than its rise in the form of particular theological tendencies. Here also we have before us, at the present day, only scanty fragments. We cannot always trace completely even the settled distinction between Dynamistic — better, Adoptian — and Modalistic Monarchianism; 584 19 between the theory that made the power or Spirit of God dwell in the man Jesus, and the view that sees in Him the incarnation of the deity Himself.20 Certainly the common element, so far as there was one, of the Monarchian movements, lay in the form of the conception of God, the distinguishing feature, in the idea of revelation. But all the phenomena under this head cannot be classified with certainty, apart from the fact that the most numerous and important “systems” exist in a very shaky tradition. A really reliable division

18

It is very remarkable that Irenæus has given us no hint in his great work of a Monarchian controversy in the Church. 19 It was pointed out above, (Vol. I., p. 193) and ac8 will be argued more fully later on, that the different Christologies could pass into one another. 20 We have already noticed, Vol. I., p. 195, that we can only speak of a naïve Modalism in the earlier periods; Modalism first appeared as an exclusive doctrine at the close of the second century; see under.

of the Monarchianism that in all its forms rejected the idea of a physical fatherhood of God, and only saw the Son of God in the historical Jesus, is impossible on the strength of the authorities up till now known to us. Apart from a fragment or two we only possess accounts by opponents. The chronology, again, causes a special d 55d ifficulty. Much labour has been spent upon it since the discovery of the Philosophumena; but most of the details have remained very uncertain. The dates of the Alogi, Artemas, Praxeas, Sabellius, the Antiochian Synods against Paul of Samosata, etc., have not yet been firmly settled. The concise remarks on the subject in what follows rest on independent labours. Finally, we 14are badly informed even as to the geographical range of the controversies. We may, however, suppose, with great probability, that at one time or other a conflict took place in all centres of Christianity in the Empire. But a connected history cannot be given. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

2. The Secession of Dynamistic Monarchianism or Adoptianism. (a). The so-called Alogi in Asia Minor.21 Epiphanius22 56a and Philastrius (H. 60) know, from the Syntagma of Hippolytus, of a party to which the latter had given the nickname of “Alogi”. Hippolytus had recorded that its members rejected the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John,23 attributing these books to Cerinthus, and had not recognised the Logos of God to whom the Holy Spirit had borne witness in the

21

Merkel, Aufklärung der Streitigkaiten der Aloger, 1782. Heinichen, De Alogis, 1829; Olshausen, Echtheit der vier Kanonischen Evangelien, p. 241 f.; Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 265 ff. etc.; Volkmar, Hippolytus, p. 112 f.; Döllinger, Hippolytus u. Kallistus, p. 229 ff.; Lipsius, Quellenkritik des Epiphanius p. 23 f., 233 f.; Harnack in d. Ztschr. L. d. histor. Theol. 1874, p. 166 f.; Lipsius, Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte, p. 93 f., 214 f.; Zahn in d. Ztschr. für die histor. Theol., 1875, p. 72 f.; Caspari, Quellen III., p. 377 f., 398 f., Soyres, Montanism, p. 49 f.; Bonwetsch, Montanismus vv. ll.; Iwanzov-Platonov, Häresien und Schismen der drei ersten Jahr. I, p. 233 f.; Zahn, Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons I., p. 220 ff.; Harnack, das N. T. um d. J. 200, p. 38 ff.; Jülicher, Theol. Lit. Ztg., 1889, No. 7; Salmon i. Hermathena, 1892, p. 161 ff. 22 Hær.51; after him Augustine H.30, Prædest. H.30 etc. The statement of the Prædest. that a Bishop named Philo refuted the Alogi is worthless. Whether the choice of the name was due to the Alexandrian Jew is unknown. 23 Nothing is reported as to the Letters. Epiphanius is 564 perhaps right in representing that they were also rejected (1.c. ch. 34); but perhaps they were not involved in the discussion.

Gospel. Hippolytus, the most prolific of the opponents of the heretics, wrote, besides his Syntagma, a special work against these men in defence of the Johannine writings;24 and he perhaps 15also attacked them in another work aimed at all Monarchians.25 The character of the party can still be defined, in its main features, from the passages taken by Epiphanius from these writings, due regard being given to Irenæus III. 11, 9. The Christological problem seems not to have occupied a foremost place in the discussion, but rather, the elimination of all docetic leaven, and the attitude to prophecy. The non-descript, the Alogi, were a party of the radical, anti-montanist, opposition in Asia Minor, existing within the Church — so radical that they refused to recognise the Montanist communities as Christian. They wished to have all prophecy kept out of the Church; in this sense they were decided contemners of the Spirit (Iren. l.c.; Epiph. 51, ch. 35). This attitude led them to an historical criticism of the two Johannine books, the one of which contained Christ’s announcement of the Paraclete, a passage which Montanus had made the most of for his own ends, while the other

24

See the list of writings on the statue of Hippolytus: π [] π ; and Ebed Jesu, catal. 7 (Assemani, Bibl. Orient. III. 1, 15): “Apologia pro apocalypsi et evangelio Johannis apostoli et evangelistæ.” Besides this Hippolytus wrote: “Capita adversus Caium,” a Roman sympathiser with the Alogi. Of this writing a few fragments have been preserved (Gwynn, Hermathena VI., p. 397 f.; Harnack, Texte und Unters. VI. 3, p. 121 ff.; Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. Kanons, II., p. 973 ff. 25 It is certain that Epiphan ac3 ius, besides the relative section of the Syntagma, also copied at least a second writing against the “Alogi”, and it is probable that this likewise came from Hippolytus. The date of its composition can still be pretty accurately determined from Epiphan. H.31, ch. 33. It was written about A.D. 234; for Epiphanius’ authority closes the period of the Apostles 93 years after the Ascension, and remarks that since that date 112 years had elapsed. Lipsius has obtained another result, but only by an emendation of the text which is unnecessary (see Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte, p. 109 f.). Hippolytus treats his unnamed opponents as contemporaries; but a closer examination shows that he only knew them from their writings — of which there were several (see ch. 33), and therefore knew nothing by personal observation of the conditions under which they appeared. A certain criterion of the age of these writings, and therefore of the party itself, is given by the fact that, at the time when the latter flourished, the only Church at Thyatira was, from their own testimony, Montanist, while the above-mentioned authority was already able to tell of a rising catholic Church, and of other Christian communities in that place. A Christian of Thyatira, by name Papylus, appears in the Martyrium Carpi et Papyli (see Harnack, Texte u. Unters. III. 3, 4). The date when this movement in Asia Minor flourished can be discovered more definitely, however, by a combination, proved by Zahn to be justified, of the statements of Hippolytus and Irenæus III. 11. 9. According to this, the party existed in Asia Minor, A.D. 170-180.

imparted prophetic revelations. They came to the conclusion, on internal grounds, that these books could not be genuine, that they were composed “in the name of John” (εἰς ὄνόα Ἰωάννου ch. 3, 18), and that by Cerinthus (ch. 3, 4,); the books ought not therefore to be received 564 in the 16Church (ch. 3: οὐκ ἄξια αὐτά φασιν εἶναι ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ). The Gospel was charged with containing what was untrue; it contradicted the other Gospels,26 and gave a quite different and, indeed, a notoriously false order of events; it was devoid of any sort of arrangement; it omitted important facts and inserted new ones which were inconsistent with the Synoptic Gospels; and it was docetic.27 Against the Apocalypse it was alleged, above all, that its contents were often unintelligible, nay, absurd and untrue (ch. 32-34). They ridiculed the seven angels and seven trumpets, and the four angels by the Euphrates; and on Rev. II. 18, they s 564 upposed that there was no Christian community in Thyatira at the time, and that accordingly the Epistle was fictitious. Moreover, the objections to the Gospel must also have included the charge (ch. 18) that it favoured Docetism, seeing that it passed at once from the incarnation of the Logos to the work of the ministry of Christ. In this connection they attacked the expression “Logos” for the Son of God;28 indeed, they scented Gnosticism in it, contrasted John I. with the beginning of Mark’s Gospel,29 and arrived at the result, that writings whose contents were partly docetic, partly sensuously Jewish and unworthy of God, must have been composed by Cerinthus, the gnosticising Judaist. In view of this fact it is extremely surprising to notice how mildly the party was criticised and treated by Irenæus as well as by Hippolytus. The former distinguishes them sharply from 561 the declared heretics. He places them on a line with the Schismatics, who gave up communion with the Church on account of the hypocrites 17to be found in it. He approves of their decided opposition to all pseudo-prophetic nonsense, and he only complains that in their zeal against the bad they had also fought

26

Epiph. LI., ch 4: φάσκουσι ὅτι οὐ συµφωνεῖ τὰ βιβλία τοῦ Ἰωάννου τοῖς λοιποῖς ἀποστόλοις, ch. 18: τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εἰς ὅνοµα Ἰωάννου ψεύδεται . . . λέγουσι τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγέλιον, ἐπειδὴ µὴ τὰ αὐτὰ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ἔφη, ἀδιάθετον εἶναι. 27 569 Epiphanius has preserved for us in part the criticism of the Alogi on John I. II., and on the Johannine chronology (ch. 3, 4, 15, 18, 22, 26, 28, 29). In their conception the Gospel of John precluded the human birth and development of Jesus. 28 Epiph. LI. 3, 28: τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀποβάλλονται τὸν διὰ Ἰωάννην κητυχθέντα. 29 Epiph. LI., ch. 6: λέγουσιν· Ἰδοὺ δεύτερον εὐαγγέλιον περὶ Χριστοῦ σηµαῖνον καὶ οὐδαµοῦ ἄνωθεν λέγον τὴν γέννησιν· ἀλλά, φησίν, Ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ κατῇλθε τὸ τνεῦµα ᾽επ᾽ αὐτὸν καὍ ac8 φωνή· Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς ὁ ἀγαπητός, ᾽ἐφ ὃν ηὐδόκησα.

against the good, and had sought to eject all prophecy. In short, he feels that between them and the Montanists, whom likewise he did not look on as heretics,30 he held the middle position maintained by the Church. And so with Hippolytus. The latter, apart from features which he could not but blame, confirms the conformity to the Church, claimed by the party itself (ch. 3), and conspicuous in their insistence on the harmony of the Scriptures (συµφωνία τῶν βιβλῶν).31 567 He nowhere sets them on a line with Cerinthus, Ebion, etc., and he has undoubtedly treated even their Christological views, on which Irenæus had communicated no information, more mildly, because he found so much in them of an anti-docetic, anti-montanistic nature, with which he could agree. But what was their teaching as to Christ? If Lipsius32 were correct in his opinion that the Alogi only saw in Jesus a man naturally procreated, that they only pretended to hold by the current doctrine, then the attitude to them of Irenæus and Hippolytus would be incomprehensible. But our authority gives no support to such a view. It rather shows plainly that the Alogi recognised the first three Gospels, and consequently the miraculous birth from the Holy Ghost and the virgin. They placed, however, the chief emphasis on the human life of Jesus, on his birth, baptism, and temptation as told by the Synoptics, and for this very reason rejected the formula of the Logos, as well as the “birth from above”, i.e., the eternal generation of Christ. The equipment of Christ at his baptism was to them, in view o 564 f Mark, ch. I., of crucial importance (see p. 16, Note 4) and thus they would assume, without themselves making use of the phrase “a mere man” “(ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος), an advancement 18(προκοπή) of the Christ, ordained at his baptism to be Son of God.33 The earliest opponents known to us of the Logos Christology were men whose adherence to the position of the Church in Asia Minor was strongly marked. This attitude of theirs was exhibited in a decided antagonism both to the Gnosticism, say, of Cerinthus,

30

This milder criticism — and neither Montanists nor Alogi stand in Irenæus’ catalogue of heretics — naturally did not prevent the view that those “unhappy people” had got into an extremely bad position by their opposition to the prophetic activity of the Spirit in the Church, and had fallen into the unforgivable sin against the Holy Ghost. 31 In Epiph. LI., ch. 4: δοκῦσι καὶ αὐτοὶ τὰ ἴσα ἡµῖν πιστεύειν. 32 Quellen, p. 102 f., 112. 33 It is not quite certain whether we may appeal to the words in Epiph. LI., ch. 18 (20): νοµίζοντες ἀπὸ Μαρίας καὶ δεῦρο Χριστὸν αὐτὸν καλεῖσθαι καί υἱὸν Θεοῦ, καὶ εἷναι µὲν πρότερον ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον, κατὰ προκοπὴν δὲ εἰληφέναι τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ προσηγορίαν.

and to “Kataphrygian” prophecy. In their hostility to the latter they anticipated the development of the Church by about a generation; while rejecting all prophecy and “gifts of the Spirit” (ch.35), they, in doing so, gave the clearest revelation of their Catholic character. Since they did not believe in an age of the Paraclete, nor entertain materialistic hopes about the future state, they cou 564 ld not reconcile themselves to the Johannine writings; and their attachment to the conception of Christ in the Synoptics led them to reject the Gospel of the Logos. An explicitly Church party could not have ventured to promulgate such views, if they had been confronted by a Canon already closed, and giving a fixed place to these Johannine books. The uncompromising criticism, both internal and external — as in the hypothesis of the Cerinthian authorship — to which these were subjected, proves that, when the party arose, no Catholic Canon existed as yet in Asia Minor, and that, accordingly, the movement was almost as ancient that of the Montanists, which it followed very closely.34 On this 19understanding, the party had a legitimate place within the developing Catholic Church, and only so can we explain the criticism which their writings encountered in the period immediately succeeding. Meanwhile, the first express opposition with which we are acquainted to the Logos Christology was raised within the Church, by a party which, yet, must be conceived by us to have been in many respec 564 ts specifically secularised. For the radical opposition to Montanism, and the open, and at the same

34

As regards the problem of the origin and gradual reception of the Johannine writings, and especially of the Go 53a spel, their use by Montanus, and their abrupt rejection by the Alogi, are of the greatest significance, especially when we bear in mind the Churchly character of the latter. The rise of such an opposition in the very region in which the Gospel undoubtedly first came to light; the application to the fourth of a standard derived from the Synoptic Gospels; the denial without scruple, of its apostolic origin; are facts which it seems to me have, at the present day, not been duly appreciated. We must not weaken their force by an appeal to the dogmatic character of the criticism practised by the Alogi; the attestation of the Gospel cannot have been convincing, if such a criticism was ventured on in the Church. But the Alogi distinctly denied to John and ascribed to Cerinthus the Apocalypse as well as the Gospel. Of Cerinthus we know far too little to be justified in sharing in the holy horror of the Church Fathers. But even if the above hypothesis is false, and it is in fact very probable that it is, yet the very fact that it could be set up by Churchmen is instructive enough; for it shows us, what we do not know from any other source, that the Johannine writings met with, and had to overcome, opposition in their birth-place.

time jesting, criticism on the Apocalypse,35 can only be so regarded. Yet the preference of the Logos Christology to others is itself indeed, as Celsus teaches, a symptom of secularisation and innovation in the creed. The Alogi attacked it on this ground when they took it as promoting Gnosticism (Docetism). But they also tried to refute the Logos Doctrine and the Logos Gospel on historical grounds, by a reference to the Synoptic Gospels. The representatives of this movement were, as far as we know, the first to undertake within the Church a historical criticism, worth of the name, of the Christian Scriptures and the Church tradition. They first confronted John’s Gospel with the Synoptics, and found numerous contradictions; Epiphanius, — and probably, before him, Hippolytus, — called them, therefore, word-hunters (λεξιθηροῦντες H. 51, ch. 34). They and their opponents could retort on each other the charge of introducing innova 564 tions; but we cannot mistake the fact that the larger proportion of innovations is to be looked for on the side of the Alogi. How long the latter held their ground; how, when, and by whom they were expelled from the Church in Asia Minor, we do not know. 20

(b). The Roman Adoptians. — Theodotus the leather-worker and his party: Asclepiodotus, Hermophilus, Apollonides, Theodotus the money-changer, and also the Artemonites.36

af2 35The Roman Caius took over this criticism from them, as is shown by Hippolytus’ Cap. adv. Caium. But, like Theodotus, to be mentioned presently, he rejected the view of the Alogi as regards John’s Gospel. 36 See Kapp, Hist. Artemonis, 1737; Hagemann, Die römische Kirche in den drei ersten Jahrh., 1864; Lipsius, Quellenkritik, p. 235 f.; Lipsius, Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe, p. 173 f.; Harnack, in the Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol., 1874, p. 200; Caspari, Quellen III., pp. 318-321, 404 f.; Langen, Geschichte der römischen Kirche I., p. 192 f.; Caspari, Om Melchizedekiternes eller Theodotianernes eller Athinganernes Laerdomme og om hvad de herve at sige, naar de skulle bline optagne i. den kristelige Kirke, in the Tidsskr f. d. evang. luth. Kirke. Ny Raekke, Bd. VIII., part 3, pp. 307-337. Authorities for the older Theodotus are; (1) the Syntagma of Hippolytus according to Epiph. H.54, Philaster H. 50. and Pseudo-Tertull. H. 28; (2) the Philosophumena VII. 35, X. 23, IX. 3, 12, X. 27; (3) the fragment of Hippolytus against Noëtus, ch. 3. 4) the fragments from the so-called Little Labyrinth (in Euseb. H. E. V. 28), which was perhaps by Hippolytus, and was written in the fourth decade of the third century, and after the Philosophumena. This work was directed against Roman Dynamistic Monarchians under the leadership of a certain Artemas, who are to be distinguished from the Theodotians. (For the age and author of the Little Labyrinth, and for its connection with the writings against the Alogi and against Noëtus; also for the appearance of Artemas, which is not to be dated before ± 235: see Caspari, Quellen l.c., and my art. “Monarchianismus”, p. 186). Eusebius has confined his extracts from the Little Labyrinth to such as deal with the Theodotians.

Towards the end of the episcopate of Eleutherus, or at the beginning of that of Victor (± 190) there came from Byzantium to Rome the leather-worker Theodotus, who afterwards was 21characterised as the “founder, leader, and father of the Goddenying revolt”, i.e., of Adoptianism. Hippolytus calls him a “rag” (ἀπόσπασµα) of the Alogi, and it is in fact not improbable that he came from the circle of those theologians of Asia Minor. Stress is laid on his unusual culture; 564 “he was supreme in Greek culture, very learned in science” (ἐν παιδείᾳ Ἑλληνικῇ ἀκρός, πολυµαθὴς τοῦ λόγου); and he was, therefore, highly respected in his native city. All we know for certain of his history is that he was excommunicated by the Roman Bishop, Victor, on account of the Christology which he taught in Rome (Euseb. V. 28. 6: ἀπεκήρυξε τῆς κοινωνίας); his is, therefore, the first case of which we are certain, where a Christian who took his stand on the rule of faith was yet treated as a heretic.37 As regards his teaching, the Philosophumena expressly testify to the orthodoxy of Theodotus in

These extracts and Philos. Lib. X. are used by Theodoret (H. F. II. 4. 5); it is not probable that the latter had himself examined the Little Labyrinth. A writing of Theodotus seems to have been made use of in the Syntagma of Hippolytus. As regards the younger Theodotus, his name has been handed down by the Little Labyrinth, the Philosoph. (VII. 36) and Pseudo-Tertull. H. 29 (Theodoret H. F. II. 6). The Syntagma te ac8 lls of a party of Melchizedekians, which is traced in the Philosoph. and by the Pseudo-Tertullian to the younger Theodotus, but neither the party nor its founder is named. Very mysterious in contents and origin is the piece, edited for the first time from Parisian MSS. by Caspari (see above): περὶ Μελχισεδεκιανῶν καὶ Θεοδοτιανῶν καὶ Ἀθιγγανῶν. The only controversial writing known to us against Artemas (Artemon) is the Little Labyrinth. Unfortunately Eusebius has not excerpted the passages aimed at him. Artemas is, again, omitted in the Syntagma and in the Philosoph. For this reason Epiphanius, PseudoTertull. and Philaster have no articles expressly dealing with him. He is, however, mentioned prominently in the edict of the last Synod of Antioch held to oppose Paul of Samosata (so also in the Ep. Alexandri in Theodoret H. E. I. 3 and in Pamphilus’ Apology Pro Orig. in Routh, Reliq. S. IV. p. 367); therefore many later writers against the heretics have named him (Epiph. H. 65. 1, esp. Theodoret H. F. II. 6. etc.). Finally, let it be noticed that the statements in the Synodicon Pappi, and in the Prædestinatus are worthless, and that the identification of the younger Theodotus with the Gnostic of the same name, extracts from whose works we possess, is inadmissable, not less so than the identification with Theodotus, the Montanist, of whom we are informed by Eusebius. In this we agree with Zahn (Forschungen III., p. 123) against Neander and Dorner. As an authority for the Roman Monarchians, Novatian, De Trinitate, also falls to be considered. 37 It is significant that this took place in Rome. The Syntagma is further able to tell that Theodotus had denied Christ during the persecution in his native city before he came to Rome. See on this point my article on Monarchianism) p. 187.

his theology and cosmology.38 In reference to the Person of Christ he tau 564 ght: that Jesus was a man, who, by a special decree of God, was born of a virgin through the operation of the Holy Spirit; but that we were not to see in him a heavenly being, who had assumed flesh in the virgin. After the piety of his life had been thoroughly tested, the Holy Ghost descended upon him in baptism; by this means he became Christ and received his equipment (δυνάµεις) for his special vocation; and he demonstrated the righteousness, in virtue of which he excelled all men, and was, of necessity, their authority. Yet the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus was not sufficient to justify the contention that he was now “God”. Some of the followers of Theodotus represented 22Jesus as having become God through the resurrection; others disputed even this.39 This Christology, Theodotus and his party sought to prove from Scripture. Philaster says in general terms: “they use the chapters of Scripture which tell of Christ as man, but they avoid those which speak of him as God, reading and by no means understandin 564 g” (Utuntur capitulis scripturarum quæ de Christo veluti de homine edocent, quæ autem ut deo dicunt ea vero non accipiunt, legentes et nullo modo intellegentes). Epiphanius has, fortunately, preserved for us fragments of the biblical theological investigations of Theodotus, by the help of the Syntagma. These show that there was no longer any dispute as to the extent of the N. T. Canon; the Gospel of John is recognised, and in this respect also Theodotus is Catholic. The investigations are interesting, however, because they are worked out by the same prosaic methods of exegesis, adopted in the above discussed works of the Alogi.40

38

VII. 35: φάσκων τὰ περὶ µὲν τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ἀρχῆς σύµφωνα ἐκ µέρους τοῖς τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἐκκλησίας, ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πάντα 564 ὁµολογῶν γεγονέναι. 39 Philos. VII. 35: Θεὸν δὲ οὐδέποτε τοῦτον γεγονέναι θέλουσιν ἐπὶ τῇ καθόδῳ τοῦ πνεύµατος, ἕτεροι δὲ µετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν. The description in the text is substantially taken from the Philos., with whose account the contents of the Syntagma are not inconsistent. The statement that Theodotus denied the birth by the virgin is simply a calumny, first alleged by Epiphanius. The account of the Philos. seems unreliable, at most, on a single point, viz., where, interpreting Theodotus, it calls the Spirit which descended at the baptism “Christ” But possibly this too is correct, seeing that Hermas, and, later, the author of the Acta Archelai have also identified the Holy Spirit with the Son of God. (Compare also what Origen [περὶ ἀρχ. pref.] has reported as Church tradition on the Holy Spirit.) In that case we would only have to substitute the “Son of God” for 564 Christ”, and to suppose that Hippolytus chose the latter term in order to be able to characterise the teaching of Theodotus as Gnostic (Cerinthian). On the possibility that the Theodotians, however, really named the Holy Spirit “Christ”, see later on. 40 Epiphanius mentions the appeal of the Theodotians to Deut. XVIII. 15; Jer. XVII. 9; Isa. LIII. 2 f.; Mat. XII. 31; Luke I. 35; John VIII. 40; Acts II. 22; 1 Tim. II. 5. They

23

Theodotus’ form of teaching was, even in the life-time of its author, held in Rome to be intolerable, and that by men disposed to Modalism — e.g., the Bishop himself, see under — as well as by the representatives of the Logos Christology. It is certain that he was excommunicated by Victor, accordingly before A.D. 199, on the charge of teaching that Ch 560 rist was “mere man” (ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος). We do not know how large his following was in the city. We cannot put it at a high figure, since in that case the Bishop would not have ventured on excommunication. It must, however, have been large enough to allow of the experiment of forming an independent Church. This was attempted in the time of the Roman Bishop Zephyrine (199-218) by the most important of the disciples of Theodotus, viz., Theodotus the money changer, and a certain Asclepiodotus. It is extremely probable that both of these men were also Greeks. A native, Natalius the confessor, was induced, so we are told by the Little Labyrinth, to become Bishop of the party, at a salary of 150 denarii a month. The attempt failed. The oppressed Bishop soon deserted and returned into the bosom of the great Church. It was told that he had been persuaded by visions and finally by blows with which “holy angels” pursued him during the night. The above undertaking is interesting in itself, since it proves how great had already become the gulf between the Church and these Monarchians in Rome, about A.D. 210; but still more

deduced from Mat. XII. 31, that the Holy Spirit held a higher place than the Son of Man. The treatment of the verses in Deut. and Luke is especially instructive. In the former Theodotus emphasised, not only the “προφήτην ὡς ἐµέ”, and the “ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν”, but also the “ἐγερεῖ”, and concluded referring the passage to the Resurrection: ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγειρόµενος Χριστὸς οὗτος οὐκ ἦν Θεὸς ἀλλὰ ἄνθρωπος, ἐπειδὴ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἦν, ὡς καὶ Μωϋσῆς ἄνθρωπος Ἅ 564 — accordingly the resuscitated Christ was not God. On Luke I. 35 he argued thus: “The Gospel itself says in reference to Mary: ‘the Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee’; but it does not say: ‘the Spirit of the Lord will be in thy body’, or, ‘will enter into thee.’” — Further, if we may trust Epiphanius, Theodotus sought to divide the sentence — διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώ ἐκ σοῦ ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς Θεοῦ — , from the first half of the verse, as if the words “διὸ καὶ” did not exist, so that he obtained the meaning that the Sonship of Christ would only begin later, — subsequent to the test. Perhaps, however, Theodotus entirely deleted “διὸ καὶ”, just as he also read “πνεῦµα κυρίου” for “πνεῦµα ἅγιον” in order to avoid all ambiguity. And since Hippolytus urges against him that John I. 14 did not contain “τὸ πνεῦµα σὰρξ ἐγένετο”, Theodotus must at least have interpreted the word “λόγος” in the sense of “πονῦµα”; and an ancient formula really ran: “Χριστὸς ὢν µὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦµα ἐγένετο σάρξ” (2 Clem. IX. 5), where later “λόγος” was, indeed, inserted in place of “πνεῦµἀ”. See t aa8 he Cod. Constantinop.

instructive is the sketch given of the leaders of the party by the Little Labyrinth, a sketch that agrees excellently with the accounts given of the ‘ 545 λεξιθηροῦντες’ in Asia, and of the exegetic labours of the older Theodotus.41 24The offence charged against the Theodotians was threefold: the grammatical and formal exegesis of Holy Scripture, the trenchant textual criticism, and the thoroughgoing study of Logic, Mathematics, and the empirical sciences. It would seem at a first glance as if these men were no longer as a rule interested in theology. But the opposite was the case. Their opponent had himself to testify that they pursued grammatical exegesis “in order to prove their godless tenets,” textual criticism in order to correct the manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures, and philosophy “in order by the science of unbelievers to support their heretical conception.” He had also to bear witness to the fact that these scholars had not tampered with the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, or the extent of the Canon (V. 28. 18). 587 1 Their whole work, therefore, was in the service of their theology. But the method of this work, — and we can infer it to have been also that

41

Euseb. (H. E. V. 28): “They falsified the Holy Scriptures without scruple, rejected the standards of the ancient faith, and misunderstood Christ. For they did not examine what the Scriptures said, but carefully considered what logical figure they could obtain from it that would prove their godless teaching. And if any one brought before them a passage from Holy Scripture, they asked whether a conjunctive or disjunctive figure could be made of it. They set aside the Holy Scriptures of God, and employ themselves, instead, with geometry, being men who are earthly, and talk of what is earthly, and know not what comes from above. Some of them, therefore, study the geometry of Euclid with the greatest devotion; Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; Galen is even worshipped by some. But what need is there of words to show that men who misuse the sciences of the unbelievers to prove their heretical views, and falsify with their own godless cunning the plain faith of Scripture, do not even stand on the borders of the faith? They have therefore laid their hands so unscrupulously on the Holy Scriptures under the pretext that they had only amended it critically (διωρθωκέναι). He who will can convince himself that this is no calumny. For, if one should collect the manuscripts of any one of them and compare them, he would find them differ in many passages. At least, the manuscripts of Asclepiodotus do not agree with those of Theodotus. But we can have examples of this to excess; for their scholars have noted with ambitious zeal all that any one of them has, as they say, critically amended, i.e., distorted (effaced?). Again, with these the manuscripts of Hermophilus do not agree; and those of Apollonides even differ from each other. For if we compare the manuscripts first restored by them (him?) with the later re-corrected copies, variations are found in many places. But some of them have not even found it worth the trouble to falsify the Holy Scriptures, but have simply rejected the Law and the Prophets, and have by this lawless and godless doctrine hurled themselves, under the pretext of grace, into the deepest abyss of perdition. acb 42 See under.

of the Alogi and the older Theodotus — conflicted with the dominant theological method. Instead of Plato and 25Zeno, the Adoptians revered the Empiricists; instead of the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, the grammatical was alone held to be valid; instead of simply accepting or capriciously trimming the traditional text, an attempt was made to discover the original.43 How unique and valuable is this information! How instructive it is to observe that this method struck the disciple of the Apologists and Irenæus as strange, nay, even as heretical, that while he would have seen nothing to object to in the study of Plato, he was seized with horror at the idea of Aristotle, Euclid, and Galen, being put in the place of Plato! The difference was, indeed, not merely one of method. In the condition of the theology of the Church at that 540 time, it could not be supposed that religious conviction was especially strong or ardent in men who depreciated the religious philosophy of the Greeks. For whence, if not from this source, or from Apocalyptics, did men then derive a distinctively pious enthusiasm?44 It is also little to be wondered at that the attempt made by these scholars to found a Church in Rome, was so quickly wrecked. They were fated to remain officers without an army; for with grammar, textual criticism, and logic one could only throw discredit, in the communities, on the form of Christological doctrine which held the highest place and had been rendered venerable by long tradition. These scholars, therefore, although they regarded themselves as Catholic, stood outside the Church.45 Of the works of these, the earliest exegetical scholars, nothing has come down to us. 588 46 They have gone 26without leaving any appreciable effect on the Church. Contrast the significance gained by the schools of Alexandria and Antioch! The latter, which rose

43

See V. 28. 4, 5. The triumph of Neo-platonic philosophy and of the Logos Christology in Christian theology is, in this sense, to be considered an advance. That philosophy, indeed, in the third century, triumphed throughout the empire over its rivals, and therefore the exclusive alliance concluded with it by Christian tradition was one which, when it took place, could be said to have been inevitable. Suppose, however, that the theology of Sabellius or of Paul had established itself in the Church in the 3rd century, then a gulf would have been created between the Church and Hellenism that would have made it impossible for the religion of the Church to become that of the empire. Neo-platonic tradition was the final product of antiquity; it disposed, but as a living force, of the intellectual and moral capital of the past. 45 As “genuine” scholars — and this is a very characteristic feature — they took very great care that each should have the credit of his own amendments on the text. 46 The Syntagma knows of these; Epiph. H. 55. c. 1: πλάττουσιν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ βίβλους ἐπιπλάστους, 44

about 60 years later, took up again the work of this Roman school. It, too, came to stand outside the great Church; but it brought about one of the most important crises in the dogmatics of the Church, because in its philosophico-theological starting-point it was at one with orthodoxy. The methodical and exegetical examination of the Holy Scriptures confirmed the Theodotians in their conception of Christ as the man in whom in an especial manner the Spirit of God had operated, and had made them opponents of the Logos Christology. The author of the Little Labyrinth does not state wherein the doctrine of the younger Theodotus differed from that of the older. When he says that some of the Theodotians rejected the law and the prophets προφάσει χάριτος, we may well suppose that they simply emphasised — in a Pauline sense, or because of 54f considerations drawn from a historical study of religion — the relativity of the authority of the O. T.;47 for there is as little known of any rejection of the Catholic Canon on the part of the Theodotians, as of a departure from the rule of faith. Now Hippolytus has extracted from the exegetical works of the younger Theodotus one passage, the discussion of Hebr. V. 6, 10; VI. 20 f.; VII. 3, 17; and out of this he has made an important heresy. Later historians eagerly seized on this; they ascribed to the younger Theodotus, as distinguished from the older, a cultus of Melchizedek and invented a sect of Melchizedekians (= Theodotians). The moneychanger taught, it was said (Epiph. H. 55), that Melchizedek was a very great power, and more exalted than Christ, the latter being merely related to the former as the copy to the original. Melchizedek was the advocate of the heavenly powers before God, and the High Priest among men,48 while Jesus as 27priest stood a degree lower. The origin of the former was completely concealed, because it was heavenly, but Jesus was born of Mary. To this Epiphanius adds that the party presented its oblations in the name of M. (εἰς ὄνοµα τοῦ Μελχισεδέκ); for he was the guide to God, the prince of righteousness, the true Son of God. It is apparent that the Theodotians cannot have taught this simply as it stands. The explanation is not far to seek. There was a wide-spread opinion in the whole ancient Church, that Melchizedek was a manifestation of the true Son of God; and to this view many speculations attached themselves, here and there in 581 47Even the great anti-gnostic teachers had come to this view (see Vol. II., p. 304) without indeed drawing the consequences which the Theodotians may have deduced more certainly. 48 L.c. ∆εῖ ἡµᾶς τῷ Μελχισεδὲκ προσφέρειν, φασίν, ἵνα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ προσενεχθῇ ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν, καὶ εὕρωµεν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ζωήν.

connection with a subordinationist Christology.49 The Theodotians shared this conception. Immediately after the sentence given above Epiphanius has (55, c. 8): And Christ, they say, was chosen that he might call us from many ways to this one knowledge, having been anointed by God, and chosen, when he turned 561 us from idols and showed us the way. And the Apostle having been sent by him revealed to us that Melchizedek is great and remains a priest for ever, and behold how great he is; and because the less is blessed by the greater, therefore he says that he as being greater blessed Abraham the patriarch; of whom we are initiated that we may obtain from him the blessing.50 Now the Christological conception, formulated in the first half 28of this paragraph, was certainly not reported from an opponent. It is precisely that of the Shepherd,51 and accordingly very ancient in the Roman Church.52 567 From this, and by a reference to the controversial writing of Hippolytus (Epiph. l.c. ch. 9), the “heretical” cultus of Melchizedek is explained. These Theodotians maintained, as is also shown by their exegesis on 1 Cor. VIII. 6,53

49

See Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 25. 161; Hierakas in Epiph. H. 55, c. 5, H. 67, c. 3; Philast. H. 148. Epiph. has himself to confess (H. 55, c. 7), that even in his time the view to 564 be taken of Melchizedek was still a subject of dispute among Catholic Christians: οἱ µὲν γὰρ αὐτὸν νοµίζουσι φύσει τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἰδέᾳ ἀνθρώπου τότε τῷ Ἀβραὰµ πεφηνέναι. Jerome Ep. 73 is important. The Egyptian hermit, Marcus, wrote, about A.D. 400, an independent work εἰς τὸν Μελχισεδὲκ κατὰ Μελχισεδεκειῶν, i.e., against those who saw in Melchizedek a manifestation of the true Son of God (see Photius, Biblioth. 200; Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. p. 827; Herzog’s R. E., 2 Aufl. IX. p. 290); cf. the above described fragment, edited for the first time by Caspari; further Theodoret H. F. II. 6, Timotheus Presb. in Cotelier, Monum. Eccl. Græcæ III. p. 392 etc. 50 Καὶ Χριστὸς µὲν, φάσίν, ἐξελέγη, ἵνα ἡµᾶς καλέσῃ ἐκ πολλῶν ὁδῶν εἰς µίαν ταύτην τὴν γνῶσιν, ὑπὸ Θεοῦ κεχρισµένος κ aab αὶ ἐκλεκτὸς γένόµενος, ἐπειδὴ ἀπέστρεψεν ἡµᾶς ἀπὸ εἰδώλων καὶ ὑπέδειξεν ἡµῖν τὴν ὁδόν. Ἐξ οὗπερ ὁ ἀπόστολος ἀποςταλεὶς ἀπεκάλυψεν ἡµῖν, ὅτι µέγας ἐστὶν ὁ Μελχισεδέκ, καὶ ἱερεὺς µένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, καὶ, Θεωρεῖτε πηλίκος οὗτος· καὶ ὅτι τὸ ἔλασσον ἐκ τοῦ µείζονος εὐλογεῖται, διὰ τοῦτο, φησὶ, καὶ τὸν Ἁβαὰµ τὸν πατριάρχην εὐλόγησεν ὡς µείζων ὤν· οὗ ἡµεῖς ἐσµὲν µύσται, ὅπως τύχωµεν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ τῆς εὐλογίας. 51 Cf. the striking agreement with Sim. V., especially ch. VI. 3: αὐτὸς καθαρίσας τὰς ἁµαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ ἔδειξεν αὐτοῖς τὰς τρίβους τῆς ζωῆς. 52 The theologico-philosophical impress which, as distinguished from Sim. V., marks the whole passage, is of course unmistakable. Notice what is said as to Paul, and the expression “µύσται”. 53 The Theodotians seem to have taken Christ in this verse to mean not Jesus, but the Holy Spirit, the eternal. Son of God, deleting the name Jesus (Epiph. H. 55, ch. 9). If that is so then the Philosophumena is right when it relates that the Theodotians had also given

three points: First, that besides the Father the only divine being was the Holy Spirit, who was identical with the Son — again simply the position of Hermas; secondly, that this Holy Spirit appeared to Abraham in the form of the King of Righteousness — and this, as has been shown above, was no novel contention; thirdly, that Jesus was a man anointed with the power of the Holy Ghost. But, in that case, it was only logical, and in itself not uncatholic, to teach that offerings and worship were due, as to the true, eternal Son of God, to this King of Righteousness who had appeared to Abraham, and had blessed him and his real descendants, i.e., the Christians. And if, in comparison with this Son of God; the chosen and anointed servant of God, Jes 564 us, appears inferior at first, precisely in so far as he is man, yet their position was no more unfavourable in this respect than that of Hermas. For Hermas also taught that Jesus, being only the adopted Son of God, was really not to be compared to the Holy Spirit, the Eternal Son; or, rather, he is related to the latter, to use a Theodotian expression, as the copy to the original. Yet there is undoubtedly a great distinction between the Theodotians and Hermas. They unmistakably used their speculations as to the eternal 29Son of God in order to rise to that Son from the man Jesus of history, and to transcend the historical in general as something subordinate.54 There is not a word of this to be found in Hermas. Thus, the Theodotians sought, in a similar way to Origen, to rid themselves by speculation of what was merely historical, setting, like him, the eternal Son of God above the Crucified One. We have evidence of the correctness of this opinion in the observation that these speculations on Melchizedek were continued precisely in the school of Origen. We find them, and that with th 564 e same tendency to depreciate the historical Son of God, in Hieracas and the confederacy of Hieracite monks;55 as also in the monks who held the views of Origen in Egypt in the fourth and fifth centuries.

the name of Christ to the pre-existent Son of God, the Holy Ghost. Yet it is not certain whether we should regard the above quoted chapter of Epiphanius at all as reporting the Theodotian interpretation of 1 Cor. VIII. 6. 54 Epiph. H. 55, ch. 8: εἰς ὄνοµα δὲ τούτου τοῦ Μελχισεδὲκ ἡ προειρηµένη αἵρεσις καὶ τὰς προσφορὰς ἀναφέρει, καὶ αὐτὸν εἶναι εἰσαγωγέα πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, φησὶ, δεῖ τῷ Θεῷ προσφέρειν, ὅτι ἄρχων ἐστὶ δικαιοσύνης, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τούτῳ κατασταθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν οὐρανῷ, πνευµατικός τις ὢν, καὶ υἱὸς Θεοῦ τεταγµένος . . . . c. 1: Χριστός, φησίν, ἐστὶν ἔτι ὑποδεέστερος τοῦ Μελχισεδέκ. 55 See my art. in Herzog R. E., aa8 2 Aufl. VI. p. 100 (Epiph. LV. 5; LXVII. 3).

We have accordingly found that these theologians retained the ancient Roman Christology represented by Hermas; but that they edited it theologically and consequently changed its intention. If, at that time, the “Pastor” was still read in the Roman Church, while the Theodotian Christology was condemned, then its Christology must have been differently interpreted. In view of the peculiar character of the book, this would not be difficult. We may ask, however, whether the teaching of the Theodotians is really to be characterised as Monarchian, seeing that they assigned a special, and as it seems, an independent role to the Holy Spirit apart from God. Meanwhile, we can no longer determine how these theologians reconciled the separate substance (hypostasis) of the Holy Ghost, with the unity of the Person of God. But so much is certain, that in their Christology the 564 Spirit was considered by them only as a power, and that, on the other hand, their rejection of the Logos Christology was not due to any repugnance to the idea of a second divine being. This is proved by their teaching as to the Holy Spirit and His appearance in the Old Testament. 30But then the difference between them and their opponents does not belong to the sphere of the doctrine of God; they are rather substantially at one on this subject with a theologian like Hippolytus. If that is so, however, their opponents were undoubtedly superior to them, while they themselves fell short of the traditional estimate of Christ. In other words, if there was an eternal Son of God, or any one of that nature, and if He appeared under the old covenant, then the traditional estimate of Jesus could not be maintained, once he was separated from that Son.56 The formula of the man anointed with the Spirit was no longer sufficient to establish the transcendent greatness of the revelation of God in Christ, and it is only a natural consequence that the O. T. theophanies should appear in a brighter ligh 564 t. We see here why the old Christological conceptions passed away so quickly, comparatively speaking, and gave place so soon in the Churches to the complete and essential elevation of Jesus to the rank of deity, whenever theological reflection awoke to life. It was, above all, the distinctive method of viewing the Old Testament and its theophanies that led to this. In certain respects the attempt of the Theodotians presents itself as an innovation. They sought to raise a once accepted, but, so to speak, enthusiastic form of faith to the stage of theology and to defend it as the only right one; they expressly refused, or, at least, declared to be matter of controversy, the use of the title

56

Hermas did not do this, in so far as in the language of religion he speaks only of a Son of God (Simil. IX.).

“God” (Θεός) as applied to Jesus; they advanced beyond Jesus to an eternal, unchangeable Being (beside God). In this sense, in consequence of the new interest which the representatives of the above doctrine took in the old formula, it is to be regarded as novel. For we can hardly attribute to pre-catholic Christians like Hermas, a special interest in the essential humanity of Jesus. They certainly believed that they gave full expression in their formulas to the highest possible estimate of the Redeemer; they had no other idea. These theologians, o 564 n the other hand, defended a lower conception of Christ against a higher. Thus we may judge them on their own ground; for they let the idea of a heavenly Son of God 31stand, and did not carry out the complete revision of the prevailing doctrine that would have justified them in proving their Christological conception to be the one really legitimate and satisfactory. They indeed supported it by Scriptural proof, and in this certainly surpassed their opponents, but the proof did not cover the gaps in their dogmatic procedure. Since they took their stand on the regula fidei, it is unjust and at the same time unhistorical to call their form of doctrine “Ebionitic”, or to dispose of them with the phrase that Christ was to them exclusively a mere man (ψιλὸς ἂνθρωτος). But if we consider the circumstances in which they appeared, and the excessive expectations that were pretty generally attached to the possession of faith — above all, the prospect of the future deification of every believer — we cannot avoid the impression, that a doctrine could not but be held to be destructive, which did not even elevate Christ to divine honours, or, at most, assigned him an apotheosis, like that im 564 agined by the heathens for their emperors or an Antinous. Apocalyptic enthusiasm passed gradually into Neo-platonic mysticism. In this transition these scholars took no share. They rather sought to separate a part of the old conceptions, and to defend that with the scientific means of their opponents. Once more, 20 to 30 years later, the attempt was made in Rome by a certain Artemas to rejuvenate the old Christology. We are extremely ill informed as to this last phase of Roman Adoptianism; for the extracts taken by Eusebius from the Little Labyrinth, the work written against Artemas and his party, apply almost exclusively to the Theodotians. We learn, however, that the party appealed to the historical justification of their teaching in Rome, maintaining that Bishop Zephyrine had first falsified the true doctrine which they defended.57 The relative correctness of this

57

Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 3: φασὶ γὰρ τοὺς µὲν προτέρους ἅπαντας καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἀποστόλους, παρειληφέναι τε καὶ δεδιδαχέναι ταῦτα, ἅ νῦν οὗτοι λέγουσι, καὶ

contention is indisputable, especially if we consider that Zephyrine had not disapproved 32of the formula, certainly novel, that “the Father had suffered”. The author of the 564 Little Labyrinth reminds them that Theodotus had been already excommunicated by Victor, and of this fact they themselves cannot have been ignorant. When, moreover, we observe the evident anxiety of the writer to impose Theodotus upon them as their spiritual father, we come to the conclusion that the party did not identify themselves with the Theodotians. What they regarded as the point of difference we do not know. It is alone certain that they also refused to call Christ “God”; for the writer feels it necessary to justify the use of the title from tradition.58 Artemas was still alive in Rome at the close of the 7th decade of the 3rd century, but he was completely severed from the great Church, and without any real influence. No notice is taken of him even in the letters of Cyprian.59 Since Artemas was characterised as the “father” of Paul in the controversy with tha 564 t Bishop (Euseb. H. E. VII. 30. 16), he had afterwards attained a certain celebrity in the East, and had supplanted even Theodotus in the recollection of the Church. In the subsequent age, the phrase: “Ebion, Artemas, Paulus (or Photinus)” was stereotyped; this was afterwards supplemented with the name of Nestorius, and in that form the phrase became a constant feature in Byzantine dogmatics and polemics. (c). Traces of Adoptian Christology in the West after Artemas. Adoptian Christology — Dynamistic Monarchianism — apparently passed rapidly and almost entirely away in the West. The striking formula, settled by the Symbol, “Christus, homo et deus”, and, above all, the conviction that Christ had appeared in the O. T., brought about the destruction of the party. Yet, 33here and there — in connection, doubtless, with the reading of Hermas60 — the old faith, or the old formula, that the Holy Spirit is the eternal Son of God and at the 564 same time the Christ-Spirit, held

τετηρῆσθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ κηρύγµατος µέχρι τῶν χρόνων τοῦ Βίκτορος . . . ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ διαδόχου αὐτοῦ Ζεφυρίνου παρακεχαράχθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 58 Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 4, 5. 59 We know that he still lived about 270 from tile document of the Synod of Antioch in the case of Paul of Samosata. We read there (Euseb. H. E. VII. 30. 17): “Paul may write letters to Artemas and the followers of A. are said to hold communion with him.” We have probably to regard as Artemonites those unnamed persons, mentioned in Novatian De Trinitate, who explained Jesus to be a mere man (homo nudus et solitarius). Artemas is also named in Methodius Conviv. VIII. 10, Ed. Jahn, p. 37. 566 60 Even Tertullian used the Christological formula of Hermas when he was not engaged in Apologetics or in polemics against the Gnostics.

its ground, and, with it, conceptions which bordered on Adoptianism. Thus we read in the writing “De montibus Sina et Sion”61 composed in vulgar Latin and attributed wrongly to Cyprian, ch. IV: “The body of the Lord was called Jesus by God the Father; the Holy Spirit that descended from heaven was called Christ by God the Father, i.e., anointed of the living God, the Spirit joined to the body Jesus Christ” (Caro dominica a deo patre Jesu vocita est; spiritus sanctus, qui de cælo descendit, Christus, id est unctus dei vivi, a deo vocitus est, spiritus carni mixtus Jesus Christus). Compare ch. XIII.: the H. S., Son of God, sees Himself double, the Father sees Himself in the Son, the Son in the Father, each in each (Sanctus spiritus, dei filius, geminatum se videt, pater in filio et filius in patre utrosque se in se vident). There were accordingly only two hypostases, and the Redeemer is the flesh (caro), to which the e9b pre-existent Holy Spirit, the eternal Son of God, the Christ, descended. Whether the author understood Christ as “forming a person” or as a power cannot be decided; probably, being no theologian, the question did not occur to him.62 We do not hear that the doctrine of Photinus, who was himself a Greek, gained any considerable approval in the West. But we learn casually that even in the beginning of the 5th century a certain Marcus was expelled from Rome for holding the heresy of Photinus, and that he obtained a following in Dalmatia. Incomparably more instructive, however, is the account given by Augustine (Confess. VII. 19. [25]) of his own and his friend Alypius’ Christological belief, at a time when both stood quite near the Catholic 34Church, and had been preparing to enter it. At that time Augustine’s view of Christ was practically that of Photinus; and Alypius denied that Christ had a human soul; yet both had held their Christology to be Catholic, and only afterwards learned better.63 Now let us remember that Augustine had enjoyed a

61

Hartel, Opp. Cypr. III., p. 104 sq. Hilary’s work “De trinitate” also shows (esp. X. 18 ff., 50 ff.) what different Christologies still existed in the West in the middle of the 4th century. There were some who maintained: “quod in eo ex virgine creando efficax dei sapientia et virtus exstiterit, et in nativitate eius divinæ prudentiæ et potestatis opus intellegatur, sitque in eo efficientia potius quam natura sapientiæ. 63 Augustine, l.c. . . . Quia itaque vera scripta sunt (sc. the Holy Scriptures) totum hominem in Christo agnoscebam; non corpus tantum hominis, aut cum corpore sine mente animam, sed ipsum hominem, non persona veritatis, sed magna quadam natureæ humanæ excellentia et perfectiore participatione sapientiæ præferri cæteris arbitrabar. Alypius autem deum carne indutum ita putabat credi a Catholicis, ut præter deum et carnem non esset in Christo anima, mentemque hominis non existimabat in eo prædicari . . . Sed postea hæreticorum Apollinaristarum hunc errorem esse cognoscens, catholicæ 62

Catholic education, and had been in constant intercourse with Catholics, and we see clearly that among the laity of the West very little was known of the Christological formulas, and very different doctrines of Christ were in fact current even at the close of the 4th century.64 (d). The Ejection of the Adoptian Christology in the East, — Beryll of Bostra, Paul of Samosata, etc. We can see from the writings of Origen that there were also many in the East who rejected the Logos Christology. Those were undoubtedly most numerous who identified the Father and the Son; but there were not wanting such as, while they made a distinction, attributed to the Soh a human nature only,65 and 35accordingly taught like the Theodotians. Origen by no means treated them, as a rule, as declared heretics, but as misled, or “simple”, Christian brethren who required friendly teaching. He himself, besides, had also inserted the Adoptian Christology into his complicated doctrine of Christ; for he had attached the greatest value to the tenet that Jesus should be held a real man who had been chosen by God, who in virtue of his free will, had steadfastly attested his excellence, and who, at last, had become perfectly fused with the Logos in disposition, will, and finally also in nature (see Vol. II., p. 369 f.). Origen laid such decided emphasis on this that his opponents afterwards classed him with Paul of Samosata and

fidei collætatus et contemperatus est. Ego autem aliquanto posterius didicisse me fateor, in eo quod “verbum caro factum est” quomodo catholica veritas a Photini falsitate dirimatur. 64 In the Fragment, only preserved in Arabic, of a letter of Pope Innocent I. to Severianus, Bishop of Gabala (Mai, Spicile.g. Rom. III., p. 702) we still read the warning: “Let no one believe that it was only at the time when the divine Word on earth came to receive baptism from John that this divine nature originated, when, i.e., John heard the voice of the Father from heaven. It was certainly not so, etc.” 65 Orig. on John II. 2, Lomm. I., p. 92: Καὶ τὸ πολλοὺς φιλοθέους εἶναι εὐχοµένους ταράσσον, εὐλαβουµένους δύο ἀναγορεῦσαι θεούς, καὶ παρὰ τοῦτο περιπίπτοντας ψευδέσι καὶ ἀσεβέσι δόγµασιν, ἤτοι ἀρνουµένους ἰδιότητα υἱοῦ ἑτέραν παρὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρός, ὁµολογοῦντας Θεὸν εἶναι τὸν µέχρι ὀνόµατος παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς υἱὸν προσαγορευόµ abd νον, ἠ ἀρνουµένους τὴν θεότητα τοῦ υἱοῦ, τιθέντας δὲ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἰδιότητα καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν κατὰ περιγραφὴν τυγχάνουσαν ἑτέραν τοῦ πατρός, ἐντεῦθεν λύεσθαι δύναται, see also what follows. Pseudo-Gregor. (Apollinaris) in Mai (Nov. Coll. VII. 1, p. 171) speaks of men who conceived Christ as being ‘filled with divinity’, but made no specific distinction between Him and the prophets, and worshipped a man with divine power after the manner of the heathens.

Artemas, ec5 1 and Pamphilus required to point out “that Origen said that the Son of God was born of the very substance of God, i.e., was ὁµοούσιος, which means, of the same substance with the Father, but that he was not a creature who became a son by adoption, but a true son by nature, generated by the Father Himself” (quod Origines filium dei de ipsa dei substantia natum dixerit, id est, ὁµοούσιον, quod est, eiusdem cum patre substantiæ, et non esse creaturam per adoptionem sed natura filium verum, ex ipso patre generatum).66 >So Origen in fact taught, and he was very far from seeing more in the Adoptian doctrine than a fragment of the complete Christology. He attempted to convince the Adoptians of their error, more correctly, of their questionable onesidedness,67 but he had seldom any other occasion to contend with them. 36

Perhaps we should here include the action against Beryll of Bostra. This Arabian Bishop taught Monarchianism. His doctrine aroused a violent opposition. The Bishops of the province were deeply agitated and instituted many examinations and discussions. But they appear not to have come to any result. Origen was called in, and, as we are informed by Eusebius, who had himself examined the acts of the Synods, he succeeded in a disputation in amicably convincing the Bishop of his error.68 This happened, according to the common view, in A.D. 244. We have to depend, for the teaching of Beryll, on one sentence in Eusebius, which has received very different interpretations.69 Nitzsch says rightly,70 that 66

Pamphili Apolog. in Routh, IV., p. 367; Schultz in the Jahrbb. f. protest. Theol. 1875, p. 193 f. On Origen and the Monarchians, see Hagemann, l.c., p. 300 f. 67 See l.c., p, 368. 68 Orig. in Ep. ad Titum, Lomm. V., p. 287 “Sed et eos, qui hominem dicunt dominum Iesum præcognitum et prædestinatum, qui ante adventum carnalem substantialiter et proprie non exstiterit, sed quod homo natus patris solam in se habuerit deitatem, ne illos quidem sine periculo est ecclesiæ numero sociari.” This passage, undoubtedly, need not necessarily be applied to Dynamistic Monarchians, any more than the description about to be quoted of the doctrine of Beryll. There may have existed a middle type between Dynamistic and Modalistic Monarchianism, according to which the humanity as well as the deitas patris in Jesus Christ was held to be personal. 69 Euseb. H. E. VI. 33. See also Socrates H. E. III. 7. 70 L.c.: τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ κύριον ἡµῶν µὴ προϋφεστάναι κατ᾽ ἰδίαν οὐσίας περιγραφὴν πρὸ τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἐπιδηµίας, µηδὲ θεότητα ἰδίαν ἔχειν, ἀλλ ἐµπολιτευοµένην αὐτῷ µόνην τὴν πατρικήν. The word περιγραφή is first found in the Excerpta Theodoti 19, where κατὰ περιγραφήν is contrasted in the sense of personality with the κατ᾽ οὐσίαν (τοῦ Θεοῦ)). The latter was accordingly felt to be Modalistic: καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, οὐ κατὰ τὴν παρουσίαν µόνον ἄνθρωπος γενόµενος, ἀλλὰ καὶ

Eusebius missed in Beryll the recognition of the separate divine personality (hypostasis) in Christ and of his pre-existence, but not the recognition of his deity. However, this is not enough to class the Bishop with certainty among the Patripassians, since Eusebius’ own Christological view, by which that of Beryll was here gauged, was very vague. Even the circumstance, that at the Synod of Bostra (according to Socrates) Christ was expressly decreed to have a human soul, is not decisive; for Origen might have carried the recognition of this dogma, which was 3 85c 7of the highest importance to him, whatever the doctrine of Beryll had been. That the Bishop rather taught Dynamistic Monarchianism is supported, first, by the circumstance that this form of doctrine had, as we can prove, long persisted in Arabia and Syria; and, secondly, by the observation that Origen, in the fragment of his commentary on the Ep. of Titus (see above), has contrasted with the Patripassian belief72 a kind of teaching which seems to coincide with that of Beryll. Primitive Dynamistic Monarchian conceptions must, however, be imputed also to those Egyptian Millenarians whom Dionysius of Alexandria opposed, and whom he considered it necessary to instruct “in the glorious and truly divine appearing of our Lord” (περὶ τῆς ἐνδόξου καὶ ἀληθῶς ἐνθέου τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν ἐπιφανείας73 These were all, indeed, isolated and relatively unimportant phenomena; but they prove that even about the middle of the 3rd century the Logos Christology was not universally recognised in

ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ ἐν ταυτότητι λόγος κατὰ περιγραφὴν καὶ οὐ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν γενόµενος, ὁ υἱὸς; cf., ch. 10, where περιγράφεσθαι also expresses the personal existence, i.e., what was afterwards termed ὑπόστασις. This word was not yet so used, so far as I know, in the 3rd century. In Origen περιγραφή is likewise the expression for the strictly self-contained personality; see Comm. on John I. 42, Lomm. I. 88: ὥσπερ οὖν δυνάµεις Θεοῦ πλείονές εἰσιν, ὧν ἑκάστη κατὰ περιγραφήν, ὧν διαφέρει ὁ σωτήρ, οὗτως ὁ λόγος — εἰ καὶ παρ᾽ ἡµῖν οὐκ ἔστι κατὰ περιγραφὴν εκτὸς ἡµῶν — νοηθήσεται ὁ Χριστὸς κ.τ.λ. In our passage and Pseudo-Hippol. c. Beron. 1, 4, it means simply “configuration”. 71 Dogmengesch. I., p. 202. See on Beryll, who has become a favourite of the historians of dogma, apart from the extended historical works, Ullmann, de Beryllo, 1835; Theod. Stud. u. Krit., 1836; Fock Diss. de Chris aaf tologia B. 1843; Rossel in the Berliner Jahrbb., 1844, No. 41 f.; Kober in the Theol. Quartalschr., 1848, I. 72 It is contained in the words of Origen given above, p. 35, note 3. 73 Euseb. H. E. VII. 24, 5. By the Epiphany we have to understand the future appearing; but thorough-going Millenarians in the East, in the country districts, hardly recognised the doctrine of the Logos.

the East, and that the Monarchians were still treated indulgently.74 Decisive action was first taken and Adoptianism was ranked in the East with Ebionitism as a heresy, in the case of the incumbent of the most exalted Bishopri 564 c in the East, Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch from 260, but perhaps a little earlier. He opposed the already dominant doctrine of the essential natural deity of Christ, and set up once more the old view of the human Person of the Redeemer.75 That happened 38at a time when, through Alexandrian theology, the use of the categories λόγος (word), οὐσία (being), ὑπόστασις (substance), ἐνυπόστατος (subsisting), πρόσωπον (person), περιγραφὴ οὐσίας (configuration of essence), etc., had almost already become legitimised, and when in the widest circles the idea had taken root that the Person of Jesus Christ must be accorded a background peculiar to itself, and essentiall 564 y divine. We do not know the circumstances in which Paul felt himself impelled to attack the form of doctrine taught by Alexandrian philosophy. Yet it is noticeable that it was not a province of the Roman Empire, but Antioch, then belonging to Palmyra, which was the scene of this movement. When we observe that Paul held a high political office in the kingdom of Zenobia, that close relations are said to have existed between him and the Queen, and that his fall implied the triumph of the Roman party in Antioch, then we may assume that a political conflict lay behind the theological, and that Paul’s opponents belonged to the Roman party in Syria. It was not easy to get at the distinguished Metropolitan and experienced theologian, who was indeed portrayed by his enemies as an unspiritual ecclesiastical prince, vain preacher, ambitious man of the world, and wily Sophist. The provincial Synod, over which he presided, did not serve the purpose. But already, in the affair of Novatian, which had threatened to split up the East, the experiment had been tried A.D. 252 (253) of holding an Oriental generalcouncil, and that with success. It was repeated. A great Synod — 74

The uncertainty which still prevailed in the 3rd century in reference to Christology is seen whenever we take up works not written by learned theologians. Especially the circumstance that, according to the Creed and the Gospel, the Holy Ghost took part in the conception of Jesus, constantly prompted the most curious phrases regarding the personal divinity of Christ, and the assumptio carnis of the Logos, see, e.g., Orac. Sibyll. VI. V. 6, where Christ is called “Sweet God whom the Spirit, in the white plumage of the dove, begot.” 75 Feuerlein, De hæresi Pauli Samosat., 1741; Ehrlich, De erroribus P.S., 1745; Schwab, Diss. de P.S. vita atque doctrina, 1839; Hefele, Conciliengesch. 2 Aufl. I., p. 135; Routh, Reliq. S. III., pp. 286-367; Frohschammer, Ueber die Verwerfung des ὁµοούσιος, in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1850, I.

we do not know who called it — met in Antioch A.D. 264; Bishops from various parts of the East attended it, and, especially, Firmilian of ac8 Caesarea. The aged Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, excused his absence in a letter in which he did not take Paul’s side. The first Synod came to an end without result, because, it is alleged, the accused had cunningly concealed his false doctrines.76 A second was also unsuccessful. Firmilian himself gave up the idea of a condemnation “because Paul promised to change his opinions.” It was only at a third Synod, between 266 and 269, probably 39268, at Antioch, Firmilian having died at Tarsus on his way thither, that excommunication was pronounced on the Bishop, and his successor Domnus was appointed. The number of the members of Synod is stated differently at 70, 80, and 180; and the argument against Paul was led by Malchion, a sophist of Antioch and head of a high school, as also a presbyter of the Church. He alone among them all was in a position to unmask that “wily and deceitful man.” The Acts of the discussion together with a detailed epistle, were sent by the Synod to Rome, Alexandria, and all Catholic Churches. Paul, protected by Zenobia, remained four years longer in his office; the Church in Antioch split up: “there took place schisms among the people, revolts among the priests, confusion among the pastors” (ἐγένοντο σχίσµατα λαῶν, ἀκαταστασίαι ἱερέων, ταραχὴ ποιµένων).77 In the year A.D. 272 Antioch was at last taken by Aurelian, and the Emperor, to whom an appeal was brought, pronounced on the spot the famous judgment, that the Church building was to be handed to him with whom the Christian Bishops of Italy and of Rome corresponded by letter. This decision was of course founded on political grounds.78

ae1 76Eusebius speaks (H. E. VII. 28. 2) of a whole party (οἱ ἀµφὶ τὸν Σαµοσατέα) having been able to conceal their heterodoxy at the time. 77 Basilius Diac., Acta Concilii Ephes., p. 427, Labb. 78 The most important authorities for Paul’s history and doctrine are the Acts of the Synod of Antioch held against him, i.e., the shorthand report of the discussion between Paul and Malchion, and the Synodal epistle. These still existed in the 6th century, but we now possess them only in a fragmentary form: in Euseb. H. E. VII. 27-30 (Jerome de vir. inl. 71); in Justinian’s Tract. c. Monophys.; in the Contestatio ad Clerum C.P.; in the Acts of the Ephesian Council; in the writing against Nestor. and Eutych. by Leontius of Byzant.; and in the book of Petrus Diaconus, “De incarnat. ad Fulgentium”: all in Routh l.c. where the places in which they are found are also stated. Not certainly genuine is the Synodal epistle of six Bishops to Paul, published by Turrianus (Routh, l.c., p. 289 sq.); yet its authenticity is supported by overwhelming reasons. Decidedly inauthentic is a letter of Dionysius of Alex. to Paul (Mansi, I., p. 1039 sq.), also a pretended Nicene Creed against him (Caspari, Quellen IV., p. 161 f.), and another found in the libel against

40

The teaching of Paul was characterised by the Fathers as a renewal of that of Artemas, but sometimes also as Neo-Jewish, Ebionitic, afterward 564 s as Nestorian Monothelite, etc. It was follows. God was simply to be regarded as one person. Father, Son, and Spirit were the One God (ἓν πρόσωπον). In God a Logos (Son) or a Sophia (Spirit) can be distinguished — both can again according to Paul become identified — but they are qualities.79 God puts forth of Himself the Logos from Eternity, nay, He begets him, so that he can be called Son and can have being ascribed to him, but he remains an impersonal power.80 Therefore it was absolutely impossible for him to assume a visible form.81 This Logos operated i 564 n the prophets, to a still higher degree in Moses, then in many others, and most of all (µᾶλλον καὶ διαφερόντως) in the Son of David, born of the virgin by the Holy Ghost. The Redeemer was by the constitution of his nature a man, who arose in time by birth; he was accordingly “from beneath”, but Nestorius (Mansi, IV., p. 1010). Mai has published (Vet. Script. Nova Coll. VII., p. 68 sq.) five fragments of Paul’s speeches: οἱ πρός Σαβῖνον λόγοι (not quite correctly printed in Routh, l.c., p. 328 sq.) which are of the highest value, and may be considered genuine, in spite of their standing in the very worst company, and of many doubts being roused by them which do not admit of being completely silenced. Vincentius mentions writings by Paul (Commonit. 35). In the second grade we have the testimony of the great Church Fathers of the 4th century, which rested partly on the Acts, partly on oral tradition: see, Athanas ac8 c. Apoll. II. 3, IX. 3; de Synod. Arim. et Seleuc. 26, 43-45, 51, 93; Orat. c. Arian. II., No. 43; Hilarius, De synod. §§ 81, 86, pp. 1196, 1200; Ephræm Junior in Photius, Cod. 229; Gregor Nyss, Antirrhet. adv. Apoll., § 9, p. 141; Basilius, ep. 52 (formerly 300); Epiphan. H. 65 and Anaceph.; cf. also the 3 Antiochian formulas and the Form. Macrostich. (Hahn Biblioth. der Symbole, 2 Aufl. §§ 85, 89), as also the 19 Canon of the Council of Nicæa, according to which Paul’s followers were to be re-baptised before reception into the Catholic Church. One or two notes also in Cramer Catena on S. John. pp. 235, 259 sq. Useful details are given by Innocentius I., ep. 22; by Marius Mercator, in the Suppl. Imp. Theodos. et Valentinian adv. Nestor. of the Deacon Basilius; by Theodorus of Raithu (see Routh, l.c., pp. 327 sq. 357); Fulgentius, etc. In the later opponents of the heretics from Philaster, and in resolutions of Synods from the 5th century, we find nothing new. Sozom. H. E. IV. 15 and Theodoret H. F. II. 8 are still of importance. The Libellus Synodicus we must leave out of account. 79 Μὴ εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐνυπόστατον, ἀλλὰ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ Θεῷ — ἐν Θεῷ ἐπιστήµη ἐνυπόστατος — εἷς Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ὡς λόγος ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ. 80 Λόγος προφορικός — ὁ πρὸ αἰώνων υἱὸς — τὸν λόγον ἐγέννησεν ὁ Θεός ἄνευ παρθένου καὶ ἄνευ τινὸς οὐδενὸς ὄντος πλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ· καὶ οὕτως ὑπέστη ὁ λόγος. 81 Σοφία ac4 οὐκ ἦν δυνατὸς ἐν σχήµατι εὑρίσκεσθαι, οὐδὲ ἐν θέᾳ ἀνδρός· µείζων γὰρ τῶν ὁρωµένων ἐστίν.

the Logos of God inspired him from above.82The union of the Logos 41with the man Jesus is to be represented as an indwelling83 by means of an inspiration acting from without,84 so that the Logos becomes that in Jesus which in the Christ 52b ian is called by the Apostle “the inner man”; but the union which is thus originated is a contact in knowledge and communion (συνάφεια κατὰ µάθησιν καὶ µετουσίαν) a coming together (συνέλευσις); there does not arise a being existent in a body (οὐσία οὐσιωµένη ἐν σώµατι), i.e., the Logos dwelt in Jesus not “in substance but in quality” (οὐσιωδῶς, αλλὰ κατὰ ποιότητα).85 Therefore the Logos is to be steadily distinguished from Jesus;86 he is greater than the latter. 59c 87 Mary did not bear the Logos, but a man like us in his nature, and in his baptism it was not the Logos, but the man, who was anointed with the Spirit.88 However, Jesus was, on the other hand, vouchsafed the divine grace in a special degree,89 and his position was unique.90 Moreover, the proof he gave of his moral perfection corresponded to his peculiar equipment. 565 1 The only unity between two persons, accordingly between God and Jesus, is that of the disposition and the will.91 42Such unity springs from love

82

‘Λόγος µὲν ἄνωθεν, Ἰησοῦς δὲ Χριστὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐντεῦθεν — Χριστὸς ἀπο Μαρίας καὶ δεῦρό ἐστιν — ἄνθρωπος ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐνέπνευσεν ἄνωθεν ὁ λόγος· ὁ πατὴρ γὰρ ἅµα τῷ υἱῷ (scil. τῶ λόγῳ) εἷς Θεός, ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος κάτωθεν τὸ ἴδιον πρόσωπον ὑποφαίνει, καὶ οὕτως τὰ δύο πρόσωπα πληροῦνται — Χριστὸς ἐντεῦθεν τῆς ὑπάρξεως τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκώς — λέγει Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν κάτωθεν, 83 Ὡς ἐν ναῷ — ἐλθόντα τὸν λόγον καὶ ἐνοικήσαντα ἐν Ιησοῦ ἀνθρώπῳ ὄντι; in support of this Paul appealed to John XIV. 10: “sapientia habitavit in eo, sicut et habitamus et nos in domibus” — 84 Λόγον ἐνεργὸν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ — σοφίας ἐµπνεούσης ἔξωθεν. 85 Οὐ δίδως, says Malchion, οὐσιῶσθαι ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ σωτῆρι τὸν µονογενῆ. 568 86 Ἄλλος γάρ ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ ἄλλος ὁ λόγος. 87 Ὁ λόγος µείζων ἦν τοῦ Χριστοῦ· Χριστὸς γὰρ διὰ σοφίας µέγας ἐγένετο. 88 Μαρία τὸν λόγον οὐκ ἔτεκεν οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν πρὸ αἰώνων ἡ Μαρία, ἀλλὰ ἄνθρωπον ἡµῖν ἶσον ac8 τεκεν — ἄνθρωπος χρίεται, ὁ λόγος οὐ χρίεται· ὁ Ναζωραῖος χρίεται, ὁ κύριος ἡµῶν, 89 Οὔκ ἐστιν ὁ ἐκ ∆αβὶδ χρισθεὶς ἀλλότριος τῆς σοφίας. 90 Ἡ σοφία ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐχ οὕτως οἰκεῖ — κρείττων κατὰ πάντα, ἐπειδὴ ἐκ τνεύµατος ἁγίου καὶ ἐξ ἐπαγγελιῶν καὶ ἐκ τῶν γεγραµµένων ἡ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ χάρις. 91 Paul has even spoken of a διαφορὰ τῆς κατασκευῆς (συστάσεως) τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 92 From this point we refer to the Λόγοι πρὸς Σαβῖνον of Paul. We give them here on account of their unique importance: (1) Τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύµατι χρισθεὶς προσηγορεύθη Χριστός, πάσχων κατὰ φύσιν, θαυµατουργῶν κατὰ χάριν· τῷ γὰρ ἀτρέπτῳ τῆς γνώµης ὁµοιωθεὶς τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ µείνας καθαρὸς ἁµαρτίας ἡνώθη αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐνηργήθη

alone; but love can certainly produce a complete unity, and only that which is due to love — not that attained by “nature” — is of worth. Jesus was like God in the unchangeableness of his love and his will, and became one with God, being not only without sin himself, but vanquishing, in conflict and labour, the sins of our ancestor. As he himself, however, advanced in the manifestation of goodness and continued in it, the Father furnished him with power and miracles, in which he made known his steadfast conformity to the will of God. So he became the Redeemer and Saviour of the human race, and at the same time entered into an eternally indissoluble union with God, because his love can never cease. Now he has obtained from God, as the reward of his love, the name which is above every name; Go 539 d has committed to him the judgment,93 and invested him with divine dignity, so that now we can call him “God [born] of the virgin”.94 So also we are entitled to speak of a pre-existence of Christ in the prior decree95

που ἑλέσθαι τὴν τῶν θαυµάτων δυναστείαν, ἐξ ὧν µίαν αὐτὸς καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν πρὸς τῇ θελήσει ἐνέργειαν ἔχειν δειχθείς, λυτρωτὴς το῍ ac8 γένους καὶ σωτὴρ ἐχρηµάτισεν. — (2) Αἱ διάφοροι φύσεις καὶ τὰ διάφορα πρόσωπα ἕνα καὶ µόνον ἑνώσεως ἔχουσι τρόπον τὴν κατὰ θέλησιν σύµβασιν, ἐξ ἧς ἡ κατὰ ἐνέργειαν ἐπι τῶν οὕτῶς συµβιβασθέντων ἀλλήλοις ἀναφαίνεται µονάς. — (3) Ἅγιος καὶ δίκαιος γεγενηµένος ὁ σωτήρ, ἀγῶνι καὶ πόνῳ τὰς τοῦ προπάτορας ἡµῶν κρατήσας ἁµαρτίας· οἷς κατορθώσας τῇ ἀρετῇ συνήφθη τῷ Θεῷ, µίαν καὶ τήν αὐτὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν βούλησιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν ταῖς τῶν ἀγαθῶν προκοπαῖς ἐσχηκώς· ἣν ἀδιαίρετον φυλάξας τὸ ὄνοµα κληροῦται τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνοµα, στοργῆς ἔπαθλον αὐτῷ χαρισθέν. — (4) Τὰ κρτούµενα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως οὐκ ἔχει ἔπαινον· τὰ δὲ σχέσει φιλίας κρατούµενα ὑπεραινεῖται, µιᾷ καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ γνώµῃ κρατούµενα, δίὰ µιᾶς καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ἐνεργείας βεβαιούµενα, καὶ τῆς κατ᾽ ἐπαύξησιν οὐδέποτε παυοµένης κινήσεως· καθ᾽ ἣν τῷ Θεῷ συναφθεὶς ὁ σωτὴρ οὐδέποτε δέχεται µερισµὸν εἰς τοὺς αἰώνας µίαν αὐτὸς καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχων θέλησιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν, ἀεὶ κινουµένην τῇ φανερώσει τῶν ἀγαθῶν. — (5) Μὴ θαυµάσῃς ὅτι µίαν µετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν θέλησιν εἷχεν ὁ σωτὴρ· ὥστερ γὰρ ἡ φύσις µίαν τῶν πολλῶν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ὐπάρχουσαν φανεροῖ τὴν οὐσίαν, οὕτως ἡ σχέσις τῆς ἀγάπης µίαν· τῶν πολλῶν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐργάζεται θέλησιν διὰ µιᾶς καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς φανερουµένην εὐαρεστήσεως. Similar details are to be found in Theodorus of Mops.; but the genuineness of what is given here seems to me to be guaranteed by the fact that there is absolutely not a word of an ethical unification of the eternal Son of God (the Logos) with Jesus. It is God Himself Himself who is thus unit aa4 ed with the latter. 93 Χρὴ δὲ γιγνώσκειν, we read in the Catena S. Joh., ὅτι ὁ µὲν Παῦλος ὁ Σαµ. οὕτω φησίν· ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ κρίσιν ποιεῖν, ὅτι υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστὶν. 94 Athanas.: Παῦλος ὁ Σαµ. Θεὸν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου ὁµολογεῖ, Θεὸν ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ ὀφθέντα. 95 Athanas.: Ὁµολογεῖ Θεὸν ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ ὀφθέντα, καὶ ἐντεῦθεν τῆς ὑπάρξεως τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκότα, καὶ ἀρχὴν βασιλείας παρειληφότα, Λόγον δὲ ἐνεργὸν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ,

and prophecy96 of God, and 43to say that he became God through divine grace and his constant manifestation of goodness. 55e 97 Paul undoubtedly perceived in the imparting of the Spirit at the baptism a special stage of the indwelling of the Logos in the man Jesus; indeed Jesus seems only to have been Christ from his baptism: “having been anointed with the Holy Spirit he was named Christ — the anointed son of David is not different from wisdom” (τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύµατι χρισθεὶς προσηγορεύθη Χριστός — ὁ ἐκ ∆αβὶδ χρισθεὶς οὐκ ἀλλότριός ἐστι τῆς σοφίας) The Bishop supported his doctrine by copious proofs from Scripture,98 and he also attacked the opposite views. He sought to prove that the assumption that Jesus was by nature (φύσει) Son of God, led to having two gods, af5 99 to the destruction of Monotheism;100 he fought openly, with great energy, against the old expositors, i.e., the Alexandrians,101 and he banished from divine service all Church psalms in which the essential divinity of Christ was expressed.102 The teaching of Paul was certainly a development of the old doctrine of Hermas and Theodotus, and the Church Fathers had a right to judge it accordingly; but on the other hand we must not overlook the fact that Paul not only, as regards form, adapted himself more closely to the accepted terminology, but that he also gave to the ancient type of doctrine, already heterodox, a philosophical, an Aristotelian, basis, and treated it ethically and biblically. He undoubtedly learned much from Origen; but he recognised the worthlessness of the double personality construed by Origen, for he has deepened 44the exposition given by the latter

καὶ σοφίαν ἐν αὐτῷ ὁµολογεῖ, τῷ µεν προορισµῷ πρὸ αἰώνων ὄντα, τῇ δὲ ὑπάρξει ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ ἀναδειχθέντα, ἵνα εἷς εἴη, φησίν, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντα Θεὸς ὁ πατήρ. Therefore it is said in the letter of the six Bishops that Christ is God from eternity, οὐ προγνώσει, ἀλλ᾽ οὐσίᾳ καὶ ὑποστάσει. 96 Προκαταγγελτικῶς. See p.41, note 8. ae1 97 Κάτωθεν ἀποτεθεῶσθαι τὸν κύριον — ἐξ ἀνθρώπου γεγονέναι τὸν Χριστὸν Θεόν — ὕστερον αὐτὸν ἐκ προκοπῆς τεθεοποιῆσθαι. 98 Vincentius, Commonit. 35 — Athanasius (c. Ariam IV. 30) relates that the disciples of Paul appealed to Acts X. 36 in support of their distinction between the Logos and Jesus: τὸν λόγον ἀπέστειλεν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ εὐαγγελιζόµενος εἰρήνην διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ They said that there was a distinction here like that in the O. T. between the word of the Lord and of the prophets. 99 Epiphan. l.c., c. 3; see also the letter of the six Bishops in Routh, l.c., p. 291. 100 On the supreme interest taken by Paul in the unity of God see p. 42, note 3, Epiph. l.c., ch. I. 101 Euseb. H. E. VII. 30. 9. 102 Euseb. l.c.,§ 10.

of the personality of Christ, and seen that “what is attained by nature is void of merit” (τὰ κρατούµενα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως οὐκ ἔχει ἔπαινον). Paul’s expositions of nature and will in the Persons, of the essence and power of love, of the divinity of Christ, only to be perceived in the work of His ministry, because exclusively contained in unity of will with God, are almost unparalleled in the whole dogmatic literature of the Oriental Churches in the first three centuries. For, when such passages do occur in Origen, they at once disappear again in metaphysics, and we do not know the arguments of the Alogi and the Theodotians. 54f 1 It is, above all, the deliberate rejection of metaphysical speculation which distinguishes Paul; he substituted for it the study of history and the determination of worth on moral grounds alone, thus reversing Origen’s maxim: ὁ σωτὴρ οὐ κατ᾽ µετουσίαν, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἐστὶ θεός (the Saviour is God not by communion, but in essence). As he kept his dogmatic theology free from Platonism, his difference with his opponents began in his conception of God. The latter described the controversy very correctly, when they said that Paul “had betrayed the mystery of the Christian faith,”103 i.e., the mystic conception of God and Christ due to natural philosophy; or104 when they complained of Paul’s denial that the difficulty of maintaining the unity of deity, side by side with a plurality of persons, was got 45over simply by making the Father their source. What is that but to admit that Paul started in his idea of God, not

ac9

103

The three fragments of “Ebion” given by Mai, l.c., p. 68, and strangely held by Hilgenfeld to be genuine (Ketzergeschichte, p. 437 f.), seem to me likewise to belong to Paul: at any rate they correspond to his doctrine: Ἐκ τῆς περὶ προφητῶν ἐξηγήσεως (1) Κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελείαν µέγας καὶ ἐκλεκτὸς προφήτης ἐστίν, ἴσως µεσίτης καὶ νοµοθέτης τῆς κρείττονος διαθήκης γενόµενος· ὅστις ἑαυτὸν ἱερουργήσας ὑπὲρ πάντων µίαν ἐφάνη καί θέλησιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν ἔχων πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, θέλων ὥσπερ Θεὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν τῆς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τῷ κόσµῳ δι᾽ ὧν εἰργάσατο φανερωθείσης. — (2) Σχέσει γὰρ τῇ κατὰ δικαιοσύνην καὶ πόθῳ τῷ κατὰ φιλανθρωπίαν συναφθεὶς τῷ Θεῷ, οὐδὲν ἔσχεν µεµερισµένον πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, διὰ τὸ µίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ γενέσθαι τὴν θέλησιν καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ σωτηρίᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀγαθῶν. — (3) Εἰ γὰρ ἐθέλησεν αὐτὸν Θεὸς σταυρωθῆναι, καὶ κατεδέξατο λέγων. Μὴ τὸ ἐµόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γενέσθω θέληµα, δῆλον ὅτι µίαν ἔσχεν µετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν θέλησιν καὶ τὴν πρᾶξιν, ἐκεῖνο θελήσας καὶ πράξας, ὅπερ ἔδοξε τῷ Θεῷ. The second and third fragments may be by Theodorus of Mops., but hardly the first. 104 In Euseb. H. E. VII. 30. 10. ad2 105Epiph. l. c., ch. III.: Παῦλος οὐ λέγει µόνον Θεὸν διὰ τὸ πηγὴν εἶναι τὸν πατέρα.

from the substance, but from the person? He here represented the interests of theism as against the chaotic naturalism of Platonism And in appreciating the character of Jesus he refused to recognise its uniqueness and divinity in his “nature”; these he found only in his disposition and the direction of his will. Therefore while Christ as a person was never to him “mere man” (ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος), yet Christ’s natural endowment he would not recognise as exceptional. But as Christ had been predestinated by God in a unique manner, so in conformity to the promises the Spirit and the grace of God rested on him exceptionally; and thus his work in his vocation and his life, with and in God, had been unique. This view left room for a human life, and if Paul has, ultimately, used the formula, that Christ had become God, his appeal to 5b1 Philipp. II. 9 shows in what sense he understood the words. His opponents, indeed, charged him with sophistically and deceitfully concealing his true opinion behind phrases with an orthodox sound. It is possible, in view of the fact, e.g., that he called the impersonal Logos “Son”, that there is some truth in this; but it is not probable. He was not understood, or rather he was misunderstood. Many theologians at the present day regard the theology of Hermas as positively Nicene, although it is hardly a whit more orthodox than that of Paul. If such a misunderstanding is possible to the scholars of to-day — and Hermas was certainly no dissembler, — why can Firmilian not have looked on Paul as orthodox for a time? He taught that there was an eternal Son of God, and that he dwelt in Jesus; he proclaimed the divinity of Christ, held there were two persons (God and Jesus), and with the Alexandrians rejected Sabellianism. On this very point, indeed, a sort of concession seems to have been made to him at the Synod. We know that the Synod expressly censured the term “ὁµοούσιος”, 57a 1 and this 46was done, Athanasius conjectures, to meet an objection of Paul. He is said to have argued as follows: — If Christ is not, as he taught, essentially human, then he is ὁµοούσιος; with the Father. But if that be true then the Father is not the ultimate source of the deity, but Being (the οὐσία), and thus we have three οὐσίαι;106 in other words the divinity of the Father is itself derivative, and the Father is of identical origin with the Son, —

106

This was a well-known matter at the time of the Arian controversy, and the SemiArians, e.g., appealed expressly to the decision at Ancyra. See Sozomen H. E. IV. 15; Athanas., De Synod. 43 sq.; Basilius, Ep. 52; Hilarius de synodis 81, 86; Routh, 1.c., pp. 360-365. Hefele, Conciliengesch. I., 2, p. 140 f.: Caspari, Quellen IV., p. 170 f. 107 Athanas. l.c.; ἀνάγκη τρεῖς οὐσίας εἶναι, µίαν µὲν προηγουµένην, τὰς δὲ δύο ἐξ ἐκαίνης.

“they become brothers”. This can have been an objection made by Paul. The Aristotelian conception of the οὐσία would correspond to his turn of thought, and so would the circumstance, that the possibility of a subordinate, natural, divinity 54c on the part of the Son is left out of the question. The Synod again can very well have rejected ὁµοούσιος in the interests of anti-sabellianism.108 Yet it is just as possible that, as Hilarius says, the Synod condemned the term because Paul himself had declared God and the impersonal Logos (the Son) to be ὁµοούσιος, i.e., “of the same substance, of one substance.”109 However that may be, whenever Paul’s view was seen through, it was at once felt by the majority to be in the highest degree heretical. No one was yet quite clear as to what sort of thing this “naturally — divine” element in Christ was. Even Origen had taught that he possessed a divinity to which prayer might not be offered. 57c 110 But to deny the divine nature (physis) to the Redeemer, was universally held to be an attack on the Rule of Faith.111 They correctly perceived the really weak point in Paul’s Christology, his teaching, namely, that there were actually two Sons of God;112 Hermas, however, had already preached 47this, and Paul was not in earnest about the “eternal Son”. Yet this was only a secondary matter. The crucial difference had its root in the question as to the divine nature (physis) of the Redeemer. Now here it is of the highest interest to notice how far, in the minds of many Bishops in Pal 564 estine and Syria, the speculative interpretation of the Rule of Faith had taken the place of that rule itself. If we compare the letter of Hymenæus of Jerusalem and his five colleagues to Paul with the regula fidei — not, say, that of Tertullian and Irenæus — but the Rule of Faith with which Origen has headed his great work: περὶ ἀρχῶν then we are astonished at the advance in the times. The Bishops explain at the opening of

108

This is also the opinion of Basilius (l.c.): ἔφασαν γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι (the Bishops assembled against Paul) τὴν τοῦ ὁµοουσίου φωνὴν παριστᾷν ἔννοιαν οὐσίας τε καὶ τῶν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς, ὥστε καταµερισθεῖσαν τὴν οὐσίαν παρέχειν τοῦ ὁµοουσίου τὴν προσηγορίαν τοῖς εἰς ἃ διῃρέθη. 109 Dorner’s view (l.c. I. p.513) is impossible because resting on a false interpretation of the word ὁµοούσιος; Paul held the Father and Jesus to be Ὅ ac8 µοούσιοι in so far as they were persons, and therefore the Synod condemned the term. 110 See De orat. 15, 16. 111 Euseb. H. E. VII. 30. 6, 16. 112 See Malchion in Leontius (Routh, l.c., p. 312): Παῦλος φησίν, µὴ δύο ἐπίστασθαι υἱούς· εἰ δὲ υἱὸς ὁ Ἰ. Χρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ, υἰὸς δὲ καὶ ἡ σοφία, καὶ ἄλλο µὲν ἡ σοφία, ἄλλο δὲ Ἰ. Χρ., δύο ὑφίστανται υἱοί. See also Ephraem in Photius, biblioth. cod. 229. Farther the Ep. II. Felicis II. papæ ad Petrum Fullonem.

their letter,113 that they desired to expound,” in writing, the faith which we received from the beginning, and possess, having been transmitted and kept in the Catholic Church, proclaimed up to our day by the successors of the blessed Apostles, who were both eyewitnesses and assistants of the Logos, from the law and prophets and the New Testament.” (ἔγγραφον τὴν πίστιν ἣν ἐξ ἀρχῆς παρελάβοµεν καὶ ἔχοµεν παραδοθεῖσαν καὶ τηρού 54a µένην ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ καὶ ἁγίᾳ ἐκκλησίᾳ, µέχρι τῆς σήµερον ἡµέρας ἐκ διαδοχῆς ἀπὸ τῶν µακαρίων ἀποστόλων, οἳ καί αυτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γεγόνασι τοῦ λόγου, καταγγελλοµένην, ἐκ νόµου καὶ προφητῶν καὶ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης.) But what they presented as “the faith” and furnished with proofs from Scripture, was the speculative theology,114 In no other writing can 48we see the triumph in the sphere of religion of the theology of philosophy or of Origen, i.e., of Hellenism, so clearly, as in this letter, in which philosophical dogmatics are put forward as the faith itself. But further. At the end of the third century even the baptismal confessions were expanded in the East by the adoption of propositions borrowed from philosophical theology; 57e 1 or, to

113

See Routh, l.c., p. 289 sq. The πίστις ἐξ ἀρχῆς παραληφθεῖσα reads (l.c.): Ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἀγέννητος, εἷς ἄναρχος, ἀόρατος, ἀναλλοίωτος, ὃν εἶδεν οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων, οὐδὲ ἰδεῖν δύναται· οὗ τὴν δόξαν ἢ τὸ µέγεθος νοῆσαι ἢ ἐξηγήσασθαι καθώς ἐστιν ἀξίως τῆς ἀληθείας, ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσε ac8 ἀνέφικτον· ἔννοιαν δὲ καὶ ὁπωσοῦν µετρίαν περὶ αὐτοῦ λαβεῖν, ἀγαπητόν, ἀποκαλυπτοντος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ . . . τοῦτον δὲ τὸν υἱὸν γεννητόν, µονογενῆ υἱόν, εἰκόνα τοῦ ἀοράτου Θεοῦ τυγχάνοντα, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως σοφίαν καὶ λόγον καὶ δύναµιν Θεοῦ, πρὸ αἰώνων ὄντα, οὐ προγνώσει, ἀλλ᾽ οὐσίᾳ καὶ ὑποστάσει Θεὸν Θεοῦ υἱὸν, ἔν τε παλαιᾷ καὶ νέᾳ διαθήκῃ ἐγνωκότες ὁµολογοῦµεν καὶ κηρύσσοµεν. ὃς δ᾽ ἄν ἀντιµάχηται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Θεὸν µὴ εἶναι πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσµου (δεῖν) πιστεύειν καὶ ὁµολογεῖν, φάσκων δύο θεοὺς καταγγέλλεσθαι, ἐὰν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ Θεὸς κηρύσσηται τοῦτον ἀλλότριον τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ κανόνος ἡγούµεθα, καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ καθολικαὶ ἐκκλησίαι συµφωνοῦσιν ἡµῖν. The prehistoric history of the Son is now expounded, and then it goes on: τὸν δὲ υἱὸν παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὄντα Θεὸν µὲν καὶ κύριον τῶν γενητῶν ἁπάντων, ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀποσταλέντα ἐξ οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐνηνθρωπηκέναι. διόπερ καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς παρθένου σῶµα χωρῆσαν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωµα τῆς θεότητος σωµατικῶς, τῇ θεότητι ἀτρέπτως ἥνωται καὶ τεθεοποίηται and at the close: εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς Θεοῦ δύναµις καὶ Θεοῦ σοφία πρὸ αἰώνων ἐστίν· οὕτω καὶ καθὸ Χριστὸς ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὢν τῇ οὐσίᾳ· εἰ καὶ τὰ µάλιστα πολλαῖς ἐπινοίαις ἐπινοεῖται. See also Hahn, Bibl. d. Symbol. 2 Aufl. § 82. 115 The propositions are undoubtedly as a rule phrased biblically 55a , and they are biblical; but they are propositions preferred and edited by the learned exegesis of the Alexandrian which certainly was extremely closely allied with philosophical speculation. 114

put it in another way, — baptismal confessions apparently now first formulated, were introduced in many Oriental communities, which also now contained the doctrine of the Logos. Since these statements were directed against Sabellianism as well as against “Ebionitism”; they will be discussed later on. With the deposition and removal of Paul the historian’s interest in his case is at an end. It was henceforth no longer possible to gain a hearing, in the great forum of Church life, for a Christology which did not include the personal pre-existence of the Redeemer: no one was permitted henceforth to content himself with the elucidation of the divinely-human life of Jesus in his work. It was necessary to believe in the divine nature (physis) of the Redeemer.116 The smaller and remote communities were compelled to imitate the attitude of the larger. Yet we know from the circular letter of Alexander 564 of Alexandria, A.D. 321,117 that the doctrine of Paul did not by any means pass away without leaving a trace. Lucian and his 49famous academy, the alma mater of Arianism, were inspired by the genius of Paul.118 Lucian — himself perhaps, a native of Samosata — had, during the incumbency of three Bishops of Antioch, remained, like Theodotus and his party in Rome, at the head of a school outside of the great Catholic Church.119 In his teaching, and in that of Arius, the foundation laid by Paul is unmistakable. 564 1 But Lucian has

116

The followers of Paul were no longer looked upon as Christians even at the beginning of the fourth century, and therefore they were re-baptised. See the 19 Canon of Nicæa: Περὶ τῶν Παυλιανισάντων, εἶτα προσφυγόντων τῇ καθολικῇ ἐκκλησιᾳ, ὅρος ἐκτέθειται ἀναβαπτίζεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐξάπαντος. 117 Theodoret H. E. I. 4. ab2 118See my article “Lucian” in Herzog’s R.E. 2 Aufl., Bd. VIII., p. 767 ff. 119 See Theodoret 1.c.: αὐτοὶ γὰρ Θεοδίδακτοι ἐστέ, οὐκ ἀγνοοῦντες ὅτι ἡ ἔναγχος ἐπαναστᾶσα τῇ ἐκκλησιαστικῇ εὐσεβείᾳ διδασκαλία Ἐβίωνός ἐστι καὶ Ἀρτεµᾶ, καὶ ζῆλος τοῦ κατ᾽ Ἀντιόχειαν Παύλου τοῦ Σαµοσατέως, συνόδῳ καὶ κρίσει τῶν ἁπανταχοῦ ἐπισκόπων ἀποκηρυχθέντος τῆς ἐκκλησίας — ὃν διαδεξάµενος Λουκιανὸς ἀποσυνάγωγος έµεινε τριῶν ἐπισκόπων πολυετεῖς χρόνους — ὧν τῆς ἀσεβείας τὴν τρύγα ἐρροφηκότες (scil. Arian and his companions) νῦν ἡµῖν τὸ Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐπεφύησαν, τὰ ἐκείνων κεκρυµµένα µοσχεύµατα. 120 See esp. Athanas. c. Arian I. 5. “Arius says that there are two wisdoms, one which is the true one and at the same time exists in God; through this the Son arose and by participation in it he was simply named Word and Wisdom; for wisdom, he says, originated through wisdom according to the will of the wise God. Then he also says that there is another Word apart from the Son in God, and through participation therein the Son himself has been again named graciously Word and Son.” This is the doctrine of Paul of Samos., taken over by Arius from Lucian. On the distinction see above.

falsified the fundamental thought of Paul in yielding to the assumption of a Logos, though a very subordinate and created Logos, and in putting this in the place of the man Jesus, while his disciples, the Arians, have, in the view sketched by them of the person of Christ, been unable to retain the features Paul ascribed to it; though they also have emphasised the importance of the will in Christ. We must conclude, however, that Arianism, as a whole, is nothing but a compromise between the Adoptian and the Logos Christology, which proves that after the close of the 3rd century, no Christology was possible in the Church which failed to recognise the personal pre-existence of Christ. Photinus approximated to Paul of Samosata in the fourth century. Above all, however, the great theologians of Antioch occupied a position by no means remote from him; for the presupposition of the personal Logos Homousios in Christ, which they as Church theologians had to accept simply, could be combined much better with the thought of Paul, than the 50Arian assumption of a subordinate god, with attributes half-human, halfdivine. So also the 564 arguments of Theodore of Mopsuestia as to the relation of the Logos and the man Jesus, as to nature, will, disposition, etc., are here and there verbally identical with those of Paul; and his opponents, especially Leontius,121 were not so far wrong in charging Theodore with teaching like Paul.122 Paul was in fact condemned a second time in the great scholars of Antioch, and — strangely — his name was once more mentioned, and for the third time, in the Monothelite controversy. In this case his statements as to the one will (µία θέλησις sc. of God and Jesus) were shamefully misused, in order to show to the opposition that their doctrine had been already condemned in the person of the arch-heretic. We possess, however, another ancient source of information, 564 of the beginning of the 4th century, the Acta Archelai.123 This shows us that at the extreme eastern boundary of Christendom

ae8 121

See in Routh, l.c., p. 347 sq. See the careful and comprehensive collection of the arguments of Theodore in reference to christology, in Swete, Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in epp. B. Pauli Commentarii, Vol. II. (1882), pp. 289-339. 123 We have to compare also the treatises of Aphraates, written shortly before the middle of the 4th century. He adheres to the designation of Christ as Logos according to John I. 1; but it is very striking that in our Persian author there is not even the slightest allusion in which one could perceive an echo of the Arian controversies (Bickell, Ausgewählte Schriften der syr. Kirchenväter 1874, p. 15). See tract 1, “On faith”, and 17, “Proof that Christ is the Son of God.” 122

there persisted even among Catholic clerics, if we may use here the word Catholic, Christological conceptions which had remained unaffected by Alexandrian theology, and must be classed with Adoptianism. The author’s exposition of Christ consists, so far as we can judge, in the doctrine of Paul of Samosata.124 Here we are shown clearly that the Logos Christology had, at the beginning of the 4th century, not yet passed beyond the borders of the Christendom comprehended in the Roman Empire.

124

On the origin of the Acta Archelai see my Texte und Unters. I. 3, 137 ff. The principal passages are to be found in ch. 49 and 50. In these the Churchman disputes the view of Mani, that Jesus was a spirit, the eternal Son of God, perfect by nature. “Dic mihi, super quem spiritus sanctus sicut columba descendit? Si perfectus erat, si filius erat, si virtus erat, non poterat spiritus ingredi, sicut nec regnum potest ingredi intra regnum. Cuius autem ei cælitus emissa vox testimonium detulit dicens: Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo bene complacui? Dic age nihil remoreris, quis ille est, qui parat hæc omnia, qui agit universa? Responde itane blasphemiam pro ratione impudenter allegas, et inferre conaris?” The following Christology is put in the lips of Mani: “Mihi pium videtur dicere, quod nihil eguerit filius dei in eo quod adventus eius procuratur ad terras, neque opus habuerit columba, neque ba ac8 ptismate, neque matre, neque fratribus.” On the other hand Mani says in reference to the Church views: “Si enim hominem eum tantummodo ex Maria esse dicis et in baptismate spiritum percepisse, ergo per profectum filius videbitur et non per naturam. Si tamen tibi concedam dicere, secundum profectum esse filium quasi hominem factum, hominem vere esse opinaris, id est, qui caro et sanguis sit?” In what follows Archelaus says: “Quomodo poterit vera columba verum hominem ingredi atque in eo permanere, caro enim carnem ingredi non potest? sed magis si Iesum hominem verum confiteamur, eum vero, qui dicitur, sicut columba, Spiritum Sanctum, salva est nobis ratio in utraque. Spiritus enim secundum rectam rationem habitat in homine, et descendit et permanet et competenter hoc et factum est et fit semper . . . Descendit spiritus super hominem dignum se . . . Poterat dominus in cælo positus facere quæ voluerat, si spiritum eum esse et non hominem dices. Sed non ita est, quoniam exinanivit semetipsum formam servi accipiens. Dico autem de eo, qui ex Maria factus est homo. Quid enim? non poteramus et nos multo facilius et lautius ista narrare? sed absit, ut a veritate declinemus iota unum aut unum apicem. Est enim qui de Maria natus est filius, qui totum hoc quod magnum est, voluit perferre certamen Iesus. Hic est Christus dei, qui descendit super eum, qui de Maria est . . . Statim (post baptismum) in desertum a Spiritu ductus est Iesus, quem cum diabolus ignoraret, dicebat ei: Si filius est dei. Ignorabat autem propter quid genuisset filium dei (scil. Spiritus), qui prædicabat regnum cælorum, quod erat habitaculum magnum, nec ab ullo alio parari potuisset; unde et affixus cruci cum resurrexisset ab inferis, assumptus est illuc, ubi Christus filius dei regnabat . . . Sicut enim Paracleti pondus nullus alius valuit sustinere nisi soli discipuli et Paulus beatus, ita etiam spiritum, qui de cælis descenderat, per quem vox paterna testatur dicens: Hic est filius meus dilectus, nullus alius portare prævaluit, nisi qui ex Maria natus est super omnes sanctos Iesus.” It is noteworthy that the author (in ch. 37) ranks Sabellius as a heretic with Valentinus, Marcion, and Tatian.

xsl:value-of select="@title"/> 51

3. Expulsion of Modalistic Monarchianism. (a). The Modalistic Monarchians in Asia M 554 inor and in the West: Noëtus, Epigonus, Cleomenes, Aeschines, Praxeas, Victorinus (Victor), Zephyrinus, Sabellius, Callistus.125 The really dangerous opponent of the Logos Christology in the period between A.D. 180 and 300 was not Adoptianism, but the doctrine which saw the deity himself incarnate in Christ, and conceived Christ to be God in a human body, the Father 52become flesh. Against this view the great Doctors of the Church — Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, but above all, Hippolytus — had principally to fight. Its defenders were called by Tertullian

125

Döllinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, 1853. Volkmar, Hippolyt. und die röm. Zeitgenossen, 1855. Hagemann, Die röm ac8 ische Kirche, 1864. Langen, Gesch. d. römischen Kirche I., p. 192 ff. Numerous monographs on Hippolytus and the origin of the Philosophumena, as also on the authorities for the history of the early heretics, come in here. See also Caspari, Quellen III., vv. ll. The authorites are for Noëtus, the Syntagma of Hippolytus (Epiph., Philaster, Pseudo-Tertull.), and his great work against Monarchianism, of which the so-called Ὁµιλία Ἱππολύτου εἰς τὴν αἵρεσιν Νοήτου τινός (Lagarde, Hippol. quæ feruntur, p. 43 sq.) may with extreme probability be held to be the conclusion. Both these works have been made use of by Epiph. H. 57. [When Epiph. (l.c. ch. 1) remarks that “Noëtus appeared ± 130 years ago”, it is to be inferred that he fixed the date from his authority, the anti-monarchian work of Hippolytus. For the latter he must have had a date, which he believed he could simply transfer to the period of Noëtus, since Noëtus is described in the book as οὐ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου γενόµενος. But in that case his source was written about A.D. 230-240, i.e., almost at the same time as the so-called Little Labyrinth. It is also possible, however, that the above date refers to the excommunication of Noëtus. In that case the work which has recorded this event, can have been written at the earliest in the fourth decade of the fourth century]. Most of the later accounts refer to that of Epiph. An independent one is the section Philos. IX. 7 sq. (X. 27; on this Theodoret is dependent H. F. III. 3). For Epigonus and Cleomenes we have Philos. IX. 7, 10, 11, X. 27; Theodoret H. F. III. 3. For Æschines: Pseudo-Tertull. 26; Philos. VIII. 19, X. 26; for Praxeas: Tertull. adv. Prax., Pseudo-Tertull. 30. The later Latin writers against heretics are at this point all dependent on Tertullian; yet see Optat., de schism. I. 9. Lipsius has tried to prove that Tertullian has used “Hippolytus against Noëtus” in his work adv. Prax. (Quellen-kritik, p. 43; Ketzergeschichte, p. 183 f.; Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologie, 1868, p. 704); but the attempt is not successful (see Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol., 1874, p. 200 f.). For Victorinus we have Pseudo-Tertull. 30. For Zephyrinus and Callistus: Philos. IX. 11 sq. Origen has also had Roman Monarchians in view in many of the arguments in his commentaries. On Origen’s residence in Rome and his relations with Hippolytus, see Euseb. H. E. VI. 14; Jerome, De vir. inl. 61; Photius Cod. 121; on his condemnation at Rome, see Jerome Ep. 33, ch. 4.

“Monarchiani”, and, not altogether correctly, “Patripassiani” which afterwards became the usual names in the West (see e.g., Cypr., Ep. 73. 4). In the East they were all designated, after the famous head of the school, “Sabelliani” from the second half of the third century; yet the name of “Patripassiani” was not quite unknown there also. 54b 126 Hippolytus tells us in 53the Philosophumena, that at that time the Monarchian controversy agitated the whole Church,127 and Tertullian and Origen testified, that in their day the “economic” trinity, and the technical application of the conception of the Logos to Christ, were regarded by the mass of Christians with suspicion.128 Modalism, as we now know from the Philosoph., was for almost a generation the official theory in Rome. That it was not an absolute novelty can be proved; 58d 1 but it is very

ac8 126Orig. in Titum, Lomm. V., p. 287 “. . . sicut et illos, qui superstitiose magis quam religiose, uti ne videantur duos deos dicere, neque rursum negare salvatoris deitatem, unam eandemque substantiam patris ac filii asseverant, id est, duo quidem nomina secundum diversitatem causarum recipientes, unam tamen ὑπόστασιν subsistere, id est, unam personam duobus nominibus subiacentem, qui latine Patripassiani appellantur.” Athanas., de synod. 7 after the formula Antioch. macrostich. 127 IX. 6: µέγιστον τάραχον κατὰ πάντα τὸν κόσµον ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς πιστοῖς ἐµβάλλουσιν. 128 Ad. Prax. 3: Simplices quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ maior semper pars credentium est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sæculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intelligentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua οἰκονοµία esse credendum, expavescunt ad οἰκονοµία . . . Itaque duos et tres iam iactitant a nobis prædicari, se vero unius dei cultores præsumunt, . . . monarchiam inquiunt tenemus.” Orig., in Joh. II 3. Lomm. I. p. 95: Ἕτεροι δὲ οἱ µηδὲν εἰδότες, εἰ µὴ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν καὶ τοῦτον ἐσταυρωνένον, τὸν γενόµενον σάρκα λόγον τὸ πᾶν νοµίσαντες εἶναι τοῦ λόγου, Χριστὸν κατὰ σάρκα µόνον γιγνώσκουσι τοιοῦτον δέ ἐστι τὸ πλῆθος τῶν πεπιστευκέναι νοµιζὸµένων. Origen has elsewhere distinguished four grades in religion: (1) those who worship idols, (2) those who worship ac8 angelic powers, (3) these to whom Christ is the entire God, (4) those whose thoughts rise to the unchangeable deity. Clement (Strom. VI. 10) had already related that there were Christians who, in their dread of heresy, demanded that everything should be abandoned as superfluous and alien, which did not tend directly to blessedness. 129 See above (Vol. I., p. 195) where reference is made, on the one hand, to the Modalism reflected in Gnostic and Enkratitic circles (Gosp. of the Egypt., and Acta Lenc., Simonians in Iren. I. 231); on the other, to the Church formulas phrased, or capable of being interpreted, modalistically (see II. Ep. of Clement, Ign. ad Ephes., Melito [Syr. Fragments]; and in addition, passages which speak of God having suffered, died, etc.). It is instructive to notice that the development in Marcionite Churches and Montanist communities moved parallel to that in the great Church. Marcion himself, being no dogmatist, did not take any interest in the question of the relation of Christ to the higher God. Therefore it is not right to reckon him among the Modalists, as Neander

probable, on 54the other hand, that a Modalistic doctrine, which sought to exclude every other, only existed from the end of the second century. It was in opposition to Gnosticism that the first effort was made to fix theologically the formulas of a naïve Modalism, and that these were used to confront the Logos Christology in order (1) to avert Ditheism, (2) to maintain the complete divinity of Christ, and (3) to prevent the attacks of Gnosticism. An attempt was also made, however, to prove Modalism by exegesis. That is equivalent to saying that this form of doctrine, which was embraced by the great majority of Christians,130 was supported by scientific authorities, from the end of the second century. But it can be shown without difficulty, how hurtful any contact with theology could not fail to be to the naïve conception of the incarnation of the deity in Christ, and we may

has done (Gnost. Syxteme, p. 294, Kirchengesch. I. 2. p. 796). But it is certain that later Marcionites in the West taught Patripassianism (Ambros. de fide V. 13. 162, T. II., p. 579; Ambrosiaster ad I. Cor. II. 2, T. II., App. p. 117). Marcionites and Sabellians were therefore at a later date not seldom classed together. Among the Montanists at Rome there were, about A.D. 200, a Modalistic party and one that taught like Hippolytus; at the head of the former stood Æschines, at the head of the latter Proculus. Of the followers of Æschines, Hippolytus says (Philos. X. 26) that their doctrine was that of Noëtus: αὐτὸν εἶναι υἱὸν καὶ πατέρα, ὁρατὸν καὶ ἀόρατον; γεννητὸν καὶ ἀγέννητον, θνητὸν καὶ ἀθάνατον. It is rather an idle question whether Montanus himself and the prophetic women taught Modalism. They certainly used formulas which had a Modalistic sound; but they had also others which could afterwards be interpreted and could not but be interpreted “economically”. In the Test. of the XII. Patriarchs many passages that, in the Jewish original, spoke of Jehovah’s appearance among his people must now have received a Christian impress from their Christian editor. It is remarkabl 564 e that, living in the third century, he did not scruple to do this, see Simeon 6: ὅτι ὁ κύριος ὁ Θεὸς µέγας τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, φαινόµενος επὶ γῆς ὡς ἀνθρώπος καὶ σώζων ἐν αὐτῷ τὸν Ἀδάµ . . . ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς σῶµα λαβὼν καὶ συνεσθίων ἀνθρώποις ἔσωσεν ἀνθρώπους; Levi 5, Jud. 22, Issachar. 7: ἔχοντες µεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν τὸν Θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, συµπορευόµενον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις: Zebul. 9: ὅψεσθε Θεὸν ἐν σχήµατι ἀνθρώπου; Dan. 5; Naphth. 8: ὀφθήσεται Θεὸς κατοικῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐπι τῆς γῆς: Asher 7: ἕως οὗ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐπισκέψηται τὴν γῆν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐλθὼν ὡς ἄνθρωπος µετὰ ἀνθρώπων ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων; Benjamin 10. Very different Christologies, however, can be exemplified from the Testaments. It is not certain what sort of party Philaster (H. 51) meant (Lipsius Ketzergesch., p. 99 f.). In the third century Modalism assumed various forms, among which the conception of a formal transformation of God into man, and a real transition of the one into the other, is no ac8 teworthy. An exclusive Modalistic doctrine first existed in the Church after the fight with Gnosticism. 130 Tertull. l.c. and ch. I.: “simplicitas doctrinæ”, ch. 9, Epiphan. H. 62. 2 ἀφελεστατοι ἢ ἀκέραιοι. Philos. IX. 7, 11: Ζεφυρῖνος ἰδιώτης καί ἀγράµµατος, l.c. ch. 6: ἀµαθεῖς.

say that it was all over with it — though of course the deathstruggle lasted long eb0 — when it found itself compelled to attack others or to defend itself. When it required to clothe itself in a cloak manufactured by a scientific theology, and to reflect on the idea of God, it belied its own nature, and lost its raison d’être. What it still retained was completely distorted by its opponents. Hippolytus has in the Philosophumena represented the doctrine of Noëtus to have been borrowed from Heraclitus. That 55is, of course, an exaggeration. But once we grasp the whole problem “philosophically and scientifically” — and it was so understood even by some scientific defenders of Monarchianism — then it undoubtedly resembles strikingly the controversy regarding the idea of God between the genuine Stoics and the Platonists. As the latter set the transcendent, apathetic God of Plato above the λόγοςθεός of Heraclitus and the Stoics, so Origen, e.g., has charged the Monarchians especially with stopping short at the God manifest, and at work, in the world, instead of advancing to the “ultimate” God, and thus apprehending the deity “economically”. Nor can it surprise us that Modalistic Monarchianism, after some of its representatives had actually summoned science, i.e., the Stoa, to their assistance, moved in the direction of a pantheistic conception of God. But this does not seem to have happened at the outset, or to the extent assumed by the opponents of the school. Not to speak of its uncultured adherents, the earliest literary defenders of Modalism were markedly monotheistic, and had a real interest in Biblical Christianity. It marks the character of the opposition, however, that they at once scented the God of Heraclitus and Zeno — a proof of how deeply they themselves were involved in Neoplatonic theology.131 As it was in Asia 56Minor that Adoptianism

131

That the scientific defenders of Modalism adopted the Stoic method — just as the Theodotians had the Aristotelian (see above) — is evident, and Hippolytus was therefore so far correct in connecting Noëtus with Heraclitas, i.e., with the father of the Stoa. To Hagemann belongs the merit (Röm. Kirche, pp. 354-371) of having demonstrated the traces of Stoic Logic and Metaphysics in the few and imperfectly transmitted tenets of the Modalists. (See here Hatch, The influence etc., p. 19 f. on the σύπάσχειν and the substantial unity of ψυχή and σῶµα). We can still recognise, especially from Novatian’s refutation, the syllogistic method of the Modalists, which rested on nominalist, i.e., Stoic, logic. See, e.g., the proposition: “Si unus deus Christus, Christus autem deus, pater est Christus, quia unus deus; si non pater sit Christus, dum et deus filius Christus, duo dii contra scripturas introducti videantur.” But those utterances in which contradictory attributes, such as visible-invisible etc., are ascribed to God, could be excellently supported by the Stoic system of categories. That system distinguished ἴδια (οὐσία, ὑποκείµενον) from συµβεβηκότα, or more accurately (1) ὑποκείµενα (substrata, subjects of judgment); (2) ποιά (qualitatives); (3) πὼς ἔχοντα (definite modifications)

and (4) πρός τι πὼς ἔχοντα (relative modifications). Nos. 2-4 form the qualities of the idea as a συγκεχυοµένον; but 2 and 3 belong to the conceptual sphere of the subject itself, while 4 embraces the variable relation of the subject to other subjects. The designations Father and Son, visible and 564 invisible etc., must be conceived as such relative, accidental, attributes. The same subject can in one relation be Father, in another Son, or, according to circumstances, be visible or invisible. One sees that this logical method could be utilised excellently to prove the simple unreasoned propositions of the old Modalism. There are many traces to show that the system was applied in the schools of Epigonus and Cleomenes, and it is with schools we have here to deal. Thus, e.g., we have the accusation which, time and again, Origen made against the Monarchians, that they only assume one ὑποκειµένον, and combine Father and Son indiscriminately as modes in which it is manifested. (Hagemann refers to Orig. on Matt. XVI. 14: οἱ συγχέοντες πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ ἔννοιαν; and on John X. 21: συγχεόµενοι ἐν τῷ περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ τόπῳ — but συγχέειν is the Stoic term). The proposition is also Stoic that while the one ὑποκειµένον is capable of being divided (διαρεῖν), it is only subjectively, in our conceptions of it (τῇ ἐπινοίᾳ µόνῃ), so that merely ὀνόµατα not differences καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν, result. Further, the conception of the Logos as a mere sound is verbally that of the Stoics, who ac8 defined the φωνή (λόγος) as ἀὴρ πεπληγµένος ἢ τὸ ̓ίδιον αἰσθητὸν ἀκοῆς. Tertullian adv. Prax.7; “quid est enim, dices, sermo nisi vox et sonus oris et sicut grammatici tradunt, aër offensus, intelligibilis auditu, ceterum vacuum nescio quid et inane et incorporale?” Hippolyt., Philos. X. 33: Θεὸς λόγον ἀπογεννᾷ, οὐ λόγον ὡς φωνήν. Novatian, de trinit. 31: “sermo filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aëris aut tono coactæ de visceribus vocis accipitur.” The application of Nominalist Logic and Stoic Methaphysics to theology was discredited in the controversy with the Modalists under the names of “godless science”, or “the science of the unbelievers”, just as much as Aristotelian philosophy had been in the fight with the Adoptians. Therefore, even as early as about A.D. 250, one of the most rancorous charges levelled at Novatian by his enemies was that he was a follower of another, i.e., of the Stoic, philosophy (Cornelius ap. Euseb. H. E. VI. 43. 16; Cypr. Ep. 55. 24, 60. 3). Novatian incurred this reproach because he opposed the Monarchians with their own, i.e., the syllogistic, method, and because he had maintained, as was alleged, imitating the Stoics, “omnia peccata paria esse.” Now if the philosophy of Adoptian scholars was Aristotelian, and that of Modalistic scholars was Stoic, so the philosophy of Tatian, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen, in reference to the One and Many, and the real evolutions (µερισµός) of the one to the many is unmistakably Platonic. Hagemann (l.c. pp. 182-206) has shown the extent to which the expositions of Plotinus (or Porphyry) coincide in contents and form, method and expression — see especially the conception of Hypostasis (substance) in Plotinus — with those of the Christian theologians mentioned, among whom we have to include Valentinus. (See also Hipler in the östr. Vierteljahrsschr. f. Kath. Theol. 1869, p. 161 ff., quoted after Lösche, Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1884, p. 259). When the Logos Christology triumphed completely in the Church at the end of the third century, Neoplatonism also triumphed over Aristotelianism and Stoicism in ecclesiastical science, and it was only in the West that theologians, like Arnobius, were tolerated who in their pursuit of Christian knowledge rejected Platonism.

first entered into conflict with the Logos Christology, so the Church of Asia Minor seems to have been the scene of the first Modalistic controversy, while in both cases natives of that country transferred the dispute to Rome. 57

It is possible that Noëtus was not excommunicated till about A.D. 230, and, even if we cannot now discover his date more accurately, it seems to be certain that he first excited attention as a Monarchian, and probably in the last twenty years of the second century. This was perhaps in Smyrna,132 his native place, perhaps in Ephesus.133 He was excommunicated in Asia Minor, only after the whole controversy had, comparatively speaking, come to a close in Rome.134 This explains why Hippolytus ha eb0 s mentioned him last in his great work against the Monarchians, while in the Philosoph. he describes him as the originator (IX. 6: ἀρχηγόν) of the heresy.135 A disciple of his, Epigonus, came to Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, or shortly before (+ 200), and is said to have there diffused the teaching of his master, and to have formed a separate party of Patripassians. At first Cleomenes, the disciple of Epigonus, was regarded as the head of the sect, and then, from c. A.D. 215, Sabellius. Against these there appeared, in the Roman Church, especially the presbyter Hippolytus, who sought to prove that the doctrine promulgated by them was a revolutionary error. But the sympathies of the vast majority of the Roman Christians, so far as they could take any part in the dispute, were on the side of the Monarchians, and even among the clergy only a minority supported Hippolytus. The “uneducated” Bishop Zephyrine, advised by the prudent Callistus, was himself disposed, like Victor, his predecessor (see under), to the Modalistic views; but his main effort seems to have been to calm the contending parties, and at any cost to avoid a new 58schism in the Roman Church, already sadly split up. After his death the same policy was continued by Callistus (217-222), now raised to the Bishopric. But

132 563

Hippol. c. Noët. I., Philos. IX. 7. Epiph. l.c., ch. I. 134 According to Hippol. c. Noët. I., he was not condemned after the first trial, but only at the close of a second, — a proof of the uncertainty that still prevailed. It is impossible now to discover what ground there was for the statement that Noëtus gave himself out to be Moses, and his brother to be Aaron. 135 ac9 The fact that Noëtus was able to live for years in Asia Minor undisturbed, has evidently led Theodoret into the mistake that he was a later Monarchian who only appeared after Epigonus and Cleomenes. For the rest, Hippolytus used the name of Noëtus in his attack on him, simply as a symbol under which to oppose later Monarchians (see Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol. 1874, p. 201); this is at once clear from ch. 2. 133

as the schools now attacked each other more violently, and an agreement was past hoping for, the Bishop determined to excommunicate both Sabellius and Hippolytus, the two heads of the contending factions.136 The Christological formula, which Callistus himself composed, was meant to satisfy the less passionate adherents of both parties, and this it did, so far as we may conjecture. The small party of Hippolytus “the true Catholic Church”, held its ground in Rome for only about fifteen years, that of Sabellius probably longer. The formula of Callistus was the bridge, on which the Roman Christians, who were originally favourable to Monarchianism, passed over to the recognition of the Logos Christology, following the trend of the times, and the science of the Church. This doctrine must have already been the dominant theory in Rome when Novatian wrote his work De Trinitate, and from that date it was never ousted thence. It had been established in the Capital by a politician, who, for his own part, and so far 59as he took any interest at all in dogmatics, had been more inclined to the Modalistic theory.137

136

Philos. IX. 12: Οὕτως ὁ Κάλλιστος µετὰ τὴν τοῦ Ζεφυρίνου τελευτὴν νοµίζων τετυχηκέναι οὗ ἐθηρᾶτο, τὸν Σαβέλλιον ἀπέωσεν ὡς µὴ φρονοῦντα ὀρθῶς, δεδοικὼς ἐµὲ καὶ νοµίζων οὕτω δύνασθαι ἀποτρίψασθαι τὴν πρὸς τὰς ἐκκλησίας κατηγορίαν, ὡς µὴ ἀλλοτρίως φρονῶν. Hippolytus, whose treatment of Sabellius is respectful, compared with his attitude to Callistus, says nothing of his own excommunication; it is therefore possible that he and his small faction had already separated from Callistus, and for their part had put him under the ban. This cannot have happened under Zephyrine, as is shown directly by Philos. IX. 11, and all we can infer from ch. 7 is that the party of Hippolytus had ceased to recognise even Zephyrine as Bishop; so correctly Döllinger, l.c., p. 101 f., 223 f., a different view in Lipsius, Ketzergeschichte, p. 150. The situation was doubtless this: Epigonus and Cleomenes had founded a real school (διδαςκαλεῖον) in the Roman Church, perhaps in opposition to that of the Theodotians, and this school was protected by the Roman bishops. (s. Philos. IX. 7: Ζεφυρῖνος [τῷ κέρδει προσφεροµένῳ τειθόµενος] συνεχώρει τοῖς προσιοῦσι τῷ Κλεοµένει µαθητεύεσθαι . . . Τούτων κατὰ διαδοχὴν διέµεινε τὸ διδασκαλεῖον κρατυνόµενον καὶ ἐπαῦξον διὰ τὸ συναίρεσθαι αὐτοῖς τὸν Σεφυρῖνον καὶ τὸν Κὰλλιστον). Hippolytus attacked the orthodoxy and Church character of the school, which possessed the sympathy of the Roman community, and he succeeded, after Sabellius had become its head, in getting Callistus to 564 expel the new leader from the Church. But he himself was likewise excommunicated on account of his Christology, his “rigourism” and his passionate agitations. At the moment the community of Callistus was no longer to him a Catholic Church, but a διδασκαλεῖον (see Philos. IX. 12, p 458, 1; p. 462, 42). 137 The attempt has been made in the above to separate the historical kernel from the biassed description of Hippolytus in the Philos. His account is reproduced most correctly by Caspari (Quellen III., p. 325 ff.). Hippolytus has not disguised the fact that the Bishops had the great mass of the Roman community on their side (IX. 11), but he has

The scantiness of our sources for the history of Monarchianism in Rome, — not to speak of other cities — in spite of the discovery of the Philosophumena, is shown most clearly by the circumstance that Tertullian has not mentioned the names of Noëtus, Epigonus, Cleomenes, or Callistus; on the other hand, he has introduced a Roman Monarchian, Praxeas, whose name is not mentioned by Hippolytus in any o eb0 f his numerous controversial writings. This fact has seemed so remarkable that very hazardous hypotheses have been set up to explain it. It has been thought that “Praxeas” is a nickname (= tradesman), and that by it we ought really to understand Noëtus,138 Epigonus,139 or Callistus.140 The correct view is to be found in Döllinger141 and Lipsius.142 Praxeas143 had come to Rome before Epigonus, at a date anterior to the earliest of Hippolytus’ personal recollections, accordingly about contemporaneously with Theodotus, or a little earlier, while Victor was Bishop; according to Lipsius, and this is probable, even during the episcopate of Eleutherus.144 He probably resided only a short time in Rome, 60where he met with no opposition; and he founded no school in the city. When, twenty years afterwards, the controversy was at its height in Rome and Carthage, and Tertullian found himself compelled to enter the lists against Patripassianism, the name of Praxeas was almost forgotten. Tertullian, however, laid hold of him because Praxeas had been the first to raise a discussion in Carthage also, and because he had an antipathy to Praxeas who was a decided anti-montanist. In his attack, Tertullian has, however, reviewed the historical circumstances of about the year A.D. 210, when his work Adv. Prax. was written; nay, he manifestly alludes to the Roman Monarchians, i.e., to Zephyrinus and those protected by him. This observation contains what truth

everywhere scented hypocrisy, intrigues and subserviency, where it is evident to the present day that the Bishops desired to protect the Church from the rabies theologorum. In so doing, they only did what their office demanded, and acted in the spirit of their predecessors, in whose days the acceptance of the brief and broad a9c Church confession was alone decisive, while beyond that freedom ruled. It is also evident that Hippolytus considered Zephyrine and the rest a set of ignorant beings (idiotes), because they would not accede to the new science and the “economic” conception of God. 138 According to Pseudo-Tertull. 30, where in fact the name of Praxeas is substituted for Noëtus. 139 De Rossi, Bullet. 1866, p. 170. 140 So, e.g., Hagemann, l.c., p. 234 f., and similarly at an earlier date, Semler. 141 L.c., p. 198. 142 Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1868, H. 4. 143 The name has undoubtedly not been shown elsewhere up till now. 58f 144Chronol. d. röm. Bischöfe, p. 173 f.

there is in the hypothesis that Praxeas is only a name for another well-known Roman Monarchian. Praxeas was a confessor of Asia Minor, and the first to bring the dispute as to the Logos Christology to Rome.145 At the same time he brought from his bi eb0 rth-place a resolute zeal against the new prophecy. We are here, again, reminded of the faction of Alogi of Asia Minor who combined with the rejection of the Logos Christology an aversion from Montanism; cf. also the Roman presbyter Caius. Not only did his efforts meet with no opposition in Rome, but Praxeas induced the Bishop, by giving him information as to the new prophets and their communities in Asia, to recall the litteræ pacis, which he had already sent them, and to aid in expelling the Paraclete.146 If this Bishop was Eleutherus, and that is probable from Euseb. H. E. V. 4, then we have four Roman Bishops in succession who declared themselves in favour of the Modalistic Christology, viz., Eleutherus, Victor, Zephyrine, and Callistus; for we learn from PseudoTertullian that Victor took the part of Praxeas.147 But it is also 61possible that Victor was the Bishop whom Tertullian (Adv. Prax.) was thinking of, and in that case Eleutherus has no place here. It is at all events certain that when Dynamistic Monarchianism was proscribed by Victor, it was expelled not by a defender of the Logos Christology, but in the interests of a Modalistic Christology. The labours of Praxeas did not yet bring about a controversy in Rome with the Logos Doctrine; he was merely the forerunner of Epigonus and Cleomenes there. From Rome he betook himself to Carthage,148

145

Adv. Prax.: Iste primus ex Asia hoc genus perversitatis intulit Romam, homo et alias inquietus, insuper de iactatione martyrii inflatus ob solum et simplex et breve carceris tædium. 146 L.c.: Ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romæ procuravit, prophetiam expulit et hæresim intulit, paracletum fugavit et patrem crucifixit. aa6 147Pseudo-Tertull.: Praxeas quidem hæresim introduxit quam Victorinus corroborare curavit. This Victorinus is rightly held by most scholars to be Bishop Victor; (1) there is the name (on Victor = Victorinus, see Langen l c., p. 196; Caspari, Quellen III., p. 323, n. 102); (2) the date; (3) the expression “curavit” which points to a high position, and is exactly paralleled by the συναί used by Hippolytus in referring to Zephyrine and Callistus (see p. 58, note 1); lastly, the fact that Victor’s successors, as we know definitely, held Monarchian views. The excommunication of Theodotus by Victor proves nothing, of course, to the contrary; for the Monarchianism of this man was of quite a different type from that of Praxeas. 148 This is definitely to be inferred from the words of Tertullian (l.c.): “Fructicaverant avenæ Praxeanæ hic quoque superseminatæ dormientibus multis in simplicitate doctrinæ”; see Caspari, l.c.; Hauck, Tertullian, p. 368; Langen, l.c., p. 199; on the other side Hesselberg, Tertullian Lehre, p. 24, and Hagemann, l.c.

and strove against the assumption of any distinction between God and Christ. But he was resisted by Tertullian, who, at that time, still belonged to the Catholic Church, and he was silenced, and even compelled to make a written recantation. With this ended the first phase of the dispute.149 The name of Praxeas does not again occur. But it was only several years afterwards that the controversy became really acute in Rome and Carthage, and caused Tertullian to write his polemical work.150 Of the final stages of Monarchianism in Carthage and Africa we know nothing certain. Yet see under. It is not possible, from the state of our sources, to give a complete and homogeneous description of the doctrine of the older Modalistic Monarchianism. But the sources are not alone to blame for this. As soon as the thought that God Himself 62was incarnate in Christ had to be construed theologically, very various attempts could not fail to result. These could lead, and so far did lead, on the b38 one hand, to hazardous conceptions involving transformation, and, on the other, almost to the border of Adoptianism; for, as soon as the indwelling of the deity of the Father (deitas patris) in Jesus was not grasped in the strict sense as an incarnation, as soon as the element that in Jesus constituted his personality was not exclusively perceived in the deity of the Father, these Christians were treading the ground of the Artemonite heresy. Hippolytus also charged Callistus with wavering between Sabellius and Theodotus,151 and in his work against Noëtus he alludes (ch. III.) to a certain affinity between the latter and the leather-worker. In the writings of Origen, moreover, several passages occur, regarding which it will always be uncertain whether they refer to Modalists or Adoptians. Nor can this astonish us, for Monarchians of all shades had a common interest in opposition to the Logos Christology: they represented the conception of the Person of Christ founded on the history of salvation, as against one based on the history of his nature. Among the different expositions of the doctrine of the older Modalists that of Hippolytus in his work against Noëtus shows us it in its simplest form. The Monarchians there described are

149

Tertullian, l.c.: Avenæ Praxeanæ traductæ dehinc per quem deus voluit (scil. per me), etiam evulsæ videbantur. Denique caverat pristinum doctor de emendatione sua, et manet chirographum apud psychicos, apud quos tunc gesta res est; exinde silentium. 150 Tertull., l.c. Avenæ vero illæ ubique tunc semen excusserant. Ita altquamdiu per hypocrisin subdola vivacitate latitavit, et nunc denuo erupit. Sed et denuo eradicabitur, si voluerit dominus. 151 Philos. IX. 12, X. 27. Epiph. H. 57. 2.

introduced to us as those who taught that Christ is the Father himself, and that the Father was born, suffered and died.152 If Christ is God, then he is certainly the Father, or he would not be God. If Christ, accordingly, truly suffered, then the God, who is God alone, suffered.153 But they were not only influenced by a decided interest in Monotheism,154a cause which they held to have been injured by their opponents, ade 1 whom 63they called ditheists (δίθεοι), but they fought in behalf of the complete deity of Jesus, which, in their opinion, could only be upheld by their doctrine.155 In support of the latter they appealed, like the Theodotians, chiefly to the Holy Scriptures, and, indeed, to the Catholic Canon; thus they quoted Exod. III. 6, XX. 2f.; Isa. XLIV. 6, XLV. 5, 14 f.; Baruch. III. 36; John. X. 30, XIV. 8f.; Rom. IX. 5. Even John’s Gospel is recognised; but this is qualified by the most important piece of information which Hippolytus has given about their exposition of the Scriptures. They did not regard that book as justifying the introduction of a Logos, and the bestowal on him of the title Son of God. The prologue of the Gospel, as well as, in general, so many passages in the book, was to be understood allegorically.156 The use of the category of the Logos was accordingly emphatically rejected in their theology. We do not learn any more about the Noëtians here. But in the Philosoph. Hippolytus has discussed their conception of God, and has presented it as follows: ea0 157 They say that one and the same God 152

C. 1: ἔφη τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν πατέρα καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν πατέρα γεγεννῆσθαι καὶ πεπονθέναι καὶ ἀποτεθνηκέναι. 153 C. 2: Εἰ οὖν Χριστὸν ὁµολογῶ Θεόν, αὐτὸς ἄρα ἐστίν ὁ πατὴρ, εἴ γε ἔστιν ὁ Θεός. ἔπαθεν δ ac6 Χριστὸς, αὐτὸς ὢν Θεός, ἄρα οὖν ἔπαθεν πατὴρ, πατὴρ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἦν. 154 Φὰσκουσιν συνιστᾶν ἕνα Θεόν (c. 2). 155 Hippolytus defends himself, c. 11. 14: οὐ δύο θεοὺς λέγω, s. Philos. IX. 11, fin. 12: δηµοσίᾳ ὁ Κάλλιστος ἡµῖν ὀνειδίζει εἰπεῖν· δίθεοί ἐστε. From c. Noët. 11 it appears that the Monarchians opposed the doctrine of the Logos, because it led to the Gnostic doctrine of Æons. Hippolytus had to reply: τὶς ἀποφαίνεται πλήθυν Θεῶν παραβαλλοµένην κατὰ καιρού . He sought to show (ch. 14 sq.) that the µυστή οἰκονοµίας, of the Trinity taught by him was something different from the doctrine of the Æons. 156 Hippol. (c. Noët. I.) makes his opponent say, τὶ οὖν κακὸν ποιῶ δοξά τὸ Χριστό ; see also ch. II. sq.; see again ch. IX. where Hippolytus says to his opponents that the Son must be revered in the way defined by God in Holy Scriptures. 157 S. c. 15: ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ µοι τὶς· Ξένον φέρεις λόγον λέγων υἱόν. Ἰωάννης µὲν γὰρ λέγει λόγον, ἀλλ᾽ ἄλλως ἀλληγορεῖ. 564 158 L. IX. 10. See also Theodoret.

was creator and Father of all things; that he in his goodness appeared to the righteous of olden times, although he is invisible; in other words, when he is not seen, he is invisible, but when he permits himself to be seen, he is visible; he is incomprehensible, when he wills not to be apprehended, comprehensible when he permits himself to be apprehended. So in the same way he is invincible and to be overcome, unbegotten and begotten, immortal and mortal.” Hippolytus continues: 64“Noëtus says, ‘So far, therefore, as the Father was not made, he is appropriately called Father; but in so far as he passively submitted to be born, he is by birth the Son, not of another, but of himself.’” In this way he meant to establish the Monarchia, and to say that he who was called Father and Son, was one and the same, not one proceeding from the other, but he himself from himself; he is distinguished in name as Father and Son, according to the change of dispensations; but it is one and the same who appeared in former times, and submitted to be born of the virgin, and walked as man among men. He confessed himself, on account of his birth, to be the Son to those who saw him, but he did not conceal the truth that he was the Father from those who were able to apprehend it.159 Cleomenes and his party maintain that “he who was nailed to the cross, who committed his spirit to himself, who died and did not die, who raised himself on the third day and rested in the grave, who was pierced with the lance and fastened with nails, was the God and Father of all.” The distinction between Father and Son was accordingly nominal; yet it was to this extent more than nominal, that the one God, in being born man, appeared as Son; it was real, so far, from the point of view of the history of salvation. In support of the identity of the “manifested” and the invisible, these Monarchians referred to the O. T. theophanies, with as good a right as, nay, with a better than, the defenders of the Logos Christology. Now as regards the idea of God, it has been said that “the element of finitude was here potentially placed in God himself,” and that these Monarchians were influenced by Stoicism, etc. While the former statement is probably unwarranted, the Stoic influence, on the contrary, is not to be denied.160 But the foundation to which we

159

We perceive very clearly here that we have before us not an unstudied, but a thought-out, and theological Modalism. As it was evident, in the speculations about Melchisedec of the Theodotians, that they, like Origen, desired to rise from the crucified Jesus to the eternal, godlike Son, so these Modalists held the conception, that the Father himself was to be perceived in Jesus, to be one which was only meant for those who could grasp it. 160 See above (p. 55, note 1). In addition Philos. X. 27: τοῦτον τὸν πατέρα αὐτὸν υἰὸν νοµίζουσι κατὰ καιροὺς καλούµενον πρὸς τὰ συµβαίνοντα.

have to refer them consists of two ancient liturgical 65formulas, used by Ignatius, the author of the II. Ep. of Clement, and Melito,161 whom we include, although he wrote a work “Concerning the creation and genesis of Christ” ( eba περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ). Further, even Ignatius, although he held Christ to have been pre-existent, knew only of one birth of the Son, namely, that of God from the virgin.162 We have here to recognise the conception, according to which, God, in virtue of his own resolve to become finite, capable of suffering etc., can and did decide to be man, without giving up his divinity. It is the old, religious, and artless Modalism, which has here been raised, with means furnished by the Stoa, to a theological doctrine, and has become exclusive. But in the use of the formula “the Father has suffered,” we have undoubtedly an element of novelty; for it cannot be indicated in the post-apostolic age. It is very questionable, however, whether it was ever roundly uttered by the theological defenders of Modalism. They probably merely said that “the Son, who suffered, is the same with the Father.” We do not learn what conception these Monarchians formed of the human σάρξ (flesh) of Jesus, or what significance they attached to it. Even the Monarchian formulas, opposed by Tertullian in “Adv. Prax”, and attributed to Callistus by Hippolytus, are already more complicated. We easily perceive that they were coined in a controversy in which the theological difficulties inherent in the Modalistic doctrine had become notorious. Tertullian’s Monarchians still cling strongly to the perfect identity of the Father and Son;163 they refuse to admit the Logos into their Christology; for the “word” is no substance, but 66merely a “sound”;164 they are

161

See Ignat. ad Ephes. VII. 2: εἷς ιἀτρός ἐστιν σαρκικός τε καὶ πνευµατικός, γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος, ἐν σαρκὶ γενόµενος Θεός, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινὴ, καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ, πρῶτον παθητὸς καὶ τότε ἀπαθής, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός; and see for Clement Vol. I., p. 186 ff. 162 I ac8 t is interesting to notice that in the Abyssinian Church of to-day there is a theological school which teaches a threefold birth of Christ, from the Father in eternity, from the virgin, and from the Holy Ghost at the Baptism; see Herzog, R. E., 2 Aufl., Bd. I., p. 70. 163 C. 1: “Ipsum dicit patrem descendisse in virginem, ipsum ex ea natum, ipsum passum ipsum denique esse Iesum Christum.” c. 2: “post tempus pater natus et pater passus, ipse deus, dominus omnipotens, Iesus Christus prædicatur”; see also c. 13. 164 C. 7: “Quid est enim, dices, sermo nisi vox et sonus oris, et sicut grammatici tradunt, aër offensus, intellegibilis auditu, ceterum vanum nescio quid.”

equally interested with the Noëtians in monotheism,165 though not so evidently in the full divinity of Christ; like them they dread the return of Gnosticism;166 they hold the same view as to the invisibility and visibility of God;167 they appeal to the Holy Scriptures, sometimes to the same passages as the opponents of Hippolytus;168 ebc but they find themselves compelled to adapt their teaching to those proof-texts in which the Son is contrasted, as a distinctive subject, with the Father. This they did, not only by saying that God made himself Son by assuming a body,169or that the Son proceeded from himself170 — for with God nothing is impossible:171 but they distinctly declared that the flesh changed the Father into the Son; or even that in the person of the Redeemer the 67body (the man, Jesus) was the Son, but that the Spirit (God, Christ) was the Father.172For this they appealed to Luke I. 35. They

165

C. 2: “Unicum deum non alias putat credendum, quem si ipsum eundemque et patrem et filium et spiritum s. dicat.” c. 3: “Duos et tres iam iactitant a nobis prædicari, se vero unius dei cultores præsamunt . . . monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus.” c. 13: “inquis, duo dii prædicuntur.” c. 19: “igitur si propterea eundem et patrem et filium credendum putaverunt, ut unum deum vindicent etc.” c. 23: “ut sic duos divisos diceremus, quomodo iactitatis etc.” 166 C. 8: “Hoc si qui putaverit me προβολὴν aliquam introducer,” says Tertullian “quod facit Valentinus, etc.” 552 167See C. 14. 15: “Hic ex diverso volet aliquis etiam filium invisibilem contendere, ut sermonem, ut spiritum . . . Nam et illud adiiciunt ad argumentationem, quod si filius tunc (Exod. 33) ad Moysen loquebatur, ipse faciem suam nemini visibilem pronuntiaret, quia scil. ipse invisibilis pater fuerit in filii nomine. Ac per hoc si eundem volunt accipi et visibilem et invisibilem, quomodo eundem patrem et filium . . . Ergo visibilis et invisibilis idem, et quia utrumque, ideo et ipse pater invisibilis, qua et filius, visibilis . . . Argumentantur, recte utrumque dictum, visibilem quidem in carne, invisibilem vero ante carnem, ut idem sit pater invisibilis ante carnem, qui et filius visibilis in carne.” 168 Thus to Exod. XXXIII. (ch. 14), Rev. I. 18 (ch. 17), Isa XXIV. 24 (ch. 19), esp. John X. 30; XIV. 9, 10 (ch. 20), Isa. XLV. 5 (ch. 20). They admit that in the Scriptures sometimes two, sometimes one, are spoken of; but they argued (ch 18): Ergo quia duos et unum invenimus, ideo ambo unus atque idem et filius et pater.” 169 Ch. 10: “Ipse se sibi filium fecit.” 170 Ch. 11: “Porro qui eundem patrem dicis et filium, eundem et protulisse ex semetipso facis.” 171 To this verse the Monarchians, according to ch. 10, appealed, and they quoted as a parallel the birth from the virgin. 172 Ch. 27: “Æque in una persona utrumque distinguunt, patrem et filium, discentes filium carnem esse, id est hominem, id est Iesum, patrem autem spiritum, id est deum, id est Christum.” On this Tertullian remarks: “et qui unum eundemque contendunt patrem et filium, iam incipiunt dividere illos potius quam unare; talem monarchiam apud

conceived the Holy Spirit to be identical with the power of the Almighty, i.e., with the Father himself, and they emphasised the fact that that which was born, accordingly the flesh, not the Spirit, was to be called Son of God.173 The Spirit (God) was not capable of suffering, but since he entered into the flesh, he sympathised in the suffering. The Son suffered,174 but the Father “sympathised”175 — this being a Stoic expression. Therefore Tertullian says (ch. 23), “Granting that we would thus say, as you assert, that there were two separate (gods), it was more tolerable to affirm two separate (gods) than one dissembling (turn-coat) god” [Ut sic divisos diceremus, quomodo iactitatis, tolerabilius erat, duos divisos quam unum deum versipellem prædicare]. It is very evident that whenever the distinction between caro (filius) and spiritus (pater), between the flesh or Son and the Spirit or Father, is taken seriously, the doctrine approximates to the Artemonite idea. It is in fact changing its coat (versipell 14a0 is). But it is obvious that even in this form it could not satisfy the defenders of the Logos Christology, for the personal identity between the Father and the Spirit or Christ is still retained. On the whole, every attempt made by Modalism to meet the demands of the Logos doctrine could not fail logically to lead to Dynamistic Monarchianism. We know definitely that the formulas of Zephyrine and Callistus arose out of attempts 68at a compromise,176 though the charge of having two gods was raised against Hippolytus and his party. Zephyrine’s thesis (IX. 11), “I know one God, Christ Jesus, and besides him no other born and suffering,” which he announced with the limiting clause, “the Father did not die, but the Son,”177 agrees with the doctrines of “Praxeas”, but, as is clear from the Philos., is also to be understood as a formula of compromise. Callistus went still further. He found it advisable after the excommunication of Sabellius and Hippolytus, to receive the category of the Logos into the Christological formula meant to harmonise all parties, an act for

Valentinum fortasse didicerunt, duos facere Iesum et Christum.” Tertullian, accordingly, tries to retort on his opponents the charge of dissolving the Monarchia; see even ch. 4. The attack on the assumption of a transformation of the divine into the human does not, for the rest, affect these Monarchians (ch. 27 ff.). ad0 173See ch. 26, 27: “propterea quod nascetur sanctum, vocabitur filius dei; caro itaque nata est, caro itaque erit filius dei.” 174 Ch. 29: “mortuus est non ex divina, sed ex humana substantia.” 175 L. c.: “Compassus est pater filio.” 176 Philos. IX. 7, p. 440. 35 sq.; 11, p. 450. 72 sq. 177 Ἐγὼ οἶδα ἕνα Θεὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ πλὴν αὐτοῦ ἕτερον οὐδένα γεννητὸν καὶ παθητόν — οὐχ ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέθανεν, ἀλλὰ ὁ υἱός.

which he was especially abused by Hippolytus, while Sabellius also accused him of apostasy.178 According to Zephyrine: God is in himself an indivisible Pneuma, which fills all things, or, in other words, the Logos; as Logos he is nominally two, Father and Son. The Pneuma, become flesh in the virgin, is thus in essence not different from, but identical with, the Father (John XIV. 11). He who became manifest, i.e., the man, is the Son, but the Spirit, which entered into the Son, is the Father. “For the Father, who is in the Son, deified the flesh, after he had assumed it, and united it with himself, and established a unity of such a nature that now Father and Son are called one God, and that henceforth it is impossible that this single person can be divided into two; rather the thesis holds true that the Father suffered in sympathy with the Son” — not the Father suffered.179 69

Hippolytus discovered in this formula a mixture of Sabellian and Theodotian ideas, and he was right.180 The approximation to the Christology founded on the doctrine of substances (hypostases), and the departure from the older Monarchianism, are, in fact, only brought about by Callistus having also made use of a Theodotian idea.181 He still kept aloof from the Platonic conception

178

L.c. IX. 12, p. 458, 78: ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σαβελλίου συχνῶς κατηγορεῖσθαι ὡς παραβάντα τὴν πρώτην πίστιν. It is apparently the very formula “Compassus est pater filio” that appeared unacceptable to the strict Monarchians. 179 Philos. IX. 12, p. 458, 80: Κάλλιστος λέγει τὸν λόγον αὐτὸν εἶναι υἱόν, αὐτὸν καὶ πατέρα ὀνόµατι µὲν καλούµενον, ἕν δὲ ὃν τὸ πνεῦµα ἀδιαίρετον. οὐκ ἄλλο εἶναι πατέρα, ἄλλο δὲ υἱόν, ἓν δὲ καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὑπάρχειν, καὶ τὰ πάντα γέµειν τοῦ θείου πνεύµατος τά τε ἄνω καὶ κάτω· καὶ εἶναι τὸ ὲν τῇ παρθένῳ σαρκωθὲν πνεῦµα οὐχ ἕτερον παρὰ τὸν πατέρα, ἀλλὰ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτό. Καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ εἰρηµένον. John. 14. 11. Τὸ µὲν γὰρ βλεπόµενον, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος, τοῦτο εἶναι τὸν υἱόν, τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ χωρηθὲν πνεῦµα τοῦτο εἶναι τὸν πατέρα· οὐ γὰρ, Bησίν, ἐρῶ δύοθεοὺς πατέρα καὶ υἱόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἕνα. Ὁ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ γενόµενος πατὴρ προσλαβόµενος τὴν σ8άρκα ἐθεοποίησεν ἑνώσας ἑαυτῷ, καὶ ἐποίησεν ἕν, ὡς καλεῖσθαι πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν ἕνα Θεόν. καὶ τοῦτο ἓν ὂν πρόσωπον µὴ δύνασθαι εἶναι δύο, καὶ οὕτως τὸν πατέρα συµπεπονθέναι τῷ υἱῷ· οὐ γὰρ θέλει λέγειν τὸν πατέρα πεπονθέναι καὶ ἓν εἶναι πρόσωπον . . . Here something is wanting in the text. 180 ac9 Catholic theologians endeavour to give a Nicene interpretation to the theses of Callistus, and to make Hippolytus a ditheist; see Hagemann, l.c.; Kuhn, Theol. Quartalschrift, 1885, II.; Lehir, Études bibliques, II., p. 383; de Rossi and various others. 181 This is also Zahn’s view, Marcell., p. 214. The doctrine of Callistus is for the rest so obscure, — and for this our informant does not seem to be alone to blame — that, when we pass from it to the Logos Christology, we actually breathe freely, and we can

of God; nay, it sounds like a reminiscence of Stoicism, when, in order to obtain a rational basis for the incarnation, he refers to the Pneuma (Spirit) which fills the universe, the upper and under world. But the fact that his formulas, in spite of this, could render valuable service in Rome in harmonising different views, was not only due to their admission of the Logos conception. It was rather a result of the thought expressed in them, that God in becoming incarnate had deified the flesh, and that the Son, in so far as he represented the essentially deified σἀρξ, was to be conceived as a second person, and yet as one really united with God.182 At this point the ultimate Catholic interest in the Christology comes correctly to light, and this is an interest not clearly perceptible elsewhere in Monarchian theories. It was thus that men were gradually tranquillised in 1017 Rome, and only the few extremists of the Left and Right parties offered any resistance. Moreover, the formula was extraordinarily adapted, by its very vagueness, to set up among the believing people the religious Mystery, under whose protection the Logos Christology gradually made good its entrance. The latter was elaborated in opposition to Modalism by Tertullian, 70Hippolytus, and Novatian in the West.183 While Adoptianism apparently played a very small part in the development of the Logos Christology in the Church, the Christological theses of Tertullian and the rest were completely dependent on the opposition to the Modalists.184 This reveals itself especially in the strict subordination of the Son to the Father. It was only by such a subordination that it was possible to repel the charge, made by opponents, of teaching that there were two Gods. The philosophical conception of God implied in the Logos theory was now set up definitely as the doctrine of the Church, and was construed to mean that the unity of God was simply to be understood as a “unicum imperium”, which God could cause to be administered by his chosen officials. Further, the attempt was made to prove that Monotheism was satisfactorily guarded by the Father remaining the sole First Cause.185 But while the reproach was thus repelled of making Father and Son “brothers”, an approach was made to the Gnostic doctrine of Æons, and

understand how the latter simpler and compact doctrine finally triumphed over the laboured and tortuous theses of Callistus. 182 See the Christology of Origen. 183 See Vol. II., p. 256. 184 This can be clearly perceived by comparing the Christology of Tertullian and Hippolytus with that of Irenæus. 185 See Tertullian adv. Prax. 3; Hippol. c. Noët. 11.

Tertullian himself felt, and was unable to avert, the danger of falling into the channel of the Gnostics.186 His arguments in his writing Adv. Praxeas are not free from half concessions and uncertainties, while the whole tenor of the work contrasts strikingly with that of the anti-gnostic tractates. Tertullian finds himself time and again compelled in his work to pass from the offensive to the defensive, and the admissions that he makes show his uncertainty. Thus he concedes that we may not speak of two Lords or two Gods, that in certain circumstances the Son also can be called Almighty, or even Father, that the Son will in the end restore all things to the Father, and, as it would seem, will merge in the Father; finally, and especially, that the Son is not only not aliud a patre (different in substance from the Father), but even in some way 71not alius a patre187 (different in person etc). Yet Tertullian and his comrades were by no means at a disadvantage in comparison with the Monarchians. They could appeal (1) to the Rule of Faith in which the personal distinction between the Father and Son was recognised; ec5 1 (2) to the Holy Scriptures from which it was, in fact, easy to reduce the arguments of the Monarchians ad absurdum;188 (3) to the distinction between Christians and Jews which consisted, of course, in the belief of the former in the Son;189 and lastly, and this was the most important point, they could cite the Johannine writings, especially in support of the doctrine of the Logos. It was of the highest importance in the controversy that Christ could be shown to have been called the Logos in John’s Gospel and the Apocalypse.190 In view of the way in which the Scriptures were then used in the Church, these passages were fatal to Monarchianism. The attempts to interpret

186 564

Adv. Prax. 8, 13. It is the same with Hippolytus; both have in their attacks on the Modalists taken Valentine, comparatively speaking, under their protection. This is once more a sign that the doctrine of the Church was modified Gnosticism. 187 Ch. 18, in other passages otherwise. 188 Tertull. adv. Prax. 2. Hippol. c. Noët. I. 189 The Monarchian dispute was conducted on both sides by the aid of proofs drawn from exegesis. Tertullian, besides, in Adv. Prax., appealed in support of the “economic” trinity to utterances of the Paraclete. 190 See ad. Prax. 21: “Ceterum Iudaicæ fidei ista res, sic unum deum credere, ut filium adnumerare ei nolis, et post filium spiritum. Quid enim erit inter nos et illos nisi differentia ista? Quod opus evangelii, si non exinde pater et filius et spiritus, tres crediti, unum deum sistunt?” 191 Πιστεύσωµεν, says Hippolyt. c. Noët. 17 — κατά τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀποστόλων ὅτι Θεὸς λόγος ἀπ᾽ οὐρα 564 ῶν κατῆλθεν, — see already Tatian, Orat. 5 following Joh. I. 1: Θεὸς ἦν ἐν ἀρχῆ, τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν λόγου δύναµιν παρειλήφαµεν.

them symbolically192 could not but fail in the end, as completely as those, e.g., of Callistus and Paul of Samasota, to combine the use of the expression “Logos” with a rejection of the apologetic conception of it based on Philo. Meanwhile Tertullian and Hippolytus did not, to all appearance, yet succeed in getting their form of doctrine approved in the Churches. The God of mystery of whom they taught was viewed as an unknown God, and their Christology did not correspond to the wants of men. The Logos was, indeed, to be held one in essence with God; but yet he was, by his being made the organ of the creation of the world, an inferior 72divine being, or rather at once inferior and not inferior. This conception, however, conflicted with tradition as embodied in worship, which taught men to see God Himself in Christ, quite as much as the attempt was opposed by doctrinal tradition, to derive the use of the name “Son of God” for Christ, not from His miraculous birth, but from a decree dating before the world.193 For the rest, the older enemies of Monarchianism still maintained common ground with their opponents, in so far as God’s evolving of Himself in several substances (Hypostases) was throughout affected by the history of the world (cosmos), and in this sense by the history of revelation. The difference between them and at least the later Monarchians was here only one of degree. The latter began at the incarnation (or at the theophanies of the O. T.), and from it dated a nominal plurality, the former made the “economic” self-unfolding of God originate im e90 mediately before the creation of the world. Here we have the cosmological interest coming once more to the front in the Church Fathers and displacing the historical, while it ostensibly raised the latter to a higher plane. Wherever the doctrine of the Logos planted itself in the third century the question, whether the divine being who appeared on earth was identical with the Deity, was answered in the negative.194 In opposition to this Gnostic view, which was first to be corrected in the fourth century, the Monarchians maintained a very ancient and valuable position in clinging to the identity of the eternal Deity, with the Deity revealed on earth. But does not the dilemma that arises show that the speculation on both sides was as untenable as unevangelical? Either we preserve the identity, and in that case defend the thesis, at once absurd and inconsistent with the Gospel, that Christ was the Father himself; or with the Gospel we retain the 192

See above, p. 63. In the Symbolum the “γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύµατος ἁγίου” is to be understood as explaining τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. 194 See Adv. P ac8 rax. 16. 193

distinction between Father and Son, but then announce a subordinate God after the fashion of a Gnostic polytheism. Certainly, as regards religion, a very great advance was arrived at, when Athanasius, by his exclusive formula of Λόγος ὁµοούσιος 73(consubstantial Logos), negatived both Modalism and subordinationist Gnosticism, but the Hellenic foundation of the whole speculation was preserved, and for the rational observer a second rock of offence was merely piled upon a first. However, under the conditions of scientific speculation at the time, the formula was the saving clause by which men were once for all turned from Adoptianism, whose doctrine of a deification of Jesus could not fail, undoubtedly, to awaken the most questionable recollections. (b) The last stages of Modalism in the West, and the State of Theology. Our information is very defective concerning the destinies of Monarchianism in Rome and the West, after the close of the first thirty years of the third century; nor are we any better off in respect to the gradual acceptance of the Logos Christology. The excommunication of Sabellius by Callistus in Rome resulted at once in the Monarchians ceasing to find any followers in the West, and in the complete withdrawal soon afterwards of strict and aggressive Modalism.195 Callistus himself has, besides, not left to posterity an altogether clean reputation as regards his Christology, although he had covered himself in the main point by his compromise formula.196 Hippolytus’ sect had ceased to exist about A.D. 250; nay, it is not altogether improbable that he himself made his peace with the great Church shortly before his death. ed0 1 We can infer from Novatian’s important work “De trinitate”, that the

195

On these grounds the doctrine of Sabellius will be described under, in the history of Eastern Modalism. 196 In forged Acts of Synod of the 6th century we read (Mansi, Concil. II., p. 621): “qui se Callistus ita docuit Sabellianum, ut arbitrio suo sumat unam personam esse trinitatis.” The words which follow later, “in sua extollentia separabat trinitatem” have without reason seemed particularly difficult to Döllinger (l.c., p. 247) and Langen (l.c., p. 215). Sabellianism was often blamed with dismembering the Monas (see Zahn, Marcell. p. 211.) 197 See Döllinger, l.c., Hippolytus was under Maximinus banished along with the Roman Bishop Pontian to Sardinia. See the Catal. Liber. sub “Pontianus” (Lipsius, Chronologic, pp. 194, 275).

following tenets were recognised 74in Rome about 250:198 (1) Christ did not first become God. (2) The Father did not suffer. (3) Christ pre-existed and is true God and man.199 But it was not only in Rome that these tenets were established, but also in many provinces. If the Roman Bishop Dionysius could write in a work of his own against the Sabellians, that “Sabellius blasphemed, saying that the Son was himself Father”,200 then we must conclude that this doctrine was then held inadmissible in the West. Cyprian again has expressed himself as follows (Ep. 73. 4): “Patripassiani, Valentiniani, Appelletiani, Ophitæ, Marcionitæ et cetere hæreticorum pestes” ( — the other plagues of heretics), and we must decide that the strict Modalistic form of doctrine was then almost universally condemned in the West. Of the difficulties met with in the ejection of the heresy, or the means employed, we have no information. Nothing was changed in the traditional Creed — a noteworthy and momentous difference from the oriental Churches! But we know of one case in which an important alteration was proposed. The Creed of the Church of Aquileia began, in the fourth century, with the words “I believe in God the Father omnipotent, invisible, and impassible” (Credo in deo patre omnipotente, invisibili et impassibili), and Rufinus, who 75has preserved it for us, tells201 that the addition was made, at any rate as early as the third century, in order to exclude the Patripassians.

198

This writing shows, on the one hand, that Adoptians and Modalists still existed and were dangerous in Rome, and on the other, that they were not found within the Roman Church. On the significance of the writing see Vol. II., p. 313 f. 199 The Roman doctrine of Christ was then as follows: He has always been with the Father (sermo dei), but he ac8 first proceeded before the world from the substance of the Father (ex patre) for the purpose of creating the world. He was born into the flesh, and thus as filius dei and deus adopted a homo; thus he is also filius hominis. “Filius dei” and “filius hominis” are thus to be distinguished as two substances (substantia divina — homo), but he is one person; for he has completely combined, united, and fused the two substances in himself. At the end of things, when he shall have subjected all to himself, he will subject himself again to the Father, and will return to and be merged in him. Of the Holy Spirit it is also true, that he is a person (Paraclete), and that he proceeds from the substance of the Father; but he receives from the Son his power and sphere of work, he is therefore less than the Son, as the latter is less than the Father. But all three persons are combined as indwellers in the same substance, and united by love and harmony. Thus there is only one God, from whom the two other persons proceed. 200 Σαβέλλιος βλασφηµεῖ, αὐτὸν τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι λέγων τὸν πάτερα. See Routh, Reliq. S. III., p. 373 201 Expos. Symboli Apost. ch. 19. The changes which can be shown to have been made on the first article of the Creed elsewhere in the West — see especially the African additions — belong probably at the earliest to the fourth century. Should they be older,

But the exclusion of the strict Modalists involved neither their immediate end, nor the wholesale adoption of the teaching of Tertullian and Hippolytus, of the philosophical doctrine of the Logos. As regards the latter, the recognition of the name of Logos for Christ, side by side with other titles, did not at once involve the reception of the Logos doctrine, and the very fact, that no change was made in the Creed, shows how reluctant men were to give more than a necessary minimum of space to philosophical speculations. They were content with the formula, extracted from the Creed, “Jesus Christus, deus et homo”, and with the combination of the Biblical predicates applied to Christ, predicates which 24cc also governed their conception of the Logos. In this respect the second Book of the Testimonies of Cyprian is of great importance. In the first six chapters the divinity of Christ is discussed, in terms of Holy Scripture, under the following headings. (1) Christum primogenitum esse et ipsum esse sapientiam dei, per quem omnia facta sunt; (2) quod sapientia dei Christus; (3) quod Christus idem sit et sermo dei; (4) quod Christus idem manus et brachium dei; (5) quod idem angelus et deus; (6) quod deus Christus. Then follows, after some sections on the appearing of Christ: (10) quod et homo et deus Christus. The later Nicene and Chalcedonian doctrine was the property of the Western Church from the third century, not in the form of a philosophically technical speculation, but in that of a categorical Creed-like expression of faith — see Novatian’s “De trinitate”, in which the doctrine of the Logos falls into the background. Accordingly the statement of Socrates (H. E. III. 7) 76is not incredible, that the Western Churchman Hosius had already declared the distinction between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις (substantia and persona) before the Council of Nicæa.202 The West welcomed in the fourth century all statements which contained the complete divinity of Christ, without troubling itself much about arguments and proofs, and the controversy between the two Dionysii in the middle of the third century (see under), proves that a declared interest was kept up in the complete divinity of Christ, as an inheritance from the

however, they are all, it would seem, to be understood anti-gnostically; in other words, they contain nothing but explanations and comfirmatory additions. It is in itself incredible and incapable of proof that the Roman and after it the Western Churches should, at the beginning of the third century, have deleted, as Zahn holds, a ἕνα which originally stood in the first article of the Creed, in order to confute the Monarchians. ac8 202 See Vol. IV.

Monarchian period in Rome.203 Nay, a latent Monarchian element really continued to exist in the Western Church; this we can still study in the poems of Commodian.204 Commodian, again, was not yet acquainted with speculations regarding the “complete” humanity of Jesus; he is satisfied with the flesh of Christ being represented as a sheath, (V. 224, “And suffers, as he willed, in our likeness”;205 on the other hand, V. 280, “now the flesh was God, in which the virtue of God acted.”)206 But these are only symptoms 77of a Christian standpoint which was fundamentally different from that of oriental theologians, and which Commodian was by no means the only one to occupy. He, Lactantius, and Arnobius207 are very different from each other. Commodian was a practical Churchman; Arnobius was an empiricist and in some form also a sceptic and decided opponent of Platonism;208 while Lactantius was a disciple of Cicero and well acquainted besides with the speculations of Greek Christian theology. But they are all three closely connected in the contrast they present to the Greek

203

We, unfortunately, do not know on what grounds the Roman Bishop approved of the excommunication of Origen, or whether Origen’s doctrine of subordination was regarded in Rome as heretical. 204 Here follow in the original illustrations which we relegate to this footnote. Compare Instruct. II. 1 (Heading): “De populo absconso sancto omnipotentis Christi dei vivi;” II. 1, p. 28. 22, ed. Ludwig): “omnipotens Christus descendit ad suos electos;” II. 23, p. 43, 11 sq.: “Unde deus clamat: Stulte, hac nocte vocaris.” II. 39. 1, p. 52. Carmen apolog. 91 sq.: “Est deus omnipotens, unus, a semetipso creatus, quem infra reperies magnum et humilem ipsum. Is erat in verbo positus, sibi solo notatus, Qui pater et filius dicitur et spiritus sanctus;” 276: “Hic pater in filio venit, deus unus ubique.” (See also the following verses according to the edition of Dombart): 285: “hic erat Omnipotens;” 334: “(ligno) deus pependit dominus;” 353: “deum talia passum, Ut enuntietur crucifixus conditor orbis;” 359 sq.: “Idcirco nec voluit se manifestare, quid esset, Sed filium dixit se missum fuisse a patre;” 398: “Prædictus est deus carnaliter nasci pro nobis;” 455: “quis deus est ille, quem nos crucifiximus;” 610: “ipsa spes tota, deo credere, qui ligno pependit;” 612: “Quod filius dixit, cum sit deus pristinus ipse;” 625: “hic erat venturus, commixtus sanguine nostro, ut videretur homo, sed deus in carne latebat . . . dominus ipse veniet.” 630, 764: “Unus est in cælo deus dei, terræ marisque, Quem Moyses docuit ligno pependisse pro nobis;” etc. etc. Commodian is usually assigned to the second half of the third century, bu 55e t doubts have recently been expressed as to this date. Jacobi, Commodian u. d. alt Kirchlich. Trinitätslehre, in der deutschen Ztschr. f. Christl. Wissensch., 1853, p, 203 ff. 205 Et patitur, quomodo voluit sub imagine nostra. 206 Iam caro deus erat, in qua dei virtus agebat. 207 See Francke’s fine discussion, Die Psychologie und Erkentnisslehre des Arnobius (Leipzig, 1878). 208 We recall the Theodotians of Rome.

theologians of the school of Origen; there is nothing mystical about them, they are not Neoplatonists. Lactantius has, indeed, expounded the doctrine of Christ, the incarnate Logos, as well as any Greek; as a professional teacher it was all known and familiar to him;209 but as he nowhere encounters any problems in his Christology, as he discusses doctrines with very few theological or philosophical formulas, almost in a light tone, as if they were mere matters of course, we see that he had no interest of his own in them. He was rather interested in exactly the same questions as Arnobius and Commodian, who again showed no anxiety to go beyond the simplest Christological formulas — that Christ was God, that he had, however, also assumed flesh, or united himself with a man, since otherwise we could not have borne the deity: “And God was man, that he might possess us in the future” (Et fuit homo deus, ut nos in futuro haberet).210 211 The Christianity and theology which these 78Latins energetically supported against polytheism, were summed up in Monotheism, a powerfully elaborated morality, the hope of the Resurrection which was secured by the work of the God Christ who had crushed the demons, and in unadulterated Chiliasm.212 Monotheism — in the sense of Cicero “De natura deorum” — Moralism, and Chiliasm: these are the clearly perceived and firmly held points, and not only for Apologetic purposes, but also, as is proved especially by the second book of Commodian’s “Instructiones”, in independent and positive expositions. These Instructions are, along with the Carmen Apolog., of the highest importance for our estimate of Western

209

See Instit. IV. 6-30. The doctrine of the Logos is naturally worked out in a subordinationist sense. Besides this, many other things occur which must have seemed very questionable to the Latin Fathers 60 years afterwards: “Utinam,” says Jerome, “tam nostra confirmare potuisset quam facile aliena destruxit.” 210 Commod., Carmen apolog. 761. 211 See the Christological expositions, in part extremely questionable, of Arnobius I. 39, 42, 53, 60, 62, and elsewhere. A. demands that complete divinity should be predicated of Christ on account of the divine teaching of Christ (II. 60). In his own theology many other antique features crop up; he even defends the view that the supreme God need not be conceived as creator of this world and of men (see the remarkable chap. 46 of the second book, which recalls Marcion and Celsus). Many Church doctrines Arnobius cannot understand, and he admits them to be puzzles whose solution is known to God alone (see e.g., B. II. 74). Even in the doctrine of the soul, which to him is mortal and only has its life prolonged by receiving the doctrine brought by Christ, there is a curious mixture of antique empiricism and Christianity. If we measure him by the theology of the fourth century, Arnobius is heterodox on almost every page. af6 212See the Carmen apolog. with its detailed discussions of the final Drama, Antichrist (Nero) etc.; Lactant IV. 12, VII. 21 sq.; Victorinus, Comm. on Revelation.

Christianity in the period A.D. 250-315. We discover here, 100 years after the Gnostic fight, a Christianity that was affected, neither by the theology of the anti-gnostic Church Fathers, nor specially by that of the Alexandrians, one which the dogmatic contentions and conquests of the years 150-250 have passed over, hardly leaving a trace. Almost all that is required to explain it by the historian who starts with the period of Justin is to be found in the slightly altered conditions of the Roman world of culture, and in the development of the Church system as a practical power, a political and social quantity.213 Even in the use of Scripture this Christianity of the West reveals its conservatism. The Books of the O. T. and the Apocalypse are those still most in vogue.214 Commodian does not stand alone, nor are the features to be observed in his “Instructiones” accidental. And 79we are not limited to the Apologists Arnobius and Lactantius for purposes of comparison. We learn much the same thing as to African Christianity from the works of Cyprian, or, even from the theological attitude of the Bishop himself, as we infer from Commodian’s poems. And, on the other hand, Latin Church Fathers of the fourth century, e.g., Zeno and Hilary, show in their writings that we must not look for the theological interests of the West in the same quarter as 1590 those of the East. In fact the West did not, strictly speaking, possess a specifically Church “theology” at all.215 It was only from the second half of the fourth century that the West was invaded by the Platonic theology which Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Novatian had cultivated, to all appearance without any thorough success. Some of its results were accepted, but the theology itself was not. Nor, in some ways, was it later on, when the Western structure of Monotheism, energetic practical morality, and conservative Chiliasm fell a prey to destruction. The mystical tendencies, or the perceptions that led to them, were themselves awanting. Yet there is no mistake, on the other hand, as we are taught by the Institutiones of Lactantius as well as the Tractates of Cyprian, that the rejection of Modalism and the recognition of Christ as the Logos forced upon the West the necessity of rising from faith to a philosophical and, in fact, a distinctively Neoplatonic dogmatic. It was simply a question of time when this

213

We can notice throughout in Commodian the influence of the institution of penance, that measuring-tape of the extent to which Church and World are entwined. 214 The oldest commentary preserved, in part, to us is that of Victorinus of Pettan on the Apocalypse. 215 The work of Arnobius is, in this respect, very instructive. This theologian did not incline as a theologian to Neoplatonism, at a time when, in the East, the use of any other philosophy in Christian dogmatics was ipso facto forbidden as heretical.

departure should take place. The recognition of the Logos could not fail ultimately to produce everywhere a ferment which transformed the Rule of Faith into the compendium of a scientific religion. It is hardly possible to conjecture how long and where Monarchians maintained their ground as independent sects in the West. It is yet most probable that there were Patripassians in Rome in the fourth century. The Western Fathers and opponents of heretics from the middle of the fourth century speak not infrequently of Monarchians — Sabellians; but they, as a rule, have simply copied Greek sources, 80from which they have transferred the confusion that prevailed among the Greek representatives of Sabellianism, and to a still greater extent, we must admit, among the historians who were hostile to it.216

216

Epiphanius (H. 62. 1) tells us that there were Sabellians in Rome in his time. Since he was acquainted with no other province or community in the West we may perhaps believe him. This information seems to be confirmed by a discovery made in A.D. 1742 by Marangoni. “He found at the Marancia gate on the road leading to S. Paolo a stair closed in his time which, as the discoverer believed, led to a cubiculum of S. Callisto, and in which were pain aab ted Constantine’s monogram in very large letters, and, secondly, Christ sitting on a globe, between Peter and Paul. On the cover, in a mosaic of green stones, stood the inscription “Qui et filius diceris et pater inveniris” (Kraus, Rom. sott. 2 Aufl., p. 550). De Rossi, Kraus, and Schultze (Katakomben, p. 34) suppose that we have here the discovery of a burial place of Modalistic Monarchians, and that, as the monogram proves, of the fourth century. The sepulchre has again disappeared, and we have to depend entirely on Marangoni’s account, which contains no facsimile. It is not probable that a Sabellian burial-place lay in immediate proximity to Domitilla’s catacomb in the fourth century, or that the grave-yard of any sect was preserved. If we can come to any decision at all, in view of the uncertainty of the whole information, it seems more credible that the inscription belongs to the third century, and that the monogram was added to deprive it of its heretical character. Whether Ambrosius and Ambrosiaster refer in the following quotations to Roman or say Western Monarchians living in their time is at least questionable. (Ambrosius, de fide V. 13. 162, Ed. Bened. II. p. 579 “Sabelliani et Marcionitæ dicunt, quod hæc futura sit Christi ad deum patrem subjectio, ut in patrem filius refundatur”; Ambrosiaster in Ep. ad Cor. II. 2, Ed. Bened. App. II., p. 117, “quia ipsum patrem sibi filium appellatum dicebant, ex quibus Marcion traxit errorem”). Optatus (I. 9) relates that in the African provinces not only the errors, but even the names, of Praxeas and Sabellius had passed away; in I. 10, IV. 5, V. 1 he discusses the Patripassians briefly, but without giving anything new. Nor can we infer from Hilary (de trinitate VII. 39; ad Constant. II. 9) that there were still Monarchians in his time in the West. Augustine says (Ep. 118 c. II. [12] ed. Bened. II., p. 498) “dissensiones quæstionesque Sabellianorum silentur.” Secondhand information regarding them is to be found in Augustine, Tract. in Joh. (passim) and Hær. 41. (The remarks here on the relation of Sabellius to Noëtus are interesting. Augustine cannot see why orientals count Sabellianism a separate heresy from Monarchianism). ae5 Again we have similar

81

(c) The Modalistic Monarchians in the East: Sabellianism and the History of Philosophical Christology and Theology after Origen.217 After the close of the third century the name of “Sabellians” became the common title of Modalistic Monarchians in the East. In the West also the term was used here and there, in the same way, in the fourth and fifth centuries. In consequence of this the traditional account of the doctrines taught by Sabellius and his immediate disciples is very confused. Zahn has the credit of having shown that the propositions, especially, which were first published by Marcellus of Ancyra, were characterised by opponents as Sabellian

notices in Aug. Prædest. H. 41 — in H. 70 Priscillians and Sabellians are classed together; as already in Leo I — , in Isidor, H. 43, Gennadius, Eccl. Dogm. I. 4 (“Pentapolitana hæresis”) Pseudo-hieron. H. 26 (“Unionita” etc., etc. In the Consult. Zacch. et Appollon. l. II. 11 sq. (Gallandi -T. IX., p. 231 sq) — a book written about 430 — a distinction is made between the Patripassians and Sabellians. The former are correctly described, the latter confounded with the Macedonians. Vigilius Dial. adv. Arian. (Bibl. Lugd. T. VIII.). 217 S. Schleiermacher in the Theol. Zeitschr. 1822, part 3; Lange in the Zeitschr. f. d. histor. Theol. 1832, II. 2. S. 17-46; Zahn, Marcell. 1867. Quellen: Orig., περὶ ἀρχ. I. 2; in John. I. 23, II. 2. 3, X. 21; in ep. ad Titum fragm. II; in Mt. XVI. 8, XVII. 14; c. Cels. VIII. 12, etc. For Sabellius, Philosoph. IX. is, in spite of its meagreness, of fundamental importance. Hippolytus introduces him in a way that shows plainly he was sufficiently well known at the time in the Roman Church not to need any more precise characterisation (see Caspari, Quellen III., p. 327.). Epiphanius (H. 62) has borrowed from good sources. If we still possessed them, the letters of Dionysius of Alex. would have been our most important original authorities on S. and his Libyan party. But we have only fragments, partly in Athanasius (de sententia Dionysii), partly in later writers — the collection in Routh is not complete, Reliq S. III., pp. 371-403. All that Athanasius imparts, though fragmentary, is indispensable (espec. in the writings De synod.; de decret. synod. Nic. and c. Arian. IV. This discourse has from its careless use led to a misrepresentation of Sabellian teaching; yet see Rettberg, Marcell. Præf.; Kuhn, Kath. Dogmatik II. S. 344; Zahn, Marcell. S. 198 f.). A few important notices in Novatian, de trinit. 12 sq.; Method., Conviv. VIII. 10; Arius in ep. ad. Alex. Alexandriæ (Epiph., H. 69. 7); Alexander of Alex. (in Theodoret , H. E. I.3); Eusebius, c. Marcell. and Præpar. evang.; Basilius, ep. 207, 210, 214, 235; Gregory of Nyssa, λόγος κατά Ἀρείου καὶ Σαελλίου (Mai. V. P. Nova Coll. VIII. 2, p. 1 sq.) — to be used cautiously — ; PseudoGregor (Appollinaris) in Mai, 1.c. VII. 1., p. 170 sq.; Theodoret. H. F. II. ab6 9; Anonymus, πρὸς τοὺς Σαβελλίζοντας (Athanas. Opp. ed. Montfaucon II., p. 37 sq.); Joh. Damascenus; Nicephorus Call., H. E. VI. 25. For Monarchianism we have a few passages in Gregorius Thaumaturg. The theologians after Origen and before Arius will be cited under.

because Monarchian, and in later times they have been imputed to the older theologian. But not only does the work of Marcellus pass under the name of Sabellius up to the present day, Monarchianism undoubtedly assumed very different forms in the East in the period between Hippolytus and Athanasius. It was steeped in philosophical speculation. Doctrines based on kenosis and transformation were developed. 82And the whole was provided by the historians with the same label. At the same time these writers went on drawing inferences, until they have described forms of doctrine which, in this connection, in all probability never existed at all. Accordingly, even after the most careful examination and sifting of the information handed down, it is now unfortunately impossible to write a history of Monarchianism from Sabellius to Marcellus; for the accounts are not only confused, but fragmentary and curt. It is quite as impossible to give a connected history of the Logos Christology from Origen to Arius and Athanasius, although the tradition is in this case somewhat fuller. But the orthodox of the fourth and fifth centuries found little to please them in the Logos doctrine of those earlier disciples of Origen, and consequently they transmitted a very insignificant part of their writings to posterity. This much is certain, however, that in the East the fight against Monarchianism in the second half of the third century was a violent one, and that even the development of the Logos Christology (of Origen) was directly and lastingly influenced by this opposition.218 The circumstance, that

218

Emendations both to support and to refute Sabellianism were proposed in the valued works of the past; the N. T., as well as other writings belonging to primitive Christian literature, being tampered with. Compare Lightfoot’s excursus on I. Clem. II., where Cod. A reads τοῦ Θεοῦ while C and S have τοῦ Χριστοῦ, the latter an emendation opposed to Monarchianism or Monophysitism (St. Clement of Rome, Appendix, p. 400 sq.). The old formulas τό αἵµα, τά παθήµατα τοῦ Θεοῦ and others came into disrepute after the third century. Athanasius himself disapproved of them (c. Apoll. II. 13. 141, I., p. 758), and in the Monophysite controversy they were thoroughly distrusted. Thus in Ignatius (ad. Eph. I.) ἐν αἵµατι Θεοῦ and (ad. Rom. VI.) τοῦ πάθους τοῦ Θεοῦ µου were corrected. On the other hand (II. Clem. IX.) the title of πνεῦµα for Christ was changed into λόγος. In the N. T. there are not a few passages where the various readings show a Monarchian or anti-Monarchian, a monophysite or dyophysite leaning. The most important have been discussed by Ezra Abbot in several essays in the “Bibliotheca Sacra” and the “Unitarian Review”. But we can trace certain various readings due to a Christological bias as far back as the second century: thus especially the famous ὁ µονογενὴς υἱὸς for µονογενὴς Θεός John I. 18; on this see Hort., Two Dissertations I., on in Scripture and Tradition, 1878; Abbot in the Unitarian Review, June 1875. Since the majority of the important various readings in the N. T. belong to the second and third century, a connected examination of them would be very important from

“Sabelliansim” 83was almost the only name by which Monarchianism was known in the East, points, for the rest, to schisms having resulted only from, or, at any rate, after 3084 the appearance and labours of Sabellius in the East, therefore at the earliest since about 230-240. So long as Origen lived in Alexandria no schism took place in Egypt over the Christological question.219 Sabellius, perhaps by birth a Lybian from Pentapolis,220 seems after his excommunication to have remained at the head of a small community in Rome. He was still there, to all appearance, when Hippolytus wrote the Philosophumena. Nor do we know of his ever having left the city, — we are nowhere told that he did. Yet he must have, at least, set an important movement at work abroad from Rome as his centre, and have especially fostered relations with the East. When, in Pentapolis, about A.D. 260, and several years after the death of Origen, the Monarchian doctrine took hold of the Churches there (Dionys., l.c.) — Churches which, it is significant, were to some extent Latin in their culture — Sabellius can hardly have been alive, yet it was under his name that the heresy was promoted.221 But it would seem as if this prominence was given to him for the first time about A.D. 260. Origen at least had not, so far as I know, mentioned the name of Sabellius in his discussions of Monarchianism. These date from as early as A.D. 215. At the time, Origen was in Rome, Zephyrine being still Bishop. From the relations which he then entered into with Hippolytus, it has been rightly concluded that he did not hold aloof from the contentions in Rome, and took the side of Hippolytus. This attitude of Origen’s may not have been without influence on his condemnation afterwards in Rome by Pontian, 231 or 232. Origen’s writings, moreover, contain many sharp censures on Bishops who, in order to glorify God, made the distinction between Father and Son merely 84nominal. And this again seems to have been said not without reference to the state of matters in Rome. The theology of Origen made him an especially energetic opponent of the Modalistic form of doctrine; for although the new principles set up by him — that the Logos, looking to the content of his nature, possessed the complete deity, and that he from eternity was

the standpoint of the history of dogma. For dogmatic changes in the western texts, the remarkable passage in Ambrosiaster on Rom. V. 14 falls especially to be noticed. ada 219See Dionys. Alex. in Euseb. VII. 6. Dionysius speaks as if the appearance of Sabellian doctrine in his time in the Pentapolis were something new and unheard of. 220 This information, however, first appears in Basil, then in Philaster, Theodoret, and Nicephorus; possibly, therefore, it is due to the fact that Sabellius’ teaching met with great success in Libya and Pentapolis. 221 Athanas de sententia Dionysii 5.

created from the being of the Father — approached apparently a Monarchian mode of thought, yet they in fact repelled it more energetically then Tertullian and Hippolytus could possibly have done. He who followed the philosophical theology of Origen was proof against all Monarchianism. But it is important to notice that in all places where Origen comes to speak about Monarchians, he merely seems to know their doctrines in an extremely simple form, and without any speculative embroidery. They are always people who “deny that Father and Son are two Hypostases” (they say: ἓν οὐ µόνον οὐσίᾳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑποκειµέῳ), who “fuse together” Father and Son (συγχέειν), who admit distinctions in God only in “conception” and “name”, and not in “number”, etc. Origen considers them therefore to be untheological creatures, mere “believers”. Accordingly, he did not know the doctrine of Sabellius, and living in Syria and Palestine had even had no opportunity of learning it. That doctrine was undoubtedly closely allied, as Epiphanius has rightly seen (H. 62. 1), to the teaching of Noëtus; it was distinguished from the latter, however, both by a more careful theological elaboration, and by the place given to the Holy Ghost.222 The opinion of Nitzsch and others, that we must distinguish between two stages in the theology of Sabellius, is unnecessary, whenever we eliminate the unreliable sources. The central proposition of Sabellius ran that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were the same. Three names accordingly were attached to one and the same being. It was his interest in monotheism that influenced Sabellius. “What shall we say,” urge his followers 85in Epiphanius (ch. 2), “have we one God or three Gods?” (τί ἂν εἴπωµεν, ἕνα Θεόν ἔχόεν, ἢ τρεῖς Θεούς); and Epiphanius (ch. 3) replies: “we do not propound polytheism” (οὐ πολυθεΐαν εἰσηγούµεθα). Whether Sabellius himself used the comparison between the threefold nature of man and the sun remains a question (one nature, three energies: τὸ φωτιστικόν light giving, τὸ θάλπον heat giving, τὸ σχῆµα the form).223 The one being was also

222

This appears also from our oldest witness, the letter of Dionysius, Eusebius H. E. VII. 6: περὶ τοῦ νῦν κινηθέντος ἐν τῇ Πτολεµαΐδι τῆς Πενταπόλεως δόγµατος, ὄντος ἀσεβοῦς καὶ βλασφηµίαν πολλὴν ἔχοντος περὶ τοῦ παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀπιστίαν τε πολλὴν ἔχοντος περὶ τοῦ µονογενοῦς παιδὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ πρωτοτόκου πάσης κτίσεως, τοῦ ἐναθρωπήσαντος λόγου, ἀναισθησίαν δὲ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος. 223 Epiph., l. c.: ∆ογµατίζει γὰρ οὗτος καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ Σ aa4 βελλιανοὶ τὸν αὐτόν εἶναι πατέρα, τὸν αὐτὸν υἱόν, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἅγιον πνεῦµα· ὡ εἶναι ἐν µιᾷ ὑποστάσει τρεῖς ὀνοµασίας, ἢ ὡς ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ σῶµα καὶ ψυχὴ καὶ πνεῦµα. Καὶ εἶναι

called by Sabellius υἱοπάτωρ,224 an expression which was certainly chosen to remove any misunderstanding, to make it impossible to suppose that two beings were in question. This υἱοπάτωρ (sonfather) was in Sabellius the ultimate designation for God Himself, and not, say, merely for certain manifestations of a µονάς (unit) resting in the background. Sabellius, however, taught — according to Epiphanius and Athanasius — that God was not at the same time Father and Son; but that he had, rather, put forth his activity in three successive “energies”; first, in the Prosopon (= form of manifestation, figure; not = Hypostasis) of the Father as Creator and Lawgiver; secondly, in the Prosopon of the Son as Redeemer, beginning with the incarnation and ending at the ascension; finally, and up till the present hour, in the Prosopon of the Spirit as giver and sustainer of life.225 We do not know whether Sabellius was able strictly to carry out the idea of the strict succession of the Prosopa, so that the one should form the boundary of the other. It is 86possible, indeed it is not improbable, that he could not fail to recognise in nature a continuous energy of God as Father.226 It is self-evident that the Sabellians would approve of the Catholic Canon; that they did, is confirmed by Epiphanius. They are said to have appealed especially to passages like Deut. VI. 4, Exod. XX. 3, Isa. XLIV. 6 and John X. 38.227 But Epiphanius remarks besides that the Sabellians derived their whole heresy and its strength from certain Apocrypha, especially the so-called Gospel of the Egyptians.228 This note is instructive; for it not only recalls to our

µὲν τὸ σῶνα ὡς εἰτεῖν τὸν πατέρα, ψυχὴν δὲ ὡς εἰπεῖν τὸν υἱόν, τὸ πνεῦµα δὲ ὡς ἀνθρώπου, οὕτως καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα ἐν τῇ θεότητι. Ἢ ὡς ἐὰν ᾖ ἐν ἡλίῳ ὄντι µὲν ἐν µιᾷ ὑποστάσει, τρεῖς δὲ ἔχοντι τὰς ἐνεργείας κ.τ.λ. Method. Conviv. VIII. 10 (ed. Jahn, p. 37): Σαβέλλιος λέγει τὸν παντοκράτορα πεπονθέναι. 224 Athanas., de synod. 16; Hilar., de trin IV. 12. 225 Epiph. H. 62, c. 1: Πεµφθέντα τὸν υἱὸν καιρῷ ποτέ, ὥσπερ ἀκτῖνα καὶ ἐργασάµενον τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ τὰ τῆς οἰκονµίας τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς καὶ σωτηρίας τῶν ανθρώπων, ἀναληφθέντα δὲ αὖθις εἰς οὐρανόν, ὡς ὑπὸ ἡλίου πεµφθεῖσαν ἀκτῖνα, καὶ πάλιν εἰς τὸν ἥλιον ἀναδραµοῦσαν, Τὸ δὲ ἅγιον πνεῦµα πέµπεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόσµον, καὶ καθεξῆς καὶ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα εἰς ἕκαστον τῶν καταξιουµένων κ.τ.λ. C. 3 Epiphanius says: Οὐχ ὁ υἱὸς ἑαυτὸν ἐγέννησεν, οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ µεταβέβληται ἀπὸ τοῦ “πατήρ” τοῦ εἶναι “υἱός” κ.τ.λ. . . . πατὴρ ἀεὶ πατήρ, καὶ οὐκ ἦν καιρὸς ὅτε οὐκ ἦν πατὴρ πατήρ. 226 See Zahn, Marcell., p. 213. 227 Epiph., l. c., c. 2. 228 L. c.: Τὴν δὲ πᾶσαν αὐτῶν πλάνην καὶ τὴν τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν δύναµιν ἔχουσιν ἐξ Ἀποκρύφων τινῶν, µάλιστα ἀπο τοῦ καλουµένου Αἰγυπτίου εὐαγγελίου, ᾧ τινες τὸ ὄνοµα ἐπέθεντο τοῦτο. Ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα ὡς ἐν παραβύστῳ

recollection a lost literature of the second century, especially the Gospel of the Egyptians,229 but it also shows that the use of an uncanonical Gospel had long continued among Catholics in the Pentapolis, or at any rate in Egypt.230 Finally, it confirms the view that the Christology of Sabellius cannot have been essentially different from the older, the so-called Patripassian doctrine. It is distinguished from the latter neither by the assumption of a transcendental Monas resting behind the Prosopa, nor by the introduction of the category of the Logos — which was made use of by Callistus, but not by Sabellius; nor by a speculative theory, borrowed from the Stoa, of the Deity, self-contained, and again unfolding itself; nor, finally, by a doctrine of the Trinity constructed in any fashion or by the expression υἱοπάτωρ, which, as used by Sabellius, simply affirmed the single personality of God. As to the doctrine of the Trinity, a triad was distinctly out of the question in Sabellius. The only noteworthy and real differences are found in these three points; first, in the attempt to demonstrate the succession of the Prosopa; secondly, as observed above, in the 87reference to the Holy Spirit; thirdly, in formally placing the Father on a parallel line with the two other Prosopa. The attempt mentioned above may be regarded as a return to the strict form of Modalism, which it was possible to hold was impugned by formulas like the compassus est pater filio (the Father suffered in sympathy with the Son). In the reference to the Holy Spirit, Sabellius simply followed the new theology, which was beginning to take the Spirit more thoroughly into account. Most important is the third point mentioned. For in ranging the Prosopon and energy of the Father in a series with the two others, not only was cosmology introduced into the Modalistic doctrine as a par 1590 allel to soteriology, but the preëminence of the Father over the other Prosopa was departed from in principle, and thus, in a curious fashion, the way was prepared for the Athanasian, and still more for the Western and Augustinian Christology. Here, undoubtedly, we have the decisive advance marked by Sabellianism within Monarchianism. It led up to the exclusive ὁµοούσιος (consubstantial); for it is probable that Sabellians employed this expression.231 They could apply it with perfect right.

µυστηριωδῶς ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ σωτῆρος ἀναφέρεται, ὡς αὐτοῦ δηλοῦντος τοῖς µαθηταῖς τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι πατέρα, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι υἱόν, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἅγιον τνεῦµα. 229 In the 2nd Ep. of Clement where it is frequently used, though this is disputed by some, Modalistic formulas occur. 230 Clemens Alex. knew it; see Hilgenfeld, Nov. Testam. extra can. recept., 2 ed., fasc. 4, p. 42 sq. 595 231See above, p. 45.

Further, while up to this time no evident bond had connected cosmology and soteriology within Modalistic theology, Sabellius now made the histories of the world and salvation into a history of the God who revealed himself in them. In other words, this Monarchianism became commensurate in form with that theology which employed the conception of the Logos, and this fact may have constituted by no means the least part of the attractiveness which Sabellianism proved itself to possess in no small degree up to the beginning of the fourth century and even later.232 However, it is not to be concealed that the teaching of Sabellius relative to the Prosopon of the Father is particularly obscure. The sentence attributed to him by Athanasius,233 “as there are diversities of spiritual gifts, but 88the same spirit, so also the Father is the same, but unfolds himself in Son and Spirit” — seems at the first glance to contradict the details given above. Yet the different gifts are certainly the Spirit himself, which so unfolds himself in them that he does not remain an element behind them, but is completely merged in them. In the same way the Father unfolds himself in the Prosopa. The witnesses to the succession of the Prosopa in Sabellius are too strong to allow us to infer from this passage that the Father still remained Father after the unfolding (πλατυσµός) in the Son. But this passage shows that philosophical speculations could readily attach themselves to the simple theory of Sabellius. Marcellus rejected his doctrine which he knew accurately. What he missed in it was the recognition of the Logos; therefore the idea of God had also not been correctly apprehended by him.234 But the form given to Monarchianism by Marcellus235 won few friends for that type of doctrine. Alexandrian theologians, or Western scholars who came to their assistance, had already perfected the combination of Origen’s doctrine of the Logos with the Monarchian Ὁµοούσιος; in other words, they had turned the category used by Origen against the λόγος κτίσµα conception (the Logos-created) of Origen himself. The saving formula, ,the Logos of the same substance, not made” (λόγος ὁµοούσιος οὐ ποιηθείς), was already uttered, and, suspiciously like Monarchianism as it sounded at first, became for that very reason the means of making

232

There were still Sabellians in Neo-Cæsarea in the time of Basilius; Epiphanius knows of them only in Mesopotamia (H. 62 c. 1). The author of the Acta Archelai (c. 37) also became acquainted with them there; he treats them like Valentinians, Marcionites, and followers of Tatian as heretics. 233 Orat. c. Arian IV. 25: ὥσπερ διαιρέσεις χαρισµάτων εἰσί, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ πνεῦµα, οὕτω καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ αὐτός µέν ἐστι, π ac8 ατύνεται δὲ εἰς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦµα. 234 Euseb. c. Marcell., p. 76 sq. 235 See on this Volume IV.

Monarchianism superfluous in the Church, and of putting an end to it.236 But that only happened after great fights. One of these we know, the controversy of the two Dionysii, a prelude to the Arian conflict.237 In the Pentapolis the Sabellian doctrine had, soon after the death of Origen, won a great following even 89among the Bishops, “so that the Son of God was no longer preached.” Dionysius of Alexandria, therefore, composed various letters in which 2058 he tried to recall those who had been misled, and to refute Sabellianism.238 In one of these, directed to Euphranor and Ammonius, he gave an extreme exposition of Origen’s doctrine of the subordination of the Son. This letter seemed very questionable to some Christians — probably in Alexandria, perhaps in Pentapolis. They lodged a complaint, soon after A.D. 260, against the Alexandrian Bishop with Dionysius in Rome.239 The latter assembled a synod at Rome, which disapproved of the expressions used by the Alexandrian, and himself despatched to Alexandria a didactic letter against the Sabellians and their opponents, who inclined to subordinationism. In this letter the Bishop so far spared his colleague as not to mention his name; but he sent him a letter

236

Sabellius seems to have been held a heretic all over the West about A.D. 300; see the Acta Archelai, Methodius etc. 237 Hagemann, l.c., p. 411 ff.; Dittrich, Dion. d. Gr. 1867; Förster, in the Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol., 1871) p. 42 ff.; Routh, Reliq. S. III., pp. 373-403. The main source is Athanasius de sentent, Dionysii, a defence of the Bishop, due to the appeal of the Arians to him; see also Basilius de spiritu, p. 29; Athan. de synod. 43-45. 238 Euseb., H. E. VII. 26. 1: Ἐπὶ ταύταις τοῦ ∆ιονυσίου φέρονται καὶ ἄλλαι πλείους ἐπιστολαί, ὥσπερ αἱ κατὰ Σαβελλίου πρὸς Ἄµµωνα τῆς κατὰ Βερενίκην ἐκκλησίας ἐπίσκοπον, καὶ ἡ πρὸς Τελέσφορον καὶ ἡ πρὸς Εὐφράνορα, καὶ πάλιν Ἄµµωνα καὶ Εὔπορον. Συντάττει δὲ περὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ὑποθέσεύ 564 ς καὶ ἄλλα τέσσαρα συγγράµµατα, ἃ τῷ κατὰ Ῥώµην ὁµωνύµῳ ∆ιονυσίῳ προσφωνεῖ. Dionysius had already called the attention of Sixtus II., the predecessor of the Roman Dionysius, to the revolt in the Pentapolis. 239 Hagemann maintains that they first turned to the Alexandrian Bishop himself, and that he wrote an explanatory letter, which, however, did not satisfy them; but this cannot be proved (Athanasius de sentent. Dion. 13 is against it). The standpoint of the accusers appears from their appeal to the Roman Bishop, from the fact that he made their cause his own, and from the testimony of Athanasius. who describes them as orthodox Churchmen (de sentent. Dion. 13) — they were orthodox in the Roman sense. It is entirely wrong, with Dorner (Entwickelungsgesch. I., p. 748 f.) and Baur (Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit I., p. 313), to identify the accusers with those heretics, who, according to Dionysius’ letter, taught there were three Gods; for the heretics ac8 meant were rather the Alexandrian theologians.

privately, calling for explanations. The Alexandrian Bishop sought to justify himself in a long document in four books (ἔλεγ χος καὶ ἀπολογία), maintained that his accusers had wickedly torn sentences from their context, and gave explanations which seem to have satisfied the Roman Bishop, and which Athanasius at any rate admitted to be thoroughly orthodox. But the letter of the Roman Bishop appears to have had no immediate influence on the further development in Alexandria (see under); the universal collapse of the Empire in the following decades permitted the Alexandrian theologians 90to continue their speculations, without needing to fear further immediate reproofs from Roman Bishops. Two facts give a special interest to the controversy of the Dionysii. First, in spite of the acceptance of the sacred Triad, the Romans adhered simply, without any speculative harmonising, to the unity of the Deity, and decided that Origen’s doctrine of subordination was Tritheism. Secondly, no scruple was felt at Alexandria in carrying out the subordination of the Son to the Father until it involved separation, though it was well known that such a view was supported, not by the tradition of the Church, but by philosophy alone. The accusers of the Alexandrian Dionysius charged him with separating Father and Son;240 denying the eternal existence of the Son;241 naming the Father without the Son and vice versâ;242omitting to use the word ὁµοούσιος;243 and finally, with regarding the Son as a creature, related to the Father as the vine to the gardener, or the boat to the shipbuilder.244 In these censures, which were not inaccurate, it is obvious that Dionysius, 240

De sententia 10. 16. De sententia 14: οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ Θεὸς πατήρ, οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ υἱός, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ µὲν Θεὸς ἦν χωρὶς τοῦ λόγου, αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ υἱὸς οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γενηθῇ, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, οὐ γὰρ ἀΐδιός ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὕστερον ἐπιγέγονεν. 242 De sententia 16: πατέρα λέγων ∆ιονύσιος οὐκ ὀνοµάζει τὸν υἱόν, καὶ πάλιν υἱὸν λέγων οὐκ ὀνοµάζει τὸν πατέρα, ἀλλὰ διαιρεῖ καὶ µακρύνει καὶ µέρίζει τὸν υἱὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρός. 243 L. c. 18: προσφέρουσιν ἔγκληµα κατ᾽ ἐµοῦ ψεῦδος ὂν ὡς οὐ λέγοντος τὸν Κριστὸν ὁµοούσιον εἶναι τῷ Θεῷ. 244 L. c. 18: πλὴν ἐγὼ γενητά τινα — says Dion. Alex. — καὶ ποιητά τιν 537 α φήσας νοεῖσθαι, τῶν µὲν τοιούτων ὡς ἀχρειοτέρων ἐξ ἐπιδροµῆς εἶπον παραδείγµατα, ἐπεὶ µήτε τὸ φυτὸν ἔφην (τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι) τῷ γεωργῷ, µήτε τῷ ναυπηγῷ τὸ σκάφος· — Ἕνα τῶν γενητῶν εἶναι — say the opponents of Dion. — τὸν υἱὸν καὶ µὴ ὁµοούσιον τῷ πατρί. The passage in the letter to Euphranor ran (c. 4): ποίηµα καὶ γενητὸν εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, µήτε δὲ φύσει ἴδιον, ἀλλὰ ξένον κατ᾽ οὐσίαν αὐτὸν εἶναι τοῦ πατρός, ὥσπερ ἐστὶν ὁ γεωργὸς πρὸς τὴν ἄµπελον καὶ ὁ ναυπηγὸς πρὸς τὸ σκάφος. καὶ γὰρ ὡς ποίηµα ὢν οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γένηται. 241

continuing the Neoplatonic speculations of his teacher, conceived the λόγος as portio and derivatio of the µονάς, thus, in order to meet Sabellianism, actually dividing him from the deity. Dionysius sought to excuse himself in his ἔλεγχος (Refutation), and emphasised exclusively the other side of Origen’s doctrine, at the same time 91admitting that in his incriminated writing he had incidentally employed somewhat unsuitable similes. Now he said that the Father had always been Father, and that Christ had always existed as the Logos and wisdom and power of God; that the Son had his being from the Father, and that he was related to the Father as the rays are to the light.245 He explained that while he had not used the word ὁµοούσιος, because it did not occur in Holy Scripture, figures were to be found in his earlier writings which corresponded to it; thus the figure of parents and children, of seed or root and plant, and of source and stream.246 The Father was the source of all good, the Son the outflow; the Father the mind (νοῦς), the Son the word (λόγος) — reminding us very forcibly of Neoplatonism — or the emanating mind (νοῦς προπηδῶν), while the νοῦς itself remains “and is what it was” (καὶ ἔστιν οἷος ἦν). “But being sent he flew forth and is borne everywhere, and thus each is in each, the one being of the other, and they are one, being two’ (Ὁ δὲ ἐξέπτη προπεµφθεὶς καὶ φέρεται πανταχοῦ καὶ οὕτως ἐστὶν ἑκάτερος ἐν ἑκατέρω ἓτερος ὤν θατέρου, καὶ ἓν εἰσιν, ὄντες δύο).247 But he now went further: any separation between Father and Son was to be repudiated. “I say Father, and before I add the Son, I have already included and designated him in the Father.” The same holds true of the Holy Spirit. Their very names always bind all three together inseparably. “How then do I who use these names think that these are divided and entirely separated from each other? (πῶς οὖν ὁ τούτοις χρώµενος τοῖς ὀνόµασι µεµερίσθαι ταῦτα καὶ ἀφωρὍ 564 σθαι παντελῶς ἀλλήλων οἴοµαι;).248 In these words the retreat was sounded; for what the Roman Bishop rejected, but Alexandrian theology never ventured wholly to

245

L. c. 15. L. c. 18. 247 L. C. 23. The expositions of νοῦς and λόγος which were found both in the 2 and 4 books of Dionysius quite remind us of Porphyry: καὶ ἔστιν ὁ µὲν οἷον πατὴρ ὁ νοῦς τοῦ λόγου, ὢν ἐφ᾽ ἐαυτοῦ, ὁ δὲ καθάπερ υἱὸς ὁ λόγος τοῦ νοῦ. πρὸ ἐκείνου µὲν ἀδύνατον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἔξωθέν ποθεν, σὺν ἐκείνῳ γενόµενος, βλαστήσας δὲ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. οὕτως ὁ πατὴρ ὁ µέγιστος καὶ καθόλου νοῦς πρῶτον τὸν νἱὸν λόγον ἑρµηνέα καί ἄγγελον ἑαυτοῦ ἔχει. 248 L. c. 17. 246

was the “dividing” (µερίζεσθαι).249 The reservation lies in the word “entirely” (παντελῶς). Dionysius added in conclusion: “Thus we unfold the unit into the triad without dividing it, and we sum up the triad again into the unit without diminishing it,” (οὕτω µὲν ἡµεῖς εἴς τε τὴν τριάδα τὴν µονάδα πλατύνοµεν ἀδιαίρετον, καὶ τὴν τριάδα πάλιν ἀµεὍ 55d ωτον εἰς τὴν µονάδα συγκεφαλαιούµεθα). In this he has accommodated himself to a mode of looking at things which he could only allege to be his own under a mental reservation, as in the case of the qualification “entirely” (παντελῶς). For the terms πλατύνειν and συγκεφαλαιοῦσθαι were not those current in the school of Origen, and admit of a different interpretation. Finally, Dionysius denied the charge of the “sycophants” that he made the Father the Creator of Christ.250 92discard,

The letter of Dionysius of Rome falls midway between these two manifestoes, which are so different, of the Alexandrian Bishop. We have to regret very deeply that Athanasius has only preserved one, though a comprehensive, fragment of this document. 56b 1 It is extremely characteristic of the Roman Bishop, to begin with, that it seeks to settle the sound doctrine by representing it as the just mean between the false unitarian or Sabellian, and the false trinitarian or Alexandrian doctrine.251 The second 93characteristic of the letter is that it regards the Alexandrian doctrine as teaching that there are three Gods, and 249

We see from the passages quoted by Basilius that Dionysius adhered to the expression “τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις,” but discarded the “µερισµένας εἶναι.” while his accusers must have attacked the former expression also: Εἰ τῷ τρεῖς εἶναι τὰς ύπαστάσεις µεµερισµένας εἶναι λέγουσι, τρεῖς εἰσί, κᾂν µὴ θέλωσιν ἢ τὴν θείαν τριάδα παντελῶς ἀνελέτωσαν.. This accordingly is to be translated: “if they maintain that a separation is necessarily involved in the expression ‘three Hypostases,’ yet there are three — whether they admit it or no — or they must completely dest 558 roy the divine triad.” 250 L.c. 20, 21. It is very noteworthy, that Dionysius has not even brought himself to use the expression ὁµοούσιος in his ἔλεγχος. If he had Athanasius would have given it in his extracts. For the rest, the attempt of Athanasius to explain away the doubtful utterances of Dionysius, by referring them to the human nature of Christ, is a makeshift born of perplexity. 251 De decret. synod. Nic. 26 (see besides de sentent. Dion. 13). 252 ad4 The attack on the latter has alone been preserved by Athanasius along with the concluding argument; it is thus introduced: Ὅτι δὲ ποίηµα οὐδὲ κτίσµα ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος, ἀλλ᾽ ἴδιον τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας γέννηµα ἀδιαίρετ όν ἐστιν, ὡς ἔγραψεν ἡ µεγάλη σύνοδος, ἰδοὺ καὶ ὁ τῆς Ῥώµης ἐπίσκοπος ∆ιονύσιος γράφων κατὰ τῶν τὰ τοῦ Σαβελλίου φρονούντων, σχετλιάζει κατὰ τῶν ταῦτα τολµώντων λέγειν καὶ φήσιν οὕτως.

draws a parallel between it and the Three principles of the Marcionites. This proves that the Roman Bishop did not trouble himself with the speculation of the Alexandrians, and simply confined himself to the result — as he conceived it — of three separate Hypostases.253 Finally — and this is the third ac8 characteristic feature — the letter shows that Dionysius had nothing positive to say, further than that it was necessary to adhere to the ancient Creed, definitely interpreting it to mean that the three, Father, Son, and Spirit, were equally one. Absolutely no attempt is made to explain or to prove this paradox.254 But here

253

Ἑξῆς δ᾽ ἄν εἰκότως λέγοιµι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς διαιροῦντας καὶ κατατέµνοντας καὶ ἀναιροῦντας τὸ σεµνότατον κήρυγµα τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὴν µοναρχίαν — thus begins the fragment communicated by Athanasius, — εἰς τρεῖς δυνάµεις τινας καὶ µεµερισµένας ὑποστάσεις καὶ θεότητας τρεῖς· πέπυσµαι γὰρ εἶναί τινας τῶν παρ᾽ ὑµῖν κατηχούντων καὶ διδασκόντων τὸν θεῖον λόγον, ταύτης ὑφηγντὰς τῆς φρονήσεως· οἳ κατὰ διάµετρον, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, ἀντίκεινται τῇ Σαβελλίου γνώµῃ· ὁ µὲν γὰρ βλασφηµεῖ, αὐτὸν τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι λέγων τόν πατέρα, καὶ ἔµπαλιν· οἱ δὲ τρεῖς θεοὺς τρόπον τινὰ κηρύττουσιν, εἰς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ξένας ἀλλήλων, παντάπασι κεχωρισµένας, διαιροῦντες τὴν ἀγίαν µονάδα. ἡνῶσθαι γὰρ ἀνάγκη τῷ Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων τὸν θεῖον λόγον, ἐµφιλοχωρεῖν δὲ τῷ Θεῷ καὶ ἐνδιαιτᾶσθαι δεῖ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα, ἤδη καὶ τὴν θείαν τριάδα εἰς ἕνα, ὥσπερ εἰς κορυφήν τινα (τὸν Θεὸν ac8 τῶν ὅλων τὸν παντοκράτορα λέγω) συγκεφαλαιοῦσθαί τε καὶ συνάγεσθαι πᾶσα ἀνάγκη. Μαρκίωνος γὰρ τοῦ µαταιόφρονος δίδαγµα εἰς τρεῖς ἀρχὰς τῆς µοναρχίας τοµὴν καὶ διαίρεσιν (διορίζει), παίδευµα ὂν διαβολικόν, οὐχὶ δὲ τῶν ὄντως µαθητῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ . . . οὗτοι γὰρ τρίάδα µὲν κηρυττοµένην ὑπὸ τῆς θείας γραφῆς σαφῶς ἐπίςτανται, τρεῖς δε θεοὺς οὔτε παλαιὰν οὔτε καινὴν διαθήκην κηρύττουσαν According to Dionysius, then, some Alexandrian teachers taught “τρόπον τινά” — this is the only limitation — a form of Tritheism. The whole effort of the Bishop was to prevent this. We recognise here the old Roman interest in the unity of God, as represented by Victor, Zephyrine, and Callistus, but Dionysius may also have remembered, that his predecessors, Pontian and Fabian, assented to the condemnation of Origen. Should we not connect the angry reproach, levelled at the Alexandrian teachers, that they were Tritheists, with the charge made by Callistus against Hippolytus, that he was a Ditheist; and may we not perhaps conclude that Origen himself was also accused of Tritheism in Rome? 254 The positive conclusion runs: Οὔτ᾽ οὐν καταµερίζειν χρὴ εἰς τρεῖς θεότητας τὴν θαυµαστὴν καὶ θείαν µονάδα, οὔτε ποιήσει κωλύειν τὸ ἀξίωµα καὶ τὸ ὑπέρβαλλον µέγεθος τοῦ κυρίου· ἀλλὰ πεπιστευκέναι εἰς Θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα, ἡνῶσθαι δὲ τῷ Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων τὸν λόγον· ἐγὼ γὰρ, φησί. καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσµεν. καὶ ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐµοί — these are the old Monarchian proof-texts — οὕτω γὰρ ἂν καὶ ἡ θεία τριὰς καὶ τὸ ἅγιον κήρυγµα τ ac8 ς µοναρχίας διασώζοιτο. We see that Dionysius simply places the “holy preaching of the Monarchy” and the “Divine Triad” side by side:

undoubtedly 94lies the strength of the Roman Bishop’s position. When we compare his letter with that of Leo I. to Flavian and Agatho’s to the Emperor, we are astonished at the close affinity of these Roman manifestoes. In form they are absolutely identical. The three Popes did not trouble themselves about proofs or arguments, but fixed their attention solely on the consequences, or what seemed to them consequences, of disputed doctrines. Starting with these deductions they refuted doctrines of the right and left, and simply fixed a middle theory, which existed merely in words, for it was self-contradictory. This they grounded formally on their ancient Creed without even attempting to argue out the connection: one God — Father, Son and Spirit; one Person — perfect God and perfect man; one Person — two wills. Their contentment with establishing a middle line, which possessed the attribute of that known in mathematics, is, however, a proof that they had not a positive, but merely a negative, religious interest in these speculations. Otherwise they would not have been satisfied with a definition it was impossible to grasp; for no religion lives in conceptions which cannot be represented and realised. Their religious interest centred in the God Jesus, who had assumed the substantia humana. The letter of the Roman Bishop produced only a passing impression in Alexandria. Its adoption would have meant the repudiation of science. A few years afterwards the great Synod of Antioch expressly rejected the term ὁµοούσιος (consubstantial) 255 95as being liable to misconstruction. The followers of Origen in his training school continued their master's work, a 564 nd they were not molested in Alexandria itself, as it seems, up till about the close of the third century. If we review the great literary labours of

“stat pro ratione voluntas.” Between this conclusion and the commencement of the fragment preserved by Athanasius given in the preceding note, we have a detailed attack on those who hold the Son to be a ποίηµα like other creatures, “while the Holy Scriptures witness to his having an appropriate birth, but not to his being formed and created in some way.” The attack on the ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν touches the fundamental position of the Alexandrian scholars as little as the opposition to three Gods; for Dionysius contents himself with arguing that God would have been without understanding, if the Logos had not always been with him; a thing which no Alexandrian doubted. The subtle distinction between Logos and Logos Dionysius leaves wholly out of account, and the explanation of the Roman Bishop on Proverbs VIII. 32 (κύριος ἔκτισέ µε ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ): ἔκτισε ἐνταῦθα ἀκουστέον ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπέστησε τοῖς ὐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ γεγονόσιν ἔργοις, γεγονόσι δὲ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ, must merely have caused a compassionate smile among the theologians of Alexandria. 255 See above, page 45.

Dionysius, of which we, unfortunately, only possess fragments, and observe his attitude in the questions debated in the Church in his time, we see how faithfully he followed in the track of Origen. The only difference lay in greater laxity in matters of discipline.256 He proved, in his work “On Promises” (περὶ ἐπαγγελιῶν) that he possessed the zeal against all Chiliasm and the dexterity in critical exegesis which characterised the school of Origen;257 and in his work “On Nature” (περὶ φύσεως) he introduced, and endeavoured to carry out, a new task in the science of Chr 564 istian theology, viz., the systematic refutation of Materialism, i.e., of the Atomic theory.258 Of the later heads of the training school we know very little; but that little is enough to let us see that they faithfully preserved the theology of Origen. Pierius, who also led a life of strict asceticism, wrote learned commentaries and treatises. Photius259 testifies that he taught piously concerning the Father and Son, “except that 96he speaks of two “beings” and two natures; using the words being and nature, as is plain from the context, in place of Hypostasis, and not as those who adhere to Arius” (πλὴν ὅτι οὐσίας δύο καὶ φύσεις δύο λέγει· τῷ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ φύσεως ὀνόµατι, ὡς δῆλον, ἔκ τ 564 τῶν ἑποµένων καὶ προηγουµένων τοῦ χωρίου ἀντὶ τῆς ὑποστάσεως καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ Ἀρείῳ προσανακείµενοι χρώµενος). This explanation is hardly trustworthy; Photius himself is compelled to add that Pierius held impious doctrines as to the Holy Ghost, and ranked him far below the Father and Son. Now since he further expressly testifies that

256

See the letter to Fabius of Antioch, and the attitude of Dionysius in the Novatian controversy, in which he sought at first to act as mediator precisely as he did in the dispute over the baptism of heretics (Euseb. H. E. VI. 41, 42, 44-46, VII. 2-9). 257 See the fragments in Euseb. H. E. VII. 24, 25. The criticism of the Apocalypse is a maste aaa r-piece. 258 See Euseb. H. E. VII. 26, 2; the fragments of the work in Routh, Reliq. S. IV., p. 393 sq. On this, Roch, die Schrift des Alex. Bischofs, Dionysius d. Gr. über die Natur (Leipzig 1882) and my account of this dissertation in the Th. L. Z. 1883, No. 2. Dionysius' work, apart from a few Biblical quotations which do not affect the arguments, might have been composed by a Neo-platonic philosopher. Very characteristic is the opening of the first fragment preserved by Eusebius. Πότερον ἔν ἐστι συναφὲς τὸ πᾶν, ὡς ἡµῖν τε καὶ τοῖς σοφωτάτοις Ἑλλήνων Πλάτωνι καὶ Πυθαγόρᾳ καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς καὶ Ἡρακλείτῳ φαίνεται; there we have in a line the whole company of the saints with whom Epicurus and the Atomists were confronted. We notice that from and after Justin Epicurus and his followers were extremely abhorred by Christian theologians, and that in this abhorrence they felt themselves at one with Platonists, Pythagoreans, and Stoics. But Dionysius was the first Christian to take over from these philosophers the task of a systematic refutation. 259 Photius Cod. 119.

Pierius, like Origen, held the pre-existence of souls, and explained some passages in the O. T. “economically”, i.e., contested their literal meaning, it becomes obvious that Pierius had not parted company with Origen;260 indeed, he was even called “Origen Junior”.261 He was the teacher of Pamphilus, and the latter inherited from him his unconditional devotion to Origen's theology. Pierius was followed, in Diocletian' 564 s time, by Theognostus at the Alexandrian school. This scholar composed a great dogmatic work in seven books called “Hypotyposes”. It has been described for us by Photius,262 whose account shows that it was planned on a strict system, and was distinguished from Origen's great work, in that the whole was not discussed in each part under reference to one main thought, but the system of doctrine was presented in a continuous and consecutive exposition.263 Thus Theognostus 97invented that form of scientific, Church dogmatic which was to set a standard to posterity — though it was indeed long before the Church took courage to erect a doctrinal structure of its own. Athanasius had nothing but praise for the work of Theognostus, and has quoted a passage from the second book which undoubtedly proves that Theognostus did full justice to the Homoousian 564 side of Origen’s Christology.264 But

260

Routh, Reliq. S. III., pp. 425-435. Jerome, de vir. 76 ; see also Euseb. H. E. VII. 32. 582 262Cod. 106. 263 The first book dealt with the Father and Creator; the second, with the necessity that God should have a son, and the Son; the third, took up the Holy Ghost; the fourth, angels and demons; the fifth and sixth, the possibility and actuality of the Son's incarnation; the seventh, God's creative work. From the description by Photius it appears that Theognostus laid the chief stress on the refutation of two opinions, namely, that matter was eternal, and that the incarnation of the Logos was an impossibility. These are, however, the two theses with which the Neoplatonic theologians of the 4th and 5th centuries confronted Christian science, and in whose assertion the whole difference between Neo-platonism, and the dogmatic of Alexandrian churchmen at bottom consisted. It is very instructive to notice that even at ac8 the end of the 3rd century the antithesis thus fixed came clearly to the front. If Theognostus, for the rest, rejected the opinion that God created all things from a matter equally eternal with himself, this did not necessarily imply his abandonment of Origen's principle of the eternity of matter; yet it is at any rate possible that in this point he took a more guarded view of the master's doctrine. 264 The fragment given by Athanasius (de decr. Nic. syn. 25) runs as follows: Οὐκ ἔξωθέν τις ἐστὶν ἐφευρεθεῖσα ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ οὐσία, οὐδὲ ἐκ µὴ ὄντων ἐπεισήχθη· ἀλλὰ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας ἔφυ, ὡς τοῦ φωτὸς τὸ ἀπαύγασµα, ὡς ὕδατος ἀτµίς· οὔτε γὰρ τὸ ἀπαύγασµα οὔτε ἡ ἀτµὶς αὐτὸ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐστὶν ἢ αὐτὸς ὁ ἥλιος, οὔτε ἀλλότριον· καὶ οὔτε αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ πατὴρ οὔτε ἀλλότριος ἀλλὰ ἀπόῤῥοια τῆς τοῦ 261

even the Cappadocians remarked certain affinities between Arius and Theognostus,265 and Photius informs us that he called the Son a “creature” (κτίσµα), and said such mean things about him that one might perhaps suppose that he was simply quoting, in order to refute, the opinions of other men. He also, like Origen, taught heterodox views as to the Holy Spirit, and the grounds on which he based the possibility of the incarnation were empty and worthless. As a matter of fact, Theognostus’ exposition of the sin against the Holy Ghost shows that he attached himself most closely to Origen. For it is based on the well-known idea of the master that the Father embraced the largest, the Son, the medium, and the Holy Spirit the smallest sphere; that the sphere of the 561 Son included all rational beings, inclusive of the imperfect, while that of the Spirit comprehended only the perfect 98(τελειούµενοι), and that therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost, as the sin of the “perfect”, could not be forgiven.266 The only novelty is that Theognostus saw occasion expressly to attack the view “that the teaching of the Spirit was superior to that of the Son” (τὴν τοῦ πνεύµατος διδασκαλίαν ὑπερβάλλειν τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ διδαχῆς). Perhaps he did this to oppose another disciple of Origen, Hieracas, who applied himself to speculations concerning Melchizedek, as being the Holy Spirit, and emphasised the worship of the Spirit.267 567 This Copt, who lived at the close of the third and in the first half of the fourth century, cannot be passed over, because, a scholar like Origen,268 he on the one hand modified and refined on certain doctrines of his

πατρὸς οὐσίας, οὐ µερισµὸν ὑποµεινάσης τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας· ὡς γὰρ µένων ὁ ἥλιος ὁ αὐτὸς οὐ µειοῦται ταῖς ἐκχεοµέναις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ αὐγαῖς, οὕτως οὐδὲ ἡ οὐσία τοῦ πατρὸς ἀλλοίωσιν ὑπέµεινεν, εἰκόνα ἑαυτῆς ἔχουσα τὸν υἱόν. Notice that the µερισµός is here negatived; but this negative must have been limited by other definitions. At all events we may perhaps regard Theognostus as midway between Pierius and Alexander of Alexandria. 265 See Gregory of Nyssa, c. Eunom. III. in Routh, l.c., p. 412; he proscribes the proposition of Theognostus: τὸν Θεὸν βουλόµενον τόδε τὸ πᾶν κατασκευάσαι, πρῶτον τὸν υἱὸν οἷόν τινα κανόνα τῆς δηµιουργίας ac8 προϋποστήσασθαι. Stephanus Gobarus has expressly noted it as a scandal that Athanasius should nevertheless have praised Theognostus (in Photius, Cod. 282). Jerome did not admit him into his catalogue of authors, and it is remarkable that Eusebius has passed him over in silence; this may, however, have been accidental. 266 See Athanas. Ep. ad Serap. IV., ch. 11; Routh, l.c., pp. 407-422, where the fragments of Theognostus are collected. 267 See Epiph. H. 67. 3, 55. 5. 268 Epiphanius (H. 67) speaks in the highest terms of the knowledge, learning, and power of memory, possessed by Hieracas.

master,269 and on the other hand, emphasised his practical principles, requiring celibacy as a Christian law.270 Hieracas is for us the connecting link between Origen and the 99Coptic monks; the union of ascetics founded by him may mark the transition from the learned schools of theologians to the society of monks. But in his proposition that, as regards practice, the suppression of the sexual 564 impulse was the decisive, and original, demand of the Logos Christ, Hieracas set up the great theme of the Church of the fourth and following century. In Alexandria the system of faith and the theology of Origen were fused more and more completely together, and it cannot be proved that the immediate disciples of Origen, the heads of the training-school, corrected their master.271 The first to do this in Alexandria was Peter, Bishop and Martyr.272 In his writings “Concerning divinity” (περὶ θεότητος), “Concerning the sojourn of our Saviour” (περὶ τῆς σωτῆρος ἡµῶν ἐπιδηµίας), and especially

269

H. understood the resurrection in a purely spiritual sense, and repudiated the restitutio carnis. He would have nothing to do with a material Paradise; and Epiphanius indicates other heresies, which H. tried to support by a comprehensive scriptural proof. The most important point is that he disputed, on the ground of 2 Tim. II. 5, the salvation of children who died even when baptised; “for without knowledge no conflict, without conflict no reward.” Epiphanius expressly certifies his orthodoxy in the doctrine of the Trinity; in fact. Arius rejected his Christology along with that of Valentinus, Mani, and Sabellius, in his letter to Alexander of Alex. (Epiph. H. 69. 7). From his short description of it (οὐδ ὡς Ἱεράκας λύχνον ἀπὸ λ ab8 ύχνου, ἢ ὡς λαµπάδα εἰς δύο — these are figures already employed by Tatian) we can only, however, conclude that H. declared the οὐσια of the Son to be identical with that of the Father. He may have developed Origen’s Christology in the direction of Athanasius. 270 See my Art. in Herzog’s R. E. 2 Aufl. VI., p. 100 f. Hieracas recognised the essential difference between the O. and N. T. in the commandments as to ἀγνεία, ἐγκράτεια, and especially, celibacy. “What then did the Logos bring that was new?” or what is the novelty proclaimed and instituted by the Only-begotten? The fear of God? The law already contained that. Was it as to marriage? The Scriptures (= the O. T.) had already dealt with it. Or as to envy, greed, and unrighteousness? All that is already contained in the O. T. Ἓν δὲ µόνον τοῦτο κατορθῶσαι ἦλθε, τὸ τὴν ἐγκράτειαν κηρύξαι ἔν τῷ κόσµῳ καὶ ἑαυτῷ ἀναλέξασθαι ἁγνείαν καὶ ἐγκράτειαν. Ἄνευ δὲ τούτου µὴ δύνασθαι ζῆν (Epiph. H. 67, ch. 1). He appealed to 1 Cor. VII., Hebr. XII. 14, Math. XIX. 12, XXV. 21. 271 Procopius undoubtedly maintains (Comm. in Genes., ch. III., p. 76, in Routh, Reliq. S. IV., p. 50) that Dionysius Alex., in his commentary on Ecclesiastes, contradicted the allegorical explanation of Gen. II., III; but we do not know in what the contradiction consisted. 272 Eusebius, H. E. IX. 6: Peter was made a martyr, probably in A.D. 311.

in his books “Concerning (the fact) that the soul does not pr 547 eexist, nor has entered this body after having sinned” (περὶ τοῦ µηδὲ προϋπάρχειν τὴν ψυχὴν µηδὲ ἀµαρτήσασαν τοῦτο εἰς σῶµα βληθῆναι), he maintains against Origen the complete humanity of the Redeemer, the creation of our souls along with our bodies, and the historical character of the events narrated in Gen. III., and he characterises the doctrine of a pre-mundane fall as a “precept of Greek philosophy which is foreign and alien to those who desire to live piously in Christ” (µάθηµα τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς φιλοσοφίας, ξένης καὶ ἀλλοτρίας οὔσης τῶν ἐν Χριστῷ εὐσεβῶς θελόντων ζῇν).273 This utterance proves that Peter had taken up a position definitely opposed to Origen; 581 274 but his own expositions show, on the other hand, that he only deprived Origen’s doctrines of their extreme conclusions, while otherwise he maintained them, in so far as they did not come into direct conflict with the rule of faith. The corrections on Origen’s system were therefore not undertaken silently 100even in Alexandria. A compromise took place between scientific theology, and the ancient antignostically determined Creed of the Church, or the letter of Holy Scripture, to which all the doctrines of Origen were sacrificed that contradicted the tenor of the sacred tradition.275 But above all, the distinction made by him between the Christian science of the perfect and the faith of the simple was to be abolished. The former must be curtailed, the latter added to, and thus a product arrived at in a uniform faith which should be at the same time ecclesiastical and s 55d cientific. After theology had enjoyed a period of liberty, the four last decades of the third century, a reaction seems to have set in at the beginning of the fourth, or even at the end of the third century, in Alexandria. But the man had not yet risen who was to preserve theology from stagnation, or from being resolved into the ideas of the time. All the categories employed by the theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries were already current in theology,276 but ad8 273See the fragments of Peter’s writings in Routh, l.c., pp. 21-82, especially pp. 46-50. Vide also Pitra, Analecta Sacra IV., p. 187 sq., 425 sq. 274 Decidedly spurious is the fragment of an Μυσταγωγία alleged of Peter, in which occur the words: τί δὲ εἴπω Ἡρακλᾶν καὶ ∆ηµήτριον τοὺς µακκαρίους ἐπισκόπους, οἵους πειρασµοὺς ὑπέστησαν ὑπὸ τοῦ µανέντος Ὠριγένους, καὶ αὐτοῦ σχίσµατα βαλλόντος ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, τὰ ἕως σήµερον ταραχὰς αὐτῇ ἐγείραντα (Routh, l.c., p. 81). 275 We have unfortunately no more precise information as to Peter’s attitude; we may determine it, however, by that of Methodius (see under). 276 So µονάς — τριάς — οὐσία – φύσις — ὑποκείµενον — ὑπόστασις — πρόσωπον — περιγραφή — µερίζεσθαι — διαιρεῖν — πλατύνειν — συγκεφαλαιοῦσθαι — κτίζειν — ποιεῖν — γίγνεσθαι γεννᾶν — ὁµοούσιος — ἐκ τῆς

they had not yet received their definite impress and fixed value.277 Even the Biblical texts which in those centuries were especially exploited pro and contra, 101had already been collected in the third. Dionysius of Alexandria had already given warning that the word 52d ὁµοούσιος did not occur in Holy Scripture, and this point of view seems, as a rule, to have been thoroughly decisive even in the third century.278 We get an insight into the state of religious doctrine about the middle of the third century and afterwards from the works of Gregory,279 the miracle-worker, who was one of the most eminent of Origen’s disciples, and whose influence in the provinces of Asia Minor extended far into the fourth century. This scholar and Bishop who delivered the first Christian panegyric — one on

οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός — διὰ τοῦ θελήµατος — Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ — φῶς ἐκ φωτός — γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα — ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν — οὐκ ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν — ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν — ἕτερος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν — ἄτρεπτος — ἀναλλοί 550 ωτος — ἀγέννητος — ἀλλότριος — πηγὴ τῆς θεότητος — δύο οὐσίαι — οὐσία οὐσιωµένη — ἐνανθρώπησις — θεάνθρωπος — ἕνωσις οὐσιώδης — ἕνωσις κατὰ µετουσίαν — συνάφεια κατὰ µάθησιν καὶ µετουσίαν — συγκρᾶσις — ἐνοικεῖν etc. Hipler in the Oesterr. Vierteljahrschrift für kathol. Theol. 1869, p. 161 ff. (quoted after Lösche, Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1884, S. 259) maintains that expressions occurred in the speculations of Numenius and Porphyry as to the nature of God, which only emerged in the Church in consequence of the Nicene Council. Those technical terms of religio-philosophical speculation, common to the Neoplatonists of the 3rd century, the Gnostics and Catholic theologians, require reexamination. One result of this will be perhaps the conclusion that the philosophy of Plotinus and Porphyry was not uninfluenced by the Christian system, Gnostic and Origenistic, which they opposed. We await details under this head from Dr. Carl Schmidt. acb 277 The meaning which was afterwards attached to the received categories was absolutely unthinkable, and corresponded perfectly to none of the definitions previously hit upon by the philosophical schools. But this only convinced men that Christianity was a revealed doctrine, which was distinguished from philosophical systems by mysterious ideas or categories. 278 But we have not yet ascertained the method followed in the earlier period of collecting the verdicts of the older Fathers, and of presenting them as precedents; yet it is noteworthy that Irenæus and Clement already delighted in appealing to the πρεσβύτεροι, which meant for them, however, citing the Apostles’ disciples, and that Paul of Samosata was accused in the epistle of the Synod of Antioch, of despising the ancient interpreters of the Divine Word (Euseb. VII. 30). 279 See Caspari IV., p. 10 ff.; Ryssel, Gregorius Thaumaturgus, 1880. Vide also Overbeck in the Th. L.–Z., 1881, No. 12, and Dräscke in the Jahrb. f. protest. Theol. 1881, H. 2. Edition by Fronto. Ducäus, 1621. Pitra, Analecta Sacra III.; also Loofs, Theol. L. Z., 1884, No. 23.

Origen — and has in it given his autobiography, remained throughout his life an enthusiastic follower of Origen, and adhered, in what was essential, to his doctrine of the Trinity. 5a2 280 But Gregory felt compelled, in opposition to Christians whose conception of the Trinity was absolutely polytheistic, to emphasise the unity of the Godhead. He did this in his “Confession of faith”,281 and in a still greater degree, according to the testimony of Basilius, in his lost work διάλεξις πρὸς Ἀλιανόν (Debate with Ailianus),282 which contained a proposition, afterwards appealed to by Sabellians, and somewhat to the following effect, viz., Father and Son are two in thought, but one in substance (πατὴρ καὶ υἱὸς ἐπινοίᾳ 561 µέν εἰσι δύο, ὑποστάσει δὲ ἕν). Gregory, on the other hand, described the Logos as creature (κτίσµα) 102and created (ποίηµα) — so Basilius tells us, — and this form of expression can probably be explained by the fact that he thought it necessary, in this way and aggressively (ἀγωνιστικῶς), to emphasise, on the basis of Origen’s idea of the Homoousia of the Son, the substantial unity of the deity, in opposition to a view of the divine Hypostases which approximated to polytheism. On the whole, however, we cannot avoid supposing, that at the time when theology was introduced into the faith — a work in which Gregory especially took part, — and in consequence the worst confusions set in,283 the tendency to heathen Tritheism had grown, and theologians found themselves compelled to maintain the “preaching of the monarchy” ( 567 κήρυγµα τῆς µοναρχίας) to an increasing extent. This is proved by the correspondence of the Dionysii, the theology of Hieracas, and the attitude of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria; but we have also the evidence of Gregory. True, the genuineness of the writing ascribed to him, on the “essential identity”284 (of the three Persons), is not yet decided, but it belongs, at all events, to the period before Athanasius. In this treatise the author seeks to 280

See Caspari’s (l.c.) conclusions as to Gregory’s confession of faith, whose genuineness seems to me made out. Origen’s doctrine of the Trinity appears clearly in the Panegyric. The fragment printed by Ryssel, p. 44 f., is not by Gr. Thaumaturgus. 281 572 See Caspari, l.c., p. 10: τριὰς τέλεια, δόξη καὶ ἀϊδιότητι καὶ βασιλείᾳ µὴ µεριζοµένη µηδὲ ἀπαλλοτριουµένη. Οὔτε οὖν κτιστόν τι ἢ δοῦλον ἐν τῇ τριάδι οὔτε ἐπείσακτον, ὡς πρότερον µὲν οὐχ ὕπαρχον, ὕστερον δὲ ἐπείσελθόν· οὔτε γὰρ ἐνέλιπέ ποτε υἱὸς πατρί, οὔτε τἱῷ πνεῦµα, ἄλλ᾽ ἄτρεπτος καὶ ἀναλλοίωτος ἡ αὐτὴ τριὰς ἀεί. 282 Basil., ep. 210. 283 acb It remained a matter of doubt in the East up to the beginning of the fourth century, whether one ought to speak of three Hypostases (essences, natures), or one. 284 Ryssel, p. 65 f., 100 f.; see Gregor. Naz., Ep. 243, Opp, p. II., p. 196 sq., ed. Paris, 1840.

establish the indivisibility and uniqueness of God, subject to the hypothesis of a certain hypostatic difference. In this he obviously approaches Monarchian ideas, yet without falling into them. Further, the very remarkable tractate, addressed to Theopompus, on the incapability and capability of suffering,285 treats this very subject, without e 564 ven hinting at a division between Father and Son in this connection; on the other hand, the author certainly does not call it in question. We can study in the works of Gregory, and in the two treatises286 just mentioned, which bear his name, the state of theological stagnation, connected with the indeterminateness of all dogmatic ideas, and the danger, 103then imminent, of passing wholly over to the domain of abstract philosophy, and of relaxing the union of speculation with the exegesis of Holy Scripture. The problems are strictly confined to the sphere of Origen’s theology; but that theology was so elastic that they threatened to run wild and become thoroughly secular.287 If, e.g., we review the Christological tenets of Eusebius of Cæsarea, one of Origen’s most enthusiastic followers, we are struck by their universal hollowness and e 564 mptiness, uncertainty and instability. While Monotheism is maintained with an immense stock of Bible texts and a display of all possible formulas, a created and subordinate God is, in fact, interposed between the deity and mankind. But there was also in the East a theology which, while it sought to make use of philosophy, at the same time tried to preserve in their realistic form the religious truths established in the fight with Gnosticism. There were theologians who, following in the footsteps of Irenæus and Hippolytus, by no means despised science, yet found the highest truth expressed in the tenets handed 285

Ryssel, p. 71 f., 118 f. The genuineness of the tractate is not so certain as its origin in the 3rd century; yet see Loofs, l.c. 286 See also the Sermo de incarnatione attributed to Gregory (Pitra III., p. 144 sq., 395 sq.) 287 Origen himself always possessed in his unconditional adherence to the Bible a kind of corrective against the danger of passing entirely over to philosophy. Though thoroughly versed in philosophical science, he sought never to be more than a scriptural theologian, and urged his disciples — witness his letter to Gregor. Thaum. — to give up their philosophical studies, and devote themselves wholly to the Bible. No professedly philosophical expositions occur in Origen himself, so far as I know, like those transmitted by his disciples. For the latter the comprehensive chapter of Eusebius (H. E. VII. 32) is very instructive. Here we meet with Bishops who seem to have been scholars first and clerics afterwards. This Eusebius (§ 22) has to tell of one: λόγων µὲν φιλοσόφων καὶ τῆς ἂλλης παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι παιδείας παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς θαυµασθείς, οὐχ ὁ 564 οίως γε νὴν περὶ τὴν θείαν πίστιν διατεθειµένος.

down by the Church; and who therefore, refusing the claim of philosophical Gnosis to re-edit the principles of faith, only permitted it to support, connect, and interpret them. These theologians were necessarily hostile to the science of religion cultivated in Alexandria, and enemies of its founder Origen. We do not know whether, during his life-time, Origen came into conflict in the East with opponents who met him in the spirit of an Irenæus.288 From his 564 own statements we must suppose that he only had to deal with untrained disputants. 104But in the second half of the third century, and at the beginning of the fourth, there were on the side of the Church antagonists of Origen’s theology who were well versed in philosophical knowledge, and who not merely trumped his doctrine with their ψιλὴ πίστις (bare faith), but protected the principles transmitted by the Church from spiritualising and artificial interpretations, with all the weapons of science.289 The most important among them, indeed really the only one of whom we have any very precise knowledge, besides Peter

288

It is unknown who was the καλλίων ἡµῶν πρεσβύτης καὶ µακαριστὸς ἀνὴρ quoted by Epiph. (H. 64, ch. 8 and 67) as an opponent of Origen. 289 Besides these we have Eastern theologians, who, while they did not write against Origen, show no signs in their works of having been influenced by Alexandrian theology, but rather resemble in their attitude Irenæus and Hippolytus. Here we have especially to mention the author of five dialogues against the Gnostics, which, under the title “De recta in deum fide,” bear the name of Adamantius; see the editio princeps by Wetstei ab8 n, 1673, and the version of Rufinus discovered by Caspari (Kirchenhistorische Anecdota, 1883; also Th. L.–Z. 1884, No. 8) which shows that the Greek text is interpolated. The author, for whom we have perhaps to look in the circle of Methodius, has at any rate borrowed not a little from him (and also from the work of Theophilus against Marcion?). See Jahn, Methodii, Opp. I., p. 99, II. Nos. 474, 542, 733-749, 771, 777. Möller in Herzog’s R. E., 2 Ed., IX., p. 725. Zahn, Ztschr. f. Kirchengesch., Vol. IX., p. 193 ff.: “Die Dialoge des Adamantius mit den Gnostikern.” The dialogues were written ± 300, probably somewhere in East Asia Minor, or in West Syria, according to Zahn about 300313 in Hellenic Syria, or Antioch. They are skilfully written and instructive; a very moderate use is made of philosophical theology. Perhaps the Ep. ad Diogn. also came from the circle of Methodius. Again, there is little philosophical theology to be discovered in the original edition of the first six books of the apostolic Constitutions, which belongs to the third century. See Lagarde in Bunsen’s Analecta Ante-Nicæna T. II. The author still occupied the standpoint of Ignatius, or the old anti-gnostic teachers. The dogmatic theology, in the longer recension of the work, preserved in Greek, belongs entirely to the reviser who lived in or after the middle of the 4th century (so App. Const. II. 24, VI. 11, 14, 41 [Hahn, Biblioth. der Symbole, 2 Aufl., §§ 10, 11, 64]; see my edition of the ∆ιδαχὴ, p. 241 ff. That Aphraates and the author of the Acta Archelai were unaffected by Origen’s theology will have been clear from what was said above, p. 50 f.

of Alexandria (see above), is Methodius.290 But of the great number of treatises by this original and prolific author only one has been till now preserved comple 538 te in the original — Conviv. decem virg., while we have the greater part of a second — De resurr.291 The rest 105has been preserved in the Slavic language, and only very lately been rendered accessible. The personality of Methodius himself, with his position in history, is obscure.292 But what we do know is enough to show that he was able to combine the defence of the Rule of Faith as understood by Irenæus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian,293 with the most thorough study of Plato’s writings and the reverent appropriation of Plato’s ideas. Indeed he lived in these. af4 294 Accordingly, he defended “the popular conception of the common faith of the Church” in an energetic counterblast to Origen, and rejected all his doctrines which contained an artificial version of traditional principles.295 But on the other hand, he did not repudiate the basis on which Origen’s speculation rested. He rather attempted with its presuppositions and method to arrive at a result in harmony with the common faith. There seems to be no doubt that he took the great work of Irenæus as his model; for the manner in which Methodius has endeavoured to overcome dualism and spiritualism, and to establish a speculative realism, recalls strikingly the undertaking of Irenæus. Like the latter, Methodius sought to demonstrate the eternal importance of the natural constitution in spirit and body of the creatures made by God; and he conceived salvation not as a disembodying, not in any sense as a division and separation, but as a transfiguration of the corporeal, and a union of what had been unnaturally divided. He rejected the pessimism with which Origen had, like the Gnostics, viewed the world as it is, the

290

Jahn, S. Methodii Opp., 1865; Pars II. S. Methodius Platonizans, 1865; Bonwetsch, M. von Olympus I. 1891. Vide also Pitra, Analecta Sacra T. III., IV. (see Loofs, Th. L.– Z., 1884, No. 23, col. 556 ff.). Möhler, Patrologie, pp. 680-700. Möller, l.c., p. 724 ff. Salmon Dict. of Christian Biogr. III. p. 909 sq. 291 Besides smaller fragments are found, increased by Pitra. 292 See Zahn, Ztschr. f. Kirchengesch. Vol. VIII., p. 15 ff. Place: Olympus in Lycia. 293 He was ranked in later times with Irenæus and Hippolytus (see Andreas Cæs. in præf. in Apoc., p. 2.) and that as a witness to the inspiration of John’s Apocalypse. 294 See Jahn, l.c. b05 295See the long fragments of the writing de resurrectione which was directed against Origen, as also the work περὶ τῶν γενητῶν. Methodius called Origen a “Centaur” (Opp. I. 100, 101), i.e., “Sophist,” and compared his doctrine with the Hydra (I. 86). See the violent attack on the new-fashioned exegetes and teachers in De resurr. 8, 9 (Opp I. 67 sq.) and 20, (p. 74), where the ὀστᾶ νοητὰ and σάρκας νοητάς of Origen’s school are ridiculed; ch. 21, p. 75; 39, p. 83.

σύστασις τοῦ κόσµου, making it, if a well-ordered and necessary prison, yet a prison after all. This he confronted with the optimistic conviction, that everything which God has created, and as he has created it, is capable of permanence and 106transfiguration.296 Accordingly, he opposed Origen’s doctrines of the pre-existence of souls, the nature and object of the world and of corporeality, the eternal duration of the world, a premundane Fall, the resurrection as a destruction of the body, etc. At the same time he certainly misrepresented them, as, e.g., Origen’s doctrine of sin, p. 68 sq. Like Irenæus, Methodius introduced curious speculations as to Adam for the purpose of establishing realism, i.e., the maintenance of the literal truth of sacred history. Adam was to him the 545 whole of natural humanity, and he assumed, going beyond Irenæus, that the Logos combined the first man created (protoplast) with himself.297 107This union was conceived as a complete

296

See the short argument against Origen, De resurr. 28, p. 78: Εἰ γὰρ κρεῖττον τὸ µὴ εἶναι τοῦ εἶναι τὸν κόσµον, διὰ τί τὸ χεῖρον ἡρεῖτο ποιήσας τὸν κόσµον ὁ Θεός; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ὁ Θεὸς µαταίως ἢ χεῖρον ἐποίει. οὐκοῦν εἰς τὸ εἶναι καὶ µένειν τὴν κτίσιν ὁ Θεὸς διεκοσµήσατο. Wisdom I. 14 and Rom. VIII. 19 follow. The fight waged by Methodius against Origen presents itself as a continuation of that conducted by Irenæus against the Gnostics. It dealt in part with the same problems, and used the same arguments and proofs. The extent to which Origen hellenised the Christian tradition was in the end as little tolerated in the Church as the latitude taken by the Gnostics. But while Gnosticism was completely ejected in two or three generations it took much longer to get rid of Origenism. Therefore, still more of Origen’s theology passed into the “revealed” system of Church doctrine, than of the theology of the Gnostics. 297 See Conviv. III. 6 (p. 18 sq.): ταύτῃ γὰρ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἄνείληφεν ὁ λόγος, ὅπως δὴ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καταλύσῃ τὴν ἐπ᾽ ὀλέθρῳ γεγονυῖαν καταδί ac8 κην, ἡττήσας τὸν ὄφιν. ἥρµοζε γὰρ µὴ δι᾽ ἑτέρου νικηθῆναι τὸν πονηρὸν ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἐκείνου, ὃν δὴ καὶ ἐκόµπαζεν ἀπατήσας αὐτὸν τετυραννηκέναι, ὅτι µὴ ἄλλως τὴν ἁµαρτίαν λυθῆναι καὶ τὴν κατάκρισιν δυνατὸν ἦν, εἰ µὴ πάλιν ὁ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος ἄνθρωπος, δι᾽ ὃν εἴρητο το “γῆ εἶ καί εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσῃ,” ἀναπλασθεὶς ἀνέλυσε τὴν ἀπόφασιν τὴν δι᾽ αὐτὸν εὶς πάντας ἐξενηνεγµένην. ὅπως, καθὼς ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰµ πρότερον πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν, οὕτω δὴ πάλιν καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀνειληφότι Χπιστῷ τὸν Ἀδαµ πάντες ζωοποιηθῶσιν. Still clearer is III. 4, where it is expressly denied that Adam is only a type of Christ: φέρε γὰρ ἡµεῖς ἐπισκεψώµεθα πῶς ὀρθοδόξως ἀνήγαγε τὸν Ἀδὰµ εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν, οὐ µόνον τύπον αὐτὸν ἡγούµενος εἶναι καὶ εἰκόνα, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο Χριστὸν καὶ αὐτὸν γεγονέναι διὰ τὸ τὸν πρὸ αἰώνων εἰς αὐτὸν ἐγκατασκῆψαι λόγον. ἥρµοζε γὰρ τὸ πρωτόγονον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πρῶτον βλάστηµα καὶ µονογενὲς τὴν σοφίαν τῷ πρωτοπλάστῳ καὶ πρώτῳ καὶ πρωτογόνῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀνθρώπῳ κερασθεῖσαν ἐνηνθρωπηκέναι, τοῦτο γὰρ εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν, ἄνθρωπον ἐν ἀκράτῳ θεότητι καὶ τελείᾳ πεπληρωµένον καὶ Θεὸν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ κεχωρηµένον· ἦν γὰρ πρεπωδέστατον τόν πρεσβύτατον τῶν αἰώνων καὶ πρῶτον τῶν ἀρχαγγέλων, ἀνθρώποις µέλλοντα

incorporation: “God embraced and comprehended in man;” and, starting from this incorporation, the attempt was made to explain redemption in terms of a mystical realism. Salvation was not consummated in knowledge (Gnosis), but it came to light, already achieved for mankind, in the constitution of the God-man.298 But for this very reason Methodius borders, just like Irenæus, on a mode of thought which sees in the incarnation the necessary completion of creation, and conceives the imperfection of the first Adam to have been natural. 583 1 Adam, i.e., mankind, was before Christ still in a plastic condition, capable of receiving any impression and liable to dissolution. Sin, which had exclusively an external source, had therefore an easy task; humanity was first consolidated in Christ. In this way freedom is retained, but we easily see that Origen’s idea of sin was more profound than that of Methodius.299 The fantastic realism of the latter’s view is carried

συνοµιλεῖν, εἰς τὸν πρεσβύτατον καὶ πρῶτον τῶν ἀνθρώπον εἰσοικισθῆναι τὸν Ἀδάµ. See also III. 7 8: προγεγύµνασθαι γὰρ . . . ὡς ἄρα ὁ πρωτόπλαστος οἰκείως εἰς αὐτὸν ἀναφέρεσθαι δύναται τὸν Χριστόν, οὐκέτι τύπος ὢν καὶ ἀπείκασµα µόνο ac8 ν καὶ εἰκὼν τοῦ µονογενοῦς, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο σοφία γεγονώς καὶ λόγος. δίκην γὰρ ὕδατος συγκερασθεὶς ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῇ σοφίᾳ καὶ τῇ ζωῇ τοῦτο γέγονεν, ὅπερ ἦν αὐτὸ τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν ἐγκατασκῆψαν ἄκρατον φῶς. 298 Yet see, under, the new turn given to the speculation. 299 S. Conviv. III. 5: ἔτι γὰρ πηλουργούµενον τὸν Ἀδάµ, ὡς ἔστιν εἰπεῖν, καὶ τηκτὸν ὄντα ταὶ ὑδαρῆ, καὶ µηδέπω φθάσαντα δίκην ὀστράκου τῇ ἀφθαρσίᾳ κραταιωθῆναι καὶ παγιωθῆναι, ὕδωρ ὥσπερ καταλειβοµένη καὶ καπαστάζουσα διέλυσεν αὐτὸ ἡ ἁµαρτία. διὸ δὴ πάλιν ἄνωθεν ἀναδεύων καὶ πηλοπλαστῶν τὸν αὐτὸν εἰς τιµὴν ὁ Θεός ἐν τῇ παρθενικῇ κραταιώσας πρῶτον καὶ πήξας µήτρᾳ καὶ συνενώσας καὶ συγκεράσας τῷ λογῳ, ἄτηκτον καὶ ἄθραυστον ἐξήγαγεν εἰς τὸν βίον, ἵνα µὴ πάλιν τοῖς τῆς φθορᾶς ἔξψθεν ἐπικλυσθεὶς ἱεύµασιν, τηκεδόνα γεννήσας διαπέσῃ. Methodius, like Irenæus, gave much study to Paul’s Epistles, because they were especially quoted by Origen and his school (see ch. 51 fin., p. 90); on the difficulties which he felt see De resurr. 26, p. 77; 38, p. 83. 300 The expositions of concupiscen ac8 ce, sin, and death, are distinguished very strongly from those of Origen. (For death as means of salvation see De resurr. 23, 49). They resemble the discussions of Irenæus, only Methodius maintains — a sign of the times — that sinlessness is impossible even to the Christian. See De resurr. 22 (I., p. 75): ζῶντος γὰρ ἔτι τοῦ σώµατος πρὸ τοῦ τεθνήξεσθαι συζῆν ἀνάγκη καὶ τὴν ἁµαρτίαν, ἔνδον τὰς ῥίζας αὐτῆς ἐν ἡµῖν ἀποκρύπτουσαν, εἰ καὶ ἔξωθεν τοµαίς ταῖς ἀπὸ τῶν σωφρονισµῶν καὶ τῶν νουθετήσεων ἀνεστέλλετο, ἐπει οὐκ ἂν µετὰ τὸ φωτισθῆναι συνέβαινεν ἀδικεῖν, ἅτε παντάπασιν εἰλικρινῶς ἀφῃρηµένης ἀφ᾽ ἡµῶν τῆς αµαρτίας· νῦν δὲ καὶ µετὰ τὸ πιστεῦσαι καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐλθεῖν τοῦ ἁγνισµοῦ πολλάκις ἐν ἀµαρτίαις ὄντες εὑρισκόµεθα· οὐδεὶς γὰρ οὕτως ἁµαρτίας ἐκτὸς εἶναι ἑαυτὸν καυχήσεται, ὡς µηδὲ κἂν ἐνθυµηθῆναι τὸ σύνολον ὅλως τῆν ἀδικὶαν. To this

out in his speculations on the transference of salvation from 108Christ to individuals. The deep sleep of the Protoplast is paralleled in the second Adam by the sleep of death. Now as Eve was formed from, and was part of the being of sleeping Adam, so the Holy Spirit issued from Christ lying in the sleep of death, and was part of his being;301 and from him the Church was fashioned. “The Apostle has excellently applied the history of Adam to Christ. So we will require to say with him that the Church is of the bone and flesh of Christ, since for her sake the Logos left the Heavenly Father, and came down that he might cleave to his spouse; and he fell asleep unconscious of suffering, dying voluntarily for her, that he might present the Church to himself glorious and faultless, after he had purified her by the bath; so that she might receive the spiritual and blessed seed, which he himself, instilling and implanting, scatters into the depths of the Spirit, whom the Church receives and, fashioning, develops like a spouse, that she may bear and rear virtue. For in this way the word is also excellently fulfilled ‘Grow and increase’; since the Church increases daily in greatness, beauty, and extent; because the Logos dwells with her, and holds communion with her, and he even now descends to us, and in remembrance (Anamnesis) of his suffering (continually) dies to himself. For not otherwise could the Church continually conceive believers in her womb, and bear them anew through the bath of regeneration, unless Christ were repeatedly to die, emptying himself for the sake of 564 each individual, in order to find acceptance by means of his sufferings continuing and completing

conception corresponds the view of Methodius that Christianity is a cultus of mysteries, in which consecration is unceasingly bestowed on the τελειούµενοι. Methodius also referred Rom. VII. 18 f. to those born again. 301 The allegory receives another version Opp. I., p. 119: µή πως ἄρα αἱ τρεῖς αὗται τῶν προγόνων κεφαλαὶ πάσης τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ὁµοούσιοι ὑποστάσεις κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τινά, ὡς καὶ Μεθοδίῳ δοκεῖ — the passage occurs in Anastasius Sin. ap. Mai, Script. Vet. N. Coll. IX. p. 619 — τυπικῶς γεγόνασι τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὁµοούσιου τριάδος, τοῦ µὲν ἀναιτίου καὶ ἄγεννήτου Ἀδὰµ τύπον καὶ εἰκόνα ἔχοντος τοῦ ἀναιτίου καὶ πάντων αἱτίου παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ καὶ πατρός, τοῦ δὲ γεννηύ 552 οῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰκόνα προδιαγράφοντος τοῦ γεννητοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ. τῆς δὲ ἐκπορευτῆς Εὔας σηµαινούσης τὴν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος ἐκπορευτὴν ὑπόστασιν.

themselves; unless, descending from heaven, and united with his spouse, the Church, he imparted from his own side a certain power, that all who are edified in him should attain growth, those, namely, who, born again through baptism, have received flesh of his flesh, bone of his 109bone, i.e., of his holiness and glory. He, however, who calls bone and flesh wisdom and virtue, speaks truly; but the side is the Spirit of truth, the Paraclete, from whom the enlightened receiving their portion are born again, in a worthy manner, to immortality. But no one can participate in the Holy Spirit, and be accounted a member of Christ, unless the Logos has first descended upon him, and, falling asleep, has ‘emptied’ himself, that he, rising again and rejuvenated, along with him who fell asleep for his sake, and re-fashioned in his own person, may participate in the Holy Spirit. For the side (πλευρά) of the Logos is really the spirit of truth, the sevenformed of the prophet, from whom God, in accordance with the self-sacrifice of Christ, that is, the incarnation and suffering of Christ, takes away something, and fashions for him his spouse, in other words, s 564 ouls fit for him and prepared like a bride.”302 Methodius accordingly, starts in his speculations from Adam and Eve as the real types of Christ and the Church; but he then varies this, holding that the individual soul rather must become the bride of Christ, and that for each the descent of the Logos from heaven and his death must be repeated — mysteriously and in the heart of the believer. This variation became, and precisely through the instrumentality of Methodius, of eminent importance in the history of dogma.303 We would not have had in the third century all the premises from which Catholic Christianity was developed in the following centuries, unless this speculation had been brought forward, or, been given a central place, by a Christian theologian of the earlier period. 564 It marks nothing less than the tapering of

302

Conviv. III. 8. It was not altogether absent in earlier times, and on this see ch. V. § 2. As we have remarked above, individualism in this extreme form occurs also in Origen; see, e.g., “De orat.” 17.: “He who has perceived the beauty of the bride whom the Son of God loves as bridegroom, namely, the soul.” 303

the realistic doctrinal system of the Church into the subjectivity of monkish mysticism. For to Methodius, the history of the LogosChrist, as maintained by faith, was only the general background of an inner history, which required to repeat itself in each believer: the Logos had to descend from heaven, suffer, die, and 110rise again for him. Nay, Methodius already formulated his view to the effect that every believer must, through participation in Christ, be born as a Christ.304 The background was, however, not a matter of indifference, seeing that what took place in the individual must have first taken place in the Church. The Church, accordingly, was to be revered as mother, by the individual soul which was to become the bride of Christ. In a word: here we have the theological speculation of the future monachism of the Church, and we see why it could not but pair with the loftiest obedience, and greatest devotion to the Church. But the evidence that we have really 564 here the fundamental features of the monkish mysticism of the Church, is contained in the correct perception of the final object of the work from which the above details are taken. The whole writing seeks to represent the state of virginity as the condition of Christlikeness (I. 5, p. 13). Everything is directed to this end; yet marriage is not forbidden, but is admitted to possess a mystery of its own. Unstained virginity is ranked high above the married state; towards it all Christians must strive; it is the perfectly Christian life itself. Yet Methodius succeeds in maintaining, beside it, marriage and sin-stained birth from the flesh (II. 1 sq.). He had already arrived at the position of Catholic monasticism; the body belonging to the soul that would be the bride of Christ must remain virgin. The proper result of the work of Christ is represented in the state of virginity of the

ac6

304

Conviv. VIII. 8: Ἐγὼ γάρ τὸν ἄρσενα (Apoc. XII. 1 f.) ταύτῃ γεννᾶν εἰρῆσθαι νoµίζω τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ἐπειδὴ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας καὶ τὴν ἐκτύπωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀρρενωπίαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ προσλαµβάνουσιν οἱ φωτιζόµενοι, τῆς καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν µορφῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐκτυπουµένης τοῦ λόγου καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς γεννωµένης κατά τὴν ἀκριβῆ γνῶσιν καὶ πίστιν ὥστε ἐν ἑκάστῳ γεννᾶσθαι τὸν Χριστὸν νοητῶς· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἡ ἐκκλησία σπαργᾷ καὶ ὡδίνει, µέχριπερ ἂν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐν ἡµῖν µορφωθῇ γεννηθείς, ὅπως ἕκαστος τῶν ἁγίων τῷ µετέχειν Χριστοῦ Χριστος γεννηθῇ, καθ᾽ ὃν λόγον καὶ ἔν τινι γραφῇ φέρεται “µὴ ἅψησθε τῶν Χριστῶν µου” οἱονεὶ Χριστῶν γεγονότων τῶν κατὰ µετουσίαν τοῦ πνεύµατος εἰς Χριστὸν βεβαπτισµένων, συµβαλλούσης ἐνταῦθα τὴν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τράνωσιν αὐτῶν καὶ µεταµόρφωσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. Even Tertullian teaches (De pud. 22) that the martyr who does what Christ did, and lives in Christ, is Christ.

believers who still walk upon earth, and it is the bloom of imperishableness: “Exceedingly great and wonderful and glorious is virginity, and to speak plainly, following Holy Scripture, this most noble 111and fair practice is alone the ripe result, the flower and first fruits of incorruption, and therefore the Lord promises to admit “those who have preserved th 564 eir virginity into the kingdom of heaven . . . for we must understand that virginity, while walking “upon the earth, reaches the heavens”: µεγάλη τίς ἐστιν ὑπερφυῶς καὶ θαυµαστὴ καὶ ἔνδοξος ἡ παρθενία, καὶ εἰ χρὴ φανερῶς εἰπεῖν ἐποµένην ταῖς ἁγίαις γραφαῖς, τὸ οὖθαρ τῆς ἀφθαρσίας καὶ τὸ ἄνθος καὶ ἡ ἀπαρχὴ αὐτῆς τοῦτο τὸ ἄριστον καὶ κάλλιστον ἐπιτήδευµα µόνον τυγχάνει, καὶ δία ταῦτα καὶ ὁ κύριος εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν εἰσελάσαι τῶν οὐρανῶν τοὺς ἀποπαρθενεύσαντας σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐπαγγελλεται . . . , παρθενίαν γὰρ βαίνειν µέν ἐπὶ γῆς, ἐπιψαύειν δὲ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἡγητέον (Conv. I. 1, p. 11). Methodius started from other premises than the school of Origen, and bitterly opposed the latter, but in the end he came to the same practical result — witness the followers of Hieracas. Their s 564 peculations also led to the depreciation of the objective redemption, and to monachism. But the concrete forms were very different. In Origen himself and his earliest disciples the Church was by no means really the mother, or, if it were, it was in a wholly different sense from that of Methodius. Asceticism and in particular virginity were not in themselves valuable, an end in themselves, but means to the end. Finally, Gnosis (knowledge) was different from Pistis (faith), and the ideal was the perfect Gnostic, who is freed from all that is alien and fleeting, and lives in the eternal and abiding. Methodius’ teaching was different. Pistis and Gnosis were related to each other as theme and exposition: there is only one truth, which is the same for all; but on the soil of the Church there is room for the state of virginity, which is the goal of the incarnation, though all may not yet reach it. The important and momentous achievement of Methodius305 consisted in

305

The theology of Methodius was in the Eastern Church, like Tertullian’s in the West, a prophecy of the future. His method of combining tradition and speculation was not quite attained even by the Cappadocians in the 4th century. Men like Cyril of Alexandria were the first to resemble him. In Methodius we have already the final stage of Greek theology.

subordinating a realistic Church theology, which yet was not destitute of a speculative phase, and even made a moderate use of the allegorical 564 method, 112to the practical object of securing virginity, a life in which God and Christ were imitated, (Conv. I. 5, p. 13: to imitate God is to escape from corruption [ὁµοίωσις Θεῷ φθορᾶς ἀποφυγή]; Christ is not only arch-shepherd and archprophet [ἀρχιποιµήν-ἀρχιποροφήτης], but also archetypal virgin [ἀρχιπαρθνος]). This doctrine, as well as the practical attitude of Hieracas, and many other features, as, e.g., the considerably earlier Pseudo-Clementine epistles “De virginitate,”306 prove that the great aspiration of the time in the East was towards monachism, and Methodius succeeded in uniting this with a Church theology. In spite of his polemic against Origen he did not despise those phases of the latter’s theology, which were at all compatible with the traditional comprehension of religious doctrine. Thus he accepte 564 d the doctrine of the Logos implicitly in the form given to it by Origen’s school, without, of course, entangling himself in the disputed terminology (see, e.g., De creat. 11, p. 102); so far as I know, he made no express defence of Chiliasm, in spite of the high value he put on the Apocalypse. He is even said by Socrates (H. E. VI. 13) to have admired Origen, in one of his latest writings, “a sort of recantation” (ὡς ἐκ παλινῳδίας). However that may be, the future belonged not to Origen, nor to the scientific religion that soared above faith, but to compromises, such as those, stamped with monachism, which Methodius concluded, to the combination of realistic and speculative elements, of the objectivity of the Church and the mysticism of the monks.307 The great fight in the next decades was undoubtedly to be fought out between two forms of the doctrine of the Logos; the one, that of Lucian the martyr and his school, which had adopted elements distinctive of Adoptianism, and the other, professed by Alexander of Alexa 564 ndria and the Western theologians, which with Sabellianism held fast the unity of the divine nature. But, in the case of the majority of Eastern 113Christians in the 4th century, the background or basis of these opposite views was formed, not by a theology purely Origenist, but by one of compromise, which had resulted from a combination of the former with the popular idea of the rules of faith, and which sought its goal, not in an absolute knowledge and

578 306

See Funk, Patr. App. Opp. II. pp. 1-27, and Harnack, Sitzungsberichte d. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissensch. 1891, p. 361 ff. 307 On the authority of Methodius in later times, see the Testimonia Veterum in Jahn, 1. c. I., p. 6 sq. The defence of Origen against Methodius by Pamphilus and Eusebius has unfortunately been preserved only to a very small extent. See Routh, Reliq. S. IV., p. 339 sq.

the calm confidence of the pious sage, but in virginity, ecclesiasticism, and a mystical deification. Men like Methodius became of the highest consequence in the development of this theological genus, which, indeed, could not but gain the upper hand more and more, from the elemental force of factors existent in the Church.308 But while as regards Origen’s theology reservations may have gradually grown stronger and more numerous in the course of the next decades, theological speculation aimed in the East, from about 250-320, at a result than which nothing grander or more assured could be 564 imagined. In the West the old, short, Creed was retained, and, except in one case,309 the Christological conflicts did not induce men to change it. But in the leading Churches of the East, and during the given period, the Creeds were expanded by theological additions,310 and thus exegetical and speculative theology was introduced into the Apostolic faith itself.311 Thus, in

308

It is instructive to notice how Athanasius has silently and calmly shelved those doctrines of Origen which did not harmonise with the wording of the rule of faith, or allegorised facts whose artificial ac8 interpretation had ceased to be tolerated. 309 See above, p. 75. 310 It is possible, and indeed probable, that Creeds were then set up for the first time in many Churches. The history of the rise of Creeds — further than the Baptismal formula — in the East is wholly obscure. Of course there always were detailed Christological formulas, but the question is whether they were inserted into the Baptismal formula. 311 It has been already pointed out on p. 48, note 1, that the Biblical character of some of those additions cannot be used against their being regarded as theological and philosophical formulas. The theology of Origen — witness his letter to Gregory — was throughout exegetical and speculative; therefore the reception of certain Biblical predicates of Christ into the Creeds meant a desire to legitimise the speculation which clung to them as Apostolic. The Churches, however, by setting up theological Creeds only repeated a development in which they had been anticipated about 120 years before by the “Gnostics.” The latter had theologically worked out Creeds as early as in the second century. Tertullian, it is true, says of the Valentinians (adv. Valent. I.) “communem fidem affirmant,” i.e., they adapt themselves to the common faith; but he himself relates (De carne, 20; see Iren. I. 7, 2) that they preferred “διά Μαρίας” to “ἐκ Μαρίας”; in other words, of these two prepositions, which were still used without question even in Justin’s time, they, on theological grounds, admitted only the one. So also they said “Resurrection from the dead” instead of “of the body.” Irenæus as well as Tertullian has spoken of the “blasphemous⍊564 regulæ of the Gnostics and Marcionites which were always being changed (Iren. I. 21 5, III. 11 3, I. 31 3; II præf.; II. 19 8, III. 16, I. 5; Tertull., De præscr. 42; Adv. Valent. 4; Adv. Marc. I. 1, IV. 5, IV. 17). We can still partly reconstruct these “Rules” from the Philosoph. and the Syntagma of Hippolytus (see esp. the regula of Apelles in Epiphan. H. XLIV. 2). They have mutatis mutandis the

the Catholic Churches of the East, this 114theology was for ever fused with the faith itself. A striking example has been already quoted; those six Bishops who wrote against Paul of Samosata in the seventh decade of the third c ab1 entury, submitted a Rule of

most striking similarity to the oriental confessions of faith published since the end of the third century; compare, e.g., the Creed, given under, of Gregorius Thaumaturgus with the Gnostic rules of faith which Hippolytus had before him in the Philosoph. There is, further, a striking affinity between them in the fact that the ancient Gnostics already appealed in support of their regulæ to secret tradition, be it of one of the Apostles or all, yet without renouncing the attestation of these rules by Holy Scripture through the spiritual (pneumatic) method of Exegesis. Precisely the same thing took place in the Eastern Churches of the next age. For the tenor and phrasing of the new Creeds which seemed to be necessary, the appeal to Holy Scripture was ev ac8 en here insufficient, and it was necessary to resort to special revelations, as in the case alluded to, p. 115, note 3, or to a παράδοσις ἄγραφος of the Church. That the new theology and Christology had found their way into the psalms sung in the Church, can be seen from the Synodal document on Paul of Samosata (Euseb. VII. 30, 11), where it is said of the Bishop: ψαλµοὺς τοὺς µὲν εἰς τὸν κύριον ἡµῶν Ἰ. Χρ. παύσας ὡς δὴ νεωτέρους καὶ νεωτέρων ἀνδρῶν συγγράµµατα; i.e., Paul set aside those Church songs which contained the philosophical or Alexandrian christology. In this respect also the Church followed the Gnostics: compare in the period immediately following, the songs of Arius, on the one hand, and the orthodox hymns on the other; for we know of Marcionite, Valentinian, and Bardesanian psalms and hymns. (See the close of the Muratorian Fragment, further my investigations in the Ztschr. f. wissensch. Theol., 1876, p. 109 ff.; Tertull., De Carne Chr. 17; Hippol., Philos. VI. 37; the psalms of Bardesanes in Ephraim; the Gnostic hymns in the Acts of John and Thomas, in the Pistis Sophiæ, etc.). It is self-evident that these psalms contained the characteristic theology of the Gnostics; this also appears from the fragments that have been preserved, and is very clearly confirmed by Tertullian, who says of Alexander the Valentinian (1. c.): “sed remisso Alexandro cum suis syllogismis, etiam cum Psalmis Valentini, quos magna impudentia, quasi idonei alicuius auctoris interserit.” The scholastic form of the Church was more and more complete in the East in the second half of the third century Alexandrian Catechists, had finally succeeded in partly insinuating its teaching into the Church. Where Valentine Basilides, etc., had absolutely failed, and Bardesanes partly succeeded, the School of Origen had been almost entirely successful. It is very characteristic that the ecclesiastical parties which opposed each other in the third century applied the term “school” (διδασκαλεῖον) as an opprobrious epithet to their antagonists. This term was meant to signify a communion which rested on a merely human, instead of a revealed doctrine. But the Church nearly approximated, in respect of doctrine, to the form of the philosophic schools, at the moment when her powerful organisation destroyed every analogy with them, and when the possession of the two Testaments marked her off definitely from them. Much might be said on “schola” and “ecclesia”; a good beginning has been made by Lange, Haus und Halle, 1885, p. 28 ac8 8 ff. See also v. Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, “Die rechtliche Stellung der Philosophenschulen,” 1881.

Faith, which had been elaborated philosophically and theologically, as the faith handed down 115in the holy Catholic Church from the Apostles312 But we possess numerous other proofs. Gregory of Nyssa tells us that from the days of Gregory Thaumaturgus till his own, the Creed of the latter formed the foundation of the instruction given to catechumens in NeoCæsarea. But this Creed313 was neither more nor less than a compendium of Origen’s theology,314 which, here, 116was thus introduced into the faith and instruction of the Church. Further, it is clear from the letter of Alexander of Alexandria to Alexander of Constantinople, that the Church of Alexandria possessed at that time a Creed which had been elaborated theologically.315 After the

312

See also the document in Eusebius, H. E. VIII. 30, 6, where it is said of Paul: ἀποστὰς τοῦ κανόνος ἐπὶ κίβδηλα καὶ νόθα διδάγµατα µετελήλυθεν. 313 Caspari, l. c. IV., p. 10. 27. Hahn, § 114. 314 It runs: Εἷς Θέος, πατὴρ λόγου ζῶντος, σοφίας ὑφεστώσης καὶ δυνάµεως καὶ χαρακτῆρος ἀϊδίου, τέλειος τελείου γεννήτωρ, πατηρ υἱοῦ µονογενοῦς, Εἷς κύριος, µόνος ἐκ µόνου, Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, χαρακτὴρ καὶ εικων τῆς θεότητος, λόγος ἐνεργός, σοφία τῆς τῶν ὅλων συστάσεως περιεκτικὴ καὶ δύναµις τῆς ὅλης κτίσεως ποιητική, υἱὸς ἀληθινὸς ἀκληθινοῦ πατρός, ἀόρατος ἀοράτου καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἀθάνατος ἀθανάτου καὶ ἀΐδιος ἀϊδίου. Καὶ ἓν πνεῦµα ἅγιον, ἐκ Θεοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον καὶ δι᾽ υἱοῦ πεφηνὸς [δηλαδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις], εἰκὼν τοῦ ὑιοῦ, τεκείου τεκεία, ζωὴ ζώντων αἰτία, [πηγὴ ἁγία] ἁγιότης ἁγιασµοῦ χορηγός, ἐν ᾧ φανεροῦται Θεός ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσι, καὶ Θεὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὁ διὰ πάντων-τριὰς τελεία, δόξῃ ac8 καὶ ἀϊδιότητι καὶ βασιλείᾳ µὴ µεριζοµένη µὴδὲ ἀπαλλοτριουµενη. Οὔτε οὖν κτιστόν τι ἢ δοῦλον ἐν τῇ τριάδι, οὔτε ἐπείσακτον, ὡς πρότερον µὲν οὐχ ὑπάρχον, ὕστερον δὲ ἐπεισελθόν· οὔτε γὰρ ἐνέλιπέ ποτε υἱὸς πατρί οὔτε υἱῷ πνεῦµα, ἀλλ᾽ ἄτρεπτος καὶ ἀναλλοίωτος ἡ αὐτὴ τριὰς ἀεί. It ought to be distinctly noticed that the genuineness of this Creed is, in spite of Caspari’s brilliant defence, not raised above all doubt. But the external and internal evidence in support of its authenticity seem to me overwhelming. According to Gregory of Nyssa it was said to have been revealed to Gregory Thaumaturgus immediately before entering on his Bishopric, by the Virgin Mary and the Apostle John. If this legend is old, and there is nothing to show it is not, then we may regard it as proving that this confession of faith could only be introduced into the Church by the use of extraordinary means. The abstract, unbiblical character of the Creed is noteworthy; it is admirably suited to a follower of Origen like Gregory; but it is less suited to a post-Nicene Bishop. Origen himself would hardly have approved of so unbiblical a Creed. It points to a time in which there was imminent danger of theological speculation relaxing its connection with the Books of Revelation. 315 See Theodoret, H. E. I. 4; Hahn, l. c., § 65: Πιστεύοµεν, ὡς τῇ ἀποστολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ δοκεῖ, εἰς µόνον ἀγέννητον πατέρα, οὐδένα τοῦ εἶναι αὐτῷ τὸν αἴτιον ἔχοντα . . . καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν µονογενῇ, γεννηθέντα οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ µὴ ὄντος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος πατρός . . . πρὸς δὲ τῇ εὐσεβεῖ

Bishop has quoted extensive portions of it, which he describes as “the whole pious Apostolic doctrine” (πᾶσα ἡ ἀποστολικὴ εὐσεβὴς δόξα), he closes with the words “these things we teach and preach, that is the Apostolic dogmas of the Church” (ταῦτα διδάσκοµεν, ταῦτα κηρύττοµεν, ταῦτα τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὰ ἀποστολικὰ δόγµατα) But these dogmas belong to Origen’s theology. Finally, we perceive from the Nicene transactions, that many Churches then possessed Creeds, which contained the Biblical theological formulas of Origen. We may assert this decidedly of the Churches of Cæsarea, Jerusalem, and Antioch. 57b 1 The entire undertaking of the Fathers 117of the Nicene Council to set up a theological Creed to be observed by the whole Church, would have been impossible, had not the Churches, or at least the chief Churches, of the East already been accustomed to such Symbols. These Churches had thus passed, in the generations immediately preceding the Nicene, through a Creed-forming period, to which little attention has hitherto been paid. In its beginning and its course it is wholly obscure, but it laid the

ταύτῃ περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ δόξῃ, καθὼς ἡµᾶς αἱ θεῖαι γραφαὶ διδάσκουσιν, ἕν πνεῦµα ἅγιον ὁµολογοῦµεν, τὸ καινίσαν τοῦς τε τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκηύ ac8 ἁγίους ἀνθρώπους καὶ τοὺς τῆς χρηµατιζούσης καινῆς παιδευτὰς θείους. µίαν καὶ µόνην καθολικήν, τὴν ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ἀκαθαίρετον µὴν ἀεί, κἂν πᾶς ὁ κόσµος αὐτῇ πολεµεῖν βουλεύηται . . . Μετὰ τούτων τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν οἴδαµεν, ἧς ἀπαρχὴ γέγονεν ὁ κύριος ἡµῶν Ἰ. Χρ., σῶµα φορέσας ἀληθῶς καὶ οὐ δοκήσει ἐκ τῆς θεοτόκου (one of the earliest passages, of which we are certain, for this expression; yet it was probably already used in the middle of the third century; a treatise was also written περὶ τῆς θεοτόκου by Pierius) Μαρίας ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων, εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁµαρτίαςἐ πιδηµήσας τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων, σταυρωθεὶς καὶ ἀποθανών, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ διὰ ταῦτα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ θεότητος ἥττων γεγενηµένος, ἀναστὰς ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἀναληµφθείς ἐν οὐρανοῖς, καθήµενος ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς µεγαλωσύνης. 316 The Cæsarean Creed in Athanasius, Socrates, Theodoret and Gelasius, see. Hahn, § 116 and Hort, Two Dissertations, pp. 138, 139. It runs: Πιστεύοµεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, τὸν τῶν ἁπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν. Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰ. Χρ., τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς, υἱὸν µονογενῆ, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννηµένον, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα· τὸν διὰ τὴν ἡµετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐν ανθρώποις πολιτευσάµενον, καὶ παθόντα, καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡµέρᾳ, καὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν πατέρ 561 α, καὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. Καὶ εἰς πνεῦµα ἅγιον. This Creed is also remarkable from its markedly theological character. On the Creeds of Antioch and Jerusalem, which are at any rate earlier then A.D. 325. see Hort, (l.c 73) and Hahn, § 63. We cannot appeal, as regards the phrasing, to the so-called Creed of Lucian (Hahn, § 115). Yet it is extremely probable that it is based on a Creed by Lucian.

foundation for the development of theological dogmatics, peculiar to the Church, in the fourth and fifth centuries. It laid the foundation — for the following epoch was distinguished from this one by the fact that the precise definitions demanded by the doctrine of redemption, as contained within the frame-work of Origen’s theology, were fixed and made exclusive. Thus the dangers were guarded against, which rose out of the circumstance, that the philosophical theory of God, and the idea of the Logos which belonged to it, had been received into the system of religion, i.e., the Neo-platonic method and circle of ideas had been legitimised, without the tradit 564 ional tenets of the faith having been sufficiently protected against them. In the new Creeds of the period 260-325 we find the conditions to hand for a system of religion based on the philosophical doctrine of God, a system specifically belonging to the Church, completely expressed in fixed and technical terms, and scientific. We find the conditions ready — but nothing more, or less. But it was also due to the Creeds that in after times every controversy of the schools necessarily became a conflict that moved and shook the Church to its very depths. The men, however, who in the fourth and fifth centuries made orthodox dogma, were undoubtedly influenced, to a greater degree than their predecessors of from A.D. 260-315, by specifically Church ideas; and their work, if we measure it by the mixture of ideas and methods which they received from tradition, was eminently a conservative reduction and securing of tradition, so far as that was still in their possession. It was really a new thing, a first step of immeasurable significance, when Athanasius staked his whole life on the recognition of a single attribute — the consubstantiality — of Christ, and rejected all others as being liable to pagan misinterpretation. 118

At the beginning of the fourth century, Rules of 564 Faith and theology were differently related to each other in the Churches of the East and West. In the latter, the phraseology of the primitive Creed was strictly adhered to, and a simple antignostic interpretation was thought sufficient, by means of formulas like “Father, Son, and Spirit: one God” — “Jesus Christ, God and man” — “Jesus Christ, the Logos, wisdom, and power of God” In the former, theological formulas were admitted into the Confession of Faith itself, which was thus shaped into a theological compendium ostensibly coming from the Apostles. But in both cases, the personal reality, and, with it, the pre-existence of the divinity

manifested in Christ, were recognised by the vast majority;317 they were included in the instruction given to Catechumens; they furnished the point of view from which men sought to understand the Person of Christ. And, accordingly, the accurate definition of the relation of the Deity to that other divine nature which appeared on earth necessarily became the chief problem of the future. Second Part: The Development of the Dog 564 ma of the Church. 119

DIVISION II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA OF THE CHURCH. Book I. The History of the Development of Dogma as the Doctrine of the God-Man on the Basis of Natural Theology.

BOOK I. THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOGMA AS THE DOCTRINE OF THE GOD-MAN ON THE BASIS OF NATURAL THEOLOGY. 120

Τὰ κρατούµενα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως οὐκ ἔχει ἔπαινον, τὰ δὲ σχέσει φιλίας κρατούµενα ὑπεραινεῖται. PAUL OF SAMOSATA. Ohne Autorität kann der Mensch nicht existiren, und doch bringt sie ebensoviel Irrthum als Wahrheit mit sich; sie verewigt im Einzelnen. was einzeln vorübergehen sollte, lehnt ab und lässt vorübergehen, was festgehalten werden sol 564 lte, und ist

317

See the interesting passage in Eusebius’ letter to his Church, in which he (sophistically) so defends the rejection of the οὐκ ἦν πρὸ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι, as to fall back upon the universally recognised pre-existence of Christ (Theodoret, H. E. I. 12).

hauptsächlich Ursache dass die Menschheit nicht vom Flecke kommt.

121

BOOK I. THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOGMA AS THE DOCTRINE OF THE GOD-MAN ON THE BASIS OF NATURAL THEOLOGY. Chapter I. Historical Situation.

CHAPTER I. HISTORICAL SITUATION.318 THE first main division of the history of dogma closed with the adoption of the Logos doctrine as the central dogma of the Church, and with the accompanying revision in the East of the old formulas of the faith under the influence of philosophical theology. The testament of primitive Christianity — the Holy Scriptures — and the testament of Antiquity — Neoplatonic speculation — were intimately and, as it seemed, inseparably connected in the great Churches of the East. The system of doctrine established by the Church in the third century corresponded to the Church whose structure appeared co 564 mplete in the same period. As the political powers of the Roman Empire were conserved in the

318

Walch, Entw. einer vollst. Historie der Ketzereien, 1762 ff. Hefele, Konciliengesch., 2 Bd. I.–IV. Histories of the Roman Empire by Tillemont, Gibbon, Richter und Ranke (Weltgesch., Bd. IV. und V.). Réville, Die Religion z. Rom unter den Severern (German translation by Krüger, 1888). V. Schultze, Gesch. des Untergangs des griechisch-römischen Heidenthums, 2 Bde., 1887 f. Boissier, La fin du paganisme, 2 Bde. 1891. Dorner, Entw.-Gesch. d. L. v. d. Person Christi, II., 1853. H. Schultz, Die L. v. d. Gottheit Christi, 1881. Gass, Symbolik d. griech. Kirche, 1872. Kattenbusch, Lehrbuch d. vergleichenden Konfessionskunde. 1 Bd., 1890. Denzinger, Ritus Orientalium, 2 Bde. 1863 f.

Catholic Church, so also were the spiritual forces of Antiquity in its faith. Both required to be invested with divine lustre in order to live through storms and amid universal ruin.319 But Christianity was by no means completely Hellenised in Catholicism; that is proved, if we needed proof, by the attacks of 122Porphyry and Julian. Undoubtedly all the institutions and ideas felt to be necessary were included in the “Apostolic tradition” to an increasing extent. But since a place had been given in that tradition to the O. T. and the written memorials of primitive Christianity, these really furnished aids to the comprehension of the Gospel, which had certainly been obscured in the “Gnosis” as well as in the “New Law”. The theology of Origen, in spite of some very earnest attacks upon it, was held in the East to be the pattern and the inexhaustible source of the theology of the Church, so far as a scientific system was desired. Even its opponents, like Methodius, cou 564 ld not escape its influence. From its rich store of formulas were more fully elaborated, in opposition to what was called Ebionitism and Sabellianism, those confessions which were employed in the cultus and instruction of the Church, and which, thus enriched, were then invested with some sort of Apostolic authority.320 The West did not go. so far; yet it was perfectly defenceless against the “advances” made by the Church in the Eastern half of the Empire; for certain theological and Christological conceptions to which it also clung, made any counter-movement impossible, though many teachers, preachers, and apologists went ways of their own, and in their doctrines of Christ and salvation mixed up obsolete Christian traditions with the popular philosophy of the West. Looking to theological metaphysics as wrapped up in the official formulas of the Church, the difference was finally only one of degree. It showed itself among those less interested and scholarly, who were therefore conservative in their instincts and looked with distrust on the theology of Origen; they thought with perfect simplicity that the 564 ir own formulas: “Father, Son, and Spirit; one God”, “Christ, the Logos, wisdom, and power of God”, “duæ substantiæ, una persona”, “Jesus Christ, God and man”, constituted the “faith” which needed no explanation. The element of speculative philosophy was as a rule weak in the system of religion of the West. In place of it, the West of Tertullian possessed a series of juristic “plans” which were destined to have a great future.

319

Tiele, Kompendium der Relig. Gesch. (German transl.), p. 283: “the Catholic Church is the secular Roman rule, modified and consecrated by Christian ideas.” 320 See above, p. 47 ff., 113 ff.

In spite of many far-reaching differences in their practical and 123theoretical interests, in spite of the development in ecclesiastical affairs, Christians in East and West felt that they belonged to one united Church. The Novatian and Samosatian controversies ultimately resulted in strengthening the consciousness of unity,321 even though a not altogether insignificant part of Christendom cast itself adrift. These controversies showed plainly that the Western and Eastern communities held substantially the same position in the world, and that b 54a oth required to use the same means to maintain it. Communities everywhere adopted the character of the Church of the world. Their union preserved all the features of a political society, and, at the same time, of a disciplinary institution, equipped with sacred sanctions and dreadful punishments, in which individual independence was lost.322 Of course, in proportion as this confederacy of Christians adapted itself to civic, national, and political relationships, in order to maintain and strengthen itself, the integrity of the Church was most gravely imperilled, when these very relationships lost their last shreds of unity in the collapse of the Empire. Above all, the great cleavage between the Eastern and Western halves of the Empire could not fail to be prejudicial to the Church. But about the close of the third century the latter, in spite of discontent in its midst, held more firmly together than the Empire, and its unity was still maintained after the fourth century by great Emperors and influential theologians. 57e 1 In addition to the episcopal constitution, uniformly and strictly carried out, the common basis of the Churches was due to the recognition of the same authorities and designs, the uniform appreciation of sacramental rites, and the strong tendency to asceticism for the sake of a future life. It was, at first, too stable for the different forces which threatened to shatter the Empire, and also, in consequence, beat upon the Imperial Church. But this basis was nevertheless insufficient. It can be easily shown that the elements composing it were as incapable of 124guaranteeing the unity, as of protecting the Christianity, of the Church, through a prolonged period. Among the authorities the two Testaments, combined by the evidence of prophecy and allegorical explanation, took the first,

321

See on this the correspondence between the oriental Bishops and Julius of Rome; Socr., H. E., II. 15; Ep. Julii ap Athan., Apolog. c. Arian, ch. 21 sq. 322 See Vol. II., p. 122 f. 323 Reuter, Augustinische Studien, in the Zeitschr. f. K.-Gesch. V., p. 349 ff., VI., p. 155 ff., 190.

indeed, strictly speaking, a unique place. But not only was their extent not absolutely decided, but their interpretation was wholly uncertain. In addition to this, the scope to be left to the “Apostolic tradition”, i.e., the illusion of “antiquity”, and to the decision of episcopal synods, was b 564 y no means defined; for the sufficiency of Holy Scripture was placed, theoretically, beyond doubt. But where elementary wants, felt by the great majority, were to be satisfied, where a reassuring sanction was required for the advancing secularisation, men did not rack their brains, if no inconvenient monitors were in the way, to find precedents in Holy Scripture for what was novel. They went right back to the Apostles, and deduced from secret traditions what no tradition ever possessed. Huge spheres of ecclesiastical activity embracing new and extensive institutions — the reception of national customs and of the practices of heathen sects — were in this way placed under “Apostolic” sanction, without any controversy starting worth mention. This is true, e.g., of the ritual of worship and ecclesiastical discipline, “The sacred canons” or “the apostolic canons” constituted from the close of the third century, a court of appeal, which practically held the same rank as the sacred writings, and which, especially in the East, cast its protection to an increasing extent over national customs and traditional morals in the face of attacks of every kind. It is obvious that authorities so obtained were likely, in the end, to divide the Churches of the different nations. The crudest superstiti 564 on was thus consecrated by “apostolic” decrees, or legitimised, after the event, from the O. T.,324 and from the middle of the third century it ascended from the lower strata of Christians to the upper, which had lost all spiritual stability. And now in the fourth century, when Church and State were fused into one, everything was assigned to the former which had ever, or anywhere been regarded as venerable or holy. As it had submitted to the Church, it demanded indulgent 125treatment. The religion of pure reason and of the strictest morality, the Christianity which the ancient apologists had once portrayed, had long changed into a religion of the most powerful rites, of mysterious means, and an external sanctity. The historical tradition of Christ and the founding of Christianity was turned into a romance, and this historical romance, which was interwoven with the religion, constantly received new chapters. The stream of the history of salvation ended in a waste swamp of countless and confused sacred tales, and in its course took in heathen fictions and the stories of gods and he 564 roes. Every traditional holy rite

324

See my Edition of the ∆ιδαχή, Prolegg. pp. 222 ff., 239 ff.

became the centre of new sacred ceremonies, and every falling off in morality was covered by increasing the religious apparatus. The idea of forgiveness of sins was to many a cloak for frivolity and wickedness. Up to the middle of the third century, every Catholic Christian was, in all probability, a genuine monotheist. That can no longer be said of the generations who afterwards pressed into the Church. Polytheism had lost its name, indeed, but not its influence in the Church of the fourth century. Great masses preserved, in spite of their baptism, the piety to which they had been accustomed. Christian priests had to respect and adjust superstition, in order to keep the leadership in their hands, and theologians had no difficulty in finding, in the O. T. and in many views and usages of Christian antiquity, means of justifying what was most novel, alien, and absurd. Miracles were of everyday occurrence, and they were barbarous and detestable miracles, directed to meet the meanest instincts, and offensive to even moderately clear heads.325 The Christian religion threatened 564 to become a new 126paganism;326 while, at the same time, making

325

Compare the criticism by Julian and his friends of the Christian religion and the worship paid to saints and relics, or read the writings in which Sulpicius Severus attempts to recommend Christianity to the refined society of Aquitania. We can study in the works of the historians Socrates and Sozomen the attitude of cultured Catholic Christians, after the complete triumph of the Church over paganism. Even Sozomen cannot be regarded as having reached the stage of the “dry tree,” and yet into what a superstition the Christian faith is transformed in his pages! We see how paganism thrust itself into worship, in — to quote a well-known instance — August. Confess. VI. 2 ff. Let us, above all, remember that from the beginning of the fourth century special chapels and churches were built to the different saints. The saints took the place of the local deities; their festivals of the old provincial services of the gods. We have just begun to investigate the transformation of heathen tales of gods and heroes into legends of the saints, and ancient light literature has contributed its quota in works of travel and adventure by land and sea. These researches promise, if instituted critically and soberly, to give interesting results; yet I doubt if the state of our materials will admit of confident conclusions. Besides the worship of the saints, the cultus of the Emperor threatened in the fourth century to intrude itself into the Church. Philostorgius relates (H. E. II. 17) that Christians presented offerings to the picture of Constantine, and honoured it with lanterns and incense; they also seem to have offered vota to him that they might be protected from calamities. af3 326Besides the worship of saints, martyrs, and relics, we have to notice the new forms of faith in demons. It would be impossible to believe more sincerely in demons than Christians did in the second century. But that age was yet ignorant of the fantastic tricks with them, which almost turned Christendom into a society of deceived deceivers. (The expression was first applied to Christians by Plotinus: see Vita Plot. by Porphyrius 16: ἐξηπάτων καὶ αὐτοὶ ἠπατηµένοι). When we reflect that the Vita Antonii was written by an Athanasius, nothing can again surprise us. Spiritualism with all its absurdity, which

shipwreck of its own unity and common character. For even if priests and theologians were always to be in a position to keep the reins in their hands, dissolution threatened the one undivided Church which girt the Empire, if the local rites, customs, usages of men were consecrated as Christian in every province, and might establish themselves without any decided counterpoise. But where was such a counterpoise to be found? In the constitution? That was indeed a firm structure, binding Christendom strongly together; but even it presented sides on which the centrifugal forces, destructive of unity, found entrance. Love of rule and ambition were encouraged by the episcopal chair. And when the danger of dismemberment into independent bishoprics was met by a rigid metropolitan leadership, the way was opened up to that lofty ambition which desired the first place and the highest influence in the province, and which sought to domineer over the civil powers and to master neighbouring pr 564 ovinces. The Patriarchs and Metropolitans who — to use an expression of 127Socrates — played at being “hereditary lords” (Dynastai) no longer protected, but undermined the unity of the Church. The great Bishops of Rome and Alexandria, who sought to rule over the Church in order to preserve its unity and independence, entangled themselves in an ambitious policy, and produced division. The Emperors were really patrons of unity, and the supreme means at their disposal, the Œcumenical Synod, was their contrivance; in all cases it was a political institution, invented by the greatest of politicians, a two-edged sword which protected the endangered unity of the Church at the price of its independence. But was not the bond of unity, the common ground, to be found in the common ideal, in the certain hope of a future life, and in asceticism? This bond was assuredly a strong one. The Church would hardly have succeeded in following out the free path opened up to it by Constantine had it not had in its midst, besides its transcendent promises, a power to which all, Greek and barbarian, polytheist and monotheist, learned and unlearned required ultimately, if reluctantly, to bow. And that power was the

we are once more conversant with in the nineteenth century, had long been familiar in heathen circles, and then, as now, it was connected with religious ideas on the one hand, and physical experiments and speculations on the other. It forced its way into the Church, in spite of all protests, from the third, still more, however, from the fourth century, after it had long been wide-spread in “Gnostic circles.” As a religious phenomenon it signified a renaissance of the lowest forms of religion. But even the most enlightened minds could not keep clear of it. Augustine proves this.

asceticism which culminated in monachism. The ancient world had arrived, by all ac8 the routes of its complicated development, at the bitterest criticism of and disgust at its own existence; but in no other faith was religion itself as effectively combined with asceticism, in none did the latter come so powerfully to the front, yet in none did it submit itself so pliably to Church government, as in Catholicism. A religion comprehended in a mere sacramental communion could not have gained the allegiance of the more clearsighted and earnest. One that imposed on all, as an inalienable duty, the perfect fulfilment of the positive moral law, could not have held its ground. One that commanded all alike to renounce the world would have closed the world against it. But a religion which graded its members as priests, monks, and laity, embraced a threefold piety of initiated, perfect, and novices, and succeeded in the hardest task of all, that of reconciling priest with monk,327 and of admitting the layman to a share in the 128blessings of both, was superior to all others, and possessed in its organisation, generally established, a strong bond of association. Protestants at the present day can hardly form a conception of the hold which asceticism possessed over the mind in the fourth and fifth centuries, or of the manner in which it influenced imagination, thought, and the whole of life. At bottom only a single point was dealt with, abstinence from sexual relationships; everything else was secondary; for he who had renounced these, found nothing hard. Renunciation of the servile yoke of sin (servile peccati iugum discutere) was the watchword of Christians, and an extraordinary unanimity prevailed as to the meaning of this watchword, whether we turn to the Coptic porter or the learned Greek teacher, to the Bishop of Hippo, or Jerome, the Roman presbyter, or the biographer of Saint Martin. Virginity was the specifically Christian virtue, and the essence of all virtues: in this conviction the meaning of the evangelical law was summed up.328

327

The order of the monks had to pass through crises and conflicts before it was able to establish itself side by side with, and to influence a secularised priesthood; we possess the key to this struggle in the East in the writings of the forger who composed the Apostolic constitutions and the longer recension of the Ignatian Epistles; in the West in the works, written from the opposite standpoint, of Sulpicius, as also in those of Jerome, Augustine, and the Gallican authors of the fifth century. Compare Hauck, K.-Gesch. Deutschlands, I., p. 49 ff. The order of the monks was imported into the West. It was not till about the middle of the fifth century that its opponents, inside and outside the ranks of the clergy, were silenced. For a time — at the end of the fourth century — it was in danger of being included in the condemnation of the Ascetics who held dualistic views. 574 328The Fathers of the fourth century could not proceed so consistently as Hieracas (see Vol. III., p. 98, n. 5) since they had to sanction the “lower” morality in the Church.

129But

not only did the evangelical law culminate in virginity, but to it also belonged all promises. Methodius’ teaching that it 564 prepared the soul to be the bride of Christ, was from the fourth century repeated by everyone. Virginity lies at the root of the figure of bridegoom (Christ) and bride (the soul) which is constantly recurring in the greatest teachers of East and West, and it is the key to the corresponding exposition of the Song of Songs, in which often appear a surprising religious individualism and an impassioned love of Christ.329

The Eustathians who condemned marriage — see the decrees of the Synod of Gangra in Hefele, Concil. Gesch., I. 2, p. 777 ff. — were therefore opposed. But the numerous tractates “De virginitate” show how near the great Fathers of the Church came to the Eustathian view. We can hardly point to one who did not write on the subject. And the same thing is, above all, proved by Jerome’s polemic against Jovinian, in spite of its limitation, in the Ep. (48) ad Pammachium. For the rest, Augustine did not differ from Jerome. His Confessions are pervaded by the thought that he alone can enjoy peace with God who renounces all sexual intercourse. Like Hieracas, Ambrose celebrated virginity as the real novelty in Christian morality; see De virginibus, I. 3 sq.: “Since the Lord wrapped himself in a bodily form, and consummated the marriage of deity with humanity, without the shadow of a stain, he has infused poor frail men with heavenly life over t 564 he whole globe. That is the race which the angels symbolised when they came to serve the Lord in the wilderness . . . That is the heavenly host which on that holy Christmas the exulting choirs of angels promised to the earth. We have the testimony of antiquity therefore from the beginning of time, but complete submission only since the word became flesh. This virtue is, in fact, our exclusive possession. The heathens had it not; it is not practised by the still uncivilised barbarians; there are no other living creatures among whom it is to be found. We breathe the same air as they do, we share in all the conditions of an earthly life, we are not distinguished from them in birth, and so we only escape from the miseries of a nature otherwise similar to theirs through the virgin chastity, which, apparently extolled by the heathens, is yet, even if placed under the patronage of religion, outraged by them, which is persecuted by the barbarians, and is known to no other creatures.” Compare with this Chrysostom’s tractate on the state of virginity. Much thought was given after the middle of the fourth century to the relation of priest and monk, especially by those who wished to be monks and had to be priests. The virgin state (of the monks) was held by the earnest to be the easier and safer, the priestly condition the more perilous and responsi ac8 ble; yet in many respects it was regarded as also loftier, because the priest consummated the holy sacrifice and had to wield authority (Chrysostom de sacerdotio, esp. VI. 6-8 and III. 4-6, VI. 4). But the danger to which priests and bishops were subject of becoming worldly, was felt, not only by men like Gregory of Nasianzus and Chrysostom, but by countless earnest-minded Christians. A combination of the priestly (episcopal) office and professional asceticism was therefore early attempted and carried out. 329 See Vols. II., p. 294, III., p. 109. The allegory of the soul of the Gnostic as the bride received its first lofty treatment in the Valentinian school. Thence Origen got it.

The sources drawn upon by later writers were Origen’s homilies and commentary on the Song of Songs (Lommatzsch. XIV., p. 233 sq.): the prologue of the latter in Rufinus begins with the words: “Epithalamium libellus hic, id est, nuptiale carmen, dramatis in modum mihi videtur a Salomone conscriptus, quem cecinit instar nubentis sponsæ, et erga sponsum suum, qui est sermo dei, cœlesti amore flagrantis. Adamavit enim eum, sive anima, quæ ad imaginem eius facta est, sive ecclesia.” Jerome, who has translated the book, says that Origen surpassed himself in it. Methodius’ writing “Convivium” in which the same thought often occurs, was also much read. The purest and most attractive form of the conception in the East appears in Gregory of Nyssa; see e.g., his homilies on the Song of Songs, and his description of the life of Macrina (Ed. Oehler, 1858, p. 172 sq.); we read p. 210 sq.: ∆ιὰ τοῦτό µοι δοκεῖ τὸν θεῖον ἐκεῖνον καὶ καθαρὸν ἔρωτα τοῦ ἀοράτου νυµφίου. ὃν ἐγκεκρυµµένον εἶχεν ἐν τοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπορρήτοις τρεφόµενον, ἔνδηλον ποιεῖν τότε τοῖς παροῦσι καὶ δηµοσιεύειν τὴν ἐν καρδίᾳ διάθεσιν, τὸ ἐπείγεσθαι πρὸς τὸν ποθούµενον, ὡς ἄν διὰ τάχους σὺν αὐτῷ γένοιτο τῶν δεσµῶν ἐκλυθεῖσα τοῦ σῶµατος. Besides Gregory we have to mention Macarius with his “Spiritual Homilies” (Migne T. XXXIV.; see Floss, Macarii Aegypt. epp. etc., 1850, German translation by Jocham, Kempten, ac8 1878); compare especially the 15th homily which contains already the figure, repeated a hundred times afterwards, of the soul as the poor maiden who possesses nothing but her own body and whom the heavenly bridegroom loves. If she worthily cherishes chastity and love for him, then she becomes mistress of all the treasures of her Lord, and her transfigured body itself shares in his divinity. Further, Hom. IV., ch. 6 sq., 14 sq. Compare also Ep. 2. “A soul which has cast aside the ignominy of its outward form, which is no longer ruled by shameful thoughts or violated by evil desires, has manifestly become a partner of the heavenly bridegroom; for henceforth it has only one requirement. Stung by love to him it demands and, to speak boldly, longs for the immediate fulfilment of a spiritual and mysterious union that it may enter the indissoluble embrace of communion in sanctification.” See Cyril Catech. III., ch. 16; καὶ γένοιτο πάντας ὑµᾶς ἀµώµως τῷ νοητῷ νυµφίῳ παραστάντας κ.τ.λ. Before this: ἡ γὰρ πρότερον δούλη ψυχὴ νῦν ἀδελφιδοῦν αὐτὸν τὸν δεσπότην ἐπεγράψατο, ὃς τὴν ἀνυπόκριτον ἀποδεχόµενος προαίρεσιν ἐπιφωνήσει· Ἰδοὺ εἶ καλὴ ἡ πλησίον µου, ἰδοὺ εἶ καλή· ὀδόντες σου ὡς ἀγέλαι τῶν κεκαρµένων (Cantic. 4, 1) διὰ τὴν εὐσυνείδητον ὁµολογίαν. We can point to very few Greek Fathers in whom the figure does not occur. All the greater is the contrast presented by the depreciatory verdict of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Song of Songs (Kihn, Theodor v. M. 1880, p. 69 f.). It may be expressly noticed, besides, that Clement of Alex. as well as Methodius and Macarius had already transferred the figure of the bride to the married woman. Indeed, Macarius was conscious that he was acting boldly in doing so. Western nuns and monks were distinguished by lavishing those sexual feelings which were forbidden them on Christ (and Mary). Ambrose especially taught the West the conception of the soul as the bride of Christ; while Augustine was, apart from a few passages, more reserved, and Jerome wanted strength in sentiment and language. Not only in Ambrose’s tractate “De Isaac et anima”, really a commentary on the Song of Songs, but in innumerable passages in his works — even when it is least expected, as in the consolatory discourse on Valentinian’s death (ch. 59 sq.) — the idea of a special tie between the virgin soul and

130

But the ascetic ideal did not succeed in establishing itself, especially in the West, without severe conflicts, and it concealed within it dangers to the Church. Asceticism threatened to become an end in itself, and to depart from the historical foundation of the Christian religion. When the Church authorised 131the Christianity of ‘the perfect’, it really declared the great mass of its divine and apostolic institutions to be mere apparatus, meaningless to him who had resolved to renounce the world, and to prepare for eternity. Those settlers in Egypt, who sought to obtain redemption by torturing 560 themselves, in the end imperilled religion not less than the great crowds who simply submitted to certain sacramental observances, and with the approval of the priests dragged into Christianity whatever pleased them. It was possible, and in fact the danger was imminent, for the ascetic ideal to lose any assured connection with Jesus Christ. Asceticism had also been proclaimed indeed by Greek science. But in that case the common character of religion disappeared; for a merely negative ideal of life, which at the same time was without a close dependence on history, could not form a lasting bond of connection among men. Our information is exceptionally bad, and not from accident, as to the internal state of the Church, at the time when Constantine chose it to be the support of the Empire. But what we know is enough to establish the fact that the internal solidity by no means corresponded to the external. We may with greater propriety affirm that the Churches of the East were in danger of relapsing into

Christ comes to the front. But Ambrose gave it a colouring of 564 his own due to the deep sentiment of a great man, and his peculiar faculty of giving a warm expression to his personal love of Christ (see also Prudentius); compare passages like De pœnit. II. 8. We cannot appreciate too highly the important influence exerted on after times, and first on Augustine, by Ambrose’s expression of his personal religion. The light that dawned in Augustine’s confessions already shone from the works of Ambrose, and it was the latter, not the former, who conducted western piety to the specific love of Christ. On the mysticism of Macarius, who was in many respects allied to these western Christians, compare also the details in Förster (in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1873, p. 439 f.). Bigg (the Christian Platonists of Alex., p. 188 f.) has very rightly seen that Origen’s homilies on the Song of Songs were at the root of Christian mysticism: “This book gave welcome expression to what after the triumph of Athanasius was the dominant feeling, and redeemed in some degree the name of its author, damaged by his supposed inclination to Arianism. And thus Origen, the first pioneer in so many fields of Christian thought, the father in one of his many aspects of the English Latitudinarians, became also the spiritual ancestor of Bernard, the Victorines, and the author of the De Imitatione, of Tauler, and Molinos and Mm 564 e. de Guyon.”

worldliness, and that not only in the form of worldly modes of action.330 acc The peril went deeper. Theology, the power which, as matters then were, could alone 132give an energetic protection to the distinctive character of religion, was at the point of dissolving it and abandoning it to the world. We have already described in this volume the state of Eastern theology at the beginning of the fourth century. Conceptions of the faith which began and ended with the historical personality of Jesus Christ were equally condemned with the attempts, whether unstudied or philosophical, to identify the Person of Jesus with the Deity.331 The realistic and eclectic theology of Irenaæus had probably very few defenders in the West. The theology of the Apologists had triumphed, and all thinkers stood under the influence of Origen. But the genius of this great man was too powerful for the Epigoni. The importance of his system lay in a threefold direction: first, in the sharp distinction between Pistis and Gnosis, which he kept apart, and connected only by unity of aim; secondly, in the abundant material in his speculations, the conservatism that he showed in inweaving all that was valuable, and the balance which he knew how to preserve between the different factors of his system, relating them all to one’ uniform aim; thirdly, in the Biblical impress which he gave his theology by strict adherence to the text of Holy Scripture. In all these respects the Epigoni introduced changes. The most important in its consequences was the mingling of Pistis and Gnosis, of faith and theology. Origen had not published his system, in which the faith of the Church was reconciled with science, as Church doctrine. To him the distinction between the faith of the Church and the science of faith remained fixed. But in the next period — following the

330

Church history has at this point in its investigations to collect the numerous data which prove how deeply members of the Church had become involved in heathen polytheistic morals, usages, customs, and conceptions, how strong reliance on sacred witchcraft, amulets, and sacramental vehicles had grown, and how far stability and peace of heart and mind had been lost. For the latter we can especially compare Eusebius (H. E. VIII. 1), (further the epitaph of Damasus on Euseb. the Roman Bishop, in Duchesne, Le liber Pontificalis, Tom. I., 1885, p. 167); of a later date, Cyril, Catech. 15, ch. 7. As regards syncretism, see the work on the Egyptian mysteries (ed. Parthey). 331 See the short discla 562 imers in the fourth Catechism of Cyril of Jerusalem, (ch. 7. 8): Οὐχ, ὥς τινες ἐνόµισαν, ὁ υἱὸς µετὰ τὸ πάθος στεφανωθεὶς ὥσπερ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ τὴν ὑποµονὴν ἔλαβε τὸν ἐν δεξιᾷ θρόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀφ᾽ οὗπέρ ἐστιν ἔχει τὸ βασιλικὸν ἀξίωµα . . . Μήτε ἀπαλλοτριώσης τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν υἱόν, µήτε συναλοιφὴν ἐργασάµενος υἱοπατρίαν πιστεύσῃς.. Further, the 11th Catechism. So also Athanasius steadily disavows the heresy of the Adoptians as well as of the Sabellians.

precedent of Methodius332 and opposing Basil’s principle — it was thought necessary to identify them. Reactionary and progressive tendencies met in these efforts. The Pistis 133(faith) was supplied with the formulas of Origen’s theology, and Gnosis was to stop short at certain tenets of tradition, and to receive them without revision. The point was to find abd a new medium which should be at once tradition and speculation, Pistis and Gnosis. This endeavour was undoubtedly justified by an actual change accomplished before this and promoted by Origen himself, viz., the incorporation of the doctrine of the Logos in the faith of “the simple.” These simple Christians already possessed a dogma which was shaped by exegesis and speculation, and confronted them as an external authority, a law of faith. This creation had forced its way from the circumference of the ecclesiastical system into its centre. Besides, the sharp distinction between a traditional doctrine of the Church and a science of religion contradicted the whole ecclesiastical tradition as established in the fight with Gnosticism. But the intermingling at first produced a kind of stagnation. It threat. ened to make faith lose its certainty, speculation its reasoning power, and the Church the unity of its confession. If we review the new religious formulas, which were brought into circulation about the year 300, and if we compare the theologies of the period — which unfortunately we only know in part — the theologies, namely, of the Alexandrian teachers, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Lucian, Methodius, Hieracas etc., we see a wealth of forms which, if blood-relations, are extremely different. How could the unity of the Church continue under their sway? and if it continued, was it Christianity after all that furnished the common element? And this has brought us to the second point Origen had recognised the full significance of the historical Christ for the stage of Pistis; while he directed the Gnostic to the eternal Logos. Now uncertainties arose here also. The historical Christ threatened to fall entirely into the background. We can observe this in the works of two of the Epigoni, which have no affinity to each other. Gregory Thaumaturgus has in his famous Symbol dealt only with the Logos “apart from the flesh” (λόγος ἄσαρκος),333 and

332

See Vol. III, p. 103. See Vol. III., p. 1157 the words run: εἷς κύριος, µόνος ἐκ µόνου, Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, χαρακτὴρ καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς θεότητος, λόγος ἐνεργός, σοφία τῆς τῶν ὅλων συστάσεως περιεκτικὴ καὶ δύναµις τῆς ὅλης κτίσεως ποιητική, υἱὸς ἀληθινὸς ἀληθινοῦ πατρός, ἀόρατος ἀοράτου καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἀθάνατος ἀθανάτου καὶ ἀΐδιος ἀϊδίου.. 333

Methodius intended to declare the loftiest 134truth when he demanded that Christ should be born in every man ‘consciously’ (νοητῶς), and that each must become a Christ by participation in Christ. ad3 1 Further, in Origen the cosmological and soteriological interests balanced each other. We recognise this in his formulas which relate to the Logos. But here also a displacement was introduced, one that favoured cosmology. The word Ὁµοούσιος (consubstantial) was, indeed, retained by some, perhaps by many theologians; but as it was in itself ambiguous, so also it was no evidence of an interest in soteriology. The crowd of rhetorical and philosophical predicates heaped upon the Logos, did not serve to illustrate and establish the significance of the Logos as the principal factor in redemption; it was rather a term for the reason and order reigning in the universe, and for the spiritual forces with which humanity had been gifted. Men indeed held firmly, on all hands, to the incarnation; nay, it was regarded, as is proved by the great work of Theognostus, as being, next to the doctrine of the creation of matter, the feature that distinguished the speculation of the Church from that of the Neo-platonists. But the whole stress was laid on the question, what idea was to be formed of the constitution of the subject of which incarnation was predicated. A great school, that of Lucian of Antioch, distinguished, in the manner of Paul of Samosata, between wisdom proper, eternal, existent in God, and a created wisdom or Logos; and identified the latter alone with the incarnate Son — ‘wisdom arose through wisdom according to the will of the wise God’. But in drawing this line, not only was the incarnation of the Deity rendered impossible, but every form of His personal activity on earth. The theological interest in Christ threatened to resolve itself entirely into cosmology and morality, or, as in Methodius, to be deprived of its meaning by a mystical alloy. The liberty which theology enjoyed in the East up to the beginning of the fourth century, and the influence which it exerted on the Church in the same period, could not but produce complete confusion and loss of meaning. All the elements 135united by Origen in his vast system sought to establish them. selves independently. Even tritheistic tendencies were not wanting; but, above all, the idea of a subordinate God and semidivine beings began to be familiar. The idea of the subordinate God is indeed as old as the theology of the Christian Church; even the Apologists shared it, and Origen, with all caution, adopted and justified it in working out his doctrine of the Son. But ac8 in the earlier period the simplices et rudes (the simple and uncultured) were still 334

See Vol. III., p. 110.

startled at the suggestion; theologians provided the idea with strong safe-guards, and Origen himself, who in many points bordered on Polytheism, on the other hand restored the Logos to the being of God, and united Father and Son as closely as possible. But opposition to ‘Sabellianism’ evidently rendered a later age much more careless. And it is indubitable that the idea of the created God, the God who came into being, coalesced with ancient polytheistic inclinations. The claims of Monotheism were considered to be satisfied by the effort to protect the supreme Deity, as against Modalism,. from change and plurality; and the Logos and other beings entitled to worship were suffered calmly to spring up side by side with God; they could not, it was presumed, endanger Monotheism, because they belonged to the domain of the created. Add that theologians dealt in their speculations with a plethora of philosophical categories destitute of a fixed impress, or fixed value;335 further, that this terminology, unsifted and uncontrolled, everywhere forced its way into the faith of the community, and we can form a conception of the danger which hovered over the Church. We find a Monotheism which did not exclude polytheism, a Logos-Christ, who, as a cosmological quantity, was of shifting nature and origin, ideas of the incarnation and redemption as designed to “enlighten” the human race, and to effect an incarnation of God in every individual soul. All this, too, was clothed in a rank growth of artificial philosophical expressions, identical with that used in contemporary science. And we may well ask whether such a theology was in a condition to protect even the scanty remains of the 136evangelic tradition, above all, at the moment when the partition between State and Church was torn down and the Church was brought face to face with its greatest task. A deism — if the term may be allowed — was at hand, surrounded by the shifting forms of a speculation which had neither a settled boundary nor an assured object. It almost seemed as if the special characteristics of the Christian religion were to be reduced to the evidence of antiquity and prophecy, what Porphyry called ‘foreign fables’. Yet even Scriptural proof was no longer everywhere called for and given with the zeal so noticeable in O 547 rigen; although it was just the school of Lucian which neglected it least. But what could Scripture avail against the method? If a Bishop so capable and learned, and so well versed in tradition as Eusebius of Caesarea was satisfied in his Christology with the formulas we read there, if he could praise the religious edicts and manifestoes of his Emperor, though they substantially celebrated “God in nature”, as brilliant specimens of his Christian

335

See Vol. III, p. 102.

conviction, we must conclude that the Logos doctrine settled in the Church was the strongest means of completely effacing the figure of the historical Christ, and of resolving everything into mist.336 Even the rationalist, who in his study of the history of religions always follows with sympathy the progress to ‘natural’ religion, would require to restrain his sympathy here. For the pure religion of humanity could not have resulted from this development, but one that was wholly indefinite, and therefore capable of being influenced from any quarter, one in whose centre was throned that hollow and helpless figment of thought, the 581 ὄν, the πρώτη οὐσία (being-primal being). And men would have gone on proclaiming this 137religion to be Christianity, simply because they possessed in Holy Scripture the means of proving it, and of dating it back to the beginning of the world as the universal religion. And they would have adopted sacred media, charms, and intermediary powers more and more boldly, because they were incapable of understanding and applying either to God or to Jesus Christ the tradition that God redeemed men through Jesus Christ. The Bishops and theologians in the East about A.D. 320, whose views were similar to those of Eusebius, had on their side the strongest power to be found in an ecclesiastical communion — tradition: they were the conservatives. Conservative theology, the theology that took its stand on Origen, limited the idea of Deity to the primal being (πρώτη οὐσία), inoperative and really incapable of being revealed, i.e., to the Father. It accordingly ignored the Logos and Christ in determining the conception of God. Further, it deduced, like the Neoplatonists, a second or third Ousia (being) from 55f the first, and adorned the Logos created by the will of the Father with the loftiest, yet vacillating, predicates. It taught the incarnation of the Logos, and celebrated its result, yet once more in indefinite, in high-sounding and meaningless, Biblical phrases. Finally, it subordinated everything spiritual and moral to the thought of free-will and human independence. Any attempt at precision could not fail, on this domain, to be regarded as an innovation. Anything might establish itself as long as it did not 336

On Eusebius’ Christology see Dorner, Lehre v. d. Person Christi, I. (1845) p. 792 ff. Lee, on the Theophan. 1843, Preliminary Dissert. The Christology of Euseb. is that of the ancient apologists, approximating in its terms to Neoplatonic speculations and richer in its phases on account of the many antitheses. In spite of his dependence on Origen, Euseb. was chary of receiving all the ideas and predicates which the former applied to the Son and to which orthodoxy afterwards appealed. That is of consequence. Euseb. was more convinced than Origen that the idea of deity was completely exhausted in that of the strictly one and unchangeable ὄν the πρώτη οὐσία; he separated the δεύτερος Θεός much further from God than the Apologists; see Zahn, Marcell., p. 37 f.

claim to be exclusive.337 There never did exist in the Church a general tendency to form new dogmas — the terms ‘new’ and ‘dogma’ are mutually exclusive; least of all did it exist in the East; there was either indifference to philosophical speculation, or a desire that it should have liberty, or it was regarded with suspicion. For the 138rest, men reverenced in the cultus the mystery, i.e., the complex of formulas whose origin had already become obscure. acd 1

337

Gwatkin says very justly in Studies of Arianism (1882), p. 52: “In fact Christendom as a whole was neither Arian nor Nicene. If the East was not Nicene, neither was it Arian, but conservative: and if the West was not Arian, neither was it Nicene, but conservative also. Conservatism, however, had different meanings in East and West.” In the East it was considered conservative to uphold the formulas of Origen strengthened against Sabellianism. On the doctrine of the Logos and Christ in Origen Bigg says very truly (The Christian Platonists of Alex., p. 182): “What struck later ages as the novelty and audacity of Origen’s doctrine was in truth its archaism and conservatism.” 338 When theology is engaged in forming dogmas, it has never, as is really selfevident, enjoyed the sympathy of any large section in the Church. There is nothing to support the contention that the Christian Church passed through a period — from 564 Origen up to the Synod of Chalcedon or A.D. 431 — during which there prevailed universally, or even to a great extent, a supreme interest in the abstract form of the contents of Religion, and an effort, with all the means at hand, to expound it as exactly as possible. The great mass of Bishops, monks, and laity, were then wholly occupied in satisfying themselves with what had been given. This was the highest demand of the Catholic religion itself, which presupposed the “Apostolic” as its foundation, which called everything else “heresy” (νεωτερισµός), and as an institution for worship) did not permit changes. Undoubtedly, the period from Origen, or say, from Athanasius up to the Ephesian Council, appears unique in the history of the Church. But that was an episode enacted in opposition to the great body of Christians, and the theological leaders themselves, in proportion to their piety, conceived their task to be compulsory, dangerous, and ensnaring them in guilt. To prove the former read Socrates’ Church History (see my discussion in Herzog R. E., Vol. XIV. p. 408 ff.). This man was, on the one hand, orthodox at every point, on the other, an enthusiastic partisan of Ἑλληνικὴ παιδεία, ac8 full of veneration for the great Origen and his science, which he held was to be fostered continually. But the production of dogma by scientific theology was repugnant to him in every sense, i.e., he accused and execrated dogmatic controversies as much in the interest of a dogma fixed once for all as in that of science. The Nicene Symbol belonged sufficiently to the past to be accepted by him as holy and apostolical; but beyond this every new formula seemed to Socrates, pernicious, the controversies sometimes fights in the dark (nyktomachies), sometimes an outflow of deceptive sophistry and ambitious rivalry: σιωπῇ προσκυνείσθω τὸ ἄρρητον, i.e., the mystery of the trinity. Had Socrates lived 100 years earlier, he would not have been a Nicene, but a Eusebian Christian. He therefore passes very liberal judgments on, and can make excuses for, the latest “heretics”, i.e., theologians who have been recently refuted by the Church.

Nevertheless, there probably never was a time in the East when a reaction did not exist against the development of the 139Logos doctrine towards complete separation of the Son from the Father.339 It sprang not only from Modalists, but also from disciples of Origen, and it celebrated at Nicæa an amazingly rapid triumph. In opposition to a school which had ventured too far forward, and had embroidered the doctrines of Paul of Samosata with questionable tenets of Origen, the term Ὁµοούσιος, once banned at Antioch, was successfully elevated to the dignity of the watchword of faith. The importance of this rapid triumph for the history of dogma cannot be rated too highly. But procured as it was by the Emperor, the victory would have been resultless, had it not been for the man whose biography coincides with the history of dogma of the fourth century — Athanasius. The second division of the history of dogma, the account of its development, opens with Athanasius, but his conception of the faith also dominated following centuries. Augustine alone surpassed him in importance; for Augustine was an Origen and

In this he stood by no means alone. Others, even at a later date, went still further. Compare Evagrius (H. E. I. 11) whose argument recalls Orig. c. Cels. III. 12. Dogma has been created by the small number of theologians who sought for precise notions, in the endeavour to make clear the characteristic meaning of the Christian religion (Athanasius, Apollinaris, Cyril). That these notions, separated from their underlying thought, fell into the hands of ambitious ecclesiastical politicians, that the latter excited the fanaticism of the ignorant in their support, and that the final decision was often due to motives which had nothing to do with the case, is admittedly undeniable. But the theologians are not therefore to blame, who opposed in the Church a lazy contentment with mystery, or an unlimited pursuit of scientific speculation. Their effort to make clear the essence of Christianity, as they understood it, and at the same time to provide a λογικὴ λατρεία, was rather, next to the zealous order of monks with whom they were intimately connected, the sole great feature in the epoch. They set themselves to stem the vis inertiæ of the pious, and with the highest success. When indolence in the end held the field, an important result had at any rate been attained. The period from Athanasius till about the middle of the fifth century was in many respects the brilliant epoch of theology in the Church. Not even the age of Scholasticism can compare with it. That th ac8 e work of the theologians became faith according to the Church — a thing Origen never thought of — involved its strength and weakness alike. The fanaticism of the masses for dogmatic and philosophical catch-words — see the amusing narrative of Gregory of Nyssa, Opp. ed. Paris, 1638, T. III. p. 466 — affords no information as to the measure of their comprehension; for the dogmatic catch-word is merely a fetish in wide circles. 339 Origen’s doctrine of subordination was felt in the West simply to constitute ditheism; see Vol. III., p. 89 ff.

Athanasius in one — and he was still more.340 However, the 140future course of history has yet to decide whether Athanasius’ thought will not in the end live longer than the conceptions of Augustine. At the present day at least Augustine is given up sooner than Athanasius in the Churches. But it is really not permissible to compare these great men. Augustine was a loftier genius, a man of inexhaustible wealth of ideas and sentiment; Athanasius’ greatness consisted in reduction, in the energy with which, from a multitude of divergent speculations claiming to rest on tradition, he gave exclusive validity to those in which the strength of religion then lay. Augustine opened up a ne 546 w view of the highest blessings and of human nature in the Church, he scattered a thousand germs for the future; Athanasius, like every reformer, reduced, he first secured a sphere of its own to the Christian religion on the soil, already won, of Greek speculation, and he referred everything to the thought of redemption. Augustine invented a new speculation, and the fascinating language of the deepest religious feeling, beyond which changed times and manners seem unable to go; Athanasius was unable to put forward either gifts of speculation or of eloquence on behalf of the thought in which he lived. His strength arose out of his conviction and his office. Athanasius was a reformer, though not in the highest sense of the word. Behind and beside him existed a speculation which led on a shoreless sea, and the ship was in danger of losing its helm.341 He grasped the rudder. We may compare the situation with that in

340

See Ranke, Weltgeschichte Vol. IV. 1, p. 307: “Augustine’s system is, if I mistake not, the second that arose in the Church; it set aside the peculiar characteristics of the first, that of Origen, and then made good its position.” We can only admit that it held its ground in a modified sense. In fact we see here a parallel of the highest significance in the history of the world. The Church has produced two fundamental systems, Origen’s and Augustine’s. But the history of theology in the East is the history of the setting aside of Origen’s system, and the same is to be said of the Augustinian in the Catholic West. Only the procedure in the East was more thorough-going and open than in the West. In the former Origen was condemned, in the latter Augustine was constantly celebrated as the greatest Doctor ecclesiæ. In both cases, however, the rejection of the theological system caused the loss of a coherent and uniform Christian conception of the world. 341 It might seem as if we ought to grant the same credit to Arius of having reduced and given fixity to vacillating and divergent speculations. But apart from the ac8 contents and value of his doctrine, Arius was always disposed to make concessions, and as semiopponents defended him, so he unhesitatingly accepted half friends for complete allies. This very fact proves, however, that he would never have succeeded in clearing up the position.

which Luther found himself when confronting the mediæval Church and Scholasticism. It was not for a word, or a formula, ae6 342 that he was concerned, but a crucial 141thought of his faith, the redemption and raising of humanity to divine life through the Godman. It was only from the certainty that the divinity manifest in Jesus Christ possessed the nature of the Deity (unity of being) and was for this reason alone in a position to raise us to divine life, that faith was to receive its strength, life its law, and theology its direction. But Athanasius in thus giving the chief place to faith in the God-man who alone delivers from death and sin, furnished practical piety, then almost exclusively to be found in monkish asceticism, with its loftiest motive. To speak briefly, this combined as closely as possible the Ὁµοούσιος (consubstantial), which guaranteed the deification of human nature, with monkish asceticism, and raised the latter from its still under-ground or, at least, insecure realm to the public life of the Church. While fighting against the phrase the created Logos (λόγος-κτίσµα) as heathen and as a denial of the power of the Christian religion, he at the same time as strenuously opposed worldly pursuits. He subordinated Scripture, tradition, and theology to the thought that the Redeemer was God by nature, but he also strove to work out the Christian life which received its motive from close communion with the God-Christ,343 and the prospect of being invested both the divine nature. If we would do justice to Athanasius, both these facts must be kept in mind. He became the father of Catholic orthodoxy and the patron of ecclesiastical monachism, and that he never would have been, had he not also set the practical ideal of the piety of the time ‘on the candlestick’.344 There is here nothing new in the common sense of the word; Athanasius had really on his side, the best part of the tradition of the Church, to 564 which he also appealed. Irenæus had already given the central place to the object, nature, and accomplishment 342

Athanasius always made a sparing use of the catch-word Ὁµοούσιος in his works. The formula was not sacred to him, but only the cause which he apprehended and established under cover of the formula. His conduct at the Synod of Alexandria shows that he laid no stress on words. For his theology he needed no Creed. The existence of one in the Nicene was valuable to him, but he was far from worshipping Symbols. While many of his friends sought support in the authority of the formula, he sought and found it solely in the cause. 343 Bigg (l. c., p. 188) has very rightly called attention to the high value attached by orthodox Fathers after Athanasius’ triumph to the Song of Songs in Origen’s exposition. 344 See the Vita Anton. of Athanasius and Gregory of Naz., Orat. 21. It is noteworthy that Paul of Samosata and the Eusebians were worldly Christians. On the other hand, the puritanism of Arius is, of course, famous.

142of

redemption in the categories: Logos, incarnation, Godman, deification, and sons of God. Athanasius could refer to a series of ideas in Origen and other Alexandrian catechists in support of his distinctive treatment of the Logos doctrine. New alone was the fact, the energy and exclusiveness of his view and action at a time when everything threatened to undergo dissolution. Athanasius was no scientific theologian in the strict sense of the term; from theology he descended to piety, and found the exact word required. A man of authority, and attached to the tradition of his school, he was not in a position to disentangle the problem from the context in which the Apologists and Origen had set it. He was a disciple of Origen, but his attitude first to Marcellus, and then to the recent defenders of Ὁµοούσιος, the Cappadocians, proves that he was as destitute of scientific interest in a philosophical theory of life, as of the obstinacy of theologians. He had to deal with that which transcended theology. He was the first to raise to honour in the Church in all its force the old maxim that we m 563 ust think of Christ as God (ὡς περὶ θεοῦ), and therefore he paved the way for the new principle, that we must think of God as in Christ (ὡς ἐν Χριστῷ). In this he stood aloof from the rational thought of his time. While admitting its premises, he added an element, which neutral speculation was incapable of assimilating completely. Nothing certainly was more unintelligible to it, than the assumption of an essential unity of the quiescent and the active Deity. Athanasius fixed a gulf between the Logos of the philosophers, and the Logos whose redeeming work he proclaimed. What he said of the latter, declaring the mystery strongly and simply, and by no means committing himself to new distinctions, could not but appear to the Greeks ‘an offence and folly’. But he did not shrink from reproach; with firm hand, though in awkward lines, he marked off a sphere of its own for the Christian faith.345

345

The Cappadocians, theologians who reconciled the faith of Athanasius with the current philosophy, and apprehended it abstractly, did not retain his teaching pure and simple. This is especially shown by their doub ac8 tful contention that the Christian idea of God was the true mean between the Jewish and Greek. They boldly characterised the plurality of Hypostases, e.g., as a phase of truth preserved in Greek polytheism. Athanasius, therefore, did not take unmixed pleasure in their work. Cf. the λόγος κατηχητικός of Gregory of Nyssa (ch. 4, ed. Oehler): “Jewish dogma is refuted by adoption of the Word, and by faith in the Spirit, but the illusion of the Greeks (Ελληνίζοντες) in worshipping a multiplicity of Gods is dispelled by the (doctrine of the) unity of nature which destroys the extravagant opinion of a (divine) plurality. We must, in turn, retain the unity of being from the Jewish type of faith, and only the distinction of

143

565

And this man respected science and its free development. We can observe this in his criticisms of Origen and the Alexandrian catechists. Undoubtedly it must have been important to him to obtain reliable witnesses (testes veritatis) for his doctrine, and the effort to do this explains frequently his practice of making the best of everything. But it does not entirely explain his conduct. Christian faith was in his view exhausted in faith in the God-man, the incarnation, and the redemption which constituted a divine nature; for this reason he permitted liberty in everything else. It would seem that he had no desire to abolish Origen’s distinction between the Christian science of the perfect and the faith of the imperfect. He did not sit as a judge of heretics on Origen’s doubtful tenets and correct them by the regula fidei, nor did he follow the course first taken by Bishop Peter, one of his predecessors, in Alexandria.346 This is all the more remarkable, as for his own part 55d he could hardly find a single point in the Gnostic heterodoxies of Origen with which he could agree. Athanasius did not see beyond the horizon of his own time. He attributed the highest efficacy to the mysteries of the cultus. He regarded them as the personal legacy of Christ, immediate emanations of his life as God-man, and as containing the means of applying salvation. If in succeeding centuries the religious interest attached itself more and more closely to ritual, that did not imply any contradiction of the conception of the great Alexandrian. He also laboured on behalf of the dogma which was to obtain its practical and effective presentation in the 144monks on the one hand, and in ritual on the other, until the transitory was exalted into the permanent. Athanasius’ importance to posterity consisted in this, that he defined Christian faith exclusively as faith in redemption through the God-man who was identical in nature with God, and that thereby he restored to it fixed boundaries and specific contents.347Eastern Christendom has been able to add nothing up

personal (divine) existences. from the Greek; and by this means godless conceptions are met on the left and right in correspondingly salutary ways. For the trinity is a corrective for those who err as to unity, just as the doctrine of the unity (of God) is for those who have made shipwreck by belief in plurality.” 346 See Vol. III., p. 99 ff. 347 In the cleverly written introduction to his description of “Western Church architecture “ (Stuttgart, 1884), Dehio works out the idea that the classical period of ancient Christian architecture, the fourth century, was distinguished not by the

to the present day. Even in theory it has hit on no change, merely overloading the idea of Athanasius; but the Western Church also preserved this faith as fundamental. Following on the theology of the Apologists and Origen, it was the efficient means of preventing the complete Hellenising and secularisation of Christianity. The history of dogma in the East after the Nicene Council reveals two interlacing lines of development. First, the idea of the God-man from the point of view of the redemption and elevation of the human race to divine life, in other words, the faith of Athanasius, was elaborated on all sides. In this the history of dogma, in the strict sense of the term, exhausted itself, for dogma was faith in the God-man. But with this a second development was closely connected, one which dealt 145with the relations of dogma and theology. Here also one man can be named: it was the science that Origen had cultivated which formed the centre of interest. However, since his days the problem had become more complicated, for theological principles that penetrated deeply had been received into faith itself, and the great development up to the Council of Chalcedon, and still later, consisted in the incorporation of theological results and formulas in the general belief of the Church. The question, accordingly, was not merely whether a freer and more independent theology, like Origen’s in spirit and method, could receive an acknowledged position and latitude in the Church; whether, in general, the phases of criticism and idealistic spiritualism, included in Origen’s science, were to be tolerated. It was a much harder problem that arose, though one that from its nature was always half concealed. If the theological dogma, at the moment when it became a creed of the Church, received the value

multiplicity of ideas and forms of construction, but rather by the simplification or reduction of the forms. The Church, confronted by the number of models in ancient architecture, laid hold of one of them, the Basilica, and transmitted it alone to the Middle Ages. That, however, meant not a loss, but an advance. “The genius of Christianity contributed nothing new to the architectural creations of Rome and Alexandria. The great revolution it evoked lay in another direction. It consisted in the reduction of the multiplicity of styles to one dominant and sole form, not so much by a metamorphosis of artistic feeling, as by making religion once more the central motive of life. It thus assigned to the future architect 564 ure of the Middle Ages conditions analogous to those which governed the beginnings of Greek art; and thus the birth of Gothic art was possible at the climax of the Middle Ages — for the second time in history, a true organic style, like that of the Greek temple.” This observation is extremely instructive to the historian of dogma. The thought of Athanasius corresponds in theology to the meaning of the Basilica in the history of architecture in the fourth century. Both were happy simplifications from a wealth of ideas — reductions which concealed full and varied contents.

of an apostolic doctrine which had never been wanting in the Church, how were the theologians to be regarded who had really created it, and how were the most venerated men of the past to be looked upon who had either been wholly ignorant of the dogma, or had incidentally, or avowedly, contradicted it? The conclusion is clear. The former were to receive special honour as witnesses to, but not as creators of, the truth. The latter it was necessary to abandon, however real and constructive their labours may once have been, or their works were to be coloured, corrected, or even amended by the insertion of glosses. But how long will a theology receive room to work on dogma, if the work is again and again to be disguised and how long will theologians be f ac8 ound to continue the dangerous business? “Theology is the most thankless of sciences. It crushes its builders with the very stones which they have helped to erect.” The relation of theology to dogma recalls the myth of Chronos. But here it is not the father who swallows his children, it is the creature that devours its creators up to the third and fourth generations. As, moreover, the age from the fourth to the sixth centuries is the classic period of all dogma, so in no other period does it so clearly exhibit to the historian its characteristic of demanding living sacrifices. 146

Accordingly we observe two phenomena in these centuries. First, we have a continuous fight against the free theology of Origen, against the heterodoxies which it embraced, its critical phase, and its idealistic speculation. At any rate, more than two centuries elapsed before it was finally refused all right of citizenship in the Church, and at the same time Ἑλληνικὴ παιδεία Greek culture) was deprived of any greater influence on dogma, than what the latter required for its correct exposition and justification.348 But, in the second place, a traditionalism arose

348

The prestige of Origen in the Church was still in the first half of the fifth century almost absolute and incomparable in wide circles. As we have above remarked, the Church history of Socrates is in this respect particularly instructive. The belittlers and enemies of this man were vain and ambitious obscurantists, hero-levelling fellows; against them — Methodius, Eustathius, Apollinaris, and Theophilus — he appealed to the testimony of Athanas ac8 ius on behalf of Origen’s orthodoxy (VI. 13). Even the view that Origen’s works and utterances required to be sifted, appeared to him folly (VI. 17). He defended everything that the master wrote. It was incomprehensible to him how the Arians could study and value Origen, without becoming orthodox (VII. 6) — to the Arians the opposite was incomprehensible — and he declares with absolute conviction that Porphyry and Julian would not have written what they did if they had read the great teacher (III. 23). Further, Origen was once more quoted in the Monophysite controversies. Apart from special uses of it, his name represented a great cause, namely,

which looked distrustfully on theology taking any share in the work of the Church at the time, which substituted authority for science, while it either exalted ancient teachers to heaven as saints, or hurled them down to hell as heretics. It was due to the secret logic of events that such a tendency gained strength and finally triumphed; for if even the most capable and independent theologians were compelled to live under the delusion that what was new in their teaching could never be true, or that the true could not possibly be new, it necessarily followed that fewer and fewer would be found to undertake their dangerous work.349 Accordingly, after dogma had developed to 147a certain extent, held a certain number of conceptions capable of employing the intelligence, and was adapted to scholastic treatment, it became so sensitive that it ceased to tolerate a theology that would carry it further, even unde ac8 r all possible safe-guards. The theology that did independent work, that at no time professed to produce dogma, and therefore really had not existed, now came actually to an end. The date coincides with that at which Origen was condemned (the sixth century). The history of this process ran its course very gradually. On the other hand, there was no want of important actions in the history of the ejection of Origen’s doctrine. We have here to mention the ‘Origenist controversies’, though we must not limit them, as has been customary, to a few decades. Along with them the opposition to the school of Antioch and its condemnation come before us. But we must not look at the victory of the creed of the Church over theological liberties merely from the point of view of a decline of science in the Church. We have rather to consider what a more liberal speculative and critical science had to offer at the time to the Church. In view of the way in which the pursuit of

no less than the right of science, Ἑλληνικὴ παιδεία, in the Church, a right contested by traditionalism in conjunction with the monks. 349 It was pointed out above, p. 138, note I, that even orthodox theological leaders were not comfortable in their (dogmatic work, so that the position from the middle of the sixth century, the sovereign rule of traditionalism, was really the goal desired from the beginning. The works of all prominent theologians testify to this. Some deplored the fact that the mystery could not be worshipped in silence, that they were compelled to speak; and the rest say explicitly, that the truth of their propositions lay in their negations alone. Hilary expresses himself perhaps most strongly (De trinit. II. 2): “Compellimur hæreticorum et blasphemantium vitiis illicita agere, ardua scandere, ineffabilia eloqui, inconcessa præsumere. Et cum sola fide explorari, quæ præcepta sunt, oporteret, adorare scilicet patrem et venerari cum eo filium, sancto spiritu abundare, cogimur sermonis nostri humilitatem ad ea, quæ inenarrabilia sunt extendere et in vitium vitio coarctamur alieno, ut, quæ contineri religione mentium oportuisset, nunc in periculum humani eloquii proferantur.”

theology and the exposition of the faith were intertwined, there were gifts which the Church had to decline in order to maintain its tradition, i.e., the standard left to it of its Christianity. But the heterodoxies of the theologians presented neither an incentive to nor the means for a revision of the whole doctrine in its possession. Besides, the entire process of expelling the freer theology was carried out without crises worth mentioning, as if spontaneously. That is the strongest evidence of the weakness of the speculations and critical views which sought to hold their ground alongside the doctrine of the Church. The condition of affairs at the close, when we have (1) dogma (2) a theology of scholastic mysticism, and (3) antiquarian and formal science not confused with religion, 148was in many respects an improvement, and the value of the product received its strongest attestation in the duration of the system. Leaving out of account a few oscillations, that had been actually attained, which the ‘conservatives’, i.e., the great majority in all phases of violent dogmatic conflicts, had longed for, and had therefore always contemplated. A mysterious dogma had been arrived at, one elevated above the schools, which gave theologians liberty to be antiquarians, philologists, or philosophers; for what independent work was left in the pursuit of dogma was subject to the jurisdiction of these specialists, so far as it did not come under the review of the experts in mysteries and liturgies. But the great loss consisted in the fact that men no longer possessed a theological system complete in itself. Origen’s was the only one that the Greek Church had produced. After its rejection ac8 there existed, besides dogma, a vast sum of incongruous fragments, bound artificially together by quotations from Scripture and tradition and from Aristotelian scholasticism. The great dogmatic work of John of Damascus only appears to be a logically connected system; it is in reality far from that. As regards the periods, the dividing lines are formed by the Œcumenical Synods, namely, the so-called 2nd, then the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th. But we can also use the names of Theodosius I., Pope Leo I., Justinian, and Pope Agatho. The unification of the Churches was rendered possible by the fact that they obtained a forum publicum (a public tribunal) in the universal Synods.350 For the Creeds of the provincial Churches, which agreed only in the

350

But for Constantine the Nicene Council would not have been carried through, and but for the Emperor’s uniform creeds would not been arrived at. They were Athanasius’ best co 564 adjutors. Nay, even the Emperors hostile to him helped him; for they used every effort to unite the Church on the basis of a fixed confession. It is therefore absurd to abuse the State Church, and yet to regard the establishment of the orthodox creed as a gain.

main points, and not even in all these, the Councils substituted a dogmatic confession whose proclamation, enactment, and extension excited the most violent conflicts. At the same time the confederation of the Churches 149became a reality through the imperial policy, which sought to come into touch with the strongest dogmatic currents, though not infrequently it supported trivialities. The last traces of independence possessed by individual communities were destroyed; along with unity, uniformity in doctrine, discipline, and worship was almost re-established, and the constitution of the Church, even in the higher ranks, was gradually so adapted to that of the empire that the hierarchical organisation and administration of the Church corresponded to the order of the State. But this re-arrangement required, in part, to be carried out by force (τυραννίς of the Emperors and a few great Bishops), and speaking strictly, was a reality for only a few decades. It excited counter-movements; in opposition to it nationalistic feeling first really gained strength, especially in the East, and the great schisms of the national Churches there were also a consequence of the absolutist attempts at unification.351 In the West the State collapsed under the storms of the tribal migration at the moment when, in the. 564 East, the dismemberment of the imperial Church into national Churches

351

See Hatch, The Councils and the Unity of the Church, in his Social Constitution of the Christian Churches, p. 172 ff.; he has given an excellent account of the share of the State in this unity and its limitations; compare also my Analekten, p. 253 ff. In the process by which Christendom was united externally and ecclesiastically, we can distinguish in the East three, and in the West four, epochs. The first three were common to the Churches of both East and West. The first was characterised by the recognition of the apostolic rule of faith in opposition to the erroneous creeds of heretical associations, after a common ideal and a common hope had united Christians up to the middle of the second century. The κανὼν τῆς πίστεως became the basis of ἀ ac8 δελφότης. The second epoch, in which organisation became already of supreme importance, was represented in the theory of the episcopal office, and in the creation of the metropolitan constitution. While this was struggling to establish itself amid violent crises, the State of Constantine brought about the third epoch, in which the Church, by becoming completely political, was united, and thus arrived at an external and uniform unity, so that in it the essential nature of the Empire was continued. The Church became the most solid organisation in the Empire, because it rested on the imperial order of the ancient kingdom. It got no further than this organisation in the East; indeed, several great provincial Churches soon separated from it; for the creation of Constantine concealed germs of dissolution; see Zahn, Konstantin d. Gr. 1876, p. 31 f. In the West, on the contrary, the Roman Bishop began to engage in those enterprises which, favoured by circumstances, succeeded in the course of centuries in substituting a new and distinctively ecclesiastical unity for that created by the state.

began. The attempts of the East Roman 150emperors to recover the Western half of the realm, or at least parts of it, more than once thwarted the oriental policy imperatively required of them, and are also, from the complications to which they led, of great importance for the history of dogma. While the Emperors of Byzantium were involved in a double task, which constituted an insoluble dilemma, the Roman Bishops served themselves heirs to the West Roman kingdom. In the revolution in political and social affairs, Christians and Latins were compelled to postpone their separate interests and to attach themselves closely to the most powerful defender of the old institutions. The Germans, who apparently broke up the Empire, brought about the internal unity of all that was Catholic and Latin, and strengthened the position of ecclesiastical Rome. The East, on the contrary, which had been less endangered actually did break up. In the Western Catholic Church the ancient Roman Empire was preserved after a fashion with its order and culture. This Church had no longer beside it a state similar in character and closely related to itself and thus its Bishop could train the new peoples to his service, and soon undertook an independent policy against the Western ac8 schemes of the East Roman Emperors. The internal separation between East and West was complete, when neither understood the language of the other. Yet the West still took an active interest in the controversy of the ‘Three Chapters’, and at the same time obtained, in the translation of the Antiochene and Persian Instituta regularia divinæ legis, and in the great works translated at the instigation of Cassiodorus, valuable gifts from the East which stand comparison with those made by Hilary, Ambrose, Rufinus, and Jerome. Even in the seventh century Rome and the East were for a time engaged in a lively correspondence. But the rule of Byzantium over Rome was felt to be that of the foreigner, and conversely the Roman spirit was alien to the Orientals. Their relations were forced. Augustine hardly left a trace in the Eastern Church. That was its greatest calamity. Of course it was less disposed by its past to understand him than the Western Church, and it was at no time really inclined to accept instruction from its rival. The first period of the History of Dogma closes with the of Constantinople (381-383). At them faith in the complete divinity of the Redeemer was finally settled as the creed of the Catholic Church, and his complete humanity was also expressly acknowledged. Next to Athanasius the chief part in the decision was taken by the Cappadocians on the one hand, and by the Roman Bishop and Ambrose on the other. It would not have been arrived at, however, so early, if it had not been carried through in Constantinople by a powerful ruler who came from the West. The theologians, so far as any took part in it, were men who

151Synods

were equipped with the full culture of the period, and were also devoted to the ideals of monastic piety. The Cappadocians were still relatively independent theologians, worthy disciples and admirers of Origen, using new forms to make the faith of Athanasius intelligible to contemporary thought, and thus establishing them, though with modifications, on a secure basis. Beside them stood Apollinaris of Laodicea, a man who anticipated the problems of the future, who was their equal in scholarship, and surpassed them in many respects in theology. But Arianism revealed its weakness by nothing more than its rapid decline after it ceased to possess the imperial favour. The impression made by it on the German nations, and its. prolonged popularity with them, must be described as an ‘accident’ in history. Catholicism was first made a reality by Theodosius I. — ‘the idea of a communion which should unite East and West in the same confession, beyond which no other form o 564 f confession was recognised.’ But Ranke remarks rightly352 that the Christian idea (of Nicene orthodoxy) gained the upper hand over Hellenistic and heretical systems, not from the doctrine alone, but from the course of events. The victory of the Nicene Council was also decided at the Tigris by the defeat of Julian, and at Adrianople by the death of Valens. In this first period the Christian Church was still in constant touch with Hellenism, and adopted from it whatever it could use. But the history of dogma can only give a very meagre view of these relations. Its boundaries gradually become altogether more restricted. In the first three centuries it can hardly be separated 152from the universal history of the Church; in those following the general life of the Church is less and less clearly reflected in it. He who desires to become acquainted with that life, must study the monachism, worship, ethics, and especially the theological science of the age. There is nothing in the history of dogma to require us to portray a figure like that of Synesius, and, if we define our task strict 524 ly, we can make little use of the rich epistolary literature of the time. The second period extends to the Council of Chalcedon (451). Its first and longer half covers the time in which the imperial Church, resting on the Nicene basis and directed by emperor, priest, and monk, established itself. But after a time of comparative peace,353 the question again emerged as to the relation of the divine

352

Weltgeschichte IV. 1, p. 305 f. On these decades, which are to be described as in many respects the most prosperous period of the Byzantine Church, see Herzog R. E., Vol. XIV., p. 403 ff. Heathenism was then first completely overthrown, and the heretics, even finally the Novatians, were hard pressed. The regime of Chrysostom seems to have been especially 353

and human in the person of the Redeemer. The opposition between the school of Antioch and the new Alexandrian theology, which felt itself to be the sole teaching of the Church, culminated in this question, and the Alexandrian Bishop succeeded in making it the centre of ecclesiastical interest. The theologians of the school of Antioch still wrought in freedom; nay, even among their opponents there were to be found men who defined the faith by its aim, and were not overawed by traditionalism. Yet traditionalism grew more and more powerful. Under the leadership of Epiphanius the great reaction against Origen began, 5a4 354 and not only the Alexandrian Bishop, but the greatest scholar of the age took part in 355 153it. To this was added another fact. The constitution of the Patriarchate began to reveal its effect in threatening the unity of the Church. The Cappadocian Churches of Asia Minor receded into the background simply because they possessed no patriarch of their own, dogmatics began to constitute an instrument of provincial ecclesiastical policy, and the dogmatic formula to be a mark of the diocese and nationality. In proportion as this took place, the state was compelled to intervene. Dogmatic questions became vital to it, and the appointment in the capital to the Patriarchate, which it had fostered, was now a political problem of the first rank; for the occupant of the chair stood at the head of the spiritual affairs of the empire. The great controversy was not settled at the two Synods of Ephesus (431, 449), but it 564 was, ostensibly, at the Synod of Chalcedon (451) by means of a long formula. This formula was proposed and dictated by the West in the person of Bishop Leo and was approved by the Emperor; it was regarded in the West as the simple and unchanged creed of the Fathers, in the East as a compromise which was felt by some not to be sufficiently orthodox, and by others to require interpretation. Meanwhile the East hardly possessed as yet the rudiments of a theology capable of interpreting it. Therefore the formula of Chalcedon has not

signalised by the suppression of heretics in the patriarchate of Constantinople; see the account of Socrates. We know of other Bishops who were active in extirpating heresy in the first half of the fifth century, a work in which Theodoret took part. The reigns of Gratian and Theodosius, on the one hand, the indefatigable labours of Epiphanius on the other, laid the foundation. Their programme was carried out from the end of the fourth century. But from about the middle of the fifth century, when the last traces of the ancient Gnostics, Novatians and Manichæans were substantially removed, great schis 564 ms began to take place on the basis of the Chalcedonian decree. 354 See before this Demetrius, Peter, Methodius, Eustathius, Marcellus, and Apollinaris. 355 “Babylon is fallen, fallen,” — with these words of triumph did Jerome accompany the overthrow of Chrysostom in the Origenist controversy (Ep. 88).

unjustifiably been called a ‘national misfortune’ for the Byzantine Empire. But even as regards the Church its advantages no more than balanced its disadvantages. During this period the monks obtained the mastery over the Church. Although their relations with the hierarchy were not infrequently strained, they added very greatly to its strength. The clergy would have been completely eclipsed in the world and the state, if they had not obtained a new support from the ‘religiosi’ and ‘religiosity’. But while monachism became an important element in the Church, the prestige of the state declined in the minds of men; nothing was left to the Emperors but to adopt certain monkish fashions for themselves, and along with the state the life of social morality was deprecia 564 ted in favour of ‘religiosity’ and a magical cultus. For monachism merely promotes 154itself and next to that a religion of idol-worship; it quits the field where a vigorous morality arises. On the other hand, however, the State was delivered at the close of this period from its most powerful opponent, the Bishop of Alexandria, though at much too high a cost. The third period extends up to the fifth Œcumenical Council (Constantinople A.D. 553). The disadvantages of the Chalcedonian formula made themselves felt in the first half of this century. Great ecclesiastical provinces were in revolt, and threatened to secede from the membership of the universal Church. Greek piety everywhere showed itself to have been unsettled by the decree of Chalcedon. Theology could not follow it; nay, it appeared to be stifled by the decision, while in Monophysitism life and movement prevailed. The perplexed Emperors were at their wits’ end, and tried provisionally to recall, or at any rate to tone down, the formula, but in doing so they prejudiced the union with the West. This was changed under Justin I., but above all under Justinian I. As the reign of the latter was signalised politically by the restoration of the Byzantine supremacy, and the codification of its laws, it was ecclesiastica 564 lly distinguished by the restoration and establishment of the constitution and dogmatics of the Church. The creed of Rome was recognised so far as its wording was concerned, but Rome itself was humbled; the Chalcedonian formula remained in force, but it was interpreted in terms of Cyril’s teaching, and its future position was assured by the condemnation of the writings of the Antiochene schools on the one hand, and of Origen on the other. Thus was the theology of the past judged: ‘solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant’. The Justinian Church condemned the glorious Fathers, and the fifth Œcumenical Council blotted out the freer theological science. However, this measure was only possible because an orthodox Church theology

had developed in the first half of the sixth century.356 It presupposed the Chalcedonian formula, which had become more venerable by age, and explained it by means of the philosophy of Aristotle, which had then come once more 155to the front, in order to reconcile it with the spirit of Cyril’s theology, and to mak 564 e it in some measure comprehensible. Here we have the rise of ecclesiastical scholasticism which now took its place beside the mystical Neo-platonic theology that had been most comprehensively stated by the Pseudo-areopagite, and which corrected and defined it, uniting with and balancing it. The effect of this development was extremely significant. Men now began for the first time to feel themselves at home on the ground of the Chalcedonian formula; piety also was reconciled to it. Productive dogmatic work ceased entirely; its place was taken by the mystical theology of scholasticism based on the inheritance from antiquity and the enumeration of authorities. Justinian in reality closed not only the school of Athens, but also that of Origen, the schools, i.e., of productive theological science and criticism.357 Henceforth theology only existed as a servant to the tradition of Justinian and Chalcedon. It was served in turn by the dialectic of Aristotle on the one hand, and the Neo-platonic mysticism of the Areopagite on the other. It did important work in the way of elaboration and adaptation; w 564 e are not warranted in passing a sweeping verdict of stultification and sleep;358 but it made no further change in the creed of the Church and was bound hand and foot.359

356

See Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz in the “Texten und Unters. z. alt-christl. Liter ac8 aturgesch.,” Vol. III., parts 1 and 2, p. 37 ff., 303 ff. 357 The closing of the school of Athens has been disputed. It was certainly not a great, formal action; see Krummacher, Gesch. d. Byzant. Litt., p. 4. 358 See the works of Gass and Gelzer, especially the latter’s interesting lecture: “Die politische und kirchliche Stellung von Byzanz. 359 Noteworthy, but not surprising, is the parallel capable of being drawn between the history of theology and that of (heathen) philosophy during the whole period from Origen to Justinian. The history of Greek philosophy finds its limits in the middle of the fifth century, and again in the age of Justinian; the same is true of the science of the Church. In the general history of science Plato comes to be supplanted by Aristotle from the close of the fifth century; in dogmatics the influence of the Stagirite makes itself felt to an increased extent from the same date. Justinian’s epoch-making measures, the codification of the law, the closing of the school of Athens, and the restoration of the Byzantine Church and Empire, point to an inner connection. This has not escaped Ranke. On account of the importance of the matter I give here his excellent discussion (Vol. IV. 2, p. 20 ff.): “Justinian closed the school of Athens . . . An event of importance for the whole continued development of the human race; any further development in a direct line on the basis laid in classical antiquity was rendered impossible to the Greek spirit, while to

156

As regards the history of dogma the fourth period possesses no real independence. The dogmatic activity which characterised it was exclusively political; but since it created a new formula, we may here assume a special period. It ends with 157the sixth

Roman genius such an advance was left open and was only now rendered truly possible for after ages by means of the law-books. The philosophical spirit perished in the contentions of religious ac8 parties; the legal found a mode of expression which, as it were, concentrated it. The close of Greek philosophy recalls its beginning; nearly a thousand years had elapsed during which the greatest transformations in the history of the world had taken place. May I be permitted to add a general reflection, as to which I merely desire that it may not be rejected by the general feeling of scholars. The Christian religion had risen upon earth in the conflict of religious opinions waged by nations, and had then in opposition to these developed into a Church. Christian theology which set itself to appropriate the mysterious and to come to terms with the intellect had grown up in constant contact, sometimes of a friendly, more often of a hostile kind, with Greek philosophy. That was the business of those centuries. Then appeared the great Christian theologians from Origen onwards; as we said in passing, they passed through, without exception, Greek or closely related Latin schools, and framed their doctrines accordingly. Greek philosophy had produced nothing comparable to them; it had, as regards public life, been thrust into the background and now it had perished. But it is striking that the great Christian theologians also came to an end. Never again do we find in later times men like Athanasius, the Gregories of Cappadocia, Chrysostom, Ambrose and Augustine. I mean that along with Greek philosophy the original development of Christian theology also came to a stand-still. The energy of the Church doctors, or the importance of the Church assemblies in these centuries cannot be parallelled by analogous phenomena belonging to later times. Different as they are in themselves we find a certain resemblance in the state of Roman law and of Christian theology. The old Roman jurisprudence now appeared as universally valid law in a redaction which while historical was yet swayed by the conditions of the day. At the same time, limits were set by the triumph of orthodoxy, especially of the dogmas declared in the Chalcedonian resolutions, to all the internal divisions of theology in which the divergent opinions were also defended with ability and thoroughness . . . Justinian who reinstated orthodoxy, and gave the force of law to juridical conceptions, takes a high place in the rivalry of the centuries. Yet, while he raised his government to such a pinnacle of authority, he felt the ground shake momentarily under his feet.” Greek science and the monkish view of the world, leagued as they were, dominated the spiritual life of the Church before as well as after the Justinian age; they were at bottom indeed far from being oppos ac8 ed, but possessed a common root. But how differently it was possible to combine them, what variations they were capable of! If we compare, e.g., Gregory of Nyssa with John of Damascus it is easy to see that the former still really thinks independently, while the latter confines himself to editing what is given. It is above all clear that the critical elements of theology had been lost. They only held their ground in the vagaries of mystical speculation; in all ages they are most readily tolerated there.

Œcumenical Council (A.D. 680). ‘Justinian’s policy of conquest was in the highest degree unstable, and went far beyond the resources of the Empire’. Whether his dogmatic policy was correct, which maintained union with the West at the cost of losing a large section of the Oriental Churches, is a question which may be debated. But whether an open and consist ac8 ently monophysite policy was then still possible in Constantinople is very doubtful. Egypt, Syria, and Armenia were lost, not only to the state, but also to Greek language and culture. In order to keep them, or win them back from the Persians and Arabians, an energetic Emperor resolved to publish a monophysite rallying cry without prejudicing the wording of the Chalcedonian Creed. Monothelitism on the basis of the doctrine of the two natures is in itself no artificial creation; it is founded on the old consideration rising out of the doctrine of redemption; but at that time it had its origin in policy. Yet this still-born child of politics set the Eastern Church in an uproar for more than two generations. To prevent the loss not only of the East but of Italy also, the Emperor required the help of the Roman Bishop. Justinian’s success in curbing the latter’s authority had only continued for a little under his successors. The pontificate of Gregory I. still exerted an influence, and, at the sixth Council, Agatho, repairing the fault of one of his predecessors, dictated the formula, as Leo had done at Chalcedon. This bore the impress of the West, and did not correspond perfectly to the eastern conception. It further became manifest at the Council that, when it was a question of defining dogma, theology had been completely transformed into a rehearsal of authorities. Next to the older synodal decisions, the decisive precedent was formed by the immense, and frequently forged, collection of the dicta patrum. After the sixth Council, orthodoxy and Monophysitism were definitively separated, though attempts were not wanting to harmonise them in the following centuries, in keeping with the monophysite tendencies, never wholly destroyed, of eastern orthodoxy. The mystery was firmly established, and obtained further definition; for the doctrine taught by John of Damascus of the enhypostasis of the human nature in the Logos) 158had been accepted, even in the age of Justinian, to be the correct interpretation of the doctrine of the two natures. The movement of thought in the Church passed accordingly to a new sphere; or, more correctly, the old absorbing interest of the Church in the mysteries of the cultus360 now came to light undisguised, because 360

It is said of Polycarp in his Vita per Pionium (sæc. IV.): ἑρµηνεῦσαί τε ἱκανὸς µυστήρια, ἃ τοῖς πολλοῖς ἦν ἀπόκρυφα, οὕτω φανερῶς αὐτὰ ἐξετίθετο, ὥστε τοὺς ἀκούοντας µαρτυρεῖν, ὅτι οὐ µόνον ἀκούουσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁρῶσιν αὐτά. That was

the pursuit of theology, converted as it was aa9 into scholasticism, had become the business of scholars and experts in the mysteries, and it was only temporarily that a controversy springing out of it agitated the Church. Dogma, designed by the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds to be looked at and treated formally, henceforth revealed this its character thoroughly. The philosophy appropriate to it was found, or invented — that compound of Neoplatonism and Aristotelianism, with which no one could dispense who desired to unfold or comment on dogma orthodoxly.361 He who passed over the philosophy of the Church stood in danger of becoming a heretic.362 159But dogmatics, undoubtedly the foundation, did not dominate the Church as a living power. The conception of the natures of Christ found its continuation in that of the sacraments and sacramental things by which men became participators in Christ. The perceived (αἰσθητόν) thereby obtained side by side with the conceived (νοητόν) an ever loftier, and independent significance. Symbolism was more and more expunged; the mystery became more and more sensuous. But, in proportion as the latter was made operative in the

accordingly the supreme thing; to be able also to see the mystery, the Christian possession of salvation. 361 The fight between Platonism and Aristotelianism was accordingly acute among theologians in the following centuries; they often indeed made heretics of one another. Up till now we only know these disputes in part; they are important for the later conflicts in the West, but they do not belong to the history of dogma. 362 Even to-day simple-minded Catholic historians of dogma exist who frankly admit that he becomes necessarily a heretic who does not, e.g., use the conceptions “nature” and “person” correctly; and they even derive heresy from this starting-point. Thus Bertram (Theodoreti, Ep. Cyrensis, doctrina christologica, 1883) writes of Theodore of Mopsuestia: “Manifesto declarat, simile vel ide ac8 m esse perfectam naturam et perfectam personam . . . Naturæ vox designat, quid sit aliqua res, vel essentiam vel quidditatem; hypostasis vero modum metaphysicum existendi monstrat. Ex quo patet, ad notionem perfectæ naturæ modum illum perfectum existendi non requiri. Hac in re erravit Mopsuestenus, et hæresis perniciosa ex hoc errore nata est. What a quid pro quo! The ignorance of the terminology, which was yet first created ad hoc, in order to escape Scylla and Charybdis, is held to be the real ground of the origin of the heresy. Such a view of things, which is as old as scholasticism, undoubtedly needed mysticism as its counterpoise, in order not to perish wholly from the religious sphere. Atzberger (Die Logoslehre d. h. Athan., 1880) has expressed himself still more unsophisticatedly, and therefore more instructively, on the relation of philosophy and dogma (p. 8, 29). But see also Hagemann (Röm Kirche, p. 361): “The Patripassians arrived at their doctrines of God, his attributes, his creation, and incarnation, because they took their stand on Stoic logic and with it cherished the most extreme nominalism, and because they absolutely rejected the objective existence of ideas.”

cultus, the cultus itself was regarded, in all its setting and performance, in the light of the divino-human.363 All its sensuous side, which was presented for his benefit to the worshipper, was regarded as deified and as promoting deification. Now in so far as the believer derived his life entirely from this cultus, a ritual system, to which the character of the divino-human attached, took the place of the God-man, Christ. Piety threatened to be submerged in a contemplation of wonders, the spiritual in the sensuous, and theology, in so far as not identified with scholasticism and polemics, in a science of mysteries. ae7 1 From this point of view

363

For the history of the development of the Greek liturgy after the fourth century. Swainson’s The Greek Liturgies, chiefly from original authorities (London 1884), is the standard work. For the doctrine of the mysteries cf. Steitz’ Abhandlungen in the Lehrbb. f. deutsche Theol. 1864 ff. 364 If we collect the fourth-century evidence of crude sensuous superstition intimately combined with Christian piety, we might believe that it could go no further. And yet it did go further from century to century, as anyone can easily convince himself by reading the tales of saints and relics, among which those of the oriental monophysites are the worst. But apart from this increase, we have to call attention to the fact that this barbarous superstition ascended into higher an ac8 d more influential circles and was systematically cultivated by the monks, while the corrective of a more rational theology grew ever weaker. Theology became more defenceless, because it had to adapt itself to sacred ceremony. The worst gift bequeathed by moribund antiquity to the Church was the ritual of magic and the monstrous number of great and little aids in need and means of atonement. It is not the case that this state of matters was produced by the inrush of barbarian peoples; on the contrary, the decomposition of ancient culture and religion takes the first place in the process, and even the Neo-platonic philosophers are not free from blame. In view of this circumstance it is natural to conclude that the reformation of Athanasius bore little fruit, that it only checked for a time the polytheistic under-current, and, in a word, that the Church could not have got into a worse state than, in spite of Athanasius, it did, as regards the worship of Mary, angels, saints, martyrs, images and relics, and the trickery practised with amulets. But even if we were to go further and suggest that the later development of dogma itself, as e.g., in the worship of Mary and images, directly promoted religious materialism, yet we cannot rate too highly the salutary importance of this dogma. For it kept the worship of saints, images and the rest at the stage of a christianity of the second order, invested with doubtful authority, and it prevented the monks from cutting themselves wholly adrift from the religio publica. Finally, it is to be pointed out that superstition has brought with it at all times ideas and conceptions extremely questionable from the point of view of dogmatics, ideas which seem to be affected by no amount of censure. Overbeck (Gött. Gel.-Auz. 1883, no. 28, p. 870) has rightly described it as a phenomenon requiring explanation that the gnatstraining centuries which followed Nicæa, could have swallowed such camels as, e.g., delighted the readers of the Acts of Thomas (even in the Catholic edition) or of the

we can understand the worship of images and the reaction of iconoclasm 160which opened the fifth period. But this explanation is not complete; another factor coöperated. This was the relation of Church and State which was also involved in the controversy about images. There always were discords between them; but these became more and more acute when the priesthood fell completely under the sway of the monks. Even from the fifth century the practice had begun of transferring monks to episcopal chairs, and it had almost become the rule in the following centuries. But the monks both strove zealously to make the Church independent and claimed sovereignty among the people, and as a rule, though interested on behalf of the nations, they also cherished a strong hostility to the State: in other words they endangered the settlement of Church and State established in the fifth and sixth centuries. Their most powerful instrument was the sensuous cultus which had captivated the people, but which undoubtedly, barbarous and mechanical as it was with all its appliances and amulets, was yet connected with the ideal forces still to be credited to the age, with science, art, and especially piety. Here we have the miserable dilemma of the period, and of the Church; the worship of images was barbarous, but iconoclasm threatened to introduce an increased degree of barbarism. For the ‘enlightened’ (Aufklärung) were at the disposal of an iron military despotism, and despised science, art, and religion. 161

The Church of Byzantium was at that time engaged in a life and death struggle. Its existence was really at stake, and with it the existence of the old form of society and culture, in opposition to forces which as yet had no positive policy, but at first merely ruled by brute force. The priestly caste was arrayed against the military, the hosts of shaven monks against the standing army, which from the fourth century had played a great rôle, but now sought to be master in the state. These fearful fights ended in the restoration of the status quo ante, in so far as dogma and cultus were concerned, and the old order seemed all the more sacred after the attacks that had been made upon it. But on the political side, the state supported by the army carried off the victory — and this was not without consequences for the system and lif 564 e of the Church. The monks were given a free hand in dogma, but their activity as ecclesiastical politicians was checked. The Emperor remained chief priest, in spite of some patriarchs who, until after the eleventh century, attempted to maintain an independent and equal

numerous Apocalypses (see the edition of the Apoc. Apocal. by Tischendorf and James, Apocrypha anecdota, 1893).

position side by side with him. With the support of his army he resisted them. The independence of the Church was gone, in so far as it sought to rise above the level of an institution devoted to ritual and worship. Its activity was completely restricted to the mysteries and the preparation for death. It became an institution of the state, impressing it only by the unchangeableness of its doctrine and ceremonies. To the new peoples to whom this Church came, the Slavs, it was far more than to the Greeks an unchangeable, heavenly creation. A thousand years have passed away since the Slavs were hellenised; and they have not yet ventured, like the Germans, to think and feel freely and at their ease in the Church, although they recognise in it a main defence of their national characteristics against the West. From the West these ‘Greek Slavs’ were spiritually separated, after Augustine’s ideas were admitted there. The external cleavage, though only complete in the eleventh century, began immediately after the image controversy. The states in the territory of the Greek Church 564 still really stand under a military dictatorship: where this has fallen, as in the kingdom of Greece, a final stage has not yet been reached. 162States like the former support an ecclesiastical department, but no Church. The path into which Athanasius led the Church has not been abandoned; but the other forces of life completely restricted it. Orthodox dogma corresponds on the whole to the conception of Athanasius; but the balance which he held between the religious creed and the cultus has been disturbed to the disadvantage of the former. The creed still shows life when it is called in question, or when the nation it serves requires a flag. In other cases it lives in the science of scholastic mysticism, which has already become by degrees stereotyped and sacred, and in its presentation in public worship. Theology also is bound to the latter; it has thus received a standard of which Athanasius knew nothing.365 Our sources are the works of the Church Father 564 s and the Acts of Councils (Mansi). We still want a history of Greek

365

It is very characteristic as regards this, that while Cyril of Jerusalem described the Christian religion as µάθηµα τῶν δογµάτων καὶ πράξεις ἀγαθαί, P 564 hotius defined it as µάθησις καὶ µυσταγωγία. From the fourth century interest was more and more transferred from the regulation of the whole life by religion, to its external consecration through the mysteries. The distinctions are indeed only gradual, but the descent was very significant. The Greek Church ultimately gave up the regulation of moral social life, and therewith renounced the power to determine private morality so far as the latter was not dominated by fear of death. The ultimate reason of this is to be sought in the order of the monks and the constitution of the Græco-Slavic states.

ecclesiastical literature after Eusebius, capable of satisfying the most reasonable demands. Of more recent works on the subject that of Fessler is the best (Instit. Patrologiæ, 1850-52), Alzog’s is the most familiar, and Nirschl’s the newest. Chapter II. The Fundamental Conception of Salvation and General Outline of the Doctrinal System. 163

CHAPTER II. THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTION OF SALVATION AND GENERAL OUTLINE OF THE DOCTRINAL SYSTEM. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

I. THE dogmatic conflicts in the East from the fourth up to the seventh century have this in common, that they centred almost entirely in Christology in the narrower sense, as well as in the incarnation of the Deity. Since men of all parties were meanwhile conscious that they were contending for the essence of Christianity, it follows that the conception of the salvation offered in the Christian religion is to be deduced from the formulas over which they fought, and which then made good their ground. This conclusion is, however, made further certain from the fact that the oriental Church t 54c ook no interest in dogma, apart from those formulas, at least in the time of these conflicts.366 Anything else, therefore, outside of the formulas, which was either fixed as matter of course, or maintained in ambiguous propositions in opposition to Manichæism, Fatalism, and Epicureanism, did not possess the

366

Very instructive in this respect is the Church History of Socrates. A man’s orthodoxy is completely decided for him by his attitude to the dogma of the Trinity (see H. E. III. 7, VI. 13, VII. 6, 11). The Cappadocians and the theologians after Socrates held similar views; see Gregory of Naz. Orat. XXVII. 10: “Philosophise about the world and worlds, matter, the soul, rational beings, good and bad alike, ac8 about resurrection, judgment, and retribution, and the sufferings of Christ. For if on these points you hit on the truth it is not without service, but if you fail, you can suffer no harm” (cf. Ullmann, Gregory of Naz., 1867, p. 217 f.). We have also to consider here the contents of the oriental symbols, creed-decalogues etc. The interest taken to an increasing extent from the fifth century in the tenets levelled against Origen was biblical and traditional. It only became dogmatic at a time when in theology and Christology the influence of “antiquity” had taken the place of that of dogma. On the place and importance of the doctrine of the Trinity in Gregory, see Ullman, p. 232 ff.

value of a dogmatic 164declaration in the strict sense. Remembering this, there can be no doubt that the essence of the Christian religion, and therefore the contents of its creed, are summed up in the following proposition. The salvation presented in Christianity consists in the redemption of the human race from the state of mortality and the sin involved in it, that men might attain divine life, i.e., the everlasting contemplation of God, this redemption having already been consummated in the incarnation of the Son of God, and being conferred on men by their close union with him: Christianity is the religion which delivers from death and leads to the contemplation of God. 57c 1 This proposition can be more precisely defined as follows: the highest blessing bestowed in Christianity is adoption into the divine sonship, which is assured to the believer, and is completed in participation in the divine nature, or more accurately, in the deification of man through the gift of immortality. This gift includes the perfect knowledge and the lasting vision of God, in a blessedness void of suffering, but it does not do away with the interval between Christ and the believer.367 From this 165it follows: (1) that redemption, as seen in

367

I share fully the view of Kattenbusch ( Confessionskunde I., p. 296) that the dogma was not merely supported by one idea, and that in the Greek Church of to-day the idea of redemption held by the ancient Church no longer rules directly; but this view does not contradict the exposition given in the text. 368 The fact that the idea of deification was the ultimate and supreme thought is not a discovery of recent times, but it is only in recent times that it has been appreciated in all its importance. After Theophilus, Irenæus, Hippolytus, and Origen, it is found in all the Fathers of the ancient Church, and that in a primary position, We have it in Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Apollinaris, Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanius, and others, as also in Cyril, Sophronius, and late Greek and Russian theologians. In proof of it Psalm LXXXII. 6 is very often quoted — “I said ye are gods and all sons of the most High.” Just as often are θεοποίησις and ἀθανασία expressly combined. Some Fathers feel the boldness of the formula; but that is very rare. I select merely a few from my collection of passages: Athanas. de incarn. 54: “Αὐτὸς ἐνηνθρώπησεν, ἵνα ἡµεῖς θεοποιηθῶµεν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐφανέρωσεν ἑαυτὸν διὰ σώµατος, ἵνα ἡµεῖς τοῦ ἀοράτου πατύ 564 ὸς ἔννοιαν λάβωµεν, καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπέµεινεν τὴν παρ᾽ ἀνθρώπου ὕβριν, ἵνα ἡµεῖς ἀθανασίαν κληρονοµήσωµεν, cf. Ep. ad Serap. I. 24, Orat. c. Arian. I. 38, 39, and often; Vita Antonii, c. 74, Ephraem, Comment. in Diatess., init. (ed. Moesinger, p. 1): “Quare dominus noster carnem induit? Ut ipsa caro victoriæ gaudia gustaret et dona gratiæ explorata et cognita haberet. Si deus sine carne vicisset, quæ ei tribuerentur laudes? Secundo, ut dominus noster manifestum faceret, se initio creationis nequaquam ex invidia prohibuisse, quominus homo fieret deus, quia maius est, quod dominus noster in homine humiliabatur, quam quod in eo, dum magnus et gloriosus erat, habitabat. Hinc illud: ‘Ego dixi, dii estis’.” Gregory of Nyss., Colloq. cum Macrina (ed. Oehler, p. 170): Τῶν οὖν τοιούτων ταῖς διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς ἰατρείαις ἐκκαθαρθέντων τε καὶ ἀφαγνισθέντων,

its final effect, was conceived to be the abrogation of the natural state by a miraculous transformation of our nature; that accordingly (2) the supreme good was definitely distinguished from the morally good; and that (3) an atonement was not included in it. For atonement can only be thought of where the division between God and man is regarded as an opposition of the will. But it ac8 further follows from this that this theology, in agreement with the apologetic and old Catholic doctrine, admitted no independent object to our present life. The work of the Christian consisted wholly in preparing for death (τὸ ἔργον τοῦ Χριστιανοῦ οὐδὲν ἄλλο 166ἐστὶν ἢ µελετᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν In the present there only existed a preliminary possession of salvation. This was represented (1) in the knowledge of God and of the accomplished

ἕκαστον τῶν πρὸς τὸ κρεῖττον νοουµένων ἀντεισελεύσεται, ἡ ἀφθαρσία, ἡ ζωή, ἡ τιµή, ἡ χάρις, ἡ δόξα, ἡ δύναµις, καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο τοιοῦτον αὐτῷ τε τῷ Θεῷ ἐπιθεωρεῖσθαι ε 564 ἰκάζοµεν. Gregory of Naz., Orat. 40, c. 45 (Decalogus fidei, ed Caspari, Alte und Neue Quellen, 1879, p. 21): πίστευε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ . . . τοσοῦτον ἂνθρωπον διά σε, ὅσον σὺ γίνῃ δι᾽ ἐκεῖνον Θεός. So also Orat. I. 5: “We become like Christ, since Christ also became like us; we become gods on his account, since he also became man for our sake.” On the other hand, compare Orat. XLII. 17: µεθ᾽ ἡµῶν τὸ κτίσµα, τῶν οὐ Θεῶν· εἰ κτίσµα δέ, οὐ Θεός, and XXXIX. 17: "How should he not be God, to insert in passing a bold deduction, by whom thou also dost become God?" Apollinaris Laod., Κατὰ µέρος πίστις (ed. Lagarde, p. 110): φαµὲν ἄνθρωπον γεγενῆσθαι τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον, ἵνα τὴν ὁµοίωσιν τοῦ ἐπουρανίου λάβωµεν καὶ θεοποιηθῶµεν. Macar., hom. 39. Pseudo-hippolytus, Theophan. (ed. Lagarde, p. 41, 21): εἰ οὖν ἀθάνατος γέγονεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἔσται καὶ θεός. Dionys. Areopag., sæpissime, e.g., de cælesti hierar. c. 1: ἡ ἡµῶν ἀνάλογος θέωσις. Sophronius, Christmas Sermon (ed. Usener, Rhein. Mus. für Philologie, 188 aad 6, p. 505): θεωθῶµεν θείαις µεταβολαῖς καὶ µιµήσεσιν. Leo, Patriarch of Russia ( Pawlow, p. 126): ἐθεώθηµεν Θεοῦ τῇ µεταλήψει. Gennadius, Confess. (ed. Kimmel, p. 10): “dixit deus: Induam me carne . . . et erit omnis homo tamquam deus non secundum naturam sed secundum participationem.” We have, however, to notice that this deification, as understood by the Greek Church, did not by any means signify roundly “Becoming like God”. The Greeks in the main did not connect any clear conception with the thought of the possession of salvation (felicity) further than the idea of imperishableness; and this very fact was their characteristic feature. It is the ineffable, the transcendent which may therefore be described as the θεία φύσις, because it is enjoyed for ever. The interval between Christ — who was born, and did not become, Son of God — and the sons by adoption is always very strongly emphasised; compare (the precise expositions in Augustine, De remiss. pace. II. 24) and above all, Athanasius’ third discourse against the Arians; further, Cyril Catech. II., ch. 4-7 and 19. Yet the θέωσις of Mary forms a kind of exception. The idea of deification is also found in Western writers, especially Augustine. But if I am not deceived Augustine himself brought it to an edifying end.

incarnation of the Son of God, and therewith in the certain hope of being deified; (2) in power over demons; (3) in the call to salvation and perfect acquaintance with the conditions of its reception; (4) in certain communications of divine Grace which supported believers in fulfilling those conditions—the forgiveness of sin in baptism, the power of certain holy rites, and holy vehicles, the example of the God-man etc.; and (5) in participation in the mysteries— worship and the Lord’s supper—and in the enjoyment of the consecration they imparted, as also, for ascetics, in a foretaste of the future liberation from the senses and deification.369 The certainty of faith in the future deification, however, because its possibility and reality, rested exclusively on the fact of the incarnation of the Son of God. The divine had already appeared on earth and had united itself inseparably with human nature. This conception formed the universal foundation for the development of dogmas in the fourth to the seventh century, though all might not equally understand it or see its consequences clearly. Only thus can we comprehend how the Church could perceive, define, and establish the nature of salvation in the constitution of the incarnate Son of God. Faith simply embraces the correct perception of the nature of the incarnate Logos, because this perception of faith includes the assured hope of a change of human nature analogous to the divinity of Jesus Christ, and therewith everything worth striving for. ‘We become divine through him, because for our sake he became man’. But the dogmatic formulas corresponding to this conception only established their position after severe fights; they never arrived at a perfectly exact expression; and they never obtained the exclusive supremacy which 564 they demanded. 167

The reasons for this delay, inexactness, and failure to obtain supremacy are numerous and various. The most important deserve to be emphasised. Firstly, every new formula, however necessary it might appear, had the spirit of the Catholic Church against it, simply because it was new; it could only gain acceptance by deceiving as to its character of novelty, and as long as the attempt to do so was

369

Athanasius (Ep. encycl. ad episc. Ægypt. et Lib. ch. I.) mentions as the gifts of grace already possessed by Christians: (1) the type of the heavenly mode of life, (2) power over demons, (3) adoption to be sons, (4) and what is exalted and rises high above every gift—the knowledge of the Father and the Word himself and the grant of the Holy Spirit. This list is not quite complete.

unsuccessful, it was regarded by the pious with suspicion.370 Secondly, the ability of the Catholic Fathers really to explain their faith, and to deduce dogmatic consequences, was extremely slight. Grown up in the schools of philosophy and rhetoric, they never clearly felt it to be their duty to give an abstract account of their faith, however they might understand it. Far from describing the system of doctrine as a statement of the nature and contents of Christian piety, and from evolving the latter from its distinctive conditions, they found it difficult even to make a simple inferenc 564 e from their conception of salvation to the person of Christ and vice versa. Their reasoning was always being disturbed by apologetic or other considerations foreign to it. Energetic men, to whom the matter of religion should be all in all, were accordingly required, if an advance were to take place in the work of formulating it. But such men have been extremely rare. There have been few in all periods of the history of dogma who clearly perceived and duly appreciated the final interests which moved themselves. This is true of the ancient Church, though then matters were a little better than in later centuries. Thirdly, the formulas required conflicted with every kind of philosophy; they amounted to an offence to the thought of the schools. This circumstance undoubtedly might afterwards prove an advantage; it was possible to show the divinity and sacredness of the formulas by referring to their inscrutability and therefore to the mystery that surrounded them. But as long as the formula was still new, this confirmation encountered doubts, and even afterwards, in spite of the ‘mystery’, it was impossible to do without a philosophy which should interpret it, and should restore confidence, 168as to the contradictions, by new combinations of categories. Now, as long as no such philosophy was created, faith was n 564 ot satisfied, and the formula was not guaranteed permanence. Fourthly, it was of the highest importance that by almost all the Fathers their conception of the salvation procured by the God-man (deification) was appended to, or bolstered up by, the system of ‘natural theology’. But under this system knowledge and virtue were the highest blessings, and God was exclusively the judge who rewarded the good and punished the wicked. Now, it was undoubtedly possible so to combine these two lines of thought that neither was prejudiced, and we will see that such a combination alone corresponded to the ideas of those Christians, and was actually brought about. But it was impossible to prevent natural theology from intruding more and more into dogmatics, and from interfering with the success of the mystical doctrine of

370

See above, p. 137, f.

redemption—for so we may well name it. Men were not in a position to strike at the roots of those views of Christian salvation which did not definitely conceive the latter to be distinctive, and which therefore did not sufficiently differentiate it from virtue and the natural knowledge of God. Fifthly, the complete acceptance of the mystical doctrine of redemption was imperilled from another side, and this menace also could never be completely averted. The picture of the life of Jesus cont 564 ained in the Gospels, in spite of all the arts of exegesis, contradicted in a way it was impossible to disregard the Christological formulas called for by the doctrine. The life even influenced the form given to the dogma of the incarnation and its consequences371 to an extent which, from the standpoint of the theory of redemption, was questionable; and it subsequently always accompanied the dogmatic formulas, 169keeping alive in the Church the remnant of a conception of the Redeemer’s personality which did not agree with them. The Church indeed never lost recollection of the human individuality of Jesus in its simple loftiness, its heart-winning love, and its holy earnestness; it never forgot the revelation of God in humanity. Scripture reading and, in part also, preaching preserved the memory, and with and by it thought was ever again led to the simplest and highest of facts, the love of God which is loftier than all reason, the rendering of service to our neighbour, sincere humility, and patience. But as the gospel prevented dogma from obtaining an exclusive supremacy, so also 564 Pauline theology, and kindred views found in Holy Scripture, exerted an important influence, which maintained its ground side by side with the dogma, and often very strongly decided its exposition. That the work of Christ consisted in what he achieved, culminating in his sacrificial death, and signifying the overcoming and removal of guilt; that salvation accordingly consisted in the forgiveness, justification and adoption of men, are ideas absolutely wanting in none of the Church Fathers, and very prominent in a few, while in the majority they find their way into the exposition of the dogma of redemption. They do not agree with 371

In the introductory fourth Catechism in which Cyril summarises the, main points of the faith, he says (ch. IX.): πίστευε δὲ ὅτι οὗτος ὁ µονογενὴς υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἡµῶν ἐξ οὐρανῶν κατῆλθεν ἐπι τῆς γῆς. (ch. X.): οὗτος ἐσταυρώθη ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν ἡµῶν. Nothing is said of the abolition of death. So also in the Homilies of Chrysostom who generally tried to follow Paul, sin comes to the front. The saying “Let us not fear death, but only sin,” is often repeated with variations by Chrysostom. Alexander of Alex. also in his letter to Alexander (Theodoret H. E. I. 4) gives as the only ground of the incarnation of the Son of God, that he came εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁµαρτίας, but he is unable to carry out the thought.

the latter, nay, in this combination can hardly be held to have deepened the conception in any point; for they rather menaced the finality of the fundamental dogmatic thought in which men lived. In fact they wrought mischief, i.e., they led to moral laxity, as in all cases where they are only allowed a secondary authority. But their existence must be expressly stated if our view is to be complete. New Testament reminiscences and thoughts and in general Biblical theological ideas of the most varied kind, always accompanied and impinged on dogma growing or full-grown.372 564 They helped to delay its reduction into formulas, and prevented the mystical doctrine of redemption and its corresponding dogmas obtaining a completely exclusive supremacy in the Eastern Churches. Sixthly and finally, the scheme of Christology, distinctive of the 170West, forced on the Church by the policy of the emperors, brought a disturbing and confusing influence into the Eastern history of dogma. The Eastern Church, left to itself, could only, if it had simply given expression to its own idea of redemption, have raised to a dogma the one nature, made flesh, of God, the Logos (µία φύσις θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένη), and must have left the paradox standing that the humanity of Christ was consubstantial (ὁµοούσιος) with ours, and was yet from the beginning not only without sin, but free from any kind of corruption (φθορά). This dogma was condemned as heretical in the process, as we know, of forming an exclusive authoritative doctrine, and another was set u 564 p in its place which it required the most elaborate efforts of theologians to connect closely with the idea of redemption. Conversely, as regards the doctrine of the Trinity in the fourth century, while the correct formula—correct, i.e., when gauged by the conception of redemption—triumphed, yet the considerations springing from natural theology and science were here so strong that the Eastern Church could only reconcile itself to the doctrine by the aid of a complicated theology, which in this case, however, was really heterodox, because it weakened the meaning of the formula. In the fourth century the correct formula triumphed, but the triumph was procured by a theology really heterodox; in the fifth and up to the seventh an incorrect formula, if gauged by the idea of redemption, became supreme, but theology was able to treat it orthodoxly. In view of these incongruities one is almost tempted to believe in the ‘cunning of the idea’; for this development alone made possible, or demanded, the application of the whole apparatus of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy to 372

The contradictions and inconsistencies were not felt if it was possible to support the separa ab6 te propositions by an appeal to Holy Scripture: see on this Vol. II., p. 331, n. 1.

dogma. Neither the conception of the ὁµοούσιοσ (consubstantial) as given by Athanasius, nor the strictly Monophysite form of the incarnation dogma, would have conjured philosophy anew 564 to its aid, and to a greater extent than was contained in the dogma itself. This happened and could not but happen, because men would not understand οµοούσιος as ταυτούσιος (of the same substance); and because they were forced to fit the two natures into their system. Dogmatics (the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation) became the high school of Philosophy. By them the Middle Ages 171received all that they ever did of philosophical thought. And these facts were due to the circumstance that the idea of redemption was not expressed purely and absolutely in dogma, that rather in the doctrine of the Trinity, as well as in the Christology, the formula overlapped its support, or the support the formula, and therefore necessarily called for endless exertions. Where would Plato and Aristotle have been in the Church or the Middle Ages if the East had honoured Athanasius and Julian of Halicarnassus as the sole authoritative Fathers of the Church, and how nearly was this the case with both! How much the East owes to the interference of the West, and yet, on the other hand, how greatly did the same West disturb it! But it is to be described as a gain from another point of view, tha 564 t the correct formulas— those which corresponded to the Greek idea of redemption—did not establish their position. The evangelical conception of Christ was preserved to a greater degree in the Byzantine and Nestorian Church, based on the doctrine of the two natures, than in the Monophysite Churches. The latter only prove that the consistent development of the materialistic idea of redemption reduces Christianity to barbarism. The Arabians taught Aristotle to the Nestorians and not to the Monophysites. But those Churches also show that the Christ who possessed one incarnate nature—that phantom—reduced the historical Christ almost to the vanishing point. All the features of the man Christ of history, which the Byzantine and Nestorian Church still kept alive in their communities, are so many evidences that the old idea of redemption was forced to submit to limitations. But in spite of this the dogma of the God-man which sprang from the doctrine of redemption assumed a unique and predominant position and alone constituted dogma in the strict sense. Theology = the doctrine of the Trinity, Economy = the idea and realisation of the Incarnation. The course of development also shows by its inner logic, which indeed, as already pointed out, was not so stringent as more recent scholars would have 564 us believe, that it was in this dogma that the strongest interest was taken. After Athanasius had proved the necessity and realisation of redemption through the incarnation of the 172Son of God, the consubstantiality

(Homoousia) of the Son of God with God himself was first established. Then the fact was emphasised that the Incarnate was constituted similarly with man, and finally, the unity of deity and humanity in the incarnate Son of God was settled. The historian of dogma has here simply to follow the course of history. It is in this connection by no means clear how besides this the work of the God-man is to be treated. As regards the work of Christ we can only deal with ‘conceptions’ which are not firmly allied to the dogma. But we have to remark finally, that not only in theory was the dogma planned eschatologically, i.e., with a view to the future life, but that also in practice faith in the imminent approach of the end of the world still influenced the pious. In a few Fathers this faith undoubtedly held a subordinate place; but yet it formed the rule, and the storms caused by the invasion of the tribes as well as the political revolutions constantly gave it strength. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

II. In relation to the blessing of 538 salvation man is receptive and passive. He receives it in this world in the hope of his faith, and enjoys it in the other as a transcendently glorious gift of grace. God alone can grant it, and no human effort can deserve it. As we have already noticed, this religious blessing of salvation is wholly different from moral goodness; for moral goodness cannot be presented, but must be gained by our own actions. On the other hand, Christianity as a religion cannot take up a neutral attitude to moral goodness, but must rather embrace the loftiest morality. That was also the universal conviction of the Greek Church and its theologians. The problem which thus arose was solved without noteworthy vacillations, and in the sense of the theology of the apologists and Origen. It was assumed that freedom in the moral sphere corresponded to receptivity in the domain of religion and the blessings of salvation conferred by it; and that God attached the grant of the religious blessing of salvation to the achievement of a perfectly moral life, whose law, though not new, had first found expression in the Christian religion as something perfect and capable of being easily recognised. The scheme of nature and grace current in the West since Augustine, was not entirely unknown in the East, so far as words were concerned. 590 373

373

It occurs, e.g., in the Homilies of Macarius. If elsewhere he speaks of χάρις, it is as a rule the substantial grace imparted in the sacraments (baptism) that is meant. The beginning of Cyril’s first Catechism is very instructive: Καινῆς διαθήκης µαθηταὶ καὶ Χριστοῦ µυστηρίων κοινωνοί, νῦν µὲν τῇ κλήσει, µετ᾽ ὀλίγον δὲ καὶ τῇ χάριτι, καρδίαν

173But

the latter already found “grace” in “nature”, i.e., in the inalienable natural disposition to freedom, and, on the other hand, conceived “grace” to be the communication of a higher nature. Hence the above scheme was not adapted to express Greek thought. Christianity was rather, on the one hand, the perfect law of goodness, and, on the other, a promise and sure pledge of immortality.374 It was therefore holy living and correct faith. The convictions that God himself is the good; that he is the creator of the inalienable reason and freedom of man; that the perfect morality of man represents the only form of his similarity to God attainable in the sphere of the temporal and created; that the supreme law of goodness, hitherto obscured, has been once more revealed to men in the Christian religion, and that in the most impressive way imaginable—by the deity in a hu 564 man form; finally, that the religious blessing of salvation procured by Christ contains the strongest motive to practise morality,375 while it also includes mysterious forces which promote it: these convictions, according to the conception of Greek theologians, bound religion and morality together as closely as possible, and, since only the good man could receive salvation, guaranteed the character of Christianity as the moral religion. The monk Sophronius (seventh century) says in his Christmas Sermon: “Therefore the Son of God assumed human poverty, that he might make us gods by grace; and the divine father David sings in his psalms . . . I said, ye are gods and all sons of the highest. God is in us; let us become gods by divine 174transformations and imitations” (∆ιὰ τοῦτο ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνην πτωχείαν ἐνδύεται ἴνα θεοὺς ἡµᾶς ἀπεργάσηται χάριτι. καὶ ταῦτα µελῳδῶν ὁ θεοπάτωρ ∆αβίδ . . . a93 . Ἐγὼ εἶπα· Θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ὑψίστου πάντες. Θεὸς ἐν ἡµῖν· θεωθῶµεν θείαις µεταβολαῖς καὶ µιµήσεσιν).376 In the last phrase the Greek

ἑαυτοῖς ποιήσατε καινὴν καὶ πνεῦµα καινόν, ἵνα εὐφροσύνης ὑπόθεσις γένησθε τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 374 See Cyril, Catech. 4, c. 2: Ὁ τῆς θεοσεβείας τρόπος ἐκ δύο τούτων συνέστηκε, δογµάτων εὐσεβῶν καὶ πράξεων ἀγαθῶν. Καὶ οὔτε τὰ δόγµατα χωρὶς ἔργων ἀγαθῶν εὐπρόσδεκτα τῷ Θεῷ, οὔτε τὰ µή µετ᾽ εὐσεβῶν δογµάτων ἔργα τελούµενα προσδέχεται ὁ Θεός . . . µέγιστον τοίνυν κτῆµά ἐστι τὸ τῶν δογµάτων µάθηηµα. 375 Cyril begins his 18th Catechism with the words “The root of every good action is the hope of the resurrection. For the expectation of obtaining a corresponding reward is a spur to incite the soul to practise good works.” The way to morality is made easy by removal of the fear of death. ada 376Ed. Usener, l. c. Once more we have to compare Cyril of Jerusalem. After he has limited the “creed” to the ten sections of the Symbol he continues: µετὰ δὲ τὴν γνῶσιν τῆς σεµνῆς καὶ ἐνδόξου ταύτης καὶ παναγίας πίστεως καὶ σεαυτὸν γνῶθι

fundamental thought is put into a classic form. Only we must not take “µεταβολαῖς” and “µιµήσεσιν” to be equivalent. The former signifies the actual process, the latter its condition and form; not the sufficient reason, as is proved by “χάριτι.”377 There is, however, a form of morality which does not appear to be merely subordinate to religious faith and hope, but which anticipates the future blessings, or puts man into the condition of being able to receive them immediately. This is negative morality, or asceticism. It corresponds in a true sense to the characteristic of the religious gift of salvation; it is also therefore no longer a mere adjunct to the latter, but it is the adequate and essential disposition for the reception of salvation. But in so far as ecstasy, intuition, and the power of working miracles can be combined with it, it forms the anticipation of the future state. The ultimate rule of this conception of Christianity may accordingly be compressed, perhaps, into the saying: “Dost thou desire the supreme good, incorruption (ἀφθαρσία), then divest thyself of all that is perishable.” Side by side with this we have the more general rule “Dost thou 175desire the supreme good, then first be good and nourish the new nature implanted in thee in Baptism by the Eucharist and the other mysterious gifts.” The extent to which all this was connected with Christ is shown by the saying of Clemens Alex. (Protrept. I. 7)—a saying which retained its force in after times: “Appearing as a teacher he taught the good life, in order that afterwards as God he might grant everlasting life” ( afd τὸ εὖ ζῆν ἐδίδαξεν ἐπιφανεὶς ὡς διδάσκαλος, ἵνα τὸ ἀεὶ ζῆν ὕστερον ὡς Θεὸς χορηγήσῃ). This whole conception of the importance of morality needed, however, no doctrinal and specific description, any more than the nature of morality and the principles of natural theology in general.

λοιπὸν ὅστις εἶ. Accordingly, faith is that given from without, divine. Moral selfknowledge and self-discipline are independent of it. 377 The Greek Fathers speak not infrequently of the new birth in connection with N. T. passages and it is to be admitted that some succeed in reproducing the thought satisfactorily, but only—so far as I know—when they adhere closely to the sacred texts. At all events we must not let ourselves be misled by the mere title. This is shown most clearly by the closing chapters of Gregory of Nyssa’s Orat. catechet. (ch. 33 sq.). By regeneration Gregory understands the mysterious birth in us of the divine nature, which is implanted by baptism. As the natural man is born of moist seed, so the new undying man is born of water at the invocation of the Holy Trinity. The new immortal nature is thus begun in germ by baptism and is nourished by the Eucharist. That this conception has nothing in common with the new birth of the New Test., since it has a physical process in view, needs no proof. According to Cyril, regeneration only takes place after man has voluntarily left the service of sin (see Catech. I., ch. 2).

All that was already settled in its fundamental lines; man knew it by his own reason; it formed the self-evident presupposition of the doctrine of redemption. The very freedom used by the Church Fathers in dealing with details shows that here they were treating matters generally recognised and only called in question by Manichæans, Fatalists, etc., and that it was therefore unnecessary to have recourse to revelation. In describing the dogma of the Greek Fathers, therefore, we have to consider their views of the nature of salvation,378 of God as 176the Good and the Giver of salvation, of the state and duties of man, etc., on the one hand, as a kind of a priori presuppositions of the doctrine of redemption; but, on the other, as individual conceptions, framed partly from contemporary philosophy, and partly from the Bible. They certainly have a right to a place in a description of the complete view taken by the ancient Church of Christianity; but as certainly they cannot be called dogmas; for dogmas are as essentially different from self-evident presuppositions as from fluctuating conceptions. Our only reason for discussing them in the history of dogma is that we may guard dogma from misunderstanding and correctly mark off the space due to it.379 The Greek conception of

378

The fundamental conception of the nature of the blessing secured by salvation is yet not wholly unknown to rational theology, since the latter supposed, though with some uncertainty, that it could perceive a divine element in the original constitution of men (see, e.g., Gregory of Nyssa). Even for the doctrine of the Trinity recourse was had here and there to reason and the philosophers. But we must go still fart 564 her. If the doctrine of redemption has been characterised above as mystical, this does not exclude the fact that faith confers redemption in so far as it confers a knowledge which in and by itself includes liberation. As long as men dealt independently with dogma, this conception was by no means wanting; indeed it was really the hidden mystery in dogma which was clearly expressed by Clement and Origen, but only dimly shadowed by later teachers. From this point, however, faith and ethics were intimately combined; for ethics was also intellectual. No later writer has stated and known the thought so clearly expressed by Clement of Alex. (Strom. IV. 23, 149): ∆ιόπερ ὁ ∆ηµόκριτο εὖ λέγει “ὡς ἡ φύσις τε καὶ διδαχὴ παραπλήσιον ἐστι” . . . καὶ γὰρ ἡ διδαχὴ µεταρρυθµιζει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, µεταρρυθµίζουσα δὲ φυσιοποιεῖ καὶ διήνεγκεν οὐδὲν ἢ φύσει πλασθῆναι τοιόνδε ἢ χρόνῳ καὶ µαθήσει µετατυπωθῆναι· ἄµφω δὲ ὁ κύριος παρέσχηται, τὸ µὲν κατὰ τὴν δηµιουργίαν, τὸ δὲ κατὰ ἐκ τῆς διαθήκης ἀνάκτισιν τε καὶ ἀνανέωσιν. The whole matt ac5 er gradually became really mystical, i.e., indescribable and inconceivable in every sense in the Fathers; the intellectual phase and intention almost disappeared. Conversely, the reality of the blessing in salvation was thought of from the beginning as something supernatural, surprising, and bestowed from without. 379 One might be disposed to assume that the dogmatic of the ancient Church also contained articuli puri et mixti, but this designation would be misleading. In the opinion of the Fathers, the gospel must have made everything, clear; conversely, there is hardly

Christianity has, like an ellipse, two centres: the doctrine of liberty, which embraces the whole of rational theology, Stoic and Platonic, and the doctrine of the actual redemption, which is supranatural. Supranatural as it was it admitted a relationship to natural theology, just as, conversely, freedom was regarded as a gift of divine grace. We find, indeed, that the two centres were first brought into the greatest possible proximity by the negative morality. Therefore from this point also the ach 564 ievements of positive morality necessarily appear as a minimum to which the shadow of essential imperfection always clings. It follows from the above exposition that the doctrines of God, the world, and man—with freedom and sin, are to be prefixed, as presuppositions and conceptions, to dogma, i.e., the doctrines of the godman, while they are only to be discussed in so far as 177such discussion is required for the comprehension of dogma. But this does not complete the list of our tasks; the whole presentment of dogma must be prefaced by a chapter treating of the sources of our knowledge and our authorities, i.e., Scripture, tradition, and the Church. So also we must at the close examine the mysterious application of redemption—the mysteries—and all that is connected with it.The following arrangement of our material, in which a systematic exposition forms the basis of the historical, because the foundations of our view have not changed since the time of Origen, will thus be appropriate. Ch. III. Of the sources of knowledge and the authorities, or of Scripture, tradition, and the Church. A. The Presuppositions of the Doctrine of Redemption, 564 or Natural Theology.

anything in the dogmatics which able philosophers had not foreshadowed. The realisation was the mystery. Socrates says (H. E. III. 16): Πολλοὶ τῶν παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι φιλοσοφησάντων οὐ µακρὰν τοῦ γνῶναι τὸν Θεὸν ἐγένοντο, καὶ γὰρ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἀπρονοησίαν εἰσάγοντας, οἵτε Ἐπικουρίους, ἢ ἄλλως ἐριστικούς, µετὰ τῆς λογικῆς ἐπιστήµης γενναίως ἀπήντησαν, τὴν ἀµαθίαν αὐτῶν ἀνατρέποντες, καὶ διὰ τούτων τῶν λόγων χρειώδεις µὲν τοῖς τὴν εὐσέβειαν ἀγαπῶσι κατέστησαν· οὐ µὴν τῆς κεφαλῆς τοῦ λόγου ἐκράτησαν, τοῦ µὴ γνῶναι τὸ ἀποκρυπτόµενον ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων κατὰ Χριστὸν µυστήριον· Socrates had already in view violent opponents of the intrusion of Ἐλληνικὴ παιδεία into theology; but the dispute so passionately conducted never really weakened the confidence placed in natural theology. The actual position is correctly described in Eusebius’ phrase (H. E. IV. 7, 14): ἡ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς ἐπὶ θείοις τε καὶ φιλοσόφοις δόγµασι διδασκαλία.

Ch. IV. The presuppositions and conceptions of God the Creator as bestower of salvation. Ch. V. The presuppositions and conceptions of man as recipient of salvation. B. The Doctrine of Redemption in the Person of the God-man in its Historical Development. Ch. VI. The doctrine of the necessity and realisation of redemption through the incarnation of the Son of God. Appendix. The ideas of redemption from the devil and atonement through the work of the God-man. Ch. VII. The doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son of God with God himself. Appendix. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity. Ch. VIII. The doctrine of the perfect similarity of constitution between the incarnate Son of God and humanity. Ch. IX. Continuation. The doctrine of the personal unity of the divine and human nature in the incarnate Son of God. C. The Foretaste of 564 Redemption. Ch. X. The mysteries and the like. Ch. XI. Conclusion. Sketch of the history of the genesis of the orthodox system. 178

Supplement 1.—The Greek conception of Christianity appears undoubtedly to be exceedingly compact and clear, as long as we do not look too deeply into the heart of it. The freeing of dogmatics of all matters which do not fall within the scope of the doctrine of redemption is very remarkable. But these advantages are purchased, first, by abandoning any attempt to establish an inner unity between the supreme notions of “moral good” and “blessedness” (imperishableness); secondly, by the depreciation of positive morality in favour of asceticism; thirdly, by completely caricaturing the historical Christ. But the knowledge of the Christian faith possessed by the Fathers up to the middle of the fifth century was still far from being in the desolate state in which theology makes no resolute attempt to deduce the consequences of a doctrine, while it does not venture to abandon it, but contents itself with perceiving “a profound element of truth” in any or every theologoumenon brought to it by tradition. The idea of the Greek Fathers, to which ev 564 erything was subordinate, that

Christianity is the religion which delivers from perishableness and death, was derived from the ancient Catholic Church. It presents itself as a specific limitation of primitive Christian hopes under the influence of views held by the ancients. It is possible to express it in a grand and awe-inspiring form, and this the Greek Fathers understood. Further, where misery, mortality, and finitude are felt to be the heaviest burdens laid upon men, the supreme good can be nothing but endless, blessed rest. In so far as the Greek Fathers perceived and firmly believed in this gift being conferred by the Christian religion, while they connected its bestowal with Jesus Christ, they assigned to Christianity the highest conceivable significance, and to its founder the highest conceivable dignity, within their range of vision. But the mood which looked on Christianity from this point of view and regarded it as consolatory, was that of the fall and ruin of the ancient world, which no longer possessed the power to turn earnestly to an energetic life. Without premising this the dogmatic developments are not intelligible. But we cannot retain the formulas of the Greek faith without selfdeception, if we change or refuse to admit the validity of its premises. But if we are ready 179honestly to retain the 564 m, then let us clearly understand to what Orthodoxy and Monophysitism came in the East. After they had piled one monstrosity on the top of the other, they were—to use a strong figure of Goethe’s— almost choked in chewing the cud of moral and religious absurdities. Originally their doctrine was good for nothing in the world but for dying; afterwards they became deadly sick on this very doctrine. Supplement 2.—If the conception of the supreme good may be regarded as a revised version, made by Greek philosophy, of the ancient Christian hopes of the future, yet this philosophy always rejected the idea of the incarnation of God, and therefore could not, in its definition of the supreme good, attain the certainty which was given in the Christian conception. In the fourth and fifth centuries, however, there were even Christian theologians—Synesius, for example—who would not admit the incarnation of God without revision, and yet held by the thought of deification; who accordingly approached, not rationalistic, but rather pantheistic views. At any rate, faith in the incarnation of God, along with the idea of creation, formed the dividing line between Greek philosophy and the dogmatics of the Church. “For what,” says Athanasius, de incarn. 41, “is absurd or ridiculous in our teaching, 564 except merely our saying that the Logos was made manifest in a human body?” (τί γὰρ ἄτοπον, ἢ τί χλεύης παρ᾽ ἡµῖν ἄξιον, ἢ

πάντως ὅτι τὸν λόγον ἐν σώµατι πεφανερῶσθαι λέγοµεν;).380 On the other hand, the Christian says (Cyril, Catech. 4, ch. 9): “If the incarnation was a dream, then salvation is also a dream.” (Εἰ φάντασµα ἦν ἡ ἐνανθρώπησις, φάντασµα καὶ ἡ σωτηρία). That is the confession which in the Greek Church was the equivalent of 1 Cor. XV. 17 f. Supplement 3.—In order to learn the classical form of Greek piety, the strongest root of dogma, it is necessary to study the literature of asceticism. For it seldom comes clearly to light in the dogmatic, 564 apologetic, and polemical works, with the exception of the writings of Athanasius, and in the homiletic 180literature, apart from Chrysostom, it is always greatly disguised by rhetoric. But a distinction must be made even in ascetic literature. The descriptions of the piety of monkish heroes lose themselves as a rule in extravagance and eccentricity, and are not typical because the writers set out to prove the already supramundane character of those heroes. We have especially to examine numerous writings on “the resurrection,” “virginity,” “perfection,” and similar subjects, and also the practical homilies. We obtain perhaps the clearest and truest impression of the piety of the Greek Church from reading the biography of sister Macrina, by Gregory of Nyssa (Oehler, Biblioth. d. KVV. I. 1, 1858, p. 172 ff.). The dying prayer put in her lips (p. 213 f.) is given here because it expresses inimitably the hopes and consolation of Greek Christianity, yet without omitting the characteristic warmth of feeling which belonged to its very essence. “Her prayer was such that one could not doubt that she was with God, and heard his voice. She said: Thou, Lord, hast for us destroyed the fear of death. Thou hast made the end of this earthly life the beginning of the true life ac8 . Thou makest our bodies rest for a time in sleep, and dost awaken them again with the last trumpet. Thou givest our clay, which Thou didst fashion with Thy hands, to the earth to keep it, and Thou takest again what Thou didst give, and dost transform into imperishableness and beauty that which was mortal and unseemly. Thou hast snatched us from the curse and sin, having Thyself become both for us. Thou hast crushed the heads of the dragon, which had grasped man with its jaw in the abyss of disobedience. Thou hast paved the way of the resurrection for us, having shattered the gate of Hades, and

380 567

Compare Gregory Nyss., Orat. catech. 5: Τὸ µὲν εἶναι λόγον Θεοῦ καὶ πνεῦµα διὰ τε τῶν κοινῶν ἐννοιῶν ὁ Ἕλλην καὶ διὰ τῶν γραφικῶν ὁ Ἰουδαῖος ἴσως οὐκ ἀντιλέξει, τὴν δὲ κατὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον οἰκονοµίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου κατὰ τὸ ἴσον ἑκάτερος αὐτῶν ἀποδοκιµάσει ὡς ἀπίθανόν τε καὶ ἀπρεπῆ περὶ Θεοῦ λέγεσθαι.

destroyed him who had the power of death. Thou has given those who fear Thee the image of Thy holy cross for a sign for the destruction of the adversary and the safety of our life. Eternal God, to Whom I was dedicated from the womb, Whom my soul has loved with all its power, to Whom I have consecrated my flesh and my soul from my youth and till now! Place Thou an angel of light by my side to lead me to the place of quickening where is the source of rest in the bosom of the Holy Fathers. 181Oh Thou who didst break the flaming sword, and didst restore to Paradise the man crucified with Thee who begged Thy mercy. Remember me, too, in Thy kingdom, because I also am crucified with Thee, piercing my flesh with nails from fear of Thee, and fainting in dread of Thy judgments! May the awful abyss not divide me from Thine elect, nor the calumniator block my way; may my sin not be found before Thine eyes, if I, having failed through the weakness of our nature, should have sinned in word, or deed, or thought! Thou who hast power on earth to forgive sins, grant me forgiveness, that I may be quickened, and when I put off my body may I be found by Thee without stain in my soul, so that my soul, spotless and blameless, may be received into Thy hands like a sacrifice before Thy presence.” Supplement 4.—For centuries after the great work of Theognostus, which we only know very imperfectly, no complete system of scientific theology was written in the East. The idea of a system was in itself a philosophical one, and for its execution all that was in existence were examples whose authority was already shaken. Platonism only contributed to form a heterodox system. Aristotelianism with its formal logic, which triumphed over all difficulties, first succeeded in creating an orthodox system. Systematic works, in the period up to Johannes Damascenus, fall into the following lists. (1) On the incarnation of the Logos—or Son of God. In these works the central question of Greek dogma ac8 is discussed. The title varies, or is more precise, according to the standpoint of each: “On the two natures”, “On not confounding the natures”, etc. Under this head come also the polemical, dogmatic tractates— against Arius, Marcellus, Eunomius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, etc.— as well as dogmatic monographs—on the Holy Ghost, the Trinity, etc. We have to notice finally the Expositiones veritatis at the close of the writings against the heretics, like those found, after the precedent of Hippolytus, in, e.g., Epiphanius and Theodoret.

(2) Exposition of Christian doctrines in catechetical form. Here Cyril’s catechisms are especially important.381 The catechism 182was always bound by the Symbol, but the Symbol necessitated the treatment of the main points of Jesus’ history as points of doctrine, and the expiscation of their exact value for faith. Thus dogma gained an important supplement from the exposition of the Symbol. The decalogue of the creed by Gregory of Nazianzus also falls to be mentioned here. In the great catechism of Gregory of Nyssa catechetic treatment is combined with apologetic. Instructions how to pursue theological science came from the Antiochene school and thence penetrated into the West— Junilius—where Augustine had already written his work De doctrina Christiana. So far as I know, the older Byzantine Church possessed no such instructions. (3) Apologetic works in reference to heathens and Jews. In these, natural theology—the monotheistic faith and doctrine of freedom—is unfolded, and the Christian view of history, as well as

381

The plan of Cyril’s catechisms is very instructive. First, there is in the preface an inquiry as to the aim and nature of the instruction. It begins with the words Ἤδη µακαριότητος ὀσαὴ πρὸς ὑµᾶς. Compare also ch. VI: Βλέπε µοι πηλίκην σοι ἀξίαν ὁ Ἰησοῠς χαρίζεται . . . µὴ νοµίσῃς ὅτι µικρὸν πρᾶγµα λαµβάνεις· ἄνθρωπος ὢν ac8 οἰκτρός, Θεοῦ λαµβάνεις προσηγορίαν . . . τοῦτο προβλέπων ὁ Ψαλµῳδὸς ἔλεγεν ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐπειδὴ µέλλουσιν ἄνθρωποι Θεοῦ προσηγορίαν λαµβάνειν· Ἐγὼ εἶπα, θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ὑψίστου πάντες, c. 12: ἐάν σε κατηχούµενος ἐξετάσῃ, τι εἰρήκασιν οἱ διδάσκοντες, µηδὲν λέγε τῷ ἔξω· µυστήριον γάρ σοι παραδίδοµεν καὶ ἐλπίδα µέλλοντος αἰῶνος· τήρησον τὸ µυστήριον τῷ µισθαποδότῃ. Then follow three Catechisms which impart information concerning sin, baptism, and penitence in general, and are meant to awaken the right disposition. In the fourth a sketch is given of the system of faith according to the Symbol. Ten systems are distinguished, whose numbering, however, can no longer be established with certainty. The exposition contained in Catechisms 5-18 do not agree with the sketch, seeing that to the latter is appended a didactic section on the soul, the body, food, and clothing, a section which is wanting in the exposition; the latter rather in the last catechism deals with the Church, which is not mentioned in the sketch. The whole is concluded by five catechisms which explain the secret rites of the mysteries to the baptised. The decalogue of the faith by Gregory contains, in the first commandment, the doctrine of the Trinity; in the second, the creation out of nothing and the providence of God; in the third, the origin of evil from freedom, not from an evil matter or God; in the fourth, the doctrine of the incarnation and constitution of the Redeemer; in the fifth, the crucifixion and burial; in the sixth, the resurrection and ascension; in the seventh, the return of Christ in glory to act as judge; in the eight and ninth, the general resurrection and retributive judgment; the tenth runs: ∆έκατον ἐργάζου τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ θεµελίῳ τῶν δογµάτων, ἐπειδὴ πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά, ὡς ἔργα δίχα πίστεως.

the proof of its antiquity, presented in opposition to polytheism and ceremonial religions; so in several works by Eusebius, Apollinaris, Cyril of Alexandria, etc. 183

(4) Monographs on the work of the six days, on the human soul, the body, the immortality of the soul, etc. In these, also, natural theology is developed and the scientific cosmology and psychology in the oldest sources of the Bible stated. (5) Monographs on virginity, monachism, perfection, the virtues, the resurrection. Here the ultimate and supreme practical interests of piety and faith find expression 519 . (6) Monographs on the mysteries, cultus and priesthood. These are not numerous in the earlier period—yet instruction in the sacraments and their ritual was regularly attached to the training in the Symbol; see the Catechisms of Cyril which form a guide to the mysteries Their number, however, increased from the sixth century. Copious, often intentionally elaborated, dogmatic material, finally, is also contained in scientific commentaries on the Biblical books and in the Homilies. The right use for the history of dogma of these different kinds of sources is an art of method for which rules can hardly be given. The rhetorical, exegetical, philosophical, and strictly dogmatic expositions must be recognised as such and distinguished. At the same time we have to remember that this was an age of rhetoric which did not shrink from artifices and untruths of every kind. Jerome admits that in the works of the most celebrated Fathers one must always distinguish between what they wrote argumentatively (διαλεκτικῶς), and what they set down as truth. Basilius also ( 5af Ep. 210) was at once prepared to explain a. heterodox passage in Gregory Thaumaturgus, by supposing that he had been speaking not dogmatically (δογµατικῶς), but for the sake of argument (ἀγωνιστικῶς). So also Athanasius excuses Origen on the ground that he wrote much for the sake of practice and investigation (De decretis synod. Nic.27, cf. ad Serap. IV. 9); and while completely defending the Christology of Dionysius Alex., he remarks that the latter in many details spoke from policy (κατ᾽ οἰκονοµίαν). The same stock excuse was seized upon by the Fathers at Sardica in the case of Marcellus. According to this, how often must the great writers of the fourth and fifth centuries themselves have written for the sake of argument (ἀγωνιστικῶς)! Moreover, Gregory of Nazianzus speaks 184of a necessary and salutary οἰκονοµηθῆναι τὴν ἀλήθειαν, i.e., of the politic and prudent disguise and the gradu

564 al communication of the truth; and he appeals in support of this to God himself who only revealed the truth at the fitting time, οἰκονοµικῶς (Orat. 41. 6, Ep. 26). Cyrus declares, in the monothelite controversy, that one must assume κατ᾽ οἰκονοµίαν a not altogether correct dogma, in order to attain something of importance. Some, however, went much farther in this matter. As they did not hold themselves bound to stick to the truth in dealing with an opponent, and thus had forgotten the command of the gospel, so they went on in theology to impute untruthfulness to the Apostles, citing the dispute between Paul and Peter, and to Christ (he concealed his omniscience, etc.). They even charged God with falsehood in dealing with his enemy, the devil, as is proved by the views held by Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and most of the later Fathers, of redemption from the power of the devil. But if God himself deceived his enemy by stratagem (pia fraus), then so also might men. Under such circumstances 564 it cannot be wondered at that forgeries were the order of the day. And this was the case. We read even in the second century of numerous falsifications and interpolations made under their very eyes on the works of still living authors. Think of the grievances of the Church Fathers against the Gnostics, and the complaints of Dionysius of Corinth and Irenæus. But what did these often naïve and subjectively innocent falsifications signify compared with that spirit of lying which was powerfully at work even in official compositions in the third and fourth centuries? Read Rufinus’ De adulterat. libr. Origenis, and weigh Rufinus’ principles in translating the works of Origen. And the same spirit prevailed in the Church in the fifth and sixth centuries; see a collection of the means employed to deceive in my altchrist. Litt.-Gesch. I., p. xlii ff. In these centuries no one continued to put any trust in a documentary authority, a record of proceedings, or protocol. The letters by Bishops of this period throng with complaints of forgeries; the defeated party at a Synod almost regularly raises the charge that the acts of Synod are falsified; Cyril and the great letter-writers complain that their letters are circulated in a corrupt form; the 185epistles of dead Fathers—e.g., that of Athanasius to Epictetus—were ac8 falsified, and foreign matter was inserted into them; the followers of Apollinaris and Monophysites, e.g., systematically corrupted the tradition. See the investigations of Caspari and Dräseke. Conversely, the simplest method of defending an ancient Church Father who was cited by the opposition, or on whose orthodoxy suspicion was cast, was to say that the hereties had corrected his works to suit themselves and had sown weeds among his wheat. The official literature of the Nestorian and Monophysite controversy is a swamp of mendacity and knavery, above which

only a few spots rise on which it is possible to find a firm footing. Gregory I. (Ep. VI. 14) at once recalls in a given case the forging of the acts of the Ephesian Synod. What was not published as Nicene in later times, and to some extent very soon! Much indeed was even then dismissed as mendacity and deceit, much has been laid bare by the scholars of the seventeenth century. But if one considers the verdicts, anxieties, and assertions of suspicion of contemporaries of those conflicts, he cannot avoid the fear that present-day historians are still much too confiding in dealing with this whole literature. The uncertainties which remain in the study precisely of the most important alterations of the history of dogma, and of the Church of the Byzantine period, necessarily awaken the suspicion that we are almost throughout more or less helpless in face of the systematically corrupted tradition. All the same I would not recommend so bold a handling of the sources as that formerly practised by the Jesuits, and to-day by Vincenzi (Ketzertaufstreit, Acten des 5 Concils, Honoriusfrage). Supplement 5.—The form assumed by the substance of the faith in the Greek Church shows very clearly the characteristic point of view. First, namely, it was conceived—though, so far as I know, seldom—as law; indeed Gregory of Nazianzus sketched a decalogue of faith. This form must not be misunderstood. The faith appears as law only in so far as its contents constitute a revealed ordinance of God to which man has to submit; we must not let it suggest to us a parallel to the moral law. Secondly, however, the creed is regarded in its formulas as a mystery to be kept secret. Men were initiated into the faith 186as they were initiated into the sacred rites.382 Secrecy was, according to ancient ideas, the necessary nimbus of all c 564 onsecration. The conceptions of the creed as law and as mystery have this in common, that in them the content of the faith appears as something strictly objective, something given from without.383 But in so far as the authority of any formula whatever conflicts with original Christianity as much as this secrecy, the dependence of the Greek Church on the practice of the ancient mysteries and schools of philosophy is here manifest.

382

See the investigations into the so-called Arcan-Disciplin, by Rothe, Th. Harnack, Bonw 564 etsch, and Von Zezschwitz. 383 Constantine delighted in applying the name “law” to the whole of the Christian religion. This is western (nostra lex = nostra religio); it is rare in the East. On the other hand, the whole Bible was not infrequently “the law” in the one Church as well as in the other.

Supplement 6.—Ideas of the realisation of the supreme good in the world beyond had to attach themselves to the phrases of the creed known in the Symbols, and were not permitted to disregard the numerous and diversified statements of Holy Scripture. The motley and manifold conceptions which resulted were owing to harmonising with primitive Christian eschatology on the one hand, and Origen’s doctrine of the consummation on the other, subject to due regard for the sacred writings. Origen’s doctrine was more and more regarded as heretical from the end of the fourth century, while previously recognised theologians, like Gregory o eb0 f Nyssa, had reproduced it in all its main points. Its rejection marks the first decisive victory of traditionalism—itself indeed impregnated with speculation—over spiritualising speculation. In the fifth century, there were counted as heretical, (1) the doctrine of apokatastasis (universalism) and the possibility of redemption for the devil;384 (2) the doctrine of the complete annihilation of evil; (3) the conception of the penalties of hell as tortures of conscience; (4) the spiritualising version of the resuscitation of the body; and (5) the idea of 187the continued creation of new worlds. On the other hand, the doctrines of Christ’s reign on earth for a thousand years, and the double resurrection, etc., were in the East in part shelved, in part absolutely characterised as Jewish heresies.385 The return of Christ, which was still described as imminent, though for many theologians it had lost its essential significance, the judgment of the world, the resurrection of the body,386 the eternal misery (θάνατος ἐν ἀθανασίᾳ—undying death)

384

Gregory of Nyssa still defended it, appealing to 1 Cor. XV. 28; see the second half of his writing περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ ἀναστάσεως, and Orat. catech. 8, 35. So also—for a time—Jerome and the older Antiochenes; even in the fifth century it had numerous defenders in both East and West. It was definitively condemned with the condemnation of Origen under Justinian. See under, ch. XI. ac8 385 The last important theological representative of Chiliasm in the East was Apollinaris of Laodicea; see Epiph. H. 77, ch. 37, Jerome de vir. inl. 18. Jerome labours to prove (Ep.129) that the terra promissionis was not Palestine, but a heavenly place. The Apocalypse was, as a rule, not included in the Canon in the East (in older times). With this state of matters is contrasted very strongly the fact that in the lower ranks of priests, monks, and laity apocalypses continued to be eagerly read, and new ones were ever being produced on the basis of the old. 386 The doctrine of the resurrection of man in spirit and body still always formed a main point in Apologetic evidences, and was, as formerly, proved from the omnipotence of God, from various analogical inferences, and from the essential importance of the body for human personality. The Cappadocians and some later Greek theologians still held, though in a much weakened form, to the spiritualistic version of the doctrine attempted by Origen. But, following Methodius, Epiphanius (H. 64, ch. 12 ff.) especially

of the wicked, were maintained, and even the conception of a transfiguration of heaven and this earth was not everywhere rejected. Retained accordingly were only those points enumerated in the symbols, and therefore no longer to be passed over. To these were added the expectation of Antichrist, which, however, only emerged, as a rule, during exceptional distress, as in the times of Arian emperors, Julian, barbarous nations, Mohammed, etc., and by no means now belonged to the solid substance of theological eschatology; (yet see Cyril, Catech. 15, ch. 11 f., the pseudohippolytan work περὶ συντελείας, and the late apocalypses of from the fourth to the seventh century). Blessedness was regarded as a state of freedom from suffering, of the perfect knowledge, and the intuitive and entrancing enjoyment, of God. Yet the majority recognised different degrees and stages of 188blessedness, a conception in which we perceive the moralist encroach upon the ground of religion,387 since it put a high value on special earthly achievements, such as asceticism and martyrdom. As regards the blessed dead, it was supposed in wide circles that their souls waited in Hades, a subterranean place, for the return of Christ;388 there Christ had also preac 6e0 hed the gospel to the good who had died before him.389 Not a few Fathers of the fourth century

insisted that there was the most perfect identity between the resurrection body and our material body, and this faith, enforced in the West by Jerome, soon established itself as alone orthodox. There now arose many problems concerning the limbs and members of the future body, and even Augustine seriously considered these. He experimented on the flesh of a peacock, and confirmed his faith in the resurrection by the discovery of its preservation from decay. 387 The assumption of various degrees of blessedness (and damnation) must have been almost universal; for the divergent opinion of Jovinian was felt to be heretical; see Jer 564 ome adv. Jovin. I. 3, II. 18-34. Still it excited more real interest in the West than in the East (Augustine, De civitate, XXII., ch. 30). As regards the idea of future existence, some Fathers supposed that men would positively become angels, others that they would be like the angels. 388 The different conceptions as to the relations of Hades, Hell, Paradise, the bosom of Abraham, etc., do not come in here. According to Gregory of Nyssa, Hades is not to be held a place, but an invisible and incorporeal state of the life of the soul. 389 This old theologoumenon (see Vol. I., p. 203) occurs in western and eastern theologians. Those who would have become Christians if they had lived later, i.e., after Christ’s 564 appearance, were redeemed. The phrase descendit ad inferna came into the Symbols from the fourth century. We find it in the West first, in the Symbol of Aquileia, in the East in the formula of the fourth Synod at Sirmium (359 εἰς τὰ καταχθόνια κατελθόντα). It is at least questionable whether it was already in the Jerusalemite Symbol at the same date. Compare Hahn, Bibliothek d. Symbole, 2 Aufl. §§ 24, 27, 34, 36, 37, 39-41, 43, 45, 46-60, 93, 94, 96, 108; Caspari, Ueber das Jerus. Taufbekenntniss in

maintained, following Origen, that the souls of the pious at once enter Paradise, or come to Christ,390 and this opinion gained ground more and more. It was universal in regard to saints and martyrs. Besides, the conceptions of the intermediate state, like everything else in this connection, were altogether vague, since Greek theologians were only interested 189ultimately in the hope of deification.391 In the West, on the contrary, the entire primitive Christian eschatology was upheld pretty nearly intact during the fourth century, and even the idea of Nero returning as Antichrist had numerous supporters. The reason of this lies in the fact that Neoplatonic speculation, and speculation generally, obtained at first no footing here, and the specific import of Christianity at the same time was still always expressed in the dramatically conceived eschatology. But the distinction between Wes eb0 t and East goes at this point much deeper. Strongly eschatological as was the aim of the whole dogmatics of the East, it cannot be overlooked that the heart of the matter—the thought of the judgement—had been torn away from the eschatology since Origen. This thought which expresses the fearful responsibility of every soul to the God of holiness, and without which the forgiveness of sins must remain an enigma and an empty word, dominated the gospel, and determined ancient Christianity. But “scientific” theology had shelved it.392 The name is not wanting in Origen’s system, but the thing had disappeared. In spite of all the emphasis laid on freedom, nothing exists but a cosmic process, in which the many issues from the one,

Cyrillus’ Katechesen, with an excursus: Hat das Jerus. Taufbekenntniss den descensus ad inferos enthalten, in the norweg. Theol. Ztschr. Vol. I. 390 With this it could be and, as a rule, was understood that their felicity up to the last judgment was only preliminary. Two interests met here: those of a spiritualising religion and of primitive Christian eschatology; see Vol. I., p. 129 f. The latter required that blessedness should be attached t 54a o the return of Christ and the last judgment; the former demanded that it should be complete as soon as the believing soul had parted from the mortal body. Therefore, in spite of Jerome’s polemic against Vigilantius and Augustine’s against Pelagius, no fixed Church doctrine could be arrived at here, however much piety desired an absolute decision. See for details Petavius and Schwane D. Gesch. d. patrist Zeit, p. 749 ff. 391 Clement and Origen had assumed a purgatory in the shape of a cleansing fire (see Vol. II., p. 377, n. 5); the Greek Fathers, however, have, so far as I know, dropped the idea, with the exception of Gregory of Nyssa (περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ ἀναστάσεως, Oehler, Vol. I., p. 98 f.). From Origen and Gregory the conception passed to Ambrose who established it in the West, after the way had been prepared for it by Tertullian. The Scriptural proof was 1 Cor. III. 13 f.; compare Augustine De civitate dei, XXI. 23 sq. Enchir. 68 sq. (ignis purgatorius). 392 It still lived in the popular views of Christianity held by the Orientals.

in order to return into the one. In such a scheme the Judgment has been deprived of its meaning. In subsequent times apokatastasis— universalism—was indeed condemned in the East, and Origen’s system was rejected; but any one who studies closely Greek Byzantine dogmatics will see how profound was the attachment to this most important point in Origenism and Neoplatonism. The problems to which the creed gave birth in the fourth to the seventh century, and which men laboured to solve, discountenance any effective reference to the judgment. Again and again we have deification as a hyperphysical and therefore physical 190process, but dogmatics tell us little of the tenet that it is appointed unto man to die and after that the judgment. For this reason also the strict connection with morality was lost, and therefore in some regions even Islam was a deliverer. It was different in the West. What has been named the “Chiliasm” of the West, possessed its essential significance in the prospect of the judgment. If we compare West and East in the Middle Ages—the theologians, not the laity—no impression is stronger than that the former knew the fear of the judge to which the latter had become indifferent. It was the restless element in the life of faith of the West; it sustained the thought of forgiveness of sins; it accordingly made the reformation of Catholicism possible. And any reformation, if it should ever take place in the Greek Church, will begin by restoring the conviction of the responsibility of every individual soul, emphasising the judgment, and thus gaining the fixed point from which to cast down the walls of dogmatics. Literature.—Hermann, Gregorii Nysseni sententiæ de salute adipiscenda, 1875. H. Schultz, Die Lehre von der Gottheit Christi, 1881. Kattenbusch, Kritische Studien der Symbolik, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1878, p. 94 ff. Ritschl, Die Christl. Lehre v. d. Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung, 2 Ed., Vol. I., pp. 3-21. Kattenbusch, Konfessionskunde I., p. 296 ff. On Monachism, especially in Russia, see Frank, Russ. Kirche, p. 190 ff. Chapter III. Sources of Knowledge and Authorities; or, Scripture, Tradition, and the Church. 191

CHAPTER III. SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE AND AUTHORITIES; OR, SCRIPTURE, TRADITION, AND THE CHURCH. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

THE extent and authority of the Catholic authorities were already substantially fixed at the beginning of the fourth cent 3200 ury, though their mutual relations and the manner of using them in detail were not.393 Among the parties which contended over the correct definition of the dogma of redemption, they had to a certain degree become undoubtedly subjects of controversy. The great opposition between a more liberal theology and pure traditionalism was based upon a difference in the way of looking at the authorities. But this opposition never culminated in a clear contrast of principles. Consequently, theologians had no occasion to frame a special doctrine of the Church and the authorities—Scripture and tradition. The need was not, as in the case of the dogma of redemption, so pressing as to lead men to adopt the perilous and obnoxious course of formulating laws of faith anew. The petty skirmishes, however, with more or less obscure theologians and reformers, who point-blank objected to this or that portion of the traditional basis, did not come before the great tribunal of the Church, and the conflict with Manichæans, Paulicians, Euchites, and Bogomilians, has left no trace in the history of dogma.394 192

393

See the account given in Vol. II., pp. 18-127, and elsewhere. The opposition to the Eustathians and Andians (see the Acts of the Synod of Gangra and Epiph. H.70) does not belong to this section; for it arose from a different conception of the obligatoriness of the monk’s life on Christians. On the contrary, it is noteworthy that Aërius, once a friend of Eustathius (Epiph. H.75) not only maintained the original identity of bishops and presbyters—that had also been done, and supported from the N. T., by Jerome and the theologians of Antioch—but he made the question an articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ. We cannot now determine what motive influenced him. The attack of Marcellus of Ancyra on the foundations of the prevalent theology, and his argument that the dogma was essentially ἀνθρωπίνης βουλῆς τε καὶ γνώµης, are of incomparably greater significance in principle. But his arguments were not understood, and produced no effect. Meanwhile, the basis of the whole structure of the Catholic Church in the East was at no time left unassailed. The Church has never embraced everything which was, and might be, named Christian. After the Marcionites and the older sects had retired from the stage, or had fused with the Manichæans, Paulicians, Euchites, and Bogomilians, etc., came upon the scene. These Churches contested the Catholic foundations as the Marcionites and Manichæans had done; they accepted neither the Catholic Canon, nor the hierarchical order and tradition. They succeeded, in part, in creating lasting, comprehensive, and exclusive systems, and afforded work to Byzantine theologians and p 523 oliticians for centuries. But important as it is to assert their existence, they have no place in the history of dogma; for at no time had they any influence whatever on the formation of dogma in the East; they have left no effect on the Church. Therefore general Church history has alone to deal with them. 394

Still, changes took place in the period between Eusebius and Johannes Damascenus. They followed simply the altered requirements of the Church. They gave utterance to the increased traditionalism. Necessity became a virtue, i.e., every new point which was felt to be needed in order to preserve the unity of the Church, or to adapt its institutions to the taste of the time, was inserted in the list of authorities. This method was in vogue even in the third century. It was now only further and further extended. But it is hard to fix its results, since at that time there was no fixity and there could be none, from the nature of the principle that the state of the Church at any time was to be declared as in every respect the traditional one.395 xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

1. Holy Scripture.396 To the two Testaments a unique authority was ascribed. They were the Holy Scriptures κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν; every doctrine had 193to be proved out of them, in other words, opinions that held something necessary to faith which did not occur in Scripture, had no absolute validity. Any one who declared that he took his stand on Scripture alone did not assume an uncatholic attitude. This view of the Holy Scriptures presupposed that their extent was strictly defined, and placed beyond all doubt. But this supposition was for centuries contradicted by the actual facts, which, however, were concealed, partly because men neither would nor dared look at them, partly because they really did not see them. The theologians of Antioch, and especially Theodore, criticised on internal and external grounds the contents of the Canon, as these were gradually being fixed; but in doing so even they were guided by an ecclesiastical tradition. Their criticism still had its supporters in the sixth

395

The view held of the apostolate of the twelve first fully reached its Catholic level in the fourth and fifth centuries. The Apostles were (1) missionaries who had traversed the whole world and performed unheard of miracles, (2) the rulers of the Churches, (3) teachers and law-givers in succession to Christ, having given in speech and writing to the least detail all the regulations necessary to the Church for faith and morals, (4) the authors of the order of worship, the liturgy, (5) heroic ascetics and fathers of monachism, (6) though hesitatingly, the mediators of salvation. b06 396See histories of the Canon by Holtzmann, Schmiedel (in Ersch and Gruber “Kanon”); Weiss, Westcott, and especially Zahn. Overbeck, Z. Gesch. des Kanons, 1880. The controversy with the Jews as to the possession and exposition of the O. T. still continued in the Byzantine period; see on this McGiffert, Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew, entitled Ἀντιβολὴ Παπίσκου καὶ Φίλωνος κ.τ.λ. . . . together with a discussion of Christian polemics against the Jews. New York, 1889.

century, and its influence extended not only to Persia, but even, through Junilius, to the West. But neither the spirit of the criticism nor its results ever made any impression whatever on the great Church.397 As regards the O. T., the oldest and most revered of the Greek Fathers followed Melito and Origen, and only recognised the 22-24 books of the Hebrew Canon,398 according to the others in the Alexandrian Canon only a secondary validity, or none at all. While there was some hesitation about the Book of Esther, and that not only in Antioch, this decision obtained 194in the Greek Churches, though divergences were not wanting in provincial communities. But it was always in danger of being disregarded, for the sacred books were continually transcribed from the LXX.; and so, as a rule, those writings, excluded in theory, were copied along with the others. The legend of the genesis of the LXX., again, was always highly valued, and it seemed to imply the sacredness of the whole translation. Yet it was only in consequence of the attempts at union with the Roman Church in the Middle Ages, and still more after the ill-fated enterprise of Cyrillus Lucaris (17th century), that the Greek Church was persuaded to give up the Hebrew and adopt the Alexandrian and Roman Canon. But a binding, official declaration never followed; the passiveness and thoughtlessness with which it changed, or upturned its position in so important a question, is extraordinarily characteristic of the modern Græco-Slavic Church. The question is not even yet decided, and there are distinguished Russian theologians, who regard the books of the Hebrew Canon as being alone strictly canonical. They are, however, growing ever fewer.399 In the Western Church a state of complete uncertainty

397

On the attitude of Theodore and his disciples to the Canon, see the thorough investigations of Kihn (Theodorus von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus, 1880). Theodore rejected from the O. T., Job, the Song of Songs, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Esther, and the inscriptions of the Psalms; see Leontius Byz. Contra Nestor. et Eutych. L. III., ch. 13-17, Migne T. 86, p. 1365 sq. The fifth Synod expressly condemned Theodore’s criticism and interpretation of Job and the Song of Songs, as well as his idea of inspiration in reference to Solomon’s writings, and his exposition of some of the Psalms. On Theodore’s prestige in Nisibis, see Kihn, p. 333 f.; on Junilius’ dependence on him, l. c., 350-382. For the dependence of the Nestorian Canon on Theodore’s, see Noeldeke in the Gött. Gel. Anz. 1868, St. 46, p. 1826 and Kihn, l. c., 336. 398 Authoritative were especially the views of Athanasius, Cyril of Jerus. and Gregory of Nazianzus, who reckoned only 22 Books; see also the sixtieth Canon of the Council of Laodicea (363? inauthentic?). 399 567 See Gass, Symbolik der griechischen Kirche, p. 97 ff.; Strack, Kanon des A. T. in Prot. R.-E., Vol. VII. 2, p. 412 ff. The reader is referred to this article and to Introductions to the O. T. for details. Kattenbusch, Confessionskunde I., p. 292.

still prevailed in the fourth century as to the extent of the O. T. But the Latin Bible, complete copies of which may not have been very common, was a translation of the LXX. This fact was more potent than the historical views which found their way into the West from the East, in a disjointed form, and for whose triumph Jerome had laboured. Augustine, who was ignorant of Biblical criticism, held to the current Latin collection (see, e.g., his list in De doct. christ. II., 8), and at the Synods of Hippo, A.D. 393 (can. 36), and Carthage, A.D. 397 (can. 47), the Alexandrian Canon was adopted. The decision that the Roman Church was to be asked for a confirmation of this conclusion does not seem to have been carried out. From that date the Hebrew Canon was departed from in the West, though the view of Athanasius, conveyed to it by Rufinus, and the decision of Jerome, exerted a quiet influence, and even apart from this 195some uncertainty—e.g., in the case of 4 Esra, the Pastor of Hermas, etc.,—still remained.400 Cassiodorus seems to have taken a very important part in finally shaping the Latin Bible. But we cannot by any means describe the attitude of the West as uncritical. It only avoided the inconsistency into which scholars had fallen in extolling the LXX. as a divinely composed and authentic work, while they ranked the Hebrew Bible above it. As regards the N. T., the Alexandrian Church accepted the Western collection in the time of Origen, and in the course of the third century most of the others, though not yet all,401 seem to have followed its example. In so far as any reflection was given to their historical characteristics, the Scriptures were regarded as Apostolic-catholic, and were acknowledged to contain the real sources of evidence for Christian doctrine. But the principle of apostolicity could not be strictly carried out. In many national Churches apostolic writings were known and revered which were not found in the Western collection, and conversely, it was not always possible to perceive the Apostolic origin and Catholic

400

Gregory I. (Moral XIX. 13) thought it necessary to excuse himself for arguing from Maccabees. 401 Thus Syrian Churches still used Tatian’s Diatessaron in the fourth century; and in a few circles among them there were retained in the Canon, the apocryphal correspondence of the Corinthians and Paul, the two Epp. of Clement, nay, even the Ep. of Clement de virginitate. On the other hand, some books were wanting. Not a few apocryphal writings held an undefined ran ac8 k in the Syrian Patriarchate. In a word, the old Roman Canon, expanded in the course of the third century in Alexandria, did not get the length of being acknowledged in vast territories of the East proper. In spite of the association of the Apostolic Epistles with the Gospels, the higher rank peculiar to the latter was not done away with as late as the fourth century. Alexander of Alexandria (in Theodoret H. E. I. 4) describes the contents of Holy Scripture briefly as ‘Law, Prophets, and Gospels.’

recognition of a received book. Origen already therefore adopted the idea, consonant to the spirit of antiquity, that the collection embraced those books about whose title a general agreement had prevailed from the earliest times. Canonicity was decided by unanimous testimony. But even this principle did not meet the whole case; Origen himself violated it in forming the group of seven Catholic Epistles. Yet it became the established rule, and put an end to any consideration of the question based on criticism of the facts. 196Eusebius, who was a very important authority, and who—if we are to understand the passage so—had been commissioned by the Emperor to prepare standard Bibles, followed the view of Origen; yet in the case of one book, the Apocalypse, he expressed his dislike in a way that ran counter to the principle of the Canon. The three, or four, categories, in which he required to arrange the books, show that men were struggling with a difficulty not to be solved in this way, which could only be solved by time with its power to hallow all inconsistencies.402 If we collected statistically all the Eastern information we possess concerning the extent of the N. T. from the date of Eusebius up to the destruction of Constantinople—direct and indirect statements by Church Fathers, Synodal decisions, Bible manuscripts and indices from the Churches of various provinces, and especially Syria—we would be forced to the conclusion that complete confusion and uncertainty prevailed.403 But this view would be erroneous. We have to multiply by hundreds the lists which enumerate 26 (27) books, i.e., the Acknowledged and the Disputed melioris notæ of Eusebius.—Athanasius’ Festival Epistle, A.D. 367, was of paramount importance in settling the complete equality of these two classes in the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Constantinople and in the West.—On the other hand, apart from the Syrian Churches,404 the lists which diverge 197from the above

402

On the efforts of Eusebius to fix the extent of the N. T., see Texte und Untersuch. zur altchristl. Litteratur-Geschichte, Vol. II. 1, 2, p. 5 ff. 403 Almost everything which was esteemed in quite different circumstances in the earliest period, is to be again found somewhere or other in the Byzantine age. Most instructive is the history of Clement’s Epistles and Hermas. Conversely, the old doubts also remain and even new ones emerge (Philemon, see Jerome in his preface to the Epistle). 404 The N. T. had a peculiar history in the Syrian Churches, which has not yet been written; see Nestle, ‘Syrische Bibelübersetzungen’ in the Prot. R.-E. Vol. XV.; Bäthgen’s work on the Syrus Cureton. 1885, and my ‘das N. T. um das Jahr 200’ ( 1888). It is more than questionable whether Theodore of Mopsuestia did any independent criticism on the extent of the N. T. He, probably, simply adhered to the Canon of his Church, which then of the Catholic Epistles only admitted 1 Peter and 1 John, and rejected the Apocalypse;

owe their existence either to a badly applied scholarship, or to individual reminiscences, in rare cases to a divergent usage on the part of provincial Churches. From the end of the fourth century real unanimity prevailed, in the main, as to the contents of the N. T. and the authorship of the separate books, in Constantinople, Asia Minor, Alexandria, and the West. Apart from doubts of long standing, yet ineffectual and isolated, about the Catholic Epistles (and Philemon?), the ac8 one exception was John’s Revelation, for which Eusebius’ verdict was momentous.405 But even in this case attempts to come to a decision were given up: the book was shelved, and reemerged, from the circles in which it had maintained its ground, without exciting any controversy worth mentioning. The disquieting distinction between Acknowledged and Disputed books, abolished by Athanasius, was but very seldom of any consequence in practice; but scholars still recalled it here and there. When the collection was limited to 26 (27) books, the reading of others in the Church was, from the end of the fourth century, more strictly prohibited. But even at the beginning of the fifth, men in a position to know, like Jerome and Sozomen, can tell us that the prohibition was here and there unknown or disregarded. Some primitive Christian writings were thus in use in the Churches down to the fifth century and later; but the Monophysite Churches preserved, as a monkish protest against the spiritualism of Origen, Jewish Apocalypses revised by Christians and belonging to the earliest period, and the barbarism into which they fell spread a protective covering over these writings.406 The details are obscure of the way in which the Western 198Church obtained the Epistle of James, second Peter, and third John. The Epistle to the Hebrews, not unknown to it from the first, it received in the fourth century as a Pauline composition, from the East, through the famous intermediaries. Those same men did

see Kihn, l. c., 65 ff. and the Canon of Chrysostom. While the whole Church was substantially agreed about the extent of the N. T., from the end of the fourth century, wide districts in the Patriarchate of Antioch retained 564 their separate traditions. Only we must not forget that the vast majority even of these had accepted the Roman Canon of undisputed books in the second half of the third century. But the agreement went no further; for from the fourth century they would take no more instruction from Alexandria. 405 For the rest, Weiss has rightly shown (Einleitung in das N. T., p. 98) that the extent to which the Apocalypse was rejected, has been somewhat exaggerated. Extremely noteworthy is the view of Didymus on 2 Peter (Enarrat. in epp. cathol.): “Non est ignorandum præsentem epistolam esse falsatam, quæ licet publicetur non tamen in canone est.” 406 In the Byzantine Church also Apocalypses continued to be read, and ne aae w ones were constantly being produced.

away with all uncertainty at the close of the fourth century on the ground of the decisions given by Eusebius and Athanasius. The 27 books, i.e., the Canon of Athanasius, were alone recognised at the Synods of Hippo and Carthage (397), and this result was confirmed by Augustine’s authority (see, e.g., De doctr. christ. II. 8) without any general declaration having been made.407 But the sharper the line drawn betwe 54a en the collection and all other writings, the more suspicious must those have appeared whose title could lead, or had once admittedly led, to a claim for recognition as Catholic and Apostolic. The category of “apocryphal” in which they had formerly been placed, solely in order to mark the alleged or real absence of general testimony in their favour, now obtained more and more an additional meaning; they were of unknown origin, or ‘fabricated’, and this was often supplemented by the charge of being ‘heretical’. But however great the gulf between the canonical and uncanonical books, it is impossible to conceal 199the fact that the Church never published a general decision, excluding all doubt, on the extent of the Canon in ancient times. The Canon of Augustine was adopted by Pope Innocent I. (Ep. 6, ch. 7, ad Exsuperium). With the complete elaboration of the conception of canonical books, every other description applied to them gave way to the idea of their divinity.408 What could any predicate signify

407

See also under this head the verdict, freer because dependent on Theodore, which Junilius passed on the Catholic Epistles. Critical investigations have not yet arrived at a final result regarding the Decretum Gelasii. Augustine himself has not failed, besides, to notice the doubts that existed in his time; see Retractat. II. 4, 2. In his De pecc. mer. I. 27, he still leaves the Ep. to the Hebrews unassigned. In De doctr. christ. II. 8, he writes: “In canonicis autem scripturis ecclesiarum catholicarum quam plurimum auctoritatem sequatur, inter quas sane illæ sint, quæ apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas accipere meruerunt.” Accordingly, this principle still holds. “Tenebit igitur hunc modum in scripturis canonicis, ut eas quæ ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis catholicis, præponat eis quas quædam non accipiunt; in iis vero quæ non accipiuntur ab omnibus, præponat eas, quas plures gravioresque accipiunt eis, quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesiæ tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi, quamquam hoc facile inveniri non possit, æqualis tamen auctoritatis eas habendas puto.” Since the older copies of the Bible continued to be transcribed, uniformity had not been secured. It is true we no longer possess western Bibles whose contents are limited to the earliest Roman Canon—Gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline Ep., 1 and 2 John, 1 Peter, Jude, Revelation—but we have them with an Ep. to the Laodiceans, the Pastor (though in the O. T.), and even with the apocryphal correspondence of the Corinthians and Paul. 408 The conception that the canonical books were solemnly set apart, occurs first in Athanasius; the Alexandrians, however, including Origen, had the idea and even the word

compared with the conviction that they had been composed by the Holy Ghost himself? Therefore the categories of canonical and inspired writings coincided, nay, inspiration in its highest sense was limited to the canonical books. The belief in inspiration was necessarily attended by the duty of pneumatic or allegorical exegesis. This sacred art was then practised by all, who were able thus to disregard the results of any other kind of exposition. The problems which pneumatic exegesis, praised even by cultured Hellenists,409 had to solve, were mainly the following. It had (1) to demonstrate the agreement between the two Testaments, in other words; to christianise the O. T. completely, to discover prophecy everywhere, to get rid of the literal meaning where it was obnoxious, and to repel Jewish claims;410 (2) to harmonise the statements of Holy Scripture with the prevailing dogmatics; (3) to furnish every text with a profound meaning, one valuable for the time. Exegesis became a kind of black art, and Augustine was not the only man who was delivered from Manichæan, by Biblical, Alchemy. But while these tasks were generally fixed, a sure and unvarying method was still wanting.411 Even the principles of before him (Orig. Prolog. in Cantic.). Athanasius writes in his Festival Ep. τὰ κανονιζόµενα καὶ παραδοθέντα πιστευθέντα τε θεῖα εἶναι βιβλία. 57e 409 The Neoplatonic opponents of the Church were not quite honest, they were rather talking διαλεκτικῶς, when they objected to the allegorical method of interpreting Holy Scripture. They treated their own sacred writings in exactly the same way. 410 Sozomen says (H. E. V.22) that the Jews were more readily seduced to heathenism, because they only interpreted Holy Scripture πρὸς ῥητόν, and not πρὸς θεωρίαν. 411 Thus Arians and Orthodox s ac8 ometimes appealed to the same texts. But the impossibility of drawing up a rule deciding how far the letter of Scripture was authoritative, caused more anxiety. Had God a human form, eyes, or voice; was Paradise situated on the earth; did the dead rise with all their bodily members, even with their hair, etc.?—to all these and a hundred similar questions there was no sure answer, and consequently disputes arose between adherents of one and the same confession. All had to allegorise, and, in turn, all had to take certain texts literally. But what a difference existed between an Epiphanius and a Gregory of Nyssa, and how many shades of belief there were between the crude anthropomorphists and the spiritualists! The latter, as a rule, had reason to dread the arguments, and frequently the fists, of the former; they could not but be anxious about their own orthodoxy, for the old regula was on the side of their opponents, and the most absurd opinion had the prejudice that it was the most pious in its favour. Ultimately, in the course of the fifth century, a sort of common sense established itself, which could be taken as forming, with regard to the anthropomorphists, a middle line between the exegetic methods of Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, and which had been anticipated by a few Fathers of the fourth century. Yet not many concessions

were not strictly retained.412 On the other hand, the historical antiquarian interest, which he had awakened, in Holy Scripture, continued to exert its influence. It not only lasted up to the fifth century,413 but it also exerted a critical and restrictive 414 201influence on pneumatic exegesis This was the case among the 200Origen

were made to the anthropomorphists. Even Antiochians like Theodore had become suspected of an anthropomorphism incompatible with the honour of God (see Johannes Philoponus, De creat. mundi, I. 22. in Gallandi XII., p. 496). He who did not rise from the turpitudo litteræ ad decorem intelligentiæ spiritalis (Jerome ad Amos. 2) might come under suspicion of heresy. But, on the other hand, the Cappadocians themselves opposed those who allegorised “too much”, and thus approximated too closely to heathen philosophers; and after a part of Origen’s expositions had passed into the traditional possessions of the Church, the rest was declared heretical. Even before this Epiphanius had written (H. 61, ch. 6): Πάντα τὰ θεῖα ῥήµατα οὐκ ἀλληγορίας δεῖται, ἀλλὰ ὡς ἔχει, ἔχει, θεωρίας δὲ δεῖται καὶ αἰσθήσεως. Origen’s thorough-going principle that “God can say and do nothing, which is not good and just”, by which he criticised and occasionally set aside the letter of Scripture, was too bold for the Epigoni with their faith in authority. God had done what Scripture said of him, and what God did was good. This principle not only ruined all lucid science, but a 564 lso deprived the Church of the intrinsic completeness of her creed. Yet we must not minimise the result of the compromise made in the fourth and fifth centuries, between the literal, allegorical, and typical methods of interpreting Scripture; for it has held its ground up to the present day in a way really identical in all Churches, and it seems to possess no small power to convince. 412 For Origen’s principles see Vol. II., p. 346. 413 Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome are links in a chain of scholarly tradition and work. The succession, however, marked a descent not only in point of time. The attitude of Jerome and the conflicts in which he was involved show at the same time that the age no longer tolerated ind ac3 ependent scholarship in historical criticism. Therefore it ceased after Jerome; such work was confined to registering antiquarian notices, even doubtful ones, which were accepted without reflection, since, having entered into the stock of tradition, they no longer roused criticism. 414 Besides, when driven by necessity, i.e., when brought face to face with inconvenient passages of Scripture, a way was found out of the difficulty in the demand that the historical occasion of the text must be carefully weighed. Thus Athanasius writes (Orat. c. Arian. I. 54), when setting himself to refute the Scriptural proofs of the Arians, and finding that he is in considerable straits: δεῖ δέ, ὡς ἐπὶ πάσης θείας γραφῆς προσήκει ποιεῖν καὶ ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν, οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα, καθ᾽ ὃν εἶπεν ὁ ἀπόστολος καιρὸν καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ τὸ πρᾶγµα, διόπερ ἔγραψε, πιστῶς ἐκλαµβάνειν, ἵνα µὴ παρὰ ταῦτα ἢ καὶ παρ᾽ ἕτερόν τι τούτων ἀγνοῶν ὃ ἀναγιγνώσκων ἔξω τῆς ἀληθινῆς διανοίας γένηται. The same contention was often upheld in earlier times by Tertullian when driven into a corner by the exegesis of the Marcionites (see De præscr. adv. Marc. II.-V.). The exegetical “principle” of the Fathers gradually became the complexus oppositorum; i.e., when the literal meaning was disturbing, then it was, in the words of Gregory of Nazianzus, (Orat. XXXI. 3): ἔνδυµα τῆς ἀσεβείας ἐστὶν ἡ ϕιλία τοῦ

scholars of Antioch. Diodorus and Theodore tried, following the precedent set by Lucian and Dorotheus, to form an inner connection between the pneumatic and the grammatico-historical exegesis. It cannot be held that this gave rise to a more rational method, or one more tenable from the critical standpoint. Yet in detail they followed sound principles. These again had been already pared down by Chrysostom and Theodoret in favour of the dominant method, but they lasted in the Nestorian Church and its schools as long as science existed there at all, and their influence extended into the West through Junilius.415

γράµµατος: or men spoke of the turpitudo litterræ, the Jewish understanding of Scripture, the necessity of considering historical circumstances or the like. But if “advanced” theologians produced suspected allegorical explanations, then the cry was raised ὡς ἔχει, ἔχει, Holy Scripture is not to be understood according to Plato, etc. 415 569 The distinction between Alexandrian—Origenistic—and Antiochene exegesis does not consist in the representatives of the latter having rejected wholesale the spiritual meaning. They rather recognised it, but they tried to determine it typically from the literal meaning. While the Alexandrians avowedly set aside the literal meaning in many passages, and attached the pneumatic sense to texts by some sort of device, the Antiochenes started from the literal meaning, seeking to discover it by all the means of a sound exegesis, and then showed that the narrative concerned was a σκιὰ τῶν µελλόντων, a type created by God, which had been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. They set up definite rules for the discovery of the literal meaning as well as for that of the typical and allegorical sense (θεωρία, not ἀλληγορία), which lay not in the words, but the realities, persons, and events designated by the words. The rules are strikingly like those of the Federal theologians—Cocceius—an ac8 d the school of Hofmann; the method of the author of the Hebrews furnished their model. This procedure had various results. First, the method of Philo and Origen followed by the Alexandrians was strenuously opposed both in independent treatises, and in connection with exegesis. Secondly, an effort was made to give the literal meaning in all cases its due; thus Diodorus says in the Catena of Nicephorus (Leipz. 1772, I. p. 524): τοῦ ἀλληγορικοῦ τὸ ἱστορικὸν πλεῖστον ὅσον προτιµῶµεν. Thirdly, a real covenant was accordingly recognised between God and the Jewish people, and that nation was accorded its significant place in the history of salvation: the “history of salvation” which thus originated differed essentially from that of Irenæus (see Vol. II., p. 305). Fourthly and finally, the number of directly Messianic passages in the O. T. became extraordinarily limited; while, according to pneumatic exegesis, everything in the O. T. was in a sense directly Messianic, i.e., Christian, the Antiochenes only retained a few such passages. The horizon of O. T. authors was more correctly defined. Theodore decidedly disputed the presence of anything in the O. T. about the Son of God or the Trinity. Further, the Antiochenes distinguished grades of inspiration, namely, the spirit of prophecy, and that of wisdom, and they placed the former far above the latter. Although the advance of this exegesis on the Alexandrian is obvious, yet it is seriously defective in completeness and consistency in method. First, the Antiochenes, in spite of their polemic against the older expositors—Hippolytus, Origen,

202

587

The West received through Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, and Rufinus, the erudite pneumatic method of the Greeks, as practised especially by the Cappadocians. Before this, and for a few decades afterwards, the exegesis of the West was mainly 203characterised by absence of system; along with reverence for the letter we find all sorts of allegorical explanations, and in turn a predilection for a dramatic close to earthly history. Jerome was far from having fixed exegetic principles, since he allegorised against his better knowledge wherever the orthodox confession required it. In his time Tychonius, a Donatist, drew up for the interpretation of Holy Scripture seven rules which were to remove all difficulties (Augustine, De doctr. christ. III. 30 sq.).416 These were adopted by

Eusebius, Apollinaris, Didymus, and Jerome—could not altogether divest themselves of the old principle of the authoritative interpretation of Scripture; “they regarded the old traditional doctrine, the exposition given by the Fathers, and the definitions of Synods, as the standard and touch-stone of agreement with the creed of the Church, and they made of this rule what use they pleased”; from this source their attitude became somewhat uncertain. Secondly, they only rarely succeeded in criticising the literal meaning historically; where they did, they employed rationalistic interpretations, and accordingly their procedure approximated to Origen’s. speculative exegesis, yet without following any fixed principle. Thirdly, their typological exegesis also often bordered very closely on the allegorical, and since they assumed a double sense in Scripture, they did not remove, but only disguised, the fundamental error of current exegesis. Fourthly, they could not make cle 543 ar the difference between the O. T. and the N. T., because, in spite of their assumption of different degrees of inspiration, they placed the O. T. prophets on a level with the Apostles; see Theodore, Comment. on Neh. I. in Migne, T. LXVI., p. 402: τῆς αὐτῆς τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος χάριτος οἵ τε πάλαι µετεῖχον καὶ οἱ τῷ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης ὑπηρετούµενος µυστηρίῳ. Finally, by assuming directly Messianic passages in the O. T. they gave up their own position, and placed themselves at the mercy of their opponents. See later for the history of the school of Antioch, especially its relation to Aristotle. Diestel, Gesch. des A. T. in der christl. Kirche, p. 126 ff. Fritzsche, de Theod. Mops. vita et scriptis, Halae, 1836. Above all, the works of Kihn, Die Bedeutung der Antioch. Schule a. d. exeget. Gebiete (1866), and Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius als Exegeten (1880), where the older literature is given. Swete, Theodori ep. Mops. in epp. Pauli Comment. Cambridge, 1880, 1881. ae9 416These rules are of material importance (for theology). The first treats of the Lord and his body: i.e., we must and may apply the truth concerning the Lord to the Church, and vice versa, since they form one person; only in this way do we frequently get a correct sense. The second deals with the bi-partite body of the Lord: we must carefully consider whether the true or the empirical Church is meant. The third takes up the promises and the law, i.e., the spirit and letter; the fourth treats of genus and species: we must observe the extent to which texts apply; the fifth, of the dates: we must harmonise contradictory dates by a fixed method, and understand certain stereotyped numbers as

Augustine in his work ‘On Christian Science’, which, subject as it is to the errors of the age, is a glorious memorial of the great Bishop’s love of truth, and evangelical feeling. Of evangelical feeling, in so far as Augustine, in opposition to all biblicism, declared the study of Holy Scripture to be mer 564 ely the path towards love; he who possessed love, no longer needed the Scripture, he lived with Christ and God; accordingly he had ceased to require separate ‘saving truths’, for he lived in truth and love.417

symbolical. The sixth discusses repetition: i.e., we have frequently to refrain from assuming a chronological order, where such an order appears to exist, and the seventh deals with the devil and his body, i.e., the devil and the godless, many things referring to the latter which are said of the devil and vice versa—see the first rule. 417 The thought wavers between that of Origen, who also elevates himself above the historical Christ, and the genuinely evangelical idea that the Christian must stop short at “means of salvation”; see De doctr. I. 34: “Nulla res in via (ad deum) tenere nos debet, quando nec ipse dominus, in quantum via nostra esse dignatus est, tenere nos voluerit, sed transire; ne rebus temporalibus, quamvis ab illo pro salute nostra susceptis et gestis, hæreamus infirmiter, sed per eas potius curramus alacriter etc.” In ch. 35 love is held up as the exclusive goal: ch. 36 teaches that no one has understood Scripture who has not been led by it to love God and his neighbour; but if he has been led to this love, then he loses nothing by failing to hit on the correct sense of detached texts: in that case he is deceived, but without guilt: “Quisquis in scripturis (I. 37) aliud sentit quam ille qui scripsit, illis non mentientibus fallitur; sed tamen, ut dicere cœperam, si ea sententia fallitur, qua ædificet caritatem, quæ finis præcepti est, ita fallitur ac si quisquam errore deserens viam, eo tamen per agrum pergat, quo etiam via illa perducit.⍊ac3 Augustine says indeed (l. c.): “titubabit fides, si divinarum scripturarum vacillat auctoritas,” but, on the other hand (I. 39): “Homo, fide, spe et caritate subnixus eaque inconcusse retinens, non indiget scipturis nisi ad alios instruendos. Itaque multi per hæc tria etiam in solitudine sine codicibus vivunt . . . Quibus tamen quasi machinis tanta fidei, spei et caritatis in eis surrexit instructio, ut perfectum aliquid tenentes, ea quæ sunt ex parte non quærant; perfectum sane, quantum in hac vita potest.” This forcible way of assigning a practical purpose to the reading of Scripture and the understanding at the root of it, viz., that it was the whole that was of importance, is the opposite of the conception that Scripture embraces innumerable mysteries; but an affinity exists far down between them, inasmuch as Augustine seems to reserve to the monks the state in which Scripture is not required, and he borders on the belief of Origen (I. 34) that the Christ of history belongs to the past for him who lives in love. The whole conception is first found, besides, in the description by the Valentinian school of the perfect Gnostic; see Excerpta ex Theodoto, ch. 27: ποῦ δὲ ἔτι γραφῆς καὶ µαθήσεως κατόρθωµα τῇ ψυχῇ ἐκείνῃ τῇ καθαρᾷ γενοµένῃ, ὅπου καὶ ἀξιοῦται πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον Θεὸν ὁρᾶν; besides Augustine expressly argued against those who supposed they could dispense with Scripture from the start, and appealed to an inner revelation (see the Præfat. to De doctr. christ.). He puts it beyond doubt that he who uses Scripture must bow to its authority even where he does not understand it.

204

But this thought of the book does not give its prevailing colour; this is furnished, on the contrary, by the other ideas that Scripture is the only way by which to come to God and Christ, that it is to be interpreted by the rule of faith, that obscure passages are to be explained by clear ones, and that the literal meaning, where offensive, must yield to the deeper sense. The numerous hermeneutic rules set up by Augustine,418 which are so many expedients and very like Origen’s methodic principles, determined the nature of exegesis in later periods in the West. In connection with whateve 532 r else was derived from the East, the view that there was a triple and fourfold meaning in Scripture became a fixed doctrine.419 The little book by Junilius which 205contained the Antiochene system of hermeneutics as handed down at Nisibis, although much read, made few changes. But it was exceedingly significant that Augustine, in spite of his view that it was only a means, had placed the Bible on such a pinnacle that all theologians who afterwards took their stand upon it alone as against tradition, were able to appeal to him. As a matter of fact Scripture held quite a different place in the Church life of the West from that in the East: it came more into the foreground. That also is to be explained, above all, by the influence of Augustine,420 and the deficiency of the West in speculative ability. 58e 421

418

See the second and especially the third book of the work quoted. The second contains a short and precise review of all branches of knowledge which are collectively perceived to spring from heathenism, and it states which may and must be used by the Christian, and to what extent. The third book contains the hermeneutics proper. 419 See Eucherius of Lyons, liber formularum spiritalis intelligentiæ ad Veranium filium, in Migne, Ser. lat. T. 50, p. 727. In later times the mnemonic formula was composed: Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia. 420 The work “On Christian Science” points to Scripture as its sole object, and does not discuss tradition at all. However, the latter receives its due inasmuch as Augustine regards the propositions of the rule of faith—based on the Symbol—as the matters, which constituted the essential contents of Scripture. In this definition we find. the reason why dogmatics never ceased to waver between Scripture and the rule of faith. Yet we know that Augustine was by no means the first to hold this view. Even the writer of the Muratorian fragment and Irenæus knew no better. 421 Origen taught that Christian science was the science of Scripture; Augustine stands upon his shoulders. But afterwards, in the East, the interest in dogmatic formulas became uppermost, while in the West, the Bible remained pre-eminently the direct source of knowledge of the faith.

As the Church had never published a general decree, exclusive of all doubt, on the extent of Scripture, it had also failed to publish one concerning its characteristics. Freedom from error was generally deduced from inspiration, and it was, as a rule, referred to the very words. But on the other hand, an attempt was made here and there to leave room for the individuality and historical limitation of the authors; minor inconsistencies were not wholly denied (see even Aug., De consensu evang.); and exegesis was often practised as if the strict dogma of inspiration did not exist.422 A clear idea of the sufficiency 206of Scripture was certainly not reached; it was maintained in general phrases, and was violated in generalities and in details. 56a 1 Finally, as regards the relation of the two Testaments to each other, three views existed side by side.

422

Even the men of Antioch, by whom, Chrysostom not excepted, human elements were aknowledged to exist in the Bible, maintained the inspiration of other passages quoad litteram, just like Origen and the Cappadocians. August ac8 ine accepted this freedom from error in its strictest sense; see Ep. 82. 3 (ad Hieron.): “Ego fateor caritati tuæ, solis eis scriptuaram libris, qui iam canonici appellantur, didici hunc timorem honoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum auctorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam. Ac si aliquid in eis offendero litteris, quod videatur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud quam vel mendosum esse codicem, vel interpretem non assecutum esse quod dictum est, vel me minime intellexisse non ambigam.” In his work De consensu evang., which is particularly instructive as regards his whole attitude to Holy Writ, he declares that the Apostles’ writings make up sufficiently for the absence of any by our Lord; for the Apostles were the Lord’s hands, and had written what he commanded. It is extremely surprising that this being the view taken of the Bible—and even the translation of the LXX. was held to be inspired—yet no one ever ex professo reflected on how the Canon was formed. No miracle was assumed. Even Augustine quite naively stated, sancti et docti homines had formed the N. T. (c. Faustum XXII. 79). Here the authority of the Church comes in. 423 The early Catholic Fathers had already maintained the sufficiency of Holy Scripture, as well as the necessity of proving everything out of it; see for the latter point Orig. in Jerem., Hom. I. c. 7 (Lomm. XV. p. 115): Μάρτυρας δεῖ λαβεῖν τὰς γραφάς. Ἀµάρτυροι γὰρ αἱ ἐπιβολαὶ ἡµῶν καὶ αἱ ἐξηγήσεις ἄπιστοί εἰσιν. Cyril of Jerusalem has expressed himself similarly (Cat. 4, 17: ∆εῖ γὰρ περὶ τῶν θείων καὶ αγίων τῆς πίστεως µυστηρίων µηδὲ τὸ τυχὸν ἄνευ τῶν θείων παραδίδοσθαι γραφῶν· καὶ µὴ ἁπλῶς πιθανότησι καὶ λόγων κατασκευαῖς παραφέρεσθαι. Μηδὲ ἐµοὶ τῷ ταῦτα σοι λέγοντι, ἁπλῶς πιστεύσῃς· ἐὰν τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τῶν καταγγελλοµένων ἀπὸ τῶν θείων µὴ λάβῃς γραφῶν· Ἡ σωτηρία γὰρ αὕτη τῆς πίστεως ἡµῶν οὐκ ἐξ εὑρ 54e σιλογίας, ἀλλὰ ἐξ ἀποδείξεως τῶν θείων ἐστὶ γραφῶν); cf. Athanasius (Orat. adv. gentes init.: Αὐτάρκεις µέν εἰσιν αἱ ἅγιαι καὶ θεόπνευστοι γραφαὶ πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπαγγελίαν). So also the Antiochenes, moreover Augustine De doctr. II. 9: “In iis quæ aperte in scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia, quæ continent fidem moresque vivendi, spem scilicet et caritatem.” Vincent., Commonit. 2.

The Old Testament was a Christian book as well as the New: it was throughout the record of prophecy: it contained the true creed under certain limitations and imperfections, and led and still leads educationally to Christ. These points of view were adopted alternately as the occasion required. It was recognised that the Jewish nation had possessed a covenant with God, yet the consequences of this were far from being admitted. The same method of employing the Bible was still upheld in apologetic arguments as was followed by the Apologists of the second century.424 For the rest, even Cyril of Alexandria still brought “heathen prophecy” to bear in this matter, while in other respects—speaking generally—the assumption of heathen ‘prophets’ and inspired philosophers excited suspicion. xsl:value-of select="@title"/> 207 566

2. Tradition. The authority of Holy Scripture frequently appears in the Fathers as something wholly abstract and despotic. It contained, in fact, a latent tendency to assert its independence of the conditions out of which it had arisen. But the revolution which was characterised by the isolation of the Bible, its deliverance from the authority of ecclesiastical tradition, and the annihilation of the latter, only took place in the sixteenth century, and even then it was, we know, not completely successful. In ecclesiastical antiquity, on the contrary, the bond was by no means severed which connected Scripture with the maternal organism of the Church. The Church, its doctrine, institutions, and constitution, were held, in and by themselves, to constitute the source of knowledge and the authoritative guarantee of truth. As the holy, Apostolic, and Catholic institution, it possessed nothing whatever untrue or capable of amendment either in its foundations or its development. Everything in it, rather, was apostolic, and the guidance of the Church by the Holy Ghost had preserved this apostolic fabric from any change. This thought was necessarily emphasised more and more strongly in consequence of the development undergone by Church affairs in the fo 564 urth and following centuries. Since at the same time, however, the independent authority and the sufficiency of the Bible were also

424

All the more did the use made of the O. T. for the constitution of the Church differ from the apologetic view. Very many of the regulations of the O. T. ceremonial law came once more to be highly valued by the Church, not as spiritually understood, but as directly applied to ecclesiastical institutions of every sort.

emphasised, there arose difficulties, in part even manifest inconsistencies, which were never removed.425 But they were not clearly felt, because men always possessed the power, when confronted by inconvenient monitors, to carry through ultimately, whether in the form of dogma, or in that of order, whatever was required. In face of traditions become obsolete an appeal was made to other traditions, or to the Bible; where written testimony was uncertain or awanting, recourse was had to tradition; i.e., that was declared to be tradition which was 208not to be justified under another title. Hence it is already clear that tradition never was and never could be systematised and catalogued, that an authentic declaration never was and never could be published as to its extent and scope. There was no single deliverance on the application of tradition, which would not, if consistently carried out, have thrown the Church into confusion. If Augustine therefo 545 re (De bapt. c. Donat. II.3, 4) declared—certainly against his better knowledge— that ‘canonical Scripture was contained within fixed limits of its own’ (scriptura canonica certis suis terminis continetur), yet it never occurred to him or any one else to maintain as much about tradition. The latter was in antiquity a wholly elastic category, as we see when we look at its use in individual cases; in summa it was, however, an extremely rigid and clear notion: meaning simply that the Church was determined, in spite of all changes, to regard itself as the unchangeable creation of the Apostles. It derived its claim to this view partly from the divine promises, partly from the organisation instituted for it, yet without alleging confidently any empirical factor within the Church which should be the bearer of its infallibility.426 The most important consequences of this view held by the Church regarding itself have been already stated in the

acd 425The Orientals, especially the Antiochenes, but Cyril of Jerus. also, adhered more exclusively to Scripture; the Alexandrians, and even the Cappadocians relied more strongly on tradition. Yet the differences are only in degree. At any rate, the difference comes out more strongly on a comparison of Theodoret and Cyril of Alexandria. 426 Reuter’s excellent explanation of Augustine’s position (Ztschrft. für K.-Gesch. Vol. VIII., pp. 181 f., 186 f.) was then true of very wide circles: “The Episcopate, and the Roman sedes apostolica, the whole relatively coördinated sedes apostolicæ, the relative and the absolute plenary councils were held to be representations of the (infallible) Church; but not one of these factors, not all of them combined, formed the (infallible) representation of the (infallible) Church. The latter possessed no indubitably sure institution or organs, indubitably representative of it.” The decrees of councils were only placed on a complete equality with Scripture in the East, after councils had ceased to be held, and when the latter therefore were seen, like Scripture, in a nimbus of hoary antiquity.

second volume; but others came to be added in the postConstantinian period. ae7 A. The creed of the Church was always held to be the most important part of its tradition. The anti-gnostic formulas which the creed had preserved passed over in the East, along with theorems, half biblical half speculative, and here and there with purely philosophical or polemical discussions, into the Symbols.427 These Symbols, which had been adopted for use 209in the Church, were regarded as apostolic testimonies. Their phrasing was not considered in the East to be due to the Apostles, but the honour paid them was justified from the Apostles’ preaching.428 These Symbols of the provincial Churches were supplanted in the period between the first and third (fourth) Œcumenical Councils by the Nicene, or soon thereafter by the so-called Constantinopolitan Symbol.429 This confession430 had already been held at Chalcedon to be the creed pure and simple, and it never lost this place of honour. If it had already been constantly assumed that the doctrine of the Church was the theme, or the matter, constituting the real contents of Scripture, then this assumption was now definitely transferred to the Nicene or the Constantinopolitan Symbol. All subsequent dogmatic conclusions were accordingly regarded solely as explanations of this Symbol,431 which was not maintained,

427

See Vol. II., p. 20 f. and III., pp. 48 ff., 111 ff. The Symbol of Gregory Thaumaturgus was derived from a special revelation; see Vol. III., p. 115. 575 429 There were two symbol-constructing periods in the East before a universal Confession was framed. The former of these embraced A.D. 250-325, the second, A.D. 325 up to the beginning or the middle of the fifth century. In the latter period the attempt was made, either to transform the Nicene Creed into a baptismal Confession, or to displace it by parallel formulas; sometimes the leading words of the Nicene Symbol were inserted in those of the provincial Churches. See on the history of this, the part played by the Bishops of Asia Minor in these developments, and the history of the so-called Constantinop. Symbol, my art. “Konstantinop. Symbol” in Herzog R.-E. 21 Vol. VIII.; Caspari’s works, Hort’s investigations, Two Dissertations, Cambridge, 1876, and Kattenbusch, Confessionskunde I., p. 252 ff. 430 It was originally the Baptismal Confession of the Church of Jerusalem, revised soon after the middl ac2 e of the fourth century, and furnished with a regula fidei concerning the Holy Spirit; it came thus to be honoured first through the authority of Epiphanius, and then through the energy of the Bishop of Constantinople, which also led to its supplanting the Nicene Symbol. 431 Monophysites and orthodox believers always professed to be able to read their Christological formulas word for word in the Symbol. The Greek Church maintains to the 428

however, to be of Apostolic origin—in its language. Tradition, in the strictest sense of the term, consisted in the contents of the Symbol for the time being. Cyril says of this (Cat. V. 12): ⍊eb0 In these few paragraphs the whole dogma of the faith (is) comprised’ (ἐν ὀλίγοις τοῖς στίχοις τὸ πᾶν δόγµα τῆς πίστεως 210περιλαµβανόµενον). As the Church had obtained in the Nicene Creed a complete and uniform Symbol, the view was transferred to it. There were two sides meanwhile to the relations of Scripture and Symbol. You might not believe the contents of the Symbol unless you could convince yourself of their truth from Scripture;432 but on the other hand, your interpretation of Scripture had to be regulated by the creed laid down in the Symbol.433 In the West a unique dignity was retained by the old Roman Symbol (or its parallel forms in the provincial Churches) which was regarded as being composed of twelve articles. From the fourth century at least it was held to be the Apostolic Creed in the strict sense of the term.434 Its brevity and simplicity long preserved the Roman Church from extravagant theological speculations, but they could not barricade it against the theological development of the East. An industrious attempt was made, or at least professed, to derive the decision of dogmatic questions, as they emerged, from this Apostolic Symbol, and to rest upon it the whole of the ever

present day that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol contains everything we require to believe. 432 So, above all, Cyril and the Antiochenes. 433 No hesitation prevailed in the Church on this point; yet Synods simply forbade certain expositions of Scriptural texts as heretical. The Church alone furnished the gubernaculum interpretationis (see Vincent., Commonit. 2, 41) and that in its concise guide to faith, the Symbol. After the Constantinopolitan Symbol had been placed on an inaccessible height, we no longer find the blunt assertion that the creed is compiled from the Holy Scriptures. But this contention was also historically false. (For it see Cyril, Cat. V. 12): οὐ γὰρ ὡς ἔδοξεν ἀνθρώποις συνετέθη τὰ τῆς Πίστεως· ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ πάσης γραφῆς τὰ καιριώτατα συλλεχθέντα µίαν ἀναπληροῖ τὴν τῆς Πίστεως διδασκαλίαν. “Canon” was originally the rule of faith; the Scripture had in truth intervened, yet so that its authority had a support placed still further back, namely, the O. T. and the Lord’s sayings. 55b 434 See my art. “Apostolisches Symbol” in Herzog R.-E. 2 B. I. The opinion that the Apostles had composed the Symbol jointly (Rufinus) cannot be traced earlier than the middle of the fourth century, but it may be much older. Yet we must not date it too soon; for if the Churches of the western provinces had received the Symbol with this legend attached, they would hardly have ventured to propose changes on it. It was certainly not extolled even in Rome in the third century, so exuberantly as it was afterwards by Ambrose.

increasing material of dogmatics.435 It was only after the beginning 211of the fifth century that the Constantinopolitan Symbol supplanted the apostolic in Church use in Rome and the West,436 yet without the latter losing its prestige. This was of course transferred in part to the new Symbol, but the old remained, though latent, in force.437 The twelve articles the Apostolic Symbol, to be explained by the Constantinopolitan, constituted in the West the ecclesiastical tradition κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. Justinian’s legislation confirmed this conception, though, indeed, that was not needed.438 B. At the beginning of the fourth century there already entered into the composition of the Church, not only its creed, but a cultus fixed in its main features; there were further disciplinary and ceremonial provisions—still differing, indeed, in part in the various provincial Churches439—and finally, a settled constitution. It was only in a very late period that the notion of apostolicity was applied, in the strict sense, to the whole of these elements;440 but not only did the foundations of these ordinances come to be characterised as apostolic, but as a rule, and to an increasing extent, everything which there was a desire to assure of permanence. Different methods were adopted, however, of establishing the apostolic character of these institutions. First, it was maintained that regulations observed by the whole Church required no proof that they were Apostolic.441 212Secondly, 435

This point falls to be discussed in the next book. Augustine had to rest his distinctive theology on the Symbol, though the latter was only imperfectly adapted for the purpose. ad7 436 See my art. on the Constantinop. Symbol, 1. c. 437 The history of the Apostolic Symbol between the fifth and sixth centuries urgently requires investigation. 438 Justinian’s law-book is headed by the art. “De summa trinitate et de fide catholica et ut nemo de ea publice contendere audeat”; but see also the famous decree of the Emperors, Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius, A.D. 380, with which the law-book begins. 439 See, e.g., Socrates, H. E. V. 22. 440 When this occurred a very exact distinction had already been made between faith and disciplinary law. Apostolic faith was something different from and higher than apostolic laws {διατάξεις, νόµοι, κανόνες ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων}. This corrected the equality apparently attributed to the two branches of tradition by the common predicate “apostolic.” 441 See August., De bapt. c. Donat. II. 7, 12: “Multa, quæ non inveniuntur in litteris apostolorum neque in conciliis posteriorum, et tamen quia per universam custodiuntur ecclesiam, non nisi ab ipsis tradita et commendata creduatur.” IV. 24. 31: “Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate

advantage was taken in the East, of the numerous legends of the Apostles current in the Churches; they began to be used in connection with the government and cultus of the Churches in such a way that definite detailed regulations were attributed to the Apostles, individually or collectively, whenever they were required for the discipline or cultus of the time.442 Thirdly, men began in the fourth century—not uninfluenced by Clement and Origen—to introduce the notion of a παράδοσις ἄγαρφος (unwritten tradition), in whose wholly undefined contents were even included dogmatic theories which it was not everyone’s business to understand; yet it dealt extremely seldom with the trinitarian and Christological catchwords. This idea of an ‘unwritten tradition’ crept in in a very real sense; for it conflicted with more than one main point in the fundamental positions of the Church. But it attained high honour, and its existence absolutely became a dogma. But 213because it really made all else unnecessary and was a dangerous dras tic expediet, it was not defined, nor was its extent ever determined. And it did not banish Scriptural proof or the appeal to familiar and demonstrable tradition. The existence was maintained of a

apostolica traditum rectissime creditur.” V. 23. 31: “Multa, quæ universa tenet ecclesia et ob hoc ab apostolis præcepta bene creduntur, quamquam scripta non reperiantur.” 442 The Apologists had exhibited Christianity as the worship of God in Spirit and in truth, and as an alliance regulated by equality and fraternity. But there had gradually developed a complicated cultus round the mysteries, and a comprehensive and detailed code of discipline had become necessary. For both of these appeal was made to an increasing extent to apostolic authority. Compare the Apostolic Constitutions, the κανόνες ἐκκλησαστικοί, the Apostolic Canons, in general the mass of material, partly published, partly discussed, by Bickell, Pitra, and Lagarde; further, the designation of the Liturgies of the provincial Churches as by Mark, James, etc. The history, still partly unwritten, of these Eastern forgeries under apostolic names is closely connected with the general history of the legends of the Apostles (see Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgesch.). The O. T. commandments were again introduced into the Church by means of apostolic fictions, until the ancient awe of Moses, the law-giver, was surmounted. After apostolic commandments of this sort had been allowed to spring up luxuriantly for a time, the Church had no little trouble to exorcise the spirits it had conjured. A sifting process began from the sixth century—at least in the Byzantine Church—to which, e.g., the Constitutions fell a victim. In the law books of the Monophysite and Nestorian Churches, much more comprehensive matter had been preserved, under apostolic names, as possessed of the value of law. Yet it did not receive the same honour as the Holy Scriptures. In order to realise the possibility of such an unabashed invention of regulations cloaked with the authority and name of the Apostles, we must remember that, from the second century, writings bearing on discipline were in existence, called διδαχαί o ac8 r διατάξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων, and that these, having no individual impress, were thoroughly adapted for constant remodelling and expansion.

tradition which dispensed with all criteria—and that was what the παράδοσις ἄγραφος was; but a prudent use was made of it. Unwritten tradition was preferentially applied to the development of ritual and the sacramental performance of the mysteries, while the secret truths of the creed were based exclusively on Scripture and the Councils.443 But 214this distinction was not sufficient, nor was it firmly held to be unalterable.

443

The assumption of a secret apostolic tradition—that is, the παράδοσις ἄγραφος— first appeared among the Gnostics, i.e., among the first theologians, who had to legitimise as apostolic a world of notions alien to primitive Christianity. It then was found quite logically among the Alexandrians, and from them passed to Eusebius, who not only accepted it (H. E. II. 1, 4), but also vindicated it against Marcellus (lib. I. c. 1): ἐκκλησίας τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν θείων γραφῶν µαρτυρίας ἐξ ἀγράφου παραδόσεως σφραγιζοµένης. But the Cappadocians first established it in their conflict with the Eunomians and Pneumatomachoi, yet the bold use made of it by them in defence of the dogma of the Trinity, was not afterwards parallelled. Basil (De spiritu sancto, 27) referred the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost to the unwritten tradition, placing the latter on an equality with the public tradition; but he endeavoured at the same time to retain the old Alexandrian distinction between κήρυγµα and δόγµα, δόγµα being meant to embrace the theological formulation of the faith (τῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πεφυλαγµένων δογµάτων καὶ κηρυγµάτων τὰ µὲν ἐκ τῆς ἐγγράφου διδασκαλίας ἔχοµεν, τὰ δὲ ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως διαδοθέντα ἡµῖν ἐν µυστηρίῳ παρεδεξάµεθα ἄπερ ἀµφότερα τὴν αὐτὴν ἰσχὺν ἔχει πρὸς τὴν εὐσέβειαν . . . ἄλλο γὰρ δόγµα, καὶ ἄλλο κήρυγµα, τὰ µεν γὰρ δόγµατα σιωπᾶται, τὰ δὲ κηρύγµατα δηµοσιεύεται). The latter distinction was opposed to the tendency of the age, and remained without effect. (With that which Basil named dogma, the µυστική παράδοσις was identical, of which Pamphilus and Eusebius speak, and by the aid of which they defended the orthodoxy of Origen; see Socrates III. 7.) But it is important that in order to prove the existence of a παράδοσις ac8 , Basil appeals merely to matters of ritual—signs of the Cross, prayers of consecration, and baptismal rites. To these the unwritten tradition was in later times almost exclusively applied. Gregory of Nazianzus advanced in a different direction from Basil: he admitted to his opponents (Orat. 37) that tradition was defective in reference to the doctrine of the Spirit, but he believed he could assume a progressive development of the truth of revelation. But, as far as I know, he only once expressed himself so imprudently, and he found absolutely no imitators. His attempt only proves the difficulty caused by the defence of the dogma of the Trinity in the fourth century. In Cyril of Jerusalem (see his view so divergent from that of the Cappadocians, Cat. 16, ch. 2) and the older Antiochenes the παράδοσις ἄγραφος does not occur, but it does in Epiphanius (H. 61, ch. 6: δεῖ καὶ παραδόσει κεχρῆσθαι. οὐ γὰρ πάντα ἀπὸ τῆς θείας γραφῆς δύναται λαµβάνεσθαι· διὸ τὰ µὲν ἐν γραφαῖς, τὰ δὲ ἐν παραδόσεσιν παρέδωκαν οἱ ἅγιοι ἀπόστολοι). It is also found in Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and others down to John of Damascus, who says plainly (De fide orthod. IV. ch. 12): ἄγραφός ἐστιν ἡ παράδοσις αὕτη τῶν ἀποστόλων, πολλὰ γὰρ ἀγράφως ἡµῖν παρέδοσαν (see details in

C. All conceptions of the authority of tradition, of which many Fathers—e.g., Cyprian—described Scripture to be the main element,444 were based ultimately on the conviction that the Church had been invested with authority through its connection with the Holy Spirit himself.445 At this point two problems arose, which, though hardly ever clearly formulated, were yet felt, and which attempts were made to solve. I.—By whom and when did the Church speak? II.—How were novelties to be explained in the Church, especially in the sphere of doctrine, if the authority of the Church had its root exclusively in its apostolic character, that is, its ability to preserve the legacy of the Apostles? As to I. It was a settled doctrine from the third century, that the representation of the Church was vested in the 215Episcopate, though the strict conception of the latter, as first taught by Cyprian, that it was the main support of the Church, was for a long time not universally held.446 We find, meanwhile, even, e.g., from the plan

Langen, Joh. von Damaskus, 1879, p. 271 ff.). So also the Greek Church of to-day teaches: διωρεῖται τὸ θεῖον ῥῆµα εἰς τε τὸ γραπτὸν καὶ ἄγραφον (see Gass, Symbolik der griech. Kirche, p. 107 ff.) Quotations are especially taken from Pauline texts in which παραδόσεις occur, and thus a sort of Scriptural proof is led in support of what does not occur in Scripture. The unwritten tradition is hardly again applied to the creed, since it was thought to be sufficiently supported by Scripture and the Symbol. In the West, Augustine was in the same doubtful position, with regard to certain theses which he defended against Donatists and Pelagians, as the Cappadocians were in reference to the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost. Hence he derived, e.g., the doctrine of original sin, which could not be otherwise proved out of tradition, from the rite of exorcism, declaring this to have been an apostolic tradition; (see c. Julian. VI. 5, 11): “Sed etsi nulla ratione indagetur, nullo sermone explicetur, verum tamen est quod antiquitus veraci fide catholica prædicatur et creditur per ecclesiam totam; quæ filios fideli ac8 um nec exorcizaret, nec exsufflaret, si non eos de potestate tenebrarum et a principe mortis erueret, etc.). So also he appealed against the Donatists in the controversy as to Baptism by Heretics (against Cyprian’s authority) to the unwritten testimony of the whole Church (see note 6, p. 211). 444 Cyprian calls Scripture “divinæ traditionis caput et origo” (Ep.74, ch. 10). This designation is not common. 445 The universal conviction is expressed in the famous sentence of Augustine (C. ep. Manich. 6) which he has given in various forms in the Confessions and elsewhere: Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicæ ecclesiæ commoveret auctoritas. Even Cyril of Jerusalem, who has emphasised most strongly the authority of Scripture, could not pass over that of the Church (Cat. IV., ch. 33). 446 In his studies on Augustine, Reuter has shown that Augustine fell short of Cyprian (see his theses in the Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch., Vol. VIII., p. 184, and the relative discussions in Vol. VII.). In the East the compiler of Apostolic Constitutions took substantially the view of the Episcopate held by Ignatius, but not by Irenæus and Cyprian. Even

of Eusebius’ Church History, that the Bishops, the successors of the Apostles, were regarded as guarantors of the legitimacy of the Church. The conception never emerged that the Bishop was infallible as an individual;447 but a certain inspiration was already—though not without differences of opinion—attributed to the provincial Synods.448 Constantine was the first to form the idea of a universal Synod,449 and he 216also supposed such a body to be under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit, and therefore incapable of error.450 In the course of the fourth century the idea

Chrysostom’s work, περὶ ἱερωσύνης, tends in the same direction as the Constitutions. It is very remarkable that Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. XVIII., ch. 27) makes no mention of the hierarchy, but only of the Apostles, prophets, teachers and other office-bearers enumerated in the well-known passage in the Ep. to the Corinthians. That is a memorable archaism; yet see even Vincentius, Commonit. 40. He also says very little about Bishops, and nothing at all about. the apostolic success 564 ion. 447 On the contrary, the fallibility of individual bishops was always admitted from Irenæus down (III. 3, 1): “Valde perfectos et irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant esse (apostoli), quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes, quibus emendate agentibus fieret magna utilitas, lapsis autem summa calamitas.” 448 Cyprian (Ep. LVII., ch. 5) introduces the decree of the provincial Council of Carthage with the words, “Placuit nobis spiritu sancto suggerente.” Acts XV. 28 certainly influenced this phrase. On the other hand, we must not allow it too much weight, for Cyprian often appeals to instructi 55d ons given to him personally by the Holy Ghost. See also the Votum of Bishop Lucius of Ausafa, No. 73 of the sentent. episcoporum LXXXVII. at the Carthaginian Council: “Secundum motum animi mei et spiritus sancti.” The Synod of Arles, A.D. 314, also used the formula, “Placuit ergo, præsente spiritu sancto et angelis eius” (see Mansi, Collect. Concil. II. p. 469, and Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. 2, p. 204); and Constantine wished to have its decision regarded as “cæleste iudicium”: this judgment by priests was to have the same honour as if it had been pronounced by the Lord himself (Mansi, 1.c. p. 478). For the rest, we may here recall the fact that ἡ ἱερὰ σύνοδος had long been a technical term in common use among the Greeks (see also “holy senate” in Justin). On the origin of the ecclesiastical Synods see Sohm’s excellent discussions in Kirchenrecht. I. p. 247 ff. 449 This is now almost universally admitted; yet the idea was introduced by the great Oriental Synods in the cases of Novatian and Paul of Samosata, as well as by the Synod of Arles already indeed summoned by Constantine. The latter has been looked on in the West as a General Council for more than a century, and can also be regarded as such in many respects. On the Councils see Hatch’s fine lecture in his book “The Social Constitution of Christian Churches,” p. 172 f. 450 See Constantine’s letter to the Bishops after the Council of Nicæa (in Theodoret H. E. I. 9 fin): “Whatever is determined in the holy assemblies of the Bishops, may be attributed to the divine will.” Further, Socrates H. E. I. 9, who contrasts the recognition

that the Nicene Synod possessed an infallible authority became slowly established;451 it was transferred in the following centuries to the Œcumenical Synods generally, yet so that one—the second—was only subsequently stamped as Œcumenical.452 From

by the Emperor of the divine character of the Synod, with the aspersions of Sabinus the Macedonian. 451 The orthodox party made use of the advantage presented by the decision of a Synod which none could refuse to recognise as a wholly extraordinary event. On the other hand, nothing but such an event could atone for the unusual forms given to the creed, and thus attest a new theory. For in spite of everything which it had been hitherto possible to relate of Synods being under divine leadership, it was a novelty to raise the decision of a Synod to the level of an authority above discussion. Of such a thing even Bishop Julius of Rome, e.g., knew nothing. And it was all the more startling when the decision was supported neither by the letter of Scripture, nor a clear tradition, nor even an analogy of any sort. But this very fact promoted the assumption of an absolute authority,—though not yet in the case of Athanasius (see Gwatkin, Stud. of Arianism, p. 50); a virtue was made of necessity. With the first victory over Arianism, the view arose that the dogma of the Trinity was a certain truth because it had been affirmed at Nicæa by 318 Bishops inspired by the Holy Ghost—thus the Cappadocians, Cyril of Alex. etc. It is, however, extremely paradoxical, that even up to the middle of the fourth cen 564 tury the Eusebians laid greater stress on the authority of Synodical decisions than the orthodox party. In order to get the West to accept the deposition of Athanasius, they continued to appeal to their Antiochene Synod, and declared its decisions to be irreversible. Although their tactics compelled them also to admit the validity of the Nicene Creed, they did so in the hope that after the removal of Athanasius they would be able to carry an interpretation of it suitable to their own views. 452 The latter fact is admitted also by Hefele (1. c. Vol. I., p. 3). Besides, nothing could be more incorrect than the opinion that the distinction between Œcumenical and other Synods, as regards dogmatics, was established soon after the Nicene Council. The greatest variety of opinion prevailed till past the middle of the fifth century as to what Synods were Œcumenical and might be ranked along with the Nicene. Gregory of Nazianzus we know, e.g., to have spoken very contemptuously of the Constantinopolitan Synod, and, indeed, of Synods ac8 in general. Conversely, a certain authority was still ascribed to Provincial Synods in dogmatic questions. Further, there is a passage in Augustine which infers not only a relatively binding authority on the part of Provincial Councils, but also uncertainty as to the absolute authority of General Councils. The passage is extraordinarily characteristic of the unsteadiness of the whole structure of tradition. Meanwhile Reuter (Zeitschr. f. K.-Gesch. VIII. p. 167, 173, 176, 186) has rightly decided that we must keep steadily in view the special circumstances under which Augustine has here written; De bap. c. Donat. II. 3, 4: “Quis nesciat sanctam scripturam canonicam tam veteris quam novi testamenti certis suis terminis contineri, eamque omnibus posterioribus episcoporum litteris ita præponi, ut de illa omnino dubitari et disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quidquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit: episcoporum autem litteras quæ post confirmatum canonem vel scriptæ sunt

the sixth 217century there gradually ceased to be any doubt that the resolutions of Œcumenical Synods possessed an absolute authority.453 Whoever rebelled against them refused to admit that the Synods in question were regular, but did not dispute the

vel scribuntur, et per sermonem forte sapientiorem cuiuslibet in ea re peritioris, et per aliorum episcoporum graviorem auctoritatem doctioremque prudentiam et per concilia licere reprehendi, si quid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est: et ipsa concilia quæ per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt, plenariorum conciliorum auctoritati quæ fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere: ipsaque plenaria sæpe priora posterioribus emendari, cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat, et cognoscitur quod latebat.” Emendari can only mean here actual emendation—not merely explanation, as Catholic historians of dogma have to assume. It is also worthy of note, that Augustine assigned Œcumenical rank to several Synods—e.g., that of Arles—which afterwards were not held to be Œcumenical. On the other hand, it is instructive that he himself did not, like the Orientals, regard the Nicene decree as the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity; see Reuter’s arguments on the relation of the work “De trinitate” to the Nicene Symbol, (Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. V. p. 375 ff.). The Council of Chalcedon first put an end to dubiety as to the number, and the authority, of Œcumenical Councils in the East (even at the Robber Synod, A.D. 449, only two had been recognised). Up till then the Nicene stood alone on an inaccessible height; moreover, in after times the uniqueness of this Council was still remembered, though others were added beside it. For the rest, Roman Bishops spoke very depreciatorily of, or even refused to recognise, many canons of later councils; so Leo I. of the third of Constantinople (Ep. 106 [al. 80]) ac8 , to say nothing of the twenty-eighth of Chalcedon. But Leo did not recognise the second Council as legitimate. Even Felix III. and Gelasius knew only of three Œcumenical Councils. General Synods Leo I. declared to be inspired (see Ep. 114, 2, to the Bishops assembled at Chalcedon); but it is more than questionable whether he therefore held all their resolutions to be absolutely irreversible. 453 After the Council of Chalcedon, it was, above all, Justinian’s legislation which confirmed and popularised, even in the West, the view that there had been four Œumenical Councils: see his edict on the Three Chapters, 131: Οἱ ὑπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων συνόδων, τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ καὶ Κωνσταντινουπόλει, ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καὶ ἐν Χαλκηδόνι τιθέντες ὅροι νόµων τάξιν ἐχέτωσαν καὶ τὰ δόγµατα αὐτῶν ὡς αἱ θεόπνευστοι τιµάσθωσαν γραφαί, Accordingly, this development was inaugurated by Constantine and closed by Justinian. After him Gregory I. (Ep. L. I. 25) wrote: “Sicut sancti evangelii quattuor libros, sic quattuor concilia suscipere et venerari me fateor.” But this very utterance proves that the West only slowly accepted this whole development; for Gregory leaves out of account the fifth Œcumenical Council held meanwhile. Again, the attitude of the North African Church in the sixth century proves that there the dubiety felt by Augustine had not yet been wholly overcome. But the attempts of the papal theologian Vincenzi to dispute the independent authority of the councils generally—even for the above date—are thoroughly biassed, and carried out with the most daring indifference to historical fact. See his “In St. Gregorii Nyss. et Origenis scripta et doctrinam nova defensio”, 5 T., 1865 f. and “De processione spiritus s. ex patre et filio”, 1878.

218authority

of regular Synods in general. After the seventh Synod it was a settled principle in the orthodox Church of the East that Scripture and the decisions of the seven Œcumenical Councils formed the sources of the knowledge of Christian truth.454 They were characterised simply as the tradition, nay, men spoke, and not infrequently speak and act up to the present day, as if the Church possessed and required no other sources of knowledge or authorities. As a rule, the παράδοσις ἄγραφος is not included when Holy Scripture and the seven Councils are spoken of. This apparently simple, consistent development, seemingly corresponding to all requirements, did not, however, solve all difficulties, either after it had come to an end, or still less during its course. But it had further to reckon with authorities, some of which were of long standing, while others emerged in the contemporary organisation of the Church. What position was to be taken up in doctrinal controversies in which an Œcumenical Synod had not pronounced its decision? Must there not 219be forthcoming in the Church at any moment a clear testimony to the truth, solving all doubtful questions, and giving forth no uncertain sound? What importance was due to the occupants of the great episcopal chairs, the Bishops of the apostolic communities, and especially of Rome? Decisions were not reached in all these questions, but a certain common sense arose. First, the Church speaks also by a unanimous testimony, audible from the earliest days, and this testimony never has been and never for a moment is, lacking. What has been always, everywhere, and by all, believed is inerrant tradition, even if it has not been solemnly and formally attested, or laid down in primitive authorities. This leads to a procedure similar to that followed by Eusebius in settling the N. T., viz., that the antiquity, unanimous attestation, and catholicity of a doctrine are to be expiscated in order that it may be certified a doctrine of the

454

This is taught without any variation by the later so-called Symbols of the Greek Church and the most distinguished theologians up to t 54d he present day; see, e.g., Damalas, Ἡ ὀρθόδοξος πίστις, Athens, 1877, p. 3 ff.; οὐδεὶς πιστεύει εἰς µίαν ἐκκλησίαν ὁ µὴ ὁµολογῶν ὅτι τὰς ἐκπροσωπούσας ταύτην οἰκουµενικὰς συνόδους τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἄγιον ὁδηγεῖ εἰς πᾶσαν ἀλήθειαν. καὶ ὅτι ἡ ἐκκλησία αὕτη δὲν δύναται νὰ ἦ ἄλλη παρὰ τὴν ἐπῳκοδοµηµένην ἐπὶ τῆς µόνης ἑνοποιοῦ ἀρχῆς τῶν οἰκουµενικῶν συνόδων· διότι ἡ ἀρχὴ τῶν µερικῶν ὑποχρεωτικῶν ὁµολογιῶν, ἣν καθιέρωσαν αἱ λοιπαὶ ἐκκλησίαι, ἐστὶν ἡ µήτηρ τῆς διαιρέσεως . . . ἡ προµνηµονευθεῖσα ἀναγνώρισις τῶν ἑπτὰ οἰκουµενικῶν συνόδων ἐστὶ γεγονὸς ἱστορικόν, µηδεµίαν πλέον ἐκκλησιαστικὴν αναψηλάφησιν ἐπιδεχόµενον. According to present Greek ideas, the whole period of the Councils belongs to the classical antiquity of the Church; this period has long run its course.

Church. The notion of ‘antiquity’ had now been extended and shifted with the advance of the Church. In the fourth century all the teachers held orthodox before Origen had been regarded as ancient, or vicini apostolorum (neighbours of the Apostles); the latter predicate especially had gradually been extended to the beginning of the third century: men like Irenæus, Apollinaris of Hierapolis and Hippolytus even were called γνώριµοι τῶν ἀποστόλων (friends of the Apostles).455 Then the whole period of the martyrs came to be considered sacred as the ancient time. But the Church was compelled to recognise to an increasing extent, that not much was to be gained for its purposes from its theological ‘witnesses’ before Athanasius, from those before as well as after Origen. Their names were still held in sacred memory—with the exception of those who seemed too greatly compromised, or had even fallen into bad odour w 3b4c ith their own contemporaries; but their works disappeared more and more, or gave place to forgeries. Accordingly, from the fifth century, Athanasius and orthodox teachers of similar views of the fourth century, appeared as the “Fathers” proper.456 220When controversies arose, and soon even at Synods, the votes of these men were counted. Doctrines were looked on as armed with the testimony of antiquity, when they could be supported from the Fathers from Athanasius to Cyril. Nor were forgeries wanting here. The disciples of Apollinaris of Laodicea practised these frauds to a vast extent, in order to rediscover their master’s teaching in antiquity; they were afterwards imitated by others. In any case, the tribunal of the ‘Fathers’ remained an uncertain one; great as was the scope assigned to it, its place and value were not dogmatically detailed. It was not even really decided what relation the inspiration of the Councils held to the consensus patrum,457 (see under). Such a

455

See as to this the introduction to my History of Ancient Christian Literature up to Eusebius, Vol. I. 1893. 456 Athanasius was not indeed so frequently quoted as one would believe. His works have been comparatively eclipsed by those of the Cappadocians, and the final statement arrived at in the East, A.D. 381, of the dogma of the Trinity was more favourable to them than to Athanasius. The Synod of Constantinople, A.D. 383, (see in loco) furnishes the first example of the authority of the Fathers being made decisive, and of the Scriptures themselves being ignored. But the attempt miscarried at the time. 457 To the “teachers” the predicate “Θεόπνευστος” was also applied. Thus Athanasius writes (De incarn. verbi 56): Αἱ γραφαὶ µὲν γὰρ διὰ θεολόγων ἀνδρῶν παρὰ Θεοῦ ἐλαλήθησαν καὶ ἐγράφησαν. ἡµεῖς δὲ παρὰ τῶν αὐταῖς ἐντυγχανόντων θεοπνεύστων διδασκάλων, οἳ καί µάρτυρες τῆς Χριστοῦ θεότητος γεγόνασι, µαθόντες µεταδίδοµεν καὶ τῇ σῇ φιλοµαθίᾳ. Similarly, though very rhetorically, Arius in his Thalia (Athanas. Orat. c. Arian I. 5): κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ, συνετῶν Θεοῦ,

consensus had often enough to be first restored; this was done by exegesis, or even by fabrications, because it was necessary to presuppose it. References of an opposite character remained of no effect; but when needs must a want of accuracy (akribeia) and detached errors were admitted in the case of individual Fathers, without the general conception being modified by these concessions. The Fathers were just read backwards—so to speak— i.e., from the standpoint of the dogma of the time being, and their undeveloped or divergent doctrines were interpreted in accordance with the principle of making the best of everything.458

παίδων ἁγίων, ὐρθοτόµων, ἄγιον Θεοῦ πνεῦµα λαβόντων, τάδε ἔµαθον ἔγωγε ὑπὸ τῶν σοφίης µετεχόντων, ἀστείων, θεοδιδάκτων, κατὰ πάντα σοφῶν τε. ad3 458It would take us too far to give detailed instances of the points discussed under this head. We only emphasise the following. (1) The attestation of a doctrine by the Councils was often set side by side with that given by the “Fathers”, the “ancient” or “holy doctors”, in such a way that the former seemed often to be merely a special case of the latter. And this was quite natural. The Church possessed no continuous testimony in the Councils; from its distinctive character, however, it required one. And this could only be furnished by the unbroken chorus of orthodox doctors. Even taken historically this court of appeal was the older. Irenæus and especially Clemens Alex. had already referred to deceased presbyters as authoritative teachers; and Eusebius’ conception of Church History embraced the idea—see preface and outline—that side by side with the successio episcoporum there stood a series of witnesses who, in uninterrupted succession, had declared the true doctrine orally and in writing. (2) No definitions were arrived at of the manner in which the authority of the Bishops was related to that of the doctors. It was possible to shut one’s eyes to this question, because in most cases the teachers were also bishops. As a rule, the Greeks spoke not of bishops, but the ancient doctors, when appealing to the witnesses to the truth. It was otherwise with the majority of the Latins after Cyprian (see p. 214). (3) As the usual procedure at the Councils was to set up no doctrinal tenet unless it was believed to have the support of the doctors, and as the claim was made that this course should always be adopted, the idea that the Councils were inspired was already abolished, and they were subordinated to the continuous testimony of the Church (see under). (4) The practice of consulting authorities began at the Ephesian Council; it played a more prominent part in every succeeding Synod. Athanasius and the Arians had undoubtedly disputed before this over passages in the Fathers, but their disputes were of slight importance compared with those that took place afterwards. (5) The notion of ecclesiastical antiquity gradually became more and more comprehensive; meanwhile the real ancient period of Christianity became more obscure, and bit by bit came to be forgotten. After the seventh the whole period of the Councils was looked on as the classical antiquity of the Church. If even in the fourth, 564 nay, up to the middle of the fifth century, Councils were held to be an innovation, their absence was now considered a characteristic of the age of the Epigoni; indeed they were thought to be unnecessary, because everything was already settled. (6) The opinion held by faith that the “Fathers” had decided every disputed point beforehand, was a strong challenge to

221

Secondly, a peculiar reverence was inherited from the past for Apostolic Churches or their bishops, entwined with the evidence based on history and dogmatics. Although the theory of Cyprian, which allowed no special importance to the Bishops 222of

produce forgeries, and resulted in objective and and subjective falsehood. Caspari (Alte und neue Quellen, etc., 1879) has shown that the followers of Apollinaris were the first to forge on a large scale; but the Acts of Councils, and the examination of writings circulated under the names of celebrated Fathers, show that they had numerous imitators in the ranks of all parties. The practice of compiling collections of extracts, which was so much favoured after the middle of the fifth century, was, besides, especially adapted to conceal forgeries or inaccuracies. (7) But the limits, authority, and character of the Court of Appeal of the “Fathers” were never determined. It was taught that the orthodox Fathers agreed in all matters, nay, this theory was treated as a dogma. Stephen Gobarus’ attempt (Photius, Cod.232) to demonstrate the contradictions of the Fathers was felt to be profane, just as Eusebius had condemned as unchurchmanlike the attitude of Marcellus of Ancyra, who h 564 ad censured the consultation, without independent examination, of the “wisest” Fathers. But even John of Damascus had to admit that Fathers—otherwise orthodox—held divergent opinions on single points (De imag. I. 25), and Photius actually was more than once compelled, in the course of his learned studies, to notice mistakes committed by them (see his Bibliotheca). Therefore the question was never decided who constituted the orthodox Fathers. It became the custom to prefer (Athanasius), Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Cyril, and afterwards also John of Damascus. In the fourth century the orthodox were much troubled by the fact that the Synod of Antioch (A.D. 268) rejected, while that of Nicæa accepted, the term Ὁµοούσιος. The treatment of this difficulty in Athanasius, “De synod.” 43 sq., shows that no one had hit on the idea that the later decision made the earlier obsolete. It was rather held on the contrary: οἱ προλαβόντες ἀφανίζουσιν τοὺς µετά ταῦτα γενόεµνους. Therefore Athanasius sought and found evidences of the word Ὁµοούσιος before the Samosatian controversy. Ultimately, however, he had to adopt a different treatment of the whole question, i.e., to show that Ὁµοούσιος had only been rejected at Antioch as against Paul, in order not ac8 to admit a contradiction in the chorus of the Fathers. The same difficulty was caused about the middle of the fifth century by the term “δύο φύσεις;”, for it was hard to find an instance of that in antiquity. Of Eutyches the following expression is recorded (Mansi VI., p. 700): τὸ ἐκ δύο φύσεων ἑνωθεισῶν καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν γεγεννῆσθαι τὸν κύριον ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν µήτε µεµαθηκέναι ἐν ταῖς ἐκθέσεσι τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων µήτε καταδέχεσθαι, εἰ τύχοι τι αὐτῷ τοιοῦτο παρά τινος ὑπαναγινώσκεσθαι, διὰ τὸ τὰς θείας γραφὰς ἀµείνονας εἶναι τῆς τῶν πατέρων διδασκαλίας. He afterwards disowned this expression as being distorted, his advocate corrected it in his name thus: “The Fathers have spoken in different ways, and I accept everything they say, but not as a rule of faith” (εἰς κανόνα δὲ πίστεως). That is very instructive. The words excited the greatest consternation in the assembly in which they were uttered, and the speaker felt himself compelled at once to excuse them on the ground of a momentary confusion.

Apostolic communities within the general authority of the Episcopate, had weakened this prestige, it still held its ground. Augustine still recalled it in the question of the extent of the Holy Scriptures.459 But there now grew up, in consequence of 223the Metropolitan and Patriarchate form of government, a new aristocracy among the Bishops, which received its importance from the size and influence of the episcopal cities. Rome, Alexandria—the founding of whose Church by Mark was undisputed about A.D. 300—and Antioch were not affected by the rivalry involved in this new principle; for in these cases the special connection with the Apostles coincided with the greatness of the city. But the political factor prevailed so strongly that the Chairs of Corinth, Thessalonica, etc., and finally, even that of Ephesus,460 lost all peculiar prestige—only that of Jerusalem, in spite of the political insignificance of the city, was ranked with those more distinguished461—but Constantinople was added to the list of the outstanding episcopates. In the East this was frankly justified by the political position of the city;462 but this justification was so far

459

See above, Note 1, p. 198, and compare “De peccator. mer. et remiss.” I., 50. Here the auctoritas ecclesiarum orientalium is mentioned (in reference to the Ep. to the Hebrews), and to Augustine this auctoritas was exalted, because Christianity had come from the Apostolic Churches, from the communities to which John and Paul had written, above all, from Jerusalem (unde ipsum evangelium coepit prædicari). The fact that the Donatists had been separated from Apostolic Churches proved to him that they were wrong; see especially the Liber ad Donat. post collat. c. 4, c. 29; also Ep. 52, c. 3 and c. Lib. Petil. l. II., c. 51 (Reuter in the Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. V., p. 361 ff.). Optatus had already held the same view as Augustine; see the important details “De schism. Donat.” II., 6, VI., 3. But even after the middle of the sixth century a Roman Pope, Pelagius I., singled out the fact in praise of Augustine, 564 that he, “mindful of the divine teaching which founded the Church on the Apostolic Chairs, taught that those were schismatics who seceded from the doctrine and communion of these Apostolic Chairs” (Mansi, Concil. IX., p. 716). Pelagius even declared that when doubts as to the faith arose it was necessary to conform to the Apostolic Chairs (l. c. p. 732). This form of expression is all the more remarkable since the Roman Bishops of the fifth century spoke, as a rule, as if the designation sedes apostolica belonged peculiarly to their Chair. 460 At the transition from the fourth to the fifth century; see Hefele II., pp. 77 ff., 495 f., 528 ff. 461 See the 7th ac8 Canon of Nicæa, and in addition, Hefele’s details, Vol. I., p. 403 f.; II., p. 213, Jerusalem was first raised to a Patriarchate at Chalcedon, see Hefele II., pp. 477, 502. Jerusalem became once more the ‘holy city’ in the fourth century; see Epiphanius and others. 462 See the 3rd Canon of Constantinople, Hefele, II., p. 17 f. and the 28th of Chalcedon, Hefele, II., p. 527 f.; τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώµης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην, οἱ πατέρες εἰκότως ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα, καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῷ

insufficient as the chair, by its co-ordination with the Apostolic sees, participated in the attributes 224which the latter possessed in virtue of their apostolic character.463 Such attributes continued to be ascribed to those chairs without it being stated, however, in what they really consisted. They were nothing tangible, and yet they were held to exist.464 But even in the view of Orientals they belonged in a preëminent degree to Rome. The works of the only western author before Jerome who was also read in the East—i.e., Cyprian—could not fail to heighten the prestige of Rome.465 But that was already great enough in itself. As the ancient capital of the Empire, as the city of the two chief Apostles, of the Cathedra Petri, as the only apostolic community of the West, that which had done more for the whole Church than any other, Rome even in the East enjoyed a unique prestige.466 But as early as the fourth century, and certainly from the fifth onwards, Rome. meant the Roman Bishop, with whose spiritual dignity were fused the

κινούµενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειµαν τῷ τῆς νέας Ῥώµης ἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ, εὐλόγως κρίναντες, τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιµηθεῖσαν πόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώµῃ. καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς, ὡς ἐκείνην, µεγαλύνεσθαι πράγµασι, δευτέραν µετ᾽ ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν. Constantinople was factitiously promoted to the place of Ephesus by reason of this unexampled act of legitimation. At the Robber Synod, nevertheless, it still held the fifth place. As regards the historical interpretation of the sixth Canon of Nicæa and the third of Constantinople, I agree substantially with the excellent arguments of Kattenbusch (l. c. I., p. 81 ff.); only it must be still more strongly emphasised that the Canons of A.D. 381 bore a clearly marked hostility to Alexandria. Even then it was considered necessary to suppress the authority of the Alexandrian Church, which was on the point of developing into the premier Church of the East. 463 An energetic protest was admittedly raised, especially by Leo I. and his successo 54e rs. Leo at the same time also advocated the rights of the Apostolic Churches in general (Ep. 106). We cannot here follow out the controversy, although it reflects the revivification of the Byzantine Church and State, and the attitude of the Roman Bishops, which was purely ecclesiastical, though it did rest on fictions: see Hefele II., pp. 408, 539 ff., 549 ff., and Sohm l. c. I., pp. 377-440. It was not until the fourth Lateran Synod (Can. 5), when a Latin Patriachate existed at Constantinople (1215), that Rome recognised the 28th Canon of Chalcedon. 464 Although all Bishops were held to be successors of the Apostles, yet Leo I. singles out very distinctly those who had inherited the chairs of the Apostles; see his letter to the Emperor Marcian (Ep. 104). 465 Not only Eusebius, but also Theodore of Mopsuestia had read Cyprian’s Epistles. At the Council of Ephesus evidence taken from him was read; see Vincent, Commonit. 42. Of the Westerns, after Cyprian, Ambrose was especially esteemed in the East. Augustine also possessed a certain authority. 466 See Vol. II., p. 149 f.

memories of the ancient city that had ruled the world. These memories overhung the place, after the Emperor had left, and the most of them clung to the Bishop. In the momentous Arian conflict the great Eastern sees, except Alexandria, became compromised or dishonoured; the orthodox Orientals sought and found their support in Rome.467 The Emperor 225in Constantinople who brought the great controversy to an end was a Western, full of veneration for Rome. The promotion which he afterwards assigned to Constantinople was no equivalent—at first, at least,—for the advance in political power secured to Rome by the Arian controversy.468 The role of 226observer and arbiter, which the

467

On the authority of the Roman Bishop in the fourth century, see Hauck, Der römische Bischop in 4 Jahrh., 1881; Rade, Damasus, 1881; Langen, Gesch. der römischen Kirche, 2 Vol., 1881, 1885; Sohm, l. c. In what follows we only discuss Rome’s prestige in the East. Even Hefele (l. c. I., p. 8) admits that the first eight Synods were not appointed and convoked by the Roman Bishops. His arguments as to the presidency at the Synods are, however, biassed (pp. 29-44). It was at Chalcedon that the legates of the Roman Bishop first occupied a special position. The sixth Canon of Nicæa, when correctly interpreted, gives no preference to Rome, but refers merely to the fact that it was the ecclesiastical metropolis for the Churches of several provinces. It is credible that Julius I. uttered the principle (Socrates H. E. II. 17): µὴ δεῖν παρὰ γνώµην τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Ῥώµης κανονίζειν τὰς ἐκκλησίας. The peculiar authority of the Roman Chair showed itself in the fourth century in the following facts. First, Constantine transferred to the Roman Bishop the duty of presiding over the commission to examine the case of the Donatists. Secondly, the oppressed adherents of the Nicene Symbol in the East turned to him for protection (see even Langen, l. c. I., p. 425 f.). Thirdly, we have the request of the Eusebians that Julius should decide the dogmatic question; it is true that very soon— when they foresaw their defeat in Rome—they changed their tone. They still conceded a peculiar dignity to Rome; it does not seem to me possible to translate φιλοτιµίαν (Sozom. III. 8) with Langen by “ambition.” Yet they pointed out 564 that Rome had received its Christianity from the East, and that it was as little entitled to review the decision of a dogmatic question given in the East, as the Oriental Bishops would have been to take up the Novatian affair after Rome had spoken. (The letter is to be reconstructed from Sozom. III. 8, and Athanas. apolog. c. Arian. 25-35.) Fourthly, we have evidence of Rome’s position also in Julius’ epistle to the Orientals (Athanas. l. c.); fifthly, in Canons 3 and 5 of the Synod of Sardica; and sixthly, in the request of the Antiochenes, or Jerome, to Damasus, for a decision in the Antiochene schism (Ep. 16). 468 Damasus’ policy did not at once succeed in raising the prestige of the Roman Chair in the East (see Rade, l. c., p, 137 f.), but the manner in which Theodosius I. at first decided the Arian controversy there, did. “Cunctos populos, quos clementiæ nostræ regit temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum Petrum atostolum tradidisse Romanis rel 564 igio usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat,” etc. Besides, the new style adopted by Damasus in his letter to the Oriental Bishops (Theodoret H. E. V. 10) was not without effect in the East. He calls them my “sons” instead of my

Roman Bishop was able to play in the Christological controversies, made it possible for him to maintain for a time the lofty position he had won.469 (On the aspirations of the Alexandrian Bishops, Athanasius, Peter, etc., and the successful opposition to them by Leo, see chap. IX.) There can be no doubt that even in the eyes of the Orientals there attached to the Roman Bishop a special something, which was wanting to all the rest, a nimbus which conferred upon him a peculiar authority.470 Yet this nimbus was

“brethren,” and he no longer speaks, like other Bishops, as commissioned by the Synod— though the question at issue was a decision of the Synod—or as representing the Western Church. On the contrary, he addresses them in virtue of the authority of his “Apostolic Chair,” which he connects solely with Peter and without any reference to Paul. “The first rank is due to the Holy Church, in which the Holy Apostle had his seat, and taught how we should fitly guide the helm which we have undertaken to control.” Rade has, besides, here rightly conjectured (p. 136) that Jerome had a share in this letter, which did a great deal to raise the influence of the Roman Chair in the East. 469 From and after Siricius I., the Roman Bishops maintained that it was their province to care for all 564 Churches (Constant., p. 659. Ep. 6, ch. 1). On the relation of Leo I. to the East, and to the fourth Council, see Langen, l. c. II., pp. 10 f., 50 ff. The phrase “our fatherly solicitude” occurs frequently even in the letters of his predecessors to the East. The appeal of Cyril to Coelestine is very important in its bearing on the dignity of the Roman Chair; compare the language of the Roman legate at the Council of Ephesus (Mansi III., p. 1279 sq.). 470 In the work “Der Papst und das Concil von Janus” (1869), p. 93, we find this passage. “In the writings of the doctors of the Greek Church, Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil the Great, the two Gregorys, and Epiphanius, not a word is to be found of peculiar prerogatives being assigned to a Roman Bishop. Chrysostom, the most prolific of the Greek Fathers, is absolutely silent on the point, and so also are the two Cyrils. Basil (Opp. ed. Bened. III. 301, Ep. 239 and 214) has expressed his contempt for the writings of the Popes in the strongest terms [in the affairs of Marcellu 564 s): ‘these proud and conceited westerns, who would only fortify heresy’; even if their letters descended from heaven, he would not accept them.” It is true that, seeing the now wide-spread view of the apostolic succession of all Bishops, the prestige of the Roman Bishop is hardly perceptible in the East at the beginning of the fourth century, and that he had to fight, i.e., to wrest for himself the position which had formerly belonged to the Roman Church. Therefore the testimonies to a special dignity being possessed by the Roman Bishops in the East in the fourth century are in fact comparatively scanty, But they are not wanting—see, e.g., Greg. Naz., Carmen de vita sua T. II., p. 9, and Chrysostom, Ep. ad Innocent I.—and from A.D. 380 this dignity bulked more largely in the eyes of Orientals, though indeed, without receiving a definite and fixed meaning. Very characteristic in this respect are the Church Histories of Socrates and Sozomen, who on this point are free from partiality, and reflect the universal opinion. But it does not occur to them to doubt that the Roman Bishop had a special authority and a unique relation to the whole Church (see, e.g., Socrat. II. 8, 15, 17; Soz. III. 8; also Theodoret’s letter to Leo I.). Instructive

not sufficiently 227bright and luminous to bestow upon its possessor an unimpeachable authority; it was rather so nebulous that it was possible to disregard it without running counter to the spirit of the universal Church. And it gradually became fainter. The more completely, after the middle of the fifth century, the internal relations of West and East ceased, and the more strongly the distinctively Byzantine spirit could assert itself in the diminished Church of the East, so the more rapidly declined the prestige of the Roman Bishop. Constantinople put an end to it in its own midst, when the Roman Bishop set up claims which in the fourth and fifth centuries had been palliated by actual circumstances and the necessities of the time, but which 500 years afterwards could not fail to be felt as the intrusion of an alien spirit.471 Yet, in spite of this, the idea of the unity of the Church still held its ground for a long time. After Synods ceased to be held, the influence of the great Patriarchates throughout the whole Church in the East increased472—though, indeed, the orthodox Patriarchs of

here are the collections of Leo Allatius and in the Innsbrucker Theol. Ztschr., 1877, p. 662 f. 564 ; see also three treatises by the Abbé Martin: “Saint Pierre, sa venue et son martyre à Rome,” in the Rev. des quest. historiq., 1873 (principally from oriental sources); “S. Pierre et S. Paul dans l’église Nestorienne,” Paris, 1875; “S. Pierre et le Rationalisme devant les églises orientales,” Amiens, 1876. These discussions, though in part uncritical, are very full of matter. Matt. XVI. 18, John XXI. 18, were undoubtedly never referred in the East to the primacy of Rome (see Janus, p. 97). Still in any case it is saying too little—even for the period about the year A.D. 380—to remark as Rade does (l. c., p. 137). To the Orientals the Bishop of Rome was like the rest, only, thanks to his situation, the natural representative of the Churches of the western half of the Empire, acting, as it were, as correspondent in the name of the Christians of the West. 471 The prestige of the Roman Bishop in the East was accordingly on the increase from the beginning of the fourth till the middle of the fifth century, 564 remained at its height till about the time of Justinian, when, however, it lost its practical importance, and then, apart from the events about A.D. 680 and the next decades, slowly declined, yet without ever being wholly destroyed. The Roman Chair was now held to be schismatic; if not that, it would still have been the first. Undoubtedly there was a strong inclination in later times to oppose it by advancing the see of Jerusalem, the seat of James, but it was not possible to gain any confidence in the claim of the latter to the first place. See on the criticism of the papacy by the Greeks, Pichler, Gesch. der kirchl. Trennung zwischen Or. u. Occ., 1864; Hergenröther, Photius, 3 Vols. 1867 ff.; Gass, Symbolik, p. 216 ff.; Kattenbusch, l. c., pp. 79-124. It was a settled doctrine of the Church in the East, that the Church has no visible head. 472 The terms τυραννίς and δυναστεία are first used, so far as I know, in reference to Antioch, i.e., against Paul of Samos. (Eus. H. E. VII. 30), after Origen had al 564 ready complained of the ambition of the Great Bishops. Socrates has expressed himself very frankly about this matter.

Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, had lost their real importance; and theoretically the dignity of the 228Roman Bishop as primus inter pares, though not unassailed, was embraced in that of the great Eastern sees. But it was never made clear how far the Patriarchs in their collective capacity really constituted an authority in dogma: there is not even an explicit statement that they did form such an authority. There was an uncertainty of opinion as to their position alongside of and in the Œcumenical Synods.473 Here also there was an absence of fixed definitions. The Church as it is, with its graduated orders, crowned by the Patriarchs, constituted the tradition and the authority. But the authority of no factor in this system possessed, when isolated, any significance whatever. It might not assert itself at the expense of the rest. Its dignity was founded on its being a part of antiquity. As to II. This at once involves the answer to the second question (see p. 214). The assumption that the Councils were inspired did not imply any power on their part to deliver new revelations to the Church. On the contrary, they proved their peculiar possession of the Holy Spirit by their unfailing testimony to the ancient doctrinal tradition.474 But in that case the new formulas created by the Councils could not but cause 229offence. How far they did is shown by the history of the dogmatic controversies. Above all, the unbiblical catch-word ‘consubstantial’ (Ὁµοούσιος), for a time directly rejected by the 473

The importance of the four Patriarchs—of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem—was celebrated here and there in lofty expressions; it was especially prominent in the later Symbols, so-called, of the Greek Church (see Gass, l. c., p. 222 f.). Their presence or that of their representative was even held to be absolutely necessary at an Œcumenical Synod; but not only was the extent of their authority never defined, but the essential equality of all Bishops was steadily maintained in the East; and the latest development of the Greek Church, i.e., its disruption into perfectly independent National Churches, has thrown overboard the whole ‘Constitution of the Patriarchate’, which in all ages was more a matter of assertion than reality. The Bishop of Alexandria, undoubtedly, nearly succeeded in becoming in the fifth century supreme Bishop of the East, but Leo and Pulcheria overthrew him. Katt ac8 enbusch (l. c. p. 357 ff.) furnishes further details as to the “five Patriarchs as symbolical figures.” Has the Patriarchate of Rome come to an end in the view of the Greek Church? In the abstract, no; in the concrete, yes. 474 See above, p. 215 f. Augustine gives utterance to a very remarkable statement in De bapt. c. Donat. II., 4, 5: “Quomodo potuit ista res (the baptism by heretics), tantis altercationum nebulis involuta, ad plenarii concilii luculentam illustrationem confirmationemque perduci, nisi primo diutius per orbis terrarum regiones multis hinc atque hinc disputationibus et collationibus episcoporum pertractata constaret?” Accordingly, only a matter which had already become ripe for decision through frequent deliberations could be submitted to and decided by a Council.

Church, only won acceptance under great difficulties, even among those who had little or no objection to the cause it represented. These formulas had to be proved in some way or other to have been anciently held. For Ὁµοούσιος it was of the highest importance that a Council had made it an accomplished fact. As the word gradually made good its ground, the Council lay far enough in the past to be itself regarded as belonging to antiquity. The evidence was got by reasoning in a circle; the authority of the Council supported the word which was anything but old, but the authority of any Council was dependent on its rejection of all innovations. Numerous passages in the Fathers furnished material in confirmation of the later formulas—which were never, so far as I know, bluntly deduced from unwritten tradition (παράδοσις ἄγραφος); but a strong preference was shown for understanding them as a repetition of the Nicene Symbol, the explication being disregarded, just as Irenæus in his time had passed off the Symbol unfolded in an antignostic sense, the regula fidei, for the Symbol itself, i.e., for the ancient repository of the truth. In spite of all novelties, it was thus contended that novelties were not forthcoming in the Church. Nay, even the power of the Councils to unfold doctrines authoritatively was not plainly asserted in the East; on the other hand, a Western, Vincentius of Lerinum, did maintain it, and essayed to furnish a theory on the subject. After the uncertainties of the Greeks over the conception of tradition, we really breathe freely when we study the attempt of this man to introdu 1579 ce light and certainty into the question. However, even in the East, the younger generation now and then gave the older Fathers the benefit of looking at their words as having been uttered at a time when dogma was not yet explained, or sharply formulated. Strictly speaking, this expedient was not tenable on Greek ground. Only a very sparing use therefore was made of it there,475 while the 230Catholic West employs it to a great extent up to the present day.476

475

The more common way of putting it in the East was that the writer in question had failed in the necessary “Akribeia” (exactness), i.e., he could, and should, have done it better (see, above all, the views of Photius). But it was rarely admitted that the Church at the time referred to did not yet possess complete akribeia in dogma. But we have further to notice here that a distinction was still drawn both in East and West between questions of faith, in the strict sense of the term, and theological doctrines, and that unity in the former was alone demanded. But as this distinction was in itself obscure, since in fact questions of faith had been transformed into theological and scientific ones, so in the East it became more and more restricted, though it was never wholly effaced. Augustine, besides, still laid great stress on this distinction, and accepted a whole group of theological doctrines in which differences did not endanger unity; the passages are given

in Reuter, Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. V., p. 363 ff. But if “faith” is itself a doctrine, where does it cease and the doctrine begin? Besides the excuse of want of accuracy, which, indeed, involves censure, that ἁπλούστερον γεγραφέναι was asserted. It involved no fault. Thus At 528 hanasius writes (De Synod. 45) of the Fathers who in A.D. 268 rejected the term Ὁµοούσιος at Antioch: περὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ θεότητος ἁπλούστερον γράφοντες οὐ κατεγένοντο περὶ τῆς τοῦ ὁµουσίου ἀκρίβειας. Precisely in the same way the Homoiousians at Nice excused the Nicene Fathers. Unique, so far as I know, is the statement of Gregory of Naz. (Orat. 31. 28), which is only explicable from the still wholly confused state of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost in his time. “As the O. T. declared the Father clearly, but the Son more vaguely, so the N. T. has revealed the Son, but only suggested the divinity of the Spirit” [compare the contentions of the Montanists]. “Now, however, the Spirit reigns among us, and makes himself more clearly known to us; for it was not advisable to proclaim the divinity of the Son, so long as that of the Father was not recognised, or to impose upon the former—if we may use such a bold expression—that of the Spirit, while it (viz., the divinity of the Son) was not accepted.” We may in this passage study the distinction between Gregory the theologian and Athanasius. b04 476So, above all, Augustine, who excused Cyprian in this way, and further, set up the general rule that as long as no unequivocal decisions had been given in a question, the bond of unity was to be maintained among the dissentient Bishops (De bapt. c. Donat. II. 4, 5). Augustine thus admitted that ecclesiastical tradition did not at every moment solve all questions pending in the Church. The Donatist and Pelagian controversy roused Western theologians to reflect on tradition. One fruit of this reflection was the Commonitorium of Vincentius of Lerinum, unique, because it deals professedly with the question of tradition. The arguments are decisive of Western views, but the book did not extend its influence into the East; there the ideas about tradition remained characteristically indefinite. A short analysis of the Commonitorium is necessary. Let it be noticed that it is ultimately aimed at Augustine’s doctrine of grace and predestination, but that a large part of the rules are taken from that theologian. After a preface, in which Vincentius remarks that he is only sketching out what he had received from the past, he sets side by side the two foundations of the faith, the divine law (Holy Scripture) and the tradition of the Catholic Church (1). The former is sufficient by itself, but it requires the latter for its correct explanation (2). The latter embraces what had been believed everywhere, at all times, and by all—or, at least, by almost all priests and doctors (3). Accordingly, the following criteria were to be applied: (a) When a section of the Church renounced the communion of the Catholic faith, the Christian followed the great communion; (b) when a heresy threatened danger to the whole Church, he held by antiquity, “which, certainly, could not now be seduced”; (c) when he came upon heresy in antiquity itself, in a few men, or in a city or province, he followed the decision of a General Council; (d) if no such Council had spoken, he examined and compared the orthodox doctors and retained what—not two, or three—but all, had alike taught clearly, frequently, and persistently, in one and the same sense (4). These rules are illustrated by reference to the dangers, which had threatened the Church from Donatism, Arianism, and the Anabaptists (5-10). At this point, however, it is conceded that orthodox teachers

might have and had fallen 564 into error on one point; nevertheless they were blessed, but hell received the Epigoni, who, in order to start a heresy, took hold of the writings of one or other of the ancients (as the Donatists did of Cyprian’s) which were composed in obscure language, and which, owing to the obscurity prevailing in them, seemed to coincide with their teaching, so that the views brought forward by these heretics bore not to have been maintained for the first time and exclusively by them. Such people were like Ham in uncovering the shame of their father (11). After this excursus the author adduces proofs from Paul Epistles, that changes in the creed, in short, any kind of innovation, constituted the worst evil (12-14). In order to prove and tempt his own, God had permitted teachers belonging to the Church, and therefore not foisted in from without, to essay the setting up of new tenets in the Church; examples are taken from Nestorius, Photinus, and Apollinaris; their heresy is described, and contrasted with the true faith (15-22). But the greatest temptation of the Church was due to the innovations of Origen, who was so famous (23), and of the no less distinguished Tertullian (24). Here follows a detailed practical application; those who have been seduced by the great heretics should unlearn to their salvation, what they have learned to their destruction 564 ; they must apprehend as much of the doctrine of the Church as can be grasped by the mind, and believe what they cannot understand; all novelty is wickedness and folly; in making innovations ignorance cloaks itself under the ‘scientific spirit’, imbecility under ‘enlightenment’, darkness under ‘light’. The pure science of the worship of God is only given in the Catholic, ancient, and harmonious tradition (25-27). Antiquity is really the thorough-going criterion of the truth. This is followed by the second part, which contains the most original matter. It opens with the question whether there is any progress in the Church of Christ in religion. This is answered in the affirmative; the progress is ‘very great’; but it consists in deepening, not in altering. It is organic growth of knowledge both on the part of individuals and the Church (28). In order to illustrate this, use is made figuratively of the growth of the child and plants; religion is fortified with years, expanded with time, and developed more subtly with age; yet everything remains really what it was, no innovation takes place, for a single novelty would destroy everything (2931). The Church is intent only on clearness, light, a more subtle differentiation and invigoration of doctrine 564 . What then did it ever seek to attain by the decrees of Councils, except that simple belief should become more definite, supine preaching be rendered more urgent, and that a wholly indolent conduct of affairs should give place to a correspondingly anxious performance of duty? “Hoc inquam semper neque quidquam præterea, hæreticorum novitatibus excitata [that then is admitted], conciliorum suorum decretis catholica perfecit ecclesia, nisi ut quod prius a majoribus sola traditione susceperat, hoc deinde posteris etiam per scripturæ chirographum consignaret, magnam rerum summam paucis litteris comprehendendo et plerumque propter intelligentiæ lucem non novum fidei sensum novæ appellationis proprietate signando” (32). As compared with this admission, the author attacks all the more vigorously the ‘wicked verbal innovations’ practised by all heretics (33, 34). But it was still more necessary to be on one’s guard when heretics appealed to Scripture—as e.g., the Arians did to predicates taken from the Bible against the term Ὁµοούσιος—for they were the real wolves in sheeps’ clothing, sons of the devil, for the devil also quoted the Bible (35-37). All that

The conception of tradition is accordingly quite obscure. The hierarchical element does not in theory play the leading 231part in it. The apostolical succession has in theory had no such thoroughgoing importance even in the West for the proof of tradition as one would expect. After the time of the Councils the authority of the Bishops as bearers of tradition was wholly 232spent on that proof. Yet even that is perhaps saying too much. Everything was really obscure. So far, however, as the Greek Church has not changed since John of Damascus, the Greek has at present a perfectly definite sense of the foundation of religion. 233Besides Holy

was necessary to meet their expositi 564 on and obtain the correct sense, was simply to apply the criteria given in ch. 4. (38). The last of these was the search for the concordant views of many and great teachers, when a Council had not yet decided the question concerned. Then follows a particular instruction which betrays very clearly the uncertainty of that citerion. It was to be applied, not to every unimportant question, but only, at least for the most part only, in the case of the rule of faith; it was, further, only to be used when heresies had just arisen, “before they had time to falsify the standards of the ancient creed, before they could by a wider diffusion of the poison adulterate the writings of the forefathers. Heresies already circulated and deeply rooted were not to be attacked in this way, because in the long lapse of time they had had sufficient opportunity to purloin the truth” (!!). Christians must try to refute these ancient heresies by the authority of Scripture alone—accordingly the principle of tradition is declared insolvent; or they must simply be avoided as having been already condemned. But even the principle of the consensus of the teachers is to be used with the greatest caution; it is strictly guarded; it is only of weight when, as it were, a whole Council of doctors can be cited (39). Bu 564 t in that case no one is entitled to disregard it, for the ancient doctors are the ‘prophets and teachers’ ranked by Paul next to the Apostles, and described by him as presented to the Church by God. He who despises them despises God. We must cling to the agreement of the holy Churches, which are holy because they continue in the communion of the faith (40). In the so-called second Commonitorium (ch. 41-43) there is first a recapitulation in which the sufficiency of Scripture as source of truth is once more emphasised. It is then shown that, at the Council of Ephesus held three years before, no novelty was proposed, but decisions were based on the sayings of the Fathers. The Fathers are named singly whose works were publicly read there (42). Vincentius therefore considered that the authority of the Council consisted wholly in its strict adherence to the testimony of tradition. In the last chapter statements follow to the same effect by the two last Roman Bishops. The authority of the Roman Chair is appended ‘that nothing may seem wanting to completeness’. Perhaps the most notable feature in the whole of Vincentius’ exposition is that the Bishops as such—apart from the Council— play absolutely no part, and that, in particular, no reference is made to thei 564 r Apostolic succession as sharing in the proof of doctrine. The ancient “teachers” are the court of appeal. We see that Cyprian’s influence was not so far-reaching, even in the West, as one should have supposed. The proof of tradition was not really based on the hierarchy.

Scripture, tradition is the source of knowledge of, the authority for, the truth; and tradition is the Church itself, not, as in the West, governed by Rome, as a sovereign, living power, but in its immovable, thousand-year-old doctrines and orders. Even Scripture is to be explained by the tradition which transmits it, although Scripture is itself to some extent the caput et origo traditionis. But tradition still really presents itself in two forms as it did among the earliest Alexandrians: there is a perfectly official form—now that of the Councils, and one more profound and indefinite—corresponding to the ‘scientific tradition’ (παράδοσις γνωστική) of the ancient Alexandrians. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

3. The Church.477 Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechisms portrays the Church to his disciples as a spiritual communion. But in explaining the predicate ‘catholic’478 he completely identifies this spiritual communion with the empirical Church. It is called Ἐκκλησία, because it summons all men together, and unites them with one another. This it does at God’s command; for after God had rejected the first community as the ‘synagogue of the wicked’, 234because they had crucified the Saviour, he built out of the heathen a second Church, on which his favour rests; that is the Church. of the living God, pillar and foundation of the truth. To it alone belong the predicates one, holy, and catholic; the communities of the Marcionites, Manichæans, and other heretics. are societies of godlessness. The Church, which was formerly barren, is the mother of us all; she is the Bride of Christ. In this second Church God has appointed Apostles, Prophets, and teachers, and miraculous gifts of every kind; he has adorned it with all virtues, proved it to be unconquerable in persecution, and made it an object of veneration even to kings, since its boundaries are wider than those of any secular kingdom. It is called Catholic because it extends over the whole globe, teaches all necessary dogmas to men universally and unceasingly, comprehends and leads to the true worship of God all men without respect of class, is able to cure all sins in soul and body, and

477

Compare the statements of Kattenbusch, l. c., p. 330 ff. The East never arrived at a definite theory of the nature and features of the Church. 478 On this attribute see Vol. II., p, 75. n. 1. From the middle of the fourth century the clause “καὶ [εἰς] µίαν ἀγίαν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν” must have stood in the Symbols of by far the most of the provincial Churches in the East. The 564 εἰς is to be referred also to the Church.

possesses in its midst all virtues and all conceivable gifts of grace.479 These utterances of Cyril concerning the Church contain the quintessence of all that has ever been said of it by the Greeks.480 They have adorned it with all conceivable attributes, applying to it all the O. T. passages descriptive of the people of Israel.481 They glorified it as the communion of faith and virtue, and as a rule clung to this description of it in their catechetical and 482 235homiletical teaching. Indeed, their position was here so far archaic, that they either did not mention the organisation of the Church at all, or—what was even more significant—they named in this connection the Apostles, Prophets, teachers and the rest, in brief, the possessors and gifts of the Spirit (see above in Cyril). We find the same teaching even in John of Damascus, who in his great work on dogma has given no place at all to the Church,483 and in the later so-called Symbols of the Greek Church.484 The difficult question, which Origen first discussed, and which Augustine considered so thoroughly in his fight with Donatism—the question about the Church as corpus verum (the true body) and corpus permixtum (the mixed body)—was hardly touched on in the East.485 When we read Greek statements as to the Church— 479

Cyril, Cat. XVIII., ch. 22-27 For Western doctrines of the Church see the next book. But they are not so different in theory from those of the East as some suppose. 481 The Greeks spoke not infrequently of the “state” or “city” of God; Origen had already used the term, and it is common in Eusebius. On the other hand, the fine combi ac8 nation “Christ and the Church (as bride)” or “the Church as the body of Christ”, which had been at a very early date reduced to the level of a homiletical or rhetorical view, was either thrust into the background, or superseded by the phrase “Christ and the individual soul.” At a later date, the proposition, that Christ is the head of the Church, was often asserted against the Latins; but it was not very effective; for, seeing that the Greeks granted that the Church was a visible body in the common sense of the term, their thesis that this visible Church had none but an invisible head was beset with difficulties. Besides, Origen had been attacked as early as about A.D. 300, because he had explained Adam and Eve as referring to Christ and the Church (Socrates H. E. III. 7), though this allegory was supported by a very ancient tradition. Tychonius repeated it. 482 There are very numerous instances of this, and most of all in the influential Chrysostom. Epiphanius’ contention in the Expos. fid. cathol., ch. 3 is worthy of notice: Ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων, ἡµῖν Θεὸς ὑπάρχει τοῖς ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας γεννηθεῖσιν. This Jewish Christian regarded the Church as Israel, and its God as the God of Israel; see what follows. 483 Langen, Joh. Damascenus, p. 299 f. 484 Gass, l. c., p. 205 f. 485 It is treated in the later Symbols; see G a99 ass, p. 206 f. 480

statements, besides, which are altogether few in number—we not infrequently believe that we are living in the second century, nay, before the Gnostic controversy. We must not perceive in this attitude of the Greek Fathers any sign of exception ac8 al maturity. It was prescribed to them, on the one hand, by natural theology, on the other, by the narrowness of their view of the task of the Church. Redemption through Christ applied in intention to the whole human race, which meanwhile was always simply conceived as the sum of all individuals. In its result, it was limited by the liberty of man to resist salvation through sin. The Church was really, therefore, nothing but the sum of all individual believers in heaven and upon earth. The view that the Church was the mother of believers, a divine creation, the body of Christ, was not properly carried out in dogma. Even the thought that Christ had so assumed human nature that all it experienced in him benefited mankind, was only applied—not to the Church—236but to mankind as it existed, and the Eucharist itself did not help the Church to a special place in dogmatics.486 In spite of the belief in one holy Catholic Church’ (πιστεύειν εἰς µίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν) the Church was no dogmatic conception in the strict sense of the term. It did not form a link in the chain of the doctrines of redemption. And that is not surprising. Seeing the form given to the blessing of salvation, a religious conception of the Church could not be obtained. All was contained in the factors, God, mankind, Christ, the mysteries, and the individual. But occasion was given to draw up definitions of the Church by (1) the O. T. and the spurious Jewish Church, (2) heresy and the actual organisation of the Church, (3) the administration of the mysteries, (4) and the fight against the Roman claims to the primacy. As regards the first point, all that was necessary had been said in the second and third centuries; there was nothing to add; it was repeated with greater or less animosity to Judaism, whose history appeared sometimes as the mysterious type of the Church, sometimes as its antitype. As to the second and third, there was no doubt that the Church was the true teacher of the truth487 and the legitimate administrator of the ac8 mysteries.488 It transmitted the

486

Cyril of Alexandria frequently connects the Church with the incarnation and the Eucharist; but even he has not gone beyond the homiletic and edifying point of view. 487 Religious truth, however, really embraced all philosophy, see Anastasius Sin., Viæ dux (Migne, Patrol., Vol. 89, p. 76 sq.): Ὁρθοδοξία ἐστὶν ἀψευδὴς περὶ Θεοῦ καὶ κτίσεως ὑπόληψις ἢ ἔννοια περὶ πάντων ἀληθής, ἢ δόξα τῶν ὄντων καθάπερ εἰσίν. 488 Damalas has given a very pregnant summary of the old Patristic conception Ἡ ὀρθόδοξος πίστις (1877) p. 3: ἡ δὲ πίστις αὕτη εἰς τὴν µίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ

µάθησις (learning) and it possessed the mysteries. Therefore—and of this there was no doubt—it was essential to her to have the organisation, which was crowned by Bishops and Councils, and priests who should present the sacrifices and judge in God’s stead. Bishops and Councils we have spoken of above, the priests and their duties will be discussed in Chap. X.489 It is remarkable, however, that the latter 237is brought more to the front than the former. The Pseudo-areopagite was not the first to make his view of the Church depend essentially on the mysteries, and to regard the hierarchy primarily as performers of the sacred rites; he only completed what Ignatius, Clement, the first draft of the Apostolic Constitutions, Chrysostom de sacerdotio,490 and many others had developed before or contemporaneously with him. The Church had been entrusted to the Bishops, because they constituted the living representation of God on earth, the vicars of Christ, participators in the activity of the Holy Spirit, and therefore the source of all sacraments. They were much less thought of as successors of the Apostles; the Church was the legacy not of the Apostles, but of Christ, and the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit.491 In the polemic against the Roman claims to supremacy, the view was strongly emphasised that Christ is the foundation and sole head of the Church, and this principle was opposed even to an exaggerated estimate of the Apostles in general and Peter in particular.

ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐστὶ πεποίθησις, ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ὁ φορεὺς τῆς θείας χάριτος τῆς ἐνδεικνυµένης εἰς δύο τινά, πρῶτον ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ὁ ἀλάθαστος διδάσκαλος τῆς χριστιανικῆς ἀληθείας καὶ δεύτερον ὁ γνήσιος τῶν µυστηρίων οἰκονόµος. 489 See Kattenbusch, l. c., pp. 346 ff., 357 ff., 393 ff. af7 490See Vol. III. 4-6, VI. 4; also the Homily on the day of his ordination as priest, Montfaucon I., p. 436 sq. 491 Of course the Church was conscious of being, and called itself “apostolic.” But it is perhaps not a mere accident that this predicate is not so stereotyped in the Symbols and other official manifestoes as the rest—unity, holiness and catholicity. The otherwise substantially identical expositions by the Greek Fathers of the word “catholic” have been collected by Söder, Der Begriff der Katholicität der Kirche und des Glaubens (1881), pp. 95 ff., 110 ff., 113 f., 115 f. “Catholic” was equivalent to orthodox even before Eusebius, as is shown by the interpolations of the word into the Martyrium Polycarpi. That this word was interpolated I have tried to prove in “The Expositor,” 1885, Dec., p. 410 sq. It may be in place here to remark generally that the copyists are least to be trusted in the case of such predicates as were current at a later date—e.g., as regards words like “bearer of God” “Homoousios”, “Catholic” etc. The Monophysites especially made great efforts to introduce their catch-words into older writers. Even to-day the Armenians are not to be trusted.

“He who secedes from the Church, withdraws 55e himself at the same time from the influences of the Holy Spirit, and it is not easy to find a wise man among the heretics”;492 but on what 238points the unity of the Church was based has not been made clear. It first appears as if faith and virtue were sufficient, but participation in the mysteries of the Church, and submission to its organisation and tradition were added: indeed these in practice took the first place. Yet the organisation of the Church was not really carried higher than the Bishops, in spite of all the empty words used about the Patriarchs: the Church was orthodox and perfect, because it offered a security in its episcopal and priestly constitution that it was the ancient institution founded by Christ. In this conviction—we can hardly call it a doctrine—the Church became more and more narrow; it made itself a holy piece of antiquity.493 But after the close of the fifth century it ceased to be the one Church. Tradition, which had been created to maintain the unity of the Church, served in the end to split it up, because national and local traditions, views, and customs had been received into it to an increasing extent. The great cleavage into Catholic and Novatian Catholic was not yet determined, or supported by national considerations. The division into Græco-Roman Catholicism and Germanic Arianism did owe its duration to opposite national tendencies. On the other hand, the disruption of the Eastern Church into the Byzantine (Roman) and the Oriental (Nestorian-Syrian, Jacobitish-Syrian, Coptic, and Armenian) rested entirely on national antitheses, and, preserved mainly by the monks who, in spite of all their renunciation of the world, have always adopted a National Church attitude, has continued up to the present day. Now, after the schism had further taken place between the Byzantine (Neo-Roman) and the Roman branches, the Church was

492

Heretics and Schismatics were more and more identified; see the so-called 6th Canon of Constantinople, A.D. 381 (it really dates from A.D. 382): αἱρετικοὺς λέγοµεν τούς τε πάλαι τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀποκηρυχθέντας καὶ τοὺς µετὰ ταῦτα ὑφ᾽ ἡµῶν ἀναθεµατισθέντας. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις καὶ τοὺς τὴν πίστιν µὲν τὴν ὑγιῆ προσποιουµένους ὁµολογεῖν, ἀποσχίσαντας δὲ καὶ ἀντισυνάγοντας τοῖς κανονικοῖς ἡµῶν ἐπισκόποις. ac8 493 The question whether the holiness of Christians was founded on being members in the Church—initiation into it—or depended on personal virtue was not decided in the East, but it was never even definitely put. The cause of this vagueness existed ultimately in the obscurity which prevailed among the Greeks in reference to the relation of natural theology and dogma in general; see on this the following chapters.

divided into three (four) great territories distinguished by their nationality: the Germano-Roman 239West (Rome), the countries on the Ægean sea (Constantinople), and the East split into Nestorianism and Monophysitism. Each had its own peculiar traditions and authorities. The Orientals, though rent asunder and quarrelling with each other, felt that they formed a unity compared with the two other sections, i.e., the “Romans,” and could, in reply to the “bragging of the Romans,” point to a hundred marks which revealed the superiority of their Churches. They regarded their land as the cradle of the human race, their Church as the primitive home of religion; and if Jerusalem was no longer in their possession, yet they still had the ancient site of Paradise.494 The Neo-Romans boasted of their Patriarchate, their unchanged faith, and their nation, which took no part in the crucifixion of Christ, in which the Romans and Barbarians had made common cause. The Romans, finally, had the chiefs of the Apostles, Peter and Paul, and the Pope, Peter’s successor, with the secular power committed to him by Christ and Constantine. The common foundation of these Churches was not solid enough to resist the elements that were dissolving it. Nationality was stronger than religion. Literature.—Jacobi 564 , Die kirchliche Lehre von der Tradition u. heil. Schrift., Part I., 1847. Holtzmann, Kanon u. Tradition, 1859 (does not discuss to any extent the Church in antiquity). Söder, Der Begriff der Katholicität der Kirche, 1881. Seeberg, Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche, 1885. Kattenbusch, l. c. There is much material in Schwane, also in the writings which passed between Old Catholics and Roman Catholics after A.D. 1869. xsl:value-of select="@title"/> 240

A.—Presuppositions of the Doctrine of Redemption, or Natural Theology. “Natural Theology” did not pass through any very thoroughgoing development in the Greek Church; but it reveals differences, according as Aristotelianism or Neoplatonism prevailed. By Natural Theology we are to understand the complex of conceptions that, according to the view then held, formed the self-evident and certain contents of the human mind, which was only held to be more or less darkened (see Chap. II.). These conceptions, however, arose in fact historically, and corresponded 494

ff.).

See, e.g., Elias of Nisibis, Proof of the truth of the faith (Ed. by Horst, 1886, p. 112

to the degree of culture at which the ancient world had arrived, especially through the work of the Greek Philosophers. We can divide them appropriately into doctrines concerning God and conce eb0 rning man. But changes also took place in proportion to the growing influence exerted on these conceptions by the words of the Bible literally understood. Nevertheless the fundamental features remained in force; yet they were displaced and confused by foreign material during the period from Origen to John of Damascus. Chapter IV. Presuppositions and Conceptions Regarding God, the Creator, as Dispenser of Salvation. 241

A.—PRESUPPOSITION OF DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION OR NATURAL THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER IV. PRESUPPOSITIONS AND CONCEPTIONS REGARDING GOD, THE CREATOR, AS DISPENSER OF SALVATION. § 1. The Doctrine of God. Its Method. THE main features of the doctrine of God were those familiar from the theology of the Apologists, as they were partly fixed and partly supplemented by the fight with Gnosticism. Speculations on the Deity as a Trinity (τριάς) modified but little the general doctrine of God (yet see attempts in Augustine, De trinitate); for the unity, simplicity, indivisibility, and unchangeableness of God were at the same time maintained most definitely: in other words, the Father alone was almost always. regarded as ‘root of the Deity” (ῥίζα τῆς θεότητος), where the Deity, in its essential being, was described in comparison with the world. The ultimate reason of this was that theology counted on a general intelligence for its general doctrine of God, and therefore had recourse to natural religion and theology, i.e., to the results of Greek philosophy. It was, indeed admitted by many Fathers (see esp. Athanasius, De incarn.) that men could know the Deity from creation only dimly, if at all; and that therefore the manifestation of God in Christ alone made it possible to recognise the nature of God as the undivided, spiritual and good Lord of the World. But, in fact, it was only a question of more or less as regards the natural knowledge of the spiritual and good God, the Creator. Other Fathers, especially those influenced by Aristotle, declared the knowledge of God in its

whole extent to be innate (see Arnobius), or, a knowledge to be constantly tested by the 242observation of nature. No difference is here caused by the fact that some Fathers have described the existence of God and his distinctive nature as capable of proof, others, as incapable; for the latter only rejected the proof in so far as God could not be discovered by means of deduction from a prius. The psychological, cosmological,495 and natural theological proofs were not despised by them in meeting Atheism, Polytheism, Manichæism, etc. We already find in Augustine suggestions of an ontological proof.496 All these evidences were, indeed, given subject to the proviso, that all knowledge of God must be traced back to 11a8 God himself, that it became indistinct in proportion to man’s alienation from God, and that the revelation of Scripture first rendered everything clear and certain. Further, it was expressly contended that God, as the infinite one, was, strictly speaking, incapable of being known, because his nature could not be described by any predicate. But this inscrutability, so far as represented in the avowal “whatever the creature is, that God is not,” was held—and with this the Neoplatonists were agreed—to be the valuable and true knowledge (Athan. ad monach. 2: “even if it is not possible to comprehend what God is, it is possible to say what he is not:” καὶ εἰ µὴ δυνατὸν καταλαβέσθαι τί ἐστι Θεός, ἀλλὰ δυνατὸν εἰπεῖν, τί οὔκ ἐστιν.497 495

The influence of Aristotle is first conspicuous in Diodore of Tarsus, who reproduced independently the cosmological proof of Aristotle (see Photius, Biblioth. 223). From the sixth century it is evident in the majority of the Fathers, and especially John of Damascus. See De fide orthod. I. 3 (12): Everything perceptible by the senses, as also the higher world of spirits, is subject to change; therefore it must have had a beginning, and been created. There must accordingly exist a being who created it, and that is God. Two other proofs are found in John of Dam. 496 Augustine’s line of argument was first to demonstrate rules of human thought, which accordingly transcended it. These rules—logical and ethical—he stated to be truths, their sum being the truth. This truth was a living power, accordingly it existed. Thus the way to the existence of God was given; see esp. De lib. arbitr. II. 3-15, but the ab7 thought is also suggested elsewhere in his writings, e.g., the Confessions. 497 In this the great majority of the Fathers were agreed. Augustine describes (De doctr. I. 6) the impossibility of declaring God, in a way that coincides word for word with the tenets of the Basilidians (Hippol., Philos. VII. 20). Augustine writes: “Diximusne aliquid et sonuimus aliquid dignum deo? Immo vero nihil me aliud quam dicere voluisse sentio; si autem dixi, non hoc est quod dicere volui. Hoc unde scio, pisi quia deus ineffabilis est, quod autem a me dictum est, si ineffabile esset, dictum non esset? Ac per hoc ne ineffabilis quidem dicendus est deus, quia et hoc cum dicitur, aliquid dicitur. Et fit nescio quæ pugna verborum, quoniam si illud est ineffabile, quod dici non potest, non est ineffabile, quod vel ineffabile dici potest.” Basilides: Ἔστι γὰρ, φησίν, ἐκεῖνο οὐχ

The revelation through the Logos only 243went beyond this in that it established this knowledge regarding the infinite Spirit and his inexpressible nature, and made it possible to perceive him in his likeness.498 The Fathers influenced by Neoplatonism, however, assumed further that the contemplative ascetic, who was on the way to deification, could gain a direct vision of God in all his splendour, a conception which the Areopagite has combined with a scholastic theory of the knowableness of God by negation, eminence, causality.499

ἁπλῶς ἄρρητον, ὃ ὀνοµάζεται· ἄρρητον γοῦν αὐτὸ καλοῦµεν, ἐκεῖνο δὲ οὐδὲ ἄρρητον· καὶ γὰρ τὸ οὐδ᾽ ἄρρητον οὐκ ἄρρητον ὀνοµάζεται, ἀλλὰ ἔστι, φησίν, ὐπεράνω παντὸς ὀνόµατος ὀνοµαζοµένου.. Men were therefore at the point already reached by Basilides’ followers in the second century. Even Catechumens were taught this; see Cyril, Cat. VI., ch. 2: οὐ τὸ τί ἐστι Θεὸς ἐξηγούµεθα . . . ἐν τοῖς περὶ Θεοῦ µεγάλη γνῶσις το τὴν ἀγνωσίαν ὁµολογεῖν. Similar teaching is very frequent in Plotinus. In the Vita Plot. of Porphyry, ch. 23, the supreme God is thus defined: ὁ Θεὸς ὁ µήτε µορφὴν µήτε τινὰ ἰδέαν ἔχων, ὑπὲρ δὲ νοῦν καὶ πᾶν τὸ νοητὸν ἱδρύµενος. 498 The Dogmatics of John of Damascus begin with John I. 18, Matt. XI. 17, and 1 Cor. II. 11. 499 The striking contention of some disciples of Lucian (according to Philostorgius), and the most extreme Arians, Eunomius and Aëtius, but not Arius himself, that men could know the nature of God as well as God himself did, and as well as they knew themselves, is most closely connected with their Christology and their Aristotelianism. When the orthodox Fathers argued that the indescribable God could only be perceived in the Logos and through his work, and that God therefore would have been unknowable had not the Logos been his image, possessed of a like nature, those Arians had to meet the objection by emphasising even in the course of the christological controversy, the possibility of knowing God directly. In taking up this position they had of course to leave the nature of God out of the question, and to confine themselves to his will, as it had been clearly manifested in creation, and the preaching of the truth by the Logos. But this to them was no limitation; for they only attached importance in the first place to the knowledge of the divine will ac8 , and secondly to the renewed submission of men to the sovereignty of the divine will: (not to participation in the divine nature. unless in so far as that was already involved in the original equipment of man; see Socrates IV. 7; Epiph. H. LXXVI. 4, and the counter-observations of the Cappadocians). Their expositions are exceded by the Areopagite’s completely Neoplatonic theology, from which, meanwhile, Augustine in one of his lines of thought was not far removed. The Areopagite already adopted the position that ruled for more than a thousand years, in which the contention that God—by reason of his splendour—was absolutely unknowable, was balanced by the mystical assumption of a sensuous, suprasensuous knowableness in virtue of the fusion of the mind of God with the mind of man. To him also we trace back the theology of affirmation and negation (kataphatic and apophatic)—the thing had, indeed, been very long in existence—i.e., the method of making statements about God via eminentiæ and via negationis; see his Letters, the work, De divinis nominibus, and the beginning of the

244

§ 2. The Doctrine of God’s Nature and Attributes. The Being of God was immortal substance and was primarily defined—as already results from the method of knowing God—by affirming that he was without beginning or end, that he was a spirit and the supreme First Cause, all which predicates were proved in connection with the proofs of his existence. The deity is the pneumatic Ὄν which, because it is not the world, is supramundane, simply governing the world, the one, indivisible, imperishable, unchangeable, supremely good and impassive being, to which, in the strict sense, a real existence alone belongs: the Fathers influenced by Aristotelianism emphasised especially the spiritual power which determined its own aims and the causality of the deity. God is the intelligible reality and infinite reason. So far as it is maintained of this being (secundum hominem) that he is good, the predicate affirms nothing but that he is perfect, i.e., is completely self-sufficient and possesses blessedness in himself and therefore is not envious—see esp. Athanasius adv. pagan., also the Catechisms of Cyril. But the goodness of the Deity was also established from the fact of the revelation of God, first from creation, and here meant that God, since he is the gracious one, willed that creatures should participate in his blessedness, and carried out his intention under all circumstances. Augustine broke through this natural conception of the goodness of God; for he understands by the Deity as summum bonum the power of love which takes hold of man, and leads him from worldliness and selfishness to peace and felicity. But even in Augustine this idea is intimately connected with the natural view. As regards the divine attributes, the Fathers sought, while speaking of such, to keep clear of the idea of a plurality in 245God, or conceptions o ac8 f anything accidental. It is only for human thought that the absolute, perfect, homogeneous Being has attributes assigned to him, as varied representations of him in relation to the finite. The elevation above time and space presented itself as eternity and omnipresence; the latter attribute at the same time was the root of omniscience and omnipotence. Omnipotence was limited by the Fathers by two thoughts: it was circumscribed

tractate, De mystica theologia. The importance of John of Damascus consists for posterity in his having united the Neoplatonic and Aristotelian elements in his doctrine of God; see De fide orthod. I. 1-4.

by the good will of God, and it left scope for human liberty.500 Origen’s thesis of the limitation of omniscience found no supporters in later times. From the goodness (perfection) of God501 all conceivable ethical qualities were deduced. But they did not obtain their due significance, because the abstract idea that God was the requiter, i.e., rewarded the good and punished the wicked, formed, in spite of all Neoplatonic philosophy, the foundation of the whole conceptions of God, in so far as ethics were taken into account at all. This view, however, which was considered the “natural” one, readily became indifferent to the thought that men as God’s creatures are dependent on him, that they are meant to form an inner unity, and that their life is conducted to a definite goal; in other words, it endangered the religious view of Christianity. It gave man complete independence in presence of God, and broke mankind up into a group of disconnected individuals. It descended from Judaism and the ancient world—the gods are just, because they reward and punish, the two facts being conceived in coördination. This view, further, was entitled to its place within the narrow 246horizon of the citizens of ancient communities,502 but while it could not be omitted from Christianity, it required to be subordinated to a higher thought. Accordingly, significant tendencies to correct the prevalent system of thought were not wanting on 564 the part of the Fathers. Origen had already tried to regard the righteousness of God as a form of his loving discipline; the conception that suffering is always bound up with penal justice, had undoubtedly something to do with this attempt. The continued fight with dualism—Manichæism—constantly made it necessary to

500

Along with all fatalism and astrology the Greek Fathers also unanimously rejected the idea that God’s prescience acted as fate and was the first cause of human actions, or that prophecy controlled the course of events. It was rather taught that prescience was consequent to the event perceived beforehand. But Augustine was not perfectly satisfied with this idea. He deepened it through the thought that the sum of all that happened was before God in an eternal now. 501 But of this the saying of Gregory of Nyssa is true (περὶ ψυχ. κ. ἀναστασ· Oehler, p. 92): Παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ ἐπέκεινα ἡ θεία φύσις, τὸ δὲ ἀγαθὍ 54f ν ἀγαθῷ φίλον πάντως, διὰ τοῦτο ἑαυτὴν βλέπουσα καὶ ὃ ἔχει θέλει καὶ ὃ θέλει ἔχει οὐδὲν τῶν ἔξωθεν εἰς ἑαυτὸν δεχοµένη. Ἔξω δὲ αὐτῆς οὐδέν, ὅτι µὴ ἡ κακία µόνη, ἥτις, κἂν παράδοξον ᾖ, ἐν τῷ µὴ εἶναι τὸ εἶναι ἔχει. οὐ γὰρ ἄλλη τίς ἐστι κακίας γένεσις, εἰ µὴ ἡ τοῦ ὄντος στέρησις. Τὸ δὲ κυρίως ὂν ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσις ἐστίν· ὃ οὖν ἐν τῷ ὅντι οὐκ ἔστιν, ἐν τῷ µὴ εἶναι πάντως ἐστίν. 502 See Leopold Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, 2 Vols., 1882; further, Ritschl in the Th. L. Z. 1883, Col. 6 f.

demonstrate that power, goodness, wisdom, and justice were combined in the Deity.503 But in almost all the Fathers the attributes of goodness and justice stood asunder. We can see the reason of this in the fact that up to Augustine no serious effort was made to understand the goodness of God as moral holiness, and this failure was in turn due to the characteristic method of obtaining a knowledge of God, the attempt to rise to the Deity from the notion of the finite by means of sublimations.504 The theory of God was beset at this most important point with u 544 ncertainties, nay, inconsistencies. He was at once the impassive Being (Ὄν) and the judge who requited actions505—the latter conception, further, not only including the coördination of goodness and justice, but also the superiority of the former to the latter. The Alexandrians had grasped at the expedient, following Philo,506 of representing God as absolutely benevolent, but the Logos as the Just; this, however, was to confess despair of solving the problem, showing once more very clearly that men could not think without compunction (affectiones humanæ) of the (penal) justice 247of which at most the Logos was capable; and it is interesting as a counterpart to the opposite idea adopted in later times. 584 507 But we see even here, why the doctrine of redemption could not become one of atonement in the ancient Church. If the distinctive form in which redemption was accomplished was to be justified, and its intrinsic necessity to be proved, then there must not only exist, but speculation must be founded on, the conviction that God’s saving purpose transcended the thought of requital, and that he was morally holy. But that is out of the question where the Fathers are concerned.508

add 503These four attributes Gregory of Nyssa has particularised and sought to harmonise in his great Catechism. 504 This method, however, was by no means despised by Augustine himself. 505 The doctrine of God came in this form to the theologians of the middle ages. The nuances and inconsistencies of scholastic theology were caused by the necessity of alternating between the two ideas of God as the intelligible Ὄν and the Requiter. Some emphasised the one, others the other, more strongly. In certain doctrines only the former, in others only the latter conception, could be used. 506 See Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alex. (1886), p. 12 f. 507 In this view—in the Middle Ages—God appears rather as the strictly Just, Christ as the “good”; but the idea of goodness had changed. 508 In the lower ranks of the communities, and among a few Oriental sects (Audians), anthropomorphic conceptions of God, the belief that he had a human shape, a body e 54f tc., held their ground. But they were retained also in some circles of monks (e.g., those of the Scetian Desert), and even by a few Bishops. From the close of the fourth century, with the hostility to Origen’s spiritualism was combined active resistance to this opposite

§ 3. The Cosmology. The Cosmological and allied anthropological problems were treated by the Fathers—who formally used Gen. I.-III. as their text—with the whole apparatus of contemporary philosophy, in this way satisfying their scientific craving for a rational conception of the world. The systems are therefore very different in det 53f ails; but on the whole they existed peaceably side by side, showing that the differences presupposed a measure of agreement, sufficient for the solidarity of the doctrinal structure. 248

These differences were slightest in the Cosmology proper. The task set the theologians of the fourth century was to bring Origen’s cosmology more into harmony with the demands of the rule of faith, to adapt it more closely to the account given in Gen. I., and to defeat the Manichæan Cosmology. After the last decades of the fourth century, the slow course of development was hastened by violent opposition to Origen’s cosmology, and the view of the Church, held before Origen, was substantially restored, though now as a scientific theory.509 Yet the conception of an upper world of spirits, related to the present world as its ideal and type, continued to exist, and ever threw its shadow on the latter. 589 510

view (Sozom. VIII. 11). The Stoic notion of God’s corporeality had scarcely a defender after Tertullian; for Lactantius’ view of the “figura” and “affectus” of God is not Stoic, but belongs to popular realism. In general, much that was anthropomorphic was retained in Western theology along with the realistic eschatology, and that by theologians who cherished a colourless eclectic moralism. Very instructive is Augustine’s confession (Confess. V. fin.; VI. 3) that it was the sermons of Ambrose that first delivered him from the prejudice that the Catholic Church taught that the Deity was fashioned like man. If we reflect how much Augustine had mingled with Catholic Christians before his conversion, and how much he had heard of the Church, we cannot suppose he was the only one guilty of this prejudice. We need only recall the “apocryphal” writings of the Byzantine age, which were read to an extraordinary extent, to see how strong were anthropomorphism and the conceptions of a magic God. 579 509 See Justinian’s edict against Origen, and the fifth Synod of Constantinople, Hefele, Concil. Gesch. II. 21 p. 780-797; at an earlier date, the attacks of Theophilus and Jerome on Origen. 510 Origen held that the present world was only a place of punishment and purification. This view, which approximated very closely to the old Gnostic idea, was rejected; but the conception remained of an upper world of spirits, of which our world was the materialised copy. Where this conception was potent, a considerable part of the feeling which possessed Origen (after Plato) as he looked at our world must have endured. It was never wanting among the orthodox Fathers, and the Greeks of to-day have not lost it.

On the other hand, the Trinitarian 249conflicts led to a precise distinction being drawn between creating, making, begetting, and emanating, and thus the notion of creation out of nothing now first received its strict impress. But Neoplatonic ideas of the origin of the world lasted till after the beginning of the fifth century, even in the case of some Bishops, and side by side with it the Manichæan conception of the world spread secretly and found adherents among the clergy themselves up to the middle of it. The following proposition may be regarded as containing the quintessence of the orthodox Fathers from the fifth century, and at the same time as the presupposition that gave scope to all their further speculations. It

“The world is a whole, but divided into two spheres of which the higher is the nece ac8 ssary prius and type of the lower”: that is still the Greek view (see Gass, Symbolik, p. 143 f.). “God first and by his mere thought evoked out of non-existence all heavenly powers to exhibit his glory, and this intelligible world (κόσµος νοερός) is the expression of undisturbed harmony and obedient service.” Man belongs to both worlds. The conception, as expounded by the Areopagite and established by John of Damascus (De fide orthod. II 2-12), that the world was created in successive stages, has not the importance of a dogma, but it has that of a wide-spread theologoumenon. It is Neoplatonic and Gnostic, and its publication and recognition show that the dissatisfaction felt by Origen with the account of the creation in Gen. I. was constantly shared by others. Men felt a living interest, not in the way plants, fishes, and birds came into being, but in the emanation of the spiritual from the Deity at the head of creation down to man. Therefore we have the κόσµος νοερός, the intelligible world, whose most characteristic feature consisted in its (3) gradations (διακοσµήσεις), which again fell into (three) orders, down to archangels and angels. (See Dionys. De divina hierarch. 6 sq., and John of Damascus, l.c., ch. III: πᾶσα ἡ θεολογία τὰς οὐρανίους οὐσίας ἐννέα κέκληκε. ταύτας ὁ Θεῖος ἱεροτελέστης εἰς τρεῖς ἀφορίζει τριαδικὰς διακοσµήσεις, Seraphim, Cherubim, thrones, dominions, powers, forces, principalities, archangels, and angels. We find a step in this direction as early as the App. Constit. VII. 35). In the creation, the system of spiritual powers was built from above downwards; while in sanctification by the mysteries, it was necessary to ascend the same series. The significant point was the union of the conception of creation with the system of the cultus, or, better, the scheme which embodied the idea of creation in accordance with the line of progress laid down for asceticism and sanctification. This was retained by Greek theology in spite of all its disavowal of Origen, Neoplatonism, and Gnosticism. But even in the region of the material, incomparably greater interest was taken in warmth, cold, moisture, drought, in fire, air, earth, and water, in the four vital humours, than in the childish elements which the O. T. narrative of creation takes into account. Yet the whole was included under the title of the ‘work of the six days’, and the allegories of Origen were, in theory, rejected. The exegesis of Gen. I. became the doctoral problem proper among the Gre 564 ek Fathers. The most important wrote works on the Hexaëmeron; among them that of Johannes Philoponus is scientific. ally the most advanced (περὶ κοσµοποιίας); it is dependent, not on Platonism, but on Aristotle, though it also opposes the latter.

can be stated thus: God from eternity bore in his own mind the idea of the world. In free self-determination he, in order to prove his goodness, created by the Logos, who embraces all ideas, this world, which has had a beginning and will have an end, in six days out of nothing, in accordance with the pattern of an upper world created by him. The justif 558 ication of divine providence and the production of Theodicies were called for by Manichæism and fatalism on the one hand, and the great political catastrophes and calamities on the other. It was taught that God constantly remained close to his creation, preserving and governing it. With this, rational beings were looked upon in their numerical sum total as the peculiar objects of divine providence. Providence was also defended in opposition to the loose and unstable form in which earlier and contemporary monotheistic philosophers had avowed it; it was recognised in principle to be a power protecting 250also the individual creature. Yet here Christian theologians themselves did not arrive at complete certainty. It was admitted that providence was above human freedom in so far as it was maintained that neither that freedom nor the evil proceeding from it could hinder the divine intentions. But the belief in providence was not definitely connected with redemption by Christ or with the Church, for it was considered a selfevident presupposition of redemption and a piece of Natural Theology. Therefore it was also destitute of any strict object. The uncertainty of the ancient world as to the extent and method of providence had left its influence, ad4 1 and empirical reflections on the objectlessness of certain institutions, or phenomena in the world—e.g., of vermin—could not be defeated by a view which had itself a naturalistic basis. Yet in proportion as the sure and real knowledge of God was only derived from the Christian religion, it was also recognised that faith in providence was first made certain through Christ, and that Christians were under the particular providence of God.511 The problem of the theodicy was solved (1) by proving that the freedom of the creature was something appropriate and good, the possibility of wickedness and evil, however, being necessarily combined with it; (2) by denying to wickedness any reality in the higher sense of the term, since wickedness as it was separated from God, the principle of all

511

For this reason a startling casuistry is to be noticed here and there, and exceptions are laid down. 512 Degrees of providence were generally distinguished.

being, was held to be not—being;513 (3) by defending the mala pœnæ or evil’s fitting means of purification; and finally, (4) by representing temporal sufferings as indifferent to the soul. Some older Fathers, e.g., Lactantius, emphasised, besides, even the necessity of wickedness in the interest of moralism: without it virtue would be impossible.514 But such opinions died out in the fight with Manichæism.515 251

In reference to the heavenly spirits which belonged to, and indeed formed, the upper world, the recognised Fathers were convinced of the following points. (1) They were created by God (see the Symb. Nic.). (2) They were endowed with freedom, but had ac4 no material bodies (ἐγγύτατα τοῦ ἀσωµάτου). (3) They had passed through a crisis after which a section had remained true to the good, while another had revolted. (4) The good spirits were instruments of the divine government of the world, their activity being useful and beneficial to men, even entering into the sacramental system by which grace was imparted. (5) The reality of wickedness in the world was to be attributed to the bad spirits, and especially to their head, the devil; they exercised an almost unbounded power on earth, not being able indeed to compel man, but only to induce him, to sin; they could also be scared away without fail by the name of Christ, the sign of the cross, and the Sacraments.516 As regards the relation of the good angels to men,

513

After Origen this Platonic proposition enjoyed the widest circulation: see esp. Athanasius and the Cappadocians; but the Antiochians held no other view. Augustine made use of it in a peculiar and characteristic way. 514 Lactant. Instit. div. II., ch. 8, 12; V., ch. 7. 515 See Vol. V ., for the extent and form in which Augustine held such views. 516 No doubt existed of the necessity of believing in heavenly spiritual beings. Origen counted this belief a doctrine of the Church (De princip. præf. 10). The points numbered in the text may be regarded as the quintessence of what obtained generally. But such an agreement only made its appearance in the sixth century. Until then this point was a centre of contention between a form of Biblical “realism,” and the Origenistic, i.e., the Greek philosophical, view as to the world of spirits. The treatment of the question by the Areopagite, and its approval by the Church, constituted a triumph of Neoplatonic mysticism over Biblicism. But that tendencies which went still farther in this direction had not been wholly destroyed, was shown by the Hesychastic controversy of the fourteenth century, or the assumption of an uncreated divine light, which was not the nature of God, but a specific energy, different from himself, and which could be seen. (See Engelhardt in Illgen’s Ztschr., 1838, Part I., p. 68 ff.; Gass, Die Mystik des Nik. Kabasilas, 1849, p. 1. ff., and in Herzog’s R.-E., 2nd Ed.). The Logos, accordingly, no longer satisfied, or rather, as Scholasticism had placed the Logos under an embargo, piety sought for a new mediator. He was to accomplish what the Logos no longer did: he was

their superiority to men—in the 252present condition of the latter— was emphasised, but it was also taught on the other hand, that man after he was made perfect would be at least equal to them. The former position gave rise to a sort of angel-worship, which nevertheless in earlier times was no proper part of religion. The Synod of Laodicea, about A.D. 360, declared it in its thirty-fifth Canon to be idolatry.517 And it was kept in check by the idea that Christ’s work possessed also a mysterious significance for the upper world. But the polytheistic cravings of man constantly influenced religious ideas, and as the Deity was farther and farther removed from ordinary Christian people by speculation, there gradually arose, along with the thought of the intercession of the angels,518 a worshipping of them, which was indeed only settled ecclesiastically at the seventh Œcumenical Synod (A.D. 787). There it was defined as adoration (προσκύνησις) in distinction from service (λατρεία acc ).519 Even Gregory I. had assigned the service of angels to the pre-christian stage of religion. The points of doctrine which we have above grouped together became the bases of a great number of very different conceptions, which grew up in opposition to Origen’s doctrine, or under its influence, or in dependence on exegesis (esp. of Gen. VI.), or, lastly, as a result of reminiscences of Greek folk-lore and philosophy. Men speculated on the date of the creation of angels, and the method by which they were created, on their spirituality or higher corporeality, their

to be a visible revelation of God, himself and yet not himself; 564 for God himself was simply quiescent being; accordingly he himself was conceived and realised in the form of an energy that could be traced. The theory of the Areopagite was, however, not satisfactory in this respect; for while the spirits might doctrinally be regarded as created beings, they were perceived as divine forces, emanations, rays of the perfect light, conceivable by degrees by man, and bridging him nearer to the deity. We have here a great difference from the western conception; in the East the Platonic and Gnostic doctrine of Æons had never been entirely abolished. In the West, while the gradation of angelic powers had been accepted, the pious impulse from which it originated had not. 517 There undoubtedly existed, even in the earliest time, a view which conjoined the angels with God, and thus made them also objects of worship, or, included them in the fides, quœ creditur. We may here perhaps recall even 1 Tim. V. 21: διαµαρτύροµαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ιησ ac8 ῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων. We can at any rate refer to Justin., Apol I. 6: (We worship God) καὶ τὸν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν . . . καὶ τὸν τῶν ἄλλων ἑποµένων καὶ ἐξοµοιουµένων ἁγαθῶν ἀγγέλων στρατόν. Athenag. Suppl. 10, 24. 518 This thought is undoubtedly extremely ancient, but at the earlier date it only existed in the outer circle of the faith. 519 It had long—as early as the fourth century—been on the way; see the miraculous oratories of St. Michael; Sozom. II. 3, Theodoret on Coloss. T. III., p. 355 ff.

functions—as guardian angels and genii, the manner in which the wicked angels fell,520 the orders and 253divisions of angels, and much else. Here also the doctrine of Origen, which culminated in the restoration of the revolted spirits, was in the end expressly disowned. On the other hand, the Neoplatonic conception of spirits and their orders, or the Gnostic idea of the Æons as interpreters of the divine, was more and more legitimised in the Church doctrine of angels, and was combined by the Areopagite with the mystic system of the illumination of the world, and the communication of the divine to the creaturely. It was a very old idea—see Hebrews and First Clement—that Christ was in Heaven the High Priest and head (προστάτης) of believers in the presence of God. Clement of Alex. had already worked out this conception, following Philo’s model, to the effect that Christ, in conjunction with the angelic powers subject to him, conveyed to men the energies of the heavenly sphere; that he ever offered himself for men to the Father as a sacrifice without fire (θῦµα ἄπυρον); that the Holy Spirit along with the angels kept the heavenly and the earthly Church in constant contact. In short, the thought of a graded hierarchy in heaven, with heavenly sacrifices, intercessions, etc., as it also occurs among the Valentinians, lay on the confines of the Alexandrian’s speculation. These thoughts are more fully matured in Origen: the sacrifice of Christ applied also to the celestials, a 564 nd the upper world, brought into harmony, contributed to the redemption of the lower. They were confirmed by the Neoplatonic philosophy of religion. On the other hand, Ignatius conceived the governing body of the Church on earth as a hierarchy which represented the heavenly order, and put it in operation. The two ideas—the Son, the Holy Ghost and the angelic hosts on the one hand, and the earthly priesthood, on the other—only needed to be combined, and a new stage of ecclesiastical theosophy was reached. The Pseudo-areopagite was the first to gain it—after, indeed, it had been already suggested clearly enough by Clement of Alex.; see Strom. VI. 13, 107, and other passages. Clement makes three dwellings in heaven correspond on one side to the divisions of angels, and, again, to the threefold hierarchy on earth. On the spread of this form of theosophy among the Syrian Monophysite monks, see Frothingham, Stephen bar Sudaili, 1886. 254

This whole conception was after all, indeed, nothing but a timid expression of the thought that the plan of creation itself,

520

On the devil, “the prince of the ranks encircling the earth,” see the exposition by John of Dam., De fide orthod. II. 4. The devil and the demons of their own free will turned away unnaturally from God.

extending down from the deity to man, included the means of redemption, and that, as alienation from the deity was due to the existence of graduated creations, so, at the same time was the restoration to God. This conce ac8 ption, which contrasts abruptly with that of the Old Testament and Christianity, was compatible in principle neither with the idea of the creation, nor with the one historical redemption that took place once for all. It was Gnostic and Neoplatonic, i.e., pagan. This its character was simply disguised by the retention of the creation so far as words went, and by the substitution for the Æons of Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, and angelic powers with Biblical names; and, further, of sacraments, sacrifices, and priests, whose existence and operations were derived from the work of Christ. The root of this whole conception is ultimately found in the notion that the Logos, who was identified with the Son of God, continued to be conceived as the abode and bearer of all the ideas from which the world was evolved. Even Athanasius was not in a position thoroughly to correct this view,—see Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des heiligen Athanasius, 1880, p. 138 ff. Consequently, even the most clear-sighted of the Fathers were helpless against speculations which deduced redemption from the Cosmology. And thus a new Church Theosophy arose. A fantastic pantheism was introduced which had been created by the barbarous theosophy of expiring antiquity. It harmonised excellently with the religious barbarism which satisfied itself in the crudest and most daring myths and legends; nay, it kindled into fresh life with it. The living God, apart from whom the Soul possesses nothing, and the fervour of the saint threatened meanwhile to disappear. And side by side, nay, in cordial agreement, with these fantastic speculations, there existed a prosaic worship of the letter. Literature.—See Nitzsch account, here especially thorough, Dogmengesch. I. pp. 268-287, 328-347, and Schwane, Vol. II. pp. 15-108, 272-328. Chapter V. Presuppositions and Conceptions Regarding Man as the Recipient of Salvation. 255

CHAPTER V. PRESUPPOSITIONS AND CONCEPTIONS REGARDING MAN AS THE RECIPIENT OF SALVATION.

§ 1. Introductory. ACCORDING to the ideas of the Fathers, the doctrines of the condition and destiny of man belonged to Natural Theology. This appears from the fact that, starting from their Cosmology, they all strove to ascertain, from the original state of man, the nature of Christian redemption, in other words, the state of perfection. At the same time the reservation held good, that we should recei 564 ve more than we could think or expect, and, in fact, that which was expected, and was deduced from the religious and ethical value which man had come to put upon himself in the course of history, was only carried back into his original state. The following propositions contain everything that can be stated as embodying a common conviction and common presupposition of all further conceptions, which in this matter turned out very different, in accordance with the speculative and empirical studies of the Fathers, and the object of their investigations for the time. Man made in the image of God is a free self-determining being. He was endowed with reason by God, that he might decide for the good, and enjoy immortality. He has fallen short of this destiny by having voluntarily yielded and continuing to yield himself—under temptation, but not under compulsion—to sin, yet without having lost the possibility and power of a virtuous life, or the capacity for immortality. The possibility was strengthened and immortality restored and offered by the Christian revelation which came to the aid of the darkened reason with complete knowledge 256of God. Accordingly, knowledge decides between good and evil. Strictly taken, the will is morally nothing. On this basis very different views were possible. It was asked, f 564 irst, what was original endowment, and what destiny, in the case of man; secondly, in connection with this, how much was to be claimed as human nature, and how much as a gift of grace originally bestowed; and thirdly, in keeping with the above, how far and how deep the consequences of sin extended. The question was put, in the fourth place, whether bare freedom constituted man’s character, or whether it did not correspond to his nature to be good. Fifthly, the philosophical question as to the constitution of man was here introduced and answered in various ways [dichotomically, trichotomically, the extent and scope of the flesh (σάρξ) in human nature, in its relation to the spirit (πνεῦµα) and to sin]. Sixthly, the relation of the creaturely spirit (πνεῦµα) to the divine, in other words, the origin of the human spirit, was discussed. Seventhly, lastly, and above all, men possessed two sources of knowledge: the account in Genesis with a realistic exposition, which seemed to pour scorn on all “spiritual” conceptions, but had nevertheless to be respected; and the relative section from Origen’s theology, which was felt to an increa 564 sing extent to be intolerable to the

Church, and which yet expressed the scientific, religious conviction of the Fathers, in so far as their thought was scientific. Under such circumstances different conceptions, compromises of all sorts, necessarily arose; but hardly anywhere was an advance made in the end on the views already presented by Irenæus. In the latest results, as they are to be found in the Dogmatics of John of Damascus, there is much that is more realistic than in Irenæus, but on the whole a type of doctrine is obtained which is more inadequate and confused, and less valuable. In what follows we intend to enter in detail only into the most important points. § 2. The Anthropology. Since the end of the creation of the world was held to consist in the creation of rational beings, who could exhibit 257the image of God and share in his blessedness, it followed that the power of free self-determination and the capacity for immortality belonged to the notion of man, and that they were therefore regarded as inalienable. All the doctors of the Church, however, comprehended, in the idea of innate freedom, the conceptions of the rational and moral plan of man’s nature as a whole, and they defined this natural disposition eb0 to be the power to know God’s will accurately, to follow it, and thus to rise above nature. While it was left in doubt whether this whole natural plan implied that man possessed bare freedom or freedom directed to the good, it certainly characterised man as a spiritual being, and for that very reason as an image of God. Being such, man was independent as regards God. In other words, the fact that he was an “image” did not directly establish a lasting dependence on God, nor did it find expression in such a dependence. On the contrary, it established his freedom in relation to God, so that man, being independent, was now only subject to the law of God, i.e., to that dispensation in virtue of which he was either rewarded or punished according as he behaved. The connection with God was thus exhausted in the noble constitution of man fixed once for all, but was supremely valued and acutely felt as a gift of divine grace, in the comparison with irrational animals. Meanwhile, the Fathers differed from one another. Some—like Athanasius, see even Tatian—assigned to human nature, in the strictest sense of the term, only the creaturely and sensuous state of being, in respect of which man is perishable, and they described everything else as a gift of divine grace inherent in human nature. Others embraced in this nature the moral capacity, endowment of reason, and knowledge of God;—so the majority; and very strenuously John of Damascus who repeatedly characterises the good as the natural: see De fide orthod. II. 30, III. 14. The third class, finally, included even immortality, as a possession and not merely as a destiny, among the natural

attributes of the human soul. These distinctions, which, however, are not particularly important for dogmatics, since all ultimately held nature to be a gift of grace, and the gift of grace to be a natural provision, were due partly to the different 258psychological conceptions of the Fathers, partly to the standpoint from which they investigated the problems; they might—as e.g., Athanasius— start from the doctrine of redemption or depend on moral, or empirical philosophical considerations. In psychology, the only point settled was that the fundamental form of human nature was twofold, spiritual and corporeal. This conception existed even where the soul itself was represented as something corporeal, or as only “as nearly as possible incorporeal” (ἐγγύτατα τοῦ ἀσωµάτου). Very many Greek Fathers, however, followed the view of Plato and Origen, according to which man consists of spirit, body, and soul—the soul uniting the other two. Consistently carried out, this opinion constantly led them back to the conception of Origen (Philo) that the spirit in man alone constituted his true nature, that it had its own, even a pretemporal, history, that in itself it belonged to the supernatural and divine sphere, and that the body was only a prison which had to be stripped off before the spirit could present itself in its true being. In order to escape these consequences, which were already discredited in the controversy with Neoplatonism and Manichæism, different methods were adopted. Among these occurred that already alluded to above, the conception of the spirit solely as a “superadded gift” (donum superadditum), a religious principle, to be found exclusively in the pious. But this expedient was seldom chosen; the whole question, so important and crucial, was rather stifled in a hundred questions of detail, tortured out of, or read into, the a 1c70 ccount in Genesis. The ever increasing restriction of the allegorical and spiritualising method of interpreting Gen. I. ff., led the Fathers nolens-volens to opinions remote from their scientific thought on religion The only passage in that account, moreover, which seemed to support the spiritualistic conception—“God breathed his own breath into man”—proved too much, and had therefore to be let alone.521

521

Augustine’s exposition in Ep. CCV. 19, was ultimately the opinion of most of the Greek Fathers, so far as they were not completely devoted to Neoplatonism. “Vis etiam per me scire, utrum dei flatus ille in Adam idem ipse sit anima. Breviter respondeo, aut ipse est aut ipso anima facta est. Sed si ipse est, factus est . . . In hac enim quaestione maxime cavendum est, ne anima non a deo facta natura, sed ipsius dei substantia tamquam unigenitus filius, quod est verbum eius, aut aliqua eius particula esse credatur, tamquam illa natura atque substantia, qua deus est 564 quidquid est, commutabilis esse possit: quod esse animam nemo non sentit, qui se animam habere sentit.” But the thought which underlay the last saying of the dying Plotinus (Porphyr., Vita Plot., ch. 2):

Origen’s idea, that the 259body was a prison of the soul, was contrasted with the other, also ancient, that man was rather a microcosm, having received parts from the two created worlds, the upper and under.522 But this conception, the only one which contained a coherent theory of equal value formally with the doctrine of Origen, could not fail to remain a mere theory, for the ethics corresponding to it, or its ethical ideal, were not supported by the final aims of the dominant theology. When anthropological questions or the Biblical narrative were not directly taken into account, it becomes everywhere obvious, that the old Platonic antithesis of spirit and body was regarded by the Fathers as the antithesis between that which was precious and that which was to be mortified, and that the earthly and creaturely in man was felt to be a hampering barrier which was to be surmounted. Monachism and the eschatological prospect of deification are examples which show how thoroughly practical ideas and hopes were determined by the dualistic view, though its point had been blunted by the tenet of the resurrection of the body. Meanwhile the theoretical doctrines as to the nature of man continued to be beset by a profound inconsistency, and ultimately, in consequence of Biblicism, became aimless and barren.523 Supplement.—The different psychological views of the Fathers are reflected in the various theories as to the origin of individual souls. The oldest of these was the traducian theory of Tertullian, which was also represented by a few Greeks—Gregory of Nyssa, Anastasius Sinaita. According to 260it the soul was begotten along with the body. Its extreme opposite was Origen’s idea of preexistence which had still many adherents in the fourth century, but fell more and more into discredit, until, finally, it was expressly condemned at the Synod of Constantinople, A. D. 553. According to this doctrine, all souls were created at once by God along with the upper world, and fell successively into the lower world, and into their bodies. The middle view—an expedient of perplexity— was the creatian which gradually gained ground all through the

πειρῶµαι τὸ ἐν ἡµῖν θεῖον ἀνάγειν πρὸς τὸ ἐν τῷ παντὶ θεῖον was not entirely surmounted by many Greek Fathers. 522 Therefore the great controversy lasting for centuries, whether the skins with which God clothed Adam and Eve were real skins, or bodies. He who agreed with Origen taught the latter; he who looked on man as a microcosm, the former. Yet here also there were composite forms: e.g., the skin meant only the fleshly body. 523 Scriptural pro ab0 ofs in support of the pre-existence of souls were not wanting: see John IX. 2. Jerome held to the doctrine for a time. Even Augustine was uncertain, and up to the time of Gregory the Great its flat rejection had not been determined on in the West (see Ep. VII. 53).

fourth century, and can be characterised as the most wide-spread, at least in the West, from the beginning of the fifth. It taught that God was ever creating souls and planting them in the embryos. The East contented itself with disowning Origen’s theory. Augustine, the greatest theologian of the West, was unable to come to any fixed view regarding the origin of the soul. The different views of the Fathers are further reflected in the different conceptions of the image of God in man. Religious and moral speculation were to be harmonised at this point; for the former was, indeed, never wholly wanting. Apart from such theologians as saw the image of God, somehow or other, even in the human figure, almost all were convinced that it consisted in reason and freedom. But with this it was impossible to remain perfectly satisfied, since man was still able to break away from God, so as in fact to become unlike him, and to die. On the other hand, theologians were certain that goodness and moral purity never could be innate. In order to solve the problem, different methods were adopted. Some abandoned the premise that the possession of the divine image was inalienable, and maintained that as it resided in the spirit that had been bestowed it could be completely lost through sinful sensuousness. The spirit returned to God, and the man relapsed to the level of the beasts. But this solution seemed unsatisfactory, because it was necessary, in spite of it, to retain the freedom that still, under all circumstances, existed to choose the good. Accordingly, it was impossible to treat this theory with any real seriousness. Others saw the possession of the Divine image, resting on reason and freedom, in the destiny of man to virtue and immortality, yet without stating what 261change in that case was actually made by falling short of this destiny. The third section, finally, distinguished, after the example of Origen, between “image” (εἰκών) and “likeness” (ὁµοίωσις) and saw the former in the inalienable spiritual plan of man, the latter in moral similarity to God, which was, indeed, one always to be gained on the basis of natural endowments. The Fathers were unwilling, as this review shows, to rest content with the thought that the inalienable spiritual natural endowment of man constituted the divine image, but they found no means of getting beyond it. Their conception of moral goodness as the product of human freedom hindered them. All the more strongly did they emphasise and praise, as a kind of set-off, the goodness of God as Creator revealed in the natural constitution of man. The different views of the Fathers are finally reflected in their conception of the primitive state. Christianity restores man to his state of ideal perfection. This state must, however, have already existed in some form at the beginning, since God’s creation is

perfect, and Genesis teaches, that man when created was good, and in a condition of blessedness (Paradise). On the other hand, it could not have been perfect, since man’s perfection could not be attained except through freedom. The problem resolves itself into a complete contradiction, which, indeed, was already clearly to be found in Irenæus: the original condition of man must coincide with the state of perfection, and yet it must only have been preliminary. The Fathers tried various ways of solving this crucial and insoluble difficulty, in which again the empirical and moral philosoph eb0 ical conception combined with a religious one. An attempt was made by very many Fathers to limit somewhat the blessedness of the Paradisaical state, or to give a form to their conceptions of it different in quality—fanciful and material—from that of their ideas of the final perfection; accordingly, it was explained—by Gregory of Nyssa—that God himself, looking to the Fall, had not ordained the Paradisaical state to be perfect. By some, again, the inconsistencies were glossed over, while others determined, following Origen, wholly to abandon the historical interpretation of the state in Paradise, and to construct independently 262a primitive state for themselves. The last method had the advantage, in combination with the assumption of the preexistence of souls, that it could transfer all men mystically into the original state. However, this radical solution conflicted too strongly with the letter of revelation, and the spirit of the Church tradition. It was rejected, and thus the problem remained in its obscurity. Therefore men contented themselves more and more with disregarding the main question: they set down incongruities side by side, and extracted separate points from the account in Genesis. To the latter belonged especially those which were believed to recommend virginity and asceticism, and to prove that these formed the mode of life (habitus) which corresponded to the true nature of man. Nor were opinions wanting that characterised asceticism as a salutary means of correcting the deterioration of the human state. “Asceticism and its toils were not invented to procure the virtue that comes from without, but to remove superinduced and unnatural vileness, just as we restore the natural brightness of iron by carefully removing the rust, which is not natural, but has come to it through negligence” (John of Damascus, De fide orth. III. 14). The principles of ethics were, as a rule, discussed in connection with the original state of man. But even in reference to the blessedness enjoyed in that state no clear conception was reached; for if man’s distinctive nature was based on bare freedom, what sort of blessedness could there be for him? What could be bestowed on him which he did not possess already, or which, if bestowed, did not once more call in question the original possession? What could fall to his lot except an arbitrarily chosen

reward? Again, as regards ethics, nothing certain could be established. While negative morality, asceticism, was conceived, as a rule, to be the natural and destined condition of man, yet an effort was made to construct an ideal of positive morality, in which the virtues of philosophy appeared in a rather superficial connection with those of religion.524 Negative and positive morality each looked up, after 263all, to a different supreme good, in the one case immortality, in the other the loftiest virtue. Therefore they could not be combined. The assumption of works of supererogation, which the Christian could accomplish while remaining in the world, formed the bridge between the two ethical ideals, but one which it must be admitted, contributed to flight from the one sphere to the other, rather than their connection. All attacks on the theory that ascetic achievements were especially valuable and meritorious were regarde 1c70 d as the outcome of moral laxity, and it is certain that in many cases they actually were. § 3. Ethics. Sin. It was recognised by all the Fathers that the human race had turned from the good and thus degenerated from its origin, i.e.,— according to the view of the majority—from Adam. This universality of sin was throughout explained, not from an innate wicked power in man impelling him necessarily to sin, nor from matter in itself, still less from complicity on the part of the Deity.525 Nor, on the other hand, was it as a rule ascribed to a direct inheritance of Adam’s sin, for inherited sin is a contradiction in itself; Adam was the type, but not the ancestor, of sinners. The true explanation was found in the misuse of freedom, caused by the seductions of wicked demons, and the transmission of wicked customs. Along with this, the majority undoubtedly cherished the secret idea, which was not surmounted, that the incentive to revolt

524

See here even the Latins. Ambrosius learned the combination, as carried out by him in his De officiis, from the Cappadocians; see also the remarkable opening of his work De pœnit. I. 1: “If the final and supreme aim of all virtue is to minister as far as possible to the spiritual benefit of our fellow-man, we may characterise benevolent moderation as one of the finest virtues.” For the popular conceptions of Greek Christians, see Socr. H. E. III. 16, in connection with Rom. I. On the other hand, Augustine attempted to derive the philosophic virtues from man’s dependence on God, from love; see, above all, the splendid exposition, Ep. CLV., ch. 12. 525 Even the subtle way in which Origen justified evil as an element in the best possible world (see Vol. II., p. 343 f.) was seldom repeated. Yet see Augustine, De ordine II. 11 sq. (one of his oldest writings): “mala in ordinem redacta faciunt decorem universi.”

from God526 came to a certain extent 264necessarily from the sensuous nature and creaturely infirmity of man, and resulted from his composite constitution, and his liability to death, whether that was acquired naturally or by transgression, or inherited. Decay and death were especially held to constitute an inducement to and cause of continuance in sin. With natural sensuousness the fate of death was conjoined. Both drove man from God. But in spite of this view the assumption was retained of unaltered freedom. If on the one hand stress was laid on sensuousness being a natural endowment of man, the unnaturalness of wickedness was emphasised on the other, and thus bare freedom received a closer relation to goodness, which, of course, was conceived as repressed by sin. The good was the natural, but, again, in view of man’s sensuousness, unnatural evil was also natural to him. The essence of sin, since wickedness was held to be something purely negative, was universally seen in alienation from God, being and goodness; but all that this meant positively was that man had subordinated his will to his sensuousness, and thereby lost the feeling, desire, and knowledge of the divine. The consequences of sin were held to be the following: First, by the majority, the universal mortality which had prevailed from Adam, or the loss of the true life;527 secondly, the obscuration of the knowledge of God, and with it of religion in general. This darkening made it possible for the demons to seduce man from the true God, to gain him to their own service, and the idolatry of the creature, in the form of polytheism, and so even to exercise an almost complete dominion over him, and the earth associated with humanity. A third consequence of sin was found in a certain weakening of freedom, which, though still existing, yet only in rare cases succeeded, without new divine influences, in reaching a morally good, perfect life. 265

Supplement.—The view taken by Irenæus and Tertullian of the fundamental importance of the first Fall for the whole future race, was imperilled by Origen’s theory of a fall on the part of spirits in their preëxistent state. It once more gradually won acceptance as

526

Sin was described as something negative not only by Augustine, but by all thinking Greeks before him. Their conception was undoubtedly based on a philosophical view that God was not only the originator of being, but really the sole being. On the other hand, a distinction was made between the eternal being and the creaturely, which came from God. 57c 527 The Antiochenes thought differently (see under), and so did the author of the App. Const., who is exceedingly lax in his views; see, e.g., V. 7, p. 132 (Ed. Lagarde). The latter regards death as an original divine institution, which makes it possible for God to punish or reward. The resurrection was due to the rational soul from God.

an authoritative Biblical doctrine, but it never obtained the same certainty, clearness, or importance among the Greek Fathers as among the Latin (i.e., after Ambrose); see Book II. of our description. The explanation which the theory of original sin furnished for the phenomenon of universal sinfulness was in form similar to Origen’s, but was inferior to it in intelligibility, and was never unreservedly accepted by the Orientals. The later Greeks indeed, doubtless under the influence of the West, recognised original sin, but this only resulted in a contradiction; for the thought that each man was born in puris naturalibus, was, while no longer strictly formulated, never actually condemned. The old dilemma remained, that each man sinned either from a necessity of his nature or in virtue of his freedom; and the former opinion was at all times held in the East to be Manichæan. Inherited death, due to Adam, was taught as a rule; yet even in this matter certain views were never wholly obliterated which are only intelligible if death was regarded as something natural. From the point of view of the doctrine of redemption especially, it could seem more pertinent to hold death to be the natural destiny of man, from which, however, redemption delivered him. Accordingly, after Origen’s theory had been abandoned on account of its want of Biblical support, all that was got in exchange for it was a contradiction: death was something natural and again unnatural. We cannot wonder at this contradiction; in the same way, no one really held the immortality assigned to the primitive state to be something indisputably natural, but neither was it regarded as absolutely supernatural. § 4. The Fall and Original Sin. Doctrine of Redemption. This is the place to define more precisely the influence which this Natural Theology gained on Dogmatics, i.e., on the conceptions of redemption through Jesus Christ. In so doing we 266must keep firmly in mind, that, in spite of this influence, the feeling remained uppermost that redemption was something superlatively exalted, something unmerited, a pure gift of God to humanity. This feeling was, however, more and more encouraged also by the fact that the simple tenets of Natural Theology fell into confusion and became less impressive through the enjoined and ever increasing attention to Biblical texts realistically interpreted, and the necessity of repelling the system of Origen. To this was added the constantly growing reluctance to reflect independently at all, as well as the grand impressions made by the divine dispensation which culminated in the incarnation of the Son of God, and was brought to view in the mysteries. In the first place, the conviction of the lofty and, at bottom, inalienable dignity of man roused the idea that man receives through redemption that which corresponds to his nature. If

adoption to the sons e79 hip of God and participation in the divine nature appeared on the one hand as a gift above all reason and expectation, yet it was looked at on the other as corresponding to the nature of man already fixed in his creation. For man is God’s image, and exalted as he is above the lower animals by his constitution, rises as a spiritual being into the heavenly sphere. Secondly, the last word that Natural Theology has to say of man is that he is a free and rational being, introduced into the opposition of good and evil. Such a being has really to do with God only in his capacity of creator and rewarder. All other points of contact must necessarily always resolve into that. Again, for such a being there can only exist one good, that is knowledge, which includes virtue, and besides this certain rewards alone find a place; for his nature requires that he should be independent in all his movements, nay, these only possess any value through such independence. The Deity stands at the beginning and the close of the history of free men as the power that creates and rewards. But the intervening space is not occupied by the Deity himself in order to govern man, and to preserve his allegiance. On the contrary, man has to deal solely with divine knowledge and rules in accordance with 267which his freedom is meant to evince itself; for this freedom, while in itself a liberty of choice, was given to him that he might achieve, in a zealous pursuit of virtue based on rational knowledge, the moral perfection possessed by the Deity Himself. This whole view, which is familiar to us from the Apologists, was never completely lost by the Greek Fathers. Its first consequence was that henceforth the whole of religion could be,— as already in the case of the Apologists—and was, looked at from the point of view of knowledge and law. It appeared as a morality based on pure knowledge of God and the world, one to which nothing could be added. Along with freedom, the natural moral law was implanted in man, that is, the sure consciousness of the rules, by which he had to prove what was in him. The rules corresponded ultimately to the laws of the universe set in operation and maintained by God as supreme First Cause. This natural law, when it had been obscured in the mind of man, was repeated in the Decalogue by an external legislation, and, on account of the hardheartedness of the Jews, was supplemented with burdens, temporary commandments and it was finally reduced by Jesus Christ to the simplest of formulas, set in operation by the impressive preaching of rewards and punishments, and perfectly fulfilled by Jesus. He revealed the perfect knowledge of God, and

restored the natural moral law—these two statements being really identical, for in both God appears as the supreme cause.528 In this statement 268we have already mentioned the second consequence of the speculation: all grace can only possess the character of a support, of a rectification of knowledge. The whole of the operations of God’s grace are in the end, crutches offered to feeble man. In offering them, God reveals a goodness which, after what he has already done in creation, is without any fixed limit. Grace is therefore not absolutely necessary for every man. ee7 529 God, again, by no means reveals himself in it even as the blessing which man requires, but he simply imparts complete knowledge, and thus explains, and strengthens the motives for observing, the rules of conduct which man had long possessed. But in the third place, it follows from the speculation, that sin is nothing but the transgression, induced by imperfect knowledge, of those rules, whose observance does not exhibit man’s dependence on God, but his independence and freedom. Sin subjects man to the judgment of God. Punishment is the gravest result of sin. But God would not be just, if he were not an indulgent judge. His goodness which supports man, has its counterpart in the indulgence which overlooks the time of ignorance of the individual, and leaves

528

We perceive the Greek conception most clearly from the law in Apost. Const. VI. 19-24. The section begins with the words: γνόντες γὰρ Θεὸν διὰ Ἰὴσοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τὴν σύµπασαν αὐτοῦ οἰκονοµίαν ἀρχῆθεν γεγενηµένην, ὅτι δέδωκε νόµον ἁπλοῦν εἰς βοήθειαν τοῦ φυσικοῦ καθαρόν, σωτήριον, ἅγιον, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὸ ἴδιον ὄνοµα ἐγκατέθετο. The Decalogue is meant; it was given to the nation before 564 its revolt, and God had no intention of adding sacrificial regulations, but tolerated sacrifices. After the revolt (of the golden calf) he himself, however, gave the ceremonial law: “He bound the people with irremovable fetters, and imposed heavy burdens and a hard yoke upon them, that they might abandon idolatry and turn again to that law which God had implanted by nature in all men” (ch. XX.). These “branding irons, lancets, and medicines” were, however, only for the sick. Christians who voluntarily believed in one God were delivered by him, above all, from the sacrificial service. Christ has fulfilled (κυρώσας) the law, but removed the additions, “if not all, yet the more irksome”; this is the opposite of Tertullian’s opinion. He restored man’s right of self-determination, and in doing so confirmed the natural law (τὸν φυσικὸν νόµον ἐβεβαίωσεν). More rigorous conditions are only apparent. Just vengeance is even yet permitted, toleration is only better: οὐ τὰ φυσικὰ πὰθη ἐκκόπτειν ἐνοµοθέτησεν ἀλλὰ τὴν τούτων ἀµετρίαν (This is not the usual Greek view, but a conception peculiar to this lax author). But Christ himself abolished what had been “added” solely by fulfilling it first in his life and death, or by trans 564 forming the ceremonies into spiritual rites. The respect which Irenæus, as distinguished from the older teachers, had already entertained for the ceremonial law is shown even more clearly here. 529 Yet see what is said below on Macarius.

unpunished the sins of men whenever they feel penitent.530 Since it is impossible in this whole 269question that there can be any suggestion of a restoration of man to that communion with God which he had forsaken, since on the contrary, the sole point was that man, to whom it was always possible to return, should not be impeded while striving and yet stumbling, the view was, in fact, inevitable that God remits punishment to every penitent. God would not appear just, but harsh and unloving, if he did not accept sincere penitence as an equivalent for transgressions. It was accordingly agreed that, although men are sinners, they become just in the sight of God through virtue and penitence, and redemption to eternal life through Christ can only benefit such as have acquired this righteousness through their independent efforts. The sacraments initiated men into this effort to obtain virtue, and they had also an indescribable influence upon it. But personal fulfilment of the law was still something thoroughly independent. Finally, it followed from this moral view, that it was impossible to gain a clear idea of the state of perfection. A state of freedom and a perfect virtue based on perfect knowledge cannot be raised higher than they are, and that which is given to reward the latter can never be intrinsically connected with it. The complete vacuity of the conceptions held of the final state, apart from the effect of the hope of an ever increasing knowledge, i.e., vision of God, was accordingly also the natural consequence of the conviction that man, because he is free, is dependent on no one, and that he is always at the goal when he fulfils the law of God. Thirdly, the rationalistic exposition of the doctrine of God and creation could not fail to impel apologists to expound the reasonableness of the doctrines of the Trinity, the resurrection of the body, etc. As a matter of fact the attempt was even made to prove the existence of a general agreement, a “common sense”, as to the doctrine of the Trinity, and references were especially made to heathen philosophers, though, on the other hand, when it seemed 530

Forgiveness of sins was a conception which in this connection could hardly be carried out by the Fathers. The passing over of the time of ignorance and the acceptance of the reparation involved in penitence constituted forgiveness. Hardly another teacher from and after the fourth century, has expressed it so clearly as Clemens Alex.: τῶν προγεγενηµένων Θεὸς δίδωσιν ἄφεσιν, τῶν δὲ ἐπιόντων αὐτὸς ἕκαστος 564 ἑαυτῷ (Quis div. salv. 40, cf. Strom. II. 14, 58, and elsewhere); but the statement as to Christ in Pædag. I. 3, 7: τὰ µὲν ἁµαρτήµατα ὡς Θεὸς ἀφιείς, εἰς δὲ τὸ µὴ ἐξαµαρτάνειν παιδαγωγῶν ὡς ἄνθρωπος, formed a part of the fundamental view of the following age. We cannot wonder at this. Between mechanical expiations and penitence there is in fact no third term, as soon as the forgiveness of sins is applied to individual cases. Only where faith in forgiveness is the faith itself, is it more than a word, and yet not magical.

expedient, the Greeks were denied any knowledge of the Trinity. Such references were all the more natural, since Neoplatonic philosophers, and at an earlier date Numenius, had constructed a kind of trinity. Cyril, again, in his Catechisms, supported 270the resurrection of the b 3dd4 ody to a very large extent on rational grounds, and others followed his example. For the extent to which even the doctrine of the Incarnation was included in Natural Theology, see following chapter. Fourthly, from all this it followed, that man could ultimately receive nothing from history which he could not, nay, had not to, wrest for himself. But the Logos in the flesh (λόγος ἔνσαρκος) belonged to history. Accordingly, it was impossible wholly to get rid of the view that there was a standpoint for which the historical Christ, since he was merely the edifying teacher, meant nothing. This view was, as we know, expressed perfectly plainly by Origen (see Vol. II., p. 342, n. 1); and in this he by no means stood alone. It was not only repeated by half-heathen theologians, like Synesius, but it runs like a hidden thread through the conceptions of all Greek theologians, as long as they continued to think independently. It is the negative complement of the idea that the knowledge accompanied by virtue, which transcends all that is visible, and therefore all that is historical, includes blessedness in itself, and moreover, that it can be achieved from our own resources through a direct afflatus divinus. But still further: even in Augustine this view was not wholly surmounted. The man, who perceived the Deity, and had gained faith, love, and hope, stood beside the throne of God, and was with the Father of light and his essential Word; the historical Christ lay beneath him.531 Further, even opponents of Origen, like Methodius and his successors, the mystics, had arrived at the same conception (see Vol. III., p. 110). For the ascetic mystic history passed away along with the world; he might cast aside all crutches, traversing independently the long, mysterious path from the extreme outside to the inmost recess of the spiritual. At the end of this path there stood, not Jesus Christ, but the unembodied Logos (λόγος ἄσαρκος), since he was pure truth and pure life. An incarnate Christ (ἔνσαρκος) was born in each who traversed this path. He in whom Christ was born, however, no longer needed the historical Christ.532 271

531

Augustine, De doctr. I. 34. See even Augustine, on John, tract. 21, n. 8: “Gratulemur e 564 t gratias agamus non solum nos Christianos factos esse, sed Christum . . . admiramini gaudete: Christus facti sumus.” 532

Rationalism, or Christianity as the moral law which is freely fulfilled, and mysticism are regarded as opposites, and so they are before the tribunal of philosophy. But before that of positive religion they are not, they are rather akin, at least in the form in which they confront us in antiquity.533 Mysticism of course embraces germs which when unfolded will resist rationalism. But at first it is nothing but rationalism applied to a sphere above reason (ratio). The admission that there was such a sphere formed the difference. It was mysticism as much as rationalistic moralism which secretly formed an opposition to the Christianity proclaimed by Jesus Christ to be the way and the truth for all men and for every grade. The most vital piety of the Greek Fathers, and the strenuous effort to make themselves at home in religion, insured them at least against losing the historical Christ. But it was only a danger that here threatened. We may not say more. The Deity had come down to earth, God had become man, and that in the historical Jesus—faith in this stupendous fact, “the newest of the new, nay, the only new thing under the sun,” limited all rationalism. It imperatively demanded the investigation, on the one hand, of the ground and cause, on the other, of the fruit and blessing, of this divine dispensation. It was necessary to find the relation of the latter to the mystery and horror of death. It was indeed impossible to make the “naturalness” of death credible; for all nature, higher and lower, rebelled against it. And the consciousness of a capacity for perfect knowledge and goodness underlay in practical life the sense of incapacity. Hence the conviction that man must be redeemed, and through Jesus Christ is redeemed. The doctrines of innate freedom, the law, and the independent achievement of virtue were not abandoned; 272but they were counterbalanced by faith in the necessity and reality of redemption. And this combination, unsatisfactory as it seems to us, was yet capable of forming men of Christian character. Such men were never wanting in any century of the older Greek Church after Athanasius and Chrysostom, although their theology lacked the confession of the Psalmist: “It is good for me to cleave to God” (Mihi adhærere deo bonum est).534

533

Bigg (The Christian Platonists of Alex., 1886, p. 51 f.) has also correctly perceived this; he is speaking of the attitude of Clement and of the Alexandrians generally: “On one side Rationalist, on another Mystic.” “Though there is in them a strong vein of Common Sense or Rationalism, they were not less sensible of the mystic supernatural side of the religious life than Irenaeus. The difference is that with them the mystical grows out of the rational.” 534 The text is indeed quoted by Macarius (Ep. I. fin) as the sum of all knowledge. But even to this theologian, who came neare a94 st Western thought in some paraenetic

Instead of multiplying details we may here give the views on freedom, sin, and grace, of four eminent Greek Fathers, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and John of Damascus. (1) Athanasius.—The conceptions formed by Athanasius of the original state of man, of sin and grace, show especially his inability to distinguish between nature and grace. In his work “De incarnatione”535 he strove to prove that the incarnation was a necessity on the part of God. Therefore he emphasises strongly the destiny of man, and distinguishes it sharply from his empirical condition; for this destiny sets God a task which he must carry out under all circumstances, if his goodness (ἀγαθότης) is to remain in force. Therefore, in many of the arguments of this work, human nature appears as the creaturely and sensuous constitution, while everything else, including the endowment of reason, takes the form of a donum superadditum, potentially given in the original state, and binding on God himself, a gift of grace, which was meant to rise to complete 273knowledge of God through the free moral development of man.—for that was the goal. [Athanasius uses very different expressions for this in his writings: φαντασία περὶ Θεόυ (power of conceiving God), γνῶσις (knowledge) κατανόησις (perception) κατάληψις (comprehension) θεωρία τῶν θείων (theory of divine things) θεωρία τῶν νοητῶν (—of the intelligible) θεωρία περὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ (science of God) ἔννοια τῆς εἰς πατέρα γνώσεως (concept of knowledge as to the Father)]. The change which took place in man through sin, or through death, is accordingly conceived as a loss of the divine. God is at the same time supremely interested in preventing man, once destined to obtain

remarks, and frequently drew the sharpest contrast between nature and grace (see Hom. I. 10, IV. 7-9), the “cleaving to God” meant nothing but the independent decision for God. The following passage (Hom. IV. 5) proves how remote Macarius was from Augustine: “How should God treat a man who, in the exercise of free will, devotes himself to the world, lets himself be seduced by its pleasures, or revels in dissipations? God only sends his help to him who renounces worldly pleasures, and preserves himself completely from the snares and traps of the sensuous world,” etc. Here we see that the contrast between nature and grace was not so seriously meant. The same is the case with “law and gospel.” No Greek Father was able to regard these as contrasted in the same way as we see them in the writings of Paul and Augustine. 535 On its authenticity, see the next chapter.

perfect divine knowledge, from becoming a prey to his lower nature, and being destroyed.536 But even in the De incarn., and to a still greater extent in his later anti-Arian writings, Athanasius defends the idea that the rational spirit (ψυχὴ λογική—Athanasius being a dichotomist) belongs to man’s constitution, is immortal, and at bottom also inalienable. This ψυχὴ λογική can gradually recognise the Logos and God from creation; it is, accordingly, not only an inalienable religious talent, but also an inalienable religious factor. Its power extends so far that there have been holy men in all ages (c. gent. 2; c. Arian. III: 33: πολλοὶ γὰρ οὖν ἃγιοι γεγόνασι καθαροὶ πάσης ἁµαρτίας). The reconciliation of the two contradictory statements,’ that the higher endowment appears first as grace, then as nature, is to be found in the following points. (1) The ψυχὴ λογική is only rational (logical) because it participates in the Logos, is his image, possesses a shadow of him (De incarn. 3), and retains its power only when steadfastly connected with him. For this reason it can be termed, although a natural provision, an “external” (c. Arian. II. 68: “Adam was outside before his transgression, having received grace and not having had it adapted to his body”; ὁ Ἀδὰµ πρὸ τῆς παραβάσεως ἔξωθεν ἧν, λαβὼν τὴν χάριν καὶ µὴ στνηρµοσµένην ἔχων αὐτὴν τῷ σώµατι.). (2) It is only in the apologetic arguments of the treatise De incarn. that Adam’s fall and its consequence appear as forming a tremendous cleavage, and the state before 274and after the fall as a contrast. That was not the characteristic view of Athanasius,537 as is shown by other arguments in the same writing, and the rest of the tractates. He contemplates not a loss once for all, but a gradual enfeeblement. Mankind has more and more lost, from generation to generation, the consciousness of God, i.e., through the darkening of his mind. That which above all burdened humanity, however, was not sin, but the sentence of death pronounced by God on the sinner—see next chapter. The faculties for knowing God, and thus for attaining the goal, remained, but there was no corresponding power actually to reach the goal. A Catholic investigator has expressed this as follows:538 “Sinful man gradually lost, according to Athanasius, what was supernatural in his prerogatives, and retained only what was

536

De incarn. IV.: ἡ παράβασις τῆς ἐντολῆς εἰς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν αὐτοὺς ἐπέστρεψεν.. Accordingly, everything is supernatural which raises man above the level of nature. 537 Against Wendt Die christl. Lehre von der menschlichen Volkommenheit (1880), p. 47 f. 538 Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des h. Athainasius. (1880), p. 156.

natural. Supernatural were moral goodness on the one hand, the correct consciousness and due use of rationality and immortality on the other; while rationality and immortality generally were natural.” The intrusion here of the modern Catholic categories of “natural and “supernatural” is incorrect; for the spiritual nature of man was held by all the Fathers to be supernatural. But the idea is correct. But we must go further. The difference here is exclusively quantitative; it is only qualitative from the fact that what remains of higher powers is as a rule of less than its initial value, i.e., is no longer capable of reaching the goal. The same Catholic scholar is therefore perfectly correct, when—expressing himself with due caution—he finds (p. 159 f.) that Athanasius “does not seem to treat” the punishment of sin—better, sin—“with sufficient gravity”. “He teaches, indeed, that the spiritual gifts of man were lost through sin, but he conceives this ruin as gradual in time and degree, depending on the extent to which men had turned from the contemplation of the spiritual and to the sensuous”; i.e., Athanasius simply follows an empirical and natural line of thought, in virtue of which he finds in mankind very different grades of moral and intellectual position. That this was a consequence of human freedom constituted 275a sufficient explanation in itself and freed the Deity of all blame. But it did not explain the universality of death, and left out of account Gen. I.—III. The above empirical view, which ultimately, indeed, cast a certain shadow on the Deity, and these chapters of the Bible compelled him to secure, somehow or other, a historical beginning for the present condition and therewith an original state of man. But the relations of the present to that beginning are really exhausted in the continuance of the once pronounced sentence of death;539 and the primitive state, which is clearly enough described (c. gentes 2, De incarn. 3, 4) as a destiny—Adam himself having not yet attained what his endowments fitted him for, continued in this sense; nay, it ultimately embraced the idea that God was under the necessity of bringing the sentence of death to an end. However, Athanasius did arrive at positive conclusions as to the specific grace bestowed in the Christian redemption, in his polemic against the Arians. It is not to be wondered at that the discussion of grace in connection with creation and the natural endowments of man only resulted, on the premises stated by the Fathers, in tautologies. But against the Arians, where Athanasius was not interested in cosmology, he shows that we have received from grace what was by nature peculiar to the Son, and he definitely distinguishes between grace in creation and in

af6 539All men were lost in Adam’s transgression,” c. Arian. II. 61.

redemption. 1b64 Deut. XXXII. 6, 7, 18, where it is said that God created and begot men, he interprets as follows: “By creating, Moses describes the natural state of men, for they are works and beings made; by begetting, he lets us see the love of God to them after their creation” (c. Arian. II. 58). Similarly on John I. 12, 13: “John makes use of the words ‘to become’ because they are called sons, not by nature, but by adoption; but he has employed the word ‘begotten’, because they in any case have received the name of son . . . The goodness of God consists in this, that he afterwards becomes, by grace, the father of those whose creator he already is. He becomes their father, however, when—as the Apostle says— the men who have been created receive into their hearts the Spirit of his Son, which calls, ‘Abba, Father.’ But the latter 276consist of all who have received the Word and have obtained power from him to become children of God. For since by nature they are creatures, they can only become sons by receiving the spirit of the natural and true Son. In order that this may happen the Word became flesh, that men might be made capable of receiving the Deity. This conception can also be found in the Prophet Malachi, who says: ‘Did not one God create you? Have you not all one Father?’ For here again he says in the first place ‘created’, and in the second ‘father’, in order similarly to show that we are first, and by nature, creatures, but afterwards are adopted as sons, God the creator becoming also our father,” etc. (c. Arian. II. 59). These expositions are certainly worth noting, but we must not overestimate them; for in the same discourses against the Arians they are modified to the effect that our sonship depends on the Logos dwelling in us, i.e., it receives a cosmological basis (see c. Arian. III. 10). In some passages it indeed looks as if the Logos only dwelt in us in consequence of the incarnation (see above and l. c. IV. 22); but it is quite clear in others that Athanasius thought of an indwelling before the incarnation, an indwelling wholly independent of it. With the recollection that there were sons of God in the O. T., Athanasius proves that the Logos was eternal. Accordingly, it is with him as with Clement of Alexandria: when the Fathers are not dealing with apologetic theology, and disregard the O. T., they are able to comprehend and describe the grace due to the historical Christ in its specific significance; but when they reason connectedly everything ultimately resolves into the natural endowment fixed once for all. Literature.—See, besides the works quoted of Atzberger and Wendt, Möhler, Athanasius, I. p. 136 ff. Voigt, Athanasius, p. 104 ff., and Ritschl, Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung, 2 Ed. Vol. I. p. 8 ff.

(2) Gregory of Nyssa.—Gregory’s theories also appear to be hampered by a contradiction because they are sketched from two different points of view. On the one hand he regards the nature of man in spirit and body as constituting his true being. To him, as opposed to Origen, the whole earthly world is 277good, a mirror of divine wisdom and power, a place meant to be pervaded by the divine. Before this could be possible “it was necessary that a union should be effected between its essential elements and the higher spiritual and divine nature, whereby first the divine shone as through a glass into the earthly world, after which the earthly, elevated with the divine, could be freed from liability to decay, and be transfigured. This central significance, this part of constituting a bond between two worlds in themselves opposed, was assigned to man, who stood at the head of the ascending scale of earthly creatures, which he comprehended like a microcosm, while he also as λογικὸν ζῶον (a rational being) projected into the invisible world, in virtue of his nature made in the image of God, i.e., spiritual and moral, and, especially, ethically free. This nature of man, besides, being created, possessed nothing of itself, but only like the sun-loving eye turned ever of its own accord to the eternal light, living on it, and interpreting it to the earthly world to which it essentially belonged.”540 But on the other hand, though Gregory rejected Origen’s theories of the pre-existence of souls, the pretemporal fall, and the world as a place of punishment (περὶ κατασκευῆς ἀνθρώπων, ch. 28, 29), regarding them as Hellenic dogmas and therefore mythological, yet he was dominated by the fundamental thought which led Origen to the above view. The spiritual and the earthly and sensuous resisted each other. If man was, as Scripture says, created in the image of God,541 then he was a spiritual being, and his being so constituted his nature (see l.c. ch. 16-18). Man was a self-determining, but, because created, a changeable spirit, meant to share in all the blessings of God. So far as he had a sensuous side, and was mortal, he was not an 278image of God. Gregory now laid stress on man (homo)—as he conceived it, humanity—having been first created, and then having been

540

See Catech. mag. 5, 6, and the work, περὶ ψυχ. κ. ἀναστας., as also περὶ κατασκ. ἀνθρωπ. 2 ff. 16. Möller in Herzog R.-E., 2 Ed. Vol. V., p. 401, and his work, Gregorii Nyss. de natura hom. doctr. illustr. et cum Origeniana comparata, 1854. 541 Orat. I. T. I., p. 150: Κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἔχω τὸ λογικὸς εἶναι καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν δὲ γίνοµαι ἐν τῷ Χριστιανὸς γενέσθαι. The “image” cannot consist in the bodily. The latter is at most a copy of the “image,” see περὶ κατασκ. ἀνθρωπ. 8, 12. But the “image” itself implies that it can only really be completely produced by free self-determination on the part of man. “If any compulsion obtained, the image would not be realised.” (Catech. mag. 5).

fashioned into male and female. He concluded from this that the earthly and sensuous side of man was ἐπιγεννηµατική, a subsequent creation, that, accordingly, the spiritual in man was conceptually the primary, and his sensuous and bodily nature the secondary, part of him.542 He further concluded that man was originally designed to l 50dc ive a sexless life like the angels, that God would have multiplied men as he did the angels by his power “in a noble fashion” (περὶ κατασκ., 17), and that the proper and natural dwelling-place of men was the pure and incorporeal future state. But near as he was to consequences drawn by Origen,543 Gregory rejected them. The destiny of man sketched above was an ideal one. In other words, God, looking to the Fall, at once created and added the earthly and sensuous nature of man; nay, this was not merely due to the Fall, but, as is shown by the first line of thought given above, the earthly nature of man had also, since it was possessed by divine energies and transfigured, a lasting significance. But the Paradisaical state in which men lived before the Fall, was not the highest; for the body was not transfigured, though it had not yet been stained by sexual intercourse. The highest state, in so far as it was brought about by the resurrection (εἰς τὸ ἀρχαῖον τῆς φύσεως ἡµῶν ἀποκατάστασις), was that which notionally preceded the life in Paradise, but had never till now been concretely realised. It was life in its incorporeal abode after the fashion of the angels.544 The incarnation of God had procured this state 279for all who, in virtue of their freedom, led a holy life, i.e., who lived as man did in Paradise before the Fall; for that was possible to man even when on earth. In all this we must remember that Gregory’s hold on the traditional dependence on Gen. I.-III. was very loose: he does not speak of Adam, but always of us. All men had the same freedom as Adam.545 All souls really passed

542

We have, however, to make a distinction here. As a creaturely spirit man necessarily has a body, just as every picture has a material foundation, and every mirror a back. This body, therefore, belonged, according to Gregory, to the notion of man’s nature; it was the phenomenon of the soul as the latter was the noumenon of the body. But Gregory distinguishes this body from the sensuous and sexually differentiated one. 543 ace Gregory borders very closely upon them, not only in περὶ κατασκ., but also in other writings. The fall does not, indeed, take the form of an event in the experience of individual men actually to be found in a pre-existent state, but of a kind of “intelligible collective deed of all humanity.” 544 See περὶ κατασκ. ἀνθρωπ. 16-18. 545 Gregory here carries his speculation still further: God did not first create a single man, but the whole race in a previously fixed number; these collectively composed only

through Adam’s history. Above all, no transference of sin took place, although Gregory is a Traducian (see περὶ κατ. ανθρ. ch. 29); every man sinned, because in virtue of his freedom he could sin, and by his sensuous nature (πάθη) was induced to sin. By this means a state of depravity and death was introduced—sin also being death—from which man in fact could not deliver himself. Nothing but the union of God with humanity procured redemption. Redemption was, in harmony with the speculations as to Adam, strictly objective, and the question as to its appropriation was therefore, at bottom, no question. A new condition was revealed for all men without any co-operation on their part, but it became real only to those who led a holy life, i.e., who abstained entirely from sin. Literature.—See, besides Möller’s work, Wendt, l.c., P. 49 f.; Herrmann, Gregorii Nyss. sententiæ de salute adipiscenda, 1875; Bergades, De universo et de anima hominis doctrina Gregorii Nyss., Thessalonich, 1876; Stigler, Die Psychologie des hl. Gregor von Nyssa, Regensburg, 1857; Ritschl., l.c. Vol. I. p. 12 ff.; Hilt, Des hl. Gregor von Nyssa Lehre vom Menschen, Köln, 1890. (3) Theodore.—Even in Irenæus546 two inconsistent conceptions of the result of redemption stood side by side. It was held, on the one hand, to restore man to the original state from which he had fallen, and, on the other, to raise him from the primitive natural state of childhood to a higher stage. The 280majority of the Greek Fathers were not in a position to decide bluntly for either of these ideas; yet the former, under the influence of Origen, prevailed. It was only in the school of Antioch that it was really rejected, that the other view was emphatically avowed, and thus the most decided attitude adopted of opposition to Origen’s theology.547 The view of the Antiochenes was teleological—but there was an entire absence of any religious view of sin. In this respect it was directly opposed to Augustine’s system.

one nature. They were really one man, divided into a multiplicity. Adam—that means all (περὶ κατασκ. 16, 17, 22). In God’s prescience the whole of humanity was comprised in the first preparation. 546 See Vol. II., p. 267 ff. 547 It is instructive that Marcellus also thinks of a glory presented through redemption, which is ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον.

According to Theodore,548 God’s plan included from the beginning two epochs (“Καταστάσεις”), the present and future states of the world. The former was characterised by changeableness, temptation, and mortality, the latter by perfection, immutability, and immortality. The new age only began with the resurrection of the dead, its original starting-point being the incarnation of the Son of God. Further, there was a spiritual and a sensuous. Man was composed of both, the body having been created first, and the soul having then been breathed into it. This is the opposite of Gregory of Nyssa’s view. Man was the connecting link between the two spheres; he was designed to reveal the image of God in this world. “Like a king, who, after building a great city and adorning it with works of every kind, causes, when the whole is completed, a fine statue of himself to be erected, in which all the inhabitants may gratefully revere the constructor, so the Creator of the world, after he had elaborated his work, finally produced man to be his own image, and all creatures find in him their centre, and thus contribute to the due glorification of God.” Now although man is equipped with all the powers of reason and of will, yet, from the very nature of his Present condition, he is changeable, is defeated in the conflict, and is mortal. Not till the new principle of life was imparted by means of Christ 281could the changeable nature be raised to immutability. Till then, accordingly, man was exposed to temptation, and as a being made up of spirit and body was necessarily mortal. The threat of death in Paradise did not mean that death was the consequence of sin—it was rather natural; but it was designed to inspire man with as great a hatred of sin, as if the latter were punished by death. Death, natural in itself, was a divine means of education, and accordingly salutary. “God knew that mortality would be beneficial to Adam, for if they had been invested with immortality, men, when they sinned, would have been exposed to eternal destruction.” But even the permission of sin was salutary, and formed part of the divine plan of education. God gave a command, and thereby elicited sin, in order that he might, like a loving Father, teach man his freedom of choice and weakness. “Man was to learn that while he was in a state of moral changeableness, he would not be capable of sustaining an immortal existence. Therefore death was announced to him as the penalty of disobedience, although mortality was from the beginning an

548

See Kihn, Theodor von Mops., p. 171 ff. Also the examples partly taken from Theodore’s commentaries on Gene aa4 sis, Job, and Paul’s epistles (see Swete, Theodori in epp. Pauli comment. 1880, 1881), partly from fragments of other writings of Theodore; cf. also Dorner, Theodori de imagine dei doctrina, 1844.

attribute of human nature.”549 No sin without a command, but also no knowledge of good and evil, of the possession of spiritual faculties, finally, no conflict. Accordingly, God gave the command in order to raise Adam above the stage of childhood, and it necessarily provoked conflict and defeat. Adam is, however, to be thought of here, not as the ancestor, but as the type, of the human race. The law was given with the same object to all his descendants, to teach them to distinguish between good and evil, and to know their own powers and weakness. In the history of Adam we become acquainted with our own natural disposition. “In keeping with this we are under the necessity in our present life of rendering obedience to laws by which our natural power of making distinctions is awakened, we, meanwhile, being taught from what we ought to abstain and what to do, that the principles of reason may be active in us. Only when we find ourselves in the future state (Katastasis) will we be able with slight effort to perform what we recognise as good. Without law, therefore, 282we would have had no distinction between good and evil, and no knowledge of sin, and like irrational animals we would have done whatever occurred to us.” In this state knowledge and fighting are required to obtain the victory, but we are constantly hampered by the body, the source of temptations. Christ first gave us redemption from death, an immortal nature, which, therefore, will obtain the victory without effort (on Rom. V. 18). Theodore was able to explain away the Pauline passages which support a transmission of the death worked by sin, just as he ignored the life of the first man in Paradise before the Fall. All men died because of their own sinful actions; but even this was meant figuratively. They died because of their natural constitution, in which sin was latent. He opposed Augustine’s and Jerome’s doctrine of original sin in an independent work, fragments of which have been preserved by Marius Mercator. “Adam was created mortal whether he sinned or not. For God did not say, ‘Ye will be mortal,’ but ‘Ye will die.’” Theodore quoted Ps. CIII. 15, and Rome. II. 6. Against original sin he appealed to the case of saints like Noah, Abraham, and Moses. If God had passed sentence of death on all as the punishment of sin, he would not have made Enoch immortal. Accordingly, Baptism did not, according to Theodore, remove inherited sin, but initiated the believer into sinless discipleship of Christ, and at the same time blotted out the sins he had himself committed. In the former sense it had its use even for children; for Baptism, like all grace emanating from the

549

Kihn, l. c., p. 174.

incarnation, raised man to a new stage, elevated him above his present nature, and prepared him for the future state (Katastasis). This is most strongly emphasised by Theodore, and here his teaching is distinguished from the doctrines of Pelagius and Julian of Eclanum,550 who subordinated redemption through Christ completely to the rationalistic theory. That Theodore did not do. While he was thoroughly convinced, with Pelagius, that in the present state everything turned on men’s own actions which rested on knowledge, freedom, effort, and heroic fighting, yet he was equally certain on the other hand, 283that human nature did not attain immutability, immortality, and sinlessness through this conflict—it was merely a condition—but only through redemption. For this reason Christ came. He did not restore, but produced a new, a higher state. He did not heal, but transfigured.551 Theodore’s doctrine of man was strictly rationalistic and Aristotelian; it surpassed the theories of all the rest of the Greek Fathers in intelligibility and consistency. But for that very reason it did not correspond to all the ideas and desires embraced in the tradition of the Church. (4) John of Damascus.—The doctrines taught by this dogmatist became final in the Greek Church, the later Symbols being substantially at one with them,552 because he combined the conceptions of the Cappadocians with the Antiochene tradition, in the modified form assumed by the latter in Chrysostom, and at the same time did justice to the constantly increasing tendency to refrain as much as possible from allegorising Gen. I. ff. Briefly, John taught as follows:553— Since God, “overflowing with goodness”, was not satisfied with the contemplation of himself, but desired to have some one to whom he could do good, he created the universe, angels, and men. Even the angels were immortal, not by nature, but by grace; for everything which has a beginning has necessarily an end. But

550

See Kihn, l. c., p. 179 f. Chrysostom agrees entirely with Theodore in the opinion that man’s free will takes the first step, which is then seconded by God with his power, in the appropriation of the good; see his notes on Rom. IX. 16, in Hom. 16; in ep. ad Heb., Hom. 12; in Ev. Joh., Hom. 17, etc. The passages are reproduced in Münscher, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte (1832), p. 363 ff. 552 See Gass, Symbolik d. griech. Kirche, p. 150 ff. 553 De fide orthod. II. 2 ff., 11 ff. 24-30; III. 1, 14, 20; IV. 4, 11, 19-22, and the Homily in “ficum arefactum,” as also the Dialogue against the Manichæans. Langen. l. c., p. 289 ff.; Wendt, l. c., p. 59 ff. 551

immortality being a gift became natural to spiritual beings, and therefore also to men. Men were created by God from nature, visible and invisible, in his own image, to be kings and rulers of the whole earth. Before their creation God had prepared Paradise for them to be as it were a royal castle, “set by his hands in Eden, a store-house of all joy and delight, situated to the East, and higher than the whole earth, but 284tempered and illumined by the finest and purest air, planted with ever blossoming flowers, filled with perfume, full of light, surpassing every idea of earthly grace and beauty, a truly divine place.”554 But it was only with his body that man was supposed to live in this material Paradise; he inhabited with his spirit at the same time the “spiritual” Paradise, which is indicated by the tree of life.555 Of the tree of knowledge he was not at first to eat; for knowledge, while good for the perfect, is bad for the imperfect. The result of knowledge in the case of the imperfect was to make man, instead of devoting himself to the contemplation and praise of God, think of himself: Adam, immediately after eating, noticed that he was naked. “God intended that we should be free from desire and care, and occupied solely with luxuriating in the contemplation of himself.” The eating “of all the trees” denoted the knowledge of God from the works of nature. In created man— the union of visible and invisible nature—the image of God consisted in power of thought and freedom of will, likeness to him in similarity in virtue, so far as that was possible. Soul and body (as against Origen) were created together. Man was originally innocent, upright, and adorned with all virtues;556 his being so was a gift of grace; but so also was the fact that he was spiritual. He was spiritual that he might endure and praise his benefactor; corporeal, that he might be disciplined by suffering and the recollection of suffering; he was too proud of his greatness. Man was created a being who ruled in this present life, and was transferred to another.557 He was finally to be made divine by submission to God: his deification 285consisting in participation in the divine glory, not in a transformation into the divine essence.

acf 554

Accordingly we have here a recrudescence to some extent of what the older Greek Fathers called “Judaism” or “earthly conceptions,” cf. Peter’s Apocalypse. 555 Two traditional, inconsistent ideas are combined here; John was not quite clear as to the tree of life. He gives different explanations of it in De fide II. 11 and IV. 11. 556 This is strongly emphasised by John (II. 12, IV. 4); but he has carefully avoided stating how God could on his part adorn men with virtues. It cannot be proved that this is to be attributed to the influence of the West. Such an assumption is not necessary, for we also find in the older Greek Fathers rhetorical glorifications of the primitive state which do not harmonise with the system of doctrine. 557 These are the two states (katastaseis) of the Antiochenes.

Actually, i.e., according to the logical development of the system, the innocence of primitive man consisted in his power to be innocent, and, with the support of divine grace, to abide by and advance in goodness. A necessary converse of this was the power to revolt; “for it is no virtue which is done under compulsion”. Man, “that little world”, retained, however, along with his spiritual attributes, those of irrational nature; even in his soul there was an irrational part, which was partly capable of submitting to the rational, but was partly independent of it (the vital functions). The former embraced the desires, some of which were within limits permitted, while the others were not. But, the vital functions apart, over all was placed free will. It is in our power to choose, and man decides on his own actions. His origin alone is God’s affair. “But error was produced by our wickedness for our punishment and benefit For God did not make death, nor did he delight in the ruin of the living; on the contrary, death was due to man, i.e., to Adam’s transgression, and so also were the other penalties.”558 It was not right to attribute everything to divine providence; “for that which is in our power is not the affair of providence, but of our own free will.” God, certainly, in virtue of his omniscience, knows everything from all eternity; he therefore assists by his grace those who, he knows, will avail themselves of it. They alone are also predestinated; their decision to be and do good is known to God. Those are damned to whom all the supports of grace are in vain.559 With all this it remains true that all virtue comes from God; for by him it was implanted in nature, and by his support alone it is maintained. Accordingly, we have once 1590 more the principle that nature, rational and free, is a gift of grace; to be natural is to be virtuous, and conversion is the return from the unnatural.560 286

Man was created male. Woman was formed merely because God foresaw the Fall, and in order that the race might be preserved in spite of death.561 Man did not allow reason to triumph; he mistook the path of honour, and preferred his lusts. Consequently, instead of living for ever, he fell a prey to death and became subject to tribulation and a miserable life. For it was not good that he should enjoy immortality untempted and unproved, lest he should share the pride and condemnation of the devil.

558

The significance of Adam’s fall for his posterity is recognised (II. 28), but it is noteworthy, only cursorily. John has no separate chapter on the Fall in his great work. Even II. 30, only discusses it under a more general heading. 559 See, l. c., II. 29, 30; IV. 22. 560 II. 30. 561 L. c., see Gregory of Nyssa.

“Accordingly, man was first to attest himself, and, made perfect by observance of the commandment when tempted, was then to obtain immortality as the reward of virtue. For, placed between God and matter, he was to acquire steadfastness in goodness, after he had abandoned his natural relation to things, and become habitually united to God.” But, seduced by the devil who enviously grudged man the possession which he had himself lost, man turned to matter, and so, severed from God, his First Cause, became subject to suffering, and mortal, and required sexual intercourse. (The figleaves denote the tribulations of life, and the skins the mortal body). Death, come into the world through sin, henceforth, like a hideous wild beast, made havoc of human life, although the liberty to choose good as well as evil was never destroyed.562 But God did not leave himself without a witness, and at last sent his own Son, who was to strengthen nature, and to renew and show and teach by his action the way of virtue which led from destruction to eternal life. The union of Deity with humanity was “the newest of the new, the only new thing under the sun.”563 It applied, moreover, to the whole of human nature in order to bestow salvation on the whole.564 This union resulted in the restitutio to the original state, which was perfect in so far as man, though not yet tested, was adorned with virtues. Christ participated in the worst part of our nature in order, by and in himself, to restore the form of the image and likeness, and to teach us further by virtuous conduct, which by his aid 287he made light for us. Then he overcame death, becoming the first-fruits of our resurrection, and renewing the worn-out and cast-off vessel.565 It has been pointed out above (p. 240) that natural theology underwent no development in the Greek Church. We must premise, however, that the course of the history of philosophy is of greater moment for the development of the system, or for systematic monographs. Without anticipating we may here make the following remark. The Fathers of orthodox dogma in the fourth and fifth centuries were Platonists. Aristotelianism always led in this period to a heterodox form of dogma—Lucian, the Arians, the Antiochenes, etc. But a theological system constructed by the aid of Platonism could not fail at that time to become equally heterodox. After Platonism had done its work on dogma, and certain notions and conceptions were generally fixed, an orthodox

562

II. 26 ff. III. 1. 564 III. 6. 565 IV. 4, II. 12. 563

system could only be created by means of Aristotelianism. Any further use of Platonism led to questionable propositions. Chapter VI. The Doctrine of the Necessity and Realit of Redemption throught the Incarnation of the Son to God. 288

B.—THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION IN THE PERSON OF THE GOD-MAN IN ITS HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT.

CHAPTER VI. THE DOCTRINE OF THE NECESSITY AND REALITY OF REDEMPTION THROUGH THE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD. N 40B0 ATURAL theology was so wide in its scope as understood by the Greek Church, that, as indications in the preceding chapter will have already shown, only a historical fact absolutely unparallelled could make headway against it. The Greek Fathers knew of such a fact—“the newest of the new, yea, the only new thing under the sun”; it was the Incarnation of the Son of God. It alone balanced the whole system of natural theology, so far as it was balanced, and exerted a decisive influence upon it. But the incarnation could only be attached with complete perspicuity to that point in the natural system which seemed the more irrational, the more highly the value of human nature was rated—this point of contact being death. The dreadful paradox of death was destroyed by the most paradoxical fact conceivable the incarnation of the Deity. This at once implied that the fact could not but be capable of a subsequent explanation, nay, even of a kind of a priori deduction. But its glory, as an expression of the unfathomable goodness of God, was not thereby to be diminished. The necessity of redemption, whether that consisted in the restoration or the perfection of the human race, was based by the Fathers, as a rule, on the actual state of wretchedness of mankind under the dominion of death and sin. So far, however, as this condition was compared with the original state or destiny of man, redemption was already thought of as intrinsically necessary, 289and was no longer merely regarded as a postulate of man’s need of salvation. In this connection the Fathers often lost sight of the capacity left to man of being and doing good. In innumerable passages they speak of the helplessness and irredeemableness of mankind, using

expressions which could without difficulty be inserted in Augustine’s doctrine of sin. But just as often a phrase occurs which betrays the fact that the whole view is nevertheless quite different; in other words, that the outward condition characterised by feebleness and death, and the sensuousness of corruptible human nature are thought of as the source of all evil and all sin. This state is accompanied by a darkening of knowledge which could not fail to subject man to the influence of the demons and lead him into idolatry. The divine act of grace in Christ applied to death, the demonic rule, sin, and error. In Homilies, Biblical commentaries, and devotional writings, these points of view interchange, or are apparently regarded as equivalent.566 But since natural theology formed the background of their conceptions, the absolute necessity of the form assumed by the act of grace in the incarnation could be demonstrated neither in relation to sin nor to error. The whole question turned here on support, example, and illumination, or, if this line was crossed, theology ceased to be systematic and consistent. The importance of Athanasius and the Cappadocians consisted in the strenuous emphasis laid by them on the impressive connection existing between the incarnation and the restoration of the human race 290to the divine life, and in their consequent escape to some extent from the rationalistic scheme of doctrine; for the reference of the incarnation to sin did not carry the Greeks beyond it. The above combination had been made in the Church long before this (see Irenæus), but in the theology of Origen it had been subordinated to, and obscured by, complicated presuppositions. Athanasius wrote a treatise “Concerning the incarnation of the Logos” (περὶ ἐνανθρωπήσεως τοῦ λόγου), an early writing whose

566

Perhaps the most comprehensive passage is Eusebius, Demonstr. ev. IV. 12. But it also shows how far Eusebius still was from the thorough-going view of Athanasius: Τῆς οἰκονοµίας οὐ µίαν αἰτίαν ἀλλὰ καὶ πλείους εὕροι ἄν τις ἐθελήσας ζητεῖν, πρώτην µὲν γὰρ ὁ λόγος διδάσκει, ἵνα καὶ νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων κυριεύσῃ· δευτέραν δέ ὅπως τὰς ἡµετέρας ἀποµάξοιτο ἁµαρτίας, ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν τρωθεὶς καὶ γενόµενος ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν κατάρα· τρίτην ὡς ἂν ἱερεῖον Θεοῦ καὶ µεγάλη θυσία ὑρὲρ σύµπαντος κόσµον προσαχθείη τῷ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεῷ· τετάρτην ὡς ἂν αὐτὸς τῆς πολυπλανοῦς καὶ δαιµονικῆς ἐνεργείας ἀπορρήτοις λόγοις καθαίρεσιν ἀπεργάσαιτο· πέµπτην ἐπὶ ταυτῇ, ὡς ἂν τοῖς αὐτοῦ γνωρίµοις καὶ µαθηταῖς τῆς κατὰ τὸν θάνατον παρὰ Θεῷ ζωῆς τὴν ἐλπίδα µὴ λόγοις µηδὲ ῥήµασιν καὶ φωναῖς ἀλλὰ αὐτοῖς ἔργοις παραστήσας, ὀφθαλµοῖς δὲ παραδοὺς τὴν διὰ τῶν λόγων ἐπαγγελίαν, εὐθαρσεῖς αὐτοὺς καὶ προθυµοτέρους ἀπεργάσαιτο καὶ πᾶσιν Ἕλλησιν ὁ ac8 µοῦ καὶ βαρβάροις τὴν πρὸς αὐτοῦ καταβληθεῖσαν εὐσεβῆ πολιτείαν κηρύξαι.

value is so great because it dates before the outbreak of the Arian controversy.567 In this work he went a step further: for he strove to prove that the redemption was a necessity on the part of God. He based this necessity on the goodness (ἀγαθότης) of God. This goodness, i.e., God’s consistency and honour, involved as they were in his goodness, were necessarily expressed in the maintenance and execution of decrees once formed by him. His decrees, however, consisted, on the one hand, in his appointment of rational creatures to share in the divine life, and, on the other, in the sentence of death on transgressions. Both of these had to be established. God’s intention could not be allowed to suffer shipwreck through the wickedness of the devil and the sad choice of humanity. If it were, God would seem weak, and it would have been better if he had never created man at all. Then the transgression occurred. “What was God now to do? Ought he to have demanded penitence on the part of man? For one could have deemed that worthy of God and said, that as men had become mortal through the transgression, they should in like manner recover immortality through repentance (change of mind). But repentance (in itself) did not retain the true knowledge as regards God; God accordingly would in his turn have shown himself 568 291untruthful, if death had not compelled men; nor did repentance deliver from the physical, but only put an end to sins. Therefore, if the transgression had alone existed, and not its consequence, mortality, repentance would have been all very well. But when, the transgression having occurred, men were fettered to the mortality that had become natural to them, and were robbed of the grace which corresponded to their creation in the divine image, what else should have happened? Or what was needed for this grace and renewal except (the coming of) him who also in the

567

Draescke has attempted to show in a full discussion (Athanasiana i. d. Stud. u. Krit., 1893, pp. 251-315 that the writings “Against the Greeks” and the “Incarnation of the Logos” belong, not to Athanasius, but to Eusebius of Emesa, and were written A.D. 350. But after a close examination of his numerous arguments I find none of them convincing, and I am rather confirmed in my belief that no important objection can be raised against the authenticity of the two tractates. An accurate analysis of “De incarn.” is given by Kattenbusch, l. c. I., p. 297 ff. 568 This sentence does not seem to me quite clear; the meaning is probably: since repentance does not convey the true knowledge of God, but death resulted from loss of the latter, God would have broken his word if he had abolished death in consequence of mere repentance.

beginning made all things of nothing, the Logos of God? For it was his part once more to restore the corruptible to incorruption.”569 Athanasius shows that the Logos who originally created all things from nothing required to assume a body and thus to secure the restoration of man from corruptibility to incorruption (ἀφθαρσία). How this happened Athanasius discusses in various, to some extent inconsistent, lines of thought, in which he speaks especially of a removal of men’s guilt through the death of Christ, as well as of an exhaustion of the sentence of death in the sacrifice of his body presented by the Logos. From these premises it follows that Athanasius had the death of Christ in view, whenever he thought of the incarnation of the Logos. “The Logos could not suffer τὴν τοῦ θανάτου κράτησιν (‘the power of death’ in mankind), and therefore took up the 292fight with death. He assumed a body and so became mortal. This body he surrendered to death on behalf of all. His body could not be really overcome, ‘kept’, by death. In it all died, and for this very reason the law of death (νόµος τοῦ Θανάτου) is now abrogated; its power was exhausted on the body of the Lord (κυριακὸν σῶµα); it had no further claim on his fellow-men (κατὰ τῶν ὁµοίων ἀνθρώπων) . . . The body assumed by the Logos came to share in the universal meaning of the Logos. The resurrection of the body and of the Logos guaranteed the general resurrection and incorruption (ἀφθαρσία).”570 Here follows the place assigned to the sacrifice. It presented that which was due (ὀφειλόµενον) to God in place of death. But the pervading and prominent thought of Athanasius is that the incarnation itself involved the Christian’s passage from the fate of death to incorruption (ἀφθαρσία), since the physical union 569

De incarn. 7: Τί οὖν ἔδει καὶ περὶ τούτου γενέσθαι ἢ ποιῆσαι τὸν Θεόν; µετάνοιαν ἐπὶ τῇ παραβάσει τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀπαιτῆσαι; τοῦτο γὰρ ἄν τις ἄξιον φήσειεν Θεοῦ, λέγων, ὅτι ὥσπερ ἐκ τῆς παραβάσεως εἰς φθορὰν γεγόνασιν, οὕτως ἐκ τῆς µετανοίας γένοιντο πάλιν ἂν εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν. Ἀλλ᾽ ἡ µετάνοια οὔτε τὸ εὔλογον τὸ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐφύλαττεν· ἔµενε γὰρ πάλιν οὐκ ἀληθής, µὴ κρατουµένων ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ ac8 τῶν ἀνθρώπων· οὔτε δέ ἡ µετάνοια ἀπὸ τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ἀποκαλεῖται, ἀλλὰ µόνον παύει τῶν ἁµαρτηµάτων. Εἰ µὲν οὖν µόνον ἦν πληµµέληµα καὶ µὴ φθορᾶς ἐπακολούθησις, καλῶς ἂν ἦν ἡ µετάνοια· εἰ δὲ ἅπαξ προλαβούσης τῆς παραβάσεως, εἰς την κατὰ φύσιν φθορὰν ἐκρατοῦντο οἱ ἄνθρωποι, καὶ τὴν τοῦ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα χάριν ἀφαιρεθέντες ἦσαν, τί ἄλλο ἔδει γενέσθαι; ἢ τίνος ἦν χρεία πρὸς τὴν τοιαύτην χάριν καὶ ἀνάκλησιν, ἢ τοῦ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐκ τοῦ µὴ ὄντος πεποιηκότος τὰ ὅλα τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου; αὐτοῦ γὰρ ἦν πάλιν καὶ τὸ φθαρτὸν εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν ἐνεγκεῖν καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ πάντων εὔλογον ἀποσῶσαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. Compare Orat. c. Arian. II. 68. 570 Kattenbusch, p. 298.

of the human with the divine nature in the midst of mankind raised the latter to the region of divine rest and blessedness.571 The result of the incarnation consisted accordingly, first, in the eradication of corruption (φθορά)—by the existence of the divine in its midst, but, finally, by the death of Christ, in which the truthfulness of God was justified—and in the corresponding transformation into incorruptibility—renewal, or completion of the divine image by participation in the nature, free from all suffering, of the Deity.572 But, secondly, the incarnation also resulted, 293as indeed had been long before held by the Apologists, in the restoration of the correct knowledge of God, which embraced the power of living rightly, through the incarnate Logos. But while Athanasius kept firmly in view this restoration of the knowledge of God through the Logos, he was not thinking merely of the new law, i.e., the preaching of Christ; he held it to have been given in the contemplation of the Person of Christ. In his work, that of a man, God came down to us. The dullest eye was now in a position to perceive the one true God—viz., in Christ—and to escape from the error of demonworship. This thought is very significant; it had already been expressed by Clement and Origen, having received a deeper meaning from the latter, though he had not yet given it so central a place in his system. Athanasius expressly notes that creation was not sufficient to let us perceive the Creator and Father; we needed

571

L. c., ch. IX.: Ὥσπερ µεγάλου βασιλέως εἰσελθόντος εἴς τινα πόλιν µεγάλην, καὶ οἰκήσαντος εἰς µίαν τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ οἰκιῶν, πάντως ἡ τοιαύτη πόλις τιµῆς πολλῆς καταξιοῦται, καὶ οὐκέτι τις ἐχθρὸς αὐτὴν οὔτε λῃστὴς ἐπιβαίνων καταστρέφει, πάσης δὲ µᾶλλον ἐπιµελείας ἀξιοῦται διὰ τὸν εἰς µίαν αὐτῆς οἰκίαν οἰκήσαντα βασιλέα· σὕτως καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πάντων βασιλέως γέγονεν. Ελθόντος γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἐπί τὴν ἡµετέραν χώραν καὶ οἰκήσαντος εἰς ἓν τῶν ὁ 564 οίων σῶµα, λοιπὸν πᾶσα ἡ κατὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων παρὰ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ἐπιβουλὴ πέπαυται, καὶ ἡ τοῦ θανάτου ἡφάνισται φθορὰ ἡ πάλαι κατ᾽ αὐτῶν ἰσχύουσα. Kattenbusch is right in considering Ritschl (l. c., I., p. 10, 11) to have gone too far in his assertion that “Athanasius’ interpretation of the death and resurrection of Christ is a particular instance of the main thought that the Logos of God guarantees all redemptive work, using the human body in which he dwells as the means.” Athanasius certainly did not regard the death and resurrection as merely particular instances. They formed the object of the incarnation; not that they were added or supplementary to it; they were bound up with it. 572 Yet the view of Athanasius was not simply naturalistic; incorruptibleness rather included the elements of goodness, love, and wisdom; a renewal affecting the inner nature of man was also involved. Bu ac8 t it was not possible for Athanasius to expound this systematically; therefore Schultz seems to me to have asserted too much (Gottheit Christi, p. 80).

a man to live and work among us before we could see clearly and certainly the God and Father of all.573 294

When Athanasius placed the knowledge of God side by side with the deliverance from death, the transition was obtained from the fact of redemption to the doctrine of the appropriation, and to the explanation of the particular result, of the work of love done by the Logos. This only benefited those who voluntarily appropriated the divine knowledge made accessible by the incarnate Logos, and who regulated their conduct by the standards and with the power thus given them.574 In any case the transformation of the

573

The chief passages occur l. c., XIV-XVI., chap. XIV. fin: One might suppose that the fitting way to know God was to recover our knowledge of him from the works of creation. It is not so, for men are no longer capable of directing their gaze upward; they look down. “Therefore, when he seeks to benefit men, he takes up his dwelling among us as man, and assumes a body like the human one, and instructs men within their own lower sphere, i.e., through the works of the body, that those who would not perceive him from his care for all and his rule might at least from the works of the body itself know the Logos of God in the body, and through him the Father.” C. 15: Ἐπειδὴ οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἀποστραφέντες τὴν πρὸς τὸν Θαεὸν θεωρίαν. καὶ ὡς ἐν βύθῳ βυθισθέντες κάτω τοὺς ὀφθαλµοὺς ἔχοντες, ἐν γενέσει καὶ τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς τὸν Θεὸν ἀνεζήτουν, ἀνθρώπους θνητοὺς καὶ δαίµονας ἑαυτοῖς θεοὺς ἀνατυπούµενοι· τούτου ἕνεκα ὁ φιλάνθρωπος καὶ κοινὸς πάντων σωτήρ, ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος, λαµβάνει ἑαυτῷ σῶµα καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἀναστέφεται καὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις πάντων ἀνθρώπων προσλαµβάνει, ἵνα οἱ ἐν σωµατικοῖς νοοῦντες εἶναι τὸν Θεόν, αφ᾽ ὧν ὁ κύριος ἐργάζεται διά τῶν τοῦ σώµατος ἔργων, ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν νοήσωσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸν πατέρα λογίσωνται. The sequel shows, indeed, that Athanasius thought above all of Jesus’ miraculous works. He has summarised his whole conception of the result of redemption in the pregnant sentence (ch. XVI.): Ἀµφότερα γὰρ ἐφιλανθρωπεύετο ὁ σωτὴρ διὰ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως, ὅτι καὶ τὸν θάνατον ἐξ ἡµῶν ἡφάνιζε καὶ ἀνεκαίνιζεν ἡ 564 ᾶς· καὶ ὅτι ἀφανὴς ὢν καὶ ἀόρατος διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἐνέφαινε καὶ ἐγνώριζεν ἑαυτὸν εἶναι τὸν λόγον τοῦ πατρός, τὸν τοῦ παντὸς ἡγεµόνα καὶ βασιλέα. Origen had already laid stress on the perception of God in Christ, and set it above philosophical knowledge (analytic, synthetic, and analogical, against Alcinous, Maximus of Tyre, and Celsus): see c. Cels. VII. 42, 44; De princip. I. 1. For Clement see Protrept. I. 8: ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος γενόµενος, ἵνα δὴ καὶ σὺ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου µάθῃς, πῆ ποτὲ ἄρα ἄνθρωπος γένηται Θεός. 574 Parallel with this view and intertwined with it we undoubtedly have the other, that eternal life is mystically appropriated by means of sacred rites and the holy food. In this conception, which is extremely ancient, Christianity seems degraded to the level of the abe nature-religions of the East or the Græco-oriental mysteries (see Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 69). But as even the earliest Alexandrians (also Ignatius) constantly resolved the naturalistic view into a spiritual and moral one, so also hardly any one of the

corruptible into the incorruptible (the Theopoiesis) remained under this conception the ultimate and proper result of the work of the Logos, being ranked higher than the other, the knowledge of God.575 But here we find the greatest difference between Athanasius and like-minded theologians on the one hand, and Arius, the Eusebians, etc., on the other. The elements contained in their views are the same; but the order is different. For these “conservative” theologians saw the work of the Logos primarily in the communication of the true and complete knowledge which should be followed by a state of perfection. But Athanasius made everything 295tend to this consummation as the restoration and the communication of the divine nature. Accordingly, it was to him a vital theological question how the incorruptible was constituted which was represented in the Logos, and what kind of union it had formed with the corruptible. But while he put the question he was sure of the answer. His opponents, however, could not at all share in his interest in this point, since their interest in Christ as the supreme teacher did not lead them directly to define more precisely the kind of heavenly manifestation which he represented even for them. When they did give such definitions, they were influenced by theoretical, or exegetical considerations, or were engaged in refuting the propositions of their opponents by setting up others. The Trinitarian and Christological problems which had occupied the ancient Church for more than three centuries here rise before us. That their decision was so long delayed, and only slowly found a more general acceptance, was not merely due to outward circumstances, such as the absence of a clearly marked tradition, the letter of the Bible, or the politics of Bishops and Emperors. It was, on the contrary, owing chiefly to the fact that large circles in

theologians of the following centuries can be named who would have purely and simply defended the former. 575 See esp. Orat. c. Arian. II. 67-70, where the final designs of Athanasius’ Christianity are revealed. It is at the same time to be noted that while redemption meant restoration, it was the transference into a still higher grace. We experience all that was done to the body of Christ. We are baptised, as Christ was in Jordan, we next received the Holy Spirit, and so also our flesh has died, and been renewed, sanctified and raised to eternal life in his resurrection. Accordingly, Athanasius sums up at the close of his work, ch. 54: Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐνηνθρώπησεν, ἵνα ἡµεῖς θεοποιηθῶµεν· καὶ αὐτὸς ἐφανέρωσεν ἑαυτὸν διὰ σώµατος. ἵνα ἡµεῖς τοῦ ἀοράτου πατρὸς ἔννοιαν λάβωµεν· καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπέµεινε τὴν παρ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ὕβριν, ἵνα ἡµεῖς ἀθανασιαν κληρονοµήσωµεν. ἐβλάπτετο µὲν γὰρ αὐτὸς οὐδέν, ἀπαθὴς καὶ ἄφθαρτος καὶ αὐτολόγος ὢν καὶ Θεός· τοὺς δὲ πάσχοντας ἀνθρώπους, δι᾽ οὓς καὶ ταῦτα ὑπέµεινεν, ἐν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἀπαθείᾳ ἐτήρει καὶ διέσωζε.

the Church felt the need of subordinating even the doctrine of redemption to rational theology, or of keeping it within the framework of moralism. The opposite conviction, that nature was transformed through the incarnate Logos, resulted here and there in a chaotic pantheism;576 but that was the least danger. The gravest hindrance to the acceptance of the view of Athanasius consisted in the paradoxical tenets which arose regarding the Deity and Jesus Christ. Here his opponents found their strength; they were more strongly supported by the letter of Scripture and tradition, as well as by reason. Supplement I.—No subsequent Greek theologian answered the question, why God became man, so decidedly and clearly as Athanasius. But all Fathers of unimpeached orthodoxy followed in his footsteps, and at the same time showed that his doctrinal 296ideas could only be held on the basis of Platonism. This is at once clear in the case of Gregory of Nyssa, who in some points strengthened the expositions given by Athanasius. Yet his model was Methodius rather ac8 than Athanasius.577 Gregory sought, in the first place, to give a more elaborate defence of the method of redemption—by means of the incarnation,—but in doing so he obscured Athanasius’ simple combination of the incarnation and its effect. According to Gregory, God is boundless might, but his might was never divorced from goodness, wisdom, and righteousness. He next shows in detail (Catech. magn. 17-26) against Jews and heathens —as Anselm did afterwards—that the incarnation was the best form of redemption, because the above four fundamental attributes of God came clearly to light in it. Especially interesting in these arguments is the emphasis laid on God’s treatment of those who had passed over to his enemies, his respect for their freedom in everything, and his redemption of men without wronging the devil, their master, who possessed a certain claim upon them. This account of the matter indeed had strictly an apologetic purpose.578

576

Not in Athanasius himself—Kattenbusch says rightly (p. 299): The θεοποίησις is for A. an enhancement of human life physically and morally; his idea of it does not look forward to man being pantheistically merged in God, but to the renewal of man after his original type. ad2 577See Vol. III., p. 104 ff. 578 The Apologetic argument also includes the treatment of the question, why the redemption was not accomplished sooner. Apologists from Justin to Eusebius and Athanasius had put it and attempted to answer it. Gregory also got rid of it by referring to the physician who waits till illness has fully developed before he interferes (Catech. magn., ch. 29 ff.).

In the second place, Gregory, while following Athanasius, still more strongly identified the state from which God has delivered us with death. The state of sin was death. He taught, with the Neoplatonists, that God alone was Being. Therefore all revolt from God to the sensuous, i.e., to not-being, was death. Natural death was not the only death; it might rather mean deliverance from the bonds of the body become brutal (l. c., ch. 8). Sensuousness was death. In the third place, although he also saw the redemption in the act of incarnation, Gregory held that it was not perfected until the resurrection of Jesus. That is, he was more thoroughly influenced than Athanasius by the conviction that the actual redemption presupposed renunciation of the body. We are first 297redeemed, when we share in the resurrection which the human nature assumed by Christ experienced through the resurrection (l. c., ch. 16). The mystery of the incarnation only becomes clear in this resurrection. The Deity assumed human nature, in order by this union to exhaust, until it had wholly disappeared, that which was liable to death in this nature, viz., evil. This result was only perfected in the resurrection of the h ac8 uman nature of Christ; for in it that nature was first shown completely purified and rendered capable of being possessed of eternal life.579 In the fourth place, Gregory was able to demonstrate the application of the incarnation more definitely than Athanasius could with his figure of the king and the city. But he does so by the aid of a thoroughly Platonic idea which is only slightly suggested in Athanasius, and is not really covered by a Biblical reference (to the two Adams; see Irenæus). Christ did not assume the human nature of an individual person, but human nature. Accordingly, all that was human was intertwined with the Deity; the whole of human nature became divine by intermixture with the Divine. Gregory conceives this as a strictly physical process: the leaven of the Deity has pervaded the whole dough of humanity, through and in Christ; for Christ united with himself the whole of human nature with all its

579

L. c., ch. 16. For, since our nature in its regular course changed also in him into the separation of body and soul, he reunited that which had been divided by his divine power as if by a kind of cement, and rejoined in an indissoluble union the severed parts (comp. Irenæus and Methodius). And that was the resurrection, viz., the return after dissolution and division of the allies to an indissoluble union, both being so bound together, that man’s original state of grace was recalled, and we return to eternal life, after the evil mingled with our nature has been removed by our dissolution (!); just as it happens with liquids, which, the vessel being broken, escape and are lost, because there is nothing now to hold them. But as death began in one man and from him passed to the whole of nature and the human race, in the same way the beginning of the resurrection extended through one man to the whole of humanity.”

characteristics.580 This conception, which was based on the Platonic universal 298notion “humanity”, differed from that of Origen; but it also led to the doctrine of Apokatastasis (universalism), which Gregory adopted. Meanwhile, in order to counterbalance this whole “mystical”, i.e., physical, conception, he emphasised the personal and spontaneous fulfilment of the law as a condition, in the same way as the later Antiochenes. The perfect fulfilment of the law was, however, according to Gregory, only possible to ascetics.581 In the fifth place, Gregory set the sacraments in the closest relation to the incarnation, recognising (l. c., ch. 33-40) Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the only means by which mortal man was renewed and became immortal. It undoubtedly appears superfluous to a rigorous thinker to require that something special should happen to the individual when all mankind has been deified in the humanity assumed by Christ. But the form given to his ideas by Gregory was ac8 in keeping with the thought of his time, when mysterious rites were held to portray and represent that which was inconceivable. Sixthly, and lastly, Gregory gave a turn to the thought of the incarnation in which justice was done to the boldest conception of Origen, and “the newest of the new” was subordinated to a cosmological and more general view. Origen had already, following the Gnostics, taught—in connection with Philipp. II. 10 and other texts—that the incarnation and sacrificial death of Christ had an importance that went beyond mankind. The work of Christ extended to wherever there were spiritual creatures; wherever there was alienation from God, there was restoration through Christ. He offered himself to the Father for angels and æons (see Valentine). To all orders of spiritual beings he appeared in their own shape. He restored harmony to the whole universe. Nay, Christ’s blood was not only shed on earth at Jerusalem “for sin” (pro peccato); but also “for a gift on the high altar which is in the heavens” (pro munere in superno altari quod est in cœlis).582 Gregory took up this thought. The reconciliation and restitution extend to all rational creation.583 Christ came down to all spiritual 580

See conclusion of the preceding note, and Herrmann, Gregorii Nyss. sententias de salute adipis., p. 16 ff. Underlying all the arguments of the: “Great Catechism” we have the thought that the incarna ac8 tion was an actus medicinalis which is to be thought of as strictly natural, and that extends to all mankind. See Dorner (Entwick.-Gesch. d. L. v. d. Person Christi, I., p. 958 f.), who, besides, regards Gregory’s whole conception as strictly ethical. 581 See Herrmann, l. c., p. 2 sq. 582 Passages in Bigg, l. c. p. 212 f. 583 See περὶ ψυχ. κ. ἀναστάσ., p. 66 sq., ed. Oehler. Orat. cat. 26.

creatures, 299tures, and adopted the forms in which they lived, in order to bring them into harmony with God: οὐ µόνον ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἄνθρωπος γίνεται, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον πάντως καὶ ἐν ἀγγέλοις γινόµενος πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων φύσιν ἑαυτὸν συγκατάγει.584 This thought, far from enriching the work of the historical Christ, served only, a eb0 s in the case of the Gnostics, to dissipate it. And, in fact, it was only as an apologist of Catholic Christianity that Gregory held closely to the historical personality of Christ. When he philosophised and took his own way, he said little or nothing of the Christ of history.585 It is almost with him as with Origen. He also reveals a supreme view of the world, according to which that which alienates the Kosmos from God forms part of its plan as much as that which restores it to him, the Kosmos being, from its creation, full of God, and, because it is, existing in God. The incarnation is only a particular instance of the universal presence of the divine in creation. Gregory contributed to transmit to posterity the pantheistic conception, which be himself never thought out abstractly, or apart from history. A real affinity existed between him and the pantheistic Monophysites, the Areopagite, and Scotus Erigena, and even modern “liberal” theology of the Hegelian shade may appeal to him. In the “Great Catechism” (ch. XXV.), which was meant to defend the historical act of the incarnation, he has an argument which is in this respect extremely significant.586 “The assumption of our nature by the deity should, however, excite no well-founded surprise on the part of those who view things (τα ὄντα) with any breadth of mind, (not too 300µικροψύχως). For who is so weak in mind as not to believe when he looks at the universe that the divine is in everything, pervading and embracing it, and dwelling in it? For everything depends on the existent, and it is impossible that there should be anything not having its existence in that which is. Now, if all is in 584

Orat. in ascens. Christi in Migne T. XLVI., p. 693; on the other hand, Didymus (De trinit. II. 7, ed. Mingarelli, p. 200): ὁ Θεὸς λόγος οὐ διὰ τοὺς ἁµαρτήσαντας ἀγγέλους ἄγγελος· ἀλλὰ διὰ τοὺς ἐν ἁµαρτίᾳ ἀνθρώπους ἄνθρωπος ἀτρέπτως, ἀσυγχύτως, ἀναµαρτήτως, ἀφράστως. Yet in other places he has expressed himself like Origen. The latter was attacked by Jerome and Theophilus on account of this doctrine. The Synod of Constantinople condemned it. 585 Compare the whole dialogue with Macrina on the soul an 562 d the resurrection, where the historical Christ is quite overlooked. 586 To Athanasius also it was not unknown; see De incarn.41: τὸν κόσµον σώµα µέγα φασὶν εἶναι οἱ τῶν Ἑλλήνων φιλόσοφοι καὶ ἀληθεύουσι λέγοντες. Ὁρῶµεν γὰρ αὐτὸν καὶ τὰ τούτου µέρη ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι ὑποπίπτοντα. Εἰ τοίνυν ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ σώµατι ὄντι ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος ἐστί, καὶ ἐν ὅλοις καὶ τοῖς κατὰ µέρος αὐτῶν πᾶσιν ἐπιβέβηκε. τί θαυµαστὸν ἢ τί ἄτοπον εἰ καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώπω φαµὲν αὐτὸν ἐπιβεβηκέναι κ.τ.λ., c. 42.

it and it in all, why do they take offence at the dispensation of the mystery taught by the incarnation of God, of him who, we are convinced, is not even now outside of mankind? For if the form of the divine presence is not now the same, yet we are as much agreed that God is among us to-day as that he was in the world then. Now he is united with us as the one who embraces nature in his being, but then he had united himself with our being, that our nature, snatched from death, and delivered from the tyranny of the Adversary, might become divine through intermixture with the divine. For his return from death was for the mortal race the beginning of return to eternal life.” The pantheistic theory of redemption appeared in after times in two forms. In one of these the work of the historical Christ was regarded as a particular instance, or symbol, of the universal, purifying and sanctifying operations continuously carried out through sanctifying media— the sacraments—by the Logos in combination with, as in their turn on behalf of, the graded orders of supersensuous creatures; this was the view of Dionysius the Areopagite. The other form of the theory included in the very idea of the incarnation the union of the Logos with those individual believing souls in whom he was well pleased. The latter conception which was already prominent in Methodius is especially marked in eb0 Macarius. In Homily IV. e.g., (ch. 8, 9), his first words lead us to expect an exposition of the one historical incarnation. Instead of that we read: “Thus in his love the infinite, inscrutable God humbled himself and assumed the members of our bodily nature . . . and transformed in love and benevolence to men he incorporates and unites himself with the holy and faithful souls in whom he is well pleased, etc.” In each a Christ is born.587

587 ac6

A third form of the pantheistic conception of the incarnation can be perceived in the thesis, that the humanity of Christ was heavenly; in other words, that the Logos had always borne humanity in himself, so that his body was not of later origin than his divinity. This Gnostic view, which, however, is not necessarily pantheistic, had supporters, e.g., in Corinth in the time of Athanasius, who himself opposed it. (Ep. ad Epictetum Corinth.: see Epiphan.. p. 77, c. Dimoeritas). They said that the body born of Mary was ὁµοούσιον τῇ τοῦ λόγου θεότητι, συναΐδιον αὐτῷ διὰ παντὸς γεγενῆσθαι, ἐπειδὴ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τῆς Σοφίας συνέστη. They taught, accordingly, that humanity itself sprang from the Logos; he had for the purpose of his manifestation formed for himself by metamorphosis a body capable of suffering. He had, therefore, on one side of his being given up his immutability, departed from his own nature (ἠλλάγη τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως) and transformed himself into a sensuous man. The point of interest here was the perfect unity of Christ. Those whom Hilary opposed (De trinit. X. 15 sq.) did not maintain the heavenly and eternal humanity of the Logos. On the other hand, this thesis occurs in Apollinaris, in whom, however, it is not to be explained pantheistically,

301

The thought that Christ assumed the general concept of humanity occurs, though mingled with distinctive ideas, in Hilary, who was dependent on Gregory.588 We find it also in Basil,589 Ephræm,590 Apollinaris,591 Cyril of Alexandria, etc. Throughout these writers the conception is clearly marked that in Christ our nature is sanctified and rendered divine, that what it has experienced benefits us, as a matter of course, in our 302individual capacity, and that we in a very real way have risen with Christ. Even in the Antiochenes passages occur which are thus to be interpreted—exegesis led them to this view;592 but they exist, so far as I know, even in Chrysostom,593 and they are so phrased in general as to show that according to them this suffering and dying with Christ, as an independent fact, was not merely a

although pantheistic inferences can hardly be averted. The heavenly humanity of Christ is also opposed by Basil in Ep. ad Sozopol. (65); it re-emerged in the circles of the most extreme Monophysites; but it was at the same time openly affirmed there by Stephen Bar Sudaili: “everything is of one nature with God”; “all nature is consubstantial with the divine essence” (Assem., Biblioth. II, 30, 291); see Dorner, l. c., II., p. 162 f., and Frothingham, Stephen Bar Sudaili (1886) who has printed, p. 28 sq., the letter of Xenaias which warns against the heresy “that assimilates the creation to God.” Finally, a kind of subtilised form of this phenomenon is found in the old-catholic conception, that the Son of God came down to men immediately after the Fall, that he repeatedly dwelt among them, and thus accustomed himself to his future manifestation (see Irenæus’ conception, Vol. II., p. 236). In the later Fathers, when they were not writing, apologetically, this old conception does not, so far as I know, occur often, or, it is very strictly distinguished from the incarnation; see, e.g., Athan., Orat. III. 30. acc 588See, e.g., Hilary, Tract. in Ps. LI, ch. 16: “Ut et filius hominis esset filius dei, naturam in se universæ carnis assumpsit, per quam effectus vera vitis genus in se universæ propaginis tenet.” Ps. LIV. ch. 9: “Universitatis nostræ caro est factus.” Other passages are given in Dorner, Entw-Gesch. der Lehre v. d. Person Christi, I., p. 1067, and Ritschl, l. c., I. p. 15. 589 Hom. 25, T. I. p. 504 sq. This exposition coincides completely with Gregory’s thought. 590 Dorner, l. c., p. 961. 591 >Dorner, l. c., the κατά µέρος πίστις. See besides the passage given in Vol. II., p. 223, n. 1. 592 See Theodore on Rom. VI. 6: τῷ Χριστῷ φησίν, ἐσταυρωµένῳ ὥσπερ ἄπασα ἡµῶν ἡ ὑπὸ τὴν θνητότητα κειµένη φύσις συνεσταυρώθη, ἐπειδὴ καὶ πᾶσα αὐτῷ συναν έστη, πάντων ἀνθρώπων αὐτῷ συµµετασχεῖν ἐλπιζόντων τῆς ἀναστάσεως· ὡς ἐντεῦθεν συναφανισθῆναι µὲν τὴν περὶ τὸ ἁµαρτάνειν ἡµῶν εὐκολίαν, διὰ τῆύ ac8 ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνθανασίαν τοῦ σώµατος µεταστάσεως. 593 Förster, Chrysostomus, p. 126 ff.

supplementary condition of the actual union with Christ, but the only form in which it was accomplished. In them the general concept of humanity does not occur; accordingly, the humanity of Christ is conceived much more concretely. He is really a fighting, striving man who reaches victory through free-will.594 As this man himself is united morally with the deity, the moral elem e98 ent must never be left out of account in our union with him. But in so far as the incarnation of Christ produces a new state (Katastasis), one not included in the plan of humanity, it undoubtedly results in our glorification, a state not involved in the moral element per se. When we come to John of Damascus we no longer find any definitive conception of the incarnation. The clear intention assigned to it by Athanasius has escaped him; even of the ideas of Gregory of Nyssa only a part, and that the apologetic part, are reproduced (De fide Orth. III. 1, 6). At this point also the attempt to unite the Aristotelian tradition of the school of Antioch with the Alexandrian only led to a combination of fragments. Yet the sentence, “Christ did not come to this or that one, but to our common nature”,595 never wholly became a dead letter in the Greek Church. But everything taught in that Church as to the incarnation is already to be found either developed, or in germ, in Irenæus; not the simple exposition of Athanasius, but a mixture of the thought of the historical 303with that of the mystical redemption, is to be traced in the majority of the Fathers. It is the Christ in us, the cosmical Christ, as we already saw in Methodius. Supplement II.—Those Fathers, and they were in the majority, who found the cause of the incarnation in the intention of God to rehabilitate the human race, knew of no necessity for the incarnation apart from the entrance of sin. While they almost all explained that what Christ conferred was more and greater than what man had lost, yet they did not use this idea in their speculations, and they attached as a rule no special significance to it. But even Irenæus had also looked at the incarnation as the final and supreme means of the divine economy by which God gradually brought the original creation, at first necessarily imperfect, to completion.596 Where this idea occurred, it also involved the other, that Christ would have come even if there had been no sin. Accordingly, those Fathers who laid no special stress on sin, seeing it appeared to them to be more or less natural, and who conceived redemption rather as a perfecting than restitution,

594

See Kihn, Theodor., p. 180 ff. Χριστὸς οὐ πρὸς ἕνα καὶ δεύτερον ἦλθεν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν κοινὴν φύσιν. 596 See Vol. II., p. 272, 307; the thought is not wanting in Tertullian. 595

maintained the necessity of the incarnation even apart from sin: so Theodore of Mopsuestia, Pelagius and others.597 The incarnation was regarded by them as forming the basis of the life in which man is raised above his nature and common virtue, that is, the ascetic and angelic life. Clement of Alex., starting from quite different premises, expressed the same thought. Abstinence from evil was the perfection that had been attained even by Greeks and Jews; on the other hand, the perfect Gnostic, only possible after the complete revelation of the Logos, found perfection in the ascetic life of intuition, a life resting on faith, hope, and love. f54 598 Therefore in order to institute this life, the complete revelation of the Logos was required; it was unnecessary to bring sin into the question. However, the proposition that Christ would have come even if Adam had not sinned was, so far as I know, bluntly asserted by no Greek theologian; the combination of Adam and Christ in the Bible stood in the way. Supplement III.—On the ground of Biblical texts like Matt. 24, Eph. I. 3-5, 11, II. Tim. I. 8-10, the Greeks have also spoken (e.g., Athan. c. Arian. II. 75-77) of an election of believers in Christ before the foundation of the world, and of the decree of redemption framed by God, with reference already to sin, before the creation. Athanasius even says that our future eternal life in Christ is conditioned by the fact that our life was founded on Christ even before time was. But the idea of predestination, like the thought that Christ is the head of his Church, is confined to the lines of a Biblical doctrine, which for that very reason is true. Neither the doctrine of the work of Christ, nor of the appropriation of his work, is influenced by those conceptions. As a rule, however, the idea of predestination takes the form that God having foreseen men’s attainments in virtue elected them. This version is especially clear in the school of Antioch, and even enters into their Christology; but it is the opposite of what Paul meant.

304XXV.

Appendix to Chapter VI. The Ideas of Redemption from the Devil, and of Atonement through the Work of the God-Man 305

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VI.

597 598

See Dorner, l. c. II., p. 432 ff. Kihn, Theodor., p. 179 f. Strom. VI. 7, 60.

THE IDEAS OF REDEMPTION FROM THE DEVIL, AND OF ATONEMENT THROUGH THE WORK OF THE GOD-MAN. § 1. Christ’s Death as Ransom and Sacrifice. THE Greek Fathers did not go beyond, nor could they give a more consistent form to, the views on this subject already expounded by Irenæus and Origen.599 The fact of the incarnation was so closely and exclusively connected, at least in the East, with the conception of the result of redemption, that everything else had to yield in importance to the latter. Of course at all times and in all directions the attempt was made, after the example of Irenæus and the indications of Holy Scripture, to insert the facts of Jesus’ history in the work of redemption. This can be seen especially in Athanasius and the two Cyrils—“Whatever happened to his humanity has happened to us.” Again, the death of Christ was frequently recalled when the forgiveness of sins was taken into account; but it is difficult here to draw the line between exegesis, rhetoric, and dogmatics. As a rule, we obtain the impression that theology could have dispensed with all the facts of Chr 1590 ist’s life.600 On the other hand, the death of Christ always appeared so tragic and wonderful an event, that men were compelled to attribute a special 306saving value to it. But just as it was not represented in art up to the fifth century, so the majority of the Greeks really regarded it, along with Christ’s whole passion, as a sacred mystery, and that not only in the intellectual sense. Here thought yielded to emotion, and imposed silence on itself. Goethe said towards the close of his life, “We draw a veil over the sufferings of Christ simply because we revere them so deeply; we hold it to be reprehensible presumption to play and trifle with and embellish those profound mysteries in which the divine depths of suffering lie hidden, never to rest until even the noblest seems mean and tasteless.” That exactly represents the Greek feeling. It also gives the key to the saying of Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. XXVII. 10) that the appreciation of the sufferings of Christ was one of those points on which it was possible to make a mistake

599

Se ac5 e Vol. II., pp. 286 ff., 365 ff. The two Cappadocians doubted, not without reserve, the necessity of Christ’s death. G. of Nazianzus says that the divine Logos could also have redeemed us θελήµατι µόνον, and G. of Nyssa (Orat. cat. 17) thought that the method of redemption was to be considered as arbitrary as the remedies of physicians. In other places, indeed, they expressed themselves differently, and Athanasius connected the death of Christ closely with the incarnation (see above). 600

with impunity (cf. Iren. I. 10). By this he meant, not only that the specific result of the passion was uncertain, but also that it was inexpressible.601 It was reserved for the Middle Ages and our modern times to cast off all modesty and reverence here. Yet a few theologians and exegetes could not refrain from speculating about the death of Christ, though they did not yet use frivolous arithmetical sums. The death of Christ was, in the first place, connected, following Rom. VIII. 3, with the condemnation of sin—death—in the flesh (κατακρίνειν τὴν ἁµαρτίαν (τὸν θάνατον) ἐν τῇ σαρκί). That constituted the strongest connection of Ensarkosis (embodiment in the flesh), death, resurrection, and redemption, reached within the Greek Church. In Christ’s final agony the Ensarkosis first came to some extent to its end, for by death the flesh was purified from sin and mortality, and was presented in Christ’s resurrection pure, holy, and incorruptible. This thought was worked out in various ways by Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Jerusalem, as well as, especially, by Apollinaris.602 But in later times the conception of the complete hypostatic union forbade the vanquishing 307of corruption (ϕθρά) and death being dated a moment later than the assumption of human nature. Therefore it was held that Christ had even at the incarnation destroyed corruption and death (the penalty of sin) from the flesh; but his death was wholly voluntary and economic. In the second place Irenæus had already, in a connected argument, emphasised the necessity of tracing the incarnation of the Logos and his passion to the goodness and righteousness of God, and he further insisted that Christ had delivered us not from a state of infirmity, but from the power of the devil, redeeming those estranged from God, and unnaturally imprisoned, not by force, but with due regard to justice. Origen, however, was the first to explain the passion and death of Christ with logical precision under the points of view of ransom and sacrifice. With regard to the former he was the first to set up the theory that the devil had acquired a legal claim on men, and therefore to regard the death of Christ (or his soul) as a ransom paid to the devil. This Marcionite doctrine of price and barter was already supplemented by Origen with the assumption of an act of deceit on the part of God. It was, in spite of an energetic protest, taken up by his disciples, and afterwards carried out still more offensively. It occurs in Gregory of Nyssa 601

See the great importance laid already by Justin on the Cross, an importance which it still has for the piety of the Greek Church. 602 Apollinaris who was the strictest dogmatist of the fourth century, substantially limited the significance of Christ’s death, so far as I know, to this effect.

who (Catech. 15-27), in dealing with the notion of God, treats it broadly and repulsively. We find it in Ambrose, who speaks of the pia fraus, in Augustine and Leo I. It assumes its worst form in Gregory I.: the humanity of Christ was the bait; the fish, the devil, snapped at it, and was left hanging on the invisible hook, Christ’s divinity. It proves that the Fathers had gradually lost any fixed conception of the holiness and righteousness of God; but on the other hand, it expresses the belief that the devil’s power will not first be broken by the future appearing of Christ, but has been already shattered by his death. In this sense it is 1ad4 the epitaph of the old dogmatics which turned on eschatology.603 For the rest, Gregory of Nazianus604 308and John of Damascus felt scruples about admitting God and the devil to have been partners in a legal transaction. With reference to the sacrifice of Christ, Origen was of epochmaking importance. On the one hand, he started from Rom. III. 25 and similar texts, on the other, he was strongly influenced by the Græco-oriental expiatory mysteries, and was the first to introduce into the Church, following the precedent set by the Gnostics, a theology of sacrifice or propitiation based on the death of Christ. He thereby enriched, but at the same time confused, Greek theology. He taught that all sins required a holy and pure sacrifice in order to be atoned for, in other words, to be forgiven by God; this sacrifice was the body of Christ, presented to the Father. This thought which, as expounded, approximates to the idea of a vicarious suffering of punishment, was adopted by Athanasius who combined it with the other ideas that God’s veracity required the threat of death to be carried out, and that death accordingly was accepted by Christ on behalf of all, and by him was destroyed.605

603

Irenæus held that men were God’s debtors, but in the power (unjustly) of the devil. Origen held a different view. The devil had a claim on men, and Christ paid him his soul as the price, but the devil could not keep it. The devil acted unjustly to Christ, he was not entitled to take possession of one who was sinless; see passages given in Münscher, p. 428 ff. Leo I, following Ambrose, gives the deception theory in a crude form. acb 604 See Ullman, Gregor, p. 318 f. 605 De incarnat. 9: Συωιδὼν γὰρ ὁ λόγος, ὅτι ἄλλως οὐκ ἂν λυθείη τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἡ φθορά, εἰ µὴ διὰ τοῦ πάντως ἀποθανεῖν, οὐχ οἷόν τε δὲ ἦν τὸν λόγον ἀποθανεῖν, ἀθάνατον ὄντα καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς υἱόν, τούτου ἕνεκεν τό δυνάµενον ἀποθανεῖν ἑαυτῷ λαµβάνει σῶµα, ἵνα τοῦτο τοῦ ἐπὶ πάντων λόγου µεταλαβόν, ἀντὶ πάντων ἱκανὸν γένηται τῷ θανάτῳ καὶ διὰ τὸν ἐνοικήσαντα λόγον ἄφθαρτον διαµείνῃ, καὶ λοιπὸν ἀπὸ πάντων ἡ φθορὰ παύσηται τῇ τῆς ἀναστάσεως χάριτι· ὅθεν ὡς ἱερεῖον καὶ θῦµα παντός ἐλεύθερον σπίλου, ὃ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ἔλαβε σῶµα προσάγων εἰς θάνατον, ἀπὸ πάντων εὐθὺς τῶν ὁµοίων ἡφάνιζε τὸν θάνατον τᾕ προσφορᾷ τοῦ καταλλήλου. We

The idea that only the sacrificial death of God could vanquish death which was decreed by him, and thus conciliate God, occurs also 309in other Greek Fathers of the fourth century.606 Following the estimate formed of the infinite value of the final passion of the God-man,607 we constantly find in them also traces, sometimes more, sometimes less, distinct, of the thought of substitution in connection with satisfaction; but it remains obscure,608 nay, it is frequently again withdrawn. In other words, it was sometimes twisted, as already in Irenæus, into the idea of example pure and simple. Thus the Antiochene school especially, who held his death to have been a natural event, considered that Christ’s final passion influenced our freely-formed resolutions, but this version is not entirely wanting in any Greek Father. Others, e.g., Gregory of Nazianzus, explained that God did not demand the sacrifice—or ransom—but received it δι᾽ οἰκονοµίαν.609 In this case, as much as in earlier times, δι᾽ οἰκονοµίαν meant “that the Scriptures might be fulfilled”; that is, it was tantamount to abandoning a direct explanation of the fact itself. In any case Cyril of Alexandria shows most clearly the vicarious idea of the passion and death of the God-man in connection with the whole Christological conception.610 Eusebius’ 310method of formulating the idea comes

see how the conceptions of the vicarious endurance of punishment, and of a sacrifice, meet here; indeed, generally speaking, it was difficult to keep them apart. Athanasius throughout lays greater stress on the former; Origen, as a Hellenist, on the latter; see Athan., l. c., 6-10, but esp. Ch. XX: ὡφείλετο πάντας ἀποθανεῖν . . . ὑπὲρ πάντων τὴν θυσίαν ἀνέφερεν, ἀντὶ πάντων τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ναὸν εἰς θάνατον παραδιδούς, ἵνα τοὺς µὲν πάντας ἀνυπευθύνους καὶ ἐλευθέρους τῆς ἀρχαίας παραβάσεως ποιήσῃ . . . ὁ πάντων θάνατος ἐν τῷ κυριακῷ σώµατι ἐπληροῦτο καὶ ὁ θάνατος καὶ ἡ φθορὰ διὰ τὸν συνόντα λόγον ἐξηφανίζετο. θανάτου γὰρ ἦν χρεία, καὶ θάνατον ὑπὲρ πάντων ἔ 564 γενέσθαι, ἵνα τὸ παρὰ πάντων ὀφειλόµενον γένηται, c. Arian. I. 60, II. 7, 66 sq. 606 See esp. Cyril, Catech. XIII. 33, but also the Cappadocians; cf. Ullmann, l. c., p. 316 ff. 607 Even Cyril of Jerusalem says, l. c.: οὐ τοσαύτη ἦν τῶν ἁµαρτωλῶν ἡ ἀνοµία, ὅση τοῦ ὑπεραποθνήσκοντος ἡ δικαιοσύνη. οὐ τοσοῦτον ἡµάρτοµεν, ὅσον ἐδικαιοπράγνσεν ὁ τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν τεθεικώς. Similarly Chrysostom in the Ep. ad Rom., Hom. 10, T. X., p. 121. But the idea is emotional, and not the starting-point of a philosoph ac8 ical theory. It is different with the Westerns. 608 The expiation of our guilt is more infrequently thought of than the taking over of sin’s punishment; that is guilt is only indirectly referred to. 609 See Ullmann, l. c., p. 319. 610 The idea of sacrifice falls into the background, which was only to be expected in the case of this energetic spokesman of genuine Greek Christian theology. Substitution passed naturally into, or rather grew out of, the idea of mystical mediation. Because all

nearest Paul’s, but it is only a paraphrase;611 and the inability of theologians to recognise, expose and dispute the differences in their divergent conceptions is the strongest proof that they were not clearly aware of the bearing and weight of their own propositions. § 2. Christ as man the Mediator. The West, which had a scheme of its own in Christology, (see below) also possessed characteristic features in its conception of the work of Christ.612 Here, as in almost all departments of activity in the Latin Church, it was of the highest moment that Tertullian, the jurist, and Cyprian, the ecclesiastical ruler, were the first Latin theologians. Disinclined for philosophical and strictly religious speculation, and dominated by a prosaic but powerful moralism, the Latins were possessed from the first of an impulse to carry religion into the legal sphere. The sacred authorities, or the Symbol, were regarded as the “law” (lex) of God; divine service was the place where the censure of God was pronounced; the deity was thought of as judge. Father, Son, and Spirit were held to be “personæ” who possessed a common property (“substantia” not “ 2078 natura”). Christ as the “persona” who controlled a two-fold “property,” one inherited from his Father (his divinity) and one from his mother (his humanity). Christ required to be obedient to God, and—as Tertullian first said613 and Cyprian repeated—had to satisfy God (deo satisfacere).614 In this phrase everything was comprised: man—the Christian—was to give God that which he owed him, i.e., he was to satisfy God’s legal claims. After this came the “promereri deum”, i.e., rendering services to God,

human nature was purified and transfigured really and physically in Christ, he could, regarded as an individual, be conceived as substitute or ἀντίλυτρον; see Cyril on John I. 29 and Gal. III. 13. Meanwhile Cyril also says that Christ outweighed all in merit. For the rest, he does not venture to affirm that Christ became a curse, but explains that he endured what one burdened with a curse must suffer. Compare also the exposition in the Orat. de recta fide ad reginas (Mansi IV., p. 809). The points of voluntariness and substitution were emphasised more strongly by orthodox theologians after Cyril, in order not to compromise the perfectly hypostatic deification—from the moment of the incarnation—of Christ’s human nature. 611 Demonstr. X. 1: ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν κολασθεὶς καὶ τιµωρίαν ὑποσχών, ἣν αὐτὸς µὲν οὐκ ὤφειλεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡµεῖς τοῦ πλὍ 55f θους ἕνεκεν τῶν πεπληµµεληµένων, ἡµῖν αἴτιος τῆς τῶν ἁµαρτηµάτων ἀφέσεως κατέστη . . . τὴν ἡµῖν προστετιµηµένην κατάραν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἑλκύσας, γενόµενος ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν κατάρα. 612 See fuller details in next book. Here we only give a sketch. Comp. Wirth, Der verdienstbegriff bei Tertullian, 1892. 613 See Vol. II., p. 294. 614 aca This notion was afterwards one of the most common in the West.

gaining God’s favour by our merits. But in Tertullian 311and Cyprian “satisfacere deo” meant more precisely to atone for wrongs inflicted on God by acts of penitence, and to appease him (placare deum, satisfacere deo per hostias: Arnobius). Further “promereri” was applied above all to bona opera, works (fasting) and alms-giving (Cypr., De oper. et eleemos.). Even from the middle of the third century an ecclesiastical system was drawn out in the Latin West of works to be rendered to God (order of penance);615 and this system gradually took in, like a net, all man’s relations to God. It was throughout governed by the idea that the magnitude of transgressions and that of the works rendered to God, the penitential offerings, were to have a strictly legal relation, and, similarly, that what a man’s merits entitled him to from God had a fixed and regulated value. It is not the case, as has been supposed, that this idea first arose in the Church in the Romano-German period, and is therefore to be described as a result of German criminal law. On the contrary, the idea of satisfactiones and merita already belonged in its entirety to the Roman age, and during it was strictly worked out. From the days of Tertullian and Cyprian the Latins were familiar with the notion that the Christian had to propitiate God, that cries of pain, sufferings, and deprivations were means, sacrificial means, of expiation, that God took strict account of the quantity of the atonement, and that, where there was no guilt to be blotted out, those very means were represented as merits. All those trivial definitions, which betray a low state of legal and moral views, and which one would gladly attribute to barbarous nations, had become the property of the Church before the incursion of the Germans; and Anselm’s principle, “Every sin must be followed either by satisfaction or punishment”,616 can be already shown in Sulpicius Severus,617 and corresponds to the thought of Cyprian and his successors.618 312

But Cyprian also applied the “satisfacere deo” to Christ himself. As in the Middle Ages the most questionable consequences of the theory and practice of penance reacted on the conception of Christ’s work, so from the time of Cyprian the latter was influenced by the view taken of human acts of penitence. His suffering and death constituted a sacrifice presented by Christ to

615

It occurs already in Tertullian; but we do not yet perceive its full extent in the Church in his time; it has not even the full significance that it possesses in Cyprian. 616 Necesse est ut omne peccatum satisfactio aut pœna sequatur. 617 See Sulp. Sev., Dial. II. 10: Fornicatio deputetur ad pœnam, nisi satisfactione purgetur. 618 For fuller details see a later Vol.

God in order to propitiate him. This thought, started by Cyprian, was never afterwards lost sight of in the West. The angry God whom it was necessary to propitiate and of whom the Greeks knew so little, became more and more familiar in the West. Jewish and Pauline traditions here joined with those of Roman law. Hilary is especially clear in combining the sacrifice of Christ with the removal of guilt and of punishment.619 This combination was repeated by Ambrose,620 Augustine, and the great popes of antiquity;621 least certainly, perhaps, by Augustine, 313who being a Neoplatonic philosopher and profound Christian thinker, was also familiar with other and more productive points of view.622 The distinctive nature, however, of this Latin view of the work of Christ, as the propitiation of an angry God by a sacrificial death, was characteristically expressed in the firmly established thought that Christ performed it as man, therefore, by means, not of his

619

On Ps. LIII. 12: “passio suscepta voluntarie est, officio ipsa satisfactura pœnali”; Ch. 13: “maledictorum se obtulit morti, ut maledictionem legis solveret, hostiam se ipsum voluntarie offerendo.” Along with this Hilary has the mystical realistic theory of the Greeks. 620 A few passages are given in Förster, Ambrosius, pp. 136 ff., 297 f. The “redimere a culpa” is for Ambrose the decisive point. In his work De incarn. dom. he is never tired of answering the question as to the motive of the incarnation with the phrase: “ut caro, quæ peccaverat, redimeretur,” frequently adding “a culpa” He also uses very often the word “offerre” (applied to the death of Christ). In Ps. XLVIII., exp. 17, we read: “quæ major misericordia quam quod pro nostris flagitiis se præbuit immolandum, ut sanguine suo mundum levaret, cuius peccatum nullo alio modo potuisset aboleri.” See Deutsch, Des Ambrosius Lehre von der Sünde und Sündentilgung, 1867. 621 There are many striking passages in Leo I. in which death is described as an expiatory sacrifice which blots out guilt. See, further, Gregory ac8 I., Moral. XVII. 46: “delenda erat culpa, sed nisi per sacrificium deleri non poterat. Quærendum erat sacrificium, sed quale sacrificium poterat pro absolvendis hominibus inveniri? Neque etenim iustum fuit, ut pro rationali homine brutorum animalium victimæ cæderentur . . . Ergo requirendus erat homo . . . qui pro hominibus offerri debuisset, ut pro rationali creatura rationalis hostia mactaretur. Sed quid quod homo sine peccato inveniri non poterat, et oblata pro nobis hostia quando nos a peccato inundate potuisset, si ipsa hostia peccati contagio non careret? Ergo ut rationalis esset hostia, homo fuerat offerendus: ut vero a peccatis mundaret hominem, homo et sine peccato. Sed quis esset sine peccato homo, si ex peccati commixtione descenderet. Proinde venit propter nos in uterum virginis filius dei, ibi pro nobis factus est homo. Sumpta est ab illo natura, non culpa. Fecit pro nobis sacrificium, corpus suum exhibuit pro peccatoribus, victimam sine peccato, quæ et humanitate mori et iustitia mundare potuisset.” 622 Whatever occurs in Ambrose is to be found also in Augustine; for the latter has not, so far as I know, omitted to use a single thought of the former; he only adds something new.

divine, but of his human attributes.623 The Latins were shut up to this conclusion. Their views regarding the work of Christ had been influenced by the works of penance enjoined by the Church, and on the other hand, the latter owed their value to the voluntary acceptance of suffering. Again, “sacrifices” in general were something human—God does not render, but receives sacrifices. Finally, mankind was in God’s debt. From all this it necessarily followed that Christ in presenting himself as a sacrifice did so as man. But with this conclusion the Latins severed themselves from the supreme and final interests of Greek piety—for this rather required that the deity should have assumed with human nature all the “passiones” of the latter and made them its own. If the rigid Greek conception, 314which, indeed, in after times was full of gaps and inconsistencies, represent 25bc ed Christ’s sufferings as a whole to be not voluntary, but the complete acceptance of the Ensarkosis (life in the flesh), yet God is always the subject.624 On

623

See Ambrose, De fide III. 5: “Idem igitur sacerdos, idem et hostia, et sacerdotium tamen et sacrificium humanæ condicionis officium est. Nam et agnus ad immolandum ductus est et sacerdos erat secundum ordinem Melchisedech.” This thought recalls Cyprian, although Ambrose has hardly taken it from him; Cypr. Ep. LXIII. 14: “Christus Iesus dominus et deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos dei patris et sacrificium patri se ipsum obtulit.” The same idea is repeated in contents and form, but rendered more profound, by Augustine (Confess. X. 68, 69, see Ritschl, l. c., I., p. 38): “In quantum enim homo, in tantum mediator; in quantum autem verbum, non medius, quia æqualis deo . . . pro nobis deo victor et victor et victima, et ideo victor quia victima; pro nobis deo sacerdos et sacrificium; et ideo sacerdos quia sacrificium;” see De civi 564 t. dei IX. 15: “Nec tamen ab hoc mediator est, quia verbum, maxime quippe immortale et maxime beatum verbum longe est a mortalibus miseris; sed mediator per quod homo.” Accordingly, not only was that which Christ presented in sacrifice human— Ambrose, De incarn. VI.: “ex nobis accepit quod proprium offeret pro nobis . . . sacrificium de nostro obtulit”; but Christ as priest and mediator was man. He had to represent man, and that again only a man could do. Very pregnant is the sentence of Ambrose (in Luc. exp. IV. 7) “ut quia solvi non queunt divina decreta, persona magis quam sententia mutaretur.” That is the genuine idea of substitution. Ambrose does not even shrink from saying “quia peccata nostra suscepit, peccatum dictus est” (Expos. in Ps. CXIX., X. 14). 624 The subtle distinction between East and West is accordingly to be defined as follows. Both held that the human nature of Christ suffered, for the divine was incapable of suffering; but the East taught that the deity suffered through the human nature ac8 which he had made his own, the West that the man suffered and presented his human nature as a sacrifice in death; the latter, however, obtained an infinite value, for the deity was associated with it. From this we have two consequences. First, the idea of substitution could take root on Greek ground only superficially, and in an indefinite form; for the dying God-man really represented no one, but rather received all really into the plenitude of his divinity; it was different in the West. Secondly, the method of computing

the whole, therefore, the conception of sacrifice is really alien in the view of the Greeks to the strict theory of Christ’s significance. It found its way in through exegesis and the mysteries, and threatened the compactness of the dogmatic conception, according to which everything that Christ did was summed up in the complete assumptio carnis (assumption of the flesh). Nor was the alien view able to shake the fundamental conception that the GodLogos was the subject in all that pertained to Christ. Among the Latins, on the other hand, the idea of the atoning sacrifice plus substitution is genuine, and has no general theory 315against it; for they never were able to rise perfectly to the contemplation of Christ’s work as the assumptio carnis, an expression of the loftiest piety among the Greeks. Those of the latter who, like the Antiochenes, either did not share or only imperfectly shared the realistic idea of redemption, referred, it is worth remarking, the work of Christ, like the Latins, to the human side of his personality.625

the value of Christ’s mortal agony could similarly find no footing in the East; for the deity was the subject of the transaction, and precluded all questioning and computing. The striking utterances of Orientals as to the supreme value of Christ’s work are really therefore only rhetorical (see above). If, on the other hand, the means of atonement under discussion, and the substitution are human, the question, of course, arises what value these possess, or what value is lent them by the divinity that is behind this sacrifice and this priest. We must take the statements of the Latin Fathers more literally. Ambrose confesses “Felix ruina quæ reparatur in melius” and “Amplius nobis profuit culpa quam nocuit: in quo redemptio quidem nostra divinum munus invenit. Facta est mihi culpa mea merces redemptionis, per quam mihi Christus advenit . . . Fructuosior culpa quam innocentia; innocentia arrogantem me fecerat—and here indeed the paradox becomes nonsensical—culpa subjectum reddidit.” (Numerous passages are given in Deutsch, l. c., see also Förster, l. c., pp. 136, 297). Augustine often repeats and varies this thought, and other Western writers reproduce it from him. “Felix culpa quæ tantum et talem meruit habere redemptorem.” Lastly, Leo L preaches (Serm. LXI. 3): “validius donum factum est libertatis, quam debitum servitutis.” Sayings like these, apart from the special pleading in which Western writers have always delighted since Tertullian, are to be taken much more seriously than if they had come from the East. And in fact momentous speculations were certainly instituted by them. 625 An affinity exists between the theology of the Antiochenes and Latins—esp. preAugustinian; but it is greater to a superficial than to a more exact observer. The Antiochene conception always had the Alexandrian for a foil; it never eman 6a2 cipated itself sufficiently from the latter to set up a perfectly compact counter-theology; it was in a sense Greek piety and Greek theology watered down. The Latins did not possess this foil. Their theology must not be gauged by Origen and Neoplatonism as if they furnished its starting-point.

Great as are the distinctions here—the West did not possess in antiquity a definite dogmatic theory as to the atoning work of Christ. Greek views exerted their influence;626 and, besides, Western Christians were not yet disposed, with a very few exceptions, to trouble themselves with thoughts that had no bearing on practical life. Appendix on Manichæism 316

APPENDIX ON MANICHÆISM. THREE great religious systems confronted each other in Western Asia and Southern Europe from the close of the third century: Neoplatonism, Catholicism and Manichæism. All three may be characterised as the final results of a history, lasting for more than a thousand years, of the religious development of the civilised peoples from Persia to Italy. In all three the old national and particular character of religions was laid aside; they were world-religions of the most universal tendency, and making demands which in their consequences transformed the whole of human life, public and private. For the national cultus they substituted a system which aspired to be theology, theory of the universe and science of history, and at the same time embraced a definite ethics, and a ritual of divine service. Formally, therefore, the three religions were alike, and they were also similar in that each had appropriated the elements of different older religions. Further, they showed their similarity in bringing to the front the ideas of revelation, redemption, ascetic virtue, and immortality. But Neoplatonism was natural religion spiritualised, the polytheism of Greece transfigured by Oriental influences and developed into pantheism. Catholicism was the monotheistic world-religion based on the O. T. and the Gospel, but constructed by the aid of Hellenic speculation and ethics. Manichæism was the dualistic world-religion resting on Chaldæism,627 but interspersed with Christian, Parsi, and perhaps Buddhist thoughts. To

626

So from Hilary down to Augustine. The most important of the Western Fathers accepted the Greek idea of the purchase from the devil, although it flatly contradicted their own doctrine of the atonement; and this proves how uncertain they were. The grotesque conception of the role played by the devil at the death of Christ, had nevertheless something good about it. It reminded men that every knave is a stupid devil, and that the devil is always a stupid knave. 627 See Brandt, Die mandäische Religion, 1889 (further, Wellhausen in the deutsch. Litt.-Ztg., 1890, No. 41).

Manichæism the Hellenic element was wanting, to Catholicism the Chaldee and Persian. These three world-religions 317developed in the course of two centuries (c. A.D. 50-250), Catholicism coming first and Manichæism last. Catholicism and Manichæism were superior to Neoplatonism for the very reason that the latter possessed no founder; it, therefore, developed no elemental force, and never lost the character of being an artificial creation. Attempts which were made to invent a founder for it naturally failed. But, even apart from the contents of its religion, Catholicism was superior to Manichæism, because its founder was venerated not merely as the bearer of revelation, but as the Redeemer in person and the Son of God. The fight waged by Catholicism with Neoplatonism had been already decided about the middle of the fourth century, although the latter continued to hold its ground in the Greek Empire for almost two centuries longer. As against Manichæism the Catholic Church was certain of victory from the beginning; for at the moment when Manichæism disputed its supremacy, it became the privileged State Church. But its opponent did not suffer itself to be annihilated; it lasted till far into the Middle Ages in East and West, though in various modifications and forms. Authorities—(a) Oriental. 1. Mohammedan.—Among our sources for the history of Manichæism the Oriental are the most important; of these the Mohammedan, though comparatively late, are distinguished by the excellence of the tradition and their impartiality, and must be given the first place, since in them old Manichæan writings are employed, and we possess no other originals of this sort belonging to the third century, except a few short and rather unimportant fragments. At the head stands Abulfaragius, Fihrist (c. 980), see the edition by Flügel and the work of the latter: “Mani, seine Lehre und seine Schriften,” 1862; further, Shahrastâni , Kitâb al-milal wan-nuhal (12th century), see edition by Cureton and German translation by Haarbrücker, 1851; some notes and extracts in Tabari (10th century), al-Birunî (11th century), Ibn al-Murtada (see Kessler, Mani, I., p. 346 ff.), and other Arabian and Persian historians. 2. Christian.—Of Eastern Christians we learn most from Syrus (+373) in various writings, and in a tractate on the subject edited by Overbeck; from Esnîk, the Armenian (see Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol., 1840, II.; Langlois, Collection, etc., II., p. 395 sq.), who wrote in the fifth century against Marcion and Mani; and from the Alexandrian Patriarch Eutychius (+916) who composed a chronicle (ed. by Pococke, 1628). Besides this,

318Ephraem

separate pieces of information occur in Aphraates (4th century), Barhebraeus (Arab. and Syr. 13th century) and others. (b) Greek and Latin. The earliest mention of the Manichæans in the Roman or Greek empire occurs in an edict of Diocletian (see Hänel, Cod. Gregor. tit. XV.), which is held by some not to be genuine, and by others is dated A.D. 287, 290, 296, or 308 (so Mason, The Persec. of Dioclet., p. 275 sq.). Eusebius gives a brief account (H. E. VII. 31). The main authority, however, for Greek and Roman writers was the Acta Archelai, which though not what they pretended to be, namely, an account of a disputation between Mani and Bishop Archelaus of Cascar in Mesopotamia, yet contain much that is reliable, esp as to the doctrine of Mani, and also embrace Manichæan fragments. The Acts, which for the rest consist of various documents, originated at the beginning of the fourth century (in Edessa?). Jerome maintains (De vir. inl.72) that they were originally composed in Syria (so also Kessler); but Nöldeke (Ztschr. d. deutsch. morgenl. Gesellsch. vol. 43, p. 537 ff.) and Rahlfs have disproved Kessler’s arguments (Gött. Gel. Anz., 1889, No. 23). They have made it very probable that the Acts, while they may have been based on Syrian sources, were originally written in Greek. They were soon afterwards translated into Latin. We only possess this version (Edited by Zacagni, 1698; Routh, Reliq. S. Vol. V., 1848); of the Greek version small fragments have been preserved (see on the Acta Archelai the discussions by Zittwitz in the Zeitschr. f. die histor. Theol., 1873, and the Dissertation by Oblasinski. Acta disp. Arch. et Manetis, 1874. In the form in which we now have them, they are a compilation largely edited on the pattern of the Clementine Homilies). The 319Acta were made use of by Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. VI.), Epiphanius (Hær. 66) and very many others. All Greek and Latin students of heresy have put the Manichæans in their catalogues; but they only rarely give any original information about them (see Theodoret Haer. fab. I. 26). Important matter occurs in the decrees of Cou 2b20 ncils from the fourth century (see Mansi, Acta Concil., and Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Vols. I.—III.), and in the controversial writings of Titus of Bostra (4th century, in Syriac after a MS. of A.D. 411) πρὸς Μανιχαίους (edit. by de Lagarde, 1859), and Alexander of Lycopolis, Λόγος πρὸς τὰς Μανιχαίου δόξας (edit. by Combefis.). Of Byzantines, John of Damascus (De hæres and Dial.) and Photius (cod. 179 Biblioth.) deserve special mention; see also the Manichæan form of oath in Tollii insignia itiner. ital. p. 126 sq., and in Cotelier, P. P. App. Opp. I. p. 543; further, Rahlfs, 1.c. The controversy with the Paulicians and Bogomilians,

who were frequently identified with the Manichæans, renewed the interest in the latter. In the West the works of Augustine are the great repository for our knowledge of the Manichæans:—“Contra epistolam Manichæi, quam vocant fundamenti”, “Contra Faustum Manichæum”, “Contra Fortunatum”, “Contra Adimantum”, “Contra Secundinum”, “De actis cum Felice Manichæo”, “De genesi c. Manichæos”, “De natura boni”, “De duabus animabus”, “De utilitate credendi”, “De moribus eccl. Cathol. et de moribus Manichæorum”, “De vera religione”, “De hæres.” But the more complete the view of Manichæism to be obtained from these writings, the more cautious we must be in our generalisations; for the Manichæism of the West undoubtedly received Christian elements which were wanting in its original and oriental form. Mani’s Life. Mani (Μάνης; Manes, Μανιχαῖος, Manichæus—the name has not yet been explained; it is not even known whether it is of Persian or Semitic origin) is said, as the Acta Archelai inform us, to have been originally called “Cubricus”. Nothing reliable was ever known as to his life in the Romano-Greek 320empire; for the account in the Acta Archelai is wholly biassed and untrustworthy. Even if criticism succeeded in pointing out the sources from which it was derived, in discovering the tendencies that were at work, and in thus sifting out portions that were tenable, yet it could only do so by depending on the comparatively trustworthy Oriental Mohammedan tradition. We must therefore examine the latter alone. According to it, Mani was a Persian of distinguished birth belonging to Mardin. The date of his birth is uncertain; Kessler holds the statement in Bîrunî to be reliable, that he was born in anno 527 of the era of the Babylonian astronomers, i.e., A.D. 215216. He received a careful education from his father Fâtàk (Πατέκιος) at Ctesiphon. Since the father afterwards adhered to the confession of the “Moghtasilah”, the Baptists, in southern Babylonia, the son was also brought up in their religious doctrines and practices. The Baptists (see the Fihrist) were probably not unconnected with the Elkesaites and Hemerobaptists, and were in any case allied to the Mandæans. It is not improbable that this Babylonian sect had adopted Christian elements. The boy accordingly became early acquainted with very different forms of religion. If even a small proportion of the narratives about his father rest on truth—the greater number being certainly only Manichæan legends—he had already introduced his son into the religious medley, out of which the Manichæan system arose. Manichæan tradition tells us that Mani received revelations, and took up a critical attitude towards religious instruction, even when a boy. But it is all the less trustworthy, as it also relates that he was

forbidden to ventilate publicly his new religious knowledge. It was only when he was from 25 to 30 years of age that he began to preach his new religion at the court of the Persian king, Sapores I.—on the day, it is stated, of the king’s coronation, A.D. 241-242. A Persian tradition says that he was previously a Christian presbyter, but this, in any case, is wrong. Mani did not remain long in Persia, but undertook long journeys for the purpose of spreading his religion, and he also sent out disciples. According to the Acta Archelai, his missionary activity extended into the West, into the territory of the Christian Church; but it is certain from Oriental 321sources that his work was rather carried on in Transoxania, Western China, and southwards into India. His labours met with success there as well as in Persia. Like Mohammed after him, and the founder of the Elkesaites before him, he proclaimed himself the last and greatest of the prophets, whose revelation of God surpassed all that had been given till then, the latter being allowed only a relative value. He instituted the absolute religion. In the last years of the reign of Sapores I. (c. A.D. 270) Mani returned to the Persian capital, and gained adherents even at the court. Naturally, however, the ruling priestly caste of the Magi, on whom the king was compelled to lean, were hostile to him, and after a few successes Mani was taken prisoner and driven into exile. The successor of Sapores, Hormuz (272-273), seems to have been favourable to him, but Bahrâm I. abandoned him to the fanaticism of the Magi, and had him crucified at the capital, A.D. 276-277. His dead body was skinned; and his adherents were dreadfully persecuted by Bahrâm. Mani’s Writings. Mani himself composed very many writings and epistles, of which a large proportion were still known to the Mohammedan historians, but which are now all lost. The later heads of the Manichæan Churches also wrote religious tractates, so that the ancient Manichæan literature must have been very extensive. According to the Fihrist, Mani made use of the Persian and Syriac languages; he invented, however, like the Oriental Marcionites before him, an alphabet of his own which the Fihrist has transmitted to us. In this alphabet the sacred works of the Manichæans were afterwards written. The Fihrist enumerates seven principal works by Mani, six in Syriac and one in Persian; as to some of them we possess statements also in Titus of Bostra, Epiphanius, Augustine, and Photius, as well as in the oath-formula and the Acta Archelai. We have (1) The Book of mysteries: see Acta Archelai; it contained discussions with the Christian sects which were spreading in the East, especially the Marcionites and Bardesanians, as well as with 322their conception of the Old and

New Testaments. (2) The Book of Giants (demons? probably in connection with Gen. VI.). (3) The Book of Regulations for the hearers,—apparently identical with the “epistula fundamenti” of Augustine and the “Book of the Chapters” of Epiphanius and the Acta Archelai. It was the most extensively circulated and popular of Manichæan works, and was also translated into Greek and Latin-being a brief summary of the whole fundamentally authoritative doctrine. (4) The Book Schâhpûrakân. Flügel was unable to explain this title; according to Kessler, it means “Epistle to King Sapores”. This tractate contained eschatological teaching. (5) The Book of quickening. It is identified by Kessler with the “Thesaurus (vitæ)” of the Acta Archelai, Epiphanius, Photius, and Augustine; in that case it was also in use among the Latin Manichæans. (6) The Book πραγµατεία—contents unknown. (7)— In the Persian language; a book whose title is not stated in the Fihrist, as we have it, but which is probably identical with the “Holy Gospel” of the Manichæans; see the Acta Archelai and many witnesses. This was the work set up by the Manichæans in opposition to the Gospels of the Church. Besides these main works, Mani wrote a great number of shorter tractates and letters. The epistolography was then established by his successors. These Manichæan treatises were also familiar in the Græco-Roman empire and existed in collections—see the βιβλίον ἐπιστολῶν in the oath-formula; and an “epistula ad virginem Menoch” in Augustine. Fabricius has collected the Greek fragments of Manichæan epistles in the Bibliotheca Græca VII. 2, p. 311 sq. There also existed a Manichæan Book of “memoirs” and one of “prayers” in the Greek language, as well as many others (e.g., the “Canticum Amatorium” cited by Augustine), all of which, however, were destroyed by Christian Bishops in alliance with the magistracy. A Manichæan Epistle to one Marcellus has been preserved to us in the Acta Archelai. Zittwitz supposes that this letter was much fuller in its original form, and that the author of the Acts has borrowed from it the material for the speeches which he makes Mani deliver in the discussion. The same scholar refers the account of Turbo in the Acts and their historical statements (in section 4) to the 323writing of a Turbo of Mesopotamia, a Manichæan renegade and Christian. But on this point it is at least possible to hold a different opinion. Mani’s Doctrine. The Manichæan System. Clearly as the main features of the Manichæan doctrine can be presented even at the present day, and certain as it is that Mani himself published a complete system, yet many details are uncertain, being differently described in different places, and it

often remains doubtful what the original doctrinal view of the founder was. The Manichæan system of religion was a consistent and uncompromising dualism, in the form of a fanciful view of nature. No distinction was drawn between the physical and ethical: in this respect the character of the system was thoroughly materialistic; for Mani’s identification of the good with light, and the bad with darkness, was not merely figurative. The light was really the only good, and darkness the only bad. Hence it followed, that religious knowledge could be nothing but the knowledge of nature and its elements, and that redemption consisted exclusively in a physical deliverance of the fractions of light from darkness. Bu 3084 t under such circumstances, ethics became a doctrine of abstinence from all elements arising from the realm of darkness. The self-contradictory character of the present world formed for Mani the starting-point of his speculation. But the inconsistency appeared to him to be primarily elemental, and only secondarily ethical, in so far as he regarded the material side of man as an emanation from the bad parts of nature. From the selfcontradictory character of the world he inferred two beings, originally wholly separate from each other,—light and darkness. Both were, however, to be thought of after the analogy of a kingdom. The light appeared as the good Primeval Spirit-God, shining in the ten (twelve) virtues of love, faith, fidelity, magnanimity, wisdom, gentleness, knowledge, intelligence, mystery, and insight. It also manifested itself in the heaven and earth of light with their guardians, the 324glorious Æons. The darkness, similarly, was a spiritual realm: more correctly, it was represented in a spiritual, or feminine, personification; but it had no “God” at its head. It embraced an “earth of darkness”. As the earth of light had five distinguishing features—the gentle breeze, cooling wind, bright light, cheering fire, and clear water—so also the earth of darkness had five—fog, fiery heat, burning wind, darkness, and damp. Satan with his demons was born from the realm of darkness. From eternity the two realms stood opposed. They came into contact on one side, but they did not mingle. Then Satan began to storm, and made an attack on the realm, the earth, of light. The God of light, with his Syzygos (mate) “the spirit of his right hand”, now generated the Primeval man, and sent him, equipped with the five pure elements, to fight against Satan. But Satan proved himself the stronger. Primeval man was defeated for a moment. Now indeed the God of light himself marched forth, utterly defeated Satan by the help of new Æons—the spirit of life, etc.—and delivered the Primeval man. But a part of the light of the latter had already been robbed by darkness, the five dark elements

had already mingled with the generations of light. The Primeval man could only descend into the abyss and hinder the increase of the dark “generations” by cutting off their roots; but the elements once mixed he could never again separate. The mixed elements were the elements of the present visible world. This was fashioned out of them at the command of the God of light; the formation of the world was itself the first step in the redemption of the imprisoned portions of light. The world itself was represented as an ordered chain of different heavens and different earths, which was borne and supported by the Æons, the angels of light. In sun and moon, which from their nature were almost wholly pure, it possessed great reservoirs, in which the rescued portions of light were stored. In the sun Primeval man himself dwelt along with the holy spirits, who pursued the work of redemption; in the moon the Mother of life was throned. The twelve signs of the zodiac constituted an artificial machine, a great wheel with buckets which poured the portions of light delivered from the world into the moon 325and sun, the illuminating vessels swimming in space. There they were purified anew, and finally reached God himself in the realm of pure light. The later Manichæans of the West designated the portions of light scattered in the world—in elements and organisms—and waiting for redemption, “Jesus patibilis.” Now it is characteristic of the materialistic and unhuman character of the system, that while the construction of the world is regarded as the work of the good spirits, the creation of man is referred to the princes of darkness. The first man, Adam, was begotten by Satan in conjunction with “sin,” “greed” and “lust.” But the spirit of darkness conjured into him all the portions of light which he had robbed, in order to make more certain of his power to rule over them. Adam was accordingly a divided being, created in the image of Satan, but bearing the stronger spark of light within him. Eve was associated with him by Satan. She was seductive sensuousness, although even she had a tiny spark of light in her. If the first human beings thus stood under the rule of Satan, yet from the very first the glorious spirits took an interest in them. These sent Æons—e.g., Jesus—down to them, who instructed them as to their nature, and warned Adam especially against the senses. But the first man fell a victim to sexual lust. Cain and Abel, indeed, were not sons of Adam, but of Satan and Eve; but Seth was the lightpossessed offspring of Adam and Eve. Thus arose mankind, among whose individual members light was very variously distributed. It was always stronger, however, in men than women. Now the demons sought in the course of history to bind men to themselves through sensuality, error, and false religions, which included above all the religion of Moses and the prophets, while the spirits of light continued their process of distillation, in order to

obtain the pure light in the world. But they could only deliver men by giving the true Gnosis as to nature and its powers, and by recalling them from the service of darkness and sensuousness. For this purpose prophets, preachers of the true knowledge, were sent into the world. Mani himself appears, in accordance with the example set by Gnostic Jewish Christians, to have held Adam, Noah, and Abraham, and perhaps Zoroaster 326and Buddha to have been such prophets. Probably Jesus was also considered by him to have been a prophet come down from the world of light; not, however, the historical Jesus, but a contemporary, seemingly human, Jesus who neither suffered nor died (Jesus impatibilis). Some Manichæans taught that Primeval man himself, as Christ, spread the true Gnosis. But in any case Mani was held, as he claimed, to be the last and greatest prophet, having taken up the work of “Jesus impatibilis,” and of Paul, who is also recognised, and having been the first to bring complete knowledge. He was the “guide,” the “ambassador of the light,” the “Paraclete.” Only by his labours and those of his “imitators, the Elect,” was the separation of light from darkness accomplished. The process by which the unfettered parts of light finally ascend to the God of light himself are very fancifully elaborated. He who has not succeeded in becoming elect in his life-time, has not completely redeemed himself, has to pass through severe purifications in the future state, until he also is gathered to the blessedness of the light. A doctrine of transmigration of souls has, however, been erroneously imputed to the Manichæans. Bodies fall naturally, like the souls of unredeemed men, to the powers of darkness. But those souls, according at least to the oldest conception, contain no light at all; a later view, adapted to the Christian, taught that the parts of light existing in them were really lost. Finally, when the elements of light are delivered—completely, or as far as possible—the end of the world takes place. All glorious spirits assemble, the God of light himself appears, accompanied by the Æons and the perfectly righteous. The angels who uphold the world withdraw from their burden, and everything collapses. An enormous conflagration destroys the world: once more the two powers are completely severed: high above is the realm of light restored to its perfect state, low down is the darkness (now powerless?). Ethics, Social Constitution and Cultus of the Manichæans. The only possible ethics based on this doctrine of the world were dualistic and ascetic. But as it was not only considered 327necessary to escape from darkness, but also to cherish, strengthen, and purify the parts of light, the ethics were not merely negative. They aimed not at suicide, but at preservation. Yet in practice they assumed a thoroughly ascetic form. The Manichæan

had to abstain above all from sensuous enjoyment. He was to deny himself to it by means of three seals: the signaculum oris, manus, and sinus (the seal of the mouth, hand, and breast). The signaculum oris forbade any use of unclean food, as well as impure talk; unclean were all animal flesh, wine etc.; vegetable food was permitted, because plants contained more light; but the destruction of plants, even the plucking of fruits or breaking of twigs, was not allowed. The sign. manus prevented any occupation with things, in so far as they contained elements of darkness. Finally, the sign. sinus forbade especially any satisfaction of sexual desire, and therefore prohibited marriage. Besides, life was regulated by an extremely rigorous list of fasts. Fast-days were selected in obedience to certain astronomical conjunctures. Moreover, men fasted, i.e., held holiday, regularly on Sunday, and generally also on Monday. The number of fast-days amounted almost to a quarter of the year. Times of prayer were appointed just as exactly. Four times a day had the Manichæan to utter prayers; and these were preceded by ablutions. He who prayed turned to the sun or moon, or to the North as the seat of light. Yet the inference that the Manichæans worshipped the sun and moon themselves is wrong. The Fihrist has preserved some Manichæan forms of prayer. They were directed to the God of light, the whole realm of light, the glorious angels and Mani himself, who is addressed in them as “the great tree in whom is all healing.” According to Kessler, these prayers are closely allied to the Mandæan and ancient Babylonian hymns. An asceticism so minute and strict as that demanded by Manichæism,628 could only be practised thoroughly by a few. The religion would, therefore, have been compelled to forego an extensive propaganda, had it not conceded a morality of two kinds. A distinction was accordingly drawn within the 328community between the “Electi” (perfecti), the perfect Manichaeans, and the Catechumeni (auditores), the secular Manichæans. Only the former submitted to all the demands imposed by the religion; for the latter the regulations were relaxed. They required to avoid idolatry, witchcraft, greed, lying, fornication, etc.; above all, they must kill no living creature—keeping Mani’s ten commandments. They were to renounce the world as far as possible; but they lived in fact very much like their fellow-citizens of other faiths. We have here, accordingly, substantially the same state of matters as in the Catholic Church, where a twofold morality also prevailed, viz., that of the religious orders and of the secular Christians. The only

628It also professed imitation of the apostolic life; see Raumer’s note on Confess. Aug. VI. 7 (12).

difference was that the position of the Electi was still more distinguished than that of the monks. For the Christian monks never wholly forgot that redemption was a gift of God through Christ, while the Manichean Electi were really themselves redeemers; therefore it was the duty of the Auditores to pay t 40b0 he deepest veneration and render the greatest services to the Electi. These perfect beings, as they languished away in their asceticism, were admired and cherished most devotedly. Analogous is the reverence paid by Catholics to the saints, and by Neoplatonists to the “philosophers,” but the prestige of the Manichæan Electi surpassed that of both. Foods were brought to them in abundance; by using them the Electi delivered the parts of light from the plants. They prayed for the Auditores, they blessed and interceded for them, thereby abbreviating the purgatory through which the latter had to pass after death. And the Electi alone possessed complete knowledge of religious truths—it was otherwise in Catholicism. The distinction between Electi and Auditores did not, however, constitute the whole idea of the Manichæan Church; it possessed a hierarchy also. This fell into three grades, so that altogether there were five in the religious constitution. In its fivefold division the social order was conceived to be a copy of the numbers of the realm of light. At the head stood the Teachers (“the sons of gentleness” = Mani and his successors); these were followed by the Administrators (“sons of knowledge” = the Bishops); then the Elders (“sons of understanding” = the 329presbyters); the Electi (“sons of mystery”); and finally the Auditores (“sons of insight”). The number of Electi was at all times small. According to Augustine, there were twelve Teachers and seventy-two Bishops. One of the Teachers appears to have stood as president at the head of the whole Manichæan Church. At least Augustine speaks of such an one, and the Fihrist also knows of a supreme head over all Manichæans. The constitution accordingly had here also a monarchical head. The cultus of the Manichæans must have been very simple, and have consisted essentially of prayers, hymns, and ceremonies of adoration. This simple divine service promoted the secret spread of the doctrine. Besides, the Manichæans seem, at least in the West, to have adhered to the Church’s order of festivals. The Electi celebrated special festivals; but the chief one common to all was the “Bema” (Βῆµα), the festival of the “doctoral chair,” in memory of the death of Mani, in the month of March. Believers prostrated themselves before a decorated, but vacant chair, erected on a pedestal with five steps. Long fasts accompanied the festival. Christian and Mohammedan writers were able to learn little

concerning the mysteries and “sacraments” of the Manichæans; the Christians therefore raised the charge that obscene rites and repulsive practices were observed. But it may be held certain that the later Manichæan mysteries were solemnised after the style of Christian Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They may have been based on old rites and ceremonies instituted by Mani himself, and descended from natural religion. The Historical Position of Manichæism. In the present state of the inquiry it is made out, and the account given above will also have shown, that Manichæism did not rise on the soil of Christianity. We would even be better justified if we were to call Mohammedanism a Christian sect; for Mohammed approaches the Jewish and Christian religions incomparably more closely than Mani. Kessler has the credit of having shown that the ancient Babylonian religion, the original source of all the Gnosis of Western Asia, was the foundation of the Manichæan system. The opinion formerly held is accordingly 330wrong, viz., that Manichæism was a reformation on the ground of Parsiism, a modification of Zoroastrianism under the influence of Christianity. It was rather a religious creation belonging to the circle of Semitic religions: it was the Semitic nature-religion lifted out of national limitations, modified by Christian and Persian elements, raised to the level of Gnosis, and transforming human life by strict rules. But when we have perceived this, we have only obtained a very general explanation of the origin of Manichæism. The question rises, through what means and to what extent Mani adopted Persian and Christian elements, and further, in which form the nature-religion of ancient Babylonia was made use of by him. Now as regards the latter point, it is well known that the Semitic nature-religions had been taken up, centuries before Mani, by isolated enthusiastic or speculative heads, had been philosophically deepened and remodelled into “systems”, in support of which missions were conducted by means of mysterious cults. Mani’s enterprise was accordingly nothing new, but was rather the last in a long series of similar attempts. Even the earlier ones, from Simon Magus the Samaritan down, had adopted Christian elements to a greater or less extent, and the Christian Gnostic scholastic sects of Syria and Western Asia all pointed back to ancient Semitic nature-religions, which were transformed by them into a philosophy of the world and of life. But in particular the doctrines of the Babylonian sect of Moghtasilah, which were indeed influenced also by Christianity, seem to have afforded Mani material for his religio-philosophical speculation. The religion of this sect was not, however, purely Semitic (see the treatise by Kessler on the Mandæans in the Real-Encyklopaedia für prot.

Theol. u. Kirche, 2 Ed., Vol. IX., p. 205 ff.; the Mandæans were allied to the Moghtasilah, Brandt, 1. c.). From this source sprang the rigid dualism on which Mani’s system was based; for the ancient Persian religion was not in principle dualistic, but in its ultimate foundation Monistic, since Ahriman was created by Ormuzd. However, ancient Persian theologoumena were employed by Mani. Even the designation of the antitheses as “light” and “darkness” was hardly independent of Parsiism, and elsewhere in Manichæism there occur 331technical terms taken from the Persian religion. Whether Mani’s idea of redemption goes back to the ancient Babylonian religion or to Zoroastrianism, I do not venture to decide; the idea of the “Prophet” and the “Primeval man” is at all events Semitic. It is very difficult to determine how far Mani’s acquaintance with Christianity went, and how much he borrowed from it; further, through what agencies Christian knowledge reached him. In any case, in those regions where Manichæism was settled and where it came more closely into contact with Christianity, it was at a later stage influenced by the latter. Western Manichæans of the fourth and fifth centuries were much more “Christian” than those of the East. In this respect the system passed through the same development as Neoplatonism. As regards Mani himself, it is safest to suppose that he held Judaism as well as Christianity to be entirely false religions. But if he not only characterised himself as the Paraclete—and it is probable that he originated this use of the title—but also admitted “Jesus” to so high a role in his system, we can hardly explain this otherwise than by supposing that he distinguished between Christianity and Christianity. The religion which emanated from the historical Christ was to him as objectionable as that Christ himself and as Judaism; i.e., Catholicism was to him a diabolical religion. But he distinguished the Jesus of darkness from the Jesus of light, who wrought contemporaneously with the other, This distinction agrees as strikingly with that of the Gnostic Basilides, as the criticism of the O. T. conducted by Manichæism with that of the Marcionites; (see even the Acta Archelai in which Marcion’s antitheses are placed in Mani’s lips). Finally, Manichæan doctrines show agreement with those of the Christian Elkesaites; yet it is possible, nay, probable, that the latter are to be derived from the common ancient Semitic source, and therefore they do not come further into consideration. Mani’s historical relation to Christianity will therefore be as follows: from Catholicism, with which in all probability he was not very accurately acquainted, Mani borrowed nothing, rejecting it rather as a devilish error. On the other hand, he regarded Christianity in the form which it had assumed in the Basilidian and Marcionite sects (also among the Bardesanians ?) 332as a relatively

valuable and correct religion. But from them, as also from the Persians, he took hardly anything but names, and perhaps, besides, what criticism he had of the O. T. and Judaism. His lofty estimate of Paul (and his epistles?), as well as his express rejection of the Acts of the Apostles, also point to influences due to Marcionitism. He seems to have recognised and to have interpreted in accordance with his own teaching a part of the historical matter of the Gospel. Finally, the question further rises whether Buddhistic elements are not to be observed in Manichaeism. The majority of later scholars since F. Chr. Baur have answered this question in the affirmative. According to Kessler, Mani used Buddha’s teaching, at least for his ethics. There is no doubt that he took long journeys to India, and was familiar with Buddhism. The occurrence of the name of Buddha (Budda) in the legend about Mani and perhaps in his own writings points to the fact that the founder of this religion concerned himself with Buddhism. But what he borrowed from it for his own doctrine must have been very unimportant On a closer comparison we find that the difference between the two faiths is in all their main doctrines very great, and that the resemblances are almost always merely accidental. This is true even as regards morality and asceticism. There is no point in Manichæism for whose explanation we need have recourse to Buddhism. Under such circumstances any relationship between the two religions remains a bare possibility; nor has the investigation of Geyler raised this possibility to a probability (Das System des Manichäismus und sein Verhältniss zum Buddhismus, Jena 1875). How are we to explain the fact that Manichaeism spread so rapidly and really became a world-religion? The answer has been given that it was because it was the complete Gnosis, the fullest, most consistent, and most artistic system based on the ancient Babylonian religion (so Kessler). This explanation is not sufficient, for no religion makes an impression mainly by its doctrinal system, however complete that may be. But it is also incorrect, for the older Gnostic systems were not more meagre than the Manichaean. What rather gave Manichæism its strength was, above all, the combination of ancient mythology and a rigid 333materialistic dualism with an extremely simple, spiritual cultus, and a strict morality; this was supplemented by the personality of the founder (of which indeed we know little enough). If we compare it with the Semitic nature-religions, it is obvious that it retained their mythologies, transformed into “doctrines,” but did away with the whole sensuous cultus, substituting a spiritual worship as well as a strict morality. Thus it was capable of satisfying the new wants of an old world. It offered revelation, redemption, moral virtue, and immortality, spiritual blessings, on the ground of nature-religion.

Further, the simple and yet firm constitution calls for attention which Mani himself gave to his institution. The learned and the ignorant, the enthusiast and the man of the world, could here find a welcome, no one had more laid upon him than he could and would bear; moreover, each was attracted and secured by the prospect of reaching a higher stage, while those who were gifted were besides promised that they would require to submit to no authority, but would be led by pure reason to God. As this religion was thus adapted, perhaps beforehand, to individual needs, it was also capable of continuously appropriating what was foreign. Furnished from the first with fragments of different religions, it could increase or diminish its store, without breaking its own elastic structure. But a great capacity for adaptation was quite as necessary to a world-religion, as a divine founder in whom men could see and venerate the supreme revelation of God himself. While Manichæism in fact knew of no redeemer, although it gave Mani this title; while it only recognised a physical and Gnostic process of redemption; yet in Mani it possessed the chief prophet of God. If we notice, finally, that Manichæism presented a simple, apparently profound, and yet easy, solution of the problem of good and evil, which had become especially burdensome in the second and third centuries, we have named the most important phenomena which explain its rapid extension. Sketch of the History of Manichceism. Manichaeism first got a firm footing in the East, in Persia, Mesopotamia, and Transoxania. The persecutions which it had to endure did not hinder its extension. The seat of the Manichæan 334Pope was for centuries in Babylon, and afterwards in Samarcand. Even after Islam had conquered the East, Manichæism held its ground; it even seems to have spread still further owing to the Mohammedan conquest, and it gained secret adherents among the Mohammedans themselves. The doctrine and discipline of the Manichæan Church underwent little change in the East, it especially did not there approach much nearer the Christian religion. But it experienced attempts at reform several times; for, as was natural, its “Auditores” readily became secularised. These attempts also led temporarily to schisms and the formation of sects. At the close of the tenth century, the time when the Fihrist was written, the Manichæans had been already expelled from the cities in Mesopotamia and Persia, and had withdrawn into the villages. But in Turkestan and up to the borders of China, there existed numerous Manichæan communities, nay, even whole tribes which had adopted the religion of Mani. Probably the great Mongolian migrations first put an end to Manichæism in Central Asia. But in

India, on the coasts of Malabar, there were Manichæans even in the fifteenth century, side by side with Thomist Christians (see Germann, Die Thomaschristen, 1875). Manichaeism first penetrated into the Græco-Roman Empire about A.D. 280, in the time of the Emperor Probus (see Eusebius. Chronicon). If we may hold Diocletian’s edict against the Manichæans to be genuine, they already had a firm footing in the West at the beginning of the fourth century; but Eusebius did not know the sect accurately as late as about A.D. 325. It was only after about A.D. 330 that the religion spread rapidly in the Roman Empire. Its adherents were recruited, on the one hand, from the ancient Gnostic sects, especially the Marcionites, Manichaeism having, besides, strongly influenced the development of the Marcionite Churches in the fourth century. On the other hand, it gained followers from the great number of the “cultured”, who sought for a “rational” and yet to some extent Christian, religion, and who had exalted 40b0 free inquiry”—esp. as regards the O. T.—into a battle-flag. Criticism on Catholicism, and polemics, were now the strong point of Manichaeism, esp. in the West. It admitted the stumbling-blocks which the O. T. 335presented to every thinker, and gave itself out as a Christianity without the O. T. Instead of the subtle Catholic theories about divine predestination and human freedom, and the difficult Theodicy, it offered an extremely simple conception of sin and goodness. It did not preach the doctrine of the incarnation, which was particularly repugnant to those who were passing from the ancient cults to the Universal Religion. In its rejection of this doctrine, it coincided with Neoplatonism. But while the latter, with all its attempts to accommodate itself at various points to Christianity, found no formula that would introduce into its midst the special veneration of Christ, the Western Manichæans succeeded in giving their doctrine a Christian colouring. Of the Manichæan mythology all that became popular was the rigid physical dualism; its barbarous portions were prudently disguised as “mysteries”; nay, they were even frankly disavowed here and there by the adepts. The farther Manichæism pushed into the West, the more Christian and philosophical it became; in Syria it kept itself comparatively pure. It found its most numerous adherents in North Africa, where it had secret followers even among the clergy; this may perhaps be explained by the Semitic origin of a part of the population. Augustine was an “Auditor” for nine years, while Faustus was at the time the most distinguished Manichæan teacher in the West. In his later writings against Manichæism Augustine chiefly discusses the following problems: (1) the relations of knowledge and faith, reason and authority; (2) the nature of good and evil, and the origin of the latter; (3) the existence of free-will,

and its relation to divine omnipotence; (4) the relation of evil in the world to the divine government. The Christian Byzantine and Roman Emperors from Valens onwards issued strict laws against the Manichæans. But at first these bore little fruit. The “Auditores” were difficult to detect, and really gave slight occasion for a persecution. In Rome itself the doctrine had a large following, especially among the scholars and professors, between A.D. 370 and 440, and it made its way among the mass of the people by means of a popular literature, in which even the Apostles played a prominent part (“Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles”). Manichæism 336also experienced attempts at reform in the West; but we know little about them. Leo the Great, in alliance with the civil power, was the first to adopt active measures against Manichæism. Valentinian III. sentenced its adherents to banishment, Justinian made the penalty death. It seems to have been extinguished in North Africa by the persecution of the Vandals. It really died out nowhere else, either in the Byzantine Empire, or in the West; for it gave an impulse to the formation of new sects which were allied to it in the early part of the Middle Ages. If it has not been proved that the Spanish Priscillians had been already influenced by Manichæism in the fourth century, still it is undoubted that the Paulicians and Bogomilians, as well as the Cathari, are to be traced back to it (and Marcionitism). Thus, if not the system of Mani the Persian, yet Manichæism modified by Christianity accompanied the Catholic Church of the West on into the thirteenth century. Literature.—Beausobre, Hist. critique de Manichιe et du Manichéisme, 2 vols. 1734 sq. Too great prominence is given in this work to the Christian elements in Manichæism. Baur, Das manichäische Religionssystem, 1831. Manichæan speculation is here presented speculatively. Flügel, Mani, 1862; an investigation based on the Fihrist. Kessler, Unters. z. Genesis des manich. Religionssystems, 1876; by the same author, “Mani, Manichäer” in the R.-Encykl. f. protest Theol. u. Kirche, 2 Ed., Vol. IX., p. 223259 ; the account given above is based in several of its expositions on this article. Kessler has since published a work, “Mani, Forschungen über die manich. Relig. Ein Beitrag z. vergleichenden Religionsgeschichte des Orients. I. Bd. Voruntersuchungen und Quellen, 1889;” see on this the acute reviews of Rahlfs (Gött Gel. Anz. 1889, No. 23), Nöldeke (Zeitschrift d. deutschen morgenl. Gesellsch. Vol. XLIII., p. 535 ff.) and August Müller (Theol. Lit.Ztg., 1890, No. 4). The older accounts may be mentioned of Mosheim, Lardner, Walch, and Schröckh, as also the monograph of Trechsel, Ueber Kanon, Kritik und Exegese der Manichäer,

1832, and A. Newmann’s Introductory Essay on the Manichæan heresy, 1887.

Indexes Index of Scripture References Genesis 1:1-31 1:1-3:24 1:1-3:24 3:1-24 Exodus 3:6 20:2 20:3 33:1-23 33:1-23 Deuteronomy 6:4 18:15 32:6 32:7 32:18 Judges 22 Psalms 53:12 82:6 103:15 Proverbs 8:32 Song of Solomon 4:1 Isaiah 24:24 44:6 44:6 45:5 45:5 45:14 53:2 Jeremiah 17:9 Daniel 5 Amos 2 Matthew 11:17 12:31 12:31 16:14 16:18 19:12 25:21 Luke 1:35 1:35 John 1:1 1:1 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:18 1:18 1:29 2:3 9:2 10:21 10:30 10:30 10:38 14 14:8 14:9 14:10 14:11 21:18 Acts 2:22 10:36 15:28 Romans 1:1-32 2:6 3:25 5:18 6:6 7:18 8:3 8:19 9:5 1 Corinthians 2:11 3:13 7:1-40 8:6 8:6 15:17 15:28 Galatians 3:13 Ephesians

25:24

8:40 14:10

9:16

1:3-5 1:11 2 2 6 6 7:2 16 26 33 52 52 55 73 73 73 82 88 104 106 106 114 118 210 239 243 Philippians 2:9 2:10 Colossians 6 1 Timothy 2:5 5:21 2 Timothy 1:8-10 2:5 Hebrews 12:14 Revelation 1:18 2:18 Wisdom of Solomon 1:14 Baruch 3:36

Index of Greek Words and Phrases • •

•

οὐ πολυθεΐαν εἰσηγούµεθα, ἀλλὰ µοναρχίαν κηρύττοµεν. (1) Τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύµατι χρισθεὶς προσηγορεύθη Χριστός, πάσχων κατὰ φύσιν, θαυµατουργῶν κατὰ χάριν· τῷ γὰρ ἀτρέπτῳ τῆς γνώµης ὁµοιωθεὶς τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ µείνας καθαρὸς ἁµαρτίας ἡνώθη αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐνηργήθη που ἑλέσθαι τὴν τῶν θαυµάτων δυναστείαν, ἐξ ὧν µίαν αὐτὸς καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν πρὸς τῇ θελήσει ἐνέργειαν ἔχειν δειχθείς, λυτρωτὴς τοῦ γένους καὶ σωτὴρ ἐχρηµάτισεν. — (2) Αἱ διάφοροι φύσεις καὶ τὰ διάφορα πρόσωπα ἕνα καὶ µόνον ἑνώσεως ἔχουσι τρόπον τὴν κατὰ θέλησιν σύµβασιν, ἐξ ἧς ἡ κατὰ ἐνέργειαν ἐπι τῶν οὕτῶς συµβιβασθέντων ἀλλήλοις ἀναφαίνεται µονάς. — (3) Ἅγιος καὶ δίκαιος γεγενηµένος ὁ σωτήρ, ἀγῶνι καὶ πόνῳ τὰς τοῦ προπάτορας ἡµῶν κρατήσας ἁµαρτίας· οἷς κατορθώσας τῇ ἀρετῇ συνήφθη τῷ Θεῷ, µίαν καὶ τήν αὐτὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν βούλησιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν ταῖς τῶν ἀγαθῶν προκοπαῖς ἐσχηκώς· ἣν ἀδιαίρετον φυλάξας τὸ ὄνοµα κληροῦται τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνοµα, στοργῆς ἔπαθλον αὐτῷ χαρισθέν. — (4) Τὰ κρτούµενα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως οὐκ ἔχει ἔπαινον· τὰ δὲ σχέσει φιλίας κρατούµενα ὑπεραινεῖται, µιᾷ καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ γνώµῃ κρατούµενα, δίὰ µιᾶς καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ἐνεργείας βεβαιούµενα, καὶ τῆς κατ᾽ ἐπαύξησιν οὐδέποτε παυοµένης κινήσεως· καθ᾽ ἣν τῷ Θεῷ συναφθεὶς ὁ σωτὴρ οὐδέποτε δέχεται µερισµὸν εἰς τοὺς αἰώνας µίαν αὐτὸς καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχων θέλησιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν, ἀεὶ κινουµένην τῇ φανερώσει τῶν ἀγαθῶν. — (5) 3b4c Μὴ θαυµάσῃς ὅτι µίαν µετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν θέλησιν εἷχεν ὁ σωτὴρ· ὥστερ γὰρ ἡ φύσις µίαν τῶν πολλῶν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ὐπάρχουσαν φανεροῖ τὴν οὐσίαν, οὕτως ἡ σχέσις τῆς ἀγάπης µίαν· τῶν πολλῶν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐργάζεται θέλησιν διὰ µιᾶς καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς φανερουµένην εὐαρεστήσεως. Αἱ γραφαὶ µὲν γὰρ διὰ θεολόγων ἀνδρῶν παρὰ Θεοῦ ἐλαλήθησαν καὶ ἐγράφησαν. ἡµεῖς δὲ παρὰ τῶν αὐταῖς ἐντυγχανόντων θεοπνεύστων διδασκάλων, οἳ καί µάρτυρες τῆς Χριστοῦ θεότητος γεγόνασι, µαθόντες µεταδίδοµεν καὶ τῇ σῇ φιλοµαθίᾳ.

• •

•

•

• •

•

• • •

Αὐτάρκεις µέν εἰσιν αἱ ἅγιαι καὶ θεόπνευστοι γραφαὶ πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπαγγελίαν Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐνηνθρώπησεν, ἵνα ἡµεῖς θεοποιηθῶµεν· καὶ αὐτὸς ἐφανέρωσεν ἑαυτὸν διὰ σώµατος. ἵνα ἡµεῖς τοῦ ἀοράτου πατρὸς ἔννοιαν λάβωµεν· καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπέµεινε τὴν παρ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ὕβριν, ἵνα ἡµεῖς ἀθανασιαν κληρονοµήσωµεν. ἐβλάπτετο µὲν γὰρ αὐτὸς οὐδέν, ἀπαθὴς καὶ ἄφθαρτος καὶ αὐτολόγος ὢν καὶ Θεός· τοὺς δὲ πάσχοντας ἀνθρώπους, δι᾽ οὓς καὶ ταῦτα ὑπέµεινεν, ἐν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἀπαθείᾳ ἐτήρει καὶ διέσωζε. Αὐτὸς ἐνηνθρώπησεν, ἵνα ἡµεῖς θεοποιηθῶµεν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐφανέρωσεν ἑαυτὸν διὰ σώµατος, ἵνα ἡµεῖς τοῦ ἀοράτου πατρὸς ἔννοιαν λάβωµεν, καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπέµεινεν τὴν παρ᾽ ἀνθρώπου ὕβριν, ἵνα ἡµεῖς ἀθανασίαν κληρονοµήσωµεν, Βλέπε µοι πηλίκην σοι ἀξίαν ὁ Ἰησοῠς χαρίζεται . . . µὴ νοµίσῃς ὅτι µικρὸν πρᾶγµα λαµβάνεις· ἄνθρωπος ὢν οἰκτρός, Θεοῦ λαµβάνεις προσηγορίαν . . . τοῦτο προβλέπων ὁ Ψαλµῳδὸς ἔλεγεν ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐπειδὴ µέλλουσιν ἄνθρωποι Θεοῦ προσηγορίαν λαµβάνειν· Ἐγὼ εἶπα, θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ὑψίστου πάντες, Βῆµα ∆εῖ γὰρ περὶ τῶν θείων καὶ αγίων τῆς πίστεως µυστηρίων µηδὲ τὸ τυχὸν ἄνευ τῶν θείων παραδίδοσθαι γραφῶν· καὶ µὴ ἁπλῶς πιθανότησι καὶ λόγων κατασκευαῖς παραφέρεσθαι. Μηδὲ ἐµοὶ τῷ ταῦτα σοι λέγοντι, ἁπλῶς πιστεύσῃς· ἐὰν τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τῶν καταγγελλοµένων ἀπὸ τῶν θείων µὴ λάβῃς γραφῶν· Ἡ σωτηρία γὰρ αὕτη τῆς πίστεως ἡµῶν οὐκ ἐξ εὑρεσιλογίας, ἀλλὰ ἐξ ἀποδείξεως τῶν θείων ἐστὶ γραφῶν ∆εῖ ἡµᾶς τῷ Μελχισεδὲκ προσφέρειν, φασίν, ἵνα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ προσενεχθῇ ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν, καὶ εὕρωµεν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ζωήν. ∆ιδαχὴ ∆ιδαχή ∆ιὰ τοῦτο ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνην πτωχείαν ἐνδύεται ἴνα θεοὺς ἡµᾶς ἀπεργάσηται χάριτι. καὶ ταῦτα µελῳδῶν ὁ θεοπάτωρ ∆αβίδ . . . . Ἐγὼ εἶπα· Θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ὑψίστου πάντες. Θεὸς ἐν ἡµῖν· θεωθῶµεν θείαις µεταβολαῖς καὶ µιµήσεσιν

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

• •

∆ιὰ τοῦτό µοι δοκεῖ τὸν θεῖον ἐκεῖνον καὶ καθαρὸν ἔρωτα τοῦ ἀοράτου νυµφίου. ὃν ἐγκεκρυµµένον εἶχεν ἐν τοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπορρήτοις τρεφόµενον, ἔνδηλον ποιεῖν τότε τοῖς παροῦσι καὶ δηµοσιεύειν τὴν ἐν καρδίᾳ διάθεσιν, τὸ ἐπείγεσθαι πρὸς τὸν ποθούµενον, ὡς ἄν διὰ τάχους σὺν αὐτῷ γένοιτο τῶν δεσµῶν ἐκλυθεῖσα τοῦ σῶµατος. ∆ιόπερ ὁ ∆ηµόκριτο εὖ λέγει “ὡς ἡ φύσις τε καὶ διδαχὴ παραπλήσιον ἐστι” . . . καὶ γὰρ ἡ διδαχὴ µεταρρυθµιζει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, µεταρρυθµίζουσα δὲ φυσιοποιεῖ καὶ διήνεγκεν οὐδὲν ἢ φύσει πλασθῆναι τοιόνδε ἢ χρόνῳ καὶ µαθήσει µετατυπωθῆναι· ἄµφω δὲ ὁ κύριος παρέσχηται, τὸ µὲν κατὰ τὴν δηµιουργίαν, τὸ δὲ κατὰ ἐκ τῆς διαθήκης ἀνάκτισιν τε καὶ ἀνανέωσιν. ∆ογµατίζει γὰρ οὗτος καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ Σαβελλιανοὶ τὸν αὐτόν εἶναι πατέρα, τὸν αὐτὸν υἱόν, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἅγιον πνεῦµα· ὡ εἶναι ἐν µιᾷ ὑποστάσει τρεῖς ὀνοµασίας, ἢ ὡς ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ σῶµα καὶ ψυχὴ καὶ πνεῦµα. Καὶ εἶναι µὲν τὸ σῶνα ὡς εἰτεῖν τὸν πατέρα, ψυχὴν δὲ ὡς εἰπεῖν τὸν υἱόν, τὸ πνεῦµα δὲ ὡς ἀνθρώπου, οὕτως καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα ἐν τῇ θεότητι. Ἢ ὡς ἐὰν ᾖ ἐν ἡλίῳ ὄντι µὲν ἐν µιᾷ ὑποστάσει, τρεῖς δὲ ἔχοντι τὰς ἐνεργείας κ.τ.λ. ∆έκατον ἐργάζου τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ θεµελίῳ τῶν δογµάτων, ἐπειδὴ πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά, ὡς ἔργα δίχα πίστεως Ελληνίζοντες Εἰ γὰρ κρεῖττον τὸ µὴ εἶναι τοῦ εἶναι τὸν κόσµον, διὰ τί τὸ χεῖρον ἡρεῖτο ποιήσας τὸν κόσµον ὁ Θεός; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ὁ Θεὸς µαταίως ἢ χεῖρον ἐποίει. οὐκοῦν εἰς τὸ εἶναι καὶ µένειν τὴν κτίσιν ὁ Θεὸς διεκοσµήσατο Εἰ οὖν Χριστὸν ὁµολογῶ Θεόν, αὐτὸς ἄρα ἐστίν ὁ πατὴρ, εἴ γε ἔστιν ὁ Θεός. ἔπαθεν δὲ Χριστὸς, αὐτὸς ὢν Θεός, ἄρα οὖν ἔπαθεν πατὴρ, πατὴρ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἦν. Εἰ τῷ τρεῖς εἶναι τὰς ύπαστάσεις µεµερισµένας εἶναι λέγουσι, τρεῖς εἰσί, κᾂν µὴ θέλωσιν ἢ τὴν θείαν τριάδα παντελῶς ἀνελέτωσαν. Εἰ φάντασµα ἦν ἡ ἐνανθρώπησις, φάντασµα καὶ ἡ σωτηρία Εἷς Θέος, πατὴρ λόγου ζῶντος, σοφίας ὑφεστώσης καὶ δυνάµεως καὶ χαρακτῆρος ἀϊδίου,

•

• •

• • • • •

• • •

τέλειος τελείου γεννήτωρ, πατηρ υἱοῦ µονογενοῦς, Εἷς κύριος, µόνος ἐκ µόνου, Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, χαρακτὴρ καὶ εικων τῆς θεότητος, λόγος ἐνεργός, σοφία τῆς τῶν ὅλων συστάσεως περιεκτικὴ καὶ δύναµις τῆς ὅλης κτίσεως ποιητική, υἱὸς ἀληθινὸς ἀκληθινοῦ πατρός, ἀόρατος ἀοράτου καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἀθάνατος ἀθανάτου καὶ ἀΐδιος ἀϊδίου. Καὶ ἓν πνεῦµα ἅγιον, ἐκ Θεοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον καὶ δι᾽ υἱοῦ πεφηνὸς [δηλαδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις], εἰκὼν τοῦ ὑιοῦ, τεκείου τεκεία, ζωὴ ζώντων αἰτία, [πηγὴ ἁγία] ἁγιότης ἁγιασµοῦ χορηγός, ἐν ᾧ φανεροῦται Θεός ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσι, καὶ Θεὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὁ διὰ πάντωντριὰς τελεία, δόξῃ καὶ ἀϊδιότητι καὶ βασιλείᾳ µὴ µεριζοµένη µὴδὲ ἀπαλλοτριουµενη. Οὔτε οὖν κτιστόν τι ἢ δοῦλον ἐν τῇ τριάδι, οὔτε ἐπείσακτον, ὡς πρότερον µὲν οὐχ ὑπάρχον, ὕστερον δὲ ἐπεισελθόν· οὔτε γὰρ ἐνέλιπέ ποτε υἱὸς πατρί οὔτε υἱῷ πνεῦµα, ἀλλ᾽ ἄτρεπτος καὶ ἀναλλοίωτος ἡ αὐτὴ τριὰς ἀεί. Ζεφυρῖνος [τῷ κέρδει προσφεροµένῳ τειθόµενος] συνεχώρει τοῖς προσιοῦσι τῷ Κλεοµένει µαθητεύεσθαι . . . Τούτων κατὰ διαδοχὴν διέµεινε τὸ διδασκαλεῖον κρατυνόµενον καὶ ἐπαῦξον διὰ τὸ συναίρεσθαι αὐτοῖς τὸν Σεφυρῖνον καὶ τὸν Κὰλλιστον Ζεφυρῖνος ἰδιώτης καί ἀγράµµατος Θεὸν δὲ οὐδέποτε τοῦτον γεγονέναι θέλουσιν ἐπὶ τῇ καθόδῳ τοῦ πνεύµατος, ἕτεροι δὲ µετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν. Θεὸς λόγον ἀπογεννᾷ, οὐ λόγον ὡς φωνήν Θεὸς ἦν ἐν ἀρχῆ, τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν λόγου δύναµιν παρειλήφαµεν. Θεόπνευστος Θεός Καινῆς διαθήκης µαθηταὶ καὶ Χριστοῦ µυστηρίων κοινωνοί, νῦν µὲν τῇ κλήσει, µετ᾽ ὀλίγον δὲ καὶ τῇ χάριτι, καρδίαν ἑαυτοῖς ποιήσατε καινὴν καὶ πνεῦµα καινόν, ἵνα εὐφροσύνης ὑπόθεσις γένησθε τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Καταστάσεις Κατὰ µέρος πίστις Κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἔχω τὸ λογικὸς εἶναι καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν δὲ γίνοµαι ἐν τῷ Χριστιανὸς γενέσθαι

•

•

• •

•

• • •

• • •

Καὶ Χριστὸς µὲν, φάσίν, ἐξελέγη, ἵνα ἡµᾶς καλέσῃ ἐκ πολλῶν ὁδῶν εἰς µίαν ταύτην τὴν γνῶσιν, ὑπὸ Θεοῦ κεχρισµένος καὶ ἐκλεκτὸς γένόµενος, ἐπειδὴ ἀπέστρεψεν ἡµᾶς ἀπὸ εἰδώλων καὶ ὑπέδειξεν ἡµῖν τὴν ὁδόν. Ἐξ οὗπερ ὁ ἀπόστολος ἀποςταλεὶς ἀπεκάλυψεν ἡµῖν, ὅτι µέγας ἐστὶν ὁ Μελχισεδέκ, καὶ ἱερεὺς µένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, καὶ, Θεωρεῖτε πηλίκος οὗτος· καὶ ὅτι τὸ ἔλασσον ἐκ τοῦ µείζονος εὐλογεῖται, διὰ τοῦτο, φησὶ, καὶ τὸν Ἁβαὰµ τὸν πατριάρχην εὐλόγησεν ὡς µείζων ὤν· οὗ ἡµεῖς ἐσµὲν µύσται, ὅπως τύχωµεν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ τῆς εὐλογίας. Καὶ τὸ πολλοὺς φιλοθέους εἶναι εὐχοµένους ταράσσον, εὐλαβουµένους δύο ἀναγορε῍ 3b4c σαι θεούς, καὶ παρὰ τοῦτο περιπίπτοντας ψευδέσι καὶ ἀσεβέσι δόγµασιν, ἤτοι ἀρνουµένους ἰδιότητα υἱοῦ ἑτέραν παρὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρός, ὁµολογοῦντας Θεὸν εἶναι τὸν µέχρι ὀνόµατος παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς υἱὸν προσαγορευόµενον, ἠ ἀρνουµένους τὴν θεότητα τοῦ υἱοῦ, τιθέντας δὲ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἰδιότητα καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν κατὰ περιγραφὴν τυγχάνουσαν ἑτέραν τοῦ πατρός, ἐντεῦθεν λύεσθαι δύναται Κήρυγµα Πέτρου Κάλλιστος λέγει τὸν λόγον αὐτὸν εἶναι υἱόν, αὐτὸν καὶ πατέρα ὀνόµατι µὲν καλούµενον, ἕν δὲ ὃν τὸ πνεῦµα ἀδιαίρετον. οὐκ ἄλλο εἶναι πατέρα, ἄλλο δὲ υἱόν, ἓν δὲ καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὑπάρχειν, καὶ τὰ πάντα γέµειν τοῦ θείου πνεύµατος τά τε ἄνω καὶ κάτω· καὶ εἶναι τὸ ὲν τῇ παρθένῳ σαρκωθὲν πνεῦµα οὐχ ἕτερον παρὰ τὸν πατέρα, ἀλλὰ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτό. Καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ εἰρηµένον. Κάτωθεν ἀποτεθεῶσθαι τὸν κύριον — ἐξ ἀνθρώπου γεγονέναι τὸν Χριστὸν Θεόν — ὕστερον αὐτὸν ἐκ προκοπῆς τεθεοποιῆσθαι Λόγοι πρὸς Σαβῖνον Λόγον ἐνεργὸν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ — σοφίας ἐµπνεούσης ἔξωθεν. Λόγος προφορικός — ὁ πρὸ αἰώνων υἱὸς — τὸν λόγον ἐγέννησεν ὁ Θεός ἄνευ παρθένου καὶ ἄνευ τινὸς οὐδενὸς ὄντος πλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ· καὶ οὕτως ὑπέστη ὁ λόγος. Λόγος πρὸς τὰς Μανιχαίου δόξας Λόγος ὁµοούσιος ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗΣ ΘΕΟΣ

• •

•

• • • •

•

• •

•

•

Μανιχαῖος Μαρία τὸν λόγον οὐκ ἔτεκεν οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν πρὸ αἰώνων ἡ Μαρία, ἀλλὰ ἄνθρωπον ἡµῖν ἶσον ἔτεκεν — ἄνθρωπος χρίεται, ὁ λόγος οὐ χρίεται· ὁ Ναζωραῖος χρίεται, ὁ κύριος ἡµῶν, Μαρίας ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων, εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁµαρτίαςἐ πιδηµήσας τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων, σταυρωθεὶς καὶ ἀποθανών, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ διὰ ταῦτα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ θεότητος ἥττων γεγενηµένος, ἀναστὰς ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἀναληµφθείς ἐν οὐρανοῖς, καθήµενος ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς µεγαλωσύνης. Μυσταγωγία Μάνης Μάρτυρας δεῖ λαβεῖν τὰς γραφάς. Ἀµάρτυροι γὰρ αἱ ἐπιβολαὶ ἡµῶν καὶ αἱ ἐξηγήσεις ἄπιστοί εἰσιν. Μὴ εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐνυπόστατον, ἀλλὰ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ Θεῷ — ἐν Θεῷ ἐπιστήµη ἐνυπόστατος — εἷς Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ὡς λόγος ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ. Οἱ ὑπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων συνόδων, τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ καὶ Κωνσταντινουπόλει, ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καὶ ἐν Χαλκηδόνι τιθέντες ὅροι νόµων τάξιν ἐχέτωσαν καὶ τὰ δόγµατα αὐτῶν ὡς αἱ θεόπνευστοι τιµάσθωσαν γραφαί Οὐ δίδως, says Malchion, οὐσιῶσθαι ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ σωτῆρι τὸν µονογενῆ. Οὐκ ἔξωθέν τις ἐστὶν ἐφευρεθεῖσα ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ οὐσία, οὐδὲ ἐκ µὴ ὄντων ἐπεισήχθη· ἀλλὰ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας ἔφυ, ὡς τοῦ φωτὸς τὸ ἀπαύγασµα, ὡς ὕδατος ἀτµίς· οὔτε γὰρ τὸ ἀπαύγασµα οὔτε ἡ ἀτµὶς αὐτὸ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐστὶν ἢ αὐτὸς ὁ ἥλιος, οὔτε ἀλλότριον· καὶ οὔτε αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ πατὴρ οὔτε ἀλλότριος ἀλλὰ ἀπόῤῥοια τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας, οὐ µερισµὸν ὑποµεινάσης τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας· ὡς γὰρ µένων ὁ ἥλιος ὁ αὐτὸς οὐ µειοῦται ταῖς ἐκχεοµέναις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ αὐγαῖς, οὕτως οὐδὲ ἡ οὐσία τοῦ πατρὸς ἀλλοίωσιν ὑπέµεινεν, εἰκόνα ἑαυτῆς ἔχουσα τὸν υἱόν. Οὐχ ὁ υἱὸς ἑαυτὸν ἐγέννησεν, οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ µεταβέβληται ἀπὸ τοῦ “πατήρ” τοῦ εἶναι “υἱός” κ.τ.λ. . . . πατὴρ ἀεὶ πατήρ, καὶ οὐκ ἦν καιρὸς ὅτε οὐκ ἦν πατὴρ πατήρ Οὐχ, ὥς τινες ἐνόµισαν, ὁ υἱὸς µετὰ τὸ πάθος στεφανωθεὶς ὥσπερ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ τὴν ὑποµονὴν

• •

•

•

• • •

• •

ἔλαβε τὸν ἐν δεξιᾷ θρόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀφ᾽ οὗπέρ ἐστιν ἔχει τὸ βασιλικὸν ἀξίωµα . . . Μήτε ἀπαλλοτριώσης τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν υἱόν, µήτε συναλοιφὴν ἐργασάµενος υἱοπατρίαν πιστεύσῃς. Οὔκ ἐστιν ὁ ἐκ ∆αβὶδ χρισθεὶς ἀλλότριος τῆς σοφίας. Οὔτ᾽ οὐν καταµερίζειν χρὴ εἰς τρεῖς θεότητας τὴν θαυµαστὴν καὶ θείαν µονάδα, οὔτε ποιήσει κωλύειν τὸ ἀξίωµα καὶ τὸ ὑπέρβαλλον µέγεθος τοῦ κυρίου· ἀλλὰ πεπιστευκέναι εἰς Θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα, ἡνῶσθαι δὲ τῷ Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων τὸν λόγον· ἐγὼ γὰρ, φησί. καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσµεν. καὶ ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐµοί Οὕτως ὁ Κάλλιστος µετὰ τὴν τοῦ Ζεφυρίνου τελευτὴν νοµίζων τετυχηκέναι οὗ ἐθηρᾶτο, τὸν Σαβέλλιον ἀπέωσεν ὡς µὴ φρονοῦντα ὀρθῶς, δεδοικὼς ἐµὲ καὶ νοµίζων οὕτω δύνασθαι ἀποτρίψασθαι τὴν πρὸς τὰς ἐκκλησίας κατηγορίαν, ὡς µὴ ἀλλοτρίως φρονῶν Παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ ἐπέκεινα ἡ θεία φύσις, τὸ δὲ ἀγαθὸν ἀγαθῷ φίλον πάντως, διὰ τοῦτο ἑαυτὴν βλέπουσα καὶ ὃ ἔχει θέλει καὶ ὃ θέλει ἔχει οὐδὲν τῶν ἔξωθεν εἰς ἑαυτὸν δεχοµένη. Ἔξω δὲ αὐτῆς οὐδέν, ὅτι µὴ ἡ κακία µόνη, ἥτις, κἂν παράδοξον ᾖ, ἐν τῷ µὴ εἶναι τὸ εἶναι ἔχει. οὐ γὰρ ἄλλη τίς ἐστι κακίας γένεσις, εἰ µὴ ἡ τοῦ ὄντος στέρησις. Τὸ δὲ κυρίως ὂν ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσις ἐστίν· ὃ οὖν ἐν τῷ ὅντι οὐκ ἔστιν, ἐν τῷ µὴ εἶναι πάντως ἐστίν. Πατέκιος Παῦλος οὐ λέγει µόνον Θεὸν διὰ τὸ πηγὴν εἶναι τὸν πατέρα. Παῦλος φησίν, µὴ δύο ἐπίστασθαι υἱούς· εἰ δὲ υἱὸς ὁ Ἰ. Χρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ, υἰὸς δὲ καὶ ἡ σοφία, καὶ ἄλλο µὲν ἡ σοφία, ἄλλο δὲ Ἰ. Χρ., δύο ὑφίστανται υἱοί. Παῦλος ὁ Σαµ. Θεὸν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου ὁµολογεῖ, Θεὸν ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ ὀφθέντα. Πεµφθέντα τὸν υἱὸν καιρῷ ποτέ, ὥσπερ ἀκτῖνα καὶ ἐργασάµενον τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ τὰ τῆς οἰκονµίας τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς καὶ σωτηρίας τῶν ανθρώπων, ἀναληφθέντα δὲ αὖθις εἰς οὐρανόν, ὡς ὑπὸ ἡλίου πεµφθεῖσαν ἀκτῖνα, καὶ πάλιν εἰς τὸν ἥλιον ἀναδραµοῦσαν, Τὸ δὲ ἅγιον πνεῦµα

•

•

•

• •

πέµπεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόσµον, καὶ καθεξῆς καὶ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα εἰς ἕκαστον τῶν καταξιουµένων κ.τ.λ. Περὶ τῶν Παυλιανισάντων, εἶτα προσφυγόντων τῇ καθολικῇ ἐκκλησιᾳ, ὅρος ἐκτέθειται ἀναβαπτίζεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐξάπαντος Πιστεύοµεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, τὸν τῶν ἁπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν. Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰ. Χρ., τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς, υἱὸν µονογενῆ, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννηµένον, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα· τὸν διὰ τὴν ἡµετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐν ανθρώποις πολιτευσάµενον, καὶ παθόντα, καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡµέρᾳ, καὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. Καὶ εἰς πνεῦµα ἅγιον. Πιστεύοµεν, ὡς τῇ ἀποστολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ δοκεῖ, εἰς µόνον ἀγέννητον πατέρα, οὐδένα τοῦ εἶναι αὐτῷ τὸν αἴτιον ἔχοντα . . . καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν µονογενῇ, γεννηθέντα οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ µὴ ὄντος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος πατρός . . . πρὸς δὲ τῇ εὐσεβεῖ ταύτῃ περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ δόξῃ, καθὼς ἡµᾶς αἱ θεῖαι γραφαὶ διδάσκουσιν, ἕν πνεῦµα ἅγιον ὁµολογοῦµεν, τὸ καινίσαν τοῦς τε τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης ἁγίους ἀνθρώπους καὶ τοὺς τῆς χρηµατιζούσης καινῆς παιδευτὰς θείους. µίαν καὶ µόνην καθολικήν, τὴν ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ἀκαθαίρετον µὴν ἀεί, κἂν πᾶς ὁ κόσµος αὐτῇ πολεµεῖν βουλεύηται . . . Μετὰ τούτων τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν οἴδαµεν, ἧς ἀπαρχὴ γέγονεν ὁ κύριος ἡµῶν Ἰ. Χρ., σῶµα φορέσας ἀληθῶς καὶ οὐ δοκήσει ἐκ τῆς θεοτόκου Πιστεύσωµεν Πολλοὶ τῶν παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι φιλοσοφησάντων οὐ µακρὰν τοῦ γνῶναι τὸν Θεὸν ἐγένοντο, καὶ γὰρ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἀπρονοησίαν εἰσάγοντας, οἵτε Ἐπικουρίους, ἢ ἄλλως ἐρι 35e8 στικούς, µετὰ τῆς λογικῆς ἐπιστήµης γενναίως ἀπήντησαν, τὴν ἀµαθίαν αὐτῶν ἀνατρέποντες, καὶ διὰ τούτων τῶν λόγων χρειώδεις µὲν τοῖς τὴν εὐσέβειαν ἀγαπῶσι κατέστησαν· οὐ µὴν τῆς κεφαλῆς τοῦ λόγου ἐκράτησαν, τοῦ µὴ γνῶναι τὸ ἀποκρυπτόµενον

• •

•

• • •

•

•

•

•

ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων κατὰ Χριστὸν µυστήριον· Προκαταγγελτικῶς. Πάντα τὰ θεῖα ῥήµατα οὐκ ἀλληγορίας δεῖται, ἀλλὰ ὡς ἔχει, ἔχει, θεωρίας δὲ δεῖται καὶ αἰσθήσεως. Πότερον ἔν ἐστι συναφὲς τὸ πᾶν, ὡς ἡµῖν τε καὶ τοῖς σοφωτάτοις Ἑλλήνων Πλάτωνι καὶ Πυθαγόρᾳ καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς καὶ Ἡρακλείτῳ φαίνεται Σαβέλλιος βλασφηµεῖ, αὐτὸν τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι λέγων τὸν πάτερα. Σαβέλλιος λέγει τὸν παντοκράτορα πεπονθέναι. Σοφία οὐκ ἦν δυνατὸς ἐν σχήµατι εὑρίσκεσθαι, οὐδὲ ἐν θέᾳ ἀνδρός· µείζων γὰρ τῶν ὁρωµένων ἐστίν. Συωιδὼν γὰρ ὁ λόγος, ὅτι ἄλλως οὐκ ἂν λυθείη τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἡ φθορά, εἰ µὴ διὰ τοῦ πάντως ἀποθανεῖν, οὐχ οἷόν τε δὲ ἦν τὸν λόγον ἀποθανεῖν, ἀθάνατον ὄντα καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς υἱόν, τούτου ἕνεκεν τό δυνάµενον ἀποθανεῖν ἑαυτῷ λαµβάνει σῶµα, ἵνα τοῦτο τοῦ ἐπὶ πάντων λόγου µεταλαβόν, ἀντὶ πάντων ἱκανὸν γένηται τῷ θανάτῳ καὶ διὰ τὸν ἐνοικήσαντα λόγον ἄφθαρτον διαµείνῃ, καὶ λοιπὸν ἀπὸ πάντων ἡ φθορὰ παύσηται τῇ τῆς ἀναστάσεως χάριτι· ὅθεν ὡς ἱερεῖον καὶ θῦµα παντός ἐλεύθερον σπίλου, ὃ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ἔλαβε σῶµα προσάγων εἰς θάνατον, ἀπὸ πάντων εὐθὺς τῶν ὁµοίων ἡφάνιζε τὸν θάνατον τᾕ προσφορᾷ τοῦ καταλλήλου. Τὰ κρατούµενα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως οὐκ ἔχει ἔπαινον, τὰ δὲ σχέσει φιλίας κρατούµενα ὑπεραινεῖται. Τὴν δὲ πᾶσαν αὐτῶν πλάνην καὶ τὴν τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν δύναµιν ἔχουσιν ἐξ Ἀποκρύφων τινῶν, µάλιστα ἀπο τοῦ καλουµένου Αἰγυπτίου εὐαγγελίου, ᾧ τινες τὸ ὄνοµα ἐπέθεντο τοῦτο. Ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα ὡς ἐν παραβύστῳ µυστηριωδῶς ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ σωτῆρος ἀναφέρεται, ὡς αὐτοῦ δηλοῦντος τοῖς µαθηταῖς τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι πατέρα, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι υἱόν, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἅγιον τνεῦµα. Τί οὖν ἔδει καὶ περὶ τούτου γενέσθαι ἢ ποιῆσαι τὸν Θεόν; µετάνοιαν ἐπὶ τῇ παραβάσει τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀπαιτῆσαι; τοῦτο γὰρ ἄν τις ἄξιον φήσειεν Θεοῦ,

•

•

•

λέγων, ὅτι ὥσπερ ἐκ τῆς παραβάσεως εἰς φθορὰν γεγόνασιν, οὕτως ἐκ τῆς µετανοίας γένοιντο πάλιν ἂν εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν. Ἀλλ᾽ ἡ µετάνοια οὔτε τὸ εὔλογον τὸ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐφύλαττεν· ἔµενε γὰρ πάλιν οὐκ ἀληθής, µὴ κρατουµένων ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων· οὔτε δέ ἡ µετάνοια ἀπὸ τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ἀποκαλεῖται, ἀλλὰ µόνον παύει τῶν ἁµαρτηµάτων. Εἰ µὲν οὖν µόνον ἦν πληµµέληµα καὶ µὴ φθορᾶς ἐπακολούθησις, καλῶς ἂν ἦν ἡ µετάνοια· εἰ δὲ ἅπαξ προλαβούσης τῆς παραβάσεως, εἰς την κατὰ φύσιν φθορὰν ἐκρατοῦντο οἱ ἄνθρωποι, καὶ τὴν τοῦ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα χάριν ἀφαιρεθέντες ἦσαν, τί ἄλλο ἔδει γενέσθαι; ἢ τίνος ἦν χρεία πρὸς τὴν τοιαύτην χάριν καὶ ἀνάκλησιν, ἢ τοῦ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐκ τοῦ µὴ ὄντος πεποιηκότος τὰ ὅλα τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου; αὐτοῦ γὰρ ἦν πάλιν καὶ τὸ φθαρτὸν εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν ἐνεγκεῖν καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ πάντων εὔλογον ἀποσῶσαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. Τὸ µὲν γὰρ βλεπόµενον, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος, τοῦτο εἶναι τὸν υἱόν, τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ χωρηθὲν πνεῦµα τοῦτο εἶναι τὸν πατέρα· οὐ γὰρ, Bησίν, ἐρῶ δύοθεοὺς πατέρα καὶ υἱόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἕνα. Ὁ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ γενόµενος πατὴρ προσλαβόµενος τὴν σ8άρκα ἐθεοποίησεν ἑνώσας ἑαυτῷ, καὶ ἐποίησεν ἕν, ὡς καλεῖσθαι πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν ἕνα Θεόν. καὶ τοῦτο ἓν ὂν πρόσωπον µὴ δύνασθαι εἶναι δύο, καὶ οὕτως τὸν πατέρα συµπεπονθέναι τῷ υἱῷ· οὐ γὰρ θέλει λέγειν τὸν πατέρα πεπονθέναι καὶ ἓν εἶναι πρόσωπον . . . Τὸ µὲν εἶναι λόγον Θεοῦ καὶ πνεῦµα διὰ τε τῶν κοινῶν ἐννοιῶν ὁ Ἕλλην καὶ διὰ τῶν γραφικῶν ὁ Ἰουδαῖος ἴσως οὐκ ἀντιλέξει, τὴν δὲ κατὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον οἰκονοµίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου κατὰ τὸ ἴσον ἑκάτερος αὐτῶν ἀποδοκιµάσει ὡς ἀπίθανόν τε καὶ ἀπρεπῆ περὶ Θεοῦ λέγεσθαι. Τῆς οἰκονοµίας οὐ µίαν αἰτίαν ἀλλὰ καὶ πλείους εὕροι ἄν τις ἐθελήσας ζητεῖν, πρώτην µὲν γὰρ ὁ λόγος διδάσκει, ἵνα καὶ νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων κυριεύσῃ· δευτέραν δέ ὅπως τὰς ἡµετέρας ἀποµάξοιτο ἁµαρτίας, ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν τρωθεὶς καὶ γενόµενος ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν κατάρα· τρίτην ὡς ἂν ἱερεῖον Θεοῦ καὶ µεγάλη θυσία ὑρὲρ σύµπαντος κόσµον προσαχθείη τῷ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεῷ· τετάρτην

•

• • • • • • • • •

•

•

ὡς ἂν αὐτὸς τῆς πολυπλανοῦς καὶ δαιµονικῆς ἐνεργείας ἀπορρήτοις λόγοις καθαίρεσιν ἀπεργάσαιτο· πέµπτην ἐπὶ ταυτῇ, ὡς ἂν τοῖς αὐτοῦ γνωρίµοις καὶ µαθηταῖς τῆς κατὰ τὸν θάνατον παρὰ Θεῷ ζωῆς τὴν ἐλπίδα µὴ λόγοις µηδὲ ῥήµασιν καὶ φωναῖς ἀλλὰ αὐτοῖς ἔργοις παραστήσας, ὀφθαλµοῖς δὲ παραδοὺς τὴν διὰ τῶν λόγων ἐπαγγελίαν, εὐθαρσεῖς αὐτοὺς καὶ προθυµοτέρους ἀπεργάσαιτο καὶ πᾶσιν Ἕλλησιν ὁµοῦ καὶ βαρβάροις τὴν πρὸς αὐτοῦ καταβληθεῖσαν εὐσεβῆ πολιτείαν κηρύξαι. Τῶν οὖν τοιούτων ταῖς διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς ἰατρείαις ἐκκαθαρθέντων τε καὶ ἀφαγνισθέντων, ἕκαστον τῶν πρὸς τὸ κρεῖττον νοουµένων ἀντεισελεύσεται, ἡ ἀφθαρσία, ἡ ζωή, ἡ τιµή, ἡ χάρις, ἡ δόξα, ἡ δύναµις, καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο τοιοῦτον αὐτῷ τε τῷ Θεῷ ἐπιθεωρεῖσθαι εἰκάζοµεν Φὰσκουσιν συνιστᾶν ἕνα Θεόν Χριστὸς λόγος καὶ νόµος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς οὐ πρὸς ἕνα καὶ δεύτερον ἦλθεν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν κοινὴν φύσιν. Χριστὸς ὢν µὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦµα ἐγένετο σάρξ Χριστός, φησίν, ἐστὶν ἔτι ὑποδεέστερος τοῦ Μελχισεδέκ. Χρὴ δὲ γιγνώσκειν αἰσθητόν αἱρετικοὺς λέγοµεν τούς τε πάλαι τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀποκηρυχθέντας καὶ τοὺς µετὰ ταῦτα ὑφ᾽ ἡµῶν ἀναθεµατισθέντας. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις καὶ τοὺς τὴν πίστιν µὲν τὴν ὑγιῆ προσποιουµένους ὁµολογεῖν, ἀποσχίσαντας δὲ καὶ ἀντισυνάγοντας τοῖς κανονικοῖς ἡµῶν ἐπισκόποις. αὐτοὶ γὰρ Θεοδίδακτοι ἐστέ, οὐκ ἀγνοοῦντες ὅτι ἡ ἔναγχος ἐπαναστᾶσα τῇ ἐκκλησιαστικῇ εὐσεβείᾳ διδασκαλία Ἐβίωνός ἐστι καὶ Ἀρτεµᾶ, καὶ ζῆλος τοῦ κατ᾽ Ἀντιόχειαν Παύλου τοῦ Σαµοσατέως, συνόδῳ καὶ κρίσει τῶν ἁπανταχοῦ ἐπισκόπων ἀποκηρυχθέντος τῆς ἐκκλησίας — ὃν διαδεξάµενος Λουκιανὸς ἀποσυνάγωγος έµεινε τριῶν ἐπισκόπων πολυετεῖς χρόνους — ὧν τῆς ἀσεβείας τὴν τρύγα ἐρροφηκότες αὐτὸν εἶναι υἱὸν καὶ πατέρα, ὁρατὸν καὶ ἀόρατον; γεννητὸν καὶ ἀγέννητον, θνητὸν καὶ ἀθάνατον

• • • •

• • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

αὐτὸς καθαρίσας τὰς ἁµαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ ἔδειξεν αὐτοῖς τὰς τρίβους τῆς ζωῆς βιβλίον ἐπιστολῶν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύµατος ἁγίου γνόντες γὰρ Θεὸν διὰ Ἰὴσοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τὴν σύµπασαν αὐτοῦ οἰκονοµίαν ἀρχῆθεν γεγενηµένην, ὅτι δέδωκε νόµον ἁπλοῦν εἰς βοήθειαν τοῦ φυσικοῦ καθαρόν, σωτήριον, 5618 ἅγιον, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὸ ἴδιον ὄνοµα ἐγκατέθετο. γνώριµοι τῶν ἀποστόλων γνῶσις (knowledge) κατανόησις δεύτερος Θεός δεῖ δέ, ὡς ἐπὶ πάσης θείας γραφῆς προσήκει ποιεῖν καὶ ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν, οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα, καθ᾽ ὃν εἶπεν ὁ ἀπόστολος καιρὸν καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ τὸ πρᾶγµα, διόπερ ἔγραψε, πιστῶς ἐκλαµβάνειν, ἵνα µὴ παρὰ ταῦτα ἢ καὶ παρ᾽ ἕτερόν τι τούτων ἀγνοῶν ὃ ἀναγιγνώσκων ἔξω τῆς ἀληθινῆς διανοίας γένηται. δεῖ καὶ παραδόσει κεχρῆσθαι. οὐ γὰρ πάντα ἀπὸ τῆς θείας γραφῆς δύναται λαµβάνεσθαι· διὸ τὰ µὲν ἐν γραφαῖς, τὰ δὲ ἐν παραδόσεσιν παρέδωκαν οἱ ἅγιοι ἀπόστολοι δηµοσίᾳ ὁ Κάλλιστος ἡµῖν ὀνειδίζει εἰπεῖν· δίθεοί ἐστε δίθεοι διακοσµήσεις διαλεκτικῶς διαµαρτύροµαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ιησοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων. διαρεῖν διατάξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων διατάξεις, νόµοι, κανόνες ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων διαφορὰ τῆς κατασκευῆς (συστάσεως) τοῦ Χριστοῦ. διδαςκαλεῖον διδασκαλεῖον διδαχαί διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώµενον ἐκ σοῦ ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς Θεοῦ διωρεῖται τὸ θεῖον ῥῆµα εἰς τε τὸ γραπτὸν καὶ ἄγραφον διωρθωκέναι διὰ τὴν εὐσυνείδητον ὁµολογίαν.

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

•

διά Μαρίας διάλεξις πρὸς Ἀλιανόν διὸ καὶ δι᾽ οἰκονοµίαν δογµατικῶς δοκῦσι καὶ αὐτοὶ τὰ ἴσα ἡµῖν πιστεύειν. δυναστεία δυνάµεις δόγµα, δόγµα δύο φύσεις; εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς Θεοῦ δύναµις καὶ Θεοῦ σοφία πρὸ αἰώνων ἐστίν· οὕτω καὶ καθὸ Χριστὸς ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὢν τῇ οὐσίᾳ· εἰ καὶ τὰ µάλιστα πολλαῖς ἐπινοίαις ἐπινοεῖται. εἰ οὖν ἀθάνατος γέγονεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἔσται καὶ θεός εἰκών εἰς εἰς κανόνα δὲ πίστεως εἰς τὸν Μελχισεδὲκ κατὰ Μελχισεδεκειῶν εἰς τρεῖς δυνάµεις τινας καὶ µεµερισµένας ὑποστάσεις καὶ θεότητας τρεῖς· πέπυσµαι γὰρ εἶναί τινας τῶν παρ᾽ ὑµῖν κατηχούντων καὶ διδασκόντων τὸν θεῖον λόγον, ταύτης ὑφηγντὰς τῆς φρονήσεως· οἳ κατὰ διάµετρον, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, ἀντίκεινται τῇ Σαβελλίου γνώµῃ· ὁ µὲν γὰρ βλασφηµεῖ, αὐτὸν τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι λέγων τόν πατέρα, καὶ ἔµπαλιν· οἱ δὲ τρεῖς θεοὺς τρόπον τινὰ κηρύττουσιν, εἰς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ξένας ἀλλήλων, παντάπασι κεχωρισµένας, διαιροῦντες τὴν ἀγίαν µονάδα. ἡνῶσθαι γὰρ ἀνάγκη τῷ Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων τὸν θεῖον λόγον, ἐµφιλοχωρεῖν δὲ τῷ Θεῷ καὶ ἐνδιαιτᾶσθαι δεῖ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα, ἤδη καὶ τὴν θείαν τριάδα εἰς ἕνα, ὥσπερ εἰς κορυφήν τινα (τὸν Θεὸν τῶν ὅλων τὸν παντοκράτορα λέγω) συγκεφαλαιοῦσθαί τε καὶ συνάγεσθαι πᾶσα ἀνάγκη. Μαρκίωνος γὰρ τοῦ µαταιόφρονος δίδαγµα εἰς τρεῖς ἀρχὰς τῆς µοναρχίας τοµὴν καὶ διαίρεσιν (διορίζει), παίδευµα ὂν διαβολικόν, οὐχὶ δὲ τῶν ὄντως µαθητῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ . . . οὗτοι γὰρ τρίάδα µὲν κηρυττοµένην ὑπὸ τῆς θείας γραφῆς σαφῶς ἐπίςτανται, τρεῖς δε θεοὺς οὔτε παλαιὰν οὔτε καινὴν διαθήκην κηρύττουσαν εἰς τὰ καταχθόνια κατελθόντα

• • •

• • • •

•

•

• • • • • • • •

εἰς τὸ ἀρχαῖον τῆς φύσεως ἡµῶν ἀποκατάστασις εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁµαρτίας εἰς ὄνοµα δὲ τούτου τοῦ Μελχισεδὲκ ἡ προειρηµένη αἵρεσις καὶ τὰς προσφορὰς ἀναφέρει, καὶ αὐτὸν εἶναι εἰσαγωγέα πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, φησὶ, δεῖ τῷ Θεῷ προσφέρειν, ὅτι ἄρχων ἐστὶ δικαιοσύνης, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τούτῳ κατασταθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν οὐρανῷ, πνευµατικός τις ὢν, καὶ υἱὸς Θεοῦ τεταγµένος . . . . εἰς ὄνοµα τοῦ Μελχισεδέκ εἰς ὄνόα Ἰωάννου εἷς εἷς ιἀτρός ἐστιν σαρκικός τε καὶ πνευµατικός, γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος, ἐν σαρκὶ γενόµενος Θεός, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινὴ, καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ, πρῶτον παθητὸς καὶ τότε ἀπαθής, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός εἷς κύριος, µόνος ἐκ µόνου, Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, χαρακτὴρ καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς θεότητος, λόγος ἐνεργός, σοφία τῆς τῶν ὅλων συστάσεως περιεκτικὴ καὶ δύναµις τῆς ὅλης κτίσεως ποιητική, υἱὸς ἀληθινὸς ἀληθινοῦ πατρός, ἀόρατος ἀοράτου καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἀθάνατος ἀθανάτου καὶ ἀΐδιος ἀϊδίου. ζῶντος γὰρ ἔτι τοῦ σώµατος πρὸ τοῦ τεθνήξεσθαι συζῆν ἀνάγκη καὶ τὴν ἁµαρτίαν, ἔνδον τὰς ῥίζας αὐτῆς ἐν ἡµῖν ἀποκρύπτουσαν, εἰ καὶ ἔξωθεν τοµαίς ταῖς ἀπὸ τῶν σωφρονισµῶν καὶ τῶν νουθετήσεων ἀνεστέλλετο, ἐπει οὐκ ἂν µετὰ τὸ φωτισθῆναι συνέβαινεν ἀδικεῖν, ἅτε παντάπασιν εἰλικρινῶς ἀφῃρηµένης ἀφ᾽ ἡµῶν τῆς αµαρτίας· νῦν δὲ καὶ µετὰ τὸ πιστεῦσαι καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐλθεῖν τοῦ ἁγνισµοῦ πολλάκις ἐν ἀµαρτίαις ὄντες εὑρισκόµεθα· οὐδεὶς γὰρ οὕτως ἁµαρτίας ἐκτὸς εἶναι ἑαυτὸν καυχήσεται, ὡς µηδὲ κἂν ἐνθυµηθῆναι τὸ σύνολον ὅλως τῆν ἀδικὶαν. θελήµατι µόνον θεοποίησις θεωθῶµεν θείαις µεταβολαῖς καὶ µιµήσεσιν θεωρία θεωρία περὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ θεωρία τῶν θείων θεωρία τῶν νοητῶν θεία φύσις,

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• •

θάνατος ἐν ἀθανασίᾳ θέωσις θῦµα ἄπυρον καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν καλλίων ἡµῶν πρεσβύτης καὶ µακαριστὸς ἀνὴρ κανόνες ἐκκλησαστικοί κανὼν τῆς πίστεως κατακρίνειν τὴν ἁµαρτίαν (τὸν θάνατον) ἐν τῇ σαρκί κατὰ περιγραφήν κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ, συνετῶν Θεοῦ, παίδων ἁγίων, ὐρθοτόµων, ἄγιον Θεοῦ πνεῦµα λαβόντων, τάδε ἔµαθον ἔγωγε ὑπὸ τῶν σοφίης µετεχόντων, ἀστείων, θεοδιδάκτων, κατὰ πάντα σοφῶν τε. κατὰ τῶν ὁµοίων ἀνθρώπων κατά µέρος πίστις. κατά τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀποστόλων ὅτι Θεὸς λόγος ἀπ᾽ οὐρανῶν κατῆλθεν κατάληψις κατ᾽ οἰκονοµίαν κατ᾽ οὐσίαν (τοῦ Θεοῦ) κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν καὶ [εἰς] µίαν ἀγίαν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ γένοιτο πάντας ὑµᾶς ἀµώµως τῷ νοητῷ νυµφίῳ παραστάντας κ.τ.λ. καὶ εἰ µὴ δυνατὸν καταλαβέσθαι τί ἐστι Θεός, ἀλλὰ δυνατὸν εἰπεῖν, τί οὔκ ἐστιν. καὶ ποιητά τινα φήσας νοεῖσθαι, τῶν µὲν τοιούτων ὡς ἀχρειοτέρων ἐξ ἐπιδροµῆς εἶπον παραδείγµατα, ἐπεὶ µήτε τὸ φυτὸν ἔφην (τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι) τῷ γεωργῷ, µήτε τῷ ναυπηγῷ τὸ σκάφος· — Ἕνα τῶν γενητῶν εἶναι καὶ τὸν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν . . . καὶ τὸν τῶν ἄλλων ἑποµένων καὶ ἐξοµοιουµένων ἁγαθῶν ἀγγέλων στρατόν. καὶ ἔστιν οἷος ἦν καὶ ἔστιν ὁ µὲν οἷον πατὴρ ὁ νοῦς τοῦ λόγου, ὢν ἐφ᾽ ἐαυτοῦ, ὁ δὲ καθάπερ υἱὸς ὁ λόγος τοῦ νοῦ. πρὸ ἐκείνου µὲν ἀδύνατον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἔξωθέν ποθεν, σὺν ἐκείνῳ γενόµενος, βλαστήσας δὲ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. οὕτως ὁ πατὴρ ὁ µέγιστος καὶ καθόλου νοῦς πρῶτον τὸν νἱὸν λόγον ἑρµηνέα καί ἄγγελον ἑαυτοῦ ἔχει.

•

• • • • • • •

• • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

•

καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, οὐ κατὰ τὴν παρουσίαν µόνον ἄνθρωπος γενόµενος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ ἐν ταυτότητι λόγος κατὰ περιγραφὴν καὶ οὐ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν γενόµενος, ὁ υἱὸς κτίσµα κυριακὸν σῶµα κυρώσας κήρυγµα κήρυγµα τῆς µοναρχίας κόσµος νοερός κύριος ἔκτισέ µε ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ): ἔκτισε ἐνταῦθα ἀκουστέον ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπέστησε τοῖς ὐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ γεγονόσιν ἔργοις, γεγονόσι δὲ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ λατρεία λεξιθηροῦντες λογικὴ λατρεία λογικὸν ζῶον λέγουσιν· Ἰδοὺ δεύτερον εὐαγγέλιον περὶ Χριστοῦ σηµαῖνον καὶ οὐδαµοῦ ἄνωθεν λέγον τὴν γέννησιν· ἀλλά, φησίν, Ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ κατῇλθε τὸ τνεῦµα ᾽επ᾽ αὐτὸν καί φωνή· Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς ὁ ἀγαπητός, ᾽ἐφ ὃν ηὐδόκησα. λόγος λόγος κατηχητικός λόγος κατά Ἀρείου καὶ Σαελλίου λόγος κτίσµα λόγος ἄσαρκος λόγος ἔνσαρκος λόγος ὁµοούσιος οὐ ποιηθείς λόγος-θεός λόγος-κτίσµα λόγων µὲν φιλοσόφων καὶ τῆς ἂλλης παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι παιδείας παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς θαυµασθείς, οὐχ ὁµοίως γε νὴν περὶ τὴν θείαν πίστιν διατεθειµένος. µεγάλη τίς ἐστιν ὑπερφυῶς καὶ θαυµαστὴ καὶ ἔνδοξος ἡ παρθενία, καὶ εἰ χρὴ φανερῶς εἰπεῖν ἐποµένην ταῖς ἁγίαις γραφαῖς, τὸ οὖθαρ τῆς ἀφθαρσίας καὶ τὸ ἄνθος καὶ ἡ ἀπαρχὴ αὐτῆς τοῦτο τὸ ἄριστον καὶ κάλλιστον ἐπιτήδευµα µόνον τυγχάνει, καὶ δία ταῦτα καὶ ὁ κύριος εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν εἰσελάσαι τῶν οὐρανῶν τοὺς ἀποπαρθενεύσαντας σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐπαγγελλεται . . . ,

• • • • • •

• • • • • •

• • •

• • • • •

παρθενίαν γὰρ βαίνειν µέν ἐπὶ γῆς, ἐπιψαύειν δὲ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἡγητέον µεθ᾽ ἡµῶν τὸ κτίσµα, τῶν οὐ Θεῶν· εἰ κτίσµα δέ, οὐ Θεός µερισµένας εἶναι. µερισµός µερίζεσθαι µεταβολαῖς µετὰ δὲ τὴν γνῶσιν τῆς σεµνῆς καὶ ἐνδόξου ταύτης καὶ παναγίας πίστεως καὶ σεαυτὸν γνῶθι λοιπὸν ὅστις εἶ. µικροψύχως 4617 µιµήσεσιν µοναρχία κατ᾽ οἰκονοµίαν µονογενὴς Θεός µονάς µονάς — τριάς — οὐσία – φύσις — ὑποκείµενον — ὑπόστασις — πρόσωπον — περιγραφή — µερίζεσθαι — διαιρεῖν — πλατύνειν — συγκεφαλαιοῦσθαι — κτίζειν — ποιεῖν — γίγνεσθαι γεννᾶν — ὁµοούσιος — ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός — διὰ τοῦ θελήµατος — Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ — φῶς ἐκ φωτός — γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα — ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν — οὐκ ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν — ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν — ἕτερος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν — ἄτρεπτος — ἀναλλοίωτος — ἀγέννητος — ἀλλότριος — πηγὴ τῆς θεότητος — δύο οὐσίαι — οὐσία οὐσιωµένη — ἐνανθρώπησις — θεάνθρωπος — ἕνωσις οὐσιώδης — ἕνωσις κατὰ µετουσίαν — συνάφεια κατὰ µάθησιν καὶ µετουσίαν — συγκρᾶσις — ἐνοικεῖν µυστήριον οἰκονοµίας µυστική παράδοσις µάθηµα τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς φιλοσοφίας, ξένης καὶ ἀλλοτρίας οὔσης τῶν ἐν Χριστῷ εὐσεβῶς θελόντων ζῇν µάθηµα τῶν δογµάτων καὶ πράξεις ἀγαθαί µάθησις µάθησις καὶ µυσταγωγία. µέγιστον τάραχον κατὰ πάντα τὸν κόσµον ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς πιστοῖς ἐµβάλλουσιν. µὴ δεῖν παρὰ γνώµην τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Ῥώµης κανονίζειν τὰς ἐκκλησίας

•

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

• •

• • •

µή πως ἄρα αἱ τρεῖς αὗται τῶν προγόνων κεφαλαὶ πάσης τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ὁµοούσιοι ὑποστάσεις κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τινά, ὡς καὶ Μεθοδίῳ δοκεῖ µία θέλησις µία φύσις θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένη µύσται µᾶλλον καὶ διαφερόντως νεωτερισµός νοητόν νοητῶς νοµίζοντες ἀπὸ Μαρίας καὶ δεῦρο Χριστὸν αὐτὸν καλεῖσθαι καί υἱὸν Θεοῦ, καὶ εἷναι µὲν πρότερον ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον, κατὰ προκοπὴν δὲ εἰληφέναι τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ προσηγορίαν. νοῦς νοῦς προπηδῶν νόµος τοῦ Θανάτου νῦν ἡµῖν τὸ Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐπεφύησαν, τὰ ἐκείνων κεκρυµµένα µοσχεύµατα οµοούσιος οἰκονοµηθῆναι τὴν ἀλήθειαν οἰκονοµία οἰκονοµικῶς οἱ µὲν γὰρ αὐτὸν νοµίζουσι φύσει τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἰδέᾳ ἀνθρώπου τότε τῷ Ἀβραὰµ πεφηνέναι οἱ πρός Σαβῖνον λόγοι οἱ προλαβόντες ἀφανίζουσιν τοὺς µετά ταῦτα γενόεµνους οἱ συγχέοντες πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ ἔννοιαν οἱ ἀµφὶ τὸν Σαµοσατέα οὐ γὰρ ὡς ἔδοξεν ἀνθρώποις συνετέθη τὰ τῆς Πίστεως· ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ πάσης γραφῆς τὰ καιριώτατα συλλεχθέντα µίαν ἀναπληροῖ τὴν τῆς Πίστεως διδασκαλίαν. οὐ δύο θεοὺς λέγω οὐ µόνον ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἄνθρωπος γίνεται, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον πάντως καὶ ἐν ἀγγέλοις γινόµενος πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων φύσιν ἑαυτὸν συγκατάγει. οὐ πολυθεΐαν εἰσηγούµεθα οὐ προγνώσει, ἀλλ᾽ οὐσίᾳ καὶ ὑποστάσει. οὐ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου γενόµενος

•

• • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

οὐ τοσαύτη ἦν τῶν ἁµαρτωλῶν ἡ ἀνοµία, ὅση τοῦ ὑπεραποθνήσκοντος ἡ δικαιοσύνη. οὐ τοσοῦτον ἡµάρτοµεν, ὅσον ἐδικαιοπράγνσεν ὁ τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν τεθεικώς οὐ τὰ φυσικὰ πὰθη ἐκκόπτειν ἐνοµοθέτησεν ἀλλὰ τὴν τούτων ἀµετρίαν οὐ τὸ τί ἐστι Θεὸς ἐξηγούµεθα . . . ἐν τοῖς περὶ Θεοῦ µεγάλη γνῶσις το τὴν ἀγνωσίαν ὁµολογεῖν. οὐδ ὡς Ἱεράκας λύχνον ἀπὸ λύχνου, ἢ ὡς λαµπάδα εἰς δύο οὐδεὶς πιστεύει εἰς µίαν ἐκκλησίαν ὁ µὴ ὁµολογῶν ὅτι τὰς ἐκπροσωπούσας ταύτην οἰκουµενικὰς συνόδους τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἄγιον ὁδηγεῖ εἰς πᾶσαν ἀλήθειαν. καὶ ὅτι ἡ ἐκκλησία αὕτη δὲν δύναται νὰ ἦ ἄλλη παρὰ τὴν ἐπῳκοδοµηµένην ἐπὶ τῆς µόνης ἑνοποιοῦ ἀρχῆς τῶν οἰκουµενικῶν συνόδων· διότι ἡ ἀρχὴ τῶν µερικῶν ὑποχρεωτικῶν ὁµολογιῶν, ἣν καθιέρωσαν αἱ λοιπαὶ ἐκκλησίαι, ἐστὶν ἡ µήτηρ τῆς διαιρέσεως . . . ἡ προµνηµονευθεῖσα ἀναγνώρισις τῶν ἑπτὰ οἰκουµενικῶν συνόδων ἐστὶ γεγονὸς ἱστορικόν, µηδεµίαν πλέον ἐκκλησιαστικὴν αναψηλάφησιν ἐπιδεχόµενον. οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ Θεὸς πατήρ, οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ υἱός, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ µὲν Θεὸς ἦν χωρὶς τοῦ λόγου, αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ υἱὸς οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γενηθῇ, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, οὐ γὰρ ἀΐδιός ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὕστερον ἐπιγέγονεν. οὐκ ἄξια αὐτά φασιν εἶναι ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ οὐκ ἦν πρὸ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι οὐσία οὐσια οὐσιωδῶς, αλλὰ κατὰ ποιότητα οὐσία οὐσία οὐσιωµένη ἐν σώµατι οὐσίαι οὕτω γὰρ ἂν καὶ ἡ θεία τριὰς καὶ τὸ ἅγιον κήρυγµα τῆς µοναρχίας διασώζοιτο οὕτω µὲν ἡµεῖς εἴς τε τὴν τριάδα τὴν µονάδα πλατύνοµεν ἀδιαίρετον, καὶ τὴν τριάδα πάλιν ἀµείωτον εἰς τὴν µονάδα συγκεφαλαιούµεθα οὗτος ἐσταυρώθη ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν ἡµῶν. παντελῶς παράδοσις ἄγραφος παραδόσεις παράδοσις γνωστική

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

• • •

παράδοσις ἄγαρφος παράδοσις ἄγραφος πατέρα λέγων ∆ιονύσιος οὐκ ὀνοµάζει τὸν υἱόν, καὶ πάλιν υἱὸν λέγων οὐκ ὀνοµάζει τὸν πατέρα, ἀλλὰ διαιρεῖ καὶ µακρύνει καὶ µέρίζει τὸν υἱὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρός. πατὴρ καὶ υἱὸς ἐπινοίᾳ µέν εἰσι δύο, ὑποστάσει δὲ ἕν πειρῶµαι τὸ ἐν ἡµῖν θεῖον ἀνάγειν πρὸς τὸ ἐν τῷ παντὶ θεῖον περὶ Μελχισεδεκιανῶν καὶ Θεοδοτιανῶν καὶ Ἀθιγγανῶν περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ ἀναστάσεως περὶ ἀρχ. περιγραφὴ οὐσίας περιγραφή περιγράφεσθαι περὶ θεότητος περὶ κατ. ανθρ. περὶ κατασκ. περὶ κατασκ. ἀνθρωπ. περὶ κατασκευῆς ἀνθρώπων περὶ κοσµοποιίας περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ περὶ συντελείας περὶ τοῦ µηδὲ προϋπάρχειν τὴν ψυχὴν µηδὲ ἀµαρτήσασαν τοῦτο εἰς σῶµα βληθῆναι περὶ τοῦ νῦν κινηθέντος ἐν τῇ Πτολεµαΐδι τῆς Πενταπόλεως δόγµατος, ὄντος ἀσεβοῦς καὶ βλασφηµίαν πολλὴν ἔχοντος περὶ τοῦ παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀπιστίαν τε πολλὴν ἔχοντος περὶ τοῦ µονογενοῦς παιδὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ πρωτοτόκου πάσης κτίσεως, τοῦ ἐναθρωπήσαντος λόγου, ἀναισθησίαν δὲ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος. περὶ τῆς θεοτόκου περὶ τῆς σωτῆρος ἡµῶν ἐπιδηµίας περὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ θεότητος ἁπλούστερον γράφοντες οὐ κατεγένοντο περὶ τῆς τοῦ ὁµουσίου ἀκρίβειας. περὶ τῆς ἐνδόξου καὶ ἀληθῶς ἐνθέου τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν ἐπιφανείας περὶ τῶν γενητῶν περὶ φύσεως

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

•

• • • • •

περὶ ψυχ. κ. ἀναστας. περὶ ψυχ. κ. ἀναστασ· περὶ ψυχ. κ. ἀναστάσ. περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ ἀναστάσεως περὶ ἀρχ περὶ ἀρχ. περὶ ἀρχῶν περὶ ἐνανθρωπήσεως τοῦ λόγου περὶ ἐπαγγελιῶν περὶ ἱερωσύνης πιστεύειν εἰς µίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν πλάττουσιν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ βίβλους ἐπιπλάστους, πλατυσµός πλατύνειν πλευρά 2b45 πλὴν ἐγὼ γενητά τινα πλὴν ὅτι οὐσίας δύο καὶ φύσεις δύο λέγει· τῷ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ φύσεως ὀνόµατι, ὡς δῆλον, ἔκ τε τῶν ἑποµένων καὶ προηγουµένων τοῦ χωρίου ἀντὶ τῆς ὑποστάσεως καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ Ἀρείῳ προσανακείµενοι χρώµενος πνεῦµα πνεῦµα κυρίου πνεῦµα ἅγιον πνεῦµἀ ποιά πολλοὶ γὰρ οὖν ἃγιοι γεγόνασι καθαροὶ πάσης ἁµαρτίας πονῦµα ποίηµα ποίηµα καὶ γενητὸν εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, µήτε δὲ φύσει ἴδιον, ἀλλὰ ξένον κατ᾽ οὐσίαν αὐτὸν εἶναι τοῦ πατρός, ὥσπερ ἐστὶν ὁ γεωργὸς πρὸς τὴν ἄµπελον καὶ ὁ ναυπηγὸς πρὸς τὸ σκάφος. καὶ γὰρ ὡς ποίηµα ὢν οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γένηται. ποῦ δὲ ἔτι γραφῆς καὶ µαθήσεως κατόρθωµα τῇ ψυχῇ ἐκείνῃ τῇ καθαρᾷ γενοµένῃ, ὅπου καὶ ἀξιοῦται πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον Θεὸν ὁρᾶν πραγµατεία πρεσβύτεροι προβολὴν προβολή τοῦ λόγου προγεγύµνασθαι γὰρ . . . ὡς ἄρα ὁ πρωτόπλαστος οἰκείως εἰς αὐτὸν ἀναφέρεσθαι δύναται τὸν

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

• •

• • • • • • • •

Χριστόν, οὐκέτι τύπος ὢν καὶ ἀπείκασµα µόνον καὶ εἰκὼν τοῦ µονογενοῦς, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο σοφία γεγονώς καὶ λόγος. δίκην γὰρ ὕδατος συγκερασθεὶς ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῇ σοφίᾳ καὶ τῇ ζωῇ τοῦτο γέγονεν, ὅπερ ἦν αὐτὸ τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν ἐγκατασκῆψαν ἄκρατον φῶς προκοπή προσκύνησις προστάτης προσφέρουσιν ἔγκληµα κατ᾽ ἐµοῦ ψεῦδος ὂν ὡς οὐ λέγοντος τὸν Κριστὸν ὁµοούσιον εἶναι τῷ Θεῷ. προφάσει χάριτος προφήτην ὡς ἐµέ πρὸς Μανιχαίους πρὸς θεωρίαν πρὸς τοὺς Σαβελλίζοντας πρὸς ῥητόν πρός τι πὼς ἔχοντα πρόσωπον πρώτη οὐσία πάθη πίστευε δὲ ὅτι οὗτος ὁ µονογενὴς υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἡµῶν ἐξ οὐρανῶν κατῆλθεν ἐπι τῆς γῆς. πίστευε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ . . . τοσοῦτον ἂνθρωπον διά σε, ὅσον σὺ γίνῃ δι᾽ ἐκεῖνον Θεός. πίστις ἐξ ἀρχῆς παραληφθεῖσα πὼς ἔχοντα πᾶσα ἡ θεολογία τὰς οὐρανίους οὐσίας ἐννέα κέκληκε. ταύτας ὁ Θεῖος ἱεροτελέστης εἰς τρεῖς ἀφορίζει τριαδικὰς διακοσµήσεις πᾶσα ἡ ἀποστολικὴ εὐσεβὴς δόξα πῶς οὖν ὁ τούτοις χρώµενος τοῖς ὀνόµασι µεµερίσθαι ταῦτα καὶ ἀφωρίσθαι παντελῶς ἀλλήλων οἴοµαι σιωπῇ προσκυνείσθω τὸ ἄρρητον σκιὰ τῶν µελλόντων σοφίζονται οἱ Χριστιανοὶ ἐν τῷ λέγειν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι αὐτολόγον συγκεφαλαιοῦσθαι συγκεχυοµένον συγχεόµενοι ἐν τῷ περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ τόπῳ συγχέειν συµβεβηκότα

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

•

συµφωνία τῶν βιβλῶν συναίρεσθαι συνάφεια κατὰ µάθησιν καὶ µετουσίαν συνέλευσις σἀρξ σάρκας νοητάς σάρξ σύπάσχειν σύστασις τοῦ κόσµου σῶµα τα ὄντα ταυτούσιος ταύτῃ γεννᾶν εἰρῆσθαι νoµίζω τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ἐπειδὴ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας καὶ τὴν ἐκτύπωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀρρενωπίαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ προσλαµβάνουσιν οἱ φωτιζόµενοι, τῆς καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν µορφῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐκτυπουµένης τοῦ λόγου καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς γεννωµένης κατά τὴν ἀκριβῆ γνῶσιν καὶ πίστιν ὥστε ἐν ἑκάστῳ γεννᾶσθαι τὸν Χριστὸν νοητῶς· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἡ ἐκκλησία σπαργᾷ καὶ ὡδίνει, µέχριπερ ἂν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐν ἡµῖν µορφωθῇ γεννηθείς, ὅπως ἕκαστος τῶν ἁγίων τῷ µετέχειν Χριστοῦ Χριστος γεννηθῇ, καθ᾽ ὃν λόγον καὶ ἔν τινι γραφῇ φέρεται “µὴ ἅψησθε τῶν Χριστῶν µου” οἱονεὶ Χριστῶν γεγονότων τῶν κατὰ µετουσίαν τοῦ πνεύµατος εἰς Χριστὸν βεβαπτισµένων, συµβαλλούσης ἐνταῦθα τὴν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τράνωσιν αὐτῶν καὶ µεταµόρφωσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. ταύτῃ γὰρ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἄνείληφεν ὁ λόγος, ὅπως δὴ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καταλύσῃ τὴν ἐπ᾽ ὀλέθρῳ γεγονυῖαν καταδίκην, ἡττήσας τὸν ὄφιν. ἥρµοζε γὰρ µὴ δι᾽ ἑτέρου νικηθῆναι τὸν πονηρὸν ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἐκείνου, ὃν δὴ καὶ ἐκόµπαζεν ἀπατήσας αὐτὸν τετυραννηκέναι, ὅτι µὴ ἄλλως τὴν ἁµαρτίαν λυθῆναι καὶ τὴν κατάκρισιν δυνατὸν ἦν, εἰ µὴ πάλιν ὁ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος ἄνθρωπος, δι᾽ ὃν εἴρητο το “γῆ εἶ καί εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσῃ,” ἀναπλασθεὶς ἀνέλυσε τὴν ἀπόφασιν τὴν δι᾽ αὐτὸν εὶς πάντας ἐξενηνεγµένην. ὅπως, καθὼς ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰµ πρότερον πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν, οὕτω δὴ 40b0 πάλιν καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀνειληφότι Χπιστῷ τὸν Ἀδαµ πάντες ζωοποιηθῶσιν. ταῦτα διδάσκοµεν, ταῦτα κηρύττοµεν, ταῦτα τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὰ ἀποστολικὰ δόγµατα

• • • • • • • • •

• • •

• • • • • • •

•

τελειούµενοι τὸν λόγον ἀπέστειλεν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ εὐαγγελιζόµενος εἰρήνην διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ πάθους τοῦ Θεοῦ µου τοῦ ἀλληγορικοῦ τὸ ἱστορικὸν πλεῖστον ὅσον προτιµῶµεν τοῦτον τὸν πατέρα αὐτὸν υἰὸν νοµίζουσι κατὰ καιροὺς καλούµενον πρὸς τὰ συµβαίνοντα τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις τριὰς τέλεια, δόξη καὶ ἀϊδιότητι καὶ βασιλείᾳ µὴ µεριζοµένη µηδὲ ἀπαλλοτριουµένη. Οὔτε οὖν κτιστόν τι ἢ δοῦλον ἐν τῇ τριάδι οὔτε ἐπείσακτον, ὡς πρότερον µὲν οὐχ ὕπαρχον, ὕστερον δὲ ἐπείσελθόν· οὔτε γὰρ ἐνέλιπέ ποτε υἱὸς πατρί, οὔτε τἱῷ πνεῦµα, ἄλλ᾽ ἄτρεπτος καὶ ἀναλλοίωτος ἡ αὐτὴ τριὰς ἀεί. τριάς τρόπον τινά τυπικῶς γεγόνασι τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὁµοούσιου τριάδος, τοῦ µὲν ἀναιτίου καὶ ἄγεννήτου Ἀδὰµ τύπον καὶ εἰκόνα ἔχοντος τοῦ ἀναιτίου καὶ πάντων αἱτίου παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ καὶ πατρός, τοῦ δὲ γεννητοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰκόνα προδιαγράφοντος τοῦ γεννητοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ. τῆς δὲ ἐκπορευτῆς Εὔας σηµαινούσης τὴν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος ἐκπορευτὴν ὑπόστασιν. τυραννίς τὰ κανονιζόµενα καὶ παραδοθέντα πιστευθέντα τε θεῖα εἶναι βιβλία τὰ κρατούµενα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως οὐκ ἔχει ἔπαινον τὰ µὲν ἁµαρτήµατα ὡς Θεὸς ἀφιείς, εἰς δὲ τὸ µὴ ἐξαµαρτάνειν παιδαγωγῶν ὡς ἄνθρωπος τὴν τοῦ θανάτου κράτησιν τὴν τοῦ πνεύµατος διδασκαλίαν ὑπερβάλλειν τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ διδαχῆς τὴν τοῦ ὁµοουσίου φωνὴν παριστᾷν ἔννοιαν οὐσίας τε καὶ τῶν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς, ὥστε καταµερισθεῖσαν τὴν οὐσίαν παρέχειν τοῦ ὁµοουσίου τὴν προσηγορίαν τοῖς εἰς ἃ διῃρέθη. τὶ οὖν κακὸν ποιῶ δοξάζων τὸν Χριστόν

• •

•

• •

• • • • • •

• •

•

•

τὶς ἀποφαίνεται πλήθυν Θεῶν παραβαλλοµένην κατὰ καιρούς. τί γὰρ ἄτοπον, ἢ τί χλεύης παρ᾽ ἡµῖν ἄξιον, ἢ πάντως ὅτι τὸν λόγον ἐν σώµατι πεφανερῶσθαι λέγοµεν τί δὲ εἴπω Ἡρακλᾶν καὶ ∆ηµήτριον τοὺς µακκαρίους ἐπισκόπους, οἵους πειρασµοὺς ὑπέστησαν ὑπὸ τοῦ µανέντος Ὠριγένους, καὶ αὐτοῦ σχίσµατα βαλλόντος ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, τὰ ἕως σήµερον ταραχὰς αὐτῇ ἐγείραντα τί ἂν εἴπωµεν, ἕνα Θεόν ἔχόεν, ἢ τρεῖς Θεούς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εἰς ὅνοµα Ἰωάννου ψεύδεται . . . λέγουσι τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγέλιον, ἐπειδὴ µὴ τὰ αὐτὰ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ἔφη, ἀδιάθετον εἶναι. τὸ εὖ ζῆν ἐδίδαξεν ἐπιφανεὶς ὡς διδάσκαλος, ἵνα τὸ ἀεὶ ζῆν ὕστερον ὡς Θεὸς χορηγήσῃ τὸ θάλπον τὸ πνεῦµα σὰρξ ἐγένετο τὸ σχῆµα τὸ φωτιστικόν τὸ ἐκ δύο φύσεων ἑνωθεισῶν καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν γεγεννῆσθαι τὸν κύριον ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν µήτε µεµαθηκέναι ἐν ταῖς ἐκθέσεσι τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων µήτε καταδέχεσθαι, εἰ τύχοι τι αὐτῷ τοιοῦτο παρά τινος ὑπαναγινώσκεσθαι, διὰ τὸ τὰς θείας γραφὰς ἀµείνονας εἶναι τῆς τῶν πατέρων διδασκαλίας. τὸ ἔργον τοῦ Χριστιανοῦ οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἐστὶν ἢ µελετᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν τὸν Θεὸν βουλόµενον τόδε τὸ πᾶν κατασκευάσαι, πρῶτον τὸν υἱὸν οἷόν τινα κανόνα τῆς δηµιουργίας προϋποστήσασθαι. τὸν δὲ υἱὸν παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὄντα Θεὸν µὲν καὶ κύριον τῶν γενητῶν ἁπάντων, ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀποσταλέντα ἐξ οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐνηνθρωπηκέναι. διόπερ καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς παρθένου σῶµα χωρῆσαν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωµα τῆς θεότητος σωµατικῶς, τῇ θεότητι ἀτρέπτως ἥνωται καὶ τεθεοποίηται τὸν κόσµον σώµα µέγα φασὶν εἶναι οἱ τῶν Ἑλλήνων φιλόσοφοι καὶ ἀληθεύουσι λέγοντες. Ὁρῶµεν γὰρ αὐτὸν καὶ τὰ τούτου µέρη ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι ὑποπίπτοντα. Εἰ τοίνυν ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ σώµατι ὄντι ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος ἐστί, καὶ ἐν ὅλοις

• •

• • • • •

• • •

•

•

καὶ τοῖς κατὰ µέρος αὐτῶν πᾶσιν ἐπιβέβηκε. τί θαυµαστὸν ἢ τί ἄτοπον εἰ καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώπω φαµὲν αὐτὸν ἐπιβεβηκέναι κ.τ.λ. τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀποβάλλονται τὸν διὰ Ἰωάννην κητυχθέντα. τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ κύριον ἡµῶν µὴ προϋφεστάναι κατ᾽ ἰδίαν οὐσίας περιγραφὴν πρὸ τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἐπιδηµίας, µηδὲ θεότητα ἰδίαν ἔχειν, ἀλλ ἐµπολιτευοµένην αὐτῷ µόνην τὴν πατρικήν. τὸν υἱὸν καὶ µὴ ὁµοούσιον τῷ πατρί τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. τὸν φυσικὸν νόµον ἐβεβαίωσεν τό αἵµα, τά παθήµατα τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς αὐτῆς τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος χάριτος οἵ τε πάλαι µετεῖχον καὶ οἱ τῷ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης ὑπηρετούµενος µυστηρίῳ. τῇ ἐπινοίᾳ µόνῃ τῶν προγεγενηµένων Θεὸς δίδωσιν ἄφεσιν, τῶν δὲ ἐπιόντων αὐτὸς ἕκαστος ἑαυτῷ τῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πεφυλαγµένων δογµάτων καὶ κηρυγµάτων τὰ µὲν ἐκ τῆς ἐγγράφου διδασκαλίας ἔχοµεν, τὰ δὲ ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως διαδοθέντα ἡµῖν ἐν µυστηρίῳ παρεδεξάµεθα ἄπερ ἀµφότερα τὴν αὐτὴν ἰσχὺν ἔχει πρὸς τὴν εὐσέβειαν . . . ἄλλο γὰρ δόγµα, καὶ ἄλλο κήρυγµα, τὰ µεν γὰρ δόγµατα σιωπᾶται, τὰ δὲ κηρύγµατα δηµοσιεύεται τῷ Χριστῷ φησίν, ἐσταυρωµένῳ ὥσπερ ἄπασα ἡµῶν ἡ ὑπὸ τὴν θνητότητα κειµένη φύσις συνεσταυρώθη, ἐπειδὴ καὶ πᾶσα αὐτῷ συναν έστη, πάντων ἀνθρώπων αὐτῷ συµµετασχεῖν ἐλπιζόντων τῆς ἀναστάσεως· ὡς ἐντεῦθεν συναφανισθῆναι µὲν τὴν περὶ τὸ ἁµαρτάνειν ἡµῶν εὐκολίαν, διὰ τῆς ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνθανασίαν τοῦ σώµατος µεταστάσεως. τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώµης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην, οἱ πατέρες εἰκότως ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα, καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῷ κινούµενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειµαν τῷ τῆς νέας Ῥώµης ἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ, εὐλόγως κρίναντες, τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιµηθεῖσαν πόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώµῃ. καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς, ὡς

•

• • •

• •

• • • • • •

•

•

ἐκείνην, µεγαλύνεσθαι πράγµασι, δευτέραν µετ᾽ ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν. τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύµατι χρισθεὶς προσηγορεύθη Χριστός — ὁ ἐκ ∆αβὶδ χρισθεὶς οὐκ ἀλλότριός ἐστι τῆς σοφίας υπερ του κατα ιωαν[ν]ην ευαγγελιου και αποκαλυψεως υἱοπάτωρ φαµὲν ἄνθρωπον γεγενῆσθαι τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον, ἵνα τὴν ὁµοίωσιν τοῦ ἐπουρανίου λάβωµεν καὶ θεοποιηθῶµεν φαντασία περὶ Θεόυ φασὶ γὰρ τοὺς µὲν προτέρους ἅπαντας καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἀποστόλους, παρειληφέναι τε καὶ δεδιδαχέναι ταῦτα, ἅ νῦν οὗτοι λέγουσι, καὶ τετηρῆσθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ κηρύγµατος µέχρι τῶν χρόνων τοῦ Βίκτορος . . . ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ διαδόχου αὐτοῦ Ζεφυρίνου παρακεχαράχθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν. φθορά φιλοτιµίαν φύσει φωνή φάσκουσι ὅτι οὐ συµφωνεῖ τὰ βιβλία τοῦ Ἰωάννου τοῖς λοιποῖς ἀποστόλοις φάσκων τὰ περὶ µὲν τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ἀρχῆς σύµφωνα ἐκ µέρους τοῖς τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἐκκλησίας, ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πάντα ὁµολογῶν γεγονέναι φέρε γὰρ ἡµεῖς ἐπισκεψώµεθα πῶς ὀρθοδόξως ἀνήγαγε τὸν Ἀδὰµ εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν, οὐ µόνον τύπον αὐτὸν ἡγούµενος εἶναι καὶ εἰκόνα, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο Χριστὸν καὶ αὐτὸν γεγονέναι διὰ τὸ τὸν πρὸ αἰώνων εἰς αὐτὸν ἐγκατασκῆψαι λόγον. ἥρµοζε γὰρ τὸ πρωτόγονον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πρῶτον βλάστηµα καὶ µονογενὲς τὴ 4614 ν σοφίαν τῷ πρωτοπλάστῳ καὶ πρώτῳ καὶ πρωτογόνῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀνθρώπῳ κερασθεῖσαν ἐνηνθρωπηκέναι, τοῦτο γὰρ εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν, ἄνθρωπον ἐν ἀκράτῳ θεότητι καὶ τελείᾳ πεπληρωµένον καὶ Θεὸν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ κεχωρηµένον· ἦν γὰρ πρεπωδέστατον τόν πρεσβύτατον τῶν αἰώνων καὶ πρῶτον τῶν ἀρχαγγέλων, ἀνθρώποις µέλλοντα συνοµιλεῖν, εἰς τὸν πρεσβύτατον καὶ πρῶτον τῶν ἀνθρώπον εἰσοικισθῆναι τὸν Ἀδάµ χάρις

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

χάριτι ψαλµοὺς τοὺς µὲν εἰς τὸν κύριον ἡµῶν Ἰ. Χρ. παύσας ὡς δὴ νεωτέρους καὶ νεωτέρων ἀνδρῶν συγγράµµατα ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος ψιλὴ πίστις ψιλὸς ἂνθρωτος ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος ψυχὴ λογική ψυχή ϕθρά ἀγαθότης ἀγνεία, ἐγκράτεια ἀγωνιστικῶς ἀδελφότης ἀθανασία ἀληθῶς ἀλληγορία ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σαβελλίου συχνῶς κατηγορεῖσθαι ὡς παραβάντα τὴν πρώτην πίστιν ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ µοι τὶς· Ξένον φέρεις λόγον λέγων υἱόν. Ἰωάννης µὲν γὰρ λέγει λόγον, ἀλλ᾽ ἄλλως ἀλληγορεῖ ἀµαθεῖς ἀνθρωπίνης βουλῆς τε καὶ γνώµης ἀντίλυτρον ἀνάγκη τρεῖς οὐσίας εἶναι, µίαν µὲν προηγουµένην, τὰς δὲ δύο ἐξ ἐκαίνης. ἀπεκήρυξε τῆς κοινωνίας ἀποστὰς τοῦ κανόνος ἐπὶ κίβδηλα καὶ νόθα διδάγµατα µετελήλυθεν. ἀπόσπασµα ἀρχηγόν ἀρχιπαρθνος ἀρχιποιµήν-ἀρχιποροφήτης ἀφελεστατοι ἢ ἀκέραιοι ἀφθαρσία ἀὴρ πεπληγµένος ἢ τὸ ̓ίδιον αἰσθητὸν ἀκοῆς ἁπλούστερον γεγραφέναι ἄγραφός ἐστιν ἡ παράδοσις αὕτη τῶν ἀποστόλων, πολλὰ γὰρ ἀγράφως ἡµῖν παρέδοσαν Ἀµφότερα γὰρ ἐφιλανθρωπεύετο ὁ σωτὴρ διὰ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως, ὅτι καὶ τὸν θάνατον ἐξ ἡµῶν ἡφάνιζε καὶ ἀνεκαίνιζεν ἡµᾶς· καὶ ὅτι ἀφανὴς ὢν

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • •

• • • •

καὶ ἀόρατος διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἐνέφαινε καὶ ἐγνώριζεν ἑαυτὸν εἶναι τὸν λόγον τοῦ πατρός, τὸν τοῦ παντὸς ἡγεµόνα καὶ βασιλέα. Ἀντιβολὴ Παπίσκου καὶ Φίλωνος κ.τ.λ. . . . Ἄλλος γάρ ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ ἄλλος ὁ λόγος. ἐγγύτατα τοῦ ἀσωµάτου ἐγερεῖ ἐγένοντο σχίσµατα λαῶν, ἀκαταστασίαι ἱερέων, ταραχὴ ποιµένων ἐθεώθηµεν Θεοῦ τῇ µεταλήψει ἐκ Μαρίας ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐκκλησίας τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν θείων γραφῶν µαρτυρίας ἐξ ἀγράφου παραδόσεως σφραγιζοµένης. ἐν αἵµατι Θεοῦ ἐν παιδείᾳ Ἑλληνικῇ ἀκρός, πολυµαθὴς τοῦ λόγου ἐν ὀλίγοις τοῖς στίχοις τὸ πᾶν δόγµα τῆς πίστεως περιλαµβανόµενον ἐνυπόστατος ἐξηπάτων καὶ αὐτοὶ ἠπατηµένοι ἐπιγεννηµατική ἐάν σε κατηχούµενος ἐξετάσῃ, τι εἰρήκασιν οἱ διδάσκοντες, µηδὲν λέγε τῷ ἔξω· µυστήριον γάρ σοι παραδίδοµεν καὶ ἐλπίδα µέλλοντος αἰῶνος· τήρησον τὸ µυστήριον τῷ µισθαποδότῃ ἑρµηνεῦσαί τε ἱκανὸς µυστήρια, ἃ τοῖς πολλοῖς ἦν ἀπόκρυφα, οὕτω φανερῶς αὐτὰ ἐξετίθετο, ὥστε τοὺς ἀκούοντας µαρτυρεῖν, ὅτι οὐ µόνον ἀκούουσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁρῶσιν αὐτά. ἓν οὐ µόνον οὐσίᾳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑποκειµέῳ ἓν πρόσωπον ἔγγραφον τὴν πίστιν ἣν ἐξ ἀρχῆς παρελάβοµεν καὶ ἔχοµεν παραδοθεῖσαν καὶ τηρουµένην ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ καὶ ἁγίᾳ ἐκκλησίᾳ, µέχρι τῆς σήµερον ἡµέρας ἐκ διαδοχῆς ἀπὸ τῶν µακαρίων ἀποστόλων, οἳ καί αυτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γεγόνασι τοῦ λόγου, καταγγελλοµένην, ἐκ νόµου καὶ προφητῶν καὶ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης ἔλεγ χος καὶ ἀπολογία ἔλεγχος ἔνδυµα τῆς ἀσεβείας ἐστὶν ἡ ϕιλία τοῦ γράµµατος ἔννοια τῆς εἰς πατέρα γνώσεως

• •

• •

• • •

• •

•

ἔνσαρκος ἔτι γὰρ πηλουργούµενον τὸν Ἀδάµ, ὡς ἔστιν εἰπεῖν, καὶ τηκτὸν ὄντα ταὶ ὑδαρῆ, καὶ µηδέπω φθάσαντα δίκην ὀστράκου τῇ ἀφθαρσίᾳ κραταιωθῆναι καὶ παγιωθῆναι, ὕδωρ ὥσπερ καταλειβοµένη καὶ καπαστάζουσα διέλυσεν αὐτὸ ἡ ἁµαρτία. διὸ δὴ πάλιν ἄνωθεν ἀναδεύων καὶ πηλοπλαστῶν τὸν αὐτὸν εἰς τιµὴν ὁ Θεός ἐν τῇ παρθενικῇ κραταιώσας πρῶτον καὶ πήξας µήτρᾳ καὶ συνενώσας καὶ συγκεράσας τῷ λογῳ, ἄτηκτον καὶ ἄθραυστον ἐξήγαγεν εἰς τὸν βίον, ἵνα µὴ πάλιν τοῖς τῆς φθορᾶς ἔξψθεν ἐπικλυσθεὶς ἱεύµασιν, τηκεδόνα γεννήσας διαπέσῃ. ἔφασαν γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι ἔφη τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν πατέρα καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν πατέρα γεγεννῆσθαι καὶ πεπονθέναι καὶ ἀποτεθνηκέναι. ἔχοντες µεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν τὸν Θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, συµπορευόµενον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἕνα ἕως οὗ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐπισκέψηται τὴν γῆν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐλθὼν ὡς ἄνθρωπος µετὰ ἀνθρώπων ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων Ἐγὼ γάρ τὸν ἄρσενα Ἐγὼ οἶδα ἕνα Θεὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ πλὴν αὐτοῦ ἕτερον οὐδένα γεννητὸν καὶ παθητόν — οὐχ ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέθανεν, ἀλλὰ ὁ υἱός Ἐκ τῆς περὶ προφητῶν ἐξηγήσεως (1) Κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελείαν µέγας καὶ ἐκλεκτὸς προφήτης ἐστίν, ἴσως µεσίτης καὶ νοµοθέτης τῆς κρείττονος διαθήκης γενόµενος· ὅστις ἑαυτὸν ἱερουργήσας ὑπὲρ πάντων µίαν ἐφάνη καί θέλησιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν ἔχων πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, θέλων ὥσπερ Θεὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν τῆς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τῷ κόσµῳ δι᾽ ὧν εἰργάσατο φανερωθείσης. — (2) Σχέσει γὰρ τῇ κατὰ δικαιοσύνην καὶ πόθῳ τῷ κατὰ φιλανθρωπίαν συναφθεὶς τῷ Θεῷ, οὐδὲν ἔσχεν µεµερισµένον πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, διὰ τὸ µίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ γενέσθαι τὴν θέλησιν καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ σωτηρίᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀγαθῶν. — (3) Εἰ γὰρ ἐθέλησεν αὐτὸν Θεὸς σταυρωθῆναι, καὶ κατεδέξατο λέγων. Μὴ τὸ ἐµόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γενέσθω θέληµα, δῆλον ὅτι µίαν ἔσχεν µετὰ τοῦ

• • •

•

• •

•

•

•

Θεοῦ τὴν θέλησιν καὶ τὴν πρᾶξιν, ἐκεῖνο θελήσας καὶ πράξας, ὅπερ ἔδοξε τῷ Θεῷ Ἐκκλησία Ἐλληνικὴ παιδεία Ἐπειδὴ οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἀποστραφέντες τὴν πρὸς τὸν Θαεὸν θεωρίαν. καὶ ὡς ἐν βύθῳ βυθισθέντες κάτω τοὺς ὀφθαλµοὺς ἔχοντες, ἐν γενέσει καὶ τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς τὸν Θεὸν ἀνεζήτουν, ἀνθρώπους θνητοὺς καὶ δαίµονας ἑαυτοῖς θεοὺς ἀνατυπούµενοι· τούτου ἕνεκα ὁ φιλάνθρωπος καὶ κοινὸς πάντων σωτήρ, ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος, λαµβάνει ἑαυτῷ σῶµα καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἀναστέφεται καὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις πάντων ἀνθρώπων προσλαµβάνει, ἵνα οἱ ἐν σωµατικοῖς νοοῦντες εἶναι τὸν Θεόν, αφ᾽ ὧν ὁ κύριος ἐργάζεται διά τῶν τοῦ σώµατος ἔργων, ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν νοήσωσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸν πατέρα λογίσωνται. Ἐπὶ ταύταις τοῦ ∆ιονυσίου φέρονται καὶ ἄλλαι πλείους ἐπιστολαί, ὥσπερ αἱ κατὰ Σαβελλίου πρὸς Ἄµµωνα τῆς κατὰ Βερενίκην ἐκκλησίας ἐπίσκοπον, καὶ ἡ πρὸς Τελέσφορον καὶ ἡ πρὸς Εὐφράνορα, καὶ πάλιν Ἄµµωνα καὶ Εὔπορον. Συντάττει δὲ περὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ὑποθέσεως καὶ ἄλλα τέσσαρα συγγράµµατα, ἃ τῷ κατὰ Ῥώµην ὁµωνύµῳ ∆ιονυσίῳ προσφωνεῖ. Ἑλληνικὴ παιδεία Ἑξῆς δ᾽ ἄν εἰκότως λέγοιµι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς διαιροῦντας καὶ κατατέµνοντας καὶ ἀναιροῦντας τὸ σεµνότατον κήρυγµα τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὴν µοναρχίαν Ἓν δὲ µόνον τοῦτο κατορθῶσαι ἦλθε, τὸ τὴν ἐγκράτειαν κηρύξαι ἔν τῷ κόσµῳ καὶ ἑαυτῷ ἀναλέξασθαι ἁγνείαν καὶ ἐγκράτειαν. Ἄνευ δὲ τούτου µὴ δύνασθαι ζῆν Ἔστι γὰρ, φησίν, ἐκεῖνο οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἄρρητον, ὃ ὀνοµάζεται· ἄρρητον γοῦν αὐτὸ καλοῦµεν, ἐκεῖνο δὲ οὐδὲ ἄρρητον· καὶ γὰρ τὸ οὐδ᾽ ἄρρητον οὐκ ἄρρητον ὀνοµάζεται, ἀλλὰ ἔστι, φησίν, ὐπεράνω παντὸς ὀνόµατος ὀνοµαζοµένου. Ἕτεροι δὲ οἱ µηδὲν εἰδότες, εἰ µὴ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν καὶ τοῦτον ἐσταυρωνένον, τὸν γενόµενον σάρκα 4b78 όγον τὸ πᾶν νοµίσαντες εἶναι τοῦ λόγου,

• •

•

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

•

Χριστὸν κατὰ σάρκα µόνον γιγνώσκουσι τοιοῦτον δέ ἐστι τὸ πλῆθος τῶν πεπιστευκέναι νοµιζὸµένων. ἠλλάγη τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως ἡ γὰρ πρότερον δούλη ψυχὴ νῦν ἀδελφιδοῦν αὐτὸν τὸν δεσπότην ἐπεγράψατο, ὃς τὴν ἀνυπόκριτον ἀποδεχόµενος προαίρεσιν ἐπιφωνήσει· Ἰδοὺ εἶ καλὴ ἡ πλησίον µου, ἰδοὺ εἶ καλή· ὀδόντες σου ὡς ἀγέλαι τῶν κεκαρµένων ἡ δὲ πίστις αὕτη εἰς τὴν µίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐστὶ πεποίθησις, ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ὁ φορεὺς τῆς θείας χάριτος τῆς ἐνδεικνυµένης εἰς δύο τινά, πρῶτον ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ὁ ἀλάθαστος διδάσκαλος τῆς χριστιανικῆς ἀληθείας καὶ δεύτερον ὁ γνήσιος τῶν µυστηρίων οἰκονόµος. ἡ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς ἐπὶ θείοις τε καὶ φιλοσόφοις δόγµασι διδασκαλία ἡ παράβασις τῆς ἐντολῆς εἰς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν αὐτοὺς ἐπέστρεψεν. ἡ ἡµῶν ἀνάλογος θέωσις ἡ ἱερὰ σύνοδος ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν Ἡ µοναρχία τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἡ σοφία ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐχ οὕτως οἰκεῖ — κρείττων κατὰ πάντα, ἐπειδὴ ἐκ τνεύµατος ἁγίου καὶ ἐξ ἐπαγγελιῶν καὶ ἐκ τῶν γεγραµµένων ἡ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ χάρις. Ἡ ὀρθόδοξος πίστις Ἡ ὀρθόδοξος πίστις, Ἤδη µακαριότητος ὀσαὴ πρὸς ὑµᾶς. ἴδια (οὐσία, ὑποκείµενον) ὀνόµατα ὀστᾶ νοητὰ ὀφειλόµενον ὀφθήσεται Θεὸς κατοικῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐπι τῆς γῆς ὁ Θεὸς λόγος οὐ διὰ τοὺς ἁµαρτήσαντας ἀγγέλους ἄγγελος· ἀλλὰ διὰ τοὺς ἐν ἁµαρτίᾳ ἀνθρώπους ἄνθρωπος ἀτρέπτως, ἀσυγχύτως, ἀναµαρτήτως, ἀφράστως. ὁ Θεὸς ὁ µήτε µορφὴν µήτε τινὰ ἰδέαν ἔχων, ὑπὲρ δὲ νοῦν καὶ πᾶν τὸ νοητὸν ἱδρύµενος.

•

• • •

•

• • • •

• • • • • •

• • • •

• •

•

ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος γενόµενος, ἵνα δὴ καὶ σὺ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου µάθῃς, πῆ ποτὲ ἄρα ἄνθρωπος γένηται Θεός. ὁ µονογενὴς υἱὸς ὁ σωτὴρ οὐ κατ᾽ µετουσίαν, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἐστὶ θεός ὁ Ἀδὰµ πρὸ τῆς παραβάσεως ἔξωθεν ἧν, λαβὼν τὴν χάριν καὶ µὴ στνηρµοσµένην ἔχων αὐτὴν τῷ σώµατι. ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγειρόµενος Χριστὸς οὗτος οὐκ ἦν Θεὸς ἀλλὰ ἄνθρωπος, ἐπειδὴ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἦν, ὡς καὶ Μωϋσῆς ἄνθρωπος ἦν ὁµοούσιος ὁµοούσιοι ὁµοούσιον ὁµοούσιον τῇ τοῦ λόγου θεότητι, συναΐδιον αὐτῷ διὰ παντὸς γεγενῆσθαι, ἐπειδὴ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τῆς Σοφίας συνέστη. ὁµοούσιος ὁµοούσιοσ ὁµοίωσις ὁµοίωσις Θεῷ φθορᾶς ἀποφυγή ὄν ὅτι ὁ κύριος ὁ Θεὸς µέγας τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, φαινόµενος επὶ γῆς ὡς ἀνθρώπος καὶ σώζων ἐν αὐτῷ τὸν Ἀδάµ . . . ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς σῶµα λαβὼν καὶ συνεσθίων ἀνθρώποις ἔσωσεν ἀνθρώπους ὅτι ὁ µὲν Παῦλος ὁ Σαµ. οὕτω φησίν· ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ κρίσιν ποιεῖν, ὅτι υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστὶν. ὅψεσθε Θεὸν ἐν σχήµατι ἀνθρώπου Ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων, ἡµῖν Θεὸς ὑπάρχει τοῖς ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας γεννηθεῖσιν. Ὁ δὲ ἐξέπτη προπεµφθεὶς καὶ φέρεται πανταχοῦ καὶ οὕτως ἐστὶν ἑκάτερος ἐν ἑκατέρω ἓτερος ὤν θατέρου, καὶ ἓν εἰσιν, ὄντες δύο Ὁ λόγος µείζων ἦν τοῦ Χριστοῦ· Χριστὸς γὰρ διὰ σοφίας µέγας ἐγένετο. Ὁ τῆς θεοσεβείας τρόπος ἐκ δύο τούτων συνέστηκε, δογµάτων εὐσεβῶν καὶ πράξεων ἀγαθῶν. Καὶ οὔτε τὰ δόγµατα χωρὶς ἔργων ἀγαθῶν εὐπρόσδεκτα τῷ Θεῷ, οὔτε τὰ µή µετ᾽ εὐσεβῶν δογµάτων ἔργα τελούµενα προσδέχεται ὁ Θεός . . . µέγιστον τοίνυν κτῆµά ἐστι τὸ τῶν δογµάτων µάθηηµα. Ὁµιλία Ἱππολύτου εἰς τὴν αἵρεσιν Νοήτου τινός

•

• • •

• •

•

• • • •

Ὁµολογεῖ Θεὸν ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ ὀφθέντα, καὶ ἐντεῦθεν τῆς ὑπάρξεως τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκότα, καὶ ἀρχὴν βασιλείας παρειληφότα, Λόγον δὲ ἐνεργὸν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ σοφίαν ἐν αὐτῷ ὁµολογεῖ, τῷ µεν προορισµῷ πρὸ αἰώνων ὄντα, τῇ δὲ ὑπάρξει ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ ἀναδειχθέντα, ἵνα εἷς εἴη, φησίν, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντα Θεὸς ὁ πατήρ. Ὁµοούσιος Ὁµοούσιος Ὁρθοδοξία ἐστὶν ἀψευδὴς περὶ Θεοῦ καὶ κτίσεως ὑπόληψις ἢ ἔννοια περὶ πάντων ἀληθής, ἢ δόξα τῶν ὄντων καθάπερ εἰσίν. Ὄν Ὅτι δὲ ποίηµα οὐδὲ κτίσµα ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος, ἀλλ᾽ ἴδιον τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας γέννηµα ἀδιαίρετ όν ἐστιν, ὡς ἔγραψεν ἡ µεγάλη σύνοδος, ἰδοὺ καὶ ὁ τῆς Ῥώµης ἐπίσκοπος ∆ιονύσιος γράφων κατὰ τῶν τὰ τοῦ Σαβελλίου φρονούντων, σχετλιάζει κατὰ τῶν ταῦτα τολµώντων λέγειν καὶ φήσιν οὕτως. Ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἀγέννητος, εἷς ἄναρχος, ἀόρατος, ἀναλλοίωτος, ὃν εἶδεν οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων, οὐδὲ ἰδεῖν δύναται· οὗ τὴν δόξαν ἢ τὸ µέγεθος νοῆσαι ἢ ἐξηγήσασθαι καθώς ἐστιν ἀξίως τῆς ἀληθείας, ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει ἀνέφικτον· ἔννοιαν δὲ καὶ ὁπωσοῦν µετρίαν περὶ αὐτοῦ λαβεῖν, ἀγαπητόν, ἀποκαλυπτοντος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ . . . τοῦτον δὲ τὸν υἱὸν γεννητόν, µονογενῆ υἱόν, εἰκόνα τοῦ ἀοράτου Θεοῦ τυγχάνοντα, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως σοφίαν καὶ λόγον καὶ δύναµιν Θεοῦ, πρὸ αἰώνων ὄντα, οὐ προγνώσει, ἀλλ᾽ οὐσίᾳ καὶ ὑποστάσει Θεὸν Θεοῦ υἱὸν, ἔν τε παλαιᾷ καὶ νέᾳ διαθήκῃ ἐγνωκότες ὁµολογοῦµεν καὶ κηρύσσοµεν. ὃς δ᾽ ἄν ἀντιµάχηται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Θεὸν µὴ εἶναι πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσµου (δεῖν) πιστεύειν καὶ ὁµολογεῖν, φάσκων δύο θεοὺς καταγγέλλεσθαι, ἐὰν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ Θεὸς κηρύσσηται τοῦτον ἀλλότριον τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ κανόνος ἡγούµεθα, καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ καθολικαὶ ἐκκλησίαι συµφωνοῦσιν ἡµῖν. ὑπόστασις ὑποκειµένον ὑποκείµενα ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον.

•

• • • • • • • •

•

•

• •

ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν κολασθεὶς καὶ τιµωρίαν ὑποσχών, ἣν αὐτὸς µὲν οὐκ ὤφειλεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡµεῖς τοῦ πλήθους ἕνεκεν τῶν πεπληµµεληµένων, ἡµῖν αἴτιος τῆς τῶν ἁµαρτηµάτων ἀφέσεως κατέστη . . . τὴν ἡµῖν προστετιµηµένην κατάραν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἑλκύσας, γενόµενος ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν κατάρα. ὑπόστασιν ὑπόστασις ὡς εἴγε ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ὑµῖν υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἡµεῖς ἐπαινοῦµεν ὡς περὶ θεοῦ ὡς ἐκ παλινῳδίας ὡς ἐν Χριστῷ ὡς ἔχει, ἔχει ὡφείλετο πάντας ἀποθανεῖν . . . ὑπὲρ πάντων τὴν θυσίαν ἀνέφερεν, ἀντὶ πάντων τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ναὸν εἰς θάνατον παραδιδούς, ἵνα τοὺς µὲν πάντας ἀνυπευθύνους καὶ ἐλευθέρους τῆς ἀρχαίας παραβάσεως ποιήσῃ . . . ὁ πάντων θάνατος ἐν τῷ κυριακῷ σώµατι ἐπληροῦτο καὶ ὁ θάνατος καὶ ἡ φθορὰ διὰ τὸν συνόντα λόγον ἐξηφανίζετο. θανάτου γὰρ ἦν χρεία, καὶ θάνατον ὑπὲρ πάντων ἔδει γενέσθαι, ἵνα τὸ παρὰ πάντων ὀφειλόµενον γένηται ὥσπερ διαιρέσεις χαρισµάτων εἰσί, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ πνεῦµα, οὕτω καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ αὐτός µέν ἐστι, πλατύνεται δὲ εἰς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦµα. ὥσπερ οὖν δυνάµεις Θεοῦ πλείονές εἰσιν, ὧν ἑκάστη κατὰ περιγραφήν, ὧν διαφέρει ὁ σωτήρ, οὗτως ὁ λόγος — εἰ καὶ παρ᾽ ἡµῖν οὐκ ἔστι κατὰ περιγραφὴν εκτὸς ἡµῶν — νοηθήσεται ὁ Χριστὸς κ.τ.λ. Ὡς ἐν ναῷ — ἐλθόντα τὸν λόγον καὶ ἐνοικήσαντα ἐν Ιησοῦ ἀνθρώπῳ ὄντι Ὥσπερ µεγάλου βασιλέως εἰσελθόντος εἴς τινα πόλιν µεγάλην, καὶ οἰκήσαντος εἰς µίαν τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ οἰκιῶν, πάντως ἡ τοιαύτη πόλις τιµῆς πολλῆς καταξιοῦται, καὶ οὐκέτι τις ἐχθρὸς αὐτὴν οὔτε λῃστὴς ἐπιβαίνων καταστρέφει, πάσης δὲ µᾶλλον ἐπιµελείας ἀξιοῦται διὰ τὸν εἰς µίαν αὐτῆς οἰκίαν οἰκήσαντα βασιλέα· σὕτως καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πάντων βασιλέως γέγονεν. Ελθόντος γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἐπί τὴν ἡµετέραν χώραν καὶ οἰκήσαντος εἰς ἓν τῶν ὁµοίων σῶµα, λοιπὸν πᾶσα ἡ κατὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων

• •

παρὰ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ἐπιβουλὴ πέπαυται, καὶ ἡ τοῦ θανάτου ἡφάνισται φθορὰ ἡ πάλαι κατ᾽ αὐτῶν ἰσχύουσα. ῥίζα τῆς θεότητος ‘Λόγος µὲν ἄνωθεν, Ἰησοῦς δὲ Χριστὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐντεῦθεν — Χριστὸς ἀπο Μαρίας καὶ δεῦρό ἐστιν — ἄνθρωπος ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐνέπνευσεν ἄνωθεν ὁ λόγος· ὁ πατὴρ γὰρ ἅµα τῷ υἱῷ (scil. τῶ λόγῳ) εἷς Θεός, ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος κάτωθεν τὸ ἴδιον πρόσωπον ὑποφαίνει, καὶ οὕτως τὰ δύο πρόσωπα πληροῦνται — Χριστὸς ἐντεῦθεν τῆς ὑπάρξεως τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκώς — λέγει Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν κάτωθεν,

Index of Latin Words and Phrases • •

• •

•

•

• • • •

•

Littera (1) Christum primogenitum esse et ipsum esse sapientiam dei, per quem omnia facta sunt; (2) quod sapientia dei Christus; (3) quod Christus idem sit et sermo dei; (4) quod Christus idem manus et brachium dei; (5) quod idem angelus et deus; (6) quod deus Christus. (ligno) deus pependit dominus . . . Quia itaque vera scripta sunt (sc. the Holy Scriptures) totum hominem in Christo agnoscebam; non corpus tantum hominis, aut cum corpore sine mente animam, sed ipsum hominem, non persona veritatis, sed magna quadam natureæ humanæ excellentia et perfectiore participatione sapientiæ præferri cæteris arbitrabar. Alypius autem deum carne indutum ita putabat credi a Catholicis, ut præter deum et carnem non esset in Christo 1af4 anima, mentemque hominis non existimabat in eo prædicari . . . Sed postea hæreticorum Apollinaristarum hunc errorem esse cognoscens, catholicæ fidei collætatus et contemperatus est. Ego autem aliquanto posterius didicisse me fateor, in eo quod “verbum caro factum est” quomodo catholica veritas a Photini falsitate dirimatur. . . . sicut et illos, qui superstitiose magis quam religiose, uti ne videantur duos deos dicere, neque rursum negare salvatoris deitatem, unam eandemque substantiam patris ac filii asseverant, id est, duo quidem nomina secundum diversitatem causarum recipientes, unam tamen ὑπόστασιν Amplius nobis profuit culpa quam nocuit: in quo redemptio quidem nostra divinum munus invenit. Facta est mihi culpa mea merces redemptionis, per quam mihi Christus advenit . . . Fructuosior culpa quam innocentia; innocentia arrogantem me fecerat Apologia pro apocalypsi et evangelio Johannis apostoli et evangelistæ. Auditor Auditores Avenæ vero illæ ubique tunc semen excusserant. Ita altquamdiu per hypocrisin subdola vivacitate latitavit, et nunc denuo erupit. Sed et denuo eradicabitur, si voluerit dominus. Caro dominica a deo patre Jesu vocita est; spiritus sanctus, qui de cælo descendit, Christus, id est unctus

• • •

• • • • •

• •

• • •

•

•

dei vivi, a deo vocitus est, spiritus carni mixtus Jesus Christus Catechumeni Cathedra Petri Ceterum Iudaicæ fidei ista res, sic unum deum credere, ut filium adnumerare ei nolis, et post filium spiritum. Quid enim erit inter nos et illos nisi differentia ista? Quod opus evangelii, si non exinde pater et filius et spiritus, tres crediti, unum deum sistunt? Christus Iesus dominus et deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos dei patris et sacrificium patri se ipsum obtulit. Christus, homo et deus Compassus est pater filio Compassus est pater filio. Compellimur hæreticorum et blasphemantium vitiis illicita agere, ardua scandere, ineffabilia eloqui, inconcessa præsumere. Et cum sola fide explorari, quæ præcepta sunt, oporteret, adorare scilicet patrem et venerari cum eo filium, sancto spiritu abundare, cogimur sermonis nostri humilitatem ad ea, quæ inenarrabilia sunt extendere et in vitium vitio coarctamur alieno, ut, quæ contineri religione mentium oportuisset, nunc in periculum humani eloquii proferantur. Credo in deo patre omnipotente, invisibili et impassibili Cunctos populos, quos clementiæ nostræ regit temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum Petrum atostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat De populo absconso sancto omnipotentis Christi dei vivi De summa trinitate et de fide catholica et ut nemo de ea publice contendere audeat Dic mihi, super quem spiritus sanctus sicut columba descendit? Si perfectus erat, si filius erat, si virtus erat, non poterat spiritus ingredi, sicut nec regnum potest ingredi intra regnum. Cuius autem ei cælitus emissa vox testimonium detulit dicens: Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo bene complacui? Dic age nihil remoreris, quis ille est, qui parat hæc omnia, qui agit universa? Responde itane blasphemiam pro ratione impudenter allegas, et inferre conaris? Diximusne aliquid et sonuimus aliquid dignum deo? Immo vero nihil me aliud quam dicere voluisse sentio; si autem dixi, non hoc est quod dicere volui. Hoc unde scio, p Doctor ecclesiæ

•

•

• • • •

• •

• • • • • • • •

•

•

Duos et tres iam iactitant a nobis prædicari, se vero unius dei cultores præsamunt . . . monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus. Ego fateor caritati tuæ, solis eis scriptuaram libris, qui iam canonici appellantur, didici hunc timorem honoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum auctorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam. Ac si aliquid in eis offendero litteris, quod videatur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud quam vel mendosum esse codicem, vel interpretem non assecutum esse quod dictum est, vel me minime intellexisse non ambigam. Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicæ ecclesiæ commoveret auctoritas. Electi Emendari Epithalamium libellus hic, id est, nuptiale carmen, dramatis in modum mihi videtur a Salomone conscriptus, quem cecinit instar nubentis sponsæ, et erga sponsum suum, qui est sermo dei, cœlesti amore flagrantis. Adamavit enim eum, sive anima, quæ ad imaginem eius facta est, sive ecclesia. Ergo quia duos et unum invenimus, ideo ambo unus atque idem et filius et pater. Est deus omnipotens, unus, a semetipso creatus, quem infra reperies magnum et humilem ipsum. Is erat in verbo positus, sibi solo notatus, Qui pater et filius dicitur et spiritus sanctus Et fuit homo deus, ut nos in futuro haberet Et patitur, quomodo voluit sub imagine nostra. Expositiones veritatis Felix culpa quæ tantum et talem meruit habere redemptorem. Felix ruina quæ reparatur in melius Filius dei Fornicatio deputetur ad pœnam, nisi satisfactione purge 6bcf tur. Fructicaverant avenæ Praxeanæ hic quoque superseminatæ dormientibus multis in simplicitate doctrinæ Gratulemur et gratias agamus non solum nos Christianos factos esse, sed Christum . . . admiramini gaudete: Christus facti sumus. Hic ex diverso volet aliquis etiam filium invisibilem contendere, ut sermonem, ut spiritum . . . Nam et illud adiiciunt ad argumentationem, quod si filius tunc (Exod. 33

• •

• • • • •

•

•

•

• •

•

• • • •

Hic pater in filio venit, deus unus ubique. Hoc inquam semper neque quidquam præterea, hæreticorum novitatibus excitata [that then is admitted], conciliorum suorum decretis catholica perfecit ecclesia, nisi ut quod prius a majoribus sola traditione susceperat, hoc deinde posteris etiam per scripturæ chirographum consignaret, magnam rerum summam paucis litteris comprehendendo et plerumque propter intelligentiæ lucem non novum fidei sensum novæ appellationis proprietate signando Hoc si qui putaverit me προβολὴν Homo, fide, spe et caritate subnixus eaque inconcusse retinens, non indiget scipturis nisi ad alios instruendos Iam caro deus erat, in qua dei virtus agebat. Idcirco nec voluit se manifestare, quid esset, Sed filium dixit se missum fuisse a patre Idem igitur sacerdos, idem et hostia, et sacerdotium tamen et sacrificium humanæ condicionis officium est. Nam et agnus ad immolandum ductus est et sacerdos erat secundum ordinem Melchisedech. In canonicis autem scripturis ecclesiarum catholicarum quam plurimum auctoritatem sequatur, inter quas sane illæ sint, quæ apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas accipere meruerunt. In iis quæ aperte in scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia, quæ continent fidem moresque vivendi, spem scilicet et caritatem. In quantum enim homo, in tantum mediator; in quantum autem verbum, non medius, quia æqualis deo . . . pro nobis deo victor et victor et victima, et ideo victor quia victima; pro nobis deo sacerdos et sacrificium; et ideo sacerdos quia sacrificium Ipse se sibi filium fecit. Ipsum dicit patrem descendisse in virginem, ipsum ex ea natum, ipsum passum ipsum denique esse Iesum Christum. Ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romæ procuravit, prophetiam expulit et hæresim intulit, paracletum fugavit et patrem crucifixit. Jesus Christus, deus et homo Jesus impatibilis Jesus patibilis Manifesto declarat, simile vel idem esse perfectam naturam et perfectam personam . . . Naturæ vox designat, quid sit aliqua res, vel essentiam vel quidditatem; hypostasis vero modum metaphysicum

• •

• •

•

•

• • •

• • • • • • • •

existendi monstrat. Ex quo patet, ad notionem perfectæ naturæ modum illum perfectum existendi non requiri. Hac in re erravit Mopsuestenus, et hæresis perniciosa ex hoc errore nata est Mihi adhærere deo bonum est Mihi pium videtur dicere, quod nihil eguerit filius dei in eo quod adventus eius procuratur ad terras, neque opus habuerit columba, neque baptismate, neque matre, neque fratribus. Monarchia Multa, quæ non inveniuntur in litteris apostolorum neque in conciliis posteriorum, et tamen quia per universam custodiuntur ecclesiam, non nisi ab ipsis tradita et commendata creduatur. Multa, quæ universa tenet ecclesia et ob hoc ab apostolis præcepta bene creduntur, quamquam scripta non reperiantur. Nec tamen ab hoc mediator est, quia verbum, maxime quippe immortale et maxime beatum verbum longe est a mortalibus miseris; sed mediator per quod homo. Necesse est ut omne peccatum satisfactio aut pœna sequatur. Non est ignorandum præsentem epistolam esse falsatam, quæ licet publicetur non tamen in canone est. Nulla res in via (ad deum) tenere nos debet, quando nec ipse dominus, in quantum via nostra esse dignatus est, tenere nos voluerit, sed transire; ne rebus temporalibus, quamvis ab illo pro salute nostra susceptis et gestis, hæreamus infirmiter, sed per eas potius curramus alacriter etc. Patripassiani, Valentiniani, Appelletiani, Ophitæ, Marcionitæ et cetere hæreticorum pestes Placuit ergo, præsente spiritu sancto et angelis eius Placuit nobis spiritu sancto suggerente Porro qui eundem patrem dicis et filium, eundem et protulisse ex semetipso facis. Praxeas quidem hæresim introduxit quam Victorinus corroborare curavit. Prius Prædictus est deus carnaliter nasci pro nobis Quare dominus noster carnem induit? Ut ipsa caro victoriæ gaudia gustaret et dona gratiæ explorata et cognita haberet. Si deus sine carne vicisset, quæ ei tribuerentur laudes? Secundo, ut dominus noster manifestum faceret, se initio creationis nequaquam ex invidia prohibuisse, quominus homo fieret deus, quia

• •

•

•

• •

•

•

maius est, quod dominus noster in homine humiliabatur, quam quod in eo, dum magnus et gloriosus erat, habitabat. Hinc illud: ‘Ego dixi, dii estis’. Qui et filius diceris et pater inveniris Quid est enim, dices, sermo nisi vox et sonus oris, et sicut grammatici tradunt, aër offensus, intellegibilis auditu, ceterum vanum nescio quid. Quis nesciat sanctam scripturam canonicam tam veteris quam novi testamenti certis suis terminis contineri, eamque omnibus posterioribus episcoporum litteris ita præponi, ut de illa omnino dubitari et disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quidquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit: episcoporum autem litteras quæ post confirmatum canonem vel scriptæ sunt vel scribuntur, et per sermonem forte sapientiorem cuiuslibet in ea re peritioris, et per aliorum episcoporum graviorem auctoritatem doctioremque prudentiam et per concilia licere reprehendi, si quid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est: et ipsa concilia quæ per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt, plenariorum conciliorum auctoritati quæ fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere: ipsaque plenaria sæpe priora posterioribus emendari, cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat, et cognoscitur quod latebat. Quisquis in scripturis (I. 37) aliud sentit quam ille qui scripsit, illis non mentientibus fallitur; sed tamen, ut dicere cœperam, si ea sententia fallitur, qua ædificet caritatem, quæ finis præcepti est, ita fallitur ac si quisquam errore deserens viam, eo tamen per agrum pergat, quo etiam via illa perducit. Quod filius dixit, cum sit deus pristinus ipse Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectissime creditur. Quomodo poterit vera columba verum hominem ingredi atque in eo permanere, caro enim carnem ingredi non potest? sed magis si Iesum hominem verum confiteamur, eum vero, qui dicitur, sicut columba, Spiritum Sanctum, salva est nobis ratio in utraque. Spiritus enim secundum rectam rationem habitat in homine, et descendit et permanet et competenter hoc et factum est et fit semper . . . Descendit spiritus super hominem dignum se Quomodo potuit ista res (the baptism by heretics), tantis altercationum nebulis involuta, ad plenarii

• •

• • •

•

•

•

• •

•

concilii luculentam illustrationem confirmationemque perduci, nisi primo diutius per orbis terrarum regiones multis hinc atque hinc disputationibus et collationibus episcoporum pertractata constaret? Requiter Sabelliani et Marcionitæ dicunt, quod hæc futura sit Christi ad deum patrem subjectio, ut in patrem filius refundatur Sanctus spiritus, dei filius Secundum motum animi mei et spiritus sancti. Sed et eos, qui hominem dicunt dominum Iesum præcognitum et prædestinatum, qui ante adventum carnalem substantialiter et proprie non exstiterit, sed quod homo natus patris solam in se habuerit deitatem, ne illos quidem sine periculo est ecclesiæ numero sociari. Sed etsi nulla ratione indagetur, nullo sermone explicetur, verum tamen est quod antiquitus veraci fide catholica prædicatur et creditur per ecclesiam totam; quæ filios fidelium nec exorcizaret, nec exsufflaret, si non eos de potestate tenebrarum et a principe mortis erueret, etc. Si enim hominem eum tantummodo ex Maria esse dicis et in baptismate spiritum percepisse, ergo per profectum filius videbitur et non per naturam. Si tamen tibi concedam dicere, secundum profectum esse filium quasi hominem factum, hominem vere esse opinaris, id est, qui caro et sanguis sit? Si unus deus Christus, Christus autem deus, pater est Christus, quia unus deus; si non pater sit Christus, dum et deus filius Christus, duo dii contra scripturas introducti videantur. Sicut sancti evangelii quattuor libros, sic quattuor concilia suscipere et venerari me fateor. Simplices quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ maior semper pars credentium est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sæculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intelligentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua οἰκονοµία Tenebit igitur hunc modum in scripturis canonicis, ut eas quæ ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis catholicis, præponat eis quas quædam non accipiunt; in iis vero quæ non accipiuntur ab omnibus, præponat eas, quas plures gravioresque accipiunt eis, quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesiæ tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi,

• •

• • •

•

• •

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

quamquam hoc facile inveniri non possit, æqualis tamen auctoritatis eas habendas puto. Unde deus clamat: Stulte, hac nocte vocaris. Unicum deum non alias putat credendum, quem si ipsum eundemque et patrem et filium et spiritum s. dicat. Universitatis nostræ caro est factus. Unus est in cælo deus dei, terræ marisque, Quem Moyses docuit ligno pependisse pro nobis Ut et filius hominis esset filius dei, naturam in se universæ carnis assumpsit, per quam effectus vera vitis genus in se universæ propaginis tenet. Ut sic divisos diceremus, quomodo iactitatis, tolerabilius erat, duos divisos quam unum deum versipellem prædicare Utinam,” says Jerome, “tam nostra confirmare potuisset quam facile aliena destruxit. Utuntur capitulis scripturarum quæ de Christo veluti de homine edocent, quæ autem ut deo dicunt ea vero non accipiunt, legentes et nullo modo intellegentes Valde perfectos et irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant esse Vis etiam per me scire, utrum dei flatus ille in Adam idem ipse sit anima. Breviter respondeo, aut ipse est aut ipso anima facta est. Sed si ipse est, factus est a culpa actus medicinalis ad absurdum ad hoc affectiones humanæ affectus afflatus divinus aliud a patre alius a patre articuli puri et mixti articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ assumptio carnis auctoritas auctoritas ecclesiarum orientalium auditores bona opera caput et origo traditionis caro causa communem fidem affirmant compassus est pater filio

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

• • • •

complexus oppositorum consensus consensus patrum contra corpus permixtum corpus verum culpa subjectum reddidit cultus curavit cæleste iudicium deitas patris delenda erat culpa, sed nisi per sacrificium deleri non poterat. Quærendum erat sacrificium, sed quale sacrificium poterat pro absolvendis hominibus inveniri? Neque etenim iustum fuit, ut pro rationali homine brutorum animalium victimæ cæderentur . . . Ergo requirendus erat homo . . . qui pro hominibus offerri debuisset, ut pro rationali creatura rationalis hostia mactaretur. Sed quid quod homo sine peccato inveniri non poterat, et oblata pro nobis hostia quando nos a peccato inundate potuisset, si ipsa hostia peccati contagio non careret? Ergo ut rationalis esset hostia, homo fuerat offerendus: ut vero a peccatis mundaret hominem, homo et sine peccato. Sed quis esset sine peccato homo, si ex peccati commixtione descenderet. Proinde venit propter nos in uterum virginis filius dei, ibi pro nobis factus est homo. Sumpta est ab illo natura, non culpa. Fecit pro nobis sacrificium, corpus suum exhibuit pro peccatoribus, victimam sine peccato, quæ et humanitate mori et iustitia mundare potuisset. deo satisfacere derivatio descendit ad inferna deum talia passum, Ut enuntietur crucifixus conditor orbis deus dicta patrum dissensiones quæstionesque Sabellianorum silentur divinæ traditionis caput et origo dixit deus: Induam me carne . . . et erit omnis homo tamquam deus non secundum naturam sed secundum participationem. donum superadditum duæ substantiæ, una persona ecclesia epistula fundamenti

•

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

et qui unum eundemque contendunt patrem et filium, iam incipiunt dividere illos potius quam unare; talem monarchiam apud Valentinum fortasse didicerunt, duos facere Iesum et Christum. ex nobis accepit quod proprium offeret pro nobis . . . sacrificium de nostro obtulit ex patre ex professo figura filius filius dei filius hominis forum publicum gubernaculum interpretationis habitus hic erat Omnipotens hic erat venturus, commixtus sanguine nostro, ut videretur homo, sed deus in carne latebat . . . dominus ipse veniet. homo homo nudus et solitarius idiotes igitur si propterea eundem et patrem et filium credendum putaverunt, ut unum deum vindicent etc. ignis purgatorius in loco in puris naturalibus in sua extollentia separabat trinitatem inquis, duo dii prædicuntur. ipsa spes tota, deo credere, qui ligno pependit ipso facto lex litteræ pacis mala in ordinem redacta faciunt decorem universi mala pœnæ maledictorum se obtulit morti, ut maledictionem legis solveret, hostiam se ipsum voluntarie offerendo. melioris notæ merita mortuus est non ex divina, sed ex humana substantia. mutatis mutandis natura nolens-volens nostra lex = nostra religio offerre omnia peccata paria esse

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• •

omnipotens Christus descendit ad suos electos passio suscepta voluntarie est, officio ipsa satisfactura pœnali passiones pater perfecti persona personæ pia fraus placare deum, satisfacere deo per hostias portio post tempus pater natus et pater passus, ipse deus, dominus omnipotens, Iesus Christus prædicatur primus inter pares prius pro pro munere in superno altari quod est in cœlis pro peccato promereri promereri deum propterea quod nascetur sanctum, vocabitur filius dei; caro itaque nata est, caro itaque erit filius dei. qui se Callistus ita docuit Sabellianum, ut arbitrio suo sumat unam personam esse trinitatis. quia ipsum patrem sibi filium appellatum dicebant, ex quibus Marcion traxit errorem quia peccata nostra suscepit, peccatum dictus est quid est enim, dices, sermo nisi vox et sonus oris et sicut grammatici quid pro quo quis deus est ille, quem nos crucifiximus quoad litteram quod Origines filium dei de ipsa dei substantia natum dixerit, id est, ὁµοούσιον quod et homo et deus Christus quod facit Valentinus, etc. quod in eo ex virgine creando efficax dei sapientia et virtus exstiterit, et in nativitate eius divinæ prudentiæ et potestatis opus intellegatur, sitque in eo efficientia potius quam natura sapientiæ. quæ major misericordia quam quod pro nostris flagitiis se præbuit immolandum, ut sanguine suo mundum levaret, cuius peccatum nullo alio modo potuisset aboleri. rabies theologorum ratio

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

redimere a culpa regula regula fidei regulæ religio publica religiosi requiter restitutio restitutio carnis sancti et docti homines sapientia habitavit in eo, sicut et habitamus et nos in domibus satisfacere deo satisfactiones schola scriptura canonica certis suis terminis continetur secundum hominem sed remisso Alexandro cum suis syllogismis, etiam cum Psalmis Valentini, quos magna impudentia, quasi idonei alicuius auctoris interserit. sedes apostolica sedes apostolicæ sermo dei sermo filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aëris aut tono coactæ de visceribus vocis accipitur. servile peccati iugum discutere sign. manus sign. sinus signaculum oris signaculum oris, manus, and sinus simplices et rudes simplicitas doctrinæ solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant spiritus stat pro ratione voluntas e9b status quo ante substantia substantia divina — homo substantia humana successio episcoporum summum bonum terra promissionis testes veritatis titubabit fides, si divinarum scripturarum vacillat auctoritas turpitudo litterræ

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

turpitudo litteræ ad decorem intelligentiæ spiritalis unde ipsum evangelium coepit prædicari unicum imperium ut caro, quæ peccaverat, redimeretur ut quia solvi non queunt divina decreta, persona magis quam sententia mutaretur. ut sic duos divisos diceremus, quomodo iactitatis etc. validius donum factum est libertatis, quam debitum servitutis. vanissimi Monarchiani via eminentiæ via negationis vice versâ vicini apostolorum vis inertiæ vitæ vota Æque in una persona utrumque distinguunt, patrem et filium, discentes filium carnem esse, id est hominem, id est Iesum, patrem autem spiritum, id est deum, id est Christum.

Index of Pages of the Print Edition i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x xi xii xiii xiv 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 6d2 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 aeb 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 565 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 aae 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 ad8 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 ad1 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 ac8 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 548 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336

ii iii iv

HISTORY OF DOGMA BY

DR. ADOLPH HARNACK ORDINARY PROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, BERLIN

TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION

BY

NEIL BUCHANAN

VOLUME IV

iv

Published in the United Kingdom by Constable and Company Limited, 10 Orange Street, London W. C. 2. This new Dover edition, first published in 1961, is an unabridged republication of the English translation of the third German edition that appeared circa 1900. This Dover edition is an unaltered re-publication except that minor typographical errors in Volume VII have been corrected. The original English edition appeared as seven separate volumes, 561 whereas this Dover edition is published complete in four separate volumes. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 61-4455 Manufactured in the United States of America Dover Publications, Inc. 180 Varick Street New York 14, N.Y.

vi

HISTORY OF DOGMA BY

DR. ADOLPH HARNACK Volume IV vii

viii

EDITORIAL NOTE. THE volume now issued finishes Volume II. of the original, of which a portion appears in Volume III. of the English Translation. The first chapter of this volume corresponds to Chapter VII. of Volume II. of the original, which treats of the Divinity of Christ. The remaining third volume of the German Edition will occupy three volumes in the English Translation, making seven volumes in all. A. B. BRUCE. ix

x

CONTENTS. 55f Page CHAPTER I.—THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOMOUSIA OF THE SON OF GOD WITH GOD HIMSELF (1) From the Beginning of the Controversy to the Council of Nice Lucian and the Lucianists Account and explanation of Lucian’s doctrine Arius and the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, the parties, the first developments up to the Nicene Council569 The Formulæ to which Arius took exception The Doctrine of Arius The Doctrine of Bishop Alexander The Doctrine of Athanasius Estimate of the two opposing Christologies The Council of Nice, the parties The Nicene Creed The Homousios and the influence of Hosius Apparent result (2) To the Death of Constantius The situation after the Nicene Council The policy of Constantine Constantine’s sons: Constantius The predominance of the Eusebians Marcellus of Ancyra The Councils of Antioch The Council of Sardica The Formula of Antioch Councils at Milan, Photinus of Sirmium Constantius sole ruler; Councils at Sirmium, Arles, Milan The strict Arians, the Homoiousians and the Homœans The imperial policy of union at Sirmium, Rimini, Seleucia, Nice and Constantinople; victory of the Homuœan Confession558 (3) To the Councils of Constantinople 381, 383 The agreement between the Homoiousians and Homousians

1-107 2-59 3 4 7 12 14 21 26 38 50 53 56 59 59-80 59561 60 62 64 65 67 68 69 70 72 74 77 80-107 81

xThe

Synod of Alexandria and the concession of the orthodox 83 The new orthodoxy in the East; the Cappadocians and their 84 scientific doctrine of the Trinity The split at Antioch 89 Valens; the domination of the Arians in the East; the 90 Homoiousians go over to orthodoxy; alliance with the West Damasus; tension between the old and the new orthodoxy 92 576 93 Gratian and Theodosius Theodosius takes his stand on the new orthodoxy 94 Council and Creed of Constantinople in the year 381, triumph of 94 the new orthodoxy in consequence of politics and science Serious tension with the West 101 Adjustment of differences in 382; service rendered by Ambrose l01, 103 End of Arianism; Council of 383 104 APPENDIX.—THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND OF THE TRINITY 108-137 I. The wholly indefinite condition of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the first centuries; Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen; 109 development 558 of the doctrine in accordance with the analogy of the doctrine of the Logos Arians and Athanasius 112 Macedonians (Pneumatomachians) and Athanasius 114 The doctrine of the Cappadocians; consubstantiality of the 115 Spirit; uncertainties The Westerns 117 Condemnation of the Macedonians in 381 118 II. The doctrine of the Trinity held by Apollinaris and the 119 Cappadocians Comparison with Tertullian’s doctrine of the Trinity 121 Aristotelian and Subordinationist element in the doctrine of the 124570 Trinity Tritheists, Johannes Damascenus 125 Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit in the East and West 126 Photius maintains the old doctrine of the Trinity 127 Philosophy and Trinitarian dogma 128 The Western doctrine of the Trinity; Augustine 129 The filioque and the Athanasian Creed 133 The three so-called Ecumenical Creeds 135 Concluding remarks on the form in which the doctrine of the 137 Trinity came to be accepted

xi

CHAPTER II.—THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERFECT LIKENESS OF THE NATURE 138-163 OF THE INCARNA 533 TE SON OF GOD WITH THAT OF HUMANITY Introduction: Views regarding the humanity of Christ up to the 138 middle of the Fourth Century Close connection between the Trinitarian and Christological 143 problems from that time Tertullian’s doctrine, the root of the orthodox doctrines 144 146 The humanity of Christ according to the Arians mere σάρξ The Christology of Athanasius and Marcellus; origin of the 147 formulæ, µία φύσις, δύο φίσεις 559 The doctrine of Apollinaris of Laodicea as the first rigidly 149 developed Christology The condemnation of this doctrine; the perfect likeness of the 158 humanity of Christ with human nature is elevated to the rank of dogma The doctrine of the Cappadocians regarding the humanity and 160 the unity of the God-Man The difficulty of the Problem which now emerged 163 CHAPTER III.—Continuation: THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSONAL UNION 164-267 OF THE DIVINE AND HUMAN NATURES IN THE INCARNATE SON OF GOD Introduction 164 (1) The Nestorian Controversy 165-190 The Christology of the Antiochians 165 The Christology of Cyril 174 Outbreak of the Controversy, Nestorius 180 The attitude of the Roman Bishop Cœlestin, his repudiation of 5a0 182 the Western view The Anathemas 186 The Council of Ephesus 186 The Formula of union of the year 433 189 Cyril gains the upper hand 190 190(2) The Eutychian Controversy 226564 Survey of the position of the Alexandrian Patriarchs in the 190 Church; Rome, Alexandria and the Byzantine State Significance of the political conditions for the Eutychian 195 Controversy The Church after the union of the year 433 197 Eutyches and the charge against him; Flavian and the Council of 199

448 The appeal to Leo I Dioscurus, the Master of the Eastern Church xiiLeo’s Letters, the Ep. ad Flavianum The Council of Ephesus of 499; triumph of Dioscurus The period until the death of Theodosius II 55e Entire change in the situation; Pulcheria and Marcian Leo I.; he seeks to prevent the calling of a Council The Council of Chalcedon The dogmatic formula Significance and estimate of the formula The twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon (3) The Monophysite Controversies and the Fifth Council The Chalcedonian Creed occasions serious conflicts in the East; imperial attempts to set it aside The Henoticon and the Great Schism of the years 484-519 568 The Theopaschitian Controversy The new scholastic orthodoxy reconciles itself to the Chalcedonian Creed; Leontius of Byzantium Internal movements and divisions amongst the Monophysites: Severians, Julianists, etc. Justinian’s ecclesiastical policy Justinian and the new orthodoxy Conference with the Severians Failure of a Monophysite re-action, the assistance of Rome The condemnation of Origen and of the Antiochene theology, the Three Chapter’s Controversy Vigilius of Rome The Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople Solemn recognition of the Chalcedonian Creed, but as interpreted by Cyril; Eastern victory over the West; reactions in the West; Justinian’s latest views; Justin II (4) The Monergist and Monothelite Controversies; the Sixth Council and John of Damascus Introduction Political conditions, the Monergist Controversy The Ecthesis The Typus

201 201 202 207 210 212 213 215 219 222 225 226-252 226 228 230 232 235 241-252 241 242 243 245 248 566 249 251 252-267 252 254 256 257

The Monothelite Controversy: Rome, the Byzantine 564 Church 257 and the State The Sixth Ecumenical Council, sanction given to dyothelitism 261 The Scholasticism of John of Damascus 264 xiiiC.—The

enjoyment of Redemption in the Present. CHAPTER IV.—THE MYSTERIES AND KINDRED SUBJECTS Introduction; emergence of what constitutes mysteries; legitimation of a religion of the second rank; mystagogic theology § I. The Lord’s Supper and the other mysteries; Antiochene and Alexandrian mysticism, their union in cultus; 53c Dionysius the Areopagite Details regarding Baptism History of development of the doctrine of the Supper in its sacramental and sacrificial aspect; the Lord’s Supper and the Incarnation More detailed history of the doctrine of the Supper; Origen Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, Macarius Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa Chrysostom Dionysius Cyril of Alexandria and the Monophysites John of Damascus.—Conclusion § II. WORSHIP OF SAINTS; Relics, Martyrs and Pictures The Seven Points of Contact for the legitimising of this Religion of the Second Rank, or heathenism, within the doctrina publica Reservations Details regarding Angel-worship Worship of Saints and Relics 58c Mariolatry 314 Worship of pictures, the definitive expression of Greek Piety Pictures, Monachism and the State; the controversy over images Synods of 754, 787 and 842 Images remain the property of the Church, but 564 the Church remains the property of the State CHAPTER V.—APPENDIX: HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE RISE OF THE ORTHODOX SYSTEM xiv

268-330 268

276 283 283 290 291 292 297 298 299 301 304 305 310 311 312 317 319 324 329 331-353

1

CHAPTER I.1 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOMOUSIA OF THE SON OF GOD WITH GOD HIMSELF.2

1

Vide Preface. See the Opp. Athanas., and in addition the works of the other Church Fathers of the fourth century, above all, those of Hilary, the Cappadocians and Jerome; the Church Histories of Sulpicius, Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Gelasius, the Vita Constantini of Eusebius, the Panarion of Epiphanius, and the Codex Theodosianus ed. Hænel; on the other side, the fragments of the Church History of Philostorgius; of the secular historians, Ammian in particular. For the proceedings of the Councils see Mansi Collect. Conc. v. II. and III.; Hefele, Conciliengesch. 2nd ed. v. I. and II.; Walch, Historie der Ketzereien v. II. and III.; Munscher, Ueber den Sinn der nicän. Glaubensformel, in Henke’s Neues Magazin, VI., p. 334 f.; Caspari, Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols, 4 vols., 1866 ff.; Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 2nd ed. 1877; Hort, On the Constantinop. Creed and other Eastern Creeds of the fourth century, 1876; Swainson, The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, 1875; Bright, Notes on the Canons of the first four General Councils, 1882; my art. “Konstantinop. Symbol” in Herzog’s R.-Encykl., 2nd ed. Besides the historical works of Baronius, Tillemont, Basnage, Gibbon, Schröckh, de Broglie, Wietersheim, Richter, Kaufmann, Hertzberg, Chastel, Schiller, Victor Schultze, and Boissier, above all, Ranke, (also Löning, Gesch. d. deutschen Kirchenrechts, vol. I.) and others, the references in Fabricius-Harless, the careful biographies of the Fathers of the fourth century by Böhringer, and the Histories of Dogma by Petavius, Schwane, Baur, Dorner (Entw. Gesch. d. L. v. d. Person Christi), Newman (Arians of the fourth century), Nitzsch, Schultz, and Thomasius may be consulted. On Lucian: see my article in Herzog’s R.-Encyklop. v. VIII. 2, and in my Altchristl. Lit. Gesch. vol. I. On Arius: Maimbourg, Hist. de l’Arianisme, 1673, Travasa, Storia della vita di Ario, 1746; Hassenkamp, Hist. Ariana controversiæ, 1845; Revillout, De l'Arianisme des peuples germaniques, 1850; Stark, Versuch einer Gesch. des Arianism, 2 vols., 1783 f.; Kölling, Gesch. der arianischen Häresie, 2 vols., 1874, 1883; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, 1882. On Athanasius: Möhler, Athan. d. Gr., 1827; Voigt, Die Lehre d. Athan., 1861; Cureton, The Festal Letters of Athan., 1848; Larsow, Die Festbriefe des hl. Athan., 1852; Sievers, Ztschr. f. d. hist. The 564 ol., 1868, I.; Fialon, St. Athanase, 1877; Atzberger, Die Logoslehre d. hl. Athan., 1880 (on this ThLZ., 1880, No. 8) Eichhorn, Athan. de vita ascetica, 1886. On Marcellus: Zahn, M. von Ancyra, 1867; Klose, Gesch. d. L. des Marcel and Photin, 1837. Reinkens, Hilarius, 1864; Krüger, Lucifer, 1886, and in the Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1888, p. 434 ff.; Klose, Gesch. and Lehre des Eunomius, 1833; Rode, Gesell. der Reaction des Kaiser Julian, 1877 (also the works of Naville, Rendall and Mücke); Ullmann, Gregor v. Naz., 2nd ed. 1867; Dräseke, Quæst. Nazianz. Specimen, 1876; Rupp, Gregor v. Nyssa, 1834; Klose, Basilius, 1835; Fialon, St. Basile, 2

IS the Divine 564 which appeared on the earth and has made its presence actively felt, identical with the supremely Divine that rules heaven and earth? Did the Divine which appeared on the earth enter into a close and permanent union with human nature, so that it has actually transfigured it and raised 2it to the plane of the eternal? These two questions necessarily arose out of the combination of the incarnation of the Logos and the deification of the human nature (See Vol. III., p. 289 ff.) Along with the questions, however, the answers too were given. But it was only after severe conflicts that these answers were able to establish themselves in the Church as dogmas. The reasons of the delay in their acceptance have been partly already indicated in Vol. III., pp. 167 ff. and will further appear in what follows. In the fourth century the first question was the dominant one in the Church, and in the succeeding centuries the second. We have to do with the first to begin with. It was finally answered at the so-called Second Œcumenical Council, 381, more properly in the year 383. The Council of Nicæa (325) and the death of Constantine (361) mark off the main stages in the controversy.

1. FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CONTROVERSY TO THE COUNCI 564 L OF NICÆA. At the great Oriental Council which met at Antioch about the year 268, the Logos doctrine was definitely accepted, 3while the “Homoousios” on the other hand was rejected.3 The most learned man whom the East at that time possessed, Lucian (of Samosata) took up the work of the excommunicated metropolitan, Paul of Samosata. First educated at the school of Edessa, where since the days of Bardesanes a free and original spirit had prevailed, then a follower of Paul, he got from the latter his dislike to the theology of “the ancient teachers”, and with this he united the critical study of the Bible, a subject in which he became a master. He founded in

2nd edit. 1869; Rade, Damasus, 1882; Förster, Ambrosius, 1884; Zöckler, Hieronymus, 1875; Güldenpenning and Ifland, Theodosius d. Gr., 1878; Langen, Gesch. d. röm. Kirche, I. 1881. In addition the articles on the subject in Herzog’s R.-Encykl. (particularly those by Möller) and in the Dict. of Christ. Biography, and very specially the article Eusebius by Lightfoot. The most thorough recent investigation of the subject is that by Gwatkin above mentioned. The accounts of the doctrines of Arius and Athanasius in Böhringer are thoroughly good and well-nigh exhaustive. The literary and critical studies of the Benedictines, in their editions, and those of Tillemont form the basis of the more recent work ac8 s also, and so far they have not been surpassed. 3 See Vol. iii., pp. 40, 45.

Antioch an exegetical-theological school which, during the time of the three episcopates of Domnus, Timäus and Cyril, was not in communion with the Church there, but which afterwards, shortly before the martyrdom of Lucian, made its peace with the Church. This school is the nursery of the Arian doctrine, and Lucian, its head, is the Arius 564 before Arius. Lucian started from the Christology of Paul, but, following the tendency of the time, and perhaps also because he was convinced on exegetical grounds, he united it with the Logos Christology, and so created a fixed form of doctrine.4 It is probable that it was only gradually he allowed the Logos doctrine to have stronger influence on the Adoptian form. This explains why it was not till towards the end of his life that he was able to bridge over his differences with the Church. He was revered by his pupils both as the teacher par excellence, and in his character as ascetic; his martyrdom, which occurred in the year 311 or 312, increased his reputation. The remembrance of having sat at the feet of Lucian was a firm bond of union amongst his pupils. After the time of persecution they received influential ecclesiastical posts.5 There was no longer anything to r 564 ecall 4the fact that their master had formerly been outside of the Church. These pupils as a body afterwards came into conflict more or less strongly with the Alexandrian theology. So far as we know, no single one of them was distinguished as a religious character; but they knew what they wanted; they were absolutely convinced of

4

It is extremely probable that Lucian’s study of Origen too had convinced him of the correctness of the Logos doctrine. We have to regard his doctrine as a combination of the doctrines of Paul and Origen. Lucian and Origen are classed together by Epiph., H. 76, 3, as teachers of the Arians. 5 Amongst Lucian’s pupils were Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Menophantus of Ephesus, Theognis of Nicæa, Maris of Chalcedon, Athanasius of Anazarbus (?), the sophist Asterius, and Leontius, afterwards bishop of Antioch, and others. In Syria the pupils of Dorotheus—namely, Eusebius of Cæsarea and Paulinus of Tyre were supporters of Arius, as were also many of Origen’s admirers. As regards the other partisans of Arius who are known to us by name, we do not know whether they were pupils of Lucian or not. Egypt and Libya are represented by Theonas of Marmarica, Secundus of Ptolemais and the presbyter Georgius of Alexandria, and further, according to Philostorgius, by Daches of Berenice, Secundus of Tauchira, Sentianus of Boraum, Zopyrus of Barka and Meletius of Lykopolis. In other provinces we have Petrophilus of Scythopolis, Narcissus of Neronias, Theodotus of Laodicea, Gregorius of Berytus and Aëtius of Lydda. Philostorgius further mentions others, but he also reckons as belonging to his party those old bishops who did not live to see the outbreak of the controversy and who accordingly have been claimed by the orthodox side as well; see Gwatkin l.c., p. 31. For other names of presbyters and deacons at Alexandria who held Arian views, see the letters of Alexander in Theodoret, I. 4, and Socrates, I. 6.

the truth of their school-doctrine, which had reason and Scripture on its side. This is what characterises the school. At a time when the Church doctrine was in the direst confusion, and was threatening to disappear, and when the union of tradition, Scripture, and philosophical speculation in the form of dogma had been already called for, but had not yet been accomplished, this school was conscious of possessing an established system of doctrine which at the same time permitted freedom. This was its strength.6 The accounts of Lucian’s Christology which have been handed down are meagre enough, still they give us a sufficiently clear picture of his views. God is One; there is nothing equal to Him; for everythin 564 g besides Him is created. He has created 5the Logos or Wisdom—who is to be distinguished from the inner divine Logos—out of the things that are not (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων), and sent him into the world.7 This Logos has taken a human body though not a human soul, and accordingly all the feelings and spiritual struggles of Christ are to be attributed to the Logos. Christ has made known the Father to us, and by being man and by his death has given us an example of patience. This exhausts his work, by means of which— for so we may complete the thought—he, constantly progressing, has entered into perfect glory. It is the doctrine of Paul of Samosata, but instead of man it is a created heavenly being who here becomes “Lord”. Lucian must have put all the emphasis on the “out of the things that are not” (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων) and on the “progress” (προκοπή). The creaturehood o 564 f the Son, the denial of his co-eternity with the Father, and the unchangeableness of the Son achieved by constant progress and constancy, constitute the main articles in the doctrine of Lucian and his school. Just because of this he refuses to recognise in the Son the perfectly

564 6These pupils of Lucian must have displayed all the self-consciousness, the assurance, and the arrogance of a youthful exclusive school (ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς δηλητηρίου φρατρίας, says Epiphanius in one place, H. 69, 5), haughtily setting themselves far above the “ancients” and pitying their want of intelligence. Highly characteristic in this respect is the account of Alexander, their opponent, after making all allowance for the malevolent element in it; see very specially the following passage, Theodoret, H. E. I. 4): οἵ οὐδὲ τῶν ἀρχαίων τινὰς συγκρίνειν ἑαυτοῖς ἀξιοῦσιν, οὐδὲ οἷς ἡµεῖς ἐκ παίδων ὡµιλήσαµεν διδασκάλοις ἐξισοῦσθαι ἀνέχονται· ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τῶν νῦν πανταχοῦ συλλειτουργῶν τινὰ εἰς µέτρον σοφίας ἡγοῦνται· µόνοι σοφοὶ καὶ ἀκτήµονες καὶ δογµάτων εὑρεταὶ λέγοντες εἶναι, καὶ αὐτοῖς ἀποκεκαλ ac8 ύφθαι µόνοις, ἄπερ οὐδενὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον ἑτέρῳ πέφυκεν ἐλθεῖν εἰς ἔννοιαν. One may further compare the introduction to the Thalia. 7 He is thus a created “God.”

equal image of the ousia or substance of the Father (Philost. II. 15).8 There can be no doubt as to the 6philosophy to which Lucian adhered. He worked with the means supplied by the critical and dialectic philosophy of Aristotle, although indeed his conception of God was Platonic, and though his Logos doctrine had nothing in common with the teaching of Aristotle. His opponents have expressly informed us that his pupils turned to account the Aristotelian philosophy.9 If one recollects that in the third century the Theodotian-Adoptian Christology was founded by the help o 55f f what was supplied by Aristotelianism, and that the

8

For the proofs of what is here said regarding Lucian see my article “Lucian” in Herzog’s R.-Encykl., 2nd ed. Vol. VIII. Here I give merely the following. For the close connection between Arius and Lucian we possess a series of witnesses. Alexander of Alex. says expressly in his letter to Alexander (Theodoret H.E. I. 4) that Arius started from Lucian. Arius himself in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia describes himself and his friend as Συλλουκιανιστής; Philostorgius enumerates the pupils of Lucian, whom he regards as the friends of Arius (II. 14), and lets us see (II. 3, 13-15 and III. 15) that at the beginning of the fifth century Lucian was still regarded as the patriarch and teacher of the Arians. Epiphanius (Hær. 43. 1) and Philostorgius (l.c.) inform us that Lucian was revered by the Arians as a martyr. Epiphanius and Marius Victorinus call the Arians “Lucianists” (see also Epiph. H. 76. 3). Sozomen relates that the Fathers of Arian or semi-Arian views assembled in Antioch in the year 341 accepted a confession of faith of Lucian’s (III. 5). This confession is, it is true, given by Athanasius (de synodis 23), Socrates (II. 10) and Hilary (de synod. 29) without any statement as to its having originated with Lucian; but Sozomen informs us that a semi-Arian synod which met in Caria in 367 also recognised it as Lucianist (VI. 12). According to the author of the seven dialogues on the Trinity, who was probably Maximus Confessor, the Macedonians did the same (Dial. III. in Theodoreti Opp. V. 2, p. 991 sq., ed. Schultze and Nöss). The semi-Arians also at the synod of Seleucia in 359 seem to have ascribed the Confession to Lucian (see Caspari, Alte and neue Quellen zur Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, p. 42 f., n. 18). Since Sozomen himself, however, questions the correctness of the view which att 564 ributes it to Lucian, and since, moreover, other reasons may be alleged against it, we ought with Caspari to regard the creed as a redaction of a confession of Lucian’s. This fact too shews what a high reputation the martyr had in those circles. That Lucian’s school was pre-eminently an exegetical one is evident amongst other things from Lucian’s well-known activity in textual criticism, as well as from Philostorg. (III. 15). 9 See on Arius, e.g., Epiphan. H. 69 c. 69, on Aëtius, who was indirectly a pupil of Lucian (Philostorg. III. 15), the numerous passages in the Cappadocians and Epiphanius H. 76 T. III., p. 251, ed. Oehler. Besides, in almost every sentence of what is left us of the writings of Aëtius we see the Aristotelian. Philostorgius testifies to the fact that he specially occupied himself with Logic and Grammar; see above all, the little work of Aëtius in 74 theses, which Epiphanius (H. 76) has preserved for us. In his application of Aristotelianism Aëtius, however, went further than Arius, as is peculiarly evide ac8 nt from the thesis of the knowableness of God.

Theodotians were also given to the critical study of the Bible,10 the connection between Arianism and Adoptianism thus becomes clear. It is incorrect to trace the entire opposition between the Orthodox and the Arians to the opposition between Platonism and Aristotelianism, incorrect if for no other reason because a strong Platonic element is contained in what they possess in common— namely, the doctrine of God and of the Logos; but it is correct to say that the opposition cannot be understood if regard is not had to the different philosophical methods employed.11 In Lucian’s teaching Adoptianism is combined12 with the doctrine of the Logos as a creature (κτίσµα), and this form of doctrine is developed by the aid of the Aristotelian philosophy and based on the 7critical exegesis of the Bible. Aristotelian Rationalism dominated the school. The thought of an actual redemption was put in the background. The Christian interest in monotheism is exhausted by the statement that the predicate “underived” attaches to one single being only. This interest in the “unbegotten begetter”, and also, what is closely connected with it, the ranging of all theological thoughts under the antithesis of first cause or God, and creation, are also Aristotelian. Theology here became a “Technology”, that is, a doctrine of the unbegotten and the begotten13 which was worked out in syllogisms and based on the sacred codex. A pupil of Lucian named Arius, perhaps a Lybian by birth, became when already well up in years, first deacon in Alexandria, and 564 afterwards presbyter in the church of Baukalis. The

10

See Vol. III., p. 24. Correctly given in Baur, L. v. d. Dreieinigkeit I., p. 387 ff.—not at all clear in Dorner op. cit. I., p. 859. 12 It is self-evident that this combination deprived Paul’s system of doctrine of all the merit which it contained. 13 According to Theodoret (Hær. fab. IV. 3) it was Aëtius himself who called theology “technology.” Perhaps the most characteristic example of how this technology treated purely religious language is to be found in the benediction with which Aëtius concluded one of his works (Epiphan. H. 76. T. III., p. 222, ed. Oehler). Ἐρρωµένους καὶ ἐρρωµένας ὑµᾶς ὁ ὤν αὐτογένντος Θεός, ὁ καὶ µόνος ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς προσαγορευθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀποσταλέντος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὑποστάντος τε ἀληθῶς πρὸ αἰώνων καὶ ὄντος ἀληθῶς γεννητῆς ὑποστάσεως, διατηρήσει ἀπὸ τῆς ἀσεβείας, ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡµῶν, δι᾽ οὗ πᾶσα δόξα τῷ πατρὶ καὶ νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀµήν. This reminds us mutatis mutandis of the benediction of the modern rationalistic preacher, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Chris 564 t, the great teacher and friend of men, be with you all.” I am glad further to see that Rupp too (Gregor von Nyssa, p. 139) has connected the conception of ἀγεννησία, as being a central one in Eunomius, with the πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον of Aristotle. 11

presbyters there at that period still possessed a more independent position than anywhere else.14 Owing, however, to the influence of the martyr bishop Peter (+ 311) a tendency had gained ascendency in the episcopate in Alexandria, which led to Christian doctrine being sharply marked off from the teachings of Greek philosophy (µαθήµατα τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς φιλοσοφίας) the presence of which had been observed in Origen, and in general shewed itself in a distrust of 8“scientific” theology, while at the same time the thought of the distinction between the Logos and the Father was given a secondary place.15 Arius nevertheless fearlessly advanced the views he had learned from Lucian. The description we get of him 564 is that of a man of grave appearance and a strict ascetic, but at the same time affable and of a prepossessing character, though vain. He was highly respected in the city; the ascetics and the virgins were specially attached to him. His activity had been recognised also by the new bishop Alexander who began his episcopate in 313. The outbreak of the controversy is wrapped in obscurity, owing to the fact that the accounts are mutually contradictory. According to the oldest testimony it was an opinion expressed by Arius when questioned by the bishop on a certain passage of Scripture, and to which he obstinately adhered, which really began the controversy,16 possibly in the year 318. Since the persecution had ceased, the Christological question was the dominant one in the Alexandrian Church. Arius was not the first to raise it. On the contrary he was able later on to remind the bishop how the latter had often both in the Church and in the Council of Presbyters (ἐν µέσῃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ συνεδρίῳ πλειστάκις) 564 refuted the Valentinian Christology, according to which the Son is an emanation,—the Manichæan, according to which the Son is a consubstantial part of the Father (µέρος ὁµοούσιον τοῦ πατρός),— the Sabellian, according to which the Godhead involves the identity of the Son and Father (ὑιοπάτωρ),—that of Hieracas. according to which the Son is a torch lighted at the torch of the

14

Spite, however, of what we know of the Meletian schism in Alexandria and of the temporary connection of Arius with it, (cf. also the schism of Colluthus) it is not very clear if the outbreak of the Arian controversy, is connected with the opposition between episcopate and presbyterate (against Böhringer). The Alexandrian Presbyters were at that time actual Parochi. There are some obscure references in the letter of Alexander (Theodoret I. 4), see Gwatkin, p. 29. 15 See Vol. III., p. 99 ff. 16 See Constantine’s letter in Euseb., Vita Constant. II. 69; the notices in the Church historians and in Epiphanius (H. 69. 4) can hardly be reconciled with it. Along with Constantine’s statements the account of Socrates is specially worthy of consideration (I. 5).

Father, that Son and Father are a bipartite light and so on,—and how he, Arius, had agreed with him.17 It was only after considerable hesitation and perhaps vacillation too, that 9Alexander resolved on the excommunication of Arius. It took place at a Synod held in 321 or 320 in presence of about one hundred Egyptian and Lybian bishops. Along with Arius some presbyters and deacons of Alexandria, as well as the Lybian bishops Theonas and Secundus, were deposed. This did not quieten Arius. He sought and forthwith found support amongst his old friends, a 564 nd above all, got the help of Eusebius of Nicomedia. This student-friend had an old cause of quarrel with Alexander,18 and, contrary to ecclesiastical law, had been transferred to Nicomedia by Berytus, the most influential bishop19 at the court of the Empress, a sister of Constantine. Arius, driven out of Alexandria “as an atheist”, had written to him from Palestine.20 He was able to appeal to a number of eastern bishops, and above all, to Eusebius of Cæsarea; in fact he asserted that all the eastern bishops agreed with him and had on this account been put under the ban by Alexander (?). Eusebius of Nicomedia espoused the cause 564 of Arius in the most energetic fashion in a large number of letters.21 Alexander on his part also looked about for allies. He wrote numerous letters to the bishops, two of which have been preserved—namely, the Encyclica, i.e., the official report of what had occurred,22 and the epistle to Alexander, Bishop of

17

Ep. Arii ad Alex. in Athanas. de synod. 16 and Epiphan. H. 69. 7. According to Philostorg. I. 3, the exertions of Arius had very specially contributed to bring about the election of Alexander as bishop, although he could then have become bishop himself. 18 Ep. Alexandri in Socr. I. 6 on Eusebius. Τὴν πάλαι γὰρ αὐτοῦ κακόνοιαν τὴν χρόνῳ σιωπηθεῖσαν νῦν διὰ τούτων (by letters) ἀνανεῶσαι βουλόµενος, σχηµατίζεται µὲν ὡς ὑπὲρ τούτων γράφων· ἔργῳ δὲ δείκνυσιν, ὡς ὅτι ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ σπουδάζων τοῦτο ποιεῖ. His lust of power is characterised by Alexander in the words (l. c.) νοµίσας ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ κεῖσθαι τὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας. 19 He is supposed to have been related to the Emperor. According to a letter of Constantine’s of a later date (in Theodoret. H. E. I. 19) he remained faithful to Licinius and had before the catastrophe worked against Constantine. 20 Theodoret H. E. I. 5, Epiph. H. 69 6. 21 See the letter to Paulinus of Tyre—which is put later by some—in Theodoret, H. E. I. 6. In this letter Eusebius praises the zeal of the Church historian Eusebius in the matter and blames Paulinus for his silence. He too ought to come to the help of Arius by giving a written opinion based on the theology of the Bible. There is a fragment of a letter of Eusebius to Arius in Athanasius, de synod. 17, where there are also other letters of the friends of Arius. 22 See Socrat. H. E. I. 6 and Athanas., Opp. I., p. 313 sq. (ed. Paris, 1689, p. 397 sq.).

Constantinople. (?)23 In the 10latter letter, which is written in a very hostile tone, Alexander sought to check the powerful propaganda of Arianism. He appealed to the bishops of the whole of Egypt and the Thebaid and further to the Lybian, Pentapolitan, Syrian, LycioPamphylian, Asiatic, Cappadocian, 564 and other bishops. Arius betook himself to Nicomedia and from there addressed a conciliatory epistle to the Alexandrian bishop which we still possess.24 He also composed at that time his “Thalia,” of whose contents which were partly in prose and partly in verse, we cannot form any very correct idea from the few fragments handed down to us by Athanasius. His supporters thought a great deal of this. work while his opponents condemned it as profane, feeble, and affected.25 A Bithynian Synod under the leadership of Eusebius decided for Arius,26 and Eusebius of Cæsarea entered into communication with Alexander of Alexandria in the character 564 of mediator, in order to induce him to take a more favourable view of the doctrine of the excommunicated presbyter.27 It may have been, more than anything else, the political state of things which allowed Arius to find his way back once more to Alexandria. Under the patronage of some distinguishes bishops with whom he had entered into correspondence, but who were not able to bring about any amicable arrangement with Alexander, Arius resumed his work in the city.28 In the autumn of 323 Constantine, after his victory over Licinius, became sole ruler in the Roman Empire. The controversy had already begun to rage in all the coast-provinces of the East. Not only did the bishops contend with each other, but the common people too began to take sides, and the dispute was carried on in such a base manner that the Jews scoffed at the 11thing in the theatres, 564 and turned the most sacred parts of the doctrine of the Church into ridicule.29 Constantine forthwith interfered. The very full letter which he sent to Alexander and

23

Theodoret, H. E. I. 4. The address is probably incorrect; the letter is written to several persons. 24 See note 3, p. 8. 25 On the Thalia see Athan., Orat. c. Arian I. 2-10 de synod. 15. Philostorgius II. 2 tells us that Arius put his doctrine also into songs for sailors, millers, and travellers etc., in order thus to bring it to the notice of the lower classes. Athanasius also mentions songs. We can see from this that Arius made no distinction between faith and philosophical theology. He followed the tendency of the time. His opponents are for him “heretics.” 26 Sozom. I. 15. 27 The letter is in the Acts of the Second Nicene Council, Mansi XIII., p. 315. 28 565 Sozom. I. 15. 29 Euseb., Vita Const. II. 61; Socrates I. 7; Theodoret I. 6; the discord extended even into families.

Arius,30 in 323-24, is one of the most important monuments of his religious policy. The controversy is described as an idle wrangle over incomprehensible things, since the opponents are, he says, at one as regards the main point.31 But the letter had no effect, nor was the court-bishop, Hosius of Cordova, who brought it, and who as an Occidental appeared to be committed to neither side, able to effect a reconciliation between the parties. In all probability, however, Hosius had 54c already come to an understanding32 in Alexandria with Alexander, and the latter shortly 12after took a journey to Nicomedia, thoroughly completed the understanding, talked over some other bishops there, and so prepared the way for

30

Vita Const. II. 64-70. Constantine wrote the letter not as a theologian, but as Emperor, which ought in fairness to be reckoned to his credit. The introduction is very skilfully worded: the Emperor trusted that he would he able with the help of the Eastern bishops to ac8 compose the Donatist schism, and now he sees the East torn by a far more destructive schism. He offers his services as mediator and accordingly takes up an absolutely impartial position. “Alexander should not have asked the questions and Arius should not have answered them; for such questions lie outside the “Law”; and above all, care ought to have been taken not to bring them to the notice of the people. The opponents, who at bottom presumably had the same convictions, ought to come to an agreement and compose their differences; this is what is done in the schools of philosophy; those who attend them dispute, but they afterwards formulate terms of agreement upon a common basis. It is only the common people and ignorant boys who quarrel about trifles.” The close of the letter expresses the very great anxiety felt by the Emperor lest the grand work of restoring peace and unity entrusted to him by Providence should be hindered. He accordingly most earnestly urges peace, even if they cannot actually agree. In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas and—reserve, is thus the watchword of the Emperor; in faith in Providence and in the conception of the Supreme Being they are certainly one: for the upholder of all has given to all a common light; differences of opinion on separate points are unavoidable and are perfectly legitimate when there is radical unity in dogma. “Restore to me my peaceful days and my undisturbed nights and do not allow me to spend what remains of my life in joylessness.” The close is once more very effective: he had already started, he says, for Alexandria, but had turned back when he heard of the split; the combatants may make it possible for him to come by becoming reconciled. This letter can hardly have been written under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia; still Nicomedia had already before this been the starting-point of a movement for bringing about union, as the conciliatory epistle of Arius and the pacific letter of his friends prove. 32 If according to Socrat. III. 7, he at this time agitated in Alexandria the question about οὑσία and ὑπόστασις, it must have been in the western-orthodox sense. On the other hand, it is said (l. c.) that Hosius when in Alexandria endeavoured to refute the doctrine of Sabellius. He might thus, as a matter of fact, regard himself as a mediator, namely, between the Arian and S ac8 abellian doctrinal propositions; see on this below. It is probable that a Synod was held in Alexandria during his stay there. 31

the decision of the Council of Nicæa.33 The Emperor was won over by Hosius after he perceived the fruitlessness of his union-policy.34 He now summoned a General Council to meet at Nicæa, apparently on the advice of Hosius,35 57a and the latter had the main share also in determining the choice of the formula proposed.36 But before we take up the Council of Nicæa, we must get some idea of the doctrines of the contending parties. We still know what were the Christological formulæ of Bishop Alexander which were attacked by Arius.37 They were the words: Ἀεὶ θέος, ἀεὶ υἱός, ἅµα πατήρ, ἅµα υἱός, συνυπάρχει ὁ υἱὸς ἀγεννήτως38 τῷ θεῷ, ἀειγενής, ἀγενητογενής, οὔτ᾽ ἐπινοία, οὔτ᾽

33

This, it is true, is the account only of Philostorgius (I. 7), but there is no reason fur mistrusting him. 34 In Egypt the tumults were so serious that even the image of the Emperor was attacked (Vita Const. III. 4). 35 This is the account given by Sulpicius Severus, Chron. II. 40; “Nicæna synodus auctore Hosio confecta habebatur.” 36 Athan. hist. Arian. 42; οὗτος ἐν Νικαίᾳ πίστιν ἐξέθετο. On Hosius see the lengthy article in the Dict. of Christ. Biogr. The life of this important and influential bishop covers the century between the death of Origen and the birth of Augustine. 37 From the letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia. 38 Lightfoo 564 t (S. Ignatius Vol. II., p. 90 ff.) has published a learned discussion on ἀγένητος (underived) and ἀγέννητος (unbegotten) in the Fathers up till Athanasius. Ignatius (Eph. 7) called the Son as to His Godhead “ἀγέννητος.” In the first decades of the Arian controversy no distinction was made between the words, i.e., the difference in the writing of them was not taken account of, and this produced frightful confusion. Still Athanasius saw clearly from the first that though the conception of generation might hold good of the Son, that of becoming or derivation did not; s. de synod 3: τὸν πατέρα µόνον ἄναρχον ὄντα καὶ ἀγέννητον γεγεννηκέναι ἀνεφίκτως καὶ πᾶσιν ἀκαταλήπτως οἴδαµεν· τὸν δὲ ὑιὸν γεγεννῆσθαι πρὸ αἰῶνων καὶκ µηκέτι ὁµοίως τῷ πατρὶ ἀγέννητον εἶναι καὶ αὐτὸν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀρχὴν ἔχειν τὸν γεννήσαντα πατέρα. Spite of this he could say (l. c. c. 46): τοῦτο τὸ ὄνοµα—scil. ἀγέννητος, as if it were identical in form with ἀγένητος—διάφορα ἔχει τὰ σηµαινόµενα. καὶ οἱ µέν, τὸ ὄν µὲν µήτε δὲ γ 564 εννηθέν, µήτε ὅλως ἔχον τὸν αἴτιον, λέγουσιν ἀγέννητον, οἱ δε τὸ ἄκτιστον; see also the tiresome distinctions in the work “de decret. synod. Nic.” 28 sq. The distinction in fact between γεννᾶν, γίγνεσθαι, κτίζειν was not yet itself a definite one. At a later period there was no hesitation in asserting that the Son both as God and as Man is γεννητός; s. Joh. Damasc. I. 8: χρῆ γὰρ εἰδέναι, ὅτι τὸ ἀγένητον, διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς ν γραφόµενον, τὸ ἄκτιστον ἤ τὸ µὴ γενόµενον σηµαίνει, τὸ δὲ ἀγέννητον, διὰ τῶν δύο ν γραφόµενον, δηλοῖ τὸ µὴ γεννηθέν. From this he infers that the Father only is ἀγέννητος, while the Son as God is γεννητός and indeed µόνος γεννητός. One can see from the wonderful word of Alexander’s, ἀγενητογενής, what difficulties were created at first for the

13ἀτόµῳ τινὶ προάγει ὁ θεὸς τοῦ ὑιοῦ, ἀεὶ θεός, ἀὲι υἱός, εξ αὐτοῦ τοὺ θεοῦ ὁ υἱός; always God, always Son, at the same time Father, at the same time Son, the Son exists unbegotten with the Father, everlasting, uncreated, neither in conception nor in any smallest point does God excel the Son, always God, always Son, from God Himself the Son. 14

orthodox by the ἀγέν[ν]ητος. Athanasius would have preferred to banish entirely the fatal word and not to have used it even for the Father. That it, as is the case with ὁµοούσιος also, was first used by the Gnostics and in fact by the Valentinians is evide 564 nt from the striking passage in the letter of Ptolemaus to Flora c. 5, which has hitherto escaped the notice of those who have investigated the subject. Ptolemaus is there dealing with the only good primal God, the primal ground of all Being and all things, with the true demiurge and Satan. He writes amongst other things: καὶ ἔσται (ὁ δηµιουργὸς) µὲν καταδεέστερος τοῦ τελείου Θεοῦ, ἅτε δὴ καὶ γεννητὸς ὢν καὶ οὐκ ἀγέννητος—εἷς γὰρ ἐστιν ἀγέννητος ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα . . . µείζων δὲ καὶ κυριώτερος τοῦ ἀντικειµένου γενήσεται καὶ ἐτέρας οὐσιας τε καὶ φύσεως πεφυκὼς παρὰ τὴν ἑκατέρων τούτων οὐσίαν . . . τοῦ δὲ πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων τοῦ ἀγεννήτου—that is thus the characteristic!—ἡ οὐσία ἐστὶν ἀφθαρσία τε καὶ φῶς αὐτοόν, ἁπλοῦν τε καὶ µονοειδὲς, ἡ δὲ τούτου (scil. τοῦ δηµιουργοῦ) οὐσία διττὴν µέν τινα δύναµιν προήγαγεν, αὐτὸς δε τοῦ κρείττονός ἐστιν εἰκῶν. µηδέ ύ 564 ε τὰ νῦν τοῦτο θορυβείτω, θέλουσαν µαθεῖν, πῶς ἀπὸ µιᾶς ἀρχῆς τῶν ὅλων οὔσης τε καὶ ὁµολογουµένης ἡµῖν καὶ πεπιστευµένης, τῆς ἀγεννήτου καὶ ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἀγαθῆς, συνέστησαν καὶ αὗται αἱ φύσεις, ἥ τε τῆς φθορᾶς καὶ ἡ τῆς µεσότητος, ἀνοµοούσιοι αὗται καθεστῶσαι, τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσἰν ἔχοντος τὰ ὅµοια ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὁµοούσια γεννᾶν τε γαὶ προφέρειν· µαθήσῃ γὰρ ἑξῆς καὶ τὴν τούτου ἀρχήν τε καὶ γέννησιν. This is how Ptolemaus wrote c. 160. His words already contain the ecclesiastical terminology of the future! We also already meet with the term “σοφία ἀνυπόστατος” in a passage of his l. c. c. 1. Many passages prove, moreover, that not only the words employed later on, but also the ideas from which sprang the Church doctrine of the immanent Trinity in its subsequent form, were present in the writings of the Valentinians, as, e.g., the following from Hipp. Philos. VI. 29 (Heracleon): ἦν ὅλως γεννητὸν οὐδέν, πατὴρ δὲ ἦ a8c µόνος ἀγέννητος . . . ἐπεὶ δὲ ἦν γόνιµος, ἔδοξεν αὐτῷ ποτὲ τὸ κάλλιστον καὶ τελεώτατον, ὃ εἷχεν ἐν αὐτῷ, γεννῆσαι καὶ προαγαγεῖν· φιλέρηµος γὰρ οὐκ ἦν· Ἀγάπη γάρ, φησίν, ἦν ὅλος, ἡ δὲ ἀγάπη οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγάπη, ἐὰν µὴ ᾖ τὸ ἀγπαώµενον . . . τελειότερος δὲ ὁ πατήρ, ὅτι ἀγέννητος ὢν µόνος. In what follows the whole discussion is conditioned by the problem that the begotten Æons are in their nature indeed ὁµοούσιοι with the Father, but that they are imperfect as γεννητοί and are inferior to the µόνος ἀγέννητος. Here therefore the field for the Arian-Athanasian controversy is already marked out. But it is to be noticed further that the three terms, µονογενής, πρωτότοκος, and εἰκών contain and define the entire Valentinian Christology, which is of an extremely complicated character. (See Heinrici, die Valentin. Gnosis. p. 120). In the fourth century, however, they became the catchwords of the different Christologies.

Alexander thus maintains the beginningless, eternal coexistence of Father and Son: the Father is never to be thought of without the Son who springs from the Father. It is not improbable that Alexander was led thus to give prominence to the one side of the Logos doctrine of Origen, owing to the influence of the theology of Irenæus or Melito.39 The doctrine which Arius opposed to this is above all dominated by the thought that God, the Only One, is alo 53d ne eternal, and that besides Him there exists only what is created, and that this originates in His will, that accordingly the Son also is not eternal, but a creation of God out of the non-existent.40 From this thesis there necessarily follows the rejection of the predicate ὁµοούσιος for the Son. Arius and his friends already before the Council of Nicæa give expression to it, incidentally indeed, but without ambiguity.41 The doctrine of Arius is as follows:42 39

It is impossible to come to any certain decision on this point, so long as it is not proved that the pieces which are ascribed to Alexander are really his, and at the same time so long as it is uncertain if the sentences from them which also bear the names of Irenæus and Melito really belong to these writers and have been made use of by Alexander. See on this question Cotterill, Modern Criticism and Clement’s Epp. to the Virgins, 1884, on this ThLZ., 1884, p. 267 f; Pitra, Analecta Sacra T. IV. pp. 196 sq., 430 sq. On this Loofs, ThLZ. 1884, Col. 572 f., and very specially Krüger, Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1888, p. 434 ff.; Melito of Sardes and Alex. of Alexandria. Socrates asserts (I. 5) that Arius believed that Alexander wished to introduce the doctrinal system of Sabellius. But the Christology of Irenæus has also been understood in a “Sabellian” sense. The important address of Alexander on soul and body, in which he also treats of the Incarnation, is to be found in Migne T. 18. b04 40This was the original point of dispute. ∆ιωκόµεθα, writes Arius to Eusebius, ὅτι εἴποµεν, Ἀρχὴν ἔχει ὁ υὑός, ὁ δὲ Θεὸς ἄναρχός ἐστι. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο διωκόµεθα, καὶ ὅτι εἴποµεν, Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐστίν. 41 See the fragment from the Thalia in Athan. de synod. 15, the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia to Paulinus, also that of Arius to Alexander. 42 The fragments of the Thalia and the two letters of Arius which have been preserved are amongst the most important sources: cf. also the confession of faith of Arius in Socr. I. 26 (Sozom. II. 27). Then we have the statements of his earliest opponents, very specially the two letters of Alexander and the verbal quotations of the propositions of Arius in Athanasius; see especially ep. ad episc. “Ægypt 12 and de sentent. Dionys. 23, also the Orat. c. Arian. In the third place, we can adduce the propositions laid down by the earliest Arians, or by the patrons of Arius. Opponents made little difference between them and Arius himself, and the actual facts shew that they were justified in so doing; see the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia to Paulinus and the fragments of Arian letters in Athanas. de synod. 17, also the fragments from Asterius. Finally, we have to consider what the Church historians and Epiphanius have to tell us regarding the doctrinal propositions of Arius. There was no “evolution” of Arianism, we can only distinguish

15

589

(a) God, the Only One, besides whom there is no other, is alone unbegotten, without beginning and eternal; He is inexpressible, incomprehensible, and has absolutely no equal. These are the notes which express His peculiar nature. He has created all things out of His free will, and there exists nothing beside Him which He has not created. The expression “to beget” is simply a synonym for “to create”. If it were not, the pure simplicity and spirituality of God’s nature would be destroyed. God can put forth nothing out of His own essence; nor can He communicate His essence to what is created, for this essence is essentially uncreated. He has accordingly not been Father always; for otherwise what is created would not be created, but eternal.43

different varieties of it. Even Eunomius and Aëtius did not “develop” the doctrinal system, but only gave it a logically perfect form. Lucian had already completed the entire system, as is specially evident from the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia to Paulinus; see also the introduction to the Thalia in Athan., Orat. c. Arian. I. 5, which, moreover, presents the character of Arius in an unfavo 564 urable light: κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ, συνετῶν Θεοῦ, παίδων ἁγίωνµ ὀρθοτόµων, ἅγιον Θεοῦ πνεῦµα λαβόντων, τάδε ἔµαθον ἔγωγε ὑπὸ τῶν σοφίης µετε χόντων, ἀστείων, θεοδιδάκτων, κατὰ πάντα σοφῶν τε· τούτων κατ᾽ ἴχνος ἦλθον ἐγὼ βαίνων ὁµοδόξως ὁ περικλυτός, ὁ πολλὰ παθὼν διὰ τὴν Θεοῦ δόξαν, ὑπό τε Θεοῦ µαθὼν σοφίαν καὶ γνῶσιν ἐγὼ ἔγνων. 43 In the doctrine of God as held by Arius and his friends two main ideas appear all through as those upon which everything depends: (1) that God alone is ἀγέννητος; (2) that all else has been created out of nothing by God’s free will. In accordance with this they get rid of everything designated as προβολὴ ἀγέννητος, ἐρυγή, γέννηµα, µέρ ac8 ς ὁµοούσιον, ἐξ ἀπορροῖας τῆς οὐσίας, µονὰς πλατυνθεῖσα, ἕν εἰς δύο διῃρηµένον, etc.; even the old pictorial expressions “Light of Light”, “Torch of Torch” are rejected, and they will have nothing to do with the transformation of an originally impersonal eternal essence or substance in God into a personally subsisting essentiality; see the epp. Arii ad Euseb. et Alexand. Εἰ τό; Ἑκ γαστρός, καὶ τό· Ἐκ πατρὸς ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἥκω, ὡς µέρος τοῦ ὁµοουσίου καὶ ὡς προβολὴ ὑπὸ τινων νοεῖται, σύνθετος ἔσται ὁ πατὴρ καὶ διαιρετὸς καὶ τρεπτὸς καὶ σῶµα . . . καὶ τὰ ἀκόλουθα σώµατι πάσχων ὁ ἀσώµατος Θεός.; It was Eusebius Nic. specially in his letter to Paulinus, who developed the thought that “to beget” is equal to “to create” and he, for the rest, allows that if the Son were begotten out of the substance of the Father the predicate ἀγέννητος would attach to Him, and He would possess the ταυτότις τῆς φύσεως with the Father. In laying down their doctrine of God, Arius and his friends express themselves with a certain amount of fervour. One can see that they have a genuine concern to defend monotheism. At the same time they are as much interested in the negative predicates of the Godhead as the most convinced Neo-platonists. On πατήρ see the Thalia in Athan., Orat. I. c. Arian c. 5: οὐκ ἀεί ὁ Θεὸς πατὴρ ἦν, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ὅτε ὁ Θεὸς µόνος ἦν καὶ οὔπω πατὴρ ἦν, ὕστερον δὲ ἐπιγέγονε πατήρ.

16

(b) Wisdom and Logos dwell within this God as the powers (not persons) which are coincident with His substance, and are by their very nature inseparable from it; there are besides many created powers. 562 1 (c) Before the world existed, God of His free will created an independent substance or hypostasis (οὐσία, ὑπόστασις) as the instrument by means of which all other creatures were to be created, since without it the creatures would not have been able to endure the contact of the Godhead. This Being is termed in Scripture Wisdom, also Son, Image, Word; this Wisdom, which, compared with the inner divine Wisdom, is called Wisdom only in a loose sense, has like all creatures been created out of nothing. It originates in God only in so far as it has been created by God; it is in no sense of the substance or essence of God. It has had a beginning; it accordingly did not always exist, there was a time in which it was not. That the Scriptures use the word “begotten” of this Substance does not imply that this is peculiar to it any more than is the predicate “Son”; for the other creatures are likewise described here and there as “begotten,” and men are called “sons of God”. 553 1

44

Thalia l.c.: δύο σοφίας εἶναι. µίαν µὲν τὴν ἰδίαν καὶ συνυπάρχουσαν τῷ Θεῷ, τὸν δὲ υἱὸν ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ σοφίᾳ γεγενῆσθαι καὶ ταύτης µετέχοντα ὡνοµάσθαι µόνον σοφίαν καὶ λόγον· ἡ σοφία γὰρ τῇ σοφίᾳ ὑπῆρξε σοφοῦ Θεοῦ θελῆσει. Οὓτω καὶ λόγον ἕτερον εἶναι λέγει παρὰ τὸν υἱὸν ἐν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ τούτον µεύ 564 έχοντα τὸν υἱὸν ὡνοµάσθαι πάλιν κατὰ χάριν λόγον καὶ υἱόν . . . Πολλαὶ δυνάµεις εἰσί, καὶ ἡ µὲν µία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν ἰδία φύσει καὶ αῒδιος, ὁ δε Χριστὸς πάλιν οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθονὴ δύναµις τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ µία τῶν λεγοµένων δυνάµεων ἐστι καὶ αὐτός, ὧν µία καὶ ἡ ἀκρὶς καὶ ἡ κάµπη κ.τ.λ. 45 See the foregoing note and Thalia l.c.: οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ υἱός, πάντων γὰρ γενοµένων ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων καὶ πάντων ὄντων κτισµάτων καὶ ποιηµάτων γενοµένων, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γέγονε, καὶ ἠν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γένηται, ἀλλ᾽ ἀρχὴν τοῦ κτίζεσθα ac8 ι ἔσχε καὶ αὐτὸς . . . Ἦν µόνος ὁ Θεὸς καὶ οὔπω ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ἡ σοφία, εἶτα θέλησις ἡµᾶς δηµιουργῆσαι, τότε δὴ πεποίηκεν ἕνα τινὰ καὶ ὡνόµασεν αὐτὸν λόγον καὶ σοφίαν καὶ υἱόν, ἵνα ἡµᾶς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ δηµιουργήσῃ. Ep. Arii ad Euseb.: Πρὶν γενηθῇ ἤτοι κτισθῇ ἤτοι ὁρισθῇ ἤ θεµελιωθῇ, οὐκ ἦν, ἀγένητος γὰρ οὐκ ἦν. Since the Son is neither a part of the Father nor ἐξ ὑποκειµένου τινός, he must be ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων; θελήµατι καὶ βουλῇ ὑπέστη πρὸ χρόνων καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων ὁ υἱός. Ep. Arii ad Alex: . . . γεννήσαντα υἱὸν µονογενῆ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνών, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ τὰ ὅλα πεποίηκε . . . κτίσµα τοῦ Θεοῦ τέλειον . . . θελήµατι τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸ χρόνων καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων κτίσθέντα, καὶ τὸ ζῆν καὶ τὸ εἶναι παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς εἰληφότα καὶ τὰς δόξας συνυποστήσαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ πατρὸς. Οὐ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ δοὺς

17

(d) As regards his Substance, the “Son” is consequently an unrelated and independent being totally separated from, and different from, the substance or nature of the Father. He has neither one and the same substance together with the Father, nor a nature and constitution similar to that of the Father. If he had, then there would be two Gods. On the contrary, like all rational creatures he has a free will and is capable of change. He might consequently have been good or bad; but he made up his mind to follow the good, and continued in the good without vacillation. Thus he has by means of his own will come to be unchangeable.46 αὐτῳ πάντων τὴν κληρονοµίαν ἐστέρησεν ἑαυτὸν ὧν ἀγεννήτως ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ. πηγὴ γὰρ ἐστι πάντων, ὥστε τρεῖς εἰσιν ὑποστάσεις . . . Ὁ υἱὸς ἀχρόνως γεννηθεὶς οὐκ ἦν πρὸ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐστιν ἀΐδιος ἤ συναΐδιος ἤ συναγένητος τῷ πατρὶ οὐδὲ ἅµα τῷ πατρὶ τὸ εἶναι ἔχει . . . Ἀρχὴ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ὁ Θεός, ἀρχεῖ γὰρ αὐτοῦ ὡς Θεὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ πρὸ αὐτοῦ ὥν. Ep. Euseb. ad Paulin.: κτιστὸν εἶναι καὶ θεµελιωτὸν καὶ γενητὸν τῇ οὐσίᾳ, according to Proverbs 8: . . . Οὐδέν ἐστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, πάντα δὲ βουλήµατι αὐτοῦ γενόµενα. Ep. Euseb. Nic. ad Arium.: τὸ πεποιγµένον οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γενέσθαι, τὸ γενόµενον δε ἀρχὴν ἔχει τοῦ εἶναι. Athan. Nazarb., ep. ad. Alex.: “Why do you blame the Arians because they say that the Son κτίσ 564 α πεποιήται ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων καὶ ἕν τῶν πάντων ἐστίν? We are to understand by the hundred sheep of the parable all created beings, and thus the Son too is included.” Georg. Laod. ep. ad. Alex.: “Don't blame the Arians because they say ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, Isaiah too came later than his father.” Georg. Laod. ep. ad. Arianos. “Don't be afraid to allow that the Son is from the Father; for the Apostle says that all things are from God, although it is certain that all things are ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων.” Thalia (de synod. 15): ἡ µόνας ἦν, ἡ δυὰς δὲ οὐκ ἦν πρὶν ὑπάρξει. Arius for the rest seems to have considered the creation of this “Son” as simply a necessity, because God could not create directly, but required an intermediate power. 46 Ep. Euseb. ad Paulin.: Ἕν τὸ ἀγένητον, ἓν δὲ τὸ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀληθῶς καὶ οὐκ ἐκ τῆς οὐσ 564 ίας αὐτοῦ γεγονός, καθόλου τῆς φύσεως τῆς ἀγενήτου µὴ µετέχον, ἀλλὰ γεγονὸς ὁλοχερῶς ἕτερον τῇ φύσει κ. τῇ δυνάµει.. The ταυτότης τῆς φύσεως is rejected. Ep. Arii ad Alex.: υἱὸν ὑποστήσαντα ἰδίῳ θελήµατι ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον. Who says, therefore, that the Son is in everything like the Father introduces two “αγέννητοι.” Thalia: τῇ µὲν φύσει ὥσπερ πάντες οὕτω δὲ αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος ἐστὶ τρεπτός, τῷ δὲ ἰδίῳ αὐτεξουσίῳ, ἕως βούλεται, µένει καλός· ὅτε µέν τοι θέλει δύναται τρέπεσθαι καὶ αὐτὸς ὥσπερ καὶ ἥµεῖς, τρεπτῆς ὤν φύσεως . . . As all things so far as their substance is concerned are unrelated to God and unlike Him, so too is the Logos ἀλλότριος καὶ ἀνόµοιος κατὰ πάντα τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας καὶ ἰδιότητος. Μεµερισµέναι τῇ φύσει καὶ ἀπεξενωµέναι καὶ ἀπεσχοινισµέναι καὶ ἀλλότριοι καὶ ἀµέτοχοὍ 564 εἰσιν ἀλλήλων αἱ οὐσίαι τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος; they are even ἀνόµοιοι πάµπαν ἀλλήλων ταῖς τε οὐσίαις καὶ δόξαις ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον. τὸν γοῦν λόγον φησὶν εἰς ὁµοιότητα δόξης καὶ οὐσίας ἀλλότριον εἶναι

18

(e) Since the Son is, as regards his substance, unrelated to the Godhead, 579 1 he is not truly God, and accordingly has not by nature the divine attributes; he is only the so-called Logos and Wisdom. As he is not eternal, neither is his knowledge in any sense perfect; he has no absolute knowledge of God, but only a relative knowledge, in fact he does not even know his own substance perfectly, accordingly he cannot claim equal honour with the Father.47 (f) Still the Son is not a creature and a product like other creatures; he is the perfect creature, κτίσµα τέλειον; by him everything has been created; he stands in a special relation to God, but this is solely conditioned by grace and adoption; the bestowal of grace on the other hand, is based on the steadfast inclination of this free being to the good which was foreseen 19by God. Through God’s bestowal of grace and by his own steady 564 progress he

πολυτελῶς ἑκατέρων τοῦ τε πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος. ὁ υἱὸς διῃρηµένος ἐστὶν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀµέτοχος κατὰ πάντα τοῦ πατρὸς. Thalia (de Synod. 15): Ἄρρητος Θεὸς ἶσον οὐδὲ ὅµοιον οὐχ ὁµόδοξον ἔχει. ὁ υἱὸς ἴδιον οὐδεν ἔχει τοῦ Θεοῦ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐστιν ἶσος ἀλλ᾽ οὐδε ὁµοούσιος αυτῷ. The Triad is not of ὁµοίαις δόξαις: ἀνεπίµικτα ἑαυταῖς εἰσιν αἱ ὑποστάσεις αὐτῶν, µία τῆς µιᾶς ἐνδοξότερα δόξαις ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον. Ξένος τοῦ υἱοῦ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ὁ πατήρ, ὅτι ἄναρχος ὑ 564 πάρχει. According to the letter of Eusebius to Paulinus it looks as if Eusebius held the unchangeableness of the Son to belong to his substance; he probably, however, only means that it had come to be his substance. At a later date many Arians must have attributed to the Son an original unchangeableness as a gift of the Father, for Philostorgius mentions as a peculiarity of the Arian bishop Theodosius that he taught (VIII. 3): ὁ Χριστὸς τρεπτὸς µὲν τῇ γε φύσει τῇ οἰκείᾳ. 47 Because of this sundering of the Father and the Son the Arians at a later date are also called “Diatomites” (Joh. Damasc. in Cotellier, Eccl. Gr. monum. I., p. 298). 48 Thalia (Orat. c. Arian 564 I. 6): οὐδὲ Θεὸς ἀληθινός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος. He is only called God, but he is not truly God, καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ὁ πατὴρ ἀόρατος ὑπάρχει καὶ οὔτε ὁρᾶν οὔτε γιγνώσκειν τελείως καὶ ἀκριβῶς δύναται ὁ λόγος τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὃ γιγνώσκει καὶ ὃ βλέπει ἀναλόγως τοῖς ἰδίοις µέτροις οἶδε καὶ βλέπει, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡµεῖς γιγνώσκοµεν κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν δύναµιν. Ὁ υἱὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ οὐσίαν οὐκ οἶδε. Euseb. Cæs. ep. ad Euphrat.: Χριστὸς οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθινὸς Θεός. The conviction that the Son is not truly God, and that all lofty predicates attach to him only in a nuncupative sense, that he does not know the Father, is very strongly expressed in the fragment of the Thalia de synod. 15.

has become God, so that we may now call him “only-begotten God”, “strong God” and so on.49 (g) All that Scripture and tradition assert in reference to the incarnation and the humanity of this being holds good; he truly took a human body (σῶµα ἄψυχον); the feelings shewn by the historical Christ teach us that the Logos to whom they attach—for Christ had not a human soul—is a being capable of suffering, not an absolutely perfect being, but one who attains by effort absolute perfection.50 (h) Amongst the number of created powers (δυνάµεις) the Holy Ghost is to be placed beside the Son as a second, independent Subst 54d ance or Hypostasis, (οὐσία, ὑπόστασις); for the Christian believes in three separate and different substances or persons, (οὐσίαι, ὑποστάσεις); Father, Son and Spirit. Arius apparently, like his followers, considered the Spirit as a being created by the Son and subordinate to him.51

49

Arii Ep. ad Eus 564 eb.: πλήρης Θεὸς µονογενῆς, ἀναλλοίωτος (in virtue of his will). Arii ep. ad Alex.: υἱὸν µονογενῆ . . . κτίσµα τοῦ Θεοῦ τέλειον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς ἕν τῶν κτισµάτων, γέννηµα, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς ἕν τῶν γεννηµάτων . . . Πατὴρ δοὺς αὐτῷ πάντων τὴν κληρονοµίαν . . . Ὁ υἱὸς µόνος ὑπὸ µόνου τοῦ πατρὸς ὑπέστη. Thalia: τὸν υἱὸν ἐν ταύτῇ τῇ σοφίᾳ γεγενῆσθαι ναὶ ταύτης µετέχοντα ὡνοµάσθαι µόνον σοφίαν καὶ λόγον . . . ∆ιὰ τοῦτο καὶ προγιγνώσκων ὁ Θεὸς ἔσεσθαι καλὸν αὐτόν, προλαβὼν αὐτῷ ταύτην τὴν δόξαν δέδωκεν, ἣν ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἔσχε µετὰ ταῦτα· ὥστε ἐξ ἔργων αὐτοῦ, ὧν προέγνω ὁ Θεός, τοιοῦτον αὐτὸν νῦν γεγονέναι πεποίνκε . . . Μετοχῇ χάριτος ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πάντες οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸς λέγεται ὀνόµατι µόνον Θεός . . . Θεὸς ἔν 564 εγκεν εἰς υἱὸν ἑαυτῷ τόνδε τεκνοποιήσας· ἴδιον οὐδὲν ἔχει τοῦ Θεοῦ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος . . . The Son is Wisdom, Image, Reflection, Word; God cannot produce a greater than He; Θεοῦ θελήσει ὁ υἱὸς ἡλίκος καὶ ὅσος ἐστίν, ἐξ ὅτε καὶ ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ ἀπὸ τότε ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπέστη, ἰσχυρός Θεὸς ὤν, but he extols the greater Father. Arius ap. Athan. Orat. I. c. Arian. 9: µετοχῇ καὶ αὐτὸς εθεοποιήθη. It is evident from Alexander’s letter to Alexander that Arius strongly emphasised the προκοπή, the moral progress of the Son. 50 Owing to the general uncertainty regarding the extent of the “humanity” which prevailed at the beginning of the controversy, the latter assertion of the Arians was not so energetically combatted as the rest. That the limitation of the humanity of Christ to a body ori 55e ginated with Lucian, is asserted by Epiph. Ancorat. 33. 51 In the writings of Arius οὐσία and ὑπόστασις are used as synonymous terms. The impersonal Spirit (Logos, Wisdom) indwelling in God the Father as Power, was naturally considered by the Arians to be higher than the Son. On this point they appeal like the old Roman Adoptianists to Matt. XII. 31 (see Vol. III., p. 20 ff.). It is indeed not even certain whether Arius and the older Arians when they speak of a Trinity, always included the Holy Spirit. According to Athanasius de synod. 15, we may conclude that their Trinity

20

Alexander expressly notes that the Arians appeal to Scripture in support of their doctrine, and Athanasius says that the Thalia contained passages of Scripture.52 The passages so frequently cited later on by the Arians; Deut. VI. 4, 52c XXXII. 39; Prov. VIII. 22; Ps. XLV. 8; Mt. XII. 28; Mk. XIII. 32; Mt. XXVI. 41, XXVIII. 18; Lk. II. 52, XVIII. 19; John XI. 34, 59e XIV. 28, XVII. 3; Acts II. 36; 1 Cor. I. 24, XV. 28; Col. I. 15; Philipp. II. 6 f.; Hebr. I. 4, III. 2; John XII. 27, XIII. 21; 579 Mt. XXVI. 39, XXVII. 46, etc., will thus already have been used by Arius himself. Arius was not a systematiser, nor were his friends systematisers either. In this respect their literary activity was limited to letters in which they stirred each other up, and which were soon put together in a collected form. The only one amongst them before Eunomius and Aëtius who undertook to give a systematic defence of the doctrinal system, was the Sophist Asterius, called by Athanasius the advocate (συνήγορος) of the sects. He was a clever, clear-headed man, but he was quite unable to wipe out what was in everybody’s eyes the blot on his character, his denial of the Faith during the time of persecution.53 There were various shades of 21opinion amongst the followers and supporters of Arius. In Arianism in its 549 more rigid form the tradition of Paul of Samosata and Lucian predominated, in its milder form the subordination doctrine of Origen. Both types were indeed at one as regards the form of

consisted of the following hypostases: (1) God as primordial without the Son; (2) God as Father; (3) the Son. Still this is not certain. 52 56a Orat. I. c. Arian. 8. 53 On Asterius see Athan., Orat. c. Arian. I. 30-33; II. 37; III. 2, 60; de decret. syn. Nic. 8, 28-31; de synod. 18, 19, 47. Epiphan. H. 76, 3; Socrat. I. 36; Philostorg. II. 14, 15; Hieron. de vir. inl. 94. Marcellus of Ancyra wrote against the principal work of Asterius, see Zahn, p. 41 ff. Athanasius attacked a συνταγµάτιον of his. One of the main theses of this book was that there are two ἀγένητα. Asterius also discussed 1 Cor. I. 24, and indeed he took the correct view. His explanation too of the passage John XIV. 10, is worthy of note: εὔδηλον ὅτι διὰ τοῦτο εἴρηκεν ἑαυτὸν µὲν ἐν τῷ πατρὶ, ἐν ἑαυτῷ δὲ πάλιν τὸν πατέρα, ἐπεὶ µήτε τὸν λόγου, ὅν διεξήρχετο, ἑαυτοῦ φησιν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τοῦ πατρὸς δεδωκότος τὴν δύναµιν. Upon this passage Athanasius remarks (Orat. III. 2) that only a child could be pardone 53c d such an explanation. It is a point of great importance that Asterius, like Paul of Samosata, reckoned the will as the highest thing. Accordingly, to create of His free will is more worthy of God too than to beget (l. c. III. 60). Athanasius says that Arius himself made use of the work of Asterius, and in this connection he gives us the important statement of Asterius (de decret. 8) that created things are not able τῆς ἀκράτου χειρὸς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου ἐργασίαν βαστάξαι, and that on account of this the creation of the Son as an intermediary was necessary. (See Orat. c. Arian II. 24.)

doctrine, and the elements traceable to Origen won over all enlightened “Conservatives”. We may count Asterius too amongst. the latter, at all events the unbending Philostorgius was not at all pleased with him, and Asterius subsequently approached near to the Semiarians. Previous to the Council of Nicæa, the letters of the bishop Alexander are, for us at all events, the sole literary manifestos of the opposite party. The Encyklica already shews that the writer is fully conscious he has got to do with a heresy of the very worst type. The earlier heresies all pale before it; no other heretic has approached so near to being Antichrist. Arius and his friends are the enemies of God, murderers of the divinity of Christ, people like Judas. Alexander did not enter into theoretical and theological explanations. After giving a brief but complete and excellent account of the Logos doctrine of Arius, he sets in contrast with the statements contained in it, numerous passages from the Gospel of John and other quotations from Scripture. ecb 1 The sole remarks of a positive kind he makes are that it belongs to the substance or essence of the Logos, that he perfectly knows the Father, and that the supposition of a time in which the Logos was not, makes the Father ἄλογος καὶ ἄσοφος. The latter remark, which for that matter of it does not touch Arius, shews that Alexander included the Logos or Son in the substance of the Father as a necessary element. The second epistle goes much more into details,54 but it shews at the same time how little Alexander, in solving the 22problem, was able definitely to oppose fixed and finished formulæ to those of the Arians. The main positions of Arius are once more pertinently characterised and refuted. Alexander is conscious that he is contending for nothing less than the divinity of Christ, the universal Faith of the Church, when he refutes the statements that the Son is not eternal, that He was created out of the non-existent, that He is not by nature (φύσει) God, that He is capable of change, that He went through a moral development (προκοπή), that He is only Son by adoption, like the

54

John I. 1, 13, 18, X. 15, 30, XIV. 9, 10; Hebr. I. 3, II. 10, X1II. 8; Ps. XLV. 2; CX. 3; Mal. III. 6. The passages continued to be regarded by the orthodox as the most important. 58c 55 Theodoret I. 4. Exaggerations and calumnies of the worst kind are not wanting in this writing. The reproach, too, that the Arians acted like the Jews is already found here. Of more importance, however, is the assertion that the Arian christology gave countenance to the heathen ideas of Christ and that the Arians had also in view the approval of the heathen. Ebion, Artemas (see Athanas., de synod. 20) and Paul are designated their Fathers.

sons of God in general, and so on.56 He not only adduces proofs from the Bible in large numbers,57 he has unmistakably in his mind what is for him a central, religious thought. Christ must belong to God and not to the world, because all other creatures require such a being in order to attain to God and become the adopted sons of God. In order to make clear the possibility of such a being, Alexander uses by preference for the Son the expression which had been already preferred by Origen—“the perfect image,” “the perfect reflection.” But even this expression does not suffice him; it gains deeper meaning by the thought that the Son as the image of the Father at the same time first clearly expresses the peculiar character of the Father. In the Wisdom, the Logos, the Power, the “Son is made known and the Father is characterised. To say that the reflection of the divine glory does not exist is to do away also with the archetypal light of which it is the reflection; if there exists no impress or pattern of the substance of God, then he too is done away with who is wholly characterised by this pattern or express image:”—γνωρίζεται ὁ υἱὸς καὶ ὁ πατὴρ χαρακτηρίζεται. Τὸ γὰρ ἀπαυγάσµα τῆς δόξης µὴ εἶναι λέγειν συναναιρεῖ καὶ τὸ πρωτότυπον φῶς, οὗ ἐ 6e0 στιν ἀπαύγασµα . . . τῷ µὴ εἶναι τὸν τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ 23Θεοῦ χαρακτῆρα συναναιρεῖται κᾳκεῖνος, ὁ πάντως παῤ αὐτοῦ χαρακτηριζόµενος. While in laying down this thesis and others of a similar kind, e.g., that the Son is the inner reason and power of the Father Himself, he approaches “Sabellianism,” the latter doctrine is repudiated in the most decided and emphatic way. But on the other hand again, not only is the supposition of two unbegottens (αγεν[ν]ητα) rejected as a calumny, but he repeatedly emphasises in a striking fashion the fact that the begetting of the Son is not excluded by the application to Him of the predicate always (ἀεὶ), that the Father alone is unbegotten, and that He is greater than the Son.58 Alexander thus

56

The two last theses are rejected in a specially emphatic manner. Alexander repeatedly complains in this connection of the procedure of Arius in taking from the Holy Scriptures only such passages as have reference to the humiliation of the Logos for our sakes, and then referring them to the substance of the Logos. “They omit the passages which treat of the divinity of the Son. Thus they arrive at the impious supposition that Paul and Peter would have been like Christ if they had always pers ac8 isted in the good.” 57 John I. 1-3, I. 18, X. 30, XIV. 8, 9, 28; Matt. III. 17, XI. 27; 1 John V. 1; Coloss. I. 15, 16; Rom. VIII. 32; Heb. I. 2 f.; Prov. VIII. 30; Ps. II. 7, CX. 3, XXXV. 10; Is. LIII. 8. 58 From this it is plainly evident that the real point in dispute was not as to subordination and coordination, but as to unity of substance and difference of substance. That the archetype is greater than the type is for Alexander a truth that is beyond doubt. He goes still farther and says: οὐκοῦν τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ πατρὶ οἰκεῖον ἀξίωµα φυλακτέον,

asserts both things—namely, the inseparable unity of the substance of the Son with that of the Father59 and their difference, and yet the one is held to be unbegotten and the other to be not unbegotten. In order 557 to be able to maintain these contradictory theses he takes up the standpoint of Irenæus, that the mystery of the existence and coming forth of the Son is an inexpressible one even for Evangelists and angels, and is no proper object of human reflection and human statement. Even John did not venture to make any pronouncement regarding the ἀνεκδιήγητος ὑπόστασις τοῦ µονογενοῦς Θεοῦ,60—the ineffable substance of the only begotten God. “How could anyone waste his labour on the substance of the Logos of God, unless indeed he were afflicted with melancholy?” Πῶς ἄν περιεργάσαιτό τις τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου ὑπόστασιν, ἐκτὸς εἰ µὴ µελαγχολικῇ διαθέσει ληφθεὶ τυγχάνοι.61 24Alexander’s actual standpoint is undoubtedly plainly expressed here. He does not wish to speculate; for the complete divinity of Christ is for him not a speculation at all, but a judgment of faith, and the distinction between Father and Son is for him something beyond doubt. But he sees that he is under the necessity of opposing certain formula to the doctrine of Arius. These are partly vague and partly contradictory:62 “The Son is the inner reason and power of God,” “Father and Son are two inseparable things” (δύο ἀχώριστα πράγµατα), “Between Father and Son there is not the slightest difference” (διάστηµα), “not even in any thought” (οὐδ᾽ ἄχρι τινὸς ἐννοίας), “There is only one unbegotten,” “The Son has come into being in consequence of a 57a γένεσις καὶ ποίησις” (an act of generation and production), “The Son has, compared with the world, an ineffable substance peculiarly his own” (ἰδιότροπος ἀνεκδιήγητος ὑπόστασις), “He is µονογενὴς Θεὸς” (only begotten God), “His Sonship is by its nature in possession of the deity of the

µηδένα τοῦ εἶναι αὐτῷ τὸν αἴτιον λέγοντας, τῷ δὲ υἱῷ τὴν ἁρµόζουσαν τιµὴν ἀπονεµητέον, τὴν ἄναρχον αὐτῷ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς γέννησιν ἀνατιθέντας. 59 The expression “ὁµοούσιος” does not occur in Alexander. 60 On this expression, which was used by Arius, see Hort, Two Dissertations, 1876. 61 The respective passages in the letter have so many points of contact with e 564 xpressions of Irenæus (see Vol. II., pp. 230 f., 276 f.) as to make the supposition, which also commends itself for other reasons, very probable (see above, p. 54, note 1), that Alexander had read Irenæus and had been strongly influenced by him. That Irenæus was known in Alexandria, at least at the beginning of the third century, follows from Euseb., H. E. VI. 14. (Strange to say it has undoubtedly not been proved that Athanasius ever quotes from Irenæus.) Alexander shews that he is not throughout dependent on Origen. 62 Alexander made no distinction between οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, φύσις.

Father” (κατὰ φύσιν τυγχάνουσα τῆς πατρικὴς θεότητος),63 “Father and Son are two natures in the hypostasis” (τῃ ὑποστάσει δύο φύσεις64), between the Underive 564 d and he who has come into being out of the non-existent there is a µεσιτεύουσα φύσις µονογενής (the Son) δι᾽ ἦς τὰ ὅλα ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου, ἢ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντος πατρὸς γεγέννηται,” (a mediating only begotten nature by which the Father of the GodLogos has made all things out of the non-existent, and which has been begotten out of the existent Father), “The Son has not proceeded out of the Father κατὰ τὰς τῶν σωµάτων ὁµοιότητας, ταῖς τοµαῖς ἤ ταῖς ἐκδιαιρέσεων ἀπορροίαις (in the manner in which bodies are formed, by separation or by the emanation of parts divided off);” 25still we may speak of a fatherly generation! (πατρικὴ θεογονία) which certainly is beyond the power of human reason to grasp.” “The expressions ἦν, ἀεὶ, etc., (was, always), used of the So 538 n, are undoubtedly too weak, but on the other hand, they are not to be conceived so as to suggest that the Son is unbegotten (ἀγέννητος); the unbeginning genesis from the Father (ἄναρχος γέννησις παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς) is his,—“the Father is greater than the Son, to Him honour in the strict sense (οἰκεῖον ἀξίωµα) is due, to the Son the dignity that is fitting (τιµὴ ἁρµόζουσα).”65 These confused thoughts and formulæ contrast unfavourably with the clear and definitely expressed statements of Arius. Alexander’s opponents had a better right to complain of the chameleon-like form of this teaching than he had of that of theirs. When they maintained that it offered no security against dualism

63

Ὅν τρόπον γὰρ ἡ ἄρρητος αὐτοῦ ὑπόστασις ἀσυγκρίτῳ Ὅ ac8 περοχῇ ἐδείχθη ὑπερκειµένη πάντων οἷς αὐτὸς τὸ εἶναι ἐχαρίσατο, οὕτως καὶ ἡ υἱότης αὐτοῦ κατὰ φύσιν τυγχάνουσα τῆς πατρικῆς θεότητος ἀλέκτῳ ὑπεροχῇ διαφέρει τῶν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ θέσει υἱοτεθέντων. 64 On John X. 30: ὅπερ φησὶν ὁ κύριος οὐ πατέρα ἑαυτὸν ἀναγορεύων οὐδὲ τὰς τῇ ὑποστάσει δύο φύσεις µίαν εἶναι σαφηνιζων, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι τὴν πατρικὴν ἐµφέρειαν ἀκριβῶς πέφυκεν σώζειν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ πατρός, τὴν κατὰ πάντα ὁµοιότητα αὐτοῦ ἐκ φύσεως ἀποµαξάµενος καὶ ἀπαράλλακτος εἰκὼν τοῦ πατρὸς τυγχάνων καὶ τοῦ πρωτοτύτου ἔκτυπος χαρακτήρ. 65 In the Confession of Faith which Alexander had put at the close of his letter, the Spirit, the Church, and so on, are mentioned. According to Alexander, too, the Logos got only a body from Mary, who, for the rest, is called θεοτόκος (see Athan. Orat. III. 29, 33). Möhler and Newman (Hist. Treatises, p. 297) consider Athanasius as the real author of Alexander’s encyclical epistle. Their arguments, however, are not convincing.

(two unbegotten, [ 590 ἀγένητα]),66 or against Gnostic emanationism (προβολή, ἀπόρροια), or against Sabellianism (ὑιοπάτωρ), or against the idea of the corporeality of God, and that it contained flagrant contradictions,67 they were not far wrong. But they cannot have been in the dark as to what their opponents meant to assert, which was nothing else than the inseparable, essential unity of Father and Son, the complete divinity of Christ who has redeemed us and whom every creature must necessarily have as redeemer. Along with this they taught a real distinction between Father and Son, though they could assert this distinction only as a mystery, and when they were driven to describe it, had recourse to formulæ which were easily 54d refuted. 26

We may at this point give an account of the doctrine of Athanasius; for although it was not till after the Nicene Council that he took part in the controversy as an author,68 still his point of view coincides essentially with that of Bishop Alexander. It underwent no development, and considered from the stand-point of technical theology it partly labours under the same difficulties as that of Alexander. Its significance does not lie in the nature of his scientific defence of the faith, but solely in the triumphant tenacity of the faith itself. His character and his life are accordingly the main thing. The works he composed, like all the theological formulae he uses, were wrung out of him. The entire Faith, everything in defence of which Athanasius staked his life, is described in the one sentence: God Himself has entered into humanity.69

66

Hence the reproach so frequently brought against this doctrine, that according to it Father and Son are “brothers”; see, e.g., Orat. c. Arian I. 14. Paul of Samosata had already brought this reproach against all the adherents of the Logos doctrine. The Arians sought to make a reductio 549 ad absurdum of the doctrine that the Son is the perfect image of the Father, by pointing out that in this case the Son too must beget as well as the Father (Or. c. Arian. I. 21). 67 See some of those adduced by them in Orat. c. Arian. I. 22: they are said to have pointed them out to children and women. 68 That he took an active interest in the Nicene Council is undoubted; see Theodoret I. 26, Sozom, I. 17 fin., but, above all, Apol. Athan. c. Arian. 6 and the work “de decretis.” The Arians drew special attention to the influence exercised by Athanasius, when deacon, on his bishop Alexander, and Athanasius did not contradict their statements; see also Gregor Naz. Orat. 21, 14. 69 His chief works against the Arians are the four Orationes c. Arian—his most comprehensive work, containing mainly his refutation of the Arian Bible exegesis; the fourth Oration is, however, either merely a sketch, or else it is not in its proper place along with the others; further, the treatises de decret. Nic. synodi, de sentent. Dionys.

The theology and christology of Athanasius are rooted in the thought of Redemption, and his views were not influenced by any subordinate considerations.70 Neither heathenism nor Judaism has brought men into fellowship with God, the point on which everything turns. It is through Christ that we are transported into this fellowship; He has come in order to make 27us divine, i e., to make us by adoption the sons of God and gods. But Christ would not have been able to bring us this blessing if He Himself had possessed it merely as a gift secundum participationem, for in this case He only had just as much as He needed Himself and so could not proceed to give away what was not His own.71 546 Therefore Christ must be of the substance of the Godhead and be one with it. Whoever denies that is not a Christian, but is either a heathen or a Jew.72 This is the fundamental thought which Athanasius constantly repeats. Everything else is secondary, is of the nature of necessary controversy. In the Son we have the Father; whoever

Alex., historia Arian. ad monachos, apologia c. Arian., apologia ad imp. Constantium, de synodis Arimini et Seleuciæ habitis, the Tomus ad Antioch., and in addition the festivalorations and some lengthy letters, e.g., that ad Afros episcopos. 70 To prove this it would be necessary to quote hundreds of passages. In none of his larger works has Athanasius omitted to base his anti-Arian christology on the thought of redemption, and wherever he gives this as the basis one feels that he is adducing what is his most telling argument. The manner too in which he was able, starting from this as the central point of his whole view of the subject, to justify what were purely derivative formulæ by referring them back to it, is well worthy of notice; cf. the Orat. c. Arian., espec. II. 67-70. The fact that his knowledge of scientific theology was slender is hinted at by Gregor Naz., Orat. 21. 6. 71 Specially striking is what he says de synod. 51: Christ could not make others gods if He himself had, to begin with, been made God; if He possessed His god-head merely as something bestowed upon Him, He could not bestow it, for it would not be in His own power, and He would not have more than He needed Himself. Similarly Orat. I. 39, I. 30: Οὐκ ἄρα καταβὰς ἐβελτιώθη ἀλλὰ µᾶλλον ἐβελτίωσεν αὐτὸς τὰ δεόµενα βελτιώσεως· καὶ εἰ τοῦ βελτιῶσαι χάριν καταβέβηκεν, οὐκ ἄρα µισθὸν ἔσχε τὸ λέγεσθαι, υἱὸς καὶ Θεός, ἀλλὰ µᾶλλον αὐτὸς υἱοποίησεν ἡµᾶς τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἐθεοποίησε τοὺς ἀνθρώπους γενόµενος αὐτὸς ἄνθρωπος. Οὐκ ἄρα ἄνθρωπος ὢν ὕστερον γέγονε Θεός, ἀλλὰ Θεὸς ὢν ὕστερον γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, ἵνα µᾶλλον ἡµᾶς θεοποιήσῃ. II. 69, I. 16: αὐτοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ µετέχοντες τοῦ Θεοῦ µετέχειν λεγόµεθα, καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ὃ ἔλεγεν ὁ Πέτρος ἵνα γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως. 189 72 The frequent designation of the Arians as Jews and heathen, and together with this the designation “Ariomanites,” were employed by Athanasius in a really serious sense; see de decret. 1-4, 27; Encycl. ad. ep. “Ægypt. et Lib. 13, 14; Orat. ac8 I. 38, II. 16, 17, III, 16, 27 sq. “Abomination of the impious” XI. Festbrief, p. 122 (Larsow).

knows the Son knows the Father.73 This confession is at bottom the entire Christian confession. The adoration of Christ, which according to tradition, has been practised from the first, and which has not been objected to by their opponents, already, he says, decides the whole question. God alone is to be adored; it is heathenish to worship creatures.74 Christ therefore shares in the divine 28substance. Athanasius did not draft any system of theology or christology. The real point at issue appeared to him to be quite simple and certain. We have to put together his doctrinal system for ourselves, and the attempts to construct such a system for him is not something to be entered upon lightly. A body of theoretical propositions resulted solely from the polemic in which he was engaged and also from his defence of the “Ὁµοούσιος.” Throughout, however, his thought in the final resort centres not in the Logos as such,75 but in the Divine, which had appeared in Jesus Christ. He has no longer any independent Logos doctrine, on the contrary he is a Christologist. We accordingly give merely some of the main lines of his teaching.

73

Orat. I. 12: To the demand of Philip, “Shew us the Father,” Christ did not reply: (βλέπε τὴν κτίσιν, but “He who sees me, sees the Father.” Orat. I. 16: τοῦ υἱοῦ µετέχοντες τοῦ Θεοῦ µετέχειν λεγόµεθα . . . ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἔννοια καὶ κατάληψις γνῶσίς ἐστι περὶ τοῦ πατρός, διὰ τὸ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ ἰδίον εἶναι γέννηµα. I. 21. 74 This is a point which is very frequently emphasised; see Orat. I. 10, II. 20, 24, but chiefly III. 16: ∆ιατί οὖν οἱ Ἀρειανοὶ τοιαῦτα λογιζόµενοι καὶ νοοῦντες οὐ συναριθµοῦσιν ἑαυτοὺς µετὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων; καὶ γὰρ κᾳκεῖνοι, ὥσπερ καὶ οὖτοι, τῇ κτίσει λατρεύουσι παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα τὰ πάντα Θεόν· ἀλλὰ τὸ µὲν ὄνοµα τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν φεύγουσι, διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀνοήτων ἀπάτην, τὴν δὲ ὁµοίαν ἐκείνοις διάνοιαν ὑποκρίνονται. καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὸ σοφὸν αὐτῶν, ὅπερ εἰώθασιν λέγειν, οὐ λέγοµεν δύο ἀγέννητα, φαίνονται πρὸς ἀπάτην τῶν ἀκεραίων λέγοντες· φάσκοντες γὰρ· “οὐ λέγοµεν δύο ἀγέννητα,” λέγουσι δύο Θεοὺς καὶ τούτους διαφόρους ἔχοντας τὰς φύσεις, τὸ µὲν γενητήν, τὸ δὲ ἀγένητοι. Εἰ δὲ οἱ µὲν Ἕλληνες ἑνὶ ἀγενήτῳ καὶ πολλοῖς γενητοῖς λατρεύουσιν. οὗτοι δὲ ἑνὶ ἀγενήτῳ καὶ ἑνὶ γενητῷ, οὐδ᾽ οὕτω διαφέρουσιν Ἑλ 564 ήνων. This was the view of it which was still held at a later period also. The expression in the Vita Euthymii (Cotel. Monum. II., p. 201) C. 2, is full of meaning: Τοῦ Ἑλληνισµοῦ λήξαντος ὁ τοῦ Ἀρειανισµοῦ πόλεµος ἰσχυρῶς ἐκράτει. 75 It is very characteristic of Athanasius’ way of looking at things that with him the Logos in general retires into the background, and further that he expressly declines to recognise or to define the divine in Christ from the point of view of his relation to the world or in terms of the predicate of the eternal. Image, Reflection and Son are the designations which he regards as most appropriate. See, e.g., Orat. III. 28: οὐ τοσοῦτον ἐκ τοῦ ἀϊδίου γνωρίζεται κύριος, ὅσον ὅτι υἱός ἐστι τοῦ Θεοῦ· υἱὸς γὰρ ὤν ἀχώριστός ἐστι τοῦ πατρός . . . καὶ εἰκὼν καὶ ἀπαύγασµα ὢν τοῦ πατρὍ ac8 ς ἔχει καὶ τὴν ἀϊδιότητα τοῦ πατρός.

1. To acknowledge that the substantial or essential element in Christ is “God,” is to assert that there is nothing of the creature in this, that it does n 564 ot therefore belong in any sense to what has been created. Athanasius insisted as confidently as Arius on the gulf which exists between created and uncreated. This constitutes the advance made by both in clearness.76 Arius, however, drew the dividing line in such a way that with him 29the Son belongs to the world side, while with Athanasius He, as belonging to God, stands over against the world. 2. Since the Divine, which has appeared in Christ, is not anything created, and since there can be no “middle” substance,77 it follows, according to the reasoning of Athanasius, that this Divine cannot in any sense be postulated as resulting from the idea of the creation of the world. God did not require any agent for the creation of the world; He creates direct. If He had required any such intervening agent in 564 order to effect a connection with the creature that was to come into existence, this Divine could not have supplied Him with it, for it itself really belongs to His substance. In this way the idea of the Divine, which in Christ redeemed men, is severed from the world idea;78 the old Logos doctrine is discarded; Nature and Revelation no longer continue to be regarded as identical. The Logos-Son-Christ is at bottom no

76

Beyond Origen and the Origenists, who, though they too certainly make a sharp distinction between the Godhead and the creation, attribute with Philo an intermediate position to the Logos. The Eusebians held fast to this, and that is why Athanasius always treats them as Arians; for in connection with this main point the maxim in his opinion held good “Whosover is not with us is against us.” See Orat. IV. 6, 7; Encycl. ad ep. Ægypt, et Lib. 20; de decret. 6, 19, 20; ad Afros 5, 6, and the parallel section in the work “de synodis.” 77 Orat. I. 15: If the Son is Son then that wherein He shares is not outside of the substance of the Father: τοῦτο δὲ πάλιν ἐὰν ἕτερον ᾖ παρὰ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ ἶσον ἄτοπον ἀπαντήσει, µέσου πάλιν εὑρισκοµένου τούτου ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ υἱοῦ, ἥτις ποτέ ἐστι. In putting it thus Athanasius corrected not only an incautious expression of Bishop Alexander (see above p. 24 f.), but very specially the thesis of the Origenists of “The image and reflection which sprang from and was created out of the will” (see e.g., Euseb. Demonstr. IV. 3). But Arius himself, spite of all his efforts to avoid it, also arrived at the idea of a “middle substance” between the Godhead and the creature, because according to him God had necessarily to make use of such a being in order to be able to create at all. 78 In contrast to this it holds good of the Arians that τὸν δηµιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων τοῖς ποιήµασι συναριθµήσωσι (Or 564 at. I. c. Arian. T. I., p. 342).

longer a world principle, but, on the contrary, a salvation principle.79 30

3. Scripture and tradition know of only one Godhead; they, however, at the same time pronounce Christ to be God: they call

79

It is this which constitutes the most significant advance made by Athanasius, the real fruit of his speculation which took its start from the thought of redemption. The Logos of the philosophers was no longer the logos whom he knew and adored. The existence of the Logos who appeared in Christ is independent of the idea of the world. The creation of the world—abstractly speaking—might even have taken place without the Logos. This is the point in which he is most strongly opposed to the Apologists and Origen. No traces of this advance are to be found as yet in the works “c. Gent” and “de incarnat.” See, on the other hand, Orat. II. 24, 25: οὐ κάµνει ὁ Θεὸς προστάττων, οὐδε ἀσθενεῖ πρὸς τὴν τῶν πάντων ἐργασίαν, ἵνα τὸν µὲν υἱὸν µόνος µόνον κτίσῃ, εἰς δὲ τὴν τῶν ἄλλων δηµιουργίαν ὑπουργοῦ καὶ βοηθοῦ χρείαν ἔχῃ το῍ 564 υἱοῦ. οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδὲ ὑπέρθεσιν ἔχει, ὅπερ ἄν ἐθελήσῃ γενέσθαι, ἀλλὰ µόνον ἡθέλησε καὶ ὑπέστη τὰ πάντα, καὶ τῷ βουλήµατι αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς ἀνθέστηκε. Τίνος οὖν ἕνεκα οὐ γέγονε τὰ πάντα παρὰ µόνου τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ προστάγµατι, ᾧ γέγονε καὶ ὁ υἱός . . . ἀλογία µέν οὖν πᾶσα παρ᾽ αὐτοἱς· φασὶ δὲ ὅµως περὶ τούτου, ὡς ἄρα θέλων ὁ Θεὸς τὴν γενητὴν κτίσαι φύσιν, ἐπειδὴ ἑώρα µὴ δυναµένην αὐτὴν µετασχεῖν τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ἀκράρου χειρὸς καὶ τῆς παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ δηµιουργίας, ποῖει καὶ κτίζει πρώτως µόνον ἕνα καὶ καλεῖ τοῦτον υἱὸν καὶ λόγον, ἵνα τούτου µέσου γενοµένου οὕτως λοιπὸν καὶ τὰ πάντα δὶ αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι δυνηθῆ· ταῦτα οὐ µόνον εἰρήκασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ γράψαι τετολµήκασιν Εὐσέβιός τε καὶ Ἀρεῖος καὶ ὁ θ 564 σας Ἀστέριος. As against this view Athanasius shews that God is neither so powerless as not to be able to create the creatures nor so proud as not to be willing to create them (εἰ δὲ ὡς ἀπαξιῶν ὁ Θεὸς τὰ ἄλλα ἐργάσασθαι, τὸν µὲν υἱὸν µόνον εἰργάσατο, τὰ δὰ ἄλλα τῷ υἱῷ ἀνεχειρίσεν ὡς βοηθῷ· καὶ τοῦτο µὲν ἀνάξιον Θεοῦ· οὐκ ἔστι γὰρ ἐν θεῷ τύφος); he shews further from Matt. X. 29, VI. 25 f. that God cares for all things in the most direct way, and therefore has also brought them into existence. The same proof is given in de decret. 8. Athanasius thus did away with the latent dualism between the godhead and the creature which had existed in Christian theology since the time of Philo. God is creator in the directest way. This, however, implies that the Logos is discarded. If spite of this Athanasius not only retained the name, but also recognised the function of a mediator of creation and type of all rational beings, the reason was that he understood Scripture as implying this, and because he was not able wholly to free himself from the influence of tradition. But the Divine in Christ is no longer for him the world-reason, on the contrary it is the substance of t 564 he Father which—accidentally, as it were—has also the attributes of creative power and of the reason that embraces and holds ideas together. For Athanasius, in fact, the Son is the substance of the Father as the principle of redemption and sanctification. The most pregnant of his formulæ is in Orat. III. 6. in support of which he appeals to 2 Cor. V. 19: τὸ ἴδιον τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας ἐστὶν ὁ υἱός, ἐν ᾧ ἡ κτίσις πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν κατηλλάσσετο.

the Divine which has appeared in Christ, Logos, Wisdom and Son; they thus distinguish it from God, the Father. Faith has to hold fast to this. But in accordance with this we get t 564 he following propositions: (a) The Godhead is a unity (µονάς). Therefore the Divine which appeared in Christ, must form part of this unity. There is only one underived or unbegotten principle; this is the Father.80 (b) The very name Father implies, moreover, that a second exists in the Godhead. God has always been Father, and whoever 31calls Him Father posits at the same time the Son; for the Father is the Father of the Son, and only in a loose sense the Father of the world and of men; for these are created, but the divine Trinity is uncreated, for otherwise it might either decrease again, or further increase in the future.81 (c) This 560 Son, the offspring of the Father (γέννηµα τοῦ πατρὸς),82 was not, however, begotten in a human fashion as if God were corporeal. On the contrary, He has been begotten as the

80

That the Godhead is a unity, is a thought which Athanasius emphasised in the strongest way over and over again (µονὰς τῆς θεότητος), (2) also that there are not two underived or unbegotten principles (ἀρχαί), and finally (3) that the Father is the ἀρχή, which because of this may be identified with the µονάς also. He retorts the charge of Polytheism brought against him by the Arians; they, he says, adore two gods (see above, note 4, p. 27). The best summary of his ac6 view is in Orat. IV. I: µονάδα τῆς θεότητος ἀδιαίρετον καὶ ἄσχιστον· λεχθείη µία ἀρχὴ θεότητος καὶ οὐ δύο ἀρχαί ὅθεν κυρίως καὶ µοναρχία ἐστιν. 81 Orat. III. 6: πατέρα οὐκ ἄν τις εἴποι, µὴ ὑπάρχοντος υἱοῦ· ὁ µὲν τοι ποιητὴν λέγων τὸν Θεὸν οὐ πάντως καὶ τὰ γενόµενα δηλοϊ· ἔστι γὰρ καὶ πρὸ τῶν ποιηµάτων ποιητής· ὁ δὲ πατέρα λέγων εὐθὺς µετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς σηµαίνει καὶ τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ ὕπαρξιν. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν εἰς τὸν πατέρα πιστεύει· εἰς γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας πιστεύει, καὶ οὕτως µία ἐστιν ἡ πίστις εἰς ἕνα Θεόν. II. 41. De decret. 30 fin.: λέγοντες µὲν γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι τὸν Θεὸν ἀγένητον ἐκ τῶν γενοµένων αὐτὸν ποιητὴν µόνον λέγουσιν, ἵνα καὶ τὸν λόγον ποίηµα σηµάνωσι κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν ἡδονήν· ὁ δὲ τὸν Θεὸν πατέρα λέγων εὑθὺς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ τὸν υἱὸν σηµαίνει. The Son is a second in the Godhead, see Orat. III. 4: δύο µὲν εἰσιν, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ παρήρ ἐστι καὶ οὐχ ὁ αὐτὸς υἱός ἐστι· καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ἐστι καὶ οὐχ ὁ αὐτὸς πατήρ ἐστι· µία δὲ ἡ φύσις. IV. I: ὥστε δύο µὲν εἶναι πατέρα καὶ υἱόν, µονάδα δὲ θεότητος ἀδιαίρετον.. The idea that the Triad must be from all eternity and be independent of the world, if it is not to be increased or diminished, is developed in Orat. I. 17. There is a strong polemic against the Sabellians in Orat. IV. 82 In the theoretical expositions of his teaching Athanasius uses the expression γέννηµα in preference to υἱὸς, in order to exclude the idea of human generation.

sun begets light and the spring the brook; He is called Son, because He is the eternal, perfect reflection of the Father, the image83 proceeding from the substance of the Father; 32He is called Wisdom and Logos not as if the Father were imperfect without Him,84 but as the creative power of the Father. 552 1 “To be begotten” simply means completely to share by nature in the entire nature of the Father, implying at the same time that the Father does not therefore suffer or undergo anything.85 83

“Reflection”, “Image”, “God of God”, are the expressions which always appeared to Athanasius to be the most appropriate. He preferred the first of these in order to exclude the thought that the Son proceeded from the will of the Creator. The light cannot do otherwise than lighten, and it always shines or lightens, otherwise it would not be light. The archetype projects its type necessarily. Following Origen he puts the whole emphasis on the eternal (Orat. I. 14: ἀίδίος ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς καὶ συνυπάρχει τῷ πατρί) and necessary. If the Son were begotten by the will of the Father, He would be something contingent, a creation, and would have a beginning: though certainly He was not, on the other hand, begotten contrary to this will, as the Arians charge their opponents with believing (Orat. III. 62, 66), nor from some necessity superior to God, nor does the blessed Godhead undergo any kind of suffering (Orat. I. 16), on the contrary He proceeded from the substance of God οὐ παρὰ γνώµην. Only the expression ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας suffices, as Athanasius over and over again makes plain; any intervention of the will here degrades the Son; for “the substance is higher than the will.” See the characteristic passage Orat. III. 62: ὥσπερ ἀντίκειται τῇ βουλήσει τὸ παρὰ γνώµην, οὕτως ὑπέρκειται καὶ προηγεῖται τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι τὸ κατὰ φύσιν. οἰκίαν µὲν οὖν τις βουλευόµενος κατασκευάζει, υἱὸν δὲ γεννᾷ κατὰ φύσιν. καὶ τὸ µὲν βουλήσει κατασκευαζόµενον ᾔρξατο γίνεσθαι καὶ ἔξωθέν ἐστι τοῦ ποιοῦντος· ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἲδιόν ἐστι τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς γέννηµα καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἔξωθεν αὐτοῦ· διὸ οὐδε βουλεύεται περὶ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα µὴ καὶ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ δοκῇ βουλεύεσθαι· ὅσῳ ac8 ὖν τοῦ κτίσµατος ὁ υἱὸς ὑπέρκειται, τοσούτῳ καὶ τῆς βουλήσεως τὸ τὸ κατὰ φύσιν. The Father wills the Son in so far as He loves Him and wills and loves Himself (Orat. III. 66), but in so far as “willing” involves τὴν ἐπ᾽ ἄµφω ῥοπήν, i.e., includes the ability not to will, the Son is not from the will of the Father. 84 Athanasius rarely repeats the unguarded utterances of Bishop Alexander and others belonging to the orthodox party. The Father is for him, on the contrary, in and for Himself—if one may so put it—personal; He is νοῦς and He is τῆς ἰδίας ὑποστάσεως θελητής. In one passage in his later writings (de decret. 15) he has. however, curiously enough, argued that the Father would be ἄλογος and ἄσοφος, if the Logos were not from all eternity. 85 In order to give meaning to the expressions “Logos”, “Wisdom”, Athanasius could not avoid describing the divine in Christ as the wisdom, prudence, strength, might, creative power in God, see Orat. I. 17, III. 65. Still he rarely has recourse to these terms. 86 After the beginning of the Arian controversy, though not before it (see c. Gent. 2), Athanasius made a thorough distinction between “to beget” and “to create.” “Begetting” held good of the Father only in reference to the Son. It means the production of a perfect

(d) Consequently the assertions of the Arians that the Son is God, Logos, and Wisdom in a nominal sense only, that there was a time in which the Son was not, that He has sprung from the will of the Father, that He was created out of the non-existent or out of some other substance, that He is subject to change, are false.87 On the contrary He is (1) co-eternal with the 33Father and (2) He is of the substance of the Father, 57a 88 for otherwise He would not be God at all, (3) He is by His own nature in all points similarly89

image of Himself which, while originating in His substance, has by nature a share in the entire substance. That the Son shares in the entire substance of the Father is a thought which was constantly repeated by Athanasius, Orat. I. 16: τὸ ὅλως µετέχεσθαι τὸν Θεὸν ἶσόν ἐσύ ac1 ι λέγειν ὅτι καὶ γεννᾶ. The begotten is thus ἴδιον τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ γέννηµα (Orat. II. 24), which φύσει ἔχει τὴν πατρικὴν οὐσίαν and in fact τελείαν. That God does not in consequence of this suffer or undergo anything, and that there is here no question of an emanation, are points which he urges as against the Valentinians. 87 The refutation of these propositions given by Athanasius takes a great number of forms; we may distinguish the religious-dogmatic, the dialectic-philosophic, the patristic and the biblical refutations (see Böhringer, Athanasius, pp. 210-240). For Athanasius himself the religious and biblical argument is the chief thing. Besides numerous passages from the Gospel of John, Athanasius quotes specially 1 John V. 20; Rev. I. 4; Matt. III. 17, XVII. 5; Rom. I. 20, VIII. 32, IX. 5; Hebr. I. 3, XIII. 8; Ps. II. 7; XLV. 2, CII. 28, CXLV. 13; Is. XL. 28. Matt. XXVIII. 19 had for him supreme importance. Amongst the theses laid down by the Arians he had a special objection to that of the προκοπή of the Logos. Hence the strong emphasis he lays on the ἄτρεπτος. 88 “From the Father,” as Athanasius says in several passages, would be sufficient if it were not possible to say, using the words in an improper sense, that everything is from God because it has been created by God. It is because the Eusebians make capital out of this that we must avow: ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός; see de decret. 19; de synod. 33 sq.: ad Afros 5. He entirely rejects the idea of a mere unity of feeling or doctrine between the Father and the Son (e.g., Orat. III. ii) for this would mean the disappearance of the Godhead of the Son. 89 The word “ὅµοιος” means something more than our word “resembling” and something less than our word “similar”; our “similarly constituted” comes nearest it. The “ὅµοιος” alone did not satisfy Athanasius, because it implicitly involves a difference and, above all, a distinction, and he says, moreover, that even dog and wolf, tin and silver are ὅµοια. He, however, certainly applied the word in connection with substance (φύσις οὐσία) or with “κατὰ πάντα” (e.g., de decret. 20) to the relation between Father and Son (ὁµοίωσις τοῦ υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν, de synod. 45). But still he found it necessary as a rule, at least at a later date, expressly to emphasise the ἑνότης—where he expresses himself in a less strict way we also find ὁµοιότης alone—and in opposition to the Homoiousians was driven to add “ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας” to “ὁµοιούσιος” in order to banish any idea of separateness. (de synod. 41). Yet he recognised at the same time (l.c. c. 53 sq.) that ὅµοιος is really an unsuitable word; for it

constituted as the Father, and finally He is all this, because He has one and the same substance in common with the Father and together with Him constitutes a unity,90 34but “substance” in

cannot be used of substances, but only of σχήµατα καὶ ποιότητες. In connection with substances we say ταυτότης. Men resemble each other in general outline and character, but in substance they are ὁµοφυεῖς; vice versa, man and dog are not unlike, but yet they are ἑτεροφυεῖς. Thus ὁµοφυές and ὁµοούσιον match each other, and in the same way ἑτεροφυές and ἑτεροούσιον. The phrase ὅµοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν always suggests a µετουσία; το γὰρ ὅµοιον ποιότης ἐστίν, ἥτις τῇ οὐσίᾳ προσγενοιτ᾽ ἄν. Thus it is correct to say of created spiritual beings that they resemble God, not however in substance, but only in virtue of sonship. Ὁµοιούσιος is in fact nothing, and when used of the real Son is consequently either nonsense or false. 90 This is the key to the whole mode of conception: Son and Father are not a duality, but a duality in unity, i.e., the Son possesses entirely the substance which the Father is; He is a unity with the unity which the Father is. Athan ac8 asius did not defend the idea of the co-ordination of the two as opposed to a subordination view, but the unity and inseparability as opposed to the theory of difference and separateness. He, however, expresses this as follows: in substance Father and Son are one; or, the Son has one and the same substance with the Father. Thus the expression “µία φύσις” is often used for both; and so we have: οὐσίᾳ ἕν ἐστιν αὐτὸς γεννήσας αὐτὸν πατήρ (de synod. 48). The Son has the ἑνότης πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (de decret. 23); He constitutes with Him a ἀδιαίρετος ἑνότης; there subsists between both ἑνότης ὁµοιώσεως κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν. He expresses his meaning most plainly in those passages in which he attaches the ταυτότης to Father and Son without prejudice to the fact that the Father is the Father and not the Son. Identity of substance, as Athanasius (de synod. 53) explains, is ταυτότης. Thus he says (Orat. I. 22): ὁ υἱὸς ἔχει ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τὴν ταυτότητα. In a passage of earlier date he had already said (c. Gent. 2): δοὺς τῷ υἱῷ καὶ τῆς ἰδίας ἀϊδιότητος ἔννοιαν καὶ γνῶσιν, ἵνα τὴν ταυτότητα σώζων κ.τ.λ. Later on, (de decret. 23): ἀνάγκη καὶ ἐν τούτῳ τὴν ταυτότητα πρὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα σώζειν, 20: µὴ µόνον ὅµοιον τὸν υἱὸν ἀλλὰ ταὐτὸν τῇ ὁµοιώσει ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι . . . οὐ µόνον ὅµοιος ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀδιαίρετος ἐστι τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας, καὶ ἕν µέν εἰσιν αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ πατήρ. 24: ἑνότης καὶ φυσικὴ ἰδιότης . . . τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς φύσεως καὶ τὴν ταυτότητα τοῦ φωτὸς µὴ διαιρῶµεν. Orat. IV. 5 (and elsewhere): πατὴρ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ, υἱὸς ἐν τῷ παρτί . . . ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ θεότης τοῦ πατρός ἐστι . . . ἡ θεότης καὶ ἡ ἰδιότης τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ εἶναι τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐστί Thus ὁµοιος is unsatisfactory not only because it does not express complete likeness, but, above all, because it does not express the unity upon which everything depends. The Son cannot, like human sons, go away from the Father, (de decret. 20) for He is in a more intimate relation to Him 564 that a human son is to his father; He is connected with the Father not as an accident of which we might make abstraction (l. c. 12), but as τὸ ἴδιον τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως (Orat. III. 65) or as τὸ ἴδιον τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός (frequently in de decret. Orat. I. 22), or as ἴδιον τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ γέννηµα. Athanasius uses the words “ἴδιος”, “γνήσιος” frequently; they give the conception of Son a more extended meaning than it naturally has, so that the Son may

reference to God means nothing else than “Being.”91 It is not the

not appear as ἔξωθεν ἁπλῶς ὅµοιος and consequently as ἑτεροούσιος (de decret. 23). The substantial unity of Father and Son is the fundamental thought of Athanasius. Atzberger therefore correctly says (op. cit. p. 117) “There can be no doubt but that Athanasius conceived of the unity of the Father and the Son as a numerical unity of substance.” In Orat. III. 3 ff. where he puts himself to great trouble to state the problem that two are equal to one, he says: Εἱ καὶ ἕτερόν ἐστιν ὡς γέννηµα ὁ υἱός, ἀλλὰ ταὐτόν ἐστιν ὡς Θέος· καὶ ἕν εἰσιν αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ πατὴρ τῇ ἰδιότητι καὶ οἰκειότητι τῆς φύσεως κ ac8 ὶ τῇ ταυτότητι τῆς µιᾶς θεότητος. We cannot therefore help being astonished (with Zahn p. 20) to find that Athanasius declines to use the word µονοούσιος of the Son (see Expos. fidei 2: οὔτὲ υἱοπάτορα φρονοῦµεν ὡς οἱ Σαβέλλιοι, λέγοντες µονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁµοούσιον καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἀναιροῦντες τό εἶναι υἱὸν); still he always says: µίαν οἴδαµεν καὶ µόνην θεότητα τοῦ πατρός. If the question is raised as to whether Athanasius thought of the Godhead as a numerical unity or as a numerical duality, the answer is: as a numerical unity. The duality is only a relative one—if we may write such an absurdity—the duality of archetype and type. That the Arians called the Catholics “Sabellians” is expressly stated by Julian of Eclan. (August., op. imperf. V. 25). 91 Θεότης, οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, ἰδίοτης τῆς οὐσίας, οἰκειότης τῆς οὐσίας (ὑποστάσεως) are all used by Athanasius in reference to the Godhead as perfectly synonymous. He had no word by which to describe Father and Son as different subjects, and indeed he never felt it necessary to seek for any such word. We cannot call ἰδιότης τῆς οὐσίας anything special; for Athanasius by the very use of the word ἰδιότης asserted the unity of the Father and Son. Ὑπόστασις and οὐσία are repeatedly described by him as identical; see de decret. 27; de synod. 41; ad Afros 4; ἡ δὲ ὑπόστασις οὐσία ἐστί, καὶ οὐδὲν ἄλλο σηµαινόµενον ἔχει ἢ αὐτὸ τὸ ὄν, ὅπερ Ἰερεµίας ὕπαρξιν ὀνοµάζει λέγων . . . ἡ γαρ ὐπόστασις καὶ ἡ οὐσία ὑπαρξίς ἐστιν (so still in the year 370). Tom. ad Antioch. 6: ὑπόστασιν µὲν λέγοµεν ἡγούµενοι ταὐτὸν εἶναι εἰπεῖν ὑπόστασιν καὶ οὐσίᾳν. The divine substance is, however, nothing other than τὸ ὄν (pure Being); see ad Afr. l.c. and the decret. 22; Godhead is the οὐσία ἀκατάληπτος . . . τὸ· Θεὸς, οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ τὍ 564 ν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντος σηµαίνει. As opposed to this φύσις is the nature which attaches to the substance as the complex of its attributes; Athanasius distinguishes it from ὸὐσία; hence the formula often used: κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν (e.g., de synod. 45) see also Tom. ad Antioch 6, where Athanasius after the words above quoted, continues: µίαν δὲ φρονοῦµεν διὰ τὸ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν καὶ διὰ τὴν ταυτότητα τῆς φύσεως· µίαν γὰρ θεότητα καὶ µίαν εἶναι τὴν ταύτης φύσιν πιστεύοµεν. Orat. I. 39: The Son is φύσει κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ταῦτα. When, however, Athanasius asserts the numerical unity of the Ousia of Father, Son, (and Spirit) he is thinking of it both as being that which we call “substance” and also as what we call “subject”, so that here again, too, what is obscure is not the unity, but the duality (triad) as in Irenæus. In de synod. 51 the conception of the Ousia as involving three substances, i.e., a common genus and two co-ordinate “brothers” ranged under it, is expressly rejected as Ἑλλήνων ἑρµηνεῖαι. It is only the ac8 one passage: Expos. fid. 2, (see above) where Athanasius rejects µονοούσιος, that betrays any uncertainty on his part. It stands

case that the Father is one substance 551 35by itself and the Son another substance by itself and that these two are similarly constituted. This would do away with the unity of the Godhead. On the contrary, the Father is the Godhead; this Godhead, however, contains in it a mystery which can only be approximately conceived of by men. It conceals within itself in the form of an independent and self-acting product something which issues from it and which also possesses this Godhead and possesses it from all eternity in virtue, not of any communication, but of nature and origin,—the true and real Son, the image which proceeds from the substance. There are not two divine ousias, not two divine hypostases or the like, but one ousia and hypostasis, which the Father and the Son possess. Thus the Son is true God, inseparable from the Father and reposing in the unity of the Godhead, not a second alongside of God, but simply reflection, express image, Son within the one Godhead which cannot 36and ought not to be thought of apart from reflection, express image, and Son. He has everything that the Father has, for He actually possesses the ousia of the Father; He is ὁµοούσιος, 549 1 of the same substance. Only He is not actually the Father, for the latter is also His source and root, the Almighty Father, the only unbegotten principle.92

quite by itself. Otherwise by οὐσία he understands the individual or single substance which, however, as applied to God, is the fulness of all Being, a view which allows him to think of this substance as existing in wonderful conditions and taking on wonderful shapes. 92 The meaning of this word will be clear from what was said in the preceding discussion. It signified oneness of substance, not likeness of substance, “unius substantiæ.” Father and Son possess in common one and the same substance, substance in the sense of the totality of all that which they are. This is how Athanasius always understood the word, as Zahn (op. cit., pp. 10-32) was the first to point out in opposition to the long current erroneous interpretations of it. It is in fact equal to ταυτούσιος, the meaning which the Semiarians also attached to it (Ephiph. H. 73. 11). Athanasius neither discovered the word, nor had he any special preference for it; but he always recognised in it the most fitting expression wherewith to repel Arians and Eusebians; see on the adoption of the word into the Nicene Creed and the history of its interpretation, the discussions which follow. 93 This is an important point in the Athanasian doctrine and balances in some degree the thoughts comprised in the word “ὁµοούσιος.” From some passages it certainly appears as if the statement that the Son has everything in common with the Father (according to Holy Scripture) except the name of Father (see Orat. III. 4 fin; III. 6; de synod. 48, 49; frequently as in Orat. I. 61, the language is paradoxical to the verge of absurdity) expressed a merely nominal distinction between Father and Son. According to this, He is either identical with the Father, or a part of the Father’s substance, or an attribute of God, or a kind of pendicle which has emanated from the Father; but all these

37

(4) The language used of Christ in Scripture to express what is human and belonging to the creature, has, always and only, reference to the human nature which He took upon Him in order to redeem men. Since He who is by nature God took upon Him a body in order to unite with Himself what is by nature man in order that the salvation and deification of man might be surely accomplished, He also along with the body took to Himself human feelings. So complete, however, is the identity of the humanity of Christ with the nature of humanity as a whole that we may, according to Athanasius, refer the statements of Scripture as to a special endowment and exaltation of Christ, to the whole humanity. 58f 94 Complete too, however, was the union of the Son

modes of conception were considered at the, time to be “Sa ac8 bellian”: they were condemned already. In order to escape them or rather because he himself considered them to be false, Athanasius in the proper place strongly emphasised the idea that the Father is the entire monad, that He is the ἀρχή for the Son too, that it is in fact the ousia of the Father which the Son has received, that thus the conception of the Father as the sole Θεὸς παντοκράτωρ maintains the unity of the Godhead. The Father is the µία ἀρχή (Orat. IV. 1); there are not two or three Fathers (III. 15); there is ἕν εἶδος θεότητος, which is the Father, but τὸ εἶδος τοῦτό ἐστι καὶ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ (l.c.); the Father is ὁ Θεός. He alone is αὐτὸς ὁ Θεός, He alone is the unbegotten God (Expos. fid. I); the Son is a γέννηµα, even though He has not come into being. Accordingly the Father is sufficient for Himself (Orat. II. 41), and ἡ οὐσία τοῦ πατρός ἐστιν ἀρχὴ καὶ ῥίζα καὶ πηγὴ τοῦ υἱοῦ. The “ὁµοούσιος” does not thus include any absolute co-ordination. According to Athanasius all men are ὁµοούσιοι relatively to each other, because they are ὁµογενεῖς and ὁµοφυεῖς (de synod. 52 sq.) and yet spite of this we find amongst them superiority and subordination. The same is the case here. Athanasius maintains the inseparable unity of substance of Father and Son, the unity of the Godhead; but this idea is for him applicable only in virtue of another, according to which the Father has everything of Himself while the Son has everything from the Father. Father and Son, according to Athanasius, are not co-ordinate equal substances, but rather one single substance, which involves the distinction of ἀρχή and γέννηµα, and thus of principle and what is deduced, and in this sense involves a subordination, which, however, is not analogous to the subordination in which the creature stands to God. 94 See Orat. I. 41: Τῆς ἀνθρωπότητός ἐστιν ἡ ὕψωσις, i.e., not of the humanity of Christ, but of humanity as a whole: c. 42: When Scripture uses the word “ἐχαρίσατο·” in reference to what God does to Christ, this is not said of the Logos, but on our account: δι᾽ ἡµᾶς καὶ ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν το῍ ac8 το πάλιν περὶ αὐτοῦ γέγραπται. ὥσπερ γὰρ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ Χριστὸς ἀπέθανε καὶ ὑψώθη, οὕτως ὡς ἄνθρωπος λέγται λαµβάνειν ὅπερ εἶχεν ἀεὶ ὡς Θεός, ἵνα εἰς ἡµᾶς φθάσῃ καὶ ἡ τοιαύτη δοθεῖσα χάρις. The human race is thereby enriched. c. 43: By our kinship with the body of Christ we too have

of God with humanity, which Athanasius, like Arius up to the time of the Apollinarian controversy, usually thought of as “Flesh,” “vesture of the Flesh.”95 Because the body of the Logos was really His own body—although we must discard the thought of variation, of change96—and because this union had become already perfect in Mary’s body,97 everything that holds good of the flesh holds 53c 38good of the Logos also, and this is true of all sufferings even,— although He was not affected by them so far as His Godhead is concerned,98—and Mary is the mother of God. Athanasius also refers to the incarnate Logos the locus classicus of the Arians, Prov. VIII. 22, 23,99 with which Eustathius of Antioch likewise occupied himself.100 Finally, Athanasius spoke also of a 56a προκοπή or progress in reference to the incarnate Logos, of an increase in the manifestation of God in the body of Christ, by which he means that the flesh was more and more completely irradiated by the Godhead: τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ προέκοπτεν,101 (the human advanced in wisdom). How are the two mutually opposed doctrines to be judged from the standpoint of history, of reason, and of the Gospel? Each party charged the other with holding doctrines which involved contradictions, and, what is of more consequence, they mutually accused each other of apostasy from Christianity, although the

become a temple of God and are henceforth made sons of God, so that already in us the Lord is adored. “Therefore hath God also exalted Him”—this signifies our exaltation. 95 So correctly Baur. I have not found Dorner’s statement that the presupposition of a human soul occupies the background of the whole view of Athanasius “of the incarnation and redemption as affecting the totality of man” (op. cit. I. p. 957) to be supported by evidence. From what is alleged by Dorner it merely follows that Athanasius did not reflect on the subject. Baur, however, meanwhile goes too far when he expresses the opinion that Athanasius designedly left the human soul of Christ out of account; on the contrary, by the term “Flesh” he understood the whole substance of man, (see Orat. III. 30) and did not feel there was any necessity for studying the question as to the position occupied by the soul. 96 Orat. IV. 31. 97 Orat. IV. 32-34. 98 Orat. I. 45, III. 30-33. 99 Almost the whole second oration against the Arians is devoted to the task of refuting the use made by them of this passage. 100 Theodoret, H. E. I. 8. 101 Orat. III. 53: Λὐξάνοντος ἐν ἡλικίᾳ τοῦ σώµατος, συνεπεδίδοτο ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ η τῷς θεότητος φανέρωσις . . . τὸ ἄνθρώπινον προέκοπτεν, ὑπ a9f ραναβαῖνον κατ᾽ ὀλίγον τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν καὶ θεοποιούµενον καὶ ὄργανον τῆς σοφίας πρὸς τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῆς θεότητος καὶ τὴν ἔκλαµψιν αὐτῆς γενόµενον.

Arians never advanced this charge with such energy as the opposite party. We have first of all to ascertain definitely how much they had in common. Religion and doctrine are with both thoroughly fused together, 589 1 and, indeed, formally considered, the doctrine is the same in both cases, i.e., the fundamental conceptions are the same. The doctrine of the pre-existent Christ, who as the pre-existent Son of God is Logos, Wisdom, and worldcreating Power of God, seems to constitute the common basis. Together with this both have a common interest in maintaining the unity of God and in 39making a sharp distinction between Creator and creature. Finally, both endeavour to base their doctrines on Scripture and at the same time claim to have tradition on their side, as is evident in the case of Arius from the introduction to the Thalia. Both are, however, convinced that the final word lies with Scripture and not with tradition. I. We cannot understand Arianism unless we consider that it consists of two entirely disparate parts. It has, first of all, a Christ who gradually becomes God, who therefore develops more and more in moral unity of feeling with God, progresses and attains his perfection by the divine grace. This Christ is the Saviour, in so far as he has conveyed to us the divine doctrine and has given us an example of goodness perfectly realised in the exercise of free 564 dom. When Arius calls this Christ Logos it appears as if he did this by way of accommodation. The conception of Arius here is purely Adoptian. But, secondly, with this is united a metaphysic which has its basis solely in a cosmology and has absolutely no connection with soteriology. This metaphysic is dominated by the thought of the antithesis of the one, inexpressible God, a God remote from the world, and the creature. The working-out of this thought accordingly perfectly corresponds with the philosophical ideas of the time and with the one half of the line of thought pursued by Origen. In order that a creation may become possible at all, a spiritual being must first be created which can be the means whereby a spiritual-material world can be created. This cannot be the divine reason itself, but only the most complete image of the divine reason stamped on a created, freely acting, independent being. With this we have arrived at the Neo-platonic origination. Whether in order to find a means of transition to the world we are to speak of “God, the essential νοῦς of God, the created Logos,” or “God, the created Logos, the world-spirit,” or are to arrange the 102

Both thus occupy the stage of development which was described in Vol. III., pp, 113-118. We may say meanwhile, and what follows will prove it, that the fusion of a theoretical doctrine with religion was more thorough in the case of Arianism than with Athanasius.

terms in some other way, is pretty much a matter of indifference, and to all appearance Arius laid little stress on 557 this. It is the philosophical triad, or duad, such as we meet with in Philo, Numenius, Plotinus etc. These created beings which mediate between God and the creature are, however, according to Arius, 40to be adored, i.e., it is only as a cosmologist that he is a strict monotheist, while as a theologian he is a polytheist. This again perfectly corresponds to the dominant Hellenic view. Arius in fact occupies a place, so to speak, on the extreme left, for the energetic way in which he emphasises the thought that the second ousia has been created out of the free will of God, that it is foreign to the substance of God, that as a creaturely substance it is capable of change and definable, and, above all, the express assertion that this “Logos” and “Son” is “Logos” and “Son” merely nominally, that in no sense whatever is an emanation or anything of that kind to be thought of here, but simply a creation, is surprising even in the sphere of Hellenic philosophy. That this created Logos which made possible the further creation has appeared in Jesus Christ and has in human vesture developed into God and has therefore not been lowered, but on the contrary has been exalted by His being man, is accordingly what constitutes the uniting thought between the two parts of the system. ebd In the other case, as here, the expressions “pre-existent Son of God,” “Logos,” “Wisdom” are plainly only an accommodation. They are unavoidable, but not necessary, in fact they create difficulties. It clearly follows from this, however, that the doctrine of Origen does not constitute the basis of the system—in so far as its Christology is concerned—and that what it has in common with the orthodox system is not what is really characteristic of it, but is on the contrary what is secondary. The Arian doctrine has its root in Adoptianism, in the doctrine of Lucian of Samosata,103 as is proved, above all, by the strong emphasis laid on the creaturehood of the Redeemer and by the elimination of a human soul. We know what signification this had for Origen. Where it is wanting we can no longer speak of Origenism in the full meaning of the word. But it is correct that the cosmological-causal point of view of Origen, this one side of his complicated system, was appropriated 41by Arius, that is by Lucian. Meanwhile it has to be added that it was 103

See above p. 3, and in addition Athan. Orat. III. 51: The view of Lucian of Samosata is the idea of the pure creaturehood and humanity of the Redeemer ὅ τῇ µὲν δυνάµει καὶ ὐµεῖς φρονεῖτε, τῷ δε ὀνόµατι µόνον ἀρνεῖσθε διὰ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. This is no mere trick of logic, although the alleged motive of the correction of the Adoptianist doctrine is assuredly incorrectly described.

not peculiar to Origen. He made an effort to get beyond it; he balanced the causal-cosmological point of view, according to which the Logos is a heavenly κτίσµα, by the soteriological, according to which He is the essential and recognisable image of the Father, which constitutes an essential unity with the Father. Of this there is nothing in Arius.104 Arianism is a new doctrine in the Church; it labours under quite as many difficulties as any other earlier Christological doctrine; it is, finally, in one important respect, really Hellenism which is simply tempered by the constant use of Holy Scripture. It is a new doctrine; for not only is the frank assertion of the creaturehood and changeableness of the Logos in this sharply defined form, new, spite of Origen, Dionysius Alex., Pierius and so on, but, above all, the emphatic rejection of any essential connection of the Logos with the Father. The images of the source and the brook, the sun and the light, the archetype and the type, which are almost of as old standing in the Church as the Logosdoctrine itself, are here discarded. This, however, simply means that the Christian Logos- and Son-of-God-doctrine has itself been discarded. Only the old names remain. But new too, further, is the combination of Adoptianism with the Logos-cosmology, and if the idea of two distinct Logoi and two Wisdoms is not exactly new, it is a distinction which had never before this been permitted. Athanasius exposed the inner difficulties and contradictions, and in almost every case we may allow that he has right on his side. A son who is no son, a Logos who is no Logos, a monotheism which nevertheless does not exclude polytheism, two or three ousias which are to be revered, while yet only one of them is really distinct from the creatures, an indefinable being who first becomes God by becoming man and who is yet neither God nor man, and so on. In every single point we have apparent clear 21d4 ness while all is hollow and formal, a boyish enthusiasm for playing with husks and shells, and a 42childish self-satisfaction in the working out of empty syllogisms.105 This had not been learned from Origen, who always had facts and definite ends in view when he speculated.

104

We do not know whether or not Arius appealed to Origen. The later Arians undoubtedly quoted him in support of their views; they seem, however, to have appealed most readily to Dionysius of Alex. See Athan. de sentent. Dionysii. 105 See the tractate of Aëtius preserved in Epiphanius; but the older Arians had already acted in the same way.

But all this might be put up with if only this doctrine were in any way designed to shew how communion with God is arrived at through Christ. This is what we must necessarily demand; for what the ancient Church understood by “redemption” was in part a physical redemption of a very questionable kind, and it would not necessarily have been anything to be regretted if anyone had emancipated himself from this “redemption.” But one has absolutely nowhere the impression that Arius and his friends are in their theology concerned with communion with God. Their doctrina de Christo has nothing whatever to do with this question. The divine which appeared on earth is not the Godhead, but one of its creations. God Himself remains unknown. Whoever expresses adherence to the above propositions and does this with unmistakable satisfaction, stands up for the unique nature of God, but does this, however, only that he may not endanger the uniformity of the basis of the world, and otherwise is prepared to worship besides this God other “Gods” too, creatures that is; whoever allows religion to disappear in a cosmological doctrine and in veneration for a heroic teacher, even though he may call him “perfect creature,” κτίσµα τέλειον, and revere in him the being through whom this world has come to be what it is, is, so far as his religious way of thinking is concerned, a Hellenist, and has every claim to be highly valued by Hellenists.106 The admission that the Arians succeeded in getting a grasp of certain features in the historical Christ presented to us by the New Testament, cannot in any way alter this judgment. In this matter they were far superior to their opponents; but they were absolutely unable to make any religious use of what they perceived. They speak of Christ as Paul of Samosata does, but by foisting in behind the Christ who was exalted to be Lord, the half divine being, logoscreature, λόγος-κτίσµα, 43they deprived the most valuable knowledge they had of all practical value. Paul could say in a general way: τὰ κρατούµενα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως, οὐκ ἔχει ἔπαινον· τὰ δὲ σχέσει φιλίας κρατούµενα ὑπεραινεῖται (what was accomplished by the Logos of nature deserves no praise, but what was accomplished in the state of love is to be praised exceedingly). Such a statement was made impossible for the Arians by the introduction of cosmological speculation. What dominates Paul’s whole view of the question—namely, the thought that the unity of love and feeling is the most abiding unity, scarcely ever finds an echo amongst the Arians, for it is swallowed up by that philosophy which measures worth by duration in time and thinks of a half106

There are some good remarks on Arianism in Kaufmann, Deutsche Geschichte I., pp. 232, 234; also in Richter, Weström. Reich, p. 537.

eternal being as being nearer God than a temporal being who is filled with the love of God. We cannot therefore finally rate very high the results of the rational exegesis of christological passages as given by the Arians; they do not use them to shew that Jesus was a man whom God chose for Himself or that God was in the man Jesus, but, on the contrary, in order to prove that this Jesus was no complete God. Nor can we put a high value on their defence of monotheism either, for they adored creatures. What is alone really valuable, is the energetic emphasis they lay on freedom, and which they adopted from Origen, but even it has no religious significance. Had the Arian doctrine gained the victory in the Greekspeaking world, it would in all probability have completely ruined Christianity, that is, it would have made it disappear in cosmology and morality and would have annihilated religion in the religion. “The Arian Christology is inwardly the most unstable, and dogmatically the most worthless, of all the Christologies to be met with in the history of dogma.”107 Still it had its mission. The Arians made the transition from heathenism to Christianity easier for the large numbers of the cultured and half-cultured whom the policy of Constantine brought into the Church. They imparted to them a view of the Holy Scriptures and of Christianity which could present no difficulty to any one at that period. The Arian monotheism was the best transition from polytheism to monotheism. It asserted the truth that there is 44one supreme God with whom nothing can be compared, and thus rooted out the crude worship of many gods. It constructed a descending divine triad in which the cultured were able to recognise again the highest wisdom of their philosophers. It permitted men to worship a demiurge together with the primal substance, πρώτη οὐσία; it taught an incarnation of this demiurge and, on the other hand again, a theopoiesis. and was able skilfully to unite this with the worship of Christ in the Church. It afforded, in the numerous formulæ which it coined, interesting material for rhetorical and dialectic exercises. It quickened the feeling of freedom and responsibility and led to discipline, and even to asceticism. And finally, it handed on the picture of a divine hero who was obedient even to death and gained the victory by suffering and patience, and who has become a pattern for us. When transmitted along with the Holy Scriptures, it even produced a living piety108 amongst Germanic Christians, if it also awakened in them the very idea to 107

Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 65. The figure of Ulfilas vouches for this; his confession of faith (Halm, § 126) is the only Arian one which is not polemical. 108

which it had originally been specially opposed, the idea of a theogony. What was shewn above—namely, that the doctrine was new, is to be taken cum grano salis; elements which were present in the teaching of the Church from the very beginning got here vigorous outward expression and became supreme. The approval the doctrine met with shews how deeply rooted they were in the Church. We cannot but be astonished at the first glance to find that those who sought to defend the whole system of Origen partly sided with Arius and partly gave him their patronage. But this fact ceases to be striking so soon as we consider that the controversy very quickly became so acute as to necessitate a decision for or against Arius. But the Origenists, moreover, had a very strong antipathy to everything that in any way suggested “Sabellianism”; for Sabellianism had no place for the pursuit of Hellenic cosmological speculation, i.e., of scientific theology. Their position with regard to the doctrine of Athanasius was thereby determined. They would rather have kept to their rich supply of musty formulæ, but they were forced to decide for Arius. 45

II. Nothing can more clearly illustrate the perverse state of the problem in the Arian-A eb0 thanasian controversy than the notorious fact that the man who saved the character of Christianity as a religion of living fellowship with God, was the man from whose Christology almost every trait which recalls the historical Jesus of Nazareth was erased. Athanasius undoubtedly retained the most important feature—namely, that Christ promised to bring men into fellowship with God. But while he subordinated everything to this thought and recognised in redemption a communication of the divine nature, he reduced the entire historical account given of Christ to the belief that the Redeemer shared in the nature and unity of the Godhead itself, and he explained everything in the Biblical documents in accordance with this idea.109 That which Christ is and is for us, is the Godhead; in the Son we have the Father, and in what the Son has brought, the divine is communicated to us. This fundamental thought is not new, and it corresponds with a very old conception of the Gospel. It is not new, for it was never wanting in the Church before the time of Athanasius. The Fourth Gospel, Ignatius, Irenæus, Methodius, the so-called Modalism and even the Apologists and

b04 109Anyone, on the other hand, who, like Arius, held to the idea of a developing and struggling Christ was not able to conceive of Him as Redeemer, but only as teacher and example. This was the situation: the Bible accounts of Christ did not favour and establish the sole idea which was held at the time regarding fellowship with God and redemption, but, on the contrary, they interfered with it.

Origen—not to mention the Westerns—prove this; for the Apologists, and Origen too, in what they say of the Logos, emphasised not only His distinction from the Father, but also His unity with the Father. The Samosatene had also laid the whole emphasis on the unity, although indeed he was not understood.110 But not since the days in which the Fourth Gospel was written do we meet with anyone 46with whom the conviction is so definite, thought out with such an assurance of victory, expressed so strongly and so simply, and of such an absolute kind, as it is with Athanasius. All the rest by introducing qualifying thoughts in some way or other, brought an element of uncertainty into their feeling of its truth, and impaired its strength. That in the age of Constantine during the greatest revolution which the Church has experienced and which was so fraught with consequences, the faith represented by Athanasius was confessed with such vigour, is what saved the Christian Church. Its faith would probably have got entirely into the hands of the philosophers, its confession would have become degraded or would have been turned into an imperial official decree enjoining the worship of the “clear-shining Godhead”, if Athanasius had not been there and had not helped those who shared his views to make a stand and inspired them with courage. But at the beginning of the Fourth Century the form of expression for the belief in the unity of the eternal Godhead and its appearance in Jesus Christ was already sketched out. It was as little allowable to think of a unity of living feeling, of will and aim alone, as of the perfect identification of the persons. The doctrines of the pre-existing Son of God, of the eternal Logos, but, above all, the view that everything valuable is accomplished in the nature only, of which feeling and will are an annex, were firmly established. Athanasius in making use of these presuppositions in order to express his faith in the Godhead 1c70 of Christ, i.e., in the essential unity of the Godhead in itself with the Godhead manifested in Christ, fell into an abyss of contradictions. Unquestionably the old Logos doctrine too, and also Arianism, strike us to-day as being full of contradictions, but it was

110

Athanasius always appealed to the collective testimony of the Church in support of the doctrine which he defended. In the work, de decret, 25 sq., he shews that the words ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας and ὁµοούσιος were not discovered by the Nicene Fathers, but, on the contrary, had been handed down to them. He appeals to Theognostus, to the two Dionysii and Origen, to the latter with the reservation that in his case it is necessary to distinguish between what he wrote γυµναστικῶς and what he wrote of a positive character. It is one of the few passages in which he has thought of Origen.

Athanasius who first arrived at the contradictio in adjecto in the full sense of the phrase. That the Godhead is a numerical unity, but that nevertheless Son and Father are to be distinguished within this unity as two—this is his view. He teaches that there is only one unbegotten principle, but that nevertheless the Son has not come into being. He maintains that the Divine in Christ is the eternal “Son”, but that the Son 47is as old as the Father. This Son is not to be thought of either as created, or as an attribute of God, or as an emanation or a part of God, and is therefore something wholly indefinable. The thought of a theogony is rejected as emphatically as that of a creation, and yet the thought of an active attribute is not in any sense to be entertained. The Father is perfect for Himself and is sufficient for Himself; indeed, although Father and Son have one substance, in the sense of a single nature, in common, still the Father alone is “the God”, and is the principle and root of the Son also. Quot verba, tot scandala! Whatever involves a complete contradiction cannot be correct, and everyone is justified in unsparingly describing the contradiction as such. This the Arians sufficiently did, and in so far as they assumed that a contradiction cannot be seriously accepted by anyone, and that therefore the view of Athanasius must at bottom be Sabellian, they were right. Two generations and more had to pass before the Church could accustom itself to recognise in the complete contradiction the sacred privilege of revelation. There was, in fact, no philosophy in existence possessed of formulæ which could present in an intelligible shape the propositions of Athanasius. What he called at one time Ousia and at another Hypostasis, was not an individual substance in the full sense of the word, but still less was it a generic conception. If anything is clear, it is the fact that the thought of Athanasius—namely, the unity of the Godhead which rested in and appeared in Christ, could not be expressed under the traditional presuppositions of the pre-existing Son of God and the personal Logos existing from all eternity. We have here to do with the most important point in the whole question. The very same series of ideas which created the most serious difficulties for the Arians and which have been shewn to occupy a secondary place in their system, seriously hamper the doctrinal utterances of Athanasius; namely, the Logos doctrine of Origen and the cosmologicalmetaphysical conceptions which form the background of statements regarding an historical person. The Arians required to have a created being, created before the 48world, changeable, of the same nature as men, for their Christ, and had to banish all other determinations from their conception, and so they could not make use of the Logos of Philo and the Apologists; Athanasius required

a being who was absolutely nothing else than the Godhead, and so the Logos referred to did not in any sense fit in with his doctrine. In both cases the combined Logos doctrine of Philo and Origen was the disturbing element. And at bottom,—though unfortunately not actually,111—they both discarded it; Arius when he distinguishes between the Logos nuncupativus which Christ is, and the actual Logos of God; Athanasius when he banishes the worldidea from the content of the substance which he adores in Christ. In the view of Arius, Christ belongs in every sense to the world, i.e., to the sphere of created things; in that of Athanasius he belongs in every sense to God, whose substance He shares. Arius and Athanasius both indeed occupy the standpoint of the theology of Origen which no one could now abandon; but their religious and theological interests do not originate in it. In the gnosis of Origen everything spiritual stands to God in a two-fold relation; it is His created work and yet it is at the same time His nature. This holds good in a pre-eminent sense of the Logos, which comprises all that is spiritual in itself and connects the graduated spheres of the spiritual substances, which, like it, have an eternal duration, with the supreme God-head. To this idea corresponds the thought that the creatures are free and that they must return from their state of estrangement and their Fall to their original source. Of this we find nothing either in Arius or in Athanasius. In the case of the former, the sober Aristotelian philosophy on the one hand reacts against this fundamental thought, and on the other, the tradition of the Christ who is engaged in a conflict, who increases and progresses towards perfection. In the case of 49Athanasius what reacts against it is the ancient belief of the Church in the Father, the Almighty Creator of all things, and in the Son in whom the Father reveals Himself and has stooped to hold fellowship with man. It is thus not the case that the gnosis of Origen was simply halved between Arius and Athanasius; on the contrary, it underwent a fundamental correction in the teaching of both. But it was no longer possible to avoid the “vis inertiæ.” of the gnosis of Origen, the contrary formulae which were held together by the idea of the Logos-cosmology as the basis for Christology.112 And now

111

They were not able, and did not dare, to discard it actually, because of John I. 1 f., on account of the Church tradition, and because of the scientific views of the time. As regards Athanasius, we have to keep in mind his idea of the Father as the ῥίζα of the Son, and his other idea, according to which the world was actually made by the Son. 112 Dionysius of Alexandria was a genuine pupil of Origen, for he was equally prepared to maintain the other side of the system of Origen, when his namesake pointed

the question was which of the two was to be adopted, the Logosκτίσµα or the Logos-ὁµοούσιος formula. The former freed from the latter was indeed deprived of all soteriological content, but was capable of intelligent and philosophical treatment—namely, rational-logical treatment; the latter taken exclusively, even supposing that the distinction between the Son and the Father and the superiority of the Father were maintained in connection w 562 ith it, simply led to an absurdity. Athanasius put up with this absurdity;113 without knowing it he made a still greater sacrifice to his faith—the historical Christ. It was at such a price that he saved the religious conviction that Christianity is the religion of perfect fellowship with God, from being displaced by a doctrine which possessed many lofty qualities, but which had no understanding of the inner essence of religion, which sought in religion nothing but “instruction,” and finally found satisfaction in an empty dialectic. 50

It was intended that the General Church-Council which was summoned by the Emperor to meet at Nicæa should, besides settling some other important questions, compose the controversy which already threatened to produce division amongst the Eastern bishops.114 It met in the year 325, in summer apparently. There were present about 300 (250, 270) bishops, hardly so many as 318 as asserted by Athanasius at a later time; the correctness of this latter number is open to suspicion. The West was very poorly

out to him that by his one-sided emphasis ac5 ing of the one side, he had lost himself in highly questionable statements. Eusebius of Cæsarea took up the same position. 113 The Nicene Creed sanctioned it. One of its most serious consequences was that from this time onward Dogmatics were for ever separated from clear thinking and defensible conceptions, and got accustomed to what was anti-rational. The anti-rational— not indeed at once, but soon enough—came to be considered as the characteristic of the sacred. As there was everywhere a desire for mysteries, the doctrine seemed to be the true mystery just because it was the opposite of the clear in the sphere of the profane. Even clear-headed men like the later members of the school of Antioch were no longer able to escape from absurdity. The complete contradiction involved in the Ὁµοούσιος drew a whole host of contradictions after it, the further thought advanced. 114 For the sources and the literature referring to the Council of Nice see Herzog’s REncykl., Vol. X. 2, p. 530 ff. The accounts are meagre and frequently self-contradictory. We do not yet possess an exhaustive study of the subject. In what follows the main points only can be dealt with. I must renounce the idea of giving here the detailed reasons in support of the views I hold. See Gwatkin, p. 36 ff.

represented;115 the Roman bishop was not there, but he had sent two presbyters. The most important of the Eastern bishops were present. It is not clear how the business was arranged and conducted. We do not know who presided, whether Eustathius, Eusebius of Cæsarea, or Hosius, It is undoubted, however, that Hosius exercised a very important influence in the Council. The Emperor at first gave the Council a free hand,116 though he at once put a stop to private wrangling, and he energetically interfered at the most decisive moment, and in the character of a theologian interpreted himself the formula 564 to be adopted.117 We may assume that at first he reckoned on the possibility that the Council would itself find some formula of agreement. He had, however, resolved, under the influence of Hosius, that in the case of this not being successfully carried out, he would enforce the formula which Hosius had agreed upon with Alexander. As 51regards the composition of the Council, the view expressed by the Macedonian Sabinus of Heraclea (Socr. I. 8), that the majority of the bishops were uneducated, is confirmed by the astonishing results. The general acceptance of the resolution come to by the Council is intelligible only if we presuppose that the question in dispute was above most of the bishops.118 Of the “cultured” we have to distinguish three parties—namely, Arius and the Lucianists, who had Eusebius of Nicomedia for their leader; the Origeni 564 sts, the most important man amongst whom was Eusebius of Cæsarea, who was already highly celebrated;119 and Alexander of Alexandria with his following, to which the few Westerns also

115

No one was present from Britain; though there were probably bishops from Illyria, Dacia, Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa and also a Persian bishop. Eusebius (Vita III. 8) compares the meeting with that described in Acts II. 116 524 Sozom. I. 18; we certainly cannot form any clear picture of what took place from the account given in this passage. 117 This follows from the letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to his Church (Theodoret, H. E. I. 11), which we may regard as trustworthy in connection with this matter. Eusebius there distinguishes quite plainly two parties; (1) the party to which he himself belongs and (2) the party which he introduces with “οἱ δὲ” (οἱ δὲ προφάσει τῆς τοῦ ὁµοουσίου προσθήκης τήνδε τὴν γραφὴν πεποιήκασιν, the Nicene Creed follows) and which he does not describe in more definite terms than by “αὐτοι” (καὶ δὴ ταύτης τῆς γραφ͂ς ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ὑπαγορευθείσης). b02 118With the exception of the bishops whom their contemporaries and our earliest informants have mentioned by name, there do not seem to have been any capable men at the Council. 119 It is worthy of note that Eusebius in the letter just cited does not introduce the Arians as a special party, but merely hints at their existence. The middle party stood, in fact, very near to them.

belonged.120 The Arians came to the Council confident of victory; as yet nothing was pre-judged; the Bishop of Nicæa himself was on their side and they had relations with the Court. All were apparently at one in thinking that the Council could not break up without establishing a standard of doctrine, (πίστις, µάθηµα) Those in the East possessed neither a uniform nor a sufficiently authoritative symbol by which the controversy could be settled. The Lucianists accordingly—who may have been about twenty in number, not more at any rate—produced, after deliberation, a confe 564 ssion of faith which was communicated by Eusebius of Nicomedia and embodied their doctrine in unambiguous terms. They did this without having previously come to an understanding with the Origenists. This was a tactical blunder. The great majority of the bishops rejected this rule of faith which was decisively in favour of Arianism.121 Even the “Conservatives” must have been unpleasantly affected by the naked statement of the Arian doctrinal system. The supporters 52of Arius were now in the greatest perplexity owing to the unforeseen turn which events had taken. In order to be able to keep their position at the Council at all, they, with the exception of two who remained firm, withdrew this sketch of their doctrine, and now made up their minds to follow the lead of the Origenists in order to secure at least something. Eusebius of Cæsarea now came to the front. No one was more learned than he; no one was more intimately acquainted with the teaching of the Fathers. He had good reason to hope that he would be able to speak the decisive word. If there was a general conviction that 544 in everything it was necessary to abide by the ancient doctrine of the Church, then there seemed to be no one more fitted to define that ancient doctrine than the great scholar who was also, moreover, in the highest favour with the Emperor. His formulæ were, “the created image”, “the reflection originating in the will”, “the second God” etc.122 He could, if needful, have accepted the Arian formula; those of Alexander he could not adopt, for he saw in them the dreaded Sabellianism which meant the death of theological science.

120

Athanasius (de decret. 19 sq. ad Afros 5, 6, de synod. 33-41) mixes up the two opposition-parties together. 121 See Theodoret I. 6: fin.; he relies upon the account of Eustathius. In addition Athanas., Encycl. ad epp. Ægypt 13, de decret. 3. 122 See the characteristic passage Demon str. IV. 3: ἡ µὴν αὐγὴ οὐ κατὰ προαίρεσιν τοῦ φωτὸς ἐκλάµπει. κατά τι δὲ τῆς οὐσίας συµβεβηκὸς ἀχώριστον. ὁ δὲ υἱὸς κατὰ γνώµην καὶ προαίρεσιν εἰκών ὑπέστη τοῦ πατρός. βουληθεὶς γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς γέγονεν υἱοῦ πατὴρ καὶ φῶς δεύτερον κατὰ πάντα ἑαυτῷ ἀφωµοιωµένον ὑπεστήσατο.

Eusebius accordingly laid a creed before the Council.123 He was convinced that all could and must unite on the basis supplied by it, and as a matter of fact no better conciliatory formula could be imagined. 584 1 Still Eusebius considered it necessary 53to tack on to it an anti-Sabellian addition.124 According to Eusebius the Creed was unanimously pronounced orthodox,125 still the imperial will already made its influence felt here. The Arians were doubtless well pleased to get off on these terms. But Alexander and his following demanded a perfectly plain rejection of Arianism. They went about it in an extremely adroit fashion inasmuch as they accepted the basis of the Creed of Cæsarea, but demanded that its terms should be made more precise. We know from Eusebius himself that the Emperor sided with them, and so far as he was concerned resolved to incorporate in the Creed the word “ὁµοο 55e

ad1

123

According to Eustathius (in Theodoret I. 7) the creed of the strict Arians was composed by Eusebius of Nicomedia; at least I think that it must be the latter who is referred to in what is said in that passage: ὡς δὲ ἐζητεῖτο τῆς πίστεως ὁ τρόπος, ἐναργὴς µὲν ἔλεγχος τὸ γράµµα τῆς Εὐσεβίου προὐβάλλετο βλασφηµίας. ἐπι πάντων δὲ ἀναγνωσθὲν αὐτίκα συµφορὰν µὲν ἀστάθµητον τῆς ἐκτροπῆς ἕνεκα τοῖς αὐτηκόοις προὐξένει, αἰσχύνην δ᾽ἀνήκεστον τῷ γράψαντι παρεῖχεν. It is impossible that it can be the creed of Eusebius of Cæsarea which is referred to here, for the latter (1.c. I. 11) expressly notes that his creed after having been communicated to the Council was substantially accepted. Whether we have a right to call the creed which he produced simply “Baptismal Creed of the Church of Cæsarea,” is to me questionable, judging from the introduction to it given in the letter to his Church. 124 The creed is contained in the letter of Eusebius to his Church. See Theodoret I. 1: Πιστεύοµεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, τὸν τῶν ἁπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν, καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς, υἱὸν µονογενῆ, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννηµένον, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα, τὸν διὰ τὴν ἡµετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσάµενόν καὶ παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡµερᾳ καὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα κ ac8 αὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, καὶ εἰ ἔν πνεῦµα ἅγιον. 125 Τούτων ἕκαστον εἶναι καὶ ὑπάρχειν πιστεύοντες, πατέρα ἀληθινῶς πατέρα, καὶ υἱὸν ἀληθινῶς υἱόν, πνεῦµά τε ἅγιον ἀληθινῶς πνεῦµα ἅγιον, καθὰ καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡµῶν ἀποστέλλων εἰς τὸ κήρυγµα τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ µαθητὰς εἶπε· Matt. XXVIII. 19 follows. 126 Ταύτης ὑφ᾽ ἡµῶν ἐκτεθείσης τῆς πίστεως οὐδείς παρῆν ἀντιλογίας τόπος, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτός τε πρῶτος ὁ θεοφιλέστατος ἡµῶν βασιλεὺς ὀρθότατα περιέχειν αὐτὴν ἐµαρτύρησεν. οὕτω τε καὶ ἑαυτὸν φρονεῖν συνωµολόγησε· καὶ ταύτῃ τοὺς πάντας συγκατατίθεσθαι, ὑπογράφειν τε τοῖς δόγµασι καὶ συµφωνεῖν τούτοις αὐτοῖς παρεκελεύετο (I. 11).

ύσιος”, which was suggested to him by Hosius.127 But the matter was not settled by the mere insertion of a word. It was pointed out that the Creed of Cæsarea contained formulæ which might favour the Arian view. Its supporters were already put in the position of defendants. Accordingly, the Alexandrian party presented a very carefully constructed doctrinal formula which was represented as being a revised form of the Creed of Cæsarea128 and 54in which some think they can recognise, in addition to the contributions of the Alexandrians, the hand of Eustathius of Antioch and of Makarius of Jerusalem.129 56a (1) In place of ἀπάντων ὁρατῶν etc., (“of all seen things whatsoever”), there was put by preference πάντων ὁρατῶν (“of all seen things”), in order to exclude the creation of the Son and Spirit;130 (2) in place of the Logos at the beginning of the second article, the “Son” was put, so that all that follows refers to the Son;131 (3) the words Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ (“God of God”) were extended to γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς µονογενῆ Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ (“begotten of the Father only begotten God of God”), but in the fi 564 nal discussion, however, between µονογενῆ and Θεόν the words τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός (“that is of the substance of the Father”) were further inserted, because it was observed that otherwise the opposition party might be able to put their doctrine into the proposition;132 (4) the unsatisfactory descriptions ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς (“life of life”), πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως (“the first-born of every creature”), πρὸ πάντων αἰώνων

127

According to Eusebius, however, the Emperor himself added an interpretation of the Ὁµοούσιος. We read in the letter of Eusebius, immediately after the words cited in the foregoing note: ἑνὸς µόνου προσεγγραφέντος ῥήµατος τοῦ Ὁµοουσίου, ὃ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡρµήνευσε λέγων ὅτι µὴ κατὰ σωµάτων πάθε λέγοιτο Ὁµοούσιος, οὔτε κατὰ διαίρεσιν, οὔτε κατὰ τινα ἀπο 53d τοµὴν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑποστῆναι . . . θείοις δὲ καὶ ἀπορρήτοις λόγοις προσήκει τὰ τοιαῦτα νοεῖν. The word is thus only intended to express the mystery! 128 Eusebius in an ill-concealed tone of reproach says οἱ δὲ (i.e., the Alexandrians) προφάσει τῆς τοῦ Ὁµοουσίου προσθήκης τήνδε τὴν γραφὴν, (i.e., the Nicene Creed) πεποιήκασι, that is, they have corrected my proposed creed not only here but in other passages also. 129 See Hort., l.c., p. 59 and my article in Herzog, R.-Encyklop., Vol. VIII., p. 214 ff. 130 See Gwatkin, p. 41. 131 The “Logos” is wholly absent from the Nicene Creed; after what has been adduced above this will cause as little astonishment as the fact that neither Athanasians nor Arians took any offence at its exclusion. 132 See on this what is told us by Athanasius, l.c. The clumsy position of the words which mutilate the conception µονογενῆ Θεὸν, further proves that they are an insertion made at the very last.

ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννηµένον (“begotten of the Father before all ages”), before δι᾽ οὗ, etc., were delet 564 ed, and in their place the following was put: Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα, δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο (“true God of true God, begotten, not made, by whom all things were”). At this point, however, a further insertion was made, and this once more in the course of the discussion itself,133 at what too was not at all a suitable place—namely, after “ποιηθέντα” (“made”), the words ὁµοούσιον τῷ πατρί (“of the same substance with the Father”), because it was observed that none of the other terms excluded the Arian evasions; (5) the indefinite ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσάµενον (“having lived amongst men”) was replaced by the definite ἐν ac6 νθρωπήσαντα (“having 55become incarnate”); and (6) finally, in order to exclude all ambiguity, the condemnation of the Arian catchwords was added on to this.134 The opposition parties did not yield without debates, in which the Emperor himself took part.135 We do not know the details of the discussions, but we gather from the accounts of Athanasius that the Eusebians made still further proposals of a conciliatory kind and attempted to produce new catchwords.136 The nature of their objections to the Alexandrian outline of doctrine may be gathered from the irenic explanation which Eusebius gave to his Church in Cæsarea as well as from the objections which later on were

133

See Athanasius, l.c. The doctrinal formula in accordance with this was worded as follows. (The differences above discussed between it and the Creed of Cæsarea are to he explained as the result of the influence exercised by the Jerusalem and Antiochian Creed). The textual proofs are enumerated in Walch, Bib]. symb., p. 75 sq., Hahn, § 73, 74, and Hort. l.c.;— slight variations occur—: Πιστεύοµεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν, καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριο aaa Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρός µονογενῆ—τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός— Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα—ὁµοούσιον τῷ πατρί—δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τὰ δε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸν δι᾽ ἡµᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡµετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα, ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα, καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡµέρᾳ, ἀνελθόντα εἰς [τοὺς]οὐρανούς, ἐρχόµενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα. Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας· Ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε ἦν καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι [ἢ κτιστὸν] ἢ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ [τούτους] ἀναθεµατίζει ἡ καθολικὴ [καὶ αποστολικὴ] ἐκκλησία. 135 Eusebius in Theoderet, H. E. I. 11: ἐρωτήσεις τοιγαροῦν καὶ ἀποκρίσεις ἐντεῦθεν ἀνεκινοῦντο, ἐβασανίζετο ὁ λόγος τῆς διανοίας τῶν εἰρηµένων. 136 See Athan. de decret. 19, 20; ad Afros 5, 6. 134

brought against the Nicene Creed. They fought against ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας (“of the substance”) and ὁµοούσιος because (1) they believed they saw in these words a materialising of the Godhead, which made it a composite substance comprising emanations or parts; because (2) they could not help seeing in the ὁµοούσιος a Sabellian definition too, and because (3) the words did not occur in Holy Scripture. This last reason was specially decisive. In many parts of the Church there was still a shrinking from the definite adoption of unbiblical terms for the expression of the Faith.137 In addition to 56this there was the fact that the ὁµοούσιος had before this been rejected at Antioch. 55e 138 But the will of the Emperor

ae6 137Still Gwatkin, p. 43, goes too far when he asserts that “the use of ἄγραφα in a creed was a positive revolution in the Church.” It is quite impossible to maintain this in view, for example, of the Creed of Gregorius Thaumaturgus. 138 See on µοούσιος, which the Gnostics were the first to use, and on its meaning and history Vol. III. 141 f., 221; above pp. 15 f., 32-35; I. 257; II. 259, 352, 354; iii. 45. On the older ecclesiastical use of οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, ὑποκείµενον, above all in Origen, see the scholarly discussions by Bigg (the Christian Platonists, p. 164 ff.). “Ousia is properly Platonic, while hypostasis, a comparatively modern and rare word, is properly Stoic” . . . Hypokeimenon already in Aristotle means the substantia materialis, ὕλη quæ determinatur per formam or οὐσία cui inhærent πάθη συµβεβηκότα . . . the theological distinction between the terms οὐσία and ὑπόστασις is purely arbitrary.” On the conception of hypostasis see Stentrup, Innsbrucker Zeitschr. f. Kath. Theologie. 1877, p. 59 ff. The question as to who brought forward the ὁµοούσιος again after it had been condemned at Antioch, is an important one. It does not occur in the letters of Bishop Alexander. Athanasius had never any special preference for the word. It is found only once in the Orat. c. Arian (Orat. I. 9), and in the undoubtedly conciliatory work, de synod., 41, he admits that importance does not attach so much to the word as to the thing. The conceptions “ἑνότης” and “ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας” would have served the purpose so far as he himself was concerned. Such being the state of the case one may reasonably assume that the word was not revived by any one belonging to the Eastern Church, since its rejection at Antioch must have stood in the way of this, but rather that some one in the West went back upon it, and Hosius is the only one we can think of as the likely person. This hypothesis is strengthened by the following considerations: (1) According to the testimony of Eusebius of Cæsarea there can be no doubt that the Emperor hi 564 mself energetically defended the word ὁµοούσιος, but the Emperor was dependent on Hosius; (2) Athanasius (hist. Arian. 42) says of Hosius: οὗτος ἐν Νικαίᾳ πίστιν ἐξὲθετο; (3) the Western-Roman doctrine was the substantial unity of Father and Son; the Alexandrian bishop was accused before the Roman bishop Dionysius on the ground that he was unwilling to use “ὁµοούσιος᾽” and in Rome the accused excuses himself for not using it, and it is the Roman bishop who in his letter stated in energetic language the κήρυγµα τῆς µοναρχίας, the ἡνῶσθαι τῷ Θεῷ τὸν λόγον, and the οὐ καταµερίζειν τὴν µονάδα. I therefore conjecture that the word had been retained in Rome, i.e., in the West, since the

decided the matter. Respect for the Emperor, his express declaration that there was a desire not to endanger the absolute spirituality of the Godhead, the wish to conclude a grand work of

time of the controversy of the Dionysii, that when the occasion offered it was once more produced in the East, and that the Alexandrians then accepted the word because they themselves had no better short catchword at their command. This explains why Athanasius always treats the expression as one which was suitable so far as the actual fact to be expressed was concerned, but which as regards its form was for him a foreign term. He could not, it is true, go quite so far as Luther (Opp. reform. V., p. 506): “Quod si odit anima mea v ac8 ocem homousion et nolim ea uti, non ero hæreticus. Quis enim me coget uti, modo rem teneam, quæ in concilio per scripturas definita est? Etsi Ariani male senserunt in fide, hoc tamon optime, sive malo sive bono animo, exegerunt, ne vocem profanam et novam in regulis fidei statui liceret.” Finally, the statement of Socrates (III. 7) which indeed has been rejected by most, is decisive. According to this Hosius during his stay in Alexandria—before the Nicene Council—had discussed οὐσία and ὑπόστασις. At the first glance that undoubtedly seems unworthy of belief, because it is a ὕστερον-πρότερον but as soon as we remember the work of Tertullian, adv. Prax., which is the most important dogmatic treatise which the West produced previous to Augustine and which cannot have been unknown to Hosius, everything becomes clear. In this work in which Tertullian bears witness to the strong influence exercised upon him by Monarchianism spite of the fact that he is opposing it, no thought is so plainly expressed as this, that Father, Son, and Spirit are unius substantiæ, i.e., ὁµοούσιοι (Vol. II., p. 259 ff.). Along with this, however, we have the idea clearly developed, that Father, Son, and Spirit are different a personæ” (see e.g., c. 3: “proximæ personæ, consortes substantiæ patris”, 15; “visibilem et invisibilem deum deprehendo sub manifesta et personali distinctione condicionis utriusque”; see also the conception of “personales substantiæ” in adv. Valent. 4). These personæ are also called by Tertullian “formæ cohærentes”, “species indivisæ”, “gradus” (c. 2, 8), and in fact even simply “nomina” (c. 30), and this gives his representation as much a Monarchian appearance as the appearance of an immanent Trinity (for a more detailed examination, see the appendix to this chapter). It is from this source, and also from Novatian who in his work, de trinitate, adopted the thoughts of Tertullian, that the theology of Hosius is derived. He may very probably, along with Tertullian, have already spoken of “personæ”, side by side with the “unius substantiæ” which the entire West possessed belief in, in accordance with the baptismal formula, for this is what it was understood to be. (See Hilar., de trinit. II. I. 3: Ambros. de myster. 5 fin). That his formula was: “unius substantiæ tres personæ” where persona is certainly to be conceived of rather as species or forma—not as “substance”—is very probable. The Western Hippolytus, moreover, (c. Noët. 14) also spoke of one God and several prosopeia, and so too did the Western Sabellius, and Tert. (l.c. c. 26) says bluntly: 564 “ad singula nomina in personas singulas tinguimur.” Only this point must remain undecided—namely, whether Hosius already actually translated “persona” by “ὑπόστασις.” It is not probable, since in the so-called Creed of Sardica he used ὑπόστασις as = οὐσία (substantia). That his main catchword was µία οὐσία follows from what he says in his letter to Narcissus of Neronias (Euseb. c. Marcell., p. 25).

peace—this 57doctrinal declaration139 of the entire Church was, moreover, something new and imposing—induced the Conservatives, i.e., the Origenists and those who did not think for themselves, to fall in with what was proposed. They all subscribed with the exception of two, and at the same time salved their consciences in different ways by mental reservations.140 The Lucianists 56c 58who up till now had to all appearance been united together in an indissoluble friendship, were unprincipled enough to sacrifice their old comrade Arius.141 He was condemned as the scapegoat, and the Emperor, anxious to protect with the strong hand the unity which had been won, gave orders that the books of Arius should be burned and that his adherents should henceforth be called “Porphyrians”, i.e., should be placed on a level with the worst enemies of Christ.142 To the Alexandrian Church he wrote: ὅ τοῖς τριακοσίοις ἤρεσεν ἐπισκόποις ὀυδὲν ἔστιν ἔτερον ἤ τοῦ Θεοῦ γνώµη, µάλιστά γε ὅπου τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα τοιούτων καὶ τηλικούτων ἀνδρῶν ταῖς διανοὍ 53f αις ἐγκείµενον τὴν θείαν βούλησιν ἐξεφώτισεν143 (“what satisfied the three hundred bishops 139

This is what the Nicene Creed was primarily intended to be, and not a baptismal creed, as the anathemas prove. 140 Theouas of Marmarika and Secundus of Ptolemais refused and were deposed and banished, and the same thing happened in the case of Arius and som ac8 e presbyters. Arius was specially forbidden by the Council to enter Alexandria, Sozom I. 20. The evasions to which the Lucianists and Origenists had recourse in order to justify their conduct to themselves, can be studied in the letter of Eusebius to his Church. Eusebius interprets “ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς” as equal to “He has His existence from the Father” (!), “γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηζέντα” as equivalent to “the Son is not a creature like the rest of the creatures”, ὁµοούσιος as ὁµοιούσιος, meaning µόνῳ τῷ πατρὶ τῷ γεγεννηκότι κατὰ πάντα τρόπον ὄµοιος and not out of a foreign substance. The worst shift of all is undoubtedly when Eusebius writes to his Church that he has (now) rejected the formula ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, because we ought not to use any unbiblical expressions whatsoever (but Ὁµοούσιος!) and because the Son did indeed exist already before His incarnation. But that was not the point at all! Πέπονθέ τι δεινόν, says Athanasius (de decret. 3), with justice, of this passage in the letter. 141 They afterwards asserted no doubt that they had not subscribed the anathemas, but only the positive doctrine of the Nicene Creed (Socr. I. 14). However, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicæa a were, notwithstanding this, banished soon after; they were suspected by the Emperor of being Arians and intriguers; see the strongly hostile letter of Constantine in Theodoret I. 19. 142 Socr. I. 9; those with Arian books in their possession were even to be punished with death. 143 L.c. Other writings of Constantine in the same place. The synodal-epistle aa1 in Theodoret I. 9, Gwatkin, p. 50, has proved that in the respect shewn by Athanasius for the Nicene Council there is no trace “of the mechanical theory of conciliar infallibility.” It is

is nothing else than the judgment of God, but most of all where the Holy Spirit being present in the thoughts of men such as 59these and so ripe in years, made known the Divine will”). He persecuted the Arians, and the orthodox approved of what he did. They are thus responsible along with him for the persecution. The Arians at a later date only carried on what the orthodox had begun. The correct faith had triumphed and—the Bishop of Alexandria.144 The Council of Nicæa is the first step taken by the Bishop of Alexandria in aspiring to the primacy of the East. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

589 2. TO THE DEATH OF CONSTANTIUS.145 NEVER again in the history of the Church has there been a victory so complete and so quickly secured as that at Nicæa, and no other decision of the Church approaches it in importance. The victors had the feeling that they had set up for all ages146 a “warning notice against all heresies” (στηλογραφία κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων), and this estimate of the victory has continued to be the prevailing one in the Church.147 Th 564 e grand innovation, the elevation of two unbiblical expressions to the rank of catchwords of the Catholic Faith, insured the unique nature of this Faith. At bottom not only was Arianism rejected, but also Origenism; for the exclusive Ὁµοούσιος separated the Logos from all spiritual creatures and seemed thus to do away with scientific cosmology in every form.

necessary to guard against exaggerated ideas of the extent to which the decree of the Nicene Council was accepted. It can be proved that in the East (see e.g., Aphraates’ Homilies) and still more in the West, there were numerous bishops who did not trouble themselves about the decree and for whom it had no existence. It was not till after the year 350 that men began to think over the Nicene Creed in the West, and to perceive that it contained more than a mere confirmation of the ancient Western belief in the doctrine of monarchy. 144 The victory of the Bishop of Alexandria may be studied above all in the Canons of Nicæa. They have not so far been treated of from this point of view. 145 In what follows I give merely a sketch; the details belong to Church history. 146 Athanas. ad Afros II. and elsewhere. 147 Up to time of the Chalcedonian Creed the conceptions Homoousia and Orthodoxy were quite identical; the latter involved no more than the former. Thus the orthodoxy of Origen is for Socrates (VI. 13) undoubted, just because none of his four chief opponents (Methodius, Eustathius, Apollinaris, and Theophilus) charge him with heresy in reference to his doctrine of the Trinity.

But it was just because of this that the strife now began. The Nicene Creed effected in the East a hitherto unprecedented concord, but this was amongst its opponents, while its friends, on the other hand, felt no genuine enthusiasm for its subtle formulae. The schismatic Meletians of Egypt made common cause with the Arians and Origenists; those of the bishops 60who were indifferent or stupid were induced to oppose it by the bugbear of Sabellianism and by the unbiblical shape in which the new faith was formulated. Society was still for the most part heathen, and this heathen society openly sided with the anti-Nicenes; the Jews too, who were still influential, ranged themselves on this side. The clever sophist Asterius was able, as “travelling professor”, to interest large numbers in “the one Unbegotten”. But, above all, the two Eusebiuses sough 564 t again to be masters of the situation. The one necessarily strove in the first instance to regain his seat, the other to make the weight of his untouched personal authority once more felt in theology also. What their mutual relationship was is not clear; in any case they marched separately and struck unitedly.148 The Nicomedian always thought first of himself and then of his cause; the Bishop of Cæsarea saw science and theology disappear in the movement which received its impulse from Alexandria. Both, however, had made up their minds not to part company with the Emperor if they could not otherwise succeed in managing him. The great mass of the bishops always were, in accordance with this policy, purely “imperial”. With regard to the strict Arians, however, it must be admitted to their credit that during the whole controversy they were as little willing to accept as authoritative the decisions of the Emperors in matters of faith as were Athanasius, Hilary, and Lucifer. When Constantine interfered in the great controversy, he had only just come to the 564 East. He was under the guidance of Western bishops, and it was Western Christianity alone with which he had hitherto been acquainted. And so after an abortive attempt to compose the controversy, he had accomplished the “work of peace” at Nicæa in accordance with Western views. But already during the years which immediately followed he must have learned that the basis upon which he had reared it was too narrow, that, above all, it did not meet the requirements of 61the “common sense” of the East. As a politician he was prudent enough not to

148

The best investigation regarding Eusebius of Nicomedia is contained in the article in the Dict. of Chr. Biogr. We know Eusebius, it is true, almost exclusively from the picture which his opponents have drawn of him. But in his actions he has portrayed himself as an imperious prince of the Church of a secular type, for whom all means were justifiable.

take any step backward, but, on the other hand, as a politician he knew that every law gets its meaning quite as much from the method in which it is carried out as from the letter of it. Feeling this—to which has to be added the presence of Arian influences at the Court—he had since about the year 328 resolved, under cover of the Nicene Creed, to reinstate the broader doctrinal system of older days whose power he had first got to know in Asia, in order to preserve the unity of the Church which was endangered.149 But Constantine did n 564 ot get the length of doing anything definite and conclusive. He merely favoured the anti-Nicene coalition to such an extent that he left to his sons a ruptured Church in place of a united one. The anti-Nicene coalition, however, had already become during the last years of Constantine’s life an antiAthanasian one. On the eighth of June, 328, Athanasius, not without opposition on the part of the Egyptian bishops,150 had mounted the Episcopal throne in Alexandria. The tactics of the coalition were directed first of all towards the removal of the main defenders of the Nicene faith, and it was soon recognised that the youthful bishop of Alexandria was the most dangerous of these. Intrigues and slanders of the lowest kind now began to come into play, and the conflict was carried on sometimes by means of moral charges of the worst kind, and sometimes by means of political calumnies. The easily excited masses were made fanatical by the coarse abuse and execrations of the opponents, and the language of hate which hitherto had been bestowed on heathen, Jews, and heretics, filled the churches. The catchwords of t 564 he doctrinal formula, which were unintelligible to the laity and indeed even to most of the bishops themselves, were set up as standards, and the more successful they were in keeping up the agitation the more surely did the pious-minded turn away from them and sought satisfaction in asceticism and polytheism in a Christian garb. In every diocese, however, personal interests, struggles about 62sees and influence, were mixed up with the controversy, and this was the case in the West too, especially in Rome, as we may gather from the events of the year 366. Thus a series of bloody townrevolutions accompanied the movement. In the midst of all this Athanasius alone in the East stood like a rock in the sea. If we measure him by the standard of his time we can discover nothing ignoble or mean about him. The favourite charge of hierarchical imperiousness has something naïve about it. His stern procedure in reference to the Meletians was a necessity,

149

If Eusebius is right the Emperor had already at Nice also advocated a broad application of the orthodox formula. 150 The matter, so far as the particulars are concerned, is quite obscure.

and an energetic bishop who had to represent a great cause could not be anything else but imperious. It is certainly undeniable that for years he was formally in the wrong, inasmuch as he would not admit the validity of his deposition. He regarded it as the task committed to him, to rule Egypt, to regulate the Church of the East in acc 564 ordance with the standard of the true faith, and to ward off any interference on the part of the State. He was a Pope, as great and as powerful a one as there ever has been. When the sons of Constantine entered upon the inheritance of their father, the heads of the Nicene party in the East had been deposed or exiled; Arius, however, was dead.151 The exiled

151

The dates put shortly are as follows. Some three years after the Nicene Council, years which for us are absolutely dark (the letter of Constantine in Gelas., Hist. Conc. Nic. III. I is probably not genuine), Constantine begins to turn round. (Was this owing to the influence of Constantia and her court-clergyman?) The recall of Arius, Eusebius of Nicom. and Theognis (the latter’s letter in Socrat. I. 14, is perhaps not genuine). Eusebius gains a decisive influence over the Emperor. At an Antioch synod 330. Eustathius of Antioch, one of the chief champions of the Nicene Creed is deposed (for adultery) at the instigation of the two Eusebiuses. Arius presents to the Emperor a diplomatically composed confession of faith which satisfies him, (Socr. I. 26) is completely rehabilitated, and demands of Athanasius that he be allowed to resume his position in Alexandria. Athanasius refuses, and succeeds in making good his refus 564 al and in clearing himself from the personal charges brought against him on the part of the Eusebians. At the Synod of Tyre 335 (not 336) held under the presidency of the Church historian Eusebius, the coalition nevertheless succeeds in passing a resolution for the deposition of Athanasius on account of certain alleged gross excesses, and in persuading the Emperor to proceed against him as a disturber of the peace, and this spite of the fact that in the year 334 Athanasius, in opposition to the Synod of Cæsarea, had convinced the Emperor of his perfect innocence and of the base intrigues of the Meletian bishops. Athanasius notwithstanding this succeeded a second time in inducing the Emperor to give his case an impartial trial, by hastening to Constantinople and making a personal statement to the Emperor, who was taken by surprise. His opponents, who had meanwhile been commanded to go from Tyre to Jerusalem, now expressly declared that the doctrinal explanations given by Arius and his friends were sufficient, and already made preparations for burying the Nicene Creed in their pretentious assembly, and also for bringing to trial Marcellus, the friend of Athanasius. They were, however, summoned by the Emperor to come to Constantinople and to carry on their deliberations. Only the worst of Athanasius’ opponents complied with this demand, and aae they succeeded by bringing forward new accusations (at the beginning of the year 336), in inducing the Emperor to banish Athanasius (to Trier). Still it is at least doubtful if the Emperor did not wish him to escape for a while from his enemies. His chair in any case was not filled. Marcellus, who had also appealed to the Emperor, was deposed and condemned on account of erroneous doctrine. The solemn induction of Arius into his Church—against the wish of the bishop, Alexander of Constantinople—was immediately robbed of its

in accordance with a resolution152 come to in common by the Emperors, were free to return as a body. This was the case in the latter part of the autumn of 337. But as soon as Constantius became master in his own domain he continued the policy of his father. He wished to rule the Church as the latter had done; he perceived that this was possible in the East only if the Nicene innovation, or at least the exclusive application of it, were got r 564 id of, and he did not feel himself bound to the Nicene Creed as his father had done. One cannot but admit that the youthful monarch shewed statesmanlike insight and acted with energy, and with all his devotion to the Church he never allowed churchmen to rule as his brother did. He had not, however, the patience and moderation of his father, and though he had indeed inherited from the latter the gift of ruling, he had not got from him the art of managing men by gentle force. The brutal trait which Constantine knew how to keep in check in himself, appeared in an undisguised fashion in his son, and the development of the Emperor into an Oriental despot advanced a stage further in Constantius.153 First of 64all, Paul of Constantinople was deposed for the second time; Eusebius of Nicomedia at last secured the seat he had so long striven after. Eusebius of Cæsarea died, and his place was taken by a man deserving of little respect, Acacius, a friend of the Arians. The tumults which took place in Egypt after the return of Athanasius made it easier for his enemies, who regarded him as depos 564 ed and once more pronounced the sentence of deposition at a Synod in Antioch, to move the Emperor to proceed against him. His energetic conduct in his diocese and the violence of his Egyptian friends (Apol. c. Arian. 3-19) aggravated the situation. Constantius listened to the Eusebians, but did not sanction the choice of Bishop Pistus whom they had set apart for Alexandria. He decreed the deposition of Athanasius, and sent as bishop to Alexandria, a certain Gregory, a Cappadocian who had nothing to commend him save the imperial favour. Athanasius 63bishops

significance by his sudden death. The Emperor sought to carry on his energetic peacepolicy by the banishment of other “disturbers of the peace,” such as the Meletian leading spirit, and Paulus, the newly elected bishop of Constantinople. He died, however, in May 337, in his own opinion in the undoubted Nicene faith. His son maintained that he had himself further resolved on the restitution of Athanasius. Sources: besides the Church historians and Epiphanius, chiefly Athan. Apolog. c. Arian.; in addition, the Festival letters, the Hist. Arian. ad monach. de morte Arii ad Serapionem, Ep. ad epp. Æg. 19, and Euseb., Vita Constant. IV. 152 On this resolution see Schiller II., p. 277 f. 153 The best characterisation is in Ranke IV., p. 35 ff.; see also Krüger, Lucifer, p. 4 ff., Gwatkin, p. 109 sq., Schiller II., p. 245 ff.

anticipated a violent expulsion by leaving Alexandria—in the spring of 339. He betook himself to Rome, leaving his diocese behind him in a state of wild uproar. The Eusebians were now masters of the situation, but just because of this they had a difficult task to perform. What had now to be done was to get the Nicene Creed actually out of the way, or to render it ineffective by means of a new formula. This could only be done in conjunction with the West, and it would have to be done in such a way that they should neither seem to be giving the lie to their own vote in Nicæa—and therefore they would have to make it appear that they were attacking only the form and not the contents of the confession—nor seem to the Church in the West to be proclaiming ac8 a new faith. It is in the light of these facts that we are to regard the symbols of Antioch and the negotiations with Julius of Rome. They found themselves shut up in a position from which they could not escape without a certain amount of evasion. The faith of Athanasius must not be attacked any more than that of the Westerns.154 The condemnation of the great bishop 65had thus always throughout to be based on personal accusations. As regards the doctrinal question, the whole stress had to be laid on getting the Homousios put quietly aside, on the ground that it was unbiblical and gave an inlet to Sabellianism. In this respect the doctrine of Marcellus of Ancyra was very welcome to the Eusebians, for they sought, not without justice, to shew from it to what destructive results a theology which based itself on the Homousios must lead.155 But the 66Roman bishop was not to be corrupted, he did 154

This explains why the canons of the Synod of Antioch came to enjoy a high reputation and why Hilary (de synod. 32) designated the assembly a ‘synodus sanctorum.’ All the same such a description is not quite intelligible; we know too little both of the character and of the proceedings of the Synod. ae2 155 Marcellus is an extremely interesting phenomenon in the history of theology; he did not, however, succeed in effecting any change in the history of dogma or in creating any noteworthy number of followers. At the Council of Nicæa he belonged to the few who zealously championed the Homousios (Apol. c. Arian. 23, 32). After the Council he was, besides Eustathius, at first the sole literary representative of orthodoxy, since he wrote a comprehensive treatise περὶ ὑποταγῆς by way of reply to the work of the Arian Asterius. This work, in which he defends the unity of substance of the Logos, drew upon him from the dominant party the accusation of Sabellianism and Samosatenism. His case was dealt with at the Councils of Tyre, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, since he also personally defended Athanasius and opposed the restoration of Arius. Spite of his appeal to the Emperor he was at Constantinople deprived of his office as a teacher of erroneous doctrine, another bishop was sent to Ancyra, and Eusebius of Cæsarea endeavoured in two works (c. Marcell., de ecclesiast. theolog.) to refute him. These works are for us the

source for the teaching of Marcellus. Marcellus did not recognise the common doctrinal basis of Arianism and orthodoxy; he went back behind the traditional teaching of Origen, like Paui of Samosata, and consequently got rid of the element which caused the trouble to Arianism and, in a higher degree, to orthodoxy. His doctrinal system presents, on the one hand, certain points of agreement with that of the old Apologists, though these are more apparent than real, and on the other with that of Irenmus; still it cannot be proved that there is any literary dependence. Marcellus was at one with Arius in holding that the conceptions “Son”, “begotten” etc., involve the subordination of the being thus designated. But just because of this he rejected these conceptions as being inapplicable to the divine in Christ. He clearly perceived that the prevalent theology was on a wrong track owing to its implication with philosophy; he wished to establish a purely biblical system of doctrine and sought to shew that these conceptions are all used in the Scriptures in reference to the incarnate one, the view of most in the older days, e.g., Ignatius. The Scripture supplies only one conception to express the eternal-divine in Christ, that of the Logos (the Logos is image or type only in connection with man created in his image): ac8 the Logos is the indwelling power in God, which has manifested itself in the creation of the world as δύναµις δραστική, in order then for the first time to become personal with the view of saving and perfecting the human race. Thus the Logos is in and for itself, in its essential nature, the unbegotten reason of God indwelling in God from all eternity and absolutely inseparable from him; it begins its actuality in the creation of the world, but it first becomes a personal manifestation distinct from God in the incarnation, through which the Logos as the image of the invisible God becomes visible. In Christ consequently the Logos has become a person and son of God—a person who is as surely ὁµοούσιος τῷ Θεῷ as he is the active working of God Himself. After the work has been completed, however, the Son subordinates Himself to the Father in such a way that God is again all in all, since the hypostatic form of the Logos now ceases (hence the title of M.’s work: περὶ ὑποταγῆς; the idea is an old one, see Vol. II.). M. confessed that he did not know what became of the humanity of Christ. The stumblingblocks which this system presented to that age were (1) that M. called only the incarnate one Son of God, (2) that he taught no real pre-existence, (3) that he assumed the Kingdom of Christ would have an end, and (4) that he spoke of an extension of the indivisible monad. Marcellus having been recalled (337) and then expelled again from his diocese (338), like Athanasius, betook himself to Rome, and by means of a confession in which he disguised his doctrine, induced Bishop Julius to recognise his orthodoxy. (The confession is in the letter to Julius in Epiph. H. 72. 2: Zahn, Marcell. p. 70 f., vainly attempts to dispute the fact of a “disguising.” In the letter he avows his belief in the Roman Creed also.) The Roman synod of the year 340 declared him to be sound in the faith. It scarcely fully understood the case; what is of much more importance is that Athanasius and consequently also the Council of Sardica did not abandon Marcellus, and the Council indeed remarked that the Eusebians had taken as a positve statement what he had uttered only tentatively (ζητῶν). That Athanasius spite of all remonstrances should have pronounced Marcellus orthodox, is a proof that his interest in the matter was confined to one point, and centred in the godhead of the historical Jesus Christ as resting upon the unity of substance with God. Where he saw that this was recognised, he allowed

not even sacrifice Marcellus; and the creeds of Antioch which were not actually heterodox, but which were not sincere, did not at all meet with his approval. He did not concern himself with the attempt, justifiable from the point of view of the Orientals and 67of Constantius, to create for the East a doctrinal form of expression which was more in accordance with the convictions of the majority. The most important result of the operations of the Eusebians at Antioch, and the one which was of the greatest consequence, was that they had to bring themselves to renounce Arianism in order to gain over the West. Arianism was now condemned on all sides in the Church; nevertheless the Eusebians did not attain their aim.156

freedom of thought on other points. At a later period, it is true, when it became possible still more to discredit Marcellus through his pupil Photinus, the ac8 re was a disagreement of a temporary kind between him and Athanasius. Athanasius is said to have refused to have intercourse with him and Marcellus is said to have dropped him. Athanasius also combatted the theology of M. (Orat. c. Arian. IV), though he afterwards again recognised the truth of his faith. Epiphanius informs us (72. 4) that he once put some questions to the aged Athanasius regarding M.: Ὁ δὲ οὔτε ὑπεραπελογήσατο, οὔτε πάλιν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀπεχθῶς ἡνέχθη, µόνον δὲ διὰ τοῦ προσώπου µειδίασας ὑπέφηνε , µοχθηρίας µὴ µακρὰν αὐτὸν εἶναι, καὶ ὡς ἀπολογησάµενον εἶχε. Marcellus’ followers in Ancyra also possessed at a later date an epistle of Athanasius (Epiph. 72. 11) which was favourable to them. The East, however, stuck firmly to the condemnation of Marcellus, and so too did the Cappadocians at a later period—a proof this also of a radical difference between them and Athanasius The further history of this matter has no place here (see Zahn op. cit. and Möller, R.-Encykl., 2nd Ed., p. 281 f.). Marcellus died in the year 373, close on a hundred years old, after that his theology had repeatedly done good service to the opponents of orthodoxy, without, however, helping them to discredit Athanasius. 156 The negotiations between Bishop Julius and the Eusebians assembled at Antioch (Rom. Council, autumn 340 Council at Antioch, summer and autumn 341) are from the point of view of Church politics of great significance, and more particularly the letter of Bishop Julius to the Eusebians after the Roman Council (Apol. c. Arian. 21) is a masterpiece. But we cannot enter on this matter here. The four formula of Antioch (it is to them that the reproach brought by Athanasius against his opponents chiefly refers— namely, that they betrayed their uncertainty by the new forms of faith they were constantly publishing see de decret. 1: de synod. 22—23: Encycl. ad epp. Ægypt. 7 sq.: Ep. ad. Afros 23) are in Athan., de synod. 22 sq. (Hahn § 84, 115, 85, 86). There are some good remarks in Gwatkin, p. 114 sq. The zealous efforts made by the Eusebians to arrive at a harmonious agreement with the West were probably closely connected also with the general political situation. After the fall of Constanti ac8 ne II. (spring 340) Constans had promptly made himself master of the whole of his brother’s domain Constantius, whose attention was claimed by severe and incessant wars on the eastern boundary, was unable to hinder this. From the year 340 Constans thus had the decisive

68

During the following years Constantius’ hands were tied by the Persian war, and he was forced to keep on good terms with his brother so as to avoid having trouble on the western boundary of his kingdom also. At the same ti 564 me, just after the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia, which took place in the autumn of 342, the party amongst the conservatives of the East who, partly no doubt for political reasons, were actually set on coming to an agreement with the West, gained the lead. A general Council which was summoned by Constans to meet at Sardica in the summer of 343

preponderance in the Empire. The first Antiochian formula still supports Arius, though with the odd qualification that those who were in favour of him had not followed him (πῶς γὰρ ἐπίσκοποι ὄντες ἀκολουθήσαν πρεσβυτέρῳ), but had tested his teaching: it limits itself to describing the Son as µονογενῆ, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ὑπάρχοντα καὶ συνόντα τῷ γεγεννηκότι αὐτὸν πατρί, but it already contains the anti-Marcellian proposition descriptive of the Son: διαµένοντα βασιλέα καὶ Θεὸν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. The second, so-called Lucian, formula already gathers together all designations for the Son which could possibly be used of His Godhead from an Origenistic standpoint (above all, µονογενῆ Θεὸν, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, ἄτρεπτον τε καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον, τῆς θεότηρος οὐσίας τε καὶ βουλῆς καὶ δυνάµεως καὶ δόξης τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα, Θεὸν λόγον); it then adopts once more the addition which Eusebius had appended to the outline of his belief presented at Nicæa (see p. 52), and formulates the following proposition against Marcellus; τῶν ὀνοµάτων οὐχ ἁπλῶς οὐδὲ ἀργῶς κειµένων σηµαινόντων ἀκριβῶς τὴν οἰκείαν ἑκάστου τῶν ὀνοµαζοµένων ὑπόστασιν (N.B. = οὐσίαν) καὶ τάξιν καὶ δόξαν, ὡς εἶναι τῇ µὲν ὑποστάσει τρία, τῇ δὲ συµφωνίᾳ ἕν; but on the other hand, without mentioning Arius, it expressly rejects the Arian catchwords objected to at Nicæa. The third, submitted by the Bishop of Tyana, has a still stronger anti-Marcellan colouring (Ἰ. Χρ. ὄντα πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐν ὑποστάσει . . . µένοντα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας), repudiates Marcellus, Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata by name, but otherwise in place of all other possible designations it has the Nicene sounding: Θεὸν τέλειον ἐκ Θεοῦ τελείου. At length the fourth formula, drawn up some months later, became the final one. It is constructed as far as possible on the model of the Nicene Creed; at ac8 the end too some Arian catchwords are expressly condemned. The most important propositions run thus: καὶ εἰς τὸν µονογενῆ αὐτοῦ υἱόν, τὸν κύριον ἡµῶν Ἰ. Χρ., τὸν πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός . . . λόγον ὄντα καὶ σοφίαν καὶ δύναµιν καὶ ζωὴν καὶ φῶς ἀληθινόν, at the close of this section (against Marcellus): οὗ βασιλεια ἀκατάλυτος οὖσα διαµενεῖ εἰς τοὺς ἀπείρους αἰῶνας· ἔσται γὰρ καθεζόµενος ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐ µὸνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ µέλλοντι. All four formulæ have this in common, that they are compatible with the theology of Origen; the three last, that Arianism in the strict sense is repudiated. The fourth was communicated to the Emperor Constans by a deputation in Gaul. For the rest it ought not to be forgotten that the Eusebians formally adhered to the basis of the Nicene Creed; see Hefele I., p. 502 ff.

and was approved of by Constantius, was to restore the unity of the Church. But the Western bishops, about a hundred in number, rejected the preliminary demand of the Eastern bishops for the deposition of Athanasius and Marcellus, both of whom were present in Sardica; pronounced sentence of deposition upon the leaders of the Orientals after the exodus of the latter; after an investigation declared the bishops attacked to be innocent, that is to say, orthodox; avowed their belief in the Nicene Creed, and under the guidance of Hosius took up the most rigid attitude possible on the doctrinal question.157 In opposition to this the bishops, 69who met together in the neighbouring Philippopolis, framed a circular letter, dated from Sardica, in whi 564 ch they set forth the illegality of the procedure of their opponents, and confessed the faith in terms essentially identical with those of the fourth formula of Antioch.158

157

Sardica was situated in the territory of Constans. The most influential of the Eastern bishops were present. Hosius took the lead. (Histor. Arian 15.) The formal restatement of the Nicene Creed desired by some of them was not proceeded with. (Athan. Tom. ad Antioch. 5 against Socrates II., 20); but the description of the Faith which will be found at the close of the encyclical letter, although it is not to be regarded as an official declaration, is a document whose importance has hitherto not been sufficiently recognised. It originated with Hosius and Protogenes of Sardica, and is the most unambiguous expression of the Western view in the matter, so unambiguous that for the moment it seemed even to the orthodox Orientals themselves to be questionable (the formula is in Theodoret II. 8, lat. translation discovered by Maffei). It is here first of all that the proposition is found: µίαν ὑπόστασιν, ἣν αὐτοὶ οἱ αἱρετικοὶ οὐσίαν προσαγορεύουσι (for ὑπόστασιν we have in the Latin “substantiam” ), τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου ab3 πνεύµατος. Καὶ εἰ ζητοῖεν, τίς τοῦ υἱοῦ ἡ ὑπόστασις ἐστιν, ὁµολογοῦµεν ὡς αὕτη ἦν ἡ µόνη τοῦ πατρὸς ὁµολογουµένη. In the second place the doctrine of the Son is put in such a way that one can very easily understand how the Westerns refused to condemn Marcellus; there are turns of expression which approach the doctrine of Marcellus. (A comparison with the Christology of Prudentius is instructive in this connection.) Ursacius and Valens amongst others were declared deposed. Their bishoprics were situated in the territory of Constans, but they were of an Arian way of thinking. efele, op. cit. p. 533 ff., treats in great detail the canons and acts of the Council. 158 Above all, the Eusebians repeated their old statement that the decrees of deposition pronounced by Councils in reference to bishops are irrevocable. So too they held to the charges against Marcellus (of erroneous doctrine) and against Athanasius (of flagrant abuse of his power). There is a wish to introduce something entirely new, “ut orientales episcopi ab occidentalibus judicarentur”; but whoever holds by Marcellus and Athanasius let him be Anathema. The doctrinal formula (Hilarius Fragm. III. and de synod, 34) differs little from the fourth formula of Antioch and thus condemns Arianism. Formally the Easterns were in the right as regards Athanasius.

The endeavours of Constantius to give efficacy159 to the resolutions of his bishops fell through; in fact, the shameless attempt to set a trap for the two Western bishops sent as a deputation from Sardica to Constantius and provided with a letter of introduction from Constans, and who were to try and effect the recall of the banished bishops, turned out to their advantage.160 Constantius, so at least it seems, had not for 55b a while any real confidence in his own party; or was it that he was afraid to rouse his brother? In a long-winded formula drawn up at Antioch in the summer of 344 they once more sought to hint to the West their orthodoxy and to suggest the minimum of their demands.161 The Church in the West, it is true, rejected at 70both the Councils held at Milan in the years 345 and 347, the teaching of Photinus of Sirmium, who, in a surprising fashion, had developed an Adoptian

159

Histor. Arian. 18, 19. Histor. Arian. 20; Theodoret II. 9, 10. Bishop Stephanus of Antioch, who had tried the trick, was deposed. add 161Their motive in bringing forward the new formula was by almost completely meeting the demands of the Westerns in reference to the doctrinal question, to induce them to give way on the personal question. (Ekthesis macrostichos, see Athan., de synod. 26: Socrat II. 19). It begins with the fourth formula of Antioch, then follow detailed explanations of the faith as against the Arians, Sabellians, Marcellus, and Photinus who is mentioned here for the first time. Spite of the polemic against the proposition of Athanasius—who is, however, not mentioned by name—that the Son is begotten οὐ βουλήσει οὐδὲ θελήσει, this formula indicates the greatest approach conceivable on the part of the Eusebians towards meeting the views of their opponents. They emphasise in the strongest way the unity of the one Godhead (c. 4): οὔτε µήν, τρία ὁµολογοῦντες πράγµατα καὶ τρία πρόσωπα (it has to be noticed that the bishops avoid the expression three “substances or hypostases” and use the Western πρόσωπον which had been brought into discredit by Sabellius) τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ ά. πνεύµατος κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, τρεῖς διὰ τοῦτο Θεοὺς ποιοῦµεν, and they expressed themselves in such a way in c. 9, that the words must pass for an unobjectionable paraphrase of the Homousios. They are practically the very same expressions as those used by Athanasius to describe the relation of Father and Son. “Homousios” is, however, wanting: but, on the other hand, we find here, so far as I know, for the first time: κατὰ πάντα ὅµοιον. Socrates, II. 20, has candidly remarked on the formula macrostichos: ταῦτα οἱ κατὰ τὰ ἑσπέρια µέρη ἐπίσκοποι διὰ τὸ ἀλλογλώσσους εἶναι καὶ διὰ τὸ µὴ συνιέναι οὐ προσεδέχοντο, ἀρκεῖν τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ πίστιν λέγοντες. On the Acts of a Synod at Köln, from which we gather that Bishop Euphrates of Köln who was sent to Antioch from Sardica, had afterwards fallen away to Arianism, see Rettberg (K.-G. Deutschlands, I., p. 123 ff.) and Hauck (K.-G. Deutschlands, I., p. 47 f.), who are opposed to their genuineness; Friedrich (K.-G. Deutschland, I., p. 277 f.) and Söder (Stud. u. Mitth. ans. d. Benedict. Orden, fourth year’s issue, I., p. 295 f., II., p. 344 f., fifth year, I., p. 83 f.) who are in favour ac8 of it. 160

doctrinal system out of the doctrine of Marcellus,162 but otherwise remained firm; and the ship of the Eusebians already appeared to be in so great danger that its two chief pilots, Ursacius and Valens, preferred to go over to 71the opposite party and to make their peace with Athanasius. 567 1 Constantius, very sorely pressed by the Persians, sought to have peace in the Church at any price and even granted the prayer of his brother’s protégé, Athanasius, and allowed him to return to Alexandria (in October 346), where Gregory meanwhile had died (in June 345163). The bishop got an

162

Photinus of Sirmium, a fellow-countryman and pupil of Marcellus, developed the doctrinal system of the master in such a way as to represent even the ἐνέργεια δραστική of God as not assuming a concrete hypostatic form in Jesus Christ, (or if it did take a concrete form as a hypostasis, then this was a purely human one—the matter is not quite clear). He thus rigidly held fast the single personality of God, and accordingly, like Paul of Samosata, saw in Jesus a man miraculously born (Zahn, op. cit., p. 192 combats this; but neither is the evidence that Photinus denied the birth from the Virgin Mary certain enough, nor is it in itself credible that a catholic bishop in the fourth century should have departed so far from the tradition), predestined to his office by God, and who in virtue of his moral development has attained to divine honour. We thus have here the last inherently logical attempt to guard Christian monotheism, entirely to discard the philosophical Logos-doctrine, and to conceive of the Divine in Christ as a divine effect. But this attempt was no longer in harmony with the spirit of the age; Photinus was charged on all sides with teaching erroneous doctrine. His writings have disappeared: compare the scattered statements regarding him in Athanasius, Hilary, the Church historians, Epiph. H. 72 and the anathemas of various Councils, see also Vigilius Taps. adv. Arian., Sabell. et Photin.). The two Milan Councils, the date of which is not quite certain, condemned him, so too did a Sirmian Council of Eusebians which was perhaps held as early as 347. Still he remained in office till 351, held in high respect by his congregation. That the macrostic Confession of the Orientals ought not all the same to be accepted as so orthodox as it from its wording appears to be, is evident from the fact that the Eastern bishops who were deputed to take it to the West declined at Milan to condemn Arianism too. (Hilarius, Fragm. V.) 163 For the documents relating to their conversion, which was hypocritical and dictated entir 564 ely by policy, and to their complete recognition of Athanasius, see Athanas. Apol. c. Arian. 58, Hilar., Fragm. II. 164 Schiller (op. cit. p. 282). “As a matter of fact Constans wished to establish a kind of supremacy in relation to his brother, which in spiritual matters was to be exercised through the Bishop of Rome. Trusting to his support, deposed bishops on their own authority returned to their dioceses, without having received the sanction of the Emperor. The restoration of Athanasius resolved on by the Council was a direct interference with the sovereignty of Constantius . . . But Constans was able once more to make such a skilful use of the existing Persian difficulty that his brother yielded.” The fact is that the recall of Athanasius was altogether forced upon Constantius; the relation of the great bishop to his Emperor at this time was not that of a subject, but that of a hostile power

enthusiastic welcome in his city. The protest of the Eastern Council at Sirmium—the first Council of Sirmium—had no effect. A large number of the Eastern bishops were themselves tired of the controversy, and it almost looked as if the refusal of the West to condemn Marcellus together with the word ὁµοούσιος, now virtually constituted the only stone of offence.165 72

But the death of Constans in 350 and the overthrow of the usurper Magnentius in 353 changed everything. If in these last years Constantius had been compelled by the necessities of the situation to submit to the bishops, his own subjects, who had ruled his deceased brother, now that he was sole sovereign he was more than ever resolved to govern the Church and to pay back the humiliations which he had undergone.166 Already in the year 351 the Easterns had at Sirmium—the second Council—again agreed upon taking common action, and Ursacius and Valens promptly rejoined them.167 The great thing now was to humiliate the

with which he had to treat. This is naturally glossed over in the papers issued by Constantius referring to the recall. It i 564 s specially characteristic that Athanasius did not personally present himself before Constantius till after repeated invitations; see, above all, Apol. c. Arian. 51-56, Hist. Arian. 21-23. 165 A Council of Jerusalem held in 346 under Maximus actually recognised Athanasius as a member of the Church. (Apol. c. Arian. 57). Cyril’s Catecheses shew the standpoint of the Oriental extreme Right; they are undoubtedly based on Orig. de princip.; but they faithfully express the Christological standpoint of the formula macrostichos; the ὁµοούσιος only is wanting; as regards the matter of the Faith, Cyril is orthodox. The polemic directed against Sabellius and Marcellus (Catech. 15, 27) is severe and very bitter; Arianism is also refuted, but without any mention of names. Jews, Samaritans, and Manicheans are the chief opponents referred to, and Cyril is at great pains everywhere to adduce the biblical grounds for the formulæ which he uses. The Catecheses of Cyril are a valuable document in illustration of the fact that amo ac8 ngst the Eastern opponents of the Nicene formula there were bishops who, while fully recognising that Arianism was in the wrong, could not bring themselves to use a doctrinal formula which seemed to them a source of ceaseless strife and to be unbiblical besides. 166 Schiller (p. 283 f.) supposes that Constantius was apprehensive before this that Athanasius would declare for Magnentius. Hence his friendly letter to Athanasius after the death of Constans, Hist. Arian. 24. 167 Photinus was deposed here. The Creed of this Council, the first formula of Sirmium (in Athanas., de synod. 27, Hilar. de synod. 38 and Socr. II., 30), is identical with the Fourth Formula of Antioch, but numerous anathemas are added to it in which formulæ such as “two gods”, (2), “πλατυσµὸς τῆς οὐσίας ἐστὶν ὁ υἱός” (7), “λογος ἐνδιάθετος ἤ προφορικός” (8) are condemned, and already several explanations of Bible passages are branded as heretical (11, 12, 14-18). The subordination of the Son is expressly (18) avowed in this Creed, which otherwise strongly resembles the Nicene

stubborn West. Constantius set about the task with wisdom, but what he wanted done he carried out by the sheer force of terror. He demanded only the condemnat 55b ion of Athanasius, his mortal enemy, as a rebel, and purposely put the doctrinal question in the background. He forced the Western bishops, at Arles in 353 and at Milan in 355, to agree to this, by terrorising the Councils. The moral overthrow of the Westerns was scarcely less complete than that of the Easterns at Nicæa. Though the great majority were unaware of the struggle and were not forced to adopt a new confessional 73formula, still the fact could not be concealed from those who better understood the state of things, that the projected condemnation of Athanasius meant something more than a personal question. The few bishops who refused were deposed and exiled.168 The order for his deposition was communicated to Athanasius in February 356. Yielding only to force, he made his escape into the desert where the Emperor could not reach him. Egypt was in a state of rebellion, but the revolt was put down by the Emperor with blood.169 56d The unity of the Church was restored; above all, it was once more brought under the imperial sway. And now, forsooth, the orthodox bishops who had formerly secured so much by the help of Constans began to recollect that the Emperor and the State ought not to meddle with religion. Constantius became “Antichrist” for those who would have lauded

Creed. The anathemas 20-23 have to do with the Holy Ghost. In No. 19 the formula ἕν πρόσωπον is rejected. Nos. 12, 13, deny that the divine element in Christ is capable of suffering. One can see that new questions have emerged. 168 Of the Western bishops—leaving out Pannonia—almost all were orthodox. The Councils—that of Arles was a provincial Council, that of Milan a General Council, but apparently badly attended—were also managed by the new Pope Liberius (since 352), but ended quite contrary to his will. The best description is in Krüger Lucifer, pp. 11-20. At Arles Paulinus of Trier was t ac8 he only one who remained firm, and he was exiled to Phrygia; even the Papal legates yielded. At Milan Lucifer and Eusebius. of Vercelli were exiled, and also Dionysius of Milan, although he had agreed to the condemnation of Athanasius. Soon after Hosius, Liberius, and Hilary had to follow them into exile. In Milan Constantius actually ruled the Church, but with a brutal terrorism. There are characteristic utterances of his in Lucifer’s works and in Athanasius. 169 Already in the years immediately preceding, an incessant agitation had again been kept up against Athanasius; see Socr. II., 26, Sozom. IV., 9, Athan. Apol. ad Const. 2 sq., 14 sq., 19 sq. He betook himself to the desert, but later on he seems to have remained in hiding in Alexandria. No one, it would appear, cared to secure the price set upon his head. We have several writings of his belonging to this period. His successor, George, was pretty much isolated in Alexandria.

him as they had his father and his brother, if he had given them the help of his arm.170 But the political victory of the Eastern bishops directly led to their disunion; for it was only under the tyranny of the West and in the fight against Athanasius and the word 74“ὁµοούσιος” that they had become united. Above all, Arianism in its rigid, aggressive form again made its appearance. Aëtius and Eunomius, two theologians of spirit who had been trained in the Aristotelian dialectic, and were opponents of Platonic speculation, expressed 55b its tenets in the plainest possible way, would have nothing to do with any mediation, and had no scruple in openly proclaiming the conversion of religion into morality and syllogistic reasoning. The formula which they and their followers, Aëtians, Eunomians, Exukontians, Heterousiasts, Anomœans, defended, ran thus: “ἑτερότης κατ᾽ οὐσίαν”, “ἀνόµοιος καὶ κατὰ πάντα καὶ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν” (“different in substance”, “unlike in everything and also in substance”). If they allowed that the Son perfectly knows the Father, this was not in any way a concession, but an expression of the thought that there is no kind of mystery about the Godhead, which on the contrary can be perfectly known by every rightly instructed man. And so too the statement that the Logos had his superior dignity from the date of his creation, and did not first get it by being tested, was not intended at all as a weakening of the Arian dogma, but as an expression of the fact that God the Creator has assigned its limit to every being.171 541 The great majority of the Eastern bishops, for whom the Origenistic formula in very varied combinations were authoritative, were opposed to this party. The old watchword, however, “the unchangeable image”, which was capable of different interpretations, now received in opposition to Arianism, in its strict form, and on the basis of the formula of Antioch, more and more a precise signification as implying that the Son is of like nature with the Father in respect of substance also,

170

The watchword of the “independence” of the Church of the State was now issued by Athanasius, Hilary, and above all by the hot-blooded Lucifer. Hilary, who first emerges into notice in 355, speedily gained a high reputation. He was the first theologian of the West to penetrate into the secrets of the Nicene Creed, and with all his dependence on Athanasius was an original thinker, who, as a theologian, far surpassed the Alexandrian Bishop. On his theology see the monograph by Reinkens, also Möhler, op. cit. 449 ff., and Dorner. 171 After the full account given of the theology of Arius there was no need for any detailed description of the theology of Aëtius and Eunomius; for it is nothing but logical Arianism; see on the Ἒκθεσις πίστεως and the Ἀπολογητικός of Eun aa5 omius Fabricius-Harless T. IX. The rejection of all conciliatory formulæ is characteristic.

and not only in respect of will (ὅµοιος κατὰ πὰντα καὶ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν), and that his begetting is not an act at all identical with creation. The likeness of the qualities of Son and Father was more and more recognised here; on the other hand, the substantial unity was disallowed, so as to avoid getting on the track of Marcellus; 75i.e., these theologians did not, like Athanasius, advance from the unity to the mystery of the duality, but, on the contrary, still started from the duality and sought to reach the unity by making Father and Son perfectly co-ordinate. They therefore still had a 590 Θεὸς δεύτερος, and in accordance with this excluded the idea of full community of substance. The leaders of these Homoiousians, also called semi-Arians, were George of Laodicea,172 Eustathius of Sebaste, Eusebius of Emesa, Basilius of Ancyra, and others. The point of supreme importance with the Emperor necessarily was to maintain intact the unity between those who up till now had been united, but this was all the more difficult as the Homoiousians more and more developed their doctrinal system in such a way that their ideas came to have weight even with those Westerns who lingered in exile in the East and whose theology was on Nicene lines.173 Some bishops who were devoted to Constantius and who represented simply and solely the interests of the Emperor and of the Empire, now sought by mea 564 ns of a formula of the most indefinite possible character to unite Arians and semi-Arians. These were Ursacius, Valens, Acacius of Cæsarea, and Eudoxius of Antioch. If up till 356 the Nicene Creed had, strictly speaking, been merely evaded, now at last a Confession was to be openly brought forward in direct opposition to the Nicene Creed. Simple likeness of nature was to be the dogmatic catchword, all more definite characterisations being omitted, and in support of this, appeal was made to the insoluble mystery presented by the Holy Scriptures (ὅµοιος κατὰ τὰς γραφάς—like according to the Scriptures). This ingenious formula, along with which, it is true, was a statement expressly emphasising the subordination, left it free to every one to have what ideas he chose regarding the extent of the qualities of Father and Son, which were thus declared to be of like kind. The relative ὅµοιος did not necessarily 76exclude the relative ἀνόµοιος, but neither did it exclude the ὁµοιούσιος.

172

Dräseke (Ges. patristische Unters., 1889, p. 1 ff.) wishes to credit him with the anonymous work against the Manicheans, which Lagarde discovered (1859) in a MS. of Titus of Bostra. 173 With Hilary, for example, as his work “de synodis” proves. It is very characteristic that Lucifer, the strictest of the Nicenes, never came to have a clear idea of the meaning of the formulæ, ὁµοούσιος and ὁµοιούσιος; see Krüger, p. 37 f.

Already at the third Council of Sirmium 534 (357), after Constantius, on a visit to Rome, had overthrown his enemies, a formula was set forth by the Western bishops of as conciliatory a character so far as Arianism was concerned as could possibly be conceived. It was proclaimed in presence of the Emperor, who under the influence of his consort came more and more to have Arian sympathies. This is the second Sirmian formula.174 But the bishops assembled at Ancyra did not acquiesce in the move towards the Left (358).175 What a 77change! Easterns now

174

The Confession is in Hilary, de Synod. 11, Athan. de synod. 28, Socrat. II. 30. Valens, Ursacius and Germinius of Sirmium took the lead. The words ὁµοούσιος and ὁµοιούσιος were forbidden as being unbiblical and because no one could express the generation of the Son. It is settled that the Father is greater, that the Son is subordinate. Here too the Christological problem of the future is already touched upon. Hilary pronounces the formula blasphemous. It marks the turning-point in the long controversy to this extent that it is the first public attempt to controvert the Nicene Creed. Against it Phobadius wrote the tractate “de filii divinitate”, which is severely Western-Nicene in tone, and in this respect is markedly different from the conciliatory work of Hilary “de synodis”; see on it Gwatkin, p. 159 sq. The Eastern bishops Acacius and Uranius of Tyre, who shared the sentiments of the court-bishops, accorded a vote of thanks to the latter at a Council at Antioch, held in 358. Hosius subscribed the second Sirmian formula (Socr. II. 31). aeb 175Aëtius was in high favour with Eudoxius of Antioch, and his pupils occupied the Eastern bishoprics. The manifesto of Sirmium appeared like an edict of toleration for strict Arianism. At the instigation of George of Laodicea some Semi-Arians joined together to oppose it at the Council of Ancyra. The comprehensive synodal-letter of Ancyra (Epiph. p. 73, 2-11, see Hilar. de synod) indicates the transition on the part of the Semi-Arians to the point of view at which the Nicæans were able to meet them. It was reechoed in the writings of Hilary and Athanasius de synodis (358-359). The Semi-Arians at Ancyra took up a position based on the fourth Antiochian formula, which was also that of Philippopolis and of the First Sirmian Council, but they explained that the new Arianism made it necessary to have precise statements. The following are the most important explanations given; (1) the name Father by its very form points to the fact that God must be the author of a substance of like quality with Him (αἴτιος ὁµοίας αὐτοῦ οὐσίας): πᾶς πατὴρ ὁµοίας αὐτοῦ οὐσίας νοεῖται πατήρ—this does away with the relation of Logos-Son and world-idea—(2) the designation “Son” excludes everything of a created kind and involves the full ὁµοιότης, (3) “the Son” is consequently Son in the peculiar and unique sense, and the analogy with men as sons of God is thus done away with. The likeness in substance is further based on Bible statements, and in the 19 anathemas together with Sabellianism all formulæ are rejected which express less than likeness in substance. Finally, however, “ὁµοούσιος” too, together with the characteristic addition “ἤ ταυτοούσιος” has an anathema attached to it, i.e., the substantial unity of essence is rejected as Sabellian. The Conservatives of the East have undoubtedly here quite changed their ground. A definitely defined doctrine has taken the place of prolix

defended purity of doctrine against Arianising Westerns! A deputation from this Council succeeded in paralysing the influence of the Arians with Constantius, and in asserting at the Fourth Council of Sirmium, in 358, their fundamental principles to which the Emperor lent the weight of his authority. 594 176 But the triumph of the Homoiousians led by Basilius Ancyranus was of short duration. The Emperor saw that the Church could not be delivered up either to Nicæans, to semi-Arians, or to Arians. The alliance between the two first mentioned, which was so zealously pushed on by Hilary, was not yet perfect. A grand Council was to declare the imperial will, and Homoiousians and Arians vied with each other in their efforts to get influencing it. The Homœans alone, however, both in their character as leaders and as led, concurred with the Emperor’s views. They were represented by Ursacius, Valens, Marcus of Arethusa, Auxentius of Milan, and Germinius of Sirmium. The fourth Sirmian formula (359), an imperial cabinet-edict and a political masterpiece, was intended to embody what was to be laid before the Council.177 The latter 78was

formulæ, at once cosmological and soteriological in drift, and derived from Origen, Lucian, and Eusebius. 176 The victory of the Semi-Arians at the court is a turn of affair 545 s which we cannot clearly explain. The fact is incontestable. The third formula of Sirmium, drawn up at the Fourth Council of Sirmium, is identical with the fourth Antiochian formula. That Constantius should have fallen back on this is perhaps to be explained from the fact that the disturbances at Rome made it necessary for him to send Liberius back there, though the most he could hope for was to get him to subscribe that formula, but not the manifesto of the year 357. He actually got him to do this, i.e., Liberius subscribed several older confessional formularies which originated at a time when the Nicene Creed had been only indirectly attacked. It was not only, however, that Liberius bought his freedom at that time, but it was actually for the time being a question of a general victory of the Homoiousians, which they used too entirely in their own interest, after all the bishops present at Sirmium, including Ursacius and Valens, had had to make up their minds to subscribe the synodal decrees. Eudoxius of Antioch and Aëtius and in addition 70 Anomœans were banished at the instigation of Basil of Ancyra and there were many instances of the violent use of power. One cannot be certain if these same violent proceedings did not bring about once more a quick change of feeling on the part of the Emperor. 177 The Council was intended to bring about at last a general peace; at first the Emperor evidently intended to summon it to meet at Nicæa (Soz. IV. 16), then Nicomedia was next considered as a likely place, but it was destroyed by an earthquake. Then it was that Nicæa was again thought of; Basil of Ancyra had still a great influence at the time. Finally, the party opposed to this was victorious, and the plan of a division of the Councils was carried through. But it was just this opposition-party which now wished to unite all parties in a Homœan Confession and gained over the Emperor to assent to

summoned to meet at Rimini and Seleucia because the circumstance 564 s in the East and West respectively differed so very much. In May 359 more than four hundred Western bishops assembled at Rimini. They were instructed to treat only of matters relating to the Faith and not to leave the Council till the unity aimed at had been attained. But the Emperor’s confidants failed to induce the great majority of the members to accept the Sirmian formula. The bishops, on the contrary, took their stand on the basis of the Nicene Creed which had been abandoned during these last years, rejected Arianism and declared its friends deposed. But when they sought by means of a Deputation to get the Emperor to give his sanction to their decisions, they did not get a hearing. The Deputation was not admitted to the Emperor’s presence, was at first detained and then conducted to Nice in Thrace, where the members at last shewed themselves docile enough to sign a formula—the formula of Nice—which was undoubtedly essentially identical with the Confession which the Westerns had themselves drawn up two years earlier at Sirmium, at the third Synod in 357— (“the Son is like the Father [κατὰ πάντα is omitted] according to the Scriptures”). Armed with this document 79Ursacius and Valens made their way to Rimini, taking the deput 564 ies with them, and by means of threats and persuasions finally induced the Assembly there to accept the formula into which one could indeed read the Homoiousia, but not the Homousia. In the autumn of 359 the Eastern Synod met at Seleucia. The Homoiousians, with whom some Niceans already made common cause, had the main say. Still the minority led by Acacius and Eudoxius, which defended the Sirmian formula and clung to the likeness while limiting it, however, to the will, was not an insignificant one. There was an

this. The actual result, however, was that Homœans and Anomœans on the one hand, Homoiousians and Homousians on the other, more and more drew together. Hilary, who was staying in the East, had indeed already explained to his Gallic compatriots that it was possible to attach an “unpious” meaning to ὁµοούσιος quite as readily as to ὁµοιούσιος. The bishops assembled in presence of the Emperor now composed in advance for the Council a Confession which, since Semi-Arians were also present, might serve as a means of reconciling Homœan and Homoiousian conceptions. It was already evident at the time of signing it that it was differently interpreted. The catchwords ran thus: ὅµοιον πατρὶ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς—ὅµοιον κατὰ πάντα ὡς οἱ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ λέγουσιν. Valens signed it and at the same time simply repeated the word ὅµοιον without the κατὰ πάντα; Basil in signing it expressly remarked that πάντα included being also. The formula is in Athan. de synd. 8, Socrat. II. 37; see Sozom. IV. 17. The dogmatic treatise of Basil in Epiph. H. 73, 12-22, has reference to this formula, which Athanasius (de synodis) had already scoffed at because of its being dated, i.e., because it bore the signs of its newness on its front.

open rupture in the Synod. The majority finally deposed the heads of the opposition-party.178 But as regards the East as well, the decision lay with the court.179 The Emperor, importuned on all sides, had resolved to abandon the strict Arians, and accordingly Aëtius was banished and his Homœan friends had to leave him, but he was also determined to dictate the 543 formula of Nice to the Easterns too.180 Their representatives finally condescended to recognise the formula, and this event was announced at the Council of Constantinople in 360, and the Homœan Confession was once more formulated.181 Although the new Imperial Confession involved the exclusion of the extreme Left, this did not constitute its peculiar significance. Had it actually been what it appeared to be, a formula of union for all who rejected the 80unlikeness, it would not have been something to be condemned, from the standpoint of the State at all events. But in the following year it was recklessly used as a weapon against the Homoiousians.182 They had to vacate all positions of influence, and by way of making up for what had been done to the one Aëtius, who had been sacrificed, his numerous friends were installed as bishops.183 Under cover of the “likeness in nature” a mild form of Arianism was actually established in the Church, modified chiefly

178

Socr. II. 37 explains that Nice was chosen with the view of giving to the new formula a name which sounded the same as that of the Nicene Creed. The formula is in Ath 564 an. de synod. 30, and Theodoret II. 21: ὁµοιον κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, οὗ τὴν γέννησιν οὐδεὶς οἶδεν. In addition: τὸ δὲ ὄνοµα τῆς οὐσίας ὅπερ ἁπλούστερον ἐνετέθη ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων, ἀγνοούµενον δὲ τοἶς λαοῖς σκάνδαλον ἔφερε, διὰ τὸ ἐν ταῖς γραφαὶς τοῦτο µὴ ἐκφέρεσθαι, ἤρεσε περιαιρεθῆναι καὶ παντελῶς µηδεµίαν µνήµην οὐσίας τοῦ λοιποῦ γίνεσθαι . . . µήτε µὴ δεῖν ἐπὶ προσώπου πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύµατος µίαν ὑπόστασιν ὀνοµάζεσθαι. One might be pleased with this rational explanation if polytheism did not in fact lurk behind it. 179 Hilary was present in Seleucia and made common cause with the Homoiousians against the others. Acacius in face of the superior num ac0 bers of the Homoiousians sought to save his party by drawing up a creed in which he expressly repudiated the Anomœans and proclaimed the likeness in will, (see the creed in Athanas. de synod. 29, Epiph. H. 73, c. 25, Socr. II. 40). But this did not protect him and his party. 180 It was on the night of the last day of the year 359 that the Emperor achieved the triumph of the ὅµοιος in his empire. 181 The Confession is in Athanas. de synod. 30 and Socr. II. 41. 182 People like Eudoxius and Acacius were real victors; they got a perfectly free hand for themselves against the Homoiousians at the cost of the condemnation of Aëtius, and made common cause with Valens and Ursinus. The Creed of Nice was sent all over the Empire for signature under threat of penalty. 183 Eunomius became bishop of Cyzikus; Eudoxius of Antioch received the chair of Constantinople.

only by the absence of principle. In Gaul alone did the orthodox bishops once more bestir themselves after Julian had in January 360 been proclaimed Augustus at Paris.184 Constantius died in November 361, during the campaign against the rebels. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

3. TO THE COUNCILS OF CONSTANTINOPLE 381. 383. The three possible standpoints—the Athanasian, the LucianistArian, and the Origenist, which 525 in opposition to the Arian had gradually narrowed itself down to the Homoiousian—had been set aside by Constantius in the interest of the unity of the Church. But the Homœan formula, which had no firm theological conviction behind it, meant the domination of a party which gravitated towards Arianism, i.e., which resolved faith in Jesus Christ into a dialectical discussion about unbegotten and begotten and into the conviction of the moral unity of Father and Son. It was for twenty years, with the exception of a brief interval, the dominant creed in the East. This fact finds its explanation only in the change, or narrowing, which came over what was at an earlier date the middle party. The Arianising Homœans were now conservative and in their way even conciliatory. They disposed of the ancient tradition of the East as 81the Eusebians had done before them; for their formula “of like nature according to Holy Scripture” contained that latitude which corresponded to the old traditional doctrine. With this we may compare the standpoint of Eusebius of Cæsarea. The old middle party had, however, in the ὁµοιούσιος made for themselves a fixed doctrinal formula. 5a3 185 This was a change of

184

See the epistle of the Synod of Paris (360 or 361) in Hilar. Fragm. XI. It did not at that time require any courage to declare against Constantius. 56c 185The dogmatic dissertation of the Homoiousians in Epiphan. 73, 12-22, is of the highest importance; for it shews in more than one respect a dogmatic advance: (1) the differentiation of the conceptions οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον begins here. The first of these is used in order to express the idea of the essence or substance which imprints itself in the form of a definite quality; accordingly the action of the Fathers who in protesting against Paul of Samosata attributed a special οὐσία to the Son, is by an explanation excused. They did this in order to do away with the idea that the Logos is a mere ῥῆµα, a λεκτικὴ ἐνέργεια. The proper expression, however, is ὑπόστασις. It is because the Logos is an ὑπόστασις, i.e., because he does not, like the other words of God, lack being, that the Fathers called τὴν ὑπόστασιν οὐσίαν (c. 12). The ἀκρίβεια τῆς τῶν προσώπων ἐπιγνώσεως must be strictly maintained as against Sabellius (c. 14); but no one is to be led astray by the word ὑπ ac8 οστάσεις (Pl.); it does not mean that there are two or three Gods: διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ ὑποστάσεις οἱ ἀνατολικοὶ λέγουσιν, ἵνα τὰς ἰδιότητας τῶν

προσώπων ὑφεστώσας καὶ ὑπαρχούσας γνωρίσωσιν. The word “Hypostasis” is thus merely meant to give the word πρόσωπον a definite meaning, implying that it is to be taken as signifying independently existing manifestations (c. 16), while οὐσία is in the tractate interchangeable with φύσις or πνεῦµα, and is thus still used only in the singular; (2) quite as much attention is already given to the Holy Ghost as to the Son, and the τρόποι ὑπάρξεως are developed, i.e., an actual doctrine of the Trinity independent of any ideas about the world, is constructed (c. 16): Εἰ γὰρ πνεῦµα ὁ πατήρ, πνεῦµα καὶ ὁ υἱός, πνεῦµα καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα, οὐ νοεῖται πατὴρ ὁ υἱός· ὑφέστηκε δὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦµα, ὅ οὐ νοεῖται υἱός, ὅ καὶ οὐκ ἔστι . . . Τὰς ἰδιότητας προσώπων ὑφεστώτων ὑποστάσεις ὀνοµάζουσιν οἱ ἀνατολικοί, οὐχὶ τὰς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις τρεῖς ἀρχὰς ἢ τρεῖς θεοὺς λέγοντες . . . Ὁµολογοῦσι γὰρ µίαν εἶναι θεότητα . . . ὅµως τὰ πρόσωπα ἐν ταῖς ἰδιότησι τῶν ὑποστάσεων εὐσεβῶς γνωρίζουσι, τὸν πατέρα ἐν τῇ πατρικῇ αὐθεντίᾳ ὑφεστῶτα νοοῦντες, καὶ τὸν υἱὸὐ µέρος ὄντα τοῦ πατρός, ἀλλὰ καθαρῶς ἐκ πατρὸς τέλειον ἐκ τελείου γεγεννηµένον καὶ ὑφεστῶτα ὁµολογοῦντες, καὶ τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον, ὅ ἡ θεία γραφὴ παράκλητον ὀνοµάζει, ἐκ πατρὸς δι᾽ υἱοῦ ὑφεστῶτα γνωρίζοντες . . . Οὐκοῦν ἐν πνεύµατι ἁγίῳ υἱὸν ἀξίως νοοῦµεν, ἐν υἱῷ δὲ µονογενεῖ πατέρα εὐσεβῶς καὶ ἀξίως δοξάζοµεν, (3) the Christological problem based on Philipp. II. 6 and Rom. VIII. 3 (ὁµοίωµα) is already introduced for the elucidation of the Trinitarian: ἀπὸ τοῦ σωµατικοῦ εὐσεβῶς καὶ τὴν περὶ τοῦ ὁµοίου ἔννοιαν ἡµ 564 ᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀσωµάτου πατρός τε καὶ υἱοῦ διδαχθῆναι (c. 17, 18). As Christ’s flesh is identical with human flesh, but is, on the other hand, on account of its wonderful origin only ὅµοιος, κατὰ τὸν ὅµοιον τρόπον καὶ ὁ υἱὸς πνεῦµα ὢν καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τατρὸς πνεῦµα γεννηθείς, κατὰ µὲν τὸ πνεῦµα ἐκ πνεύµατος εἶναι τὸ αὐτό ἐστιν, κατὰ δὲ τὸ ἄνευ ἀπορροίας καὶ πάθους καὶ µερισµοῦ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθῆναι ὅµοιός ἐστι τῷ πατρί. Accordingly we have now the decisive statement: Οὐκοῦν διὰ τῆς πρὸς φιλιππησίους ἐπιστολῆς ἐδίδαξεν ἡµᾶς πῶς ἡ ὑπόστασις τοῦ υἱοῦ ὁµοία ἐστὶ τῇ ὑποστάσει τοῦ πατρός· πνεῦµα γὰρ ἐκ πατρός. Καὶ κατὰ µὲν τὴν τοῦ πνεύµατος ἔννοιαν (and therefore thought of in essence as a generic conception) ταὐτόν, ὡς κατὰ τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς ἔννοιαν ταὐτὸν. Οὐ ταὐτὸν δὲ ἀλλὰ ὅµοιον, διότι τὸ πνεῦµ ac8 α, ὅ ἐστιν ὁ υἱός, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ πατήρ, καὶ ἡ σάρξ, ἣν ὁ λόγος ἀνέβαλεν, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ σπέρµατος καὶ ἡδονῆς, ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως ὡς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡµᾶς ἐδίδαξεν . . . ὁ πατὴρ πνεῦµα ὤν αὐθεντικῶς ποιεῖ, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς πνεῦµα ὢν οὐκ αὐθεντικῶς ποιεῖ ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ἀλλ᾽ ὁµοίως. Οὐκοῦν καθὰ µὲν σὰρξ καὶ σὰρξ ταὐτὸν, ὥσπερ καθὸ πνεῦµα καὶ πνεῦµα ταὐτόν. καθὸ δὲ ἄνευ σπορᾶς οὐ ταὐτὸν ἀλλ᾽ ὅµοιον, ὥσπερ καθὸ ἄνευ ἀπορροίας καὶ πάθους ὁ υἱὸς οὐ ταὐτὸν ἀλλ᾽ ὅµοιον. Thus these Homoiousians already admit the ταὐτόν if they also reject the ταὐτοούσιος (= ὁµοούσιος, i.e., Father and Son are ταὐτόν as regards substance, in so far as they are both πνεῦµα, but in so far as they are different Hypostases they are not identical, but of like nature. (4) These Homoiousians have expressly rejected the designations ἀγέννητος for God and γεννητός for the Son, and indeed not only because they are unbiblical, but because “Father” includes much more than “Unbegotten”, and because “γεννητός” includes much less than “Son”, and further because the conjunction “unbegotten—begotten” does not express the relation of

the 82most decisive kind. We may still further say it was not the “Homousios” which finally triumphed, but on the contrary the Homoiousian doctrine, which fixed on the terms of agreement with tale “Homousios.” The doctrine which Hosius, Athanasius, Eustathius, and Marcellus had championed at Nicæa, was overthrown. The new Origenism which was based on the “Homousios” succeeded in establishing itself. A form of doctrine triumphed which did not exclude scientific theology, a subject in which Athanasius and the Westerns of the older days never shewed any interest. But Athanasius himself contributed to the revolution thus accomplished,186 though it is very doubtful if he ever came to see the full extent of it. 83

Julian granted liberty to all the bishops to return, and in so doing d 564 id away with the artificial state of things created by Constantius. The Nicæans were once more a power, and Athanasius who returned to Alexandria in February 362, at once re-assumed the leadership of the party. A Synod was held at Alexandria in summer, and this prepared the way for the triumph

reciprocity between Father and Son (the γνησίως γεγεννηµένῳ), which is emphasised as being the most important (c. 14, 19): διὸ κἂν πατέρα µόνον ὀνοµάζωµεν, ἔχοµεν τῷ ὀνόµατι τοῦ πατρὸς συνυπακουοµένην τὴν ἔννοιαν τοῦ υἱοῦ, πατὴρ γὰρ υἱοῦ πατὴρ λέγεται· κἂν υἱὸν µόνον ὀνοµάσωµεν, ἔχοµεν τὴν ἔννοιαν τοῦ πατρός, ὅτι υἱὸς πατρὸς λέγεται. Whoever names the one names the other at the same time, and yet does not posit him merely in accordance with his name, but with his name καὶ τῆς φύσεως οἰκειότητα; on the other hand, ἀγέννητον οὐ λέγεται γεννητοῦ ἀγέννητον, οὐδὲ γεννητὸν ἀγεννήτου γεννητόν. Athanasius could scarcely wish more than this, or rather: we have already here the main outlines of the theology of the three Cappadocians, and it is not accidental that Basil of 564 Ancyra is himself a Cappadocian. 186 The work of Athanasius, de synodis, written in the year 359, is of the highest importance for the history of the Arian controversy. It is distinguished as much by the firmness with which his position is maintained—for Athanasius did not yield in any point—as by its moderation and wisdom. The great bishop succeeded in combining these qualities in his book, because he was not concerned with the formula itself, but solely with the thought which in his view the formula attacked best expressed. We must, he said, speak like brethren to brethren to the omoiousians who hold almost the same view as the Nicæans and are merely suspicious about a word. Whoever grants that the Son is in nature of like quality with the Father and springs from the substance of the Father is not far from the ὁµοούσιος; for this is a combination of ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας and ὁµοιούσιος (c. 41 ff.). While expressly making an apology to Basil of Ancyra, he endeavours to remove the stumbli ac6 ng-blocks presented by ὁµοούσιος, but seeks at the same time to shew that ὁµοιούσιος either involves an absurdity or is dogmatically incorrect (c. 53 f.).

of orthodoxy in the year 381.187 It was here resolved that the Nicene Creed was to be accepted sans phrase. i.e., that those were to be recognised as Christian brethren who now acknowledge the ὁµοούσιος, and condemn the Arian heresy together with its chief supporters, irrespective of any former departure on their part from the faith. But still further, the question as to whether it was necessary to believe in one hypostasis or in three was left an open one. (At Alexandria the Holy Spirit had already been the subject of discussion as well as the Son.) Both statements were disapproved of since the ὁµοούσιος was considered to be sufficient, but it ac7 was explained that both might be understood in a pious sense.188 These resolutions were not passed without strong opposition.189 Not only did some bishops demand that 84those who had subscribed the Fourth Sirmian Formula should be denied the communion of the Church, but, what was of much greater importance, there was a party which insisted on the interpretation of the Nicene Creed which had been settled by some of the Western bishops at Sardica, and which as a matter of fact was the original one.190 But they did not press their views, and they seem to have acquiesced in the decision of the Synod. This marked a

187

The most important source of information for the Synod of Alexandria is the Tomus of Athanas. ad Antioch., and in addition Rufin. X. 27-29, Socr. III. 7, Athan. ep. ad Rufinian. I need not here (after the work published by Revillout) enter upon any discussion of the σύνταγµα διδασκαλίας of the Synod, which is identical with Opp. Athanas. ed. Migne XXVIII., p. 836 sq.; cf. Eichhorn, Athan., de vita ascet. testim., 1886, p. 15 sq. On the Synod cf. also Gregor. Naz. Orat. 21, 35. 188 Tom. ad Antioch. 5. 6. This was probably the largest concession which Athanasius ever made. When Socrates affirms that at the Synod the employment of “Ousia” and “Hypostasis” in reference to the Godhead was forbidden, his statement is not entirely incorrect; for it is evident from the Tomus that the Synod did actually disapprove of the use of the terms in this way. 189 This is sufficiently shewn in the Tomus; the Lucifer schism has its root here; see Krüger, op. cit., pp. 43-54. Lucifer was, moreover, not a man of sufficient education to appreciate the real question at issue. He did not wish to have the venia ex pœnitentia accorded to the Semi-Arians who were passing over to orthodoxy. It was thus a Novatian-Donatist element which determined his position. 190 See above, p. 68, and the Tom. c. 5. init. These bishops thus demanded the acknowledgment of the µία ὑπύστασις. The West never at bottom abandoned this demand, but in the Meletian-Antiochian schism it, however, finally got the worst of it and had to acquiesce in the Eastern doctrinal innovation. That at the Synod of Alexandria, however, the Homoiousians also attempted to get their catchword, or, their interpretation of the ὁµοούσιος, adopted, is evident from the letter of Apollinaris to Basil; see Dräseke Ztschr. f. K.G., VIII., p. 118 f.

complete change.191 If up till now orthodox faith had meant the recognition of a mysterious plurality in the substantial unity of the Godhead, it was now made permissible to turn the unity into a mystery, i.e., to reduce it to equality and to make the threefoldness the starting-point; but this simply means that that Homoiousianism was recognised which resolved to accept the word ὁµοούσιος. And to this theology, which changed the substantial unity of substance expressed in the ὁµοούσιος into a mere likeness or equality of substance, so that there was no longer a threefold unity, but a trinity, the future belonged, in the East, though not to the same extent in the West. The theologians who had studied Origen regarded it with favour. The Cappadocians started from the ὁµοούσιος, 565 1 85though this is certainly true of Gregory of Nyssa only indirectly. They acknowledged the ὁµοούσιος and accordingly set up a system of doctrine which neither disavowed the theology of Origen, that is, science in general, nor yet remained in the terminologically helpless condition of Athanasius. But they succeeded in attaining terminological clearness—they could not improve on the matter of the doctrine—only because they modified the original thought of Athanasius and developed the theology which Basil of Ancyra had first propounded in his tractate. Οὐσία now got a meaning which was half way between 191

Just as it is to Zahn that, speaking generally, we primarily owe the understanding of the original meaning of Ὁµοουσιος, so it is he too who, so far as I know, first plainly noticed this complete change. (Marcell, p. 87 f., also Gwatkin, p. 242 sq.) ae1 192This is specially evident from the letter of Basil to Apollinaris (in Dräseke, op. cit. 96 ff.) of the year 361. Basil communicates to the great teacher (of whom later) his doubts as to whether it is justifiable to use the word ὁµοούσιος. For biblical and philosophical dogmatic reasons he is inclined to prefer the formula ἀπαραλλάκτως ὅµοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν. Apollinaris accordingly explains to him (p. 112 ff.) that the ὁµοούσιος is more correct, but his own explanation of the word is no longer identical with that of Athanasius. He finds both expressed in it, the ταυτότης as well as the ἑτερότης, and according to his idea the Son is related to the Father as men are to Adam. Just as it may be said of all men, they are Adam, they were in Adam, and just as there is only one Adam, so too is it with the Godhead. Basil at any rate started from Homoiousianism, and it is because this has not been taken into consideration that the letter in question has been pronounced not genuine. For the rest, the efforts of the Benedictines in the third volume of their edition of the Opp. Basil. (Præf.) to vindicate Basil’s orthodoxy shew that, leaving this letter out of account, his perfect soundness in the faith is not—in all his utterances—beyond doubt. Later on Basil understood the ὁµοούσιος exactly in the sense given to it by him in the letter to Apollinaris and which at that time made him hesitate to use it; see Krüger, p. 42 f. See further the characteristic statements made at an earlier date in ep. 8. 9: ὁ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν Θεὸς τῷ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν Θεῷ ὁµοούσιος!

the abstract “substance” and the concrete “individual substance”, still it inclined very strongly in the direction of the former.193 Ὑπ eb0 όστασις got a meaning half way between “Person” and “Attribute”, (Accident, Modality), still the conception of Person entered more largely into it.194 Πρόσωπον was avoided because it had a Sabellian sound, but it was not rejected. The unity of the Godhead, as the Cappadocians conceived of it, was not the same as the unity which Athanasius had in his mind. Basil the Great was never tired of emphasising the new distinction implied in οὐσία, and ὑπόστασις. For the central doctrine of the incarnation of God they required a conception of God of boundless fulness. Μία οὐσία (µία θεότης) ἐν τρισὶν ὑποστάσεσιν, (one 86divine substance (one divine nature) in three subjects,) was the formula. In order to give clear expression to the actual distinction of the Persons within the Godhead, Gregory of Nyssa attached to them τρόποι ὑπάρξεως, (modes of existence,) ἰδιότητες χαρακτηρίζουσαι, ἐξαίρετα ἰδιώµατα, (characteristic peculiarities, special characters). To the Father he attributed ἀγεννησία, the quality of being unbegotten, and in consequence of this the word which had formerly been forbidden by the Niceans was once more restored to a place of honour, no longer, however, as referring to substance, but as expressing a mode of being (σχέσις) of God the Father. To the Son he attributed γεννησία, the quality of being begotten, and even the older Homoiousians shewed more reserve on this point than Gregory did. To the Spirit he attributed ἐκπόρευσις— procession.195 But what is more, 87the entire Origenistic

193

Basil has frequently so expressed himself as to suggest that he regarded the idea of the generic unity of Father and Son as sufficient (see, e.g., ep. 38, 2). Zahn (p. 87): “the οὐσία with Basil designates the κοινόν, the ὑπόστασις the ἴδιον (ep. 114, 4). He is never tired of holding forth on the difference between the two expressions, and goes so far as to assert that the Nicene Fathers were well aware of this difference, since they would surely not have put the two words side by side without some purpo ac8 se (ep. 125).” It is interesting to note that already at the Council of Antioch in 363 it had been explained that οὐ κατά τινα χρῆσιν Ἑλληνικὴν λαµβάνεται τοῖς πατράσι τὸ ὄνοµα τῆς οὐσίας. Assuredly not! It was a terminology which was expressly invented. 194 And yet in Gregory of Nyssa the persons appear also as συµβεβηκότα (accidents). 195 See the treatises of Gregor. Nyss. περὶ διαφορᾶς οὐσίας καὶ ὑποστάσεως—περὶ τοῦ οἴεσθαι λέγειν Θεούς—πρὸς Ἕλληνας ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν ἐννοιῶν. “Prosopon” is no longer for Gregory a technical term in the strict sense of the word, but on the other hand he also avoids the expression “three ἄτοµα”. The word φύσις maintained itself alongside of οὐσία, and in the same way ἰδιότης was used along with ὑπόστασις. The God who was common to the Three was supposed to be a real substance, not, however, a fourth alongside of the Three, but on the contrary the unity itself! On the characteristics of the

speculation regarding the Trinity, with which Athanasius would have nothing to do, that is, of which he knew nothing, was rehabilitated. The moment or element of finitude within the Trinitarian evolution was no doubt struck out, still the Absolute has nevertheless not only modi in itself, but also in some degree, stages. The (eternal) generation or begetting, in the sense of a Godhead extending itself to the limits of the creaturely, was again put in the foreground. In this way the subordination-conception, which was an irreducible remainder in Athanasius’ whole way of looking at the question, again acquired a peculiar significance. The idea that the Father in Himself is to be identified with the entire

Hypostases, see Gregor. Naz. Orat. 25. 16: Κοινὸν τὸ µὴ γεγονέναι καὶ ἡ θεότης. Ἴδιον δὲ πατρὸς µὲν ἡ ἀγεννησία, υἱοῦ δὲ ἡ γέννησις, πνεύµατος δὲ ἡ ἔκπεµψις. The two others expressed their views in almost similar terms in their works against Eunomius, unless that Gregory of Nyssa alone put the doctrine of the Holy Ghost in a logically developed form (see below), while as regards it, Basil (see de spir. s. ad Amphiloch.) advanced least of them all. The pronounced attitude taken up by them all, especially by Basil, against Marcellus, is characteristic. The theological orations of Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. 27-31) may, more than anything else, have spread the doctrinal system far and wide. (It is important to note that in opposition to it Athanasius in his letter ad Afros. [c. 369] ex 564 pressly said that ὑπόστασις and οὐσία were to be used as identical in meaning.) It follows from Orat. 31 (33) that Gregory did not wish to apply the number one to the Godhead; a unity was for him only the κίνησις and φύσις (µίαν φύσιν ἐν τρισὶν ἰδιότησι, νοεραῖς τελείαις, καθ᾽ ἑαυτὰς ὑφεστώσαις, ἀριθµῷ διαιρεταῖς καὶ οὐ διαιρεταῖς θεότητι). So too he was doubtful about, the suitability of the old image, “source, stream”, for the Trinity, not only because it represents the Godhead as something changeable, something flowing, but also because it gave the appearance of a numerical unity to the Godhead. He is equally unwilling, and in fact for the same reasons, to sanction the use of the old comparison of sun, beam, and brightness. He is always in a fighting attitude towards “Sabellianism”. The doctrine of the one God is to him Jewish— that is the new discovery. “We do not acknowledge a Jewish, narrow, jealous, weak Godhead” (Orat. 25. 16). Gregory had, moreover, already begun those odd speculations about the immanent substance of God which, though they are mere bubble-blowing, are still highly thought of. The divine loftiness, according to him, shews itself in this, that in His immanent ac8 life also God is a fruitful principle; the life of the creature has its vital manifestation in the tension of dualities, but it is in this opposition that its imperfection also consists; the Trinity is the “sublation”, or abrogation of the duality, living movement and at the same time rest, and not in any way a sublimation into multiplicity. The Orat. 23 in particular is full of thoughts of this sort, see c. 8: τριάδα τελείαν ἐκ τελειῶν τριῶν, µονάδος µὲν κινηθείσης διὰ τὸ πλούσιον, δυάδος δὲ ὑπερβαθείσης, ὑπὲρ γὰρ τὴν ὕλην καὶ τὸ εἶδος, ἐξ ὧν τὰ σώµατα, τριάδος δὲ ὁρισθείσης διὰ τὸ τέλειον, πρώτη γὰρ ὑπερβαίνει δυάδος σύνθεσιν, ἵνα µήτε στενὴ µένῇ ἡ θεότης µήτε εἰς ἄπειρον χέηται· τὸ µὲν γὰρ ἀφιλότιµον, τὸ δὲ ἄτακτον, καὶ τὸ µὲν Ἰουδαϊκὸν παντελῶς, τὸ δὲ Ἑλληνικὸν καὶ πολύθεον.

Godhead again became one of the ground-principles of spe c44 culation. He is the starting-point of the Trinity, just as He is the Creator of the world. The idea that He is source, beginning, cause of the Godhead (πηγή, αρχή, αἰτία τῆς θεότητος), the cause (τὸ αἴτιον) and consequently God in the proper sense (κυρίως Θεός), while the other Hypostases again are effects (αἰτιατά),196 meant something different to the Cappadocians from what it did to Athanasius. For the Logos-conception, which Athanasius had discarded as theistic-cosmical, again came to the front, and in their view Logos and Cosmos are more closely related than in that of Athanasius. The unity of the Godhead does not rest here on the Homousia, but in the last resort, as with Arius, on the “monarchy” of God the Father; and the Spiritual on earth is, in fine, not a mere creature of God, but—at any rate 88with Gregory of Nyssa—as in the view of Origen, is a being with a nature akin to His.197 “Science” concluded an alliance with the Nicene Creed; that was a condition of the triumph of orthodoxy. If at the beginning of the controversy the scientific thinkers—including those amongst the heathen—had sympathised with Arianism, men were now to be found as the defenders of the Nicene Creed to whom even a Libanius yielded the palm. These men took their stand on the general theory of the universe which was accepted by the science of the time; they were Platonists, and they once more naïvely appealed to Plato in support even of their doctrine of the Trinity.198 Those who were on the side of Plato, Origen,199 and Libanius— Basil indeed had recommended the latter to his pupils as one who could help them in advanced culture,—those who were on a footing of equality with the scholars, the statesmen, and highest officials, could not fail to get sympathy. The literary triumphs 564 of the Cappadocians who knew how to unite devotion to the Faith

196

Gregor. Nyss., ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν ἐννοιῶν T. II. p. 85; ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ προσωπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐξ οὗ ὁ υἱὸς γεννᾶται καὶ τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεται, διὸ καὶ κυρίως τὸν ἕνα αἴτιον ὄντα τῶν αὐτοῦ αἰτιατῶν ἕνα Θεόν φαµεν.. 197 It is here that we have the root of the difference between Athanasius and Gregory. 198 From this time this once more became the fashion amongst the scientific orthodox. The confession of 553 Socrates (VII. 6) is very characteristic. He cannot understand how the two Arian Presbyters, Timotheus and Georgius can remain Arians and yet study Plato and Origen so industriously and esteem them so highly οὐδὲ γὰρ Πλάτων τὸ δεύτερον καὶ τὸ τρίτον αἴτιον, ὡς αὐτὸς ὀνοµάζειν εἴωθεν, ἀρχὴν ὑπάρξεως εἰλιφέναι φησί, καὶ Ὠριγένης συναΐδιον πανταχοῦ ὁµολογεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τῷ πατρί. It is instructive further to note how Philostorgius too (in Suidas) asserts that in the matter of the vindication of the ὁµοούσιος Athanasius was deemed a boy in comparison with the Cappadocians and Apollinaris. 199 See the Philocalia.

and to the practical ideals of the Church with their scientific interests, the victories over Eunomius and his following were at the same time the triumphs of Neo-platonism over an Aristotelianism which had become thoroughly arid and formal.200 Orthodoxy in alliance with science had a spring which lasted from two to three decades, a short spring which was not followed by any summer, but by destructive storms. Spite of all the persecutions, the years between 370 and 394 were 89very happy ones for the orthodox Church of the East. It was engaged on a great task, and this was to restore the true faith to the Churches of the East, and to introduce into them the asceticism which was closely allied with science.201 It was in the midst of a struggle which was more honourable than the struggl ac5 es of the last decades had been. Men dreamt the dream of an eternal league between Faith and Science. Athanasius did not share this dream, but neither did he disturb it. He did not go in for the new theology, and there is much to shew that it did not quite satisfy him.202 But he saw the aim of his life, the recognition of the complete Godhead of Christ, brought nearer accomplishment, and he continued to be the patriarch and the recognised head of orthodoxy, as the letters of Basil in particular shew. When, however, orthodoxy had attained its victory, there arose after a few years within its own camp an opponent more dangerous to its scientific representatives than Eunomius and Valens—the traditionalism which condemned all science.

200 ad9

This is one of the strongest impressions we carry away from a reading of the works against Eunomius. 201 This aspect of the activity of the Cappadocians cannot be too highly valued. But in this respect too, though in quite a new fashion, they took up the work of Athanasius. The dominant party on the contrary were supported by an Emperor (Valens) who no doubt for good reasons persecuted monarchism. (See the law in the Cod. Theodos. XII. 1, 63 of the year 365.) The aversion of the Homœans to monasticism is evident from the App. Const. Basil’s journey to Egypt was epoch-making. The relation in which he stood to Eustathius of Sebaste, the ascetic and Semi-Arian, is also of great importance. 202 For the sake of peace and in order to secure the main thing, Athanasius at the Synod of Alexandria, which may be called a continuation of the Synod of Ancyra, himself concluded the alliance with the new Oriental orthodoxy and acknowledged Meletius. But his procedure later on in the Antiochian schism (see Basil., ep. 89, 2), the close relation in which he stood throughout to Rome as contrasted with the East, the signal reserve he exhibited towards Basil (Basil. ep. 66, 69), and finally the view he took of the Marcellian Controversy which was still going on—Basil saw in Marcellus a declared Sabellian heretic, while the judgment passed on him and his following by Athanasius was essentially different—prove that he never came to have a satisfying confidence in the neo-orthodox Niceans who were associated with Meletius; see on this Zahn, pp. 83 ff., 88 ff., Rade; Damasus, p. 81 ff.

Nothing more than an outline can here be given of the development of events in particular instances. The Synod of Alexandria was not able by means of its resolution to unite the parties which had separated at Antioch: the party of the 90orthodox who clung to the old faith and that of the Homoiousians who under the leadership of Meletius acknowledged the Homousios. This Antiochian split remained an open wound, and the history of the attempts to get it healed makes it abundantly evident that different doctrines were really in question, that Alexandria and the East had not lost their feeling of distrust of Meletius, and that the Cappadocians who were at the head of the new orthodoxy in the East were not able to suppress the suspicion of Sabellianism in the light of the old orthodoxy.203 Jovian, who was inclined to orthodoxy, once more recalled Athanasius who had been banished for the last time by Julian.204 Athanasius somewhat prematurely announced the triumph of the true faith in the East.205 567 Under the new ruler, Acacius, at a Synod held in Antioch in 363, found himself obliged to agree with Meletius and to join with him in declaring his adherence to the ὁµοούσιος, explaining at the same time that it expressed as much as the ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας (of the substance) and the ὁµοιούσιος together206 (see Athan., de Synod.) But the accession of Valens in the following year changed everything. An attempt on the part of the semi-Arians at the Synod at Lampsacus in 364 to get the upper hand, miscarried.207 Eudoxius of Constantinople and the adroit Acacius who again made eb0 a change of front, became masters of the situation, and Valens resolved 91to adopt once more the policy of Constantius, to maintain the Arian Homœism in its old position, 203

See the art. “Meletius” in Herzog’s R.-Encykl. IX., p. 530 f. and the 564 discussion by Rade, op. cit., p. 74 ff. The Westerns had the same kind of feeling in reference to the opponent of Meletius in Antioch, Paulinus, as they formerly had in reference to Athanasius; he alone was for them orthodox; but they did not succeed in getting their view adopted. Heron. ep. 15. 16 shews what scruples the formula, τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, gave rise to in the minds of the Westerns. 204 Julian, spite of his aversion to all Christians, seems nevertheless to have been somewhat more favourably disposed towards Arianism than towards orthodoxy, i.e., than to Athanasius, who, moreover, incurred his suspicions on political grounds. 205 See his letter to Jovian in the Opp. and in Theodoret. 549 IV. 3. Here the matter is so represented as to suggest that there were now only a few Arian Churches in the East. The attack on those who do indeed accept the ὁµοούσιος, but give it a false interpretation, is worthy of note. 206 See the Synodical epistle in Socrat. III. 25, Mansi III., p. 369. 207 Socrat. IV. 2 sq. 12, Sozom. VI, 7 sq. In the following decade the view of Eudoxius of Constantinople was the authoritative one.

and to make all bishops who thought differently208 suffer. Orthodox and Homoiousians had again to go into banishment. From this time onwards many Homoiousians turned to the West, having made up their minds to accept the ὁµοούσιος in order to get support. The West after the brief episode of the period of oppression (353-360) was once more Nicene. There were but few Arians, although they were influential. After various Councils had met, the Homoiousians sent deputies from Pontus, Cappadocia, and Asia209 to Liberius to get the doctrinal union brought about. Liberius, whose sentiments were the same as those of Hilary, did not refuse their request. The announcement of this happy event was made at Tyana in 367;210 but at a Carian Council a Homoiousian minority persisted in rejecting the ὁµοούσιος.211 From this time Basil, who became bishop in 370,212 took an active part in affairs and he was soon after followed by the other Cappadocians, and they threw not only the weight of science, but also that of asceticism, into the scale in favour of orthodoxy. The new bishop of Rome, Damasus, took a decided stand against Arianism at the Roman Synods held in 369 (370) and 377, then against the Pneumatomachians (see below) and the Apollinarian heresy, while Marcellus and Photinus were also condemned. The rigid standpoint of the bishops Julius and Athanasius again became the dominant one in the West, and it was only after some hesitation that the Western bishops resolved to offer the hand of friendship to the new-fashioned orthodoxy of the East. The representatives of the latter did not indeed settle the Antiochian schism at the wellattended Council at Antioch in September 379, but they subscribed the 92Roman pronouncements of the last years, and thus placed themselves at the standpoint of Damasus.213

208

The Altercatio Heracliani et Germinii is instructive see Caspari, Kirchenhist. Anecdota, 1883. 209 Cappadocia was the native land of the new orthodoxy; see the Cappadocian selfconsciousness of Gregor. Naz.; up till this time, however, it had been the principal seat of Arianism. 210 Socrat. IV. 12. 211 Sozom. VI. 12. 212 He was at the same time the patriarch of the diocese of Pontus. 213 It was Athanasius who roused Damasus to take up an attitude of energetic opposition to the Arian Bishop Auxentius of Milan, and thus, speaking generally, led him to follow in the track of Bishop Julius; see Athan. ep. ad Afros. It was at the Roman Council of 369 that the Western episcopate first formally and solemnly renounced the resolution of Rimini. On the text of the epistle of this Council, see Rade, p. 52 ff. Auxentius of Milan was condemned; but this sentence was a futile one since the Court protected him. No mention was yet made at this Council of the difficulties of the East.

The years from 371 to 380 are the epochs during which the new-fashioned orthodoxy o 564 f the East, under the leadership of Basil and Meletius, attempted to induce the West to bring its influence to bear on Valens and the Homœan-Arian party, by means of an imposing manifesto, and thus to strengthen orthodoxy in the East, but at the same time to pronounce in favour of the Homoiousian-Homoousian doctrine and to put the orthodox Niceans in the wrong. These attempts were not successful; for Damasus in close league, first with Athanasius, then after his death (373), with his successor Peter, was extremely reserved, and in the first instance either did not interfere at all or interfered in favour of the old Niceans, of Paulinus that is, at Antioch. (This Peter, like Athanasius before him, had fled to Rome, and the alliance of Rome with Alexandria was part of the traditional policy of the Roman bishop from the clays of Fabian to the middle of the fifth century.) The numerous letters and embassies which came from the East of which Basil was throughout the soul, shew what trouble was taken about the matter there. But the letters of Basil did not please the “ἀκριβέστεροι” in Rome; at first, indeed, intercourse with the East was carried on only through the medium of Alexandria, and on one occasion Basil had his letter simply returned to him. He complained that at Rome they were friendly with everybody who brought an ort 564 hodox confession and did not mind anything else. He referred to the friendship shewn towards those who were inclined to the views of Marcellus, further to the friendly intercourse of the Roman bishop with Paulinus, who was always suspected of Sabellianism by Basil, and to the occasional recognition of an Apollinarian. In letter 214 Basil brought the charge of Sabellianism against the entire Homoousian doctrine in its older form. It was in the year 376 that the West first promised help to the East. (The decretals of Damasus = 1 Fragment of the letter of Damasus designated by Constant as ep. 4.) Basil now (ep. 263) pleads for active interference— where possible an imposing Council—against the heretics who are heretics under cover of the Nicene Creed, and he designates as such the Macedonian Eustathius of Sebaste, Apollinaris and Paulinus, i.e., the man who taught pretty much the same doctrine as Athanasius; according to Basil, however, he is a Marcellian. The accusations against Paulinus were naturally received with anything but favour in the West. Peter of Alexandria who was still in Rome at the time, called Meletius, Basil’s honoured friend, simply an Arian. A Synod was nevertheless held in Rome at which Apollinarianism was for the first time rejected (377); to it we owe the pieces 2 and 3 in the ep. Damasi, 4 ed. Constant. Basil died 564 in January 379. He did not attain the aim of all his work, which was to unite the orthodoxy of the East and the West on the basis of the Homoiousian interpretation of the Homousios. But soon after his death, in September 379, Meletius held a synod in Antioch, and this synod subscribed all the manifestoes of the Romans, i.e., of the West, issued during the previous years 369, 376, 377, and thus simply submitted to the will of the West in dogmaticis, and despatched to Rome the Acts which contained the concessions. The triumph of the old-orthodox interpretation of the Nicene Creed thus seemed perfect. The West, under the guidance of Ambrose, from this time forth recognised the Meletians also as orthodox. It was from there (see the Synod of Aquileia 380, under Ambrosius) that the proposal emanated that if one of the two antibishops in Antioch should die, no successor should be chosen, and thus the schism would be healed. The fact that the Meletians thus came round to the orthodox standpoint is

But meanwhile very great changes had taken place in eb0 the State. In November 375 Valentinian died. He had not taken any part in Church politics, and had in fact protected the Arian 93bishops as he did the orthodox bishops, and had never had any difference with his brother regarding their religious policy. His successor, the youthful Gratian,214 yielded himself wholly to the guidance of the masterful Ambrose. He firmly established the State Church as against the heterodox parties, by passing some severe laws, and in doing this he followed Ambrose “whom the Lord had taken from amongst the judges of the earth and placed in the Apostolic chair.” (Basil ep. 197, 1.) In August 378 Valens fell at the battle of Adrianople, fighting with the Goths; and on the 19th of January, 379, the Western Theodosius was made Emperor of the East by Gratian. The death of Valens was quite as much a determining cause of the final triumph of orthodoxy as its alliance with science; for the inner force of a religious idea can never secure for it the dominion of the world. Theodosius was a convinced Western Christian who took up the policy of Gratian, but carried it out in a perfectly independent fashion.215 He was determined to rule 94the Church as Constantius had done, but to rule it in the spirit of rigid orthodoxy. He had himself been baptised216 in the year 380, and immediately after appeared the famous edict which enjoined the orthodox faith on all nations. It is, however, in the highest degree characteristic of his whole policy that this faith is more definitely described as the Roman and Alexandrian faith, i.e., the new doctrinal orthodoxy of Cappadocia and Asia is passed over in silence.217 After his entry into

explicable only when we consider the complete changes which had taken place in the political situation since the death of Valens. On the involved state of things in the years from 369 to 378 see the letters of Basil, 70, 89-92, 129, 138, 214, 215, 239, 242, 243, 253-256, 263, 265, 266. It was the investigation of the matter by Rade, op. cit. pp. 70121, w ac8 hich first threw light on this. On Damasus and Peter of Alex. see Socrat. IV. 37, Sozom. VI. 39, Theod. IV. 22. All were agreed in holding Athanasius in high respect. It was this that kept the combatants together. Gregory begins his panegyric (Orat. 21) with the words: Ἀθανάσιον ἐπαινῶν ἀρετὴν ἐπαινέσοµαι, and in saying this he said what everybody thought. 214 See on Gratian’s religious policy my art. in Herzog’s R.-Encykl. s. h. v. 215 Valentinian was the last representative of the principle of freedom in religion, in the sense in which Constantine had sought to carry it out in the first and larger half of his reign, and also Julian. 216 During a severe illness, by the orthodox bishop of Thessalonica. 217 Impp. Gratianus Valentinianus et Theodosius AAA. ad populuin urbis Constantinop.: “Cunctos populos, quos clementiæ nostræ regit temperamentum in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum Petrum apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio

Constantinople Theodosius took all their churches from the Arians and handed them over to the orthodox.218 In the year 381 he issued a regulation in which he prohibited all heretics from holding divine service in the towns. In the same year, however, the Emperor summoned a large Eastern Council to meet at Constantinople, and its resolutions were afterwards regarded as ecumenical and strictly binding, though not till the middle of the fifth century, and in the West not till a still later date. This Council denotes a complete change in the policy of Theodosius. His stay in the East had taught him that it was necessary for him to recognise as orthodox all who acknowledged the Nicene Creed however they might interpret it, and at the same time to make an attempt to gain over the eb0 Macedonians. He had come to see that in the East he must rely upon the Eastern form of orthodoxy, the new orthodoxy, that he would have to suppress the aspirations of the Alexandrian bishops, and that he must do nothing which would have the appearance of anything like tutelage of the East by the West. 95This reversal of his policy is shewn most strikingly by the fact that Meletius of Antioch was called upon to preside at the Council, the very man who was specially suspected by the orthodox of the West.219 He

usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat quamque pontificem Damasum sequi claret et Petrum Alexandriæ episcopum virum apostolicæ sanctitatis, hoc est, ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam evangelicamque doctrinam patris et filii et spiritus sancti unam deitatem sub pari majestate et sub pia trinitate credamus (this is the Western-Alexandrian way of formulating the problem). Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum catholicorum nomen jubem 564 us amplecti, reliquos vere dementes vesanosque judicantes hæretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere, divina primum vindicta, post etiam motus nostri, quem ex cælesti arbitrio sumpserimus, ultione plectendos” (Cod. Theod. XVI. s, 2; Cod. Justin I. 1. 218 With the exception of Egypt most of the Churches in the East were at this time in the hands of the Arians. 219 The relations which existed in the years 378-381 between the East and the West (Alexander was closely allied with the latter) are complicated and obscure. Their nature was still in all essential respects determined by the continuance of the schism in Antioch. The following is certain (1) Theodosius, as soon as he came to perceive the true state of thin ac8 gs in the East, had ranged himself on the side of the orthodox there; he wished to suppress Arianism not by the aid of the West and of the Alexandrian bishop Peter who was closely allied with Rome and who had already acted as if he were the supreme Patriarch of the Greek Church, but by the orthodox powers of the East itself. The proof of this is (1) that he transferred in a body to Meletius the Arian Churches in Antioch Paulinus was shelved; (2) that in the Edict (Cod. Theodos. XVI. 1, 3) he does not mention Damasus, but on the contrary enumerates the orthodox of the East as authorities (July 30th, 381) and this Gwatkin, p. 262, rightly terms an “amended definition of orthodoxy”; (3) that he refused to accede to the repeated and urgent demands of the Westerns who

died shortly after the Council met, and first Gregory of Nazianzus,220 and then Nectarius of Constantinople 96presided over its deliberations. The opposition at the Council between the old orthodox party, orthodox in the Alexandrian and Western sense, who were few in numbers, and the new orthodox party composed of Antiochians, Cappadocians and Asiatics, was of the most pronounced character, though we are only partially acquainted with it.221 The confusion was so great that Gregory of Nazianzus

wished him to settle impartially the dispute at Antioch with due respect to the superior claims of Paulinus, and also refused their request for the summoning of an Ecumenical Council at Alexandria; (4) that he summoned an Eastern Council to meet at Constantinople without troubling himself in the slightest about the West, Rome and Alexandria, made Meletius president of it, heaped honours upon him, and sanctioned the choice of a successor after his death, and this in spite of the advice of the Westerns that the whole Antiochian Church should now be handed over to Paulinus, an advice which had the support of Gregory of Nazianzus himself. Nor can there be any doubt in view of the manner in which the Council was summoned to meet, that its original intention was to draw up a formula of agreement with the Macedonians. It is certain (II.) that the orthodox Fathers who assembled at Constantinople gladly recognised and availed themselves of the opportunity thus presented of freeing themselves from the tutelage of Alexandria and the West, and of recalling by a distinct act the concessions which they had made under compulsion two years previously at Antioch. “It is in the East that the sun first rises, it was starting from the East that the God who came in the flesh flashed upon the world.” By their united attitude, their choice of Flavian as the successor of Meletius, who had died during the Council, by passing the third Canon—on the importance of the chair of Constantinople—and by their rejection of Maximus who was proposed for the chair of Constantinople by Alexandria and patronised by Rome and the West, they inflicted the severest possible defeat on Alexandria and the West, and specially on the policy of Peter and Damasus. It is certain (III.) finally, that shortly before the Council of Constantinople, during the Council, and immediately after it rose, the relations between the Egyptians and Westerns and the East w 55e ere of the most strained character, and that a breach was imminent. (See the letter in Mansi III., p. 631.) 220 The choice of him as president (on this and on the general procedure of the Council see his Carmen de vita sua) was not any more than that of Meletius approved of by Alexandria and Rome. His support of Paulinus may find its explanation in the fact that he aimed at getting into the good graces of Rome after he had himself attained the Patriarchate. Gregory had a Tasso-like nature. Quite incapable of effecting anything in the sphere of Church government or politics, he did not really desire office; but he wished to have the honour and distinction which are connected with office. So long as he did not have office he was ambitious, when he had it he threw it away. 221 The Egyptians even went the length of separating themselves from the majority at the Council; they did not approve of the decisions come to by the neo-orthodox; see Theodoret V. 8.

resigned and left the Council with the most bitter feelings.222 Still

222

The Egyptian bishops felt it to be intolerable that the Cappadocian and not their man, Maximus, should get the position of Patriarch in Constantinople The resignation of Gregory of Nazianzus was the price demanded by the Egyptians for yielding; see Gregory’s farewell address to the Council, Orat. 42. The Canons 1-4 of the Council—for these only are in all probability genuine, while those which follow belong to the Council of 382—are strongly anti-Alexandrian and are intended to bring down the claims of the Alexandrian which were already pitched high Canon 3 is directed not so much against Rome as against Alexandria (Τὸν µέντοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆς τιµῆς µετὰ τὸν τ῍ 564 Ῥώµης ἐπίσκοπον, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώµην). Canon 2 is intended to put a stop to the attempt of the Bishop of Alexandria to rule other Eastern Churches. But this very Canon plainly proves (cf. the sixth Canon of Nice) that as a matter of fact the Bishop of Alexandria had a position in the East which was wholly different from that of the other bishops. He only is mentioned in the singular number—τὸν µὲν Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐπίσκοπον . . . τοὺς δὲ τὴς Ἀνατολῆς ἐπισκόπους . . , φυλαττοµένων τῶν πρεσβείων τῇ Ἀντιοχέων ἐκκλησίᾳ . . , τοὺς τῆς Ἀσιανῆς διοικήσεως ἐπισκόπους . . . τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς . . . τοὺς τῆς Θρᾳκικῆς. The peculiar position of the Alexandrian bishop which the latter wished to develop into a position of primacy, was chiefly due to three causes. (It is quite clear that Athanasius and Peter wished so to develop it, and perhaps even Dionysius the Great; the intention of the Alexandrian scheme to place Maximus on the episcopal seat of Constantinople, was to secure a preponderating influence upon the capital and the imperial Church by the aid of this creature of Alexandria.) These 564 three causes were as follows; (1) Alexandria was the second city of the Empire and was recognised as such in the Church also at least as early as the middle of the third century; see, e.g., the conciliar epistle of the great Council of Antioch of the year 268, addressed “to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria and to all Catholic churches.” (Alexandria ranks as the second, Antioch as the third city of the Empire in Josephus, de Bello Jud. 4, 11, 5, cf. the chronograph of the year 354, Stryzygowski, Jahrb. d. k. deutschen archäol. Instituts. Supplementary vol., 1888, I., die Kalenderbilder des Chronographen v. j. 354, p. 24 f. The chronograph gives the series thus, Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, Trèves. Lumbroso, L’Egitto dei Greci e dei Romani, 1882, p. 86, proves that all the authors of the first to the third centuries agree in giving the first place after Rome to Alexandria, see, e.g., Dio Chrysostomus, Orat. 32, I, p. 412: ἡ γὰρ πόλις ὑµῶν τῷ µεγέθει καὶ τῷ τόπῳ πλεῖστον ὅσον διαφέρει καὶ περιφανῶς ἀποδέδεικται δευτέρα τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον. In the “ordo urbium nobilium” of Ausonius we have for the first time the cities given in the following order: Rome, Constantinople, Carthage, Antioch, Alexandria, Trèves. So 564 long as Alexandria was the second city in the Empire, it was the first city in the East. (2) Alexandria had this in common with Rome, that it had no cities in its diocese which were of importance in any way. The bishop of Alexandria was always the bishop of Egypt (Libya and Pentapolis), as the bishop of Rome was always the bishop of Italy. The case was quite otherwise with Antioch and Ephesus; they always had important episcopates alongside of them. (3) The lead in the great Arian controversy had fallen to the Bishop of Alexandria; he had shewn himself equal to this task and in this way had come to be the most powerful ecclesiastic

union was finally 97secured, although the attempt to win over the Macedonians failed. The “150 bishops” unitedly avowed their adherence to the Nicene faith, and, as we are told, accepted in addition to this a special explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity in which the complete Homousia of the Spirit also was expressed. In the first canon containing the decisions, after the ratification of the Nicene Creed, Eunomians (Anomeans) Arians (Eudoxians) Semi-Arians (Pneumatomachians) Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians and Apollinarians were expressly anathematised. The Nicene Creed thus gained an unqualified victory so far as its actual terms were concerned, but understood according to the interpretation of Meletius, the Cappadocians, and Cyril of Jerusalem. The community of substance in the sense of equality or likeness of substance, not in that of unity of substance, was from this time the orthodox doctrine in the East. But the Creed which since the middle of the fifth century in the East, and since about 530 in the West, has passed for the ecumenical-Constantinopolitan Creed, is neither ecumenical nor Constantinopolitan; for the Council was not an ecumenical one, but an Eastern one, and it did not in fact set up any new 98Creed. This Creed, on the contrary, is the Baptismal Creed of the Jerusalem Church which was issued in a revised form soon after 362 and furnished with some Nicene formulæ and with a regula fidei in reference to the Holy Spirit, and whic 1a04 h was perhaps brought forward at the Council of 381 and approved of, but which cannot pass for its creed. How it subsequently came to rank as a decision of the Council is a matter regarding which we are completely in the dark. This much, however, is clear, that if this Creed had any connection at all with the Council of 381, the neo-orthodox character of the latter is thereby brought out in a specially striking way; for the so-called Creed of Constantinople can in fact be taken simply as a formula of union between orthodox, Semi-Arians, and Pneumatomachians. The most contested phrase of the Nicene Creed “ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός” is wanting in it, and it presents the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in a form which could not have appeared wholly unacceptable even to the Pneumatomachians.223

in the East. The hints which I have given as to the policy of the Alexandrian Patriarch here and in Chap. III. 2, have been further developed in an instructive fashion by Rohrbach (die Patriarchen von Alexandrien) in the Preuss. Jahrb. Vol. 69, Parts I and 2. 223 On the Creed of Constantinople see my article in Herzog’s R.-Encyklop. VIII., pp. 212-230, which summarises the works of Caspari and ac8 particularly of Hort, and carries the argument further. The following facts are certain. (1) The Council of 381 did not set up any new creed, but simply avowed anew its adherence to the Nicene Creed (Socrat. V. 8, Sozom. VII. 7, 9, Theodoret V. 8, Greg. Naz. ep. 102 [Orat. 52] the

testimony of the Latin and Constantinople Councils of 382). (2) If we take the years from 381 to 450, we do not find in any Synodal Act, Church Father, or heterodox theologians during that period any certain trace whatsoever of the existence of the Creed of Constantinople, much less any proof that it was used then as the Creed of Constantinople or as the official Baptismal Creed; it is simultaneously with the recognition of the Council of 381 as an ecumenical Council—about 451 in the East, in the West fifty years later—that the Creed in question, which now emerges, is first described as the Creed of Constantinople. (3) It did not, however, then first come into existence, but is on the contrary much older; it is found already in the Ancoratus of Epiphanius which belongs to the year 374, and there is no reason for holding that it is an interpolation here; on the contrary (4) the internal evidence goes to shew that it is a Nicene redaction of the Baptismal Creed of Jerusalem composed soon after 362. The Creed is thus not any extension of the Nicene Creed, but rather belongs to that great series of Creeds which sprang up after the Council of Alexandria (362) in the second creed-making epoch of the Eastern Churches. At that time the opponents of Arianism in the East, now grown stronger, resolved to give expression to the Nicene doctrine in connection with the solemn rite of baptism. It was possible to do this in three different ways, that is to say either by embodying the Nicene catchwords in the old provincial church creeds, by enlarging the Nicene Creed for the special purpose of using it as a baptismal Creed, or, finally, by adopting it itself, without alteration, for church use as a baptismal Creed, in spite of its incompleteness and its polemical character. These three plans were actually followed. In the first half of the fifth century the third was the one most widely adopted, but previously to this the two first were the favourites. To this series belong the revised Antiochian Confession, the later Nestorian Creed, the Philadelphian, the Creed in the pseudo-Athanasian ἑρµηνεία εἰς τὸ σύµβολον, the second, longer, Creed in the Ancoratus of Epiphanius, the Cappadocian-Armenian, the exposition of the Nicene Creed ascribed to Basil, a Creed which was read at Chalcedon and which is described as “Nicene.” To this class our Creed also belongs. If it be compared with the N 564 icene Creed it will be easily seen that it cannot be based on the latter; if, on the other hand, it be compared with the old Creed of Jerusalem (in Cyril of Jerusalem) it becomes plain that it is nothing but a Nicene redaction of this Creed. But this is as much as to say that it was probably composed by Cyril of Jerusalem. Moreover, its general character also perfectly corresponds with what we know of Cyril’s theology and of his gradual approximation to orthodoxy. (Socrat. V. 8, Sozom. VII. 7) “Cyril’s personal history presents in various respects a parallel to the transition of the Jerusalem Creed into the form of the so-called Creed of Constantinople.” That is to say, in the Creed which afterwards became ecumenical the words of the Nicene Creed “τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός” and the Nicene anathemas are omitted. The christological section accordingly runs thus: “καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν µονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁµοούσιον τῷ πατρί, δι᾽ ac8 οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο.” From the writings of the omoiousians and the Cappadocians we can accordingly easily gather that the “ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός” presented a far greater difficulty to the half-friends of the Nicene Creed than the ὁµοούσιος; for ὁµοούσιος not

99

For this very reason it is certainly out of the question to regard the Creed as the Creed of the Council of 381. It did indeed assert the complete Homousia of the divine Persons. But the legendary process in the Church which attached this Creed to that Council performed a remarkable act of justice; 100for in tracing back to this Council “an enlarged Nicene Creed” without the “ἐκ τής οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός”, “of the substance of the Father”, without the Nicene anathemas, and without the avowal of the Homousia of the Spirit, and in attesting it as orthodox, it, without wishing to do so, preserved the recollection of the fact that the Eastern orthodoxy of

without some show of fairness might be interpreted as ὅµοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, while on the contrary the “ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας”, both in what it said and in what it excluded—the will, namely—seemed to leave the door open to Sabellianism. It follows also from Athan. de Synodis that he considered the “ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας” as of supreme importance; for in a way that is very characteristic of him he observes that ὁµοούσιος is equal to ὁµοιούσιος ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας, that is, whoever intentionally avows his belief in the ὁµοούσιος without the “ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας” avows his belief in it as a Homoiousian. The Christological formula in the Creed of Jerusalem, i.e., what was later on the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, is thus almost homoiousian, even although it retains the ὁµοούσιος. It corresponds exactly to the standpoint which Cyril must have taken up soon after 362. The same holds good of what the Creed says regarding the Holy Spirit. The words: “καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόµενον, τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συνπροσκυνούµενον καὶ συνδοξαζόµενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν” are in entire harmony with the form which the doctrine of the Holy Spirit had in the sixties. A Pneumatomachian could have subscribed this formula at a pinch; and just because of this it is certain that the Council of 381 did not accept this Creed. We can only conjecture how it came to be the Creed of Constantinople (see Hort., pp. 97-106 f. and my article pp. 225 f., 228 f.). It was probably entered in the Acts of the Council as the Confession by which Cyril had proved to the Council that his faith was orthodox and which the highly esteemed Epiphanius had also avowed as his. The Bishop of Constantinople took it from among the Acts shortly before the year 451 and put it into circulation. The desire to foist into the churches a Constantinopolitan Creed was stronger in his case than his perception of the defects of this very Creed. It was about 530 that the Creed of Constantinople first became a Baptismal Creed in the East and displaced the Nicene Creed. It was ab 560 out the same time that it first came into notice in the West, but it, however, very quickly shoved the old Apostolic Baptismal Creeds into the background, being used in opposition to Germanic Arianism which was very widely spread there. On the “filioque” see below. We may merely mention the extreme and wholly unworkable hypothesis of the Catholic Vincenzi (De process. Spiritus S., Romæ, 1878) that the Creed of Constantinople is a Greek made-up composition belonging to the beginning of the seventh century, a fabrication the sole aim of which was to carry back the date of the rise of the heresy of the procession of the Holy Spirit ex patre solo into the Fourth Century.

381 had really been a neo-orthodoxy, which in its use of the word Ὁµοούσιος did not represent the dogmatic conviction of Athanasius. In the quid pro quo involved in this substitution of one Creed for another, we have a judicial sentence which could not conceivably have been more discriminating; but it involves still more than that—namely, the most cruel satire. From the fact that in the Church the Creed of Constantinople gradually came to be accepted as a perfect expression of orthodoxy, and was spoken of as the Nicene Creed while the latter was forgotten, it follows that the great difference which existed between the old Faith and the Cappadocian neo-orthodoxy was no longer understood, and that under cover of the Ὁµοούσιος a sort of Homoiousianism had in general been reached, the view which has really been the orthodox one in all Churches until this day. The father of the official doctrine of the Trinity in the form in which the Churches have held to it, was not Athanasius, nor Basil of Cæsarea, but Basil of Ancyra. All the same, the thought of the great Athanasius, though in considerably altered form, had triumphed. Science and the revolution which took place in the political world had paved the way for its victory; suppressed, it certainly never could have been.

101a

The Westerns were anything but pleased in the first instance with the course things had taken in the East. At Councils held at the same time in Rome and Milan, in the latter place under the presidency of Ambrose, they had made representations to Theodosius and had even threatened him with a withdrawal of Church privileges.224 But Theodosius answered them in a very ungracious manner, whereupon they sought to justify their attitude.225 The Emperor was prudent enough not to fall in with the proposal of the Westerns that an ecumenical Council should be summoned to meet at Rome. He followed the policy of Constantius also in keeping the Churches of the two halves of the Empire separate, as his choice of Rimini and Seleucia proves. And by his masterly conduct of affairs he actually succeeded in introducing a modus vivendi in the year 382, spite of the attempts made to thwart him by his colleague Gratian who was led by Ambrose. Gratian summoned a General Council to meet at Rome, to which the Eastern bishops were also invited. But Theodosius had already got them together in Constantinople. They accordingly replied in a letter in which they declined the invitation, and its tone which was as praise-worthy as it was prudent, helped in all probability to

224 225

See the letter “Sanctum” in Mansi III., p. 631. See the letter “Fidei” in Mansi III., p. 630.

lessen the tension between the East and the West. They appealed, besides, not only to the decisions of the Council of 381, but also to their resolution of 378 in which they had made advances to the West,226 and they explained finally that they had adopted 102a recent detailed dogmatic declaration of the Western bishops, of Damasus that is, and were ready to recognise the Paulinists in Antioch as orthodox, which meant that they no longer suspected them of Marcellianism.227 The despatch of three envoys to Rome

226

The important letter is in Theodoret V. 9. It contains a description of the persecutions which had been endured, of the struggles which still continued, thanks that they ὡς οἰκεῖα µέλη should have received an invitation to the Council so that they may rule along with the West and that it may not rule alone, regret that they are prevented from appearing at it; then follows the exposition of the Faith, after the despatch of the three envoys had been announced: “What we have suffered we suffered for the Evangelical Faith which was settled at Nicæa, ταύτην τὴν πίστιν καὶ ὑµῖν καὶ ἡµῖν καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς µὴ διαστρέθπυσι τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθοῦς πίστεως συναρέσκειν δεῖ· ἥν µόλις ποτὲ [sic] πρεσβυτάτην τε οὖσαν καὶ ἀκόλο τῷ βαπτίσµατι καὶ διδάσκουσαν ἡµᾶς πιστεύειν εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος, δηλαδὴ θεότητός τε καὶ δυνάµεως καὶ οὐσίας µιᾶς τοῦ πατρός καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγιου πνεύµατος πιστευοµένης, ὁµοτίµον τε τῆς ἀξίας καὶ συναϊδίου τῆς βασιλείας, ἐν τρισὶ τελείαις ὑποστάσεσιν ἤγουν τρισὶ τελείαις ὑποστάσεσιν ἤγουν τρισὶ τελείοις προσώποις, ὡς µήτε τὴν Σαβελλίου νόσον χώραν λαβεῖν συγχεοµένων τῶν ὑποστάσεων, εἴγουν τῶν ἰδιοτήτων ἀναιρουµένων, µή τε µὴν τὴν τῶν Εὐνοµιανῶν καὶ Ἀρειανῶν καὶ Πνευµατοµάχων βλάσφηµίαν ἰσχύειν, τῆς οὐσίας ἢ τῆς φύσεως ἢ τῆς θεότητος τεµνοµένης καὶ τῇ ἀκτίστῳ καὶ ὁµοουσίῳ καὶ συναϊδίῳ τριάδι µεταγενεστέρας τινὸς ἢ κτιστῆς ἢ ἑτεροουσίου φύσεως ἐπαγοµένης. T 564 he Easterns did not yield anything here and yet they expressed their belief in as conciliatory a form as possible since they were silent about Marcellus, called Sabellianism a “disease”, but Arianism a “blasphemy”. Next follows the reference to the acts of the Councils of 379 and 381, then an explanation regarding the new appointment to the “as it were newly founded Church of Constantinople” and to the bishopric of Antioch where— this is directed against Rome and Alexandria—the name Christian first arose. So too the recognition of Cyril of Jerusalem, who had suffered so much for the Faith, is justified. Jerusalem is called in this connection “the mother of all Churches.” The Easterns at the close beseech the Westerns to give their consent to all this, τῆς πνευµατικῆς µεσιτευούσης ἀγάπης καὶ τοῦ κυριακοῦ φόβου, πᾶσαν µὲν καταστέλλοντος ἀνθρωπίνην προαπάθειαν, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν οἰκοδοµὴν προτιµοτέραν ποιοῦντος τῆς πρὸς τὸν καθ᾽ ἕνα συµπαθείας ἢ χάριτος. Then will we no longer say, what is condemned by the Apostles: “I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas”, but we shall all appear as belonging to Christ, who i ac8 s not divided in us, and will with the help of God preserve the body of the Church from division. 227 The so-called fifth Canon of the Council of 381 (see Rade, pp. 107, 116 f., 133) belongs to the Synod of 382, as also the sixth; the seventh is later. It runs: περὶ τοῦ

where, besides Jerome, the distinguished Epiphanius happened to be just at this time, could not but help towards 103t eb0 he conclusion of a treaty of peace. The opposition to Nectarius of Constantinople and Cyril of Jerusalem was now allowed to drop in Rome; but the Western bishops could not yet bring themselves to acknowledge Flavian in Antioch, and, moreover, Paulinus, his opponent, was himself present at the Council in Rome. There was once more a strong reaction against Apollinarianism.228 If Arianism, or Homceism, from the time when it ceased to enjoy the imperial favour tended rapidly to disappear in the Empire, if too it had no fanatic as Donatism had, it was nevertheless still a power in the East in 383; large provinces had still Arian tendencies, the common people229 in them above all; while in the West it had supporters230 in the Empress Justinia τόµου τῶν ∆υτικῶν καὶ τοὺς ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ ἀπεδεξάµεθα τοὺς µίαν ὁµολογοῦντας πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύµατος θεότητα. It can only he the Paulinists in Antioch who are here referred to. But as regards the Western Tomos we must with Rade, op. cit., apparently take it to be the twenty-four Anathemas of Damasus (in Theodoret V. II.). This noteworthy document, which perhaps originated in the year 381, presents in a full and definite way the standpoint of the Westerns in regard to the different dogmatic questions. It is specially worthy of notice that the doctrine of Marcellus is condemned without any mention being made of its author. The ninth anathema is further of importance and also the eleventh: “If anyone does not confess that the Son is from the Father, i.e., is born of His Divine substance, let him be accursed.” Compare with this the so-called Creed of Constantinople in which the ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας is wanting. The fulness with which the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit are already treated, is significant. 228 To this period, according to Rade’s pertinent conjecture, the work of Damasus given in Theodoret V. to against Apollinarianism, also belongs. It probably came from the pen of Jerome, soon after 382, and gives expression to the supreme selfconsciousness of the occupant of the chair of Peter. Jerome always flattered Damasus. 229 The Church historians, Philostorgius in particular, give us some information about this, but they do not enter much into particulars. Eunomius kept his ground firmly and courageously and declined all compromises. He did not even so much as recognise the baptism and ordination of the other Church parties (Philostorg. X. 4). The Conciliar epistle of the Easterns of the year 382 (see above) further shews what difficulties the attempt to carry through the Homoousios gave rise to. 230 See the struggles of Ambrose against Arianism in Upper Italy, which went on still the year 388. After the death of his mother, Valentinus II. declared for orthodoxy; see Cod. Theodos. XVI. 5, 15. The knowledge that Maximus the usurper had owed his large following to the fact of his being strictly orthodox helped to bring about this decision. The assertion of Libanius that Maximus entered into an alliance even with the unruly and rebellious Alexandrians is one which is calculated to make us reflect. The fact that i ac8 n the days of Theodosius Ambrose was at the head of the Church in the West, probably

104and

her son. Theodosius was more concerned to win over the Arians than to drive them out of the Church. In the first years of his reign while shewing a firm determination to establish orthodoxy, he had at the same time followed a sort of conciliatory policy which, however, to the honour of the Arians be it said, did not succeed. lust as in 381 he invited the Macedonians to the Council, so in the year 383 he made a further attempt to unite all the opposing parties at a Constantinopolitan Council and if possible to bring about concord. The attempt was sincere—even Eunomius was present—but it failed; but it is very memorable for two reasons: (1) the orthodox bishop of Constantinople made common cause on this occasion with the Novatian bishop, a proof of how insecure the position of orthodoxy in the capital itself still was;231 (2) an attempt was made at the Council to transfer the

contributed largely to bring about an adjustment of the differences between the WesternAlexandrian and the Cappadocian-neo-orthodox doctrines of the Son. This bishop had learned from Philo, Origen, and Basil, and he had friendly intercourse with the last mentioned; but he never sheaved any interest in or appreciation of the difference between the form of doctrine in East and West, and he did not go into the speculations of the theologians of the East. It was thus merely in a superficial fashion that he accepted the theological science of the East. But this very fact was of advantage to him so far as his position was concerned; for it meant that he did not separate himself from the common sense of the West, while, on the other hand, he had a great respect for the Cappadocian theology and consequently was admirably suited for being a peace-maker. Ex professo he did not handle the Trinitarian problem; his formulæ bear what is essentially the Western stamp, without, however, being pointed against the “Meletians”, and in fact, he himself accepted the statement: “nulla est discrepantia divinitatis et operis; non igitur in utroque una persona, sed una substantia est”; but on the other hand: “non duo domini, sed unus dominus, quia et pater deus et filius deus, sed unus deus, quia pater in filio et filius in patre—nevertheless—unus deus, quia una deitas” (see Förster, Ambrosius, p. 130). Ambrose did not engage in any independent speculations regarding the Trinity, as Hilary did (see Reinkens, op. cit., and Schwane, D G. d. patrist. Zeit., p. 150 ff.). The fact, however, that in the fourth century the greatest theologian of the West—namely, Jerome, and the most powerful ecclesiastical prince of the West, Ambrose, had learned their theology from the Greeks, was the most important cause of the final union of East and West in the matter of the doctrine of the Trinity. Hosius, Julius of Rome, Lucifer and Damasus of Rome would not have been able to accomplish the dogmatic unity of the two halves of the Empire. As a matter of fact the dogmatic unity did not spring from the alliance of Athanasius, Julius, Peter, and Damasus, Alexandria and Rome that is, but from the alliance of Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Jerome, and Ambrose. 231 On the Novatians in the East in the Fourth Ce 564 ntury and their relations to the orthodox, particularly in the city of Constantinople, see my articles s. v. “Novatian”, “Socrates”, in Herzog’s R: Encykl. The Novatians, strange to say, always had been and

whole question in dispute between orthodox and Arians into the region of tradition. The Holy Scriptures were to be dispensed with, and the proof of the truth of orthodoxy was to be furnished solely by the testimony of the ante-Nicene Fathers to whose authority the opposite party must as good Catholics bow. This undertaking was a prophecy of the ominous future which was before the Church, and proved at the same time that the actual 105interest in the controversy in the East had already once more taken a secondary place compared with the conservative interest. Nothing grows faster than tradition, and nothing is more convenient when the truth of a proposition has to be defended than to fall back on the contention that it has always been so.232 eb0 After this Council Theodosius discontinued his efforts in favour of union and from this time sought to suppress Arianism. Ambrose seconded his plans in Upper Italy. The orthodox StateChurch, which was, however, on the other hand, a Church-State, was established. Severe laws were now passed against all heretics with the exception of the Novatians.233 The State had at last

continued to be Nicene. The explanation of this may be found in the fact that they originated in the West, or in the fact of their connection with the West. 232 Socr. V. to (Sozom. VII. 12) has given us some information regarding the proceedings at the Council of Constantinople in 383. Theodosius wished to have an actual conference between the opposing parties. Sisinius, the reader to the Novatian bishop Agelius, is then said to have advised that instead of having a disputation the matter should be settled simply on the basis of passages from the Fathers; the patristic proof alone was to be authoritative. Socrates tells us that with the consent of the Emperor this was actually the course followed, and that on the part of the orthodox only those Fathers were appealed to who had lived before the Arian controversy. abc The raising of the question, however, as to whether the various parties actually recognised these Fathers as authoritative, produced a Babylonian confusion amongst them, and indeed even amongst the members of one and the same party, so that the Emperor abandoned this plan of settling the dispute. He next collected together Confessions composed by the different parties (the bold one composed by Eunomius is still preserved, see Mansi III., p. 646 sq.), but rejected them all with the exception of the orthodox one, and ungraciously sent the parties home. The Arians, it is said, consoled themselves for the Emperor’s unkind treatment of them, with the saying that “many are called but few chosen”. This narrative, so far as the particulars are concerned, is too much a made-up one to be implicitly trusted. But the attempt to decide the whole question on the authority of tradition was certainly made. If we consider how at first both parties proceeded almost exclusively on the basis of the Holy Scriptures we can perceive in the attempt an extremely significant advance in the work of laying waste the Eastern Churches. 233 See Cod. Theodos. XVI. 1, 4 of the year 386 and the other laws of Theodosius and his sons. Things became particularly bad from about 410 onwards.

secured that unity of the Church which Constantine had already striven after. But it was a two-edged sword. It injured the State and dealt it a most dangerous wound. Amongst the Greeks Arianism died out more quickly than Hellenism. Violent schisms amongst the Arians themselves seem to have accelerated its downfall,234 but the different stages are unknown 106to us. The history of its fortunes amongst the German peoples until the seventh century does not fall within the scope of this work. The educated laity, however, in the East regarded the orthodox formula rather as a necessary evil and as an unexplainable mystery than as an expression of their Faith. The victory of the Nicene Creed was a victory of the priests over the faith of the Christian people. The Logos-doctrine had already become unintelligible to those who were not theologians. The setting up of the Nicene-Cappadocian formula as the fundamental Confession of the Church made it perfectly impossible for the Catholic laity to get an inner comprehension of the Christian Faith taking as their guide the form in which it was presented in the doctrine of the Church. The thought that Christianity is the revelation of something incomprehensible became more and more a familiar one to men’s minds. This thought has for its obverse side the adoration of the mystery,235 and for its reverse side indifference and subjection to mystagogues.236 The priests and theologians could certainly not give the people more than they possessed themselves; but it is alarming to note in the ecclesiastical literature of the Fourth Century and the period following how little attention is given to the Christian people. The theologians had always the clergy. the officials, good society in their minds. The people must simply

234

See Sozom. in Books VII. and VIII., especially in VIII. 1. Athanasius had already described the whole substance of the Christian religion as a “doctrine of the mysteries”—see, e.g., his Festival-letters, p. 68 (ed. Larsow). 236 570 We have here, above all, to remember the attitude taken up by Socrates, which is typical of that of the ecclesiastically pious laity of the East. His stand-point is—we ought silently to adore the mystery. Whatever the generation the last but one before his own has fixed, is for him already holy; but he will have nothing to do with dogmatic disputes in his own time, and one may even find in what he says traces of a vague feeling on his part that the laity as regards their Faith had in fine been duped by the bishops and their controversies. His agreement with what was said by Euagrius in reference to the Trinity (III. 7) is characteristic of his position in the matter: πᾶσα πρότασις ἢ γένος ἔχει κατηγορούµενον ἢ εἶδος ἢ διαφορὰν ἢ συµβεβηκὸς ἢ τὸ ἐκ τούτων συγκείµενον· οὐδὲν δὲ ἐπὶ ἁγίας τριάδος τῶν εἰρηµένων ἐστὶ λαβεῖν. σιωπῇ προσκυνείσθω τὸ ἄρρητον. He will have nothing to do with οὐσία and ὑπόστασις. The case too of Procopius of Cæsarea illustrates the attitude of reserve taken up by the laity in the sixth century to the whole dogmatic system of the ac8 Church. 235

believe the Faith; they accordingly did not live in this Faith, but in that Christianity of the second rank which is 107represented in the legends of the saints, in apocalypses, in image-worship, in the veneration of angels and martyrs, in crosses and amulets, in the Mass regarded as magical worship, and in sacramental observances of all sorts. Christ as the ὁµοούσιος became a dogmatic form of words; and in place of this the 1324 bones of the martyrs became living saints, and the shades of the old dethroned gods together with their worship, revived once more. 108

Appendix.

APPENDIX. THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY GHOST AND OF THE TRINITY. I. IN the baptismal formula, along with the confession of belief in the Father and Son, there had always been from early times a confession also of belief in the Holy Spirit. This belief expressed the thought that Christianity has within it the Spirit of the Father— the Spirit of Christ—the living, illuminating, divine principle. The Spirit is the gift of God. But after the Montanist controversies the combination of Spirit and Church, Spirit and individual Christians came to have a secondary place in regular theological thought. The World-Church and its theologians busied themselves instead with the Spirit in so far as it spoke through the prophets, in so far as it had before this brooded “over the waters”, in so far as it descended on Christ at His baptism, etc.—though this soon became a minor point—or took part in His human origin. But there was quite an accumulation of difficulties here for rational theology. These difficulties lay (1) in the notion itself, in so far as πνεῦµα also described the substance of God and of the Logos; (2) in the impossibility of recognising any specific activity of the Spirit in the present; (3) in the desire to ascribe to the Logos rather than to the Spirit the active working in the universe and in the history of revelation. The form of the Spirit’s existence, its rank and function were accordingly quite uncertain. By one the Holy Spirit was considered as a gift and as an impersonal—and therefore also an unbegotten—power which Christ had promised to send and which consequently became an actual fact only after Christ’s Ascension; by another as a primitive power in the history of revelation; by a third as an active 109power in the world-process also. Others again attributed to it a personal existence misled by the expression “the Paraclete”. Of these some regarded it as a created divine being,

others as the highest spiritual creature made by God, the highest angel; others again as the second προβολή or “derivatio” of the Father, and thus as a permanently existing Being sharing in the God-head itself; while once more others identified it with the eternal Son Himself. There were actually some too who were inclined to regard the Spirit, which is feminine in Hebrew, and which was identified with the “Wisdom” of God, as a female principle.237 The views held regarding its rank and functions also were accordingly very different. All who regarded the Spirit as personal, subordinated it to the Father and probably also as a rule to the Son when they distinguished it from the latter, for the relation of Father and Son did not seem to permit of the existence of a third being of the same kind, and, besides, Christ had expressly said that he would send the Spirit, and therefore it looked as if the latter were His servant or messenger. The other idea that the Logos is the organ of the Spirit or Wisdom is very rarely met with. This or an idea similar to it was the one reached by those who distinguished between the impersonal Logos or Wisdom eternally inherent in God and the created Logos or Wisdom, and then identified the divine in Christ with the latter. As to its functions, we meet with no further speculations regarding their peculiar nature after the attempts of the Montanists to define them, until a very much later date when at last theologians had learned to commit a special department of the mysteries to the care of the Spirit. All that was meanwhile said regarding the activity of the Spirit in the world-process, in the history of revelation, in regeneration, including illumination and sanctification, was of a wholly vague kind, and was frequently either the expression of perplexity or of exegetical learning, but never gave evidence of any special theological interest in the question. We must not, however, overlook the fact that in Church theology in its oldest form as we see it in Irenæus 110and Tertullian, we find an attempt made to give to the 1af4 Spirit, which had necessarily to be ranked as a being of special dignity within the Godhead, an immanent relation to the Father and the. Son. The passages in Irenæus referring to the Spirit are of special importance, though Tertullian was the first to call Him “God”. One can trace within theology a well-marked line of development running from Justin through Tertullian to Origen.238 After Sabellius, starting from totally

237

The fact that in the original draft of the Apostolical Constitutions (II. 26) a parallel is drawn between the deaconess and the Holy Spirit is perhaps connected with this too. 238 But it is only in so far as Origen teaches the pre-temporal “processio” of the Spirit that his doctrine betokens an advance on that of Tertullian, who still essentially limits the action of the Spirit to the history of the world and of revelation. By the “unius

different premises, had by his speculations drawn attention to the Holy Spirit, Origen here too supplied a definite conception on the subject just as he had in connection with the doctrine of the Logos. While admitting the want of any certainty in what was given by tradition, he treated the doctrine of the Holy Spirit entirely according to the analogy of the doctrine of the Logos, and even demanded that it should be so treated. The Holy Spirit forms part of the Godhead, it is a permanently existing divine Being, but it is at the same time a creature, and a creature, in fact, which occupies a stage lower than the Son, because it, like everything created, has come into being by the Son or Logos. The sphere of its activity is correspondingly smaller than that of the Son. Origen declared that intensively it was more important, but he did not give this its due value, since for him the categories of magnitude, space, and causality were in the last resort the highest.239 The fact that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was treated in Tertullian (adv. Prax.) and Origen in a way perfectly analogous to that followed in the case of the doctrine of the Logos, is the strongest possible proof that there was no specific theological interest taken in this point of doctrine.240 Nor was it different in 111the period following. The Arian and the Arianising formula of the Fourth Century still at least embody the attempt to state in reference to the Spirit what, according to the old Church tradition, describes the character of its active working, little as that is; the pompous formula of orthodoxy, however, merely gives expression to the general thought that there is no foreign element in the Godhead, and shews, moreover, that the doctrine of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit was already beginning to be an embarrassing one for the Church. The doctrine of Origen that the Holy Spirit is an individual hypostasis and that it is a created being included within the sphere of the Godhead itself, found only very partial acceptance for more than a century. And even in the cases in which, under the influence of the baptismal formula, reference was made to a Trinity in the Godhead—which came to be more and more the practice,—the third Being was still left in the vague, and, as at an earlier period, we hear of the promised gift of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless the

substantiæ” which he regards as true of the Spirit also, Tertullian comes nearer the views which finally prevailed in the Fourth Century than Origen. For the remarkable formula used by Hippolytus in connection with the Spirit, see Vol. II., p. 261. 239 On the doctrine of the Holy Spirit before Origen and in Origen see Vol. II. passim, Kahnis, L. vom. h. Geist, 1847, Bigg, The Christian Platonists, 171 sq., Nitzsch, pp. 289293. 240 It is in Irenæus alone that we find indications of any specific speculation regarding the Holy Spirit.

philosophical theologians became more and more convinced that it was necessary to assume the presence not merely of a threefold economy in the Godhead, but of three divine beings or substances. In the first thirty years after the commencement of the Arian controversy, the Holy Spirit is scarcely ever mentioned,241 although the Lucianists and consequently Arius too regarded it as indeed a divine hypostasis, but at the same time as the most perfect creature, which the Father had created through the Son and which therefore was inferior to the Son also in nature, dignity, and position.242 In their Confessions they kept to the old simple tradition: πιστεύοµεν καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ εἰς παράκλησιν καὶ ἁγιασµὸν καὶ τελείωσιν τοῖς πιστεύουσι διδόµενον,243 “and we believe 112in the Holy Spirit given to believers for consolation, and sanctification, and perfection.” They recognised three graduated hypostases in the Godhead. The fact that Athanasius did not in the first instance think of the Spirit at all, regarding which also nothing was fixed at Nicæa, is simply a proof of his intense interest in his doctrine of the Son. The first trace of the emergence of the question as to the Spirit is found, so far as I know, in the Anathemas (20 ff.) of the very conservative Creed of the Eusebian Council of Sirmium (351). Here the identification of the Holy Spirit with the unbegotten God and with the Son, as also the designation of it as µέρος τοῦ πατρὸς ἢ τοῦ υἱοῦ, (part of the Father and of the Son,) are forbidden.244 It was towards the end of

241

See Basil., ep. 125: ὁ δὲ περὶ τοῦ πνεύµατος λόγος ἐν παραδροµῇ eb0 κεῖται, οὐδεµιᾶς ἐξεργασίας ἀξιωθείς, διὰ τὸ µηδέπω τότε κεκινῆσθαι τὸ ζήτηµα, i.e., at the time of the Nicene Council. 242 See above, p. 19. The view of Eunomius is representative of the whole group; see the documents which originated with him and Basil c. Eunom. III. 5. Epiphanius has pithily summarised the Arian doctrine (H. 69 c. 56): τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα κτίσµα πάλιν κτίσµατός φασιν εἶναι διὰ τὸ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τὰ πάντα γεγενῆσθαι (John I. 3). 243 See the so-called Confession of Lucian, i.e., the Second Creed of Antioch.; cf. besides the third and fourth formulæ of Antioch, the so-called formula of Sardica—a proof that the orthodox theologians of the West had not yet given attention to the question; their statement: πιστεύοµεν τὸν παράκλητον, τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα, ὅπερ ἡµῖν αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος καὶ ἐπηγγείλατο καὶ ἕπεµψεν· καὶ τοῠτο πιστεύοµεν πεµφθέν, καὶ τοῦτο οὐ πέπονθεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, if it has been correctly handed down, shews, besides, a highly suspicious want of clearness; further the formula macrostich., the formulæ of Philippopolis and the later Sirmian and Homœan formula; in the formula of 357 we have “spiritus paracletus per filium est.” 244 The theology of Marcellus might certainly have drawn the attention of the theologians to the doctrine of the Spirit; for Marcellus discussed this doctrine although not with fulness; see Zahn, op. cit., p. 147 ff. According to Marcellus the Spirit proceeds

the fifties that Athanasius directed his attention to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and he at once took up a firm position.245 If the Holy Spirit belongs to 1571 the Godhead it must be worshipped, if it is an independent being then all that holds good of the Son holds good of it also, for otherwise the Triad would be divided and blasphemed and the rank of the Son too would again become doubtful—this is for him a conclusive argument. There can be nothing foreign, nothing created in the Triad which is just the one God (ὅλη τριὰς εἷς Θεός ἐστιν). Athanasius was not only able to adduce a number of passages from Scripture in support of this assertion, but he also endeavoured to verify his view by a consideration of the functions of the Holy Spirit. The principle of sanctification cannot be of the same nature as the beings which it sanctifies; the source of life for creatures cannot itself be a creature; 113he who is the medium whereby we enter into fellowship with the Divine nature must himself possess this nature.246 On the other hand, He who works as the Father and the Son work, or to put it more accurately, He who bestows one and the same grace—for there is only one grace, namely, that of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit—is part of the Godhead, and whoever rejects Him separates himself from the Faith generally. Thus everything is really already expressed in the baptismal formula; for without the Holy Spirit it would be destroyed, since it is the Spirit who throughout completes or perfects what is done. The personality of the Spirit is simply presupposed by Athanasius in the indefinite form in which he also presupposed the personality of the Son. The attempts to distinguish the peculiar nature of the activity of the Spirit from that of the Father and the Son did not indeed get beyond empty words such as perfection, connection, termination of activity, etc. The question as to why the Son could not do all this Himself, and why, if there was here a third, the existence of a Fourth was not also possible, was left unanswered. It is necessary to believe in the Trinity as handed down by tradition: “and it is manifest that the Spirit is not one

from the Father and from the Logos, and forms part of the divine substance; its special work does not, however, begin till after that of the Son. 245 See Athanas. ad Serap. 246 Passages op. cit., above all, I. 23, 24: εἰ κτίσµα δὲ ἦν τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον, οὐκ ἄν τις ἐν αὐτῷ µετουσ 17c α τοῦ Θεοῦ γένοιτο ἡµῖν· ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἄρα κτίσµατι µὲν συνηπτόµεθα, ἀλλότριοι δὲ τῆς θείας φύσεως ἐγινόµεθα, ὡς κατὰ µηδὲν αὐτῆς µετέχοντες . . . εἰ δὲ τῇ τοῦ πνεύµατος µετουσίᾳ γινόµεθα κοινωνο ac8 θείας φύσεως, µαίνοιτ᾽ ἄν τις λέγων τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς κτιστῆς φύσεως, καὶ µὴ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ· διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἐν οἷς γίνεται οὗτοι θεοποιοῦνται· εἰ δὲ θεοποιεῖ, οὐκ ἀµφίβολον, ὅτι ἡ τούτου φύσις Θεοῦ ἐστι.

being of the many nor an angel [one of many], but one unique being, or rather, He belongs to the Logos who is one, and to God who is one, and is also of the same substance” (καὶ οὐκ ἄδηλον, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι τῶν πολλῶν τὸ πνεῦµα, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἄγγελος, ἀλλ᾽ ἕν ὄν. µᾶλλον δὲ τοῦ λόγοῦ ἑνὸς ὄντος ἴδιον καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἑνὸς ὄντος ἴδιον καὶ ὁµοούσιόν ἐστίν).247 The “Tropicists” as he calls those who teach erroneous doctrine in reference to the Holy Spirit, are in his view no better than the Arians. 114

The letters of Athanasius to Serapion of Thmuis were called forth by the complaints of this bishop about the intrigues of those who taught false doctrine regarding the Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact, amongst the Semi-Arians the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was now purposely developed in opposition to the Homousia. It was in particular the highly esteemed chief of the Thracian Semi-Arians, Macedonius, at a later date the deposed bishop of Constantinople, who defended the doctrine that the Spirit is a creature similar to the angels, a being subordinate to the Father and the Son and in their service.248 It is worth noting with regard to these Semi-Arians that the more their common opposition to the Homœans and Anomœans drove them to side with the Nicæans the more firmly they stuck to their doctrine of the Spirit. It looked as if they wished to preserve in their doctrine of the Holy Spirit the Conservativism which they had had to abandon as regards the doctrine of the Son. It was at the Synod of Alexandria (362) that the orthodox first took up the definite position with regard to this question that whoever regards the Holy Spirit as a creature and separates it from the substance of Christ, in so doing divides up the Holy Trinity, gives a hypocritical adherence to the Nicene Faith, and has merely in appearance renounced Arianism.249 But what was thus firmly established by the Alexandrians by no means at once became law 247

Ad Serap. I. 27. Athanasius also appeals in support of this belief to the tradition of the Catholic Church (c. 28 sq.), though he is able to construe it ideally only and does not quote any authorities. 248 On Macedonius see the articles in the Diction. of Chr. Biogr. and in Herzog’s R.Encykl, and in addition Gwatkin, pp. 160-181, 208. The doctrine is given in Athan. ad Serap. I. 1 f. Socrat. II. 45, 38, Sozom. IV. 27, etc., Basil, ep. 251, Theodoret. II. 6. The Macedonians laid stress on the difference between the particles ἐκ, διά, ἐν, as used of the hypostases, and emphasised the fact that the Holy Scripture does not describe the Holy Spirit as an object of adoration, and pointed out that the relation of Father and Son did not admit of a third. What the τρίτη διαθήκη of the Macedonians was (see Gregor. Naz. Orat. 31. 7), I do not know. 249 See Athan., Tom. ad Antioch. 3, see also 5: τὸ ἄγιον πνεῦµα οὐ κτίσµα οὐδὲ ξένον ἀλλ᾽ ἴδιον καὶ ἀδιαίρετον τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ πατρός.

for the orthodox in the East. The statements regarding the Spirit 2b3f 250 were indeed further amplified 115in subsequent years in connection with the remodelling of the old Confessions, but amongst the Homoiousians who were becoming Homousians, the greatest uncertainty continued to prevail up till 380. The thirty-first oration of Gregory of Nazianzus which was composed at that time, proves this.251 Meanwhile it was just the Cappadocians who did most towards getting the orthodox conception naturalised in the Church, namely, Basil in his work against Eunomius (lib. III.) and in the tractate “de spiritu sancto,” Gregory of Nazianzus in several of his orations (31, 37, 44), and Gregory of Nyssa in his amplifications of Trinitarian doctrine. They had apparently learned something from the letters of Athanasius ad Serap., for they repeat his arguments and give them more formal development. But neither in Basil nor in Gregory of Nazianzus is there the stringency which marks the thought of Athanasius. The absence of any tangible tradition exercised a strong influence252 on them, and at bottom they are already satisfied—Basil at any rate—with the

250 564

The formula of the revised Creed of Jerusalem, i.e., the later Creed of Constantinople, is characteristic. It only demands the complete adoration and glorifying of the Spirit along with the Father and Son, but otherwise confines itself to general predicates: “τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόµενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.” These are undoubtedly of a very exalted kind and seem also to exclude the idea of the dependence of the Spirit on the Son, but nevertheless they do not get the length of the complete Homousia. 251 He writes, “Of the wise amongst us some consider the Holy Spirit to be an energy, others a creature, others God, while others again cannot make up their minds to adopt any definite view out of reverence for Scripture, as they put it, because it does not make any very definite statement on the point. On this ac ac8 count they neither accord to Him divine adoration nor do they refuse it to Him, and thus take a middle road, but which is really a very bad path. Of those again who hold Him to be God, some keep this pious belief to themselves, while others state it openly. Others to a certain degree measure the Godhead since like us they accept the Trinity, but they put a great distance between the three by maintaining that the first is infinite in substance and power, the second in power, but not in substance, while the third is infinite in neither of these two respects.” For the details see Ullmann, p. 264 f.; at pages 269-275 he has set forth the doctrine of Gregory regarding the Holy Spirit, together with the Scriptural proofs. 252 Gregory of Nazianzus has consequently (Orat. 31.2) to begin by remarking that he had been accused of introducing a Θεὸς ξένος καὶ ἄγραφος. He himself practically admits the want of any explicit Scriptural proof, and has recourse to the plea (c. 3) that “love of the letter is a cloak for impiety.” Basil undoubtedly appealed (de s. s. 29) to Irenæus, Clemens Alex., Origen, and Dionysius of Rome in defence of his doctrine, but he felt all the same that there was little evidence in support of it. Gregory made a similar admission.

avowal that the Spirit is not in any sense a creature.253 116Gregory of Nyssa as an Origenist and speculative Trinitarian carried the doctrine further.254 As the theologians were at a loss how to accord

253

Cf. also the remarkable words of Gregory of Naz. Vol. III., p. 230. The striking utterances of the Cappadocians regarding the letter of Holy Scripture, tradition kerygma, and dogma all owe their origin to the troublesome situation created by the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The Greeks of later days no longer found themselves in such a predicament of this kind, and consequently they did not require to repeat the bold statements regarding tradition. 254 See also 564 the work of Didymus, περὶ τριάδος, edid. Mingarelli, particularly the Second Book, c. 6 sq., written about 380, which contains the fullest Fourth Century proof of the complete Godhead of the Holy Spirit which we possess. Previous to this Didymus had already composed a tractate “de spiritu sancto”. Of special interest further is the “οίκονοµία”, that is, the pædagogic or politic reticence which the Cappadocians permitted themselves and others in connection with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. According to Gregory of Naz. God Himself merely indicated the Godhead of the Holy Spirit in the N. T. and did not plainly reveal it till later on in order not to lay too great a burden on men (!)—a theory which over-throws the whole Catholic doctrine of tradition. It is thus also permitted to the faithful now to imitate this divine “economy” and to bring forward the doctrine of the Spirit with caution and to introduce it gradually. “Those who regard the Holy Spirit as God are godly men illuminated with knowledge, and those who say that He is God, when this is done in presence of well-disposed hearers, have something heroic about them, but if it be done in presence of the vulgar-minded it shews that they do not possess the true teaching wisdom (εἰ δὲ ταπεινοῖς, οὐκ οἰκονοµικοι), beca aaa use they are casting their pearls into the mud, or are giving strong meat instead of milk,” and so on (Orat. 41.6). Gregory defends the conduct of Basil also, who, watched by the Arians in his lofty post in Cæsarea, guarded against openly calling the Holy Spirit “God” because the γυµνὴ φωνή that the Holy Spirit is God would have cost him his bishopric. (Orat. 43.68.) He acknowledged the Godhead of the Spirit “economically” only, i.e., when the time was suitable for so doing. He was sharply blamed for this conduct by the rigidly orthodox clerics, as Gregory tells us (Ep. 26, al. 20). They complained that while Basil expressed himself admirably regarding the Father and the Son, he tore away the Spirit from the divine fellowship as rivers wash away the sand on their banks and hollow out the stones; he did not frankly confess the truth, but acted rather from policy than from truly pious feeling, and concealed the ambiguity of his teaching by the art of speech. Gregory who was regarded as a suspected person himself, stood up for his friend; a man, he said, occupying such an important post as Basil did, must surely proceed with some prudence and circumspection in proclaiming the truth (βέλτιον οἰκονοµηθῆναι τὴν ἀλήθειαν) and make some concession to the haziness of the spirit of the time so as not to still further damage the good cause by any public pronouncement. The difference between Athanasius and the religious-orthodox on the one hand, and the theological-orthodox on the other, comes out here with special clearness. Athanasius would have indignantly rejected that “οἰκονοµηθῆναι τὴν ἀλήθειαν”, because he did not regard God Himself as a politician or a pedagogue, who

to the Spirit a peculiar mode of being in relation to the Father, they hit upon the plan of attributing to it, following some passages in St John, eternal sending 117forth (ἔκπεµψις) and procession (ἐκπόρευσις). Just as in the second century the begetting of Christ whereby he came to exist on this earth had been made into a superterrestrial begetting then became an eternal begetting, while the “being begotten” next came to be regarded as the supreme characteristic of the second hypostasis, so in the fourth century an “eternal sending” of the Spirit was made out of the promised “sending” of the Holy Spirit and was regarded as descriptive of the essential characteristic of the third hypostasis within the Holy Trinity. Nowhere can the work of imaginative conception be more plainly recognised than here. Behind a history already in itself a wonderful one, and the scene of which is laid partly in the Godhead and partly within humanity, there was put by a process of abstraction and reduplication a second history the events of which are supposed to pass entirely within the Godhead itself. The former history is to get its stability through the latter which comprises “the entire mystery of our Faith.” The matter was much more quickly settled in the West. Hilary, it is true, was anything but clear as regards doctrine, but this was merely because he had eaten of the tree of Greek theology. The general unreasoned conviction in the West was that the Holy Spirit, belief in whom was avowed in the Apostles’ Creed, is the one God likewise. When the question as to the personality of the Spirit emerged, it was as quickly settled that it must be a persona, for the nature of God is not so poor that His Spirit cannot be a person.—(It has to be noted that persona and our “person” are not the same thing.) The views of Lactantius again on this point were different. Since the year 362 the orthodox at several Councils in the West and then in Asia had pronounced in favour of 118the complete Godhead of the

acts κατ᾽ οἰκονοµίαν, but as the Truth. If he had ever acted as the Cappadocians did, the Homœans would have been the victors. Still, on the other hand, we ought not to judge the Cappadocians too severely. As followers of Origen they regarded the loftiest utterances of the Faith as Science; but Science admits, in fact often demands a pedagogic and economic or accommodating method of procedure. Just as Basil made a distinction between κηρύγµατα and δόγµατα, so Gregory (Orat. 40) concluded his Decalogue of Faith with the words: ἔχεις τοῦ µυστηρίου τὰ ἔκφορα, καὶ ταῖς τῶν πολλῶν ἀκοαῖς οὐκ ἀπόρρητα· τὰ δὲ ἄλλα εἴσω µαθήσῃ, τῆς τριάδος χαριζοµένης, ἅ καὶ κρύφεις παρὰ σεαυτῷ σφραγῖδι κρατούµενα.

Spirit255 in opposition to the Arians, as we see from the Confession of Eunomius, and also to the Pneumatomachians.256 The big Eastern Council summoned to meet at Constantinople in 381 by Theodosius originally included thirty-six Macedonians amongst its members. But they could not be got to assent to the new doctrine of the Holy Spirit, spite of all the imperial efforts made to win them over. They were accordingly compelled to leave the Council.257 The latter reaffirmed the Nicene Creed, but gave to it a detailed dogmatic explanation which has not been preserved, in which the complete homousia of the Spirit was avowed, and in the same way the first canon of the Council passes condemnation on the Semi-Arians or “Pneumatomachians”.258 The pronouncements of the years following confirmed the final result; see the epistle of the Council of Constantinople of 382,259 but above all, the anathemas of Damasus.260 The doctrine of the homousia of the Spirit from this time onward was as much a part of orthodoxy as the doctrine of the homousia of the Son. But since according to 119the Greek way of conceiving of the matter, the Father continued to be regarded as the root of the Godhead, the perfect homousia of the Holy Spirit necessarily always seemed to the Greeks to be called in question whenever he was derived from the Son also. He consequently seemed to be inferior to the Son and thus to be a

255

Their leaders, in addition to Macedonius, were Eustathius of Sebaste, Eleusius of Cyzikus, and probably also Basil of Ancyra. In Marathonius of Nicomedia the party had a member who was held in high honour both because of his position and his ascetic life. The Macedonians in general made a deep impression on their contemporaries by their ascetic practices and by their determined struggle against the Homœans. In the countries on the Hellespont they were the most important party. 256 The most important utterances are the Epistle of the Alexandrian Council of 363, the declarations of the Westerns under Damasus in the years 369, 376, 377, the resolution of an Illyrian Council, (given in Theodoret IV. 9), the Council at Antioch in 379, which is dec ac3 isive as regards the East in so far as those present avowed their belief in the Western doctrine including the doctrine of the Spirit. Compare, besides, the Confession of Basil (Hahn, § 121): βαπτιζοµεν εἰς τριάδα ὁµοούσιον, that of Epiphanius in the Ancorat. (374): πνεῦµα ἄκτιστον, and that produced by Charisius (Hahn, § 144): πνεῦµα ὁµοούσιον πατρὶ καὶ ὑιῷ. 257 See Socr. V. 8; Sozom. VII. 7, 9; Theodoret V. 8. 258 It follows from a communication of the Council held at Constantinople in 382, that the Council issued a “tomus” on the doctrine of the Trinity. That the formula in reference to the Holy Spirit which is given in the so-called Creed of Constantinople, did not proceed from the Council of 381 and cannot have proceeded from it, since it is not sufficiently different from the view of the Macedonians, has been shewn above, p. 93. 259 Theodoret V. 9. 260 C. 16 f., see Theodoret V. 11.

grandchild of the Father, or else to possess a double root. Then, besides, the dependence of the Spirit on the Son was obstinately maintained by the Arians and Semi-Arians on the ground that certain passages in the Bible supported this view, and in the interest of their conception of a descending Trinity in three stages. Thus the Greeks had constantly to watch and see that the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone was taught, and after the revised Creed of Jerusalem became an ecumenical Creed, they had a sacred text in support of their doctrine, which came to be as important as the doctrine itself. II. The Cappadocians261 and their great teacher, Apollinaris of Laodicea,262 before them, reached the doctrine of the Trinity, which remained the dominant one in the Church, though it always continued to be capable of being differently restated by 120theologians. We are to believe in one God, because we are to believe in one divine substance or essence (οὐσία, φύσις, essentia, substantia, natura) in three distinct subjects or persons (ὑπόστασις,persona [πρόσωπον]). The substance is to be thought of neither as a mere generic conception nor, on the other hand, as a fourth alongside of the three subjects, but as a reality, i.e., the unity must coincide with the real substance. The subjects again are not to

261

acd

262

Athanasius prepared the way in his letters ad Serapionem.

As is proved by his correspondence with Basil and as his own writings shew, Apollinaris was the first who completely developed the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. He was, however, more strongly influenced by Aristotle than the Cappadocians were, and accordingly in his case the conception of the one divine substance was a shade nearer the idea of a mere generic conception than with them, although he too was in no way satisfied with the genuine conception (see above p. 84). Apollinaris further retained the old image of αὐγή, ἀκτίς, ἥλιος, not, however, as it would appear, in order by it to illustrate the unity, but rather the difference in the greatness of the persons (περὶ τριαδ. 12, 17). (The Logos had already a side turned in the direction of finitude.) His followers afterwards directly objected to the doctrine of the Cappadocians and vice versa. We are now better acquainted with Apollinaris’s doctrine of the Trinity than formerly, since Dräseke (Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. VI., p. 503 ff.) has shewn it to be very probable that the pseudo-Justinian Ἔκθεσις πίστεως ἤτοι περὶ τριάδος is by him, and that the detailed statements of Gregory of Nazianzus in the first letter to Kledonius refer to this work (op. cit., p. 515 ff.). From the work, κατὰ µέρος πίστις, which Caspari has rightly claimed for Apollinaris (Alte and neue Quellen, 1879, p. 65 f.), and which represents a dogmatic advance as compared with the tractate περὶ τριάδος, it likewise follows that Apollinaris is to be reckoned amongst the founders of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity,—also because of his advanced doctrine of the Holy Spirit in which he teaches the homousia— and that in fact he ought to be called the very first of these.

be represented as mere attributes nor, on the other hand, as separate persons, but as independent, though apart from their mutual relationship, unthinkable, partakers of the divine substance. Their likeness of nature which is involved in their community of substance finds expression in the identity of their attributes and activities, their difference in the characteristic note (τρόπος ὑπάρξεως, ἰδίωµα) of their manner of existence as signified by the ideas, unbegotten, begotten, proceeding from (ἀγεννησία, γεννησία, ἐκπόρευσις). The special characteristic attached to the Father implies that He is the source, the root, the first principle of the Godhead, while the two other p 1ace ersons—within the divine substance—are “caused”. The Father is greater than the other two in so far as He is the first principle and the cause (κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ αἰτίας λόγον). The Godhead is consequently in itself and apart from all relation to the world, an inexhaustible living existence and no rigid and barren unity, “as the Jews teach.” Yet neither is it a divided multiplicity “as the heathen think”, but, on the contrary, unity in Trinity and Trinity in unity. Because the Godhead is what is common to the Three, there is only one God. At the same time the hypostatic difference is not to be regarded as a merely nominal one, but it has not reference to the substance, the will, the energy, the power, time, and consequently not to the rank of the persons. From the unity results the unity of activity. Every divine act is to be understood as a working of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit as is expressed in the terms, primal source, mediating power, and completion. See, above all, Gregor. Naz. Orat. 27-32. This doctrinal system shews itself to be a radical modification of the system of Origen under the influence of the religious thought defended by Athanasius and the West, that the Godhead which appeared, Jesus Christ, and the Godhead which is 121still active in the Church, the Holy Spirit, are the Godhead themselves.263 The Cappadocians were pupils both of Origen264 and of Athanasius. This fact explains their doctrinal system.

263

Gregory designates as opponents of the correct doctrine of the Trinity (1) the Sabellians, (2) the Arians, (3)—this is extremely remarkable—the hyper-orthodox who teach the doctrine of three Gods equal in substance (οἱ ἄγαν παρ᾽ ἡµῖν ὁρθόδοξοι, Orat. 2, 37). The true orthodoxy is ac8 always represented as the middle path. For details, see Ullmann, pp. 232-275. 264 The theology of Origen was transplanted into the Pontus country by Gregorius Thaumaturgus. It is thus that Marcellus also probably became acquainted with it and combatted it.

Before them, however, there had been a theologian in the ancient Church who had come under influences wholly similar to those which had affected them, and who because of this, also anticipated in a striking way their formulae when he saw that he must amplify the doctrine of God. This was Tertullian. Tertullian’s theology was dependent on the one hand on Justin and the Apologists, and on the other on Irenæus, but besides this the modalistic Monarchianism which at that time held sway in the West and which he combatted, exercised a strong influence upon him. Consequently the conditions under which Tertullian composed his work “adv. Praxean” were, mutatis mutandis, the same as those by which the Cappadocians were surrounded, and they accordingly led to a similar result, so that we may say: the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity already announced its presence even in its details, in Tertullian—and only in him and in his pupil Novatian.265 Did not Hosius carry it into the East? (See above p. 57.)

265

Owing to the importance of the matter it may be allowable here to go back again to Tertullian (see Vol. ii., p. 258 f.). The crude part of his doctrine and the points in which it diverges from Cappadocian orthodoxy are indeed sufficiently obvious. Son and Spirit proceed from the Father solely in view of the work of creation and revelation; the Father can send forth as many “officiales” as He chooses (adv. Prax. 4); Son and Spirit do not possess the entire substance of the Godhead, but on the contrary are “portiones” (9); they are subordinate to the Father (minores); they are in fact transitory manifestations: the Son at last gives everything back again to the Father; the Father alone is absolutely invisible, and though the Son is indeed invisible too, He can become visible and can do things which would be simply unworthy of the Father, and so on. All these utterances along with other things shew that Tertullian was a theologian who occupied a position between Justin and Origen. But the remarkable thing is that at the same time we have a view in a highly developed form which coincides with the Cappadocian view, and—this is genuinely Western—in some points in fact approaches nearer Modalism and the teaching of Athanasius than that of Gregory and has a strong resemblance to the doctrine of an immanent Trinity, without actually being such: the Godhead in substantia, status, potestas, virtus, is one (2 ff.), there is only one divine substance and therefore there are not two or three Gods or Lords (13, 19). In this one substance there is no separatio, or divisio, or dispersio, or diversitas (3, 8, 9), though there is indeed a distributio, distinctio, dispositio, dispensatio (9, 13), an οἰκονοµία in short, a differentia per distinctionem (14). Accordingly the unitas substan 564 tiæ is not in any way a singularitas numeri (22, 25)— God is not unicus et singularis (12)—but it comprises three nomina or species, formæ gradus, res, personæ, (Tertullian here, however, usually avoids the use of all substantives), see 2, 8 etc. No one of these is a mere attribute, on the contrary each is a substantiva res ex ipsius dei substantia (26); there are thus tres res et tres species unius et indivisæ substantiæ (19); these, however, are most intimately connected together (conjuncti 27); they are tres cohærentes (8, 25) without, however, being one (masc.)

[rather are they one (neut. 22, 25)], because the second and the third spring ex unitate patris (19) and are accordingly God as He is, individui et inseparati a patre (18). In the divine substance there are in fact conserti et connexi gradus (8). These three gradus or persons are different from each other in proprietas and conditio, but not in substance (8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 24, 25). The peculiar property of the Father is that He is a nullo prolatus et innatus (19) and also absolutely invisible. The Son is also invisible in virtue of the substance, but visible as to his conditio (14). In virtue of the substance there is in fact a perfect societas nominum; even the Son in accordance with this is “almighty” (17, 18). It is thus necessary to believe in the unit 564 as ex semetipsa derivans trinitatem. This has already become an established truth as against Jews and heathen. What is most instructive of all, however, is to notice Tertullian’s use of “persona” as distinguished from “substantia”, because it is here that he has most plainly prepared the way for the later orthodox phraseology. The Latin Bible supplied Tertullian with the word “persona”; for (adv. Prax. 6) in Proverbs VIII. 30 it had “cottidie oblectabar in persona ejus” and in Lamentations IV. 20 (adv. Prax. 14) “spiritus personæ ejus Christus dominus.” (The LXX. has πρόσωπον in both passages.) Both passages must have attracted special notice. But Tertullian was further a jurist, and as such the conceptions “persona” and “substantia” were quite familiar to him. I accordingly conjecture—and it is probably more than a conjecture—that Tertullian always continued to be influenced in his use of these words by the juristic usage, as is specially evident from his naïve idea of a substantia impersonalis and from the sharp distinction he draws between persona and substantia. From the juristic point of view there is as little objection to the formula that several persons are possessors of one and the same substance or property, that they are in uno statu, as to the other formula that one person posse 564 sses several substances unmixed. (See Tertullian’s Christology adv. Prax. 27; Vol. ii., p. 281.) The fact that Tertullian, so far as I know, never renders “substance” by “natura”—although he takes the latter to include substance—seems to me as conclusively in favour of my view as the other fact that, in the introduction to his work (3), he attempted to elucidate the problem by making use of an image drawn from the spheres of law and politics. “Monarchy does not always require to be administered by one despot; on the contrary he may name proximæ personæ officiales, and exercise authority through them and along with them; it does not cease to be one government, especially when the Son is the co-administrator. Son and Father are, however, consortes substantiæ patris.” Tertullian’s exposition of the doctrine in which he hit upon the spirit of the West was, however, hardly understood in the East. In the East the question was taken up in a philosophical way, and there the difficulties first made themselves felt, which in the juristic way of looking at the matter bad been kept in the background. In the latter “persona” is sometimes manifestation, sometimes ideal subject, sometimes fictive subject, sometimes “individuum”, and “substantia” is the property, the substance, the Real, the actual content of the subject as ac8 distinguished from its form and manifestation (persona). It is significant that Tertullian is also able to use nomen, species, forma, gradus, and in fact even res for “persona”, so elastic is the conception, while for “substantia” he has deitas, virtus, potestas, status. On the other hand, when the question is viewed philosophically it is difficult, it is in fact actually impossible to distinguish between nature and person. The

122

The Christological dogma with its formula had already had a share in the establishment of the Trinitarian dogma. Tertullian had already made use of the same conceptions for giving a fixed form both to his doctrine of God and to his Christology (adv. Prax.). The form taken by the Trinitarian doctrine of the 123Homoiousians, as represented by Basil of Ancyra and of Apollinaris, was likewise determined by their Christological speculations. (It was Christological speculation which produced the “ὁµοίωµα” 124[likeness] and which gave currency to the analogy of the conceptions. “Humanity” and “Adam” in relation to individual men.266 But the Cappadocians learned from them. Quod erat in causa, apparet in effectu! An Aristotelian and a Subordinationist element lurks in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as well as this element of dependence upon Christological dogma. The

following passages will illustrate Tertullian’s use of words, (ad v. persona): adv. Valent. 4: “personales substantiæ”, sharply distinguished from “sensus, affectus, motus”; adv. Prax. 7: “filius ex sua persona profitetur patrem”; ibid: “Non vis eum substantivum habere in re per substantiæ proprietatem, ut res et persona quædam videri possit” (scil. Logos); ibid: “quæcumque ergo substantia sermonis (τοῦ λόγου) fuit, illam dico personam”; 11: “filii personam . . . sic et cetera, quæ nunc ad patrem de filio vel ad filium, nunc ad filium de patre vel ad patrem, nunc ad spiritum pronuntiantur, unamquamque personam in sua proprietate constituunt”; 12: “alium autem quomodo accipere debeas jam professus sum, personæ, non substantiæ, nomine, ad distinctionem non ad divisionem”; 13: “si una persona et dei et domini in scripturis inveniretur, etc.”; 14: “si Christus personæ paternæ spiritus est, merito spiritus, cujus personæ erat, id est patris, eum faciem suam ex unitate scilicet pronuntiavit”; 15: “manifesta et personalis distinctio conditionis (this too is a juristic conception) patris et filii”; 18: “pater prima persona, quæ ante filii nomen erat proponenda”; 21: “quo dicto (Matt. XVI. 17) Christus utriusque personæ constituit distinctionem”; 23: (on John XII. 28) “quot personæ tibi videntur, Praxea?” . . . “Non propter me ista vox (John XII. 30) venit, sed propter vos, ut credant et hi et patrem et filium in suis quemque nominibus et personis et locis”; 24: “duarum personarum conjunctio (in reference to John XIV. 10 “apparet proprietas utriusque personæ”); 26: “nam nec semel sed ter ad singula nomina in personas singulas tinguimur”; 27: “Father and Son must not be distinguished in una persona”; c. 27: “videmus duplicem statum non confusum sed conjunctum in una persona, deum et hominem Jesum”; 31: “sic voluit deus renovare sacramentum, ut nove unus creder 564 etur per filium et spiritum, ut coram iam deus in suis propriis nominibus et personis cognosceretur.” 266 Natural theology also exercised an influence here and did good service to the Homousios. If it is certain that man has been created καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν of God, and if the view—a view which was indeed rejected—could even suggest itself, that his spirit is a portio dei (substantia divina), then the Logos appeared to have no advantage over man if the Homoousia were not attributed to Him.

Christological controversies accordingly could not but re-act on the form given to the dogma of the Trinity. That their influence was not stronger than the historical evidence shews it actually to have been, is to be explained solely by the rigid form taken by the dogma so quickly rendered sacred by tradition. Anything in the way of modification was unsuccessful, and accordingly the attempts in this direction belong not to the history of dogma, but of theology. Some Monophysites who were influenced by the Aristotelian philosophy and who were thus scholars of the same type as Apollinaris, but who were also Chalcedonian theologians, attempted to give a dialectic shape to the ambiguous conceptions of “Nature” and “Person” in the Church. In doing this they naturally landed either in Tritheism or in Unitarianism, which their opponents could also represent as Quaternity whenever the three persons were reckoned as belonging to the one real Substance as Reals and not as attributes. The departure on the part of the Monophysites from orthodox dogma had not a philosophical cause only, though the period was one in which there had been a revival of Aristotelian study, but was also the result of their Christology. Since in their Christology they regarded φύσις (nature) as equal to ὑπόστασις (hypostasis),267 it naturally suggested itself to them to carry out the same equation in reference to the 125Trinity. But if οὐσία or 5647 φύσις be regarded as equivalent to ὐπόστασις then we have Unitarianism; while if on the other hand, in making this equation we start from the hypostasis, we have three gods. Both of these doctrines were taught amongst the Monophysites in the sixth century, or to put it more accurately, from about 530.268 In

267

Οὐκ ἔστι φύσις ἀνυπόστατος—said both Monophysites and Nestorians in setting forth their Christology. This was applied to the Trinity. But the orthodox too in so far as they wer 564 e Aristotelians, shunned the platonic—which was also the juristic—fiction of a φύσις ἀνυπόστατος, and this was bound to create difficulties in connection with their doctrine of the Trinity. The Theopaschian controversy is connected with this; see Chap. III. 268 Of the Monophysite Tritheists the most important are Askusnages, Johannes Philoponus against whom Leontius of Byzantium wrote “de sectis”, and Peter of Kallinico. On the works of John, see the article in the Dict. of Christ. Biogr.; an important fragment in Joh. Damasc., de hær. 83 from the “Diætetes” of John. Here it may be plainly seen that Christology determined the form of John’s doctrine of the Trinity, but that he sought to give out as Church doctrine his Aristotelian conception of the Hypostasis, viz., Nature reaching manifestation in an “individuum”, Nature itself existing only in the single substance, or in the Idea. From Leontius we gather that John spoke of τρεῖς µερικαὶ οὐσίαι and accepted the not 564 ion of an οὐσία κοινή which, however, exists only in conception. This doctrine caused divisions amongst the Monophysites, and these led the Coptic patriarch Damian to emphasise so strongly the reality of the one substance, that he

opposition to the Tritheists Johannes Damascenus, although he was himself strongly influenced by Aristotle and based his theology on the work of the Cappadocians, gave a Modalistic turn to the theological exposition of the dogma of the Trinity, and in so doing sought to get rid of the last remains of Subordinationism. It is true that he also grants that the Father is greater than the Son (de fide orthodox. I. 8) because He is the Principle of the Son, a view which Athanasius too, founding on John XIV. 28, had always maintained, but he nevertheless conceives of the being unbegotten (ἀγεννησία) in a still higher fashion than the Cappadocians had done—namely, as a mode of being of the same kind as the being begotten (γεννησία) and procession (ἐκπόρευσις), and in order to put the unity of the Hypostases on a firm basis he not only emphasises much more strongly the “in one another” (ἐν αλλήλοις) which had already been maintained before this, rejecting the Apollinarian analogy of human-substance and man, and teaching that each person is not less dependent on others than on himself, but he also uses the questionable formula that the difference between them exists only for thought (ἐπινοία), and that there exists between them a pervasion (περιχώρησις) without, 126however, any blending (συναλοιφή) and mixture (σύµφύρσις) (I. 8). In his case too this way of putting the dogma was determined by the Christological dogma.269 In the Eastern Church the further development of the dogma of the Trinity beyond the limit reached by the Cappadocians had no appreciable result.270 It was too unimportant in itself, and, above

could be represented as a Tetradite, although at the same time he probably took away from the independence of the persons. Cf. the Art. “Tritheisticher Streit” by Gass in the R.-Encykl. 269 See on this Bach, DG. des MA. I., pp. 53 ff., 67 ff. In the Tritheistic propositions and in the counter-movement we have the beginning of the mediæval controversy regarding Realism and Nominalism. 270 On the other hand the fact that the most distinguished teacher of the East prop ac8 ounded a doctrine of the Trinity which seems to be akin to that of Augustine was of importance for Western theology. We cannot assume that Augustine influenced John. Moreover, after this theologians were still to be found in the East who, perhaps under the influence of Mohammedanism, worked out the doctrine of the Trinity in a modalistic way. Thus in the eleventh century Elias of Nisibis in his book “On the proof of the truth of the Faith”, written against the Mohammedans, says (Horst, 1886, p. 1 f.); “Wisdom and Life are two attributes of God, which no one except Him possesses. For this reason Christians also say that He is three persons, i.e., possesses three essential attributes— namely, Essence, Wisdom which is His Word, and Life; He is, however, a single substance . . . ‘Three persons’ expresses the same as is expressed by the statement—the

all, it left untouched the point in connection with which the placing of the Father above the other Hypostases came most plainly to the front. John also (I. 8) taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.271 He further simply repeated the old statements that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, that He is the image of the Son as the latter is of the Father, and that He is the mediation between Father and Son, although in his day the doctrine of the Latins—the filioque—was already known in the East.272 The Easterns clung to the statements in support of which they alleged countless passages from the writings of the Fathers of the Fourth Century, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, or from the Father through the Son. As against the Arians and Semi-Arians they emphasised the Spirit’s independence of the Son, in so far as 127dependence meant that the Spirit was a creation of the Son, and they always continued to stick to the “from the Father”. If in the following centuries they seldom purposely emphasised it, still they always laid stress on it as being a self-evident expression of the thesis that the Father is the First Principle (ἀρχή) in the Trinity, and that accordingly the Spirit appears as depotentiated, or double caused, if it is regarded as proceeding from the Son also.273 The doctrine of the procession of

Almighty is God, wise, and living. The Essence is the Father, the Wisdom is the Son, the Life is the Holy Spirit.” God is thus purely a single being. I am not able to say whether Elias is alone amongst the Nestorians in teaching this heterodox doctrine. 271 The addition “and rests in the Son” does not require to be taken account of; see Langen, Joh. v. Damaskus, p. 283 ff. 272 John expressly rejects the view (l.c.) that the Spirit is from the Son or that it has its ὕπαρξις from the Son (Hom. de Sabb. s.). 273 Παρὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ or διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ was the expression used; i.e., it was assumed from what was stated in Holy Scripture that there was a µεσιτεία on the part of the Son in connection with the ἐκπόρευσις of the Spirit; e.g., Athan. ad Serap. I. 20, so that Athanasius himself could say, “what the Holy Spirit has ac8 , it has from (παρὰ) the Son” (Orat. IV. 24), but the Father alone is the cause of the Spirit; cf. Basil. ep. 38. 4, de sp. s. 6 f.; Gregor., Naz., Orat. 31. 7, 8, 29; Gregor., Nyss., Orat. cat. 3 and many passages in his work against Eunomius. This system of doctrine continued to be the dominant one, and it makes no difference to it that a passage has always been pointed to in Epiphanius and Cyril according to which the Spirit is ἐξ ἀµφοῖν. Marcellus had already expressed himself on this point in his own fashion when he wrote (Euseb., de eccl. theol. III. 4): Πῶς γὰρ, εἰ µὴ ἡ µονὰς ἀδιαίρετος οὖσα εἰς τριάδα πλατύνοιτο, ἐγχωρεῖ, αὐτὸν περὶ τοῦ πνεύµατος ποτὲ µὲν λέγειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ποτὲ δὲ λέγειν, ἐκεῖνος ἐκ τοῦ ἐµοῦ λήψεται καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑµῖν. In reference to this point the dominant theology found it possible only to distinguish between the immanent processio and the processio in the historical revelation, or to analyse the “παρά” into “ἐκ” (Father) and “διά”. In the Nestorian controversy the use of the proposition that the Spirit proceeds from the Son was formally disallowed. Theodoret, it is true, maintained in opposition to

the Holy Spirit from the Father alone thus clearly shews that in the East the mutual indwelling of the Hypostases was not thought of as complete, and that the Father was regarded as greater than the Son. The spiritual representation of the Trinity was of a different kind in the East and in the West respectively, especially from the time of Augustine onwards. It is accordingly at this point that Photius (867) took up the subject, since he, in searching for a dogmatic disputed point, charged the West with introducing innovations into doctrine, and strengthened this charge by alleging the still graver accusation against the West, of having falsified the most holy Creed of Constantinople by the addition of the “filioque”—“worst of 128evils is the addition to the holy Creed” (κακῶν κάκιστον ἡ ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ συµβόλῳ προσθήκη). As a matter of fact “filioque”, as a word in the Creed and indeed in the doctrine itself too, was an innovation, but in reality it was merely the correct expression for the original Western conception of the one God in whom the Trinity coheres. This is not the place to describe the endless controversy; for the countless and ever new arguments adduced on both sides, so far as they do not spring from a different way of conceiving of the Trinity and from the determination to hold by what had once been delivered to the Church, are worthless. Nor have the attempts to reconcile the opposing views any interest for the history of dogma, because, as a rule, they were dictated by ecclesiastical policy. It is, however, worthy of note that the Greeks gradually came to be suspicious of the old “διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ”, “through the Son”, too, but that they otherwise continued to hold by the Cappadocian doctrine of the Trinity.274 This together with

Cyril the view that the Holy Spirit is ἴδιον υἱοῦ, but he declared it to be an impiety to teach that the Holy Spirit is ἐξ υἱοῦ or has δι᾽ υἱοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν (Opp. V. p. 47 ed. Schultze). Maximus Confess. further repeated this in the ep. ad Marinum, and so too did Joh. Damasc. It is to be found also in the Confession of Theodore v. Mops. (Hahn, § 139, p. 230). 274 Photius, Mystag. (ed. Hergenröther) p. 15: Εἰ δύο αἰτίαι ἐν τῇ θεαρχικῇ καὶ ὑπερουσίῷ τριάδι καθορᾶται, ποῦ τὸ τῆς µοναρχίας πολυύµνητον καὶ θεοπρεπὲς κράτος; The tracing back of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son is compared to Manichean dualism. The controversial works are innumerable and those in the Slav languages are also very numerous, dating chiefly from the ninth, eleventh, thirteenth, (Council of Lyons) fifteenth (Synod of Florence) and sev ac8 enteenth (Cyrillus Lucaris) centuries. In our own day, owing to the Old-Catholic movement and its projects of Union, the question has again been revived. For the carrying out of their plans of Union with Eastern Churches, which have already been in a large measure successful, the Romans have always found it necessary to have controversialists of a conciliatory disposition, e.g., Leo Allatius; while for their condemnation of the obstinate Greeks they have always required fanatical controversialists. The Greeks in order to protect

the dogma of the Incarnation continued to be the Faith of the Church, the mystery κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. The whole of the material, however, which had 129been taken over from Greek philosophy was turned to account in giving a definite form to this dogma, and was to a certain extent exhausted here. Accordingly in the Trinitarian theology we also meet with what the Church inherited from the downfall of the ancient world of thought, though certainly it presents itself in a very much abridged and stunted form. Owing to the way in which it was employed and owing to its being united with separate Biblical expressions which came to be taken as philosophical-theological conceptions—the τρόποι ὑπάρξεως, modes of existence for example—it doubtless underwent the most astonishing modification. Still the doctrine of the Trinity in the theological treatment given to it, became the vehicle by which the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy was transmitted to the Slavic and Germanic peoples. It contains a most peculiar blend of the Christian thought of the revelation of God in Jesus and the legacy of ancient philosophy. In the West, Augustine, following an ancient Western tendency, destroyed the last remains of subordinationism, though just because of this he advanced in the direction of Modalism. According to him in constructing the doctrine of God we should not start from the person of the Father. On the contrary the conception of the Godhead ought from the very first to be personal and Trinitarian, so that the Father is regarded as being conditioned in His existence by the Son in the same way as the Son is by the Father. Augustine wishes the unity of the three persons to be so conceived of that the three are equal to each one singly, and the triple personality is understood as existing within the absolute simplicity of God. The differences or characteristic notes of the three persons are still to hold good when the Godhead is so conceived of; but they appear merely as relations in the one Godhead, and their characteristics are done away when it is

themselves against the threatening encroachment on the part of the Romans, still continue to lay great stress on dogmatic controversy, as is proved by the existence of numerous works and essays, and even by the Greek newspapers which appear in Constantinople. Besides the large works on the Schism by Pichler, and on Photius by Hergenröther, cf. Walch, Hist. controv. de process. s. s. 1751; Theophanes, de process. s. s. 1772; Gass, Symbolik d. griech. K. p. 130 ff.; Kattenbusch, op. cit. I., p. 318 ff.; Vincenzi, op. cit.; Langen, Die trinitar. Lehrdifferenz, 1876; Swete, On the History of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, 1876; Stanley, The Eastern Church, 1864; Kranich, Der h. Basil, i. s. Stellung z. filioque, 1882; Pawlow, Kritische Versuche zur Geschichte der ältesten griechish-russischen Polemik gegen die Lateiner (Russian) 1878; Bach, Dogmengesch. des M.-A. II. p. 748 ff.

considered that in connection with the act of production or procession Son and Spirit are to be regarded as active agents. Augustine searched for analogies to the threefoldness which is found in the one divine essence, in creation, in the conceptions of basis and substance, form and idea, persistence, and in the human spirit in object, subjective picture of the object, intention of perception—mens ipsa, notitia 130mentis, amor—memoria, intelligentia, voluntas. The doctrine in its entirety is the effort of a man whose mind was as sceptical as it was intellectually powerful, but who revelled in the incomprehensible, who had laid hold of a new thought, but who both as sceptic and as theosophist felt himself bound to tradition, and who for this reason was for his punishment driven about between the poles of a docta ignorantia and a knowledge which was replete with contradictions. This speculation, which attempts to construe the most immanent of immanent Trinities and to sublimate the Trinity into a unity, just because it does this, discards everything in the way of a basis in historical religion and loses itself in paradoxical distinctions and speculations, while at the same time it is not able to give clear expression to its new and valuable thought. The great work of Augustine, “De Trinitate”, can scarcely be said to have promoted piety anywhere or at any time. It, however, became the high-school not only for the technicological culture of the understanding, but also for the metaphysics of the Middle-Ages. The realistic scholasticism of the Middle-Ages is not conceivable apart from this work, because it itself already contains Scholasticism.275

275

The larger histories of dogma go very fully into Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity. For the history of dogma, however, it is sufficient to get a knowledge of the main outlines of this doctrine. The chief source is the great work “de trinitate”, the letters Nos. 11 and 120 are specially instructive; the former because, written immediately after Augustine’s conversion, it nevertheless already contains his fundamental thought, although still in a simple form and accompanied by a confidence in the power of sanctified reason to understand the mystery; letter 120, because in a proportionately brief form it sets forth the doctrine in its matured shape. (The Quaternity is rejected in c. 7, 13.) Besides this, attention should be given to lib. XI. 10 de civit. dei, amongst other passages; cf. the monographs by Bindemann and Dorner jun., and also Gangauf, Augustin’s specul. Lehre v. Gott., 1865. According to Augustine it is not the divine substance or the 564 Father that is the monarchical principle, but, on the contrary, the Trinity itself is the one God (unus deus est ipse trinitas, pater et filius et spiritus s. est unus deus; see de trin. V. 9, c. serm. Arian. c. 4). Consequently the equality and unity are conceived of by him in a much stricter fashion than by the Cappadocians. He is not afraid of the paradox that two persons are equal to three, and again that one is equal to three (VII. 11, VI. 10); for “singula sunt in singulis et omnia in singulis et singula in omnibus et omnia in omnibus et unum omnia.” Accordingly the Son too takes an active part in His own sending (II. 9: “a

patre et filio missus est idem filius, quia verbum patris est ipse filius”); the immanent function of the persons as well as their economic function are never to be thought of as separated, for “sunt semper unicem, neuter solus” (VI. 7); it is therefore true that the Trinity—in the O. T.—has also been seen (II.), a fact which the Greeks denied, and that the unity is actually a numerical one. It is accordingly also self-evident that the equality is a perfect one; the Father in all His acts is no less dependent on the Son than the Son is on Him (c. serm. Arian. 3: 1. C. 4 is therefore striking: “solus pater non legitur missus, quoniam solus non habet auctorem, a quo genitus sit vel a quo procedat”) ac8 ; the special qualities do not establish anything in the way of superiority or inferiority. Nor are the persons to be conceived of as independent substances or as accidents, but as relations, in which the inner life of the Godhead is present (V. 4, VII. 11, VI. 60, V. 5: “in deo nihil quidem secundum accidens dicitur, quia nihil in eo mutabile est; nec tamen omne quod dicitur, secundum substantiam dicitur. Dicitur enim ad aliquid, sicut pater ad filium et filius ad patrem, quod non est accidens, quia et ille semper pater et ille semper filius” etc. V. 6: amplification of the “relative”, see also ep. 233). We can see that Augustine only gets beyond Modalism by the mere assertion that he does not wish to be a Modalist, and by the aid of ingenious distinctions between different ideas. His strength and the significance of his book consist in the attempts he makes to base the doctrine of the Trinity on analogies, together with these distinctions in thought. In connection with these Augustine has given us some extraordinarily acute and valuable discussions on psychology, the theory of knowledge, and metaphysics, which supplied the subsequent centuries with philosophical education. The Scholastics made use of these investigations not only in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity, in discussing which they do not get beyond Modalism—but also in connection with the conception of God in itself and theology generally. It is impossible, however, to understand the labyrinths of the work “de trinitate”, on which Augustine was occupied for fifteen years, if we do not keep the fact in view that the great thinker has attempted to express in his formula for the Trinity a thought which this formula not only does not contain, but, on the contrary, implicitly disowns—namely, that the Godhead is personal and is consequently one person, that θεότης and Θεός mean the same thing. Obliged to believe in “the three persons in the one essence” by tradition, but obliged also by his Christian experience to believe in the single personality of God (see the Confessions), spite of the value which he too puts upon the “Essence” this situation could only result in a contradiction. Had Augustine been able to make a fresh start in putting the Christian religion into a doctrinal system, he would have been the last to have thought of the Greek formula. One who could write (V. 9) “dictum est ‘tres personæ’ non ut illud diceretur, sed ne taceretur,” would not have discovered the three persons in the one substance! But though thus involved in contradiction this great mind was nevertheless able to instruct posterity in a hundred ways, for Augustine employed the whole reso 564 urces of his philosophy in the endeavour to overcome the contradiction which could not be overcome. It is moreover, of importance that his acquaintance with the Cappadocian theology was of such a very superficial kind. When (V. 9) he translates the formula, µίαν οὐσίαν τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, by “una essentia tres substantiæ” it is evident that he had not entered into the spirit or grasped the point of view of that theology. The addition, however, “sed quia nostra

131

loquendi consuetudo iam obtinuit, ut hoc intelligatur cum dicimus essentiam, quod intellegitur cum dicimus substantiam, non audemus dicere: unam essentiam tres substantias, sed unam essentiam vel substantiam, tres autem personas, quemadmodum multi Latini ista tractantes et digni auctoritate dixerunt, cum alium modum aptiorem non invenirent, quo enuntiarent verbis quod sine verbis intellegebant,” proves that spite of the agreement come to with the East, the West was not yet conscious of possessing a common terminology. The studies of Reuter (Ztschr. f. K. G. V., p. 375 ff., VI. p. 155 ff.) have thrown light on Augustine’s relation to the Trinitarian conclusions of the East. We may assent to his thesis (p. 191) “In his discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity Augustine seldom expressly falls back on the formulæ of the Nicene Creed. His doctrin ac8 e is not anti-Nicene, but neither is it for the most part Nicene in its wording. He made very little use of the discussions of Greek or even of Latin authors.” The Nicene Creed is not once mentioned in the work “de trinitate”. We ought not in fact to measure the acquaintance which the West had with the theological development in the East by the careful attention given to it by the Roman bishops. Reuter is right in saying (p. 383 f.) that it is not so much the Nicene Creed or indeed any formula whatever which Augustine takes for granted as expressing the Church doctrine of the Trinity, but rather a fixed series of fundamental thoughts. The West was never so deeply impressed by the Nicene Creed as the East had been. In the writings of Tertullian, Novatian, Dionysius of Rome amongst others, it possessed the “series of fundamental thoughts” which proved sufficient and in which was still contained a trace of that ἕν πρόσωπον maintained by Calixt. (Philos. IX. 12) and the presence of which is still manifested in the “non ut illud diceretur [to wit, ‘tres personæ’]” of Augustine. Just for this very reason the West did not require the Nicene Creed, or required it only when it came to close quarters with Arianism, as we may gather from what is said by Ambrose. We have finally to refer to an important element in the position of Augustine in reference to the doctrine of the Trinity. Augustine was positively and negatively influenced by Neo-Platonism as represented by Plotinus and Porphyry. Negatively, in so far as he was there confronted with a doctrine of the Trinity, but with one which was based on a descending series of emanations; positively, in so far as he took over from Plotinus the thought of the simplicity of God and attempted actually to make use of it. To Augustine as a philosopher the construction of a doctrine of the Trinity was already a matter of course. All the more was it necessary for him to strive to construct a peculiarly Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and, because of the idea of simplicity which could no longer be referred to the Father alone, to bring the other two persons into unity with the Father. With the philosophical postulate of the simplicity of God was blended the religious postulate of the personality of God, a point regarding which indeed Augustine never got to have theoretically clear views. Here accordingly the other two “persons” had to be fused, and in this way originated the logical work of art represented by his doctrine of the Trinity, which no one had taught him and which appeared even to himself to be so difficult that he did not count on its being understood by outsiders (Reuter, p. 384). Prudentius (see, e.g 564 ., Cath. XI. 13 sq.) has a very ancient doctrine of the Trinity, which partly recalls that of Tertullian and partly that of Marcellus.

It was for Augustine a self-evident truth that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, and he expressly maintained 132this.276 In doing this he merely gave expression to the view which was implicitly contained in the ancient Western doctrine of the 277 133Trinity inasmuch as the procession of the Spirit from Father and Son implied in it could never be regarded as the procession from two First Principles. The first mention of the doctrine after Augustine is in the Confession of Faith of a Synod of Toledo which probably met in 447, hardly in 400, “paracletus a patre filioque procedens” (Hahn, § 97) and in the words of Leo I. (ep. ad Turib. c. 1): “de utroque processit”; see further the so-called Athanasian Creed and the Confession of the Synod of Toledo in the year 589 (Reccared’s Confession, Hahn, § 106). It was at this Synod that the “filioque” was first put into the text of the Creed of Constantinople, which had probably then or shortly before first reached Spain. We have no further information regarding the reception it met with;278 it is likely that in opposition to the West Gothic Arianism there was a desire to give expression to the doctrine of the equality of Father and Son. From Spain the addition reached the Carlovingian Frankish Empire,279 and already in the first decades of the ninth century it had been there embodied in the official form of the Creed—by the order of Charles the Great. In Rome the Augustinian doctrine of the Holy Spirit had indeed been long ago sanctioned, but as late as the beginning of the ninth century the Creed as accepted there was still without that addition, as the table constructed by Leo III. and his answer to the Frankish ambassadors in the year 809 prove. Soon after this, however,— when and under what circumstances it is impossible to say—it was adopted into the Creed in Rome too; see the ordo Romanus de div. off. (Max Bibl. Patr. XIII., 134p. 677a), which perhaps belongs to

276

The Father Himself is only relatively principium, the Son and the Holy Spirit are also to be termed principium; but they form together one principium (V. 13). The statement accordingly holds good: “fatendum est, patrem et filium principium esse spiritus sancti, non duo principia.” It is, however, worthy of note that Augustine in this very place (V. 14) rejects the view that the Son was born of the Holy Spirit also. 277 It seems to have appeared again in the teaching of Priscillian as avowed Modalism; see the Anathemas of the Spanish Synod of 447 in Hefele, op. cit. II. ac8 , p. 307 f., and Leo I., ep. ad Turibium. 278 See the Acts of the Council in Mansi IX., pp. 977-1010, Gams, K. Gesch. Spaniens II. 2, p. 6 ff., Hefele III., p. 48 ff. Rösler (Prudentius, p. 362 ff.) regards the Confession in question as being that of the Council of 400. 279 The first controversy, (with the Easterns,) arose at the Council of Gentilly in the year 767. Already in the libri Carolini the East is censured for not accepting the filioque.

the second half of the ninth century, and the controversy with Photius.280 So far as popular Christian thought is concerned, the Cappadocian manner of formulating the doctrine exercised in the end a more decisive influence even in the West than the Augustinian view which dissolves the persons into conceptions and leaves little room for the play of ordinary or pictorial thought. But for the Church and for Science281 Augustine’s view came to be authoritative. What contributed most to this result was the fact that it was embodied as the doctrine of Athanasius in a formula which came to have the authority of a universal and binding Confession of Faith. It is extremely probable that the so-called Athanasian Creed, so far as the first half of it is concerned, is a Gallican Rule of Faith explanatory of the Creed of Nicæa. As such it was from the fifth century onwards, by means of the theology of Augustine and Vincentius of Lerinum, gradually made into a course of instruction for the clergy, i.e., the monks, suitable for being committed to memory. As a regula fidei meant to explain the Nicene Creed it was called “fides catholica” or “fides Athanasii”, though it had other names also, and perhaps as early as 500 it began with the words “Quicunque vult salvus esse.” It is probable that in the course of the sixth century it essentially received its present technical form in Southern Gaul where the West-Gothic Spanish Arianism still continued to provoke opposition. In the middle of the sixth century it, or at least a recension very similar to it, was already current as the authoritative course of instruction for the clergy in Southern Gaul, and was together with the Psalms learned by heart. It got into the decisions of single Councils from the Psalm-books and breviaries of the monks and clergy, in so far as the practice had here begun of appealing to single statements in this rule of faith. Starting from here it gradually came to be the Confession of the Frankish Church in the eighth and ninth centuries. It was perhaps then that the second Christological half was added, the origin of which is completely 135wrapped in obscurity; it was of course put together before the ninth century. The Frankish Church by its relations with Rome was the means of communicating the Creed as the Confession of Athanasius to the entire Western Church during the period from the ninth to the eleventh centuries. As Rome and—through Rome—the West finally received the Gallico-Frankish form of the so-called

280

See Abelard, Sic et Non IV., p. 26 sq. ed. Cousin, and the works cited above; in addition Köllner, Symbolik I., p. 1 f., p. 28 ff. 281 See Erigena’s doctrine of the Trinity, which is entirely drawn from Augustine, de div. nat. I. 62, II. 32, 35, homil. in prolog. ev. sec. Joann.

Apostles’ Creed and gave up the primitive Apostles’ Creed, so too Rome adopted as a second Creed the Gallico-Frankish statement of the Augustinian doctrine of the Trinity. This, at any rate, is the relatively most probable view that can be taken of the obscure history of the origin and reception of the so-called Athanasian Creed.282 The three 136so-called ecumenical Creeds are consequently all “apocryphal.” The Apostles’ Creed did not originate with the Apostles, though so far as its basis is concerned, it belongs to the post-Apostolic age; the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed originated neither in Nicæa nor in Constantinople, but in Jerusalem or Cyprus, though it got its main contents from Nicæa; the Athanasian Creed is not the work of Athanasius. Nor are they ecumenical, on the contrary it is at most the Nicene-

282

For the older works on the Athanasian Creed which begin with the disquisition of Voss (1642), see Köllner, Symbolik I., p. 53 ff. In more recent times, besides Caspari, the English, who use the Creed at divine service and nevertheless have come to feel it to be inconvenient, have published valuable discussions on it; see Ffoulkes The Athan. Creed, 1871; Swainson, The 564 Nicene and Apost. Creeds, etc., 1875; Ommaney, Early History of the Athan. Creed, 1875; two prize-essays by Peabody and Courtney Stanhope Kenny, 1876, which are known to me only from the Jena Lit. Ztg., 1877, No. 21. In addition the discussions on the Utrecht Psalter by Hardy (1874), Aratz (1874), and Springer (1880). It is since the non-Athanasian origin of the Creed has been established beyond doubt both on internal and external grounds, that positive work has begun to be done, and this has not yet been brought to a conclusion. The question as to how far its transmission in writing takes us back has already been the subject of important controversies. It is doubtful if the manuscript takes us back as far as the time of Charles the Great or Charles the Bald. But the question of origin cannot be decided by the settlement of this point. Swainson gives 850 as the date of its origin—amongst the Neustrian clergy—and sees in it a piece of intentional deception. Ffoulkes endeavours to prove that it originated at the end of the eighth century and is also inclined to believe there was deception in the matter; Caspari suggests the sixth century; others go as far back as the fifth, beyond the middle of which, at any rate, we cannot, for internal reasons, go. The question of origin is a complicated one since the Rule of Faith originated by stages a abb nd only gradually came to he authoritative. There is no reason for thinking of deception. What I have given in the text is based on independent studies, but to describe these at length would take us too far. The most certain traces seem to me to point to Southern Gaul, and North Africa may also have had something to do with it. The Athanasian Creed does not belong to the same category as the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals as Swainson holds; nor was it set up by Charles the Great as a sharp boundary line between East and West, which is the view of Ffoulkes; on the contrary, it was a syllabus of instruction based on the doctrine of Athanasius, which in uncritical times was turned into a creed of Athanasius. The necessity for a detailed creed of this kind was coincident with the desire to possess a compendium of the sacred paradoxes of Augustine and at the same time a sharp weapon against the Trinitarian, i.e., Arian, errors which had for so long haunted the West.

Constantinopolitan Creed which can be so termed283 since the East knew nothing of the other two. The doctrine of the Trinity in the Athanasian Creed is strictly Augustinian, and yet it has certain traits which are not to be traced either to Augustine or to Vincentius. No other Creed went so far in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity as an article of faith necessary to salvation, as this one. This can be explained only by the fact of its having originated in mediæval times. The Franks regarded the Faith handed down to them by the ancient Church simply as a legal statute, and accordingly only required faith in the Faith, obedience, that is, fides implicita therefore, since they did not yet possess what was required for a religious or philosophical appropriation of the system of belief. Under the form of fides implicita, however, i.e., a faith of obedience, the most developed theology can be looked for from every one. In the Athanasian Creed as a Creed we have the transformation of the doctrine of the Trinity as an article of Faith to be inwardly appropriated, into an ecclesiastical legal statute on the observance of which salvation depends. 206b 1 137

For Athanasius the fundamental religious thought was the “Ὁµοούσιος”, and just because of this he could not treat it technically. For the Cappadocians the “Ὁµοούσιος” and the doctrine of the Trinity came to be the sum of theological knowledge. For the Westerns after Augustine these doctrines became a sacred legal statute, to which, above all, obedience must be rendered. This is the course of things which is constantly repeated in the history of religion. Men pass from the religious thought to the philosophical and theological doctrinal proposition, and from the doctrinal proposition which requires knowledge to the legal proposition which demands obedience, or to the sacred relic the common veneration for which constitutes a bond of union

283

The Armenian Church possesses a Creed which is closely akin to the Creed of Constantinople, but not identical with it. 284 The Creed is in Hahn, § 81. Careful attention has been bestowed on the separate statements by those who have investigated the subject, and their origin has been ascertained. The verses 9-12 are not to be directly traced to Augustine. Four times over in the Creed salvation is made dependent on carefully defined belief. This is not like Augustine; see ep. 169. 4. He did not intend his amplifications of Trinitarian doctrine to be taken as Church doctrine (de trin. I. 2). The most recent work on the Creed is in Lumby’s History of the Creeds, third ed., 1887. Lumby comes to the conclusion based on a very careful examination of the MSS., and tradition, that the Creed in its present shape is not older than the time of Charles the Bald.

for the community, whether it be that of the nation, the state, or the Church. And thus the process of formulating comes to have an ever-increasing importance, and the Confession with the mouth becomes the foundation of the Church. But in reference to this the Valentinian Herakleon had as early as the second century correctly remarked:— “There is an agreement in faith and life on the one hand and in word on the other; the agreement in word is also an agreement based on authorities which many hold to be the only agreement, though this is not a sound opinion; for hypocrites can subscribe to this kind of agreement.” (Ὁµολογίαν εἶναι τὴν µὲν ἐν τῇ πίστει καὶ πολιτείᾳ, τὴν δὲ ἐν φωνῇ· ἡ µὲν οὖν ἐν φωνῇ ὁµολογία καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν γίνεται, ἣν µόνην ὁµολογίαν ἡγοῦνται εἶναι οἱ πολλοί, οὐχ ὑγιῶς· δόνανται δὲ ταύτην τὴν ὁµολογίαν καὶ οἱ ὑποκριταὶ ὁµολογεῖν.) 138

Chapter II. The Doctrine of the Perfect Likeness of the Nature of the Incarnate Son of God with that of Humanity.

CHAPTER II. THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERFECT LIKENESS OF THE NATURE OF THE INCARNATE SON OF GOD WITH THAT OF HUMANITY. WHILE the question whether the Divine which had appeared on the earth was identical with the supreme Godhead, was still agitating men’s minds, the second question arose as to the nature of the union of the Divine in Christ with humanity. In this question, comprising as it does two closely connected problems, the problem, namely, as to the character of the humanity of Christ, and the problem as to how the union of divinity and humanity is to be conceived of, that which constituted the supreme concern of Greek theology has its culmination. It accordingly had already necessarily emerged in the Arian controversy, for it was in reference to the thought of the union of Godhead and humanity that the whole controversy was carried on by Athanasius.285 The problem was not a new one; on the contrary, it had already engaged the attention of the old theologians who had carried on the

285 56e

See Vol. III., Chap. VI.

struggle against Marcion and Valentin,286 and since the time of Irenæus it had occupied a central place in men’s thoughts. The doctrine that the flesh of Christ was actual human flesh had been for long an established one,287 139although platonising theologians still continued to find it possible to combine with it dogmatic thoughts and a refined Valentianism;288 in fact, no single outstanding Church teacher really accepted the humanity in a perfectly unqualified way. Further than that it was necessary to believe in an actual “incarnation of the Logos” (σάρκωσις τοῦ λόγου) all else was uncertain. What in the way of intensification or modification the conception of the σάρξ was susceptible of in order still to rank as human flesh, was a point which was as uncertain as the question as to the relation between σάρξ and ἄνθρωπος, and as the other question as to whether the σάρξ must maintain itself as such in union with the Divine and whether it could or could not do this. All the Christological problems which had before given rise to controversies with the Gnostics returned in a more subtle form, since it was still possible to posit a real σάρξ of Christ in the statement of the problem, and then actually to do away with it again in the course of speculation. A Christological theory had undoubtedly been propounded by Origen, according to which the presence of a human soul also in Jesus is to be expressly admitted. Others before him had long ago demanded this, perhaps partly because they already felt that everything turned on the human personal life, and that a human body without a soul involves a merely seeming humanity, though they did not actually draw the logical conclusions.289 But the theory of Origen was not determined by this thought alone. He was also influenced by a cosmological postulate. He required a middle term between the Logos and matter to bind them together, and this was to be found in the human soul of Christ, concerning which he taught that it had not shared in the general antemundane fall of the

286

The Valentinians themselves had already handled it with supreme technical skill, though no unanimity was attained in their own schools. With them the whole stress was laid on complicated distinctions within the person of Christ. On the other hand, all the elements of the composite nature of Jesus Christ were by some of the leaders of the schools elevated to the heavenly sphere. 287 See Tertull., de carne Christi. acb 288 So, above all, the Alexandrians. 289 See I Clem. ad Cor. 49, 6: τὸ αἶµα αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς . . . καὶ τὴν σάρκα ὑπὲρ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡµῶν καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ἡµῶν. Iren. V. I. 1: τῷ ἰδίῳ αἵµατι λυτρωσαµένου ἡµᾶς τοῦ κυρίου καὶ δόντος τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡµετέρων ψυχῶν καὶ τὴν σάρκα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀντὶ τῶν ἡµετέρων σαρκῶν.

spirits.290 Moreover, he was certainly acute enough to perceive that the free human will also must be located in the personality of Christ and that Holy Scripture affirms that it is. But his theory of the human 140soul and of the nature of the union of the divine and human in Christ scarcely passed beyond the circle of his own pupils.291 It was too closely connected with the most peculiar and most questionable fundamental presuppositions of the great philosopher and was also too difficult to win approval. Even in Alexandria in the time of Alexander and Athanasius it would appear that attention was no longer given to Origen’s way of putting the doctrine; in those cases in which his view was retained its effect at best was merely still further to increase the elasticity of all the conceptions attached to the person of Jesus. The general stagnation which marked theology in the first half of the Fourth Century, shewed itself no less in the different views of the Incarnation than in the doctrine of the Godhead of Christ. Most theologians contented themselves with the idea of the ensarkosis, and in connection with this clung to the most naïve doketic views as regard details.292 If this already involved a reassertion of the opinions held in the oldest theological schools which Christianity possessed, namely, the Valentinian, others went still further in reasserting these opinions and directly 141taught the

290

For details see Vol. II., p. 369 ff. Hilary (de trinit. X. 22) will not entertain the idea of a human soul. His view of the origin of souls is certainly, speaking generally, creationist. “He has taken the soul from Himself which, moreover, was never communicated by men as something emanating from those who beget. . . . The soul of the body (of Christ) must have been from God.” 292 The detailed discussions of Hilary amongst other things (de trinitate) shew the length to which these doketic views had gone and the extent to which they had spread. According to him the body of Christ was exalted above all rah and always took these upon itself voluntarily only. The norm a9c al condition of the body of Christ was always the condition of glorification, the appearance in ordinary material form with the ordinary needs was on every occasion a voluntary act (X. 23, 25: “in natura Christi corporis infirmitatem naturæ corporeæ non fuisse” etc.). Christ in Gethsemane did not tremble and pray for himself, but for his disciples (X. 37, 41) He did not feel pain; His sufferings affected Him as an arrow passes through fire and air (X. 23). His nature was absolutely incapable of suffering. Amongst the confused ideas of Hilary, that of a depotentiation of the Logos by an act of self-emptying, is also met with. But the passages to which the modern supporters of the kenotic theory appeal (de trin. IX. 14, XI. 48, XII. 6) are not in place; for when Hilary is dealing with the idea of self-humiliation he always takes back in the second statement what he has asserted in the first, so that the unchangeableness of God may not suffer. Hence the statement: “Christus in forma dei manens formam servi accepit.” This statement must be taken along with the strongly kenotic statements of Hilary. 291

doctrine of the heavenly σάρξ of Christ,293 the Homousia of this σάρξ with the Godhead of the Logos, and so on.294 Others adopted the theory of a transformation. According to them the σάρξ originated with the Logos Himself, who in view of its appearance or manifestation, by an act of transformation made for Himself a body capable of suffering and thus in part renounced His own nature. We can trace the influence here of the old monarchian theologoumena of the ὑιοπάτωρ who is incapable of suffering when He wills and capable of suffering when He wills.295 Speculative Pantheistic views, such as afterwards plainly reappeared amongst the Monophysites and which had formerly been propounded by the Gnostics, may already have been in existence at this time, ideas such as those of the moment of finitude in the essence of God Himself, and of the Cosmos as the natural body of the Godhead. In opposition to these views some taught the doctrine of a perfect incarnation (ἐνανθρώπησις), feeling probably that a mere ensarkosis or appearing in the flesh was not sufficient. But they were perfectly in the dark in regard to the question as to whether the Godhead really became a man or adopted human nature. As no one had yet decided this question, so no one knew whether the incarnate Logos had two natures or one, though the great majority clung to the idea of one nature without knowing, however, how to conceive of it. No one knew whether the Logos was blended with humanity or merely joined with it, whether He had transformed Himself into it or whether He had put it on as a dress 142and dwelt in it as in a temple, whether in becoming man He had taken it up into the Godhead, or in deifying it had left its peculiar nature intact; or had not deified it at all, but had merely associated it with the Godhead. Further, no one knew in what way the Gospel statements were to be employed in connection with the complicated nature of the God-man. Was the

293

“Corpus cæleste” says Hilary himself, l.c. X. 18. The Pauline speculations regarding the second Adam and the heavenly man, had come to have very disastrous consequences for the theologians of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries as they had already had for the Gnostics before them. By the attention which was given to these speculations the problem, which was otherwise already a complicated one, got into the direst confusion. It was, however, doketism in particular, both in its coarse and in its refined forms, which turned them to account, and modern theologians have shown a fondness for fishing in these muddy waters in order to extract from them their very different fancies regarding Christ as the heavenly type of humanity and as the ideal-man. 294 See Vol. III., p. 299 ff. 590 295That the Logos himself formed His own body (from Mary) seems to have been the almost universal opinion; see Hilary X. 18 (also 22) “Christ Himself is the source of His body.”

flesh, the man, born of the Virgin Mary, or was the Logos born of her together with the flesh. Who suffers, who hungers, who thirsts, who trembles and is afraid, who asks and is anxious, who confesses his ignorance, who describes the Father as the only Good, who dies, the man or the God-man? And again: who does miracles, commands nature, forgives sins, in short, who is the Redeemer, God or the God-Man? There was no fixed, generally accepted answer. Further, no one was able to make any definite statement regarding the permanence of the humanity296 of Christ and its nature after the Resurrection, and yet the question as to the effect of the Incarnation turned entirely on this point. Finally, the question as to whether the Logos did or did not undergo a change owing to the Incarnation, was one on which complete uncertainty prevailed. The questions regarding exaltation, humiliation, depotentiation, assumption emerged and affected the always half concealed fundamental question, as to the relation of the Divine and human generally. The theologians, however, groped uncertainly about, and however paradoxical many of the doctrines already were of a suffering without suffering, of a humiliation without humiliation, still the most paradoxical by no means passed yet for the most certain.297 We can easily see that we are here at the very central point of the old Greek theology; at the time of the Nicene Creed this was, however, no rock, but a slippery bit of country shelving down on all sides. The religious thought: Θεὸς σαρκωθεὶς δι᾽ 143ἡµᾶς—God made flesh for us,—stood firm, but the theology which sought to grasp it slipped off it at every point. How could it possibly be put in intelligible conceptions so long as theologians concerned themselves with the “Natures”! A human nature made divine which nevertheless remains truly human, is a contradictio in adjecto. What those in after times succeeded in doing was accordingly not to give a clear explanation, but simply a paraphrase which as formulated was by no means perfectly suited to express the thought, and whose value consisted in this, that it surrounded the speculative theologians with a hedge and prevented them from falling into abysses.

296

See the peculiar doctrine of Marcellus in Zahn, Marcell., p. 177 f., given differently by Dorner and Baur. 297 Examples of these disputed questions are supplied by all the writings of the Fathers dealing with the subject, down to the middle of the Fourth Century. A specially characteristic example is to be found in Philostorg., H. E a9d ., IX. 14. He tells us that in Constantinople, in the time of Valens, Demophilus, e.g., preached τὸ σῶµα τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀνακραθὲν τῇ θεότητι εἰς τὸ αδηλότατον κεχωρηκέναι, as a drop of milk disappears when it trickles into the ocean.

The Christological problem, however, as it was treated in the ancient Church was not only connected in the closest way with the Trinitarian, and, further, had not only the element of contradiction in common with it, but it also in the last resort issued in the same formulæ. If in the case of the latter the singular of the substance or nature and the plurality of the persons were the accepted terms, it was the reverse way in the case of the other, where the accepted terms came finally to be the plurality of the substances and the unity of the persons. The distinction between “Nature” and “Person” was also the subject of discussion in both cases. That this distinction, with which the West had been long acquainted without, however, using it as a speculative starting-point, supplied the means of escape from the difficulties connected with both problems, theologians had begun to perceive as early as the middle of the Fourth Century, though undoubtedly in a slow and hesitating fashion. This was the anchor to which they fastened themselves, although it was not supplied by any philosophy; they had to provide it for themselves. While, however, so far as the Trinitarian problem was concerned, the distinction once introduced quickly established itself in the East, it was a century before it triumphed there as regards the Christological problem, and this triumph, far from uniting the parties, permanently separated them. What is the explanation of this remarkable phenomenon? It may be said that neither in connection with the Trinitarian question did the perfect unity of the substance succeed in establishing itself (see pp. 120, 125); but it very nearly did so, and 144the controversy accordingly ceased. Why then did the formula of the unity of the person not in the same way prove satisfactory in connection with the Christological problem? This question may already be raised here, though it cannot be settled till the next chapter. Attention must, however, be directed to one point. The antecedents of the “solution” of the Trinitarian and Christological problem which proved victorious in the Eastern Church and consequently in the Catholic Church generally, are to be found only partly in the East; it was naturalised in the West. The Tertullian who in the work “adv. Prax.” created the formula of the “una substantia” and the “tres personæ”, in the same work constructed the formulae of the “utraque substantia (duplex status non confusus—this is the ἀσυγχύτως—sed conjunctus) in una persona” (the substance of two kinds in one person, the twofold state not confused but joined together in one person); “duæ substantiæ in Christo Jesu, divina et humana” (two substances in Christ Jesus, divine and human); “salva est utriusque proprietas

substantiæ in Christo Jesu” (the property of each substance in Christ Jesus is not interfered with).298 He thus laid the foundation for the formally similar treatment of both problems, and created the terminology which was accepted by the East after more than two hundred years. Had he the same interest in the Christological problem as the later Eastern theologians had? Was the deification of humanity a matter of importance to him? By no means. And what philosophy did he make use of? Well, no philosophy at all; on the contrary, he used the method of legal fictions. By the aid of the distinction current among jurists between “substance” and “person” he with great facility explained and securely established as against the Monarchians both the ancient ecclesiastical and, par excellence, Western formula, “Christus deus et homo”, and also the formula, “pater, filius et spiritus sanctus—unus deus.” Substance— for Tertullian never uses the word “nature”—is in the language of the jurists not anything personal, but rather corresponds to “property” in the sense of possession, or to the essence as distinguished from the manifestation or “status”; the person again is not in itself anything 145substantial, but the subject or individual as capable of entering into legal relations and possessing property, who can quite well possess different substances, just as on the other hand it is possible for one substance to be in the possession of several persons. Tertullian introduced these legal terms into theology. That this is what they were in his use of them, and not philosophical terms, is shewn by the words themselves, shewn too by the application made of them and by the utter disregard of the difficulty which their application must necessarily create for every philosophical thinker. And it was these legal fictions which the East had to accept as philosophy, i.e., theology, or change into philosophy! This became the basis of the “philosophy of revelation.” (!) This was more than the boldest Neo-Platonic philosophy in its strangest intellectual phantasies had ever asked. No wonder that difficulties were made about accepting it, especially when, besides, it did not cover what was still the preponderating interest of the Faith, the interest in the deification of humanity. People always shrank from positing an οὐσία ἀνυπόστατος, a substance without an hypostasis, because when used in reference to a living being it was simply absurd, and because the unity of the person of Christ, “salva utriusque substantiæ proprietate”, gave no security for the unity of the Godhead and humanity. The jurist Tertullian, however, could manage quite well with “person” and “substance”, as if the distinction between them were self-evident, because he did not

298

See Vol. II., p. 280 ff. and above, p. 121.

here develop the logical results of the doctrine of redemption, but gave expression299 to a matter of fact which was ostensibly 146contained in the Creed, and because he did not, properly speaking, indulge in philosophical speculation, but applied the artificial language of the jurists. If we accordingly perceive that many centuries afterwards, the philosophical-realistic method of handling the main problem was in Western scholasticism completely displaced by a formal-logical or legal method of treatment, there is nothing surprising in this; for the foundation of such a method of handling the problem was in fact laid by Tertullian. Irenæus had already clearly discerned and plainly expressed the thought of the most perfect union. The great Western theologians about the year 200 were further advanced in respect of Christology in consequence of the struggle with Gnosticism and Patripassianism, than the East was a hundred years later.300 But what they had secured in the heat of battle did not possess even in the West itself any general validity; while in the East the greatest uncertainty reigned, having been brought in by the “scientific” Christology of Origen.301 It delayed or threw back the development, which had certainly begun in a strictly scientific form. Thus at the beginning of the Fourth Century the East had once more to take up the question entirely anew. If we are to estimate correctly what was finally accomplished, it must not be

299

The Westerns did the same after him; amid all the odd ideas that some of them produced they always clung to the humana et divina substantia, to the filius dei et filius hominis, and this distinction which had been supplied by the Creed, together with the unity of the person, became for them the rudder when it came to be a question of sailing through the stormy waves which had arisen in the East. See already Novatian, then Hilary, Ambrose, Augustin, Leo I. and also the less important theologians. It is extremely characteristic that Vincentius (Comm. 17, 18) still uses not the designation two natures, but two substances, and as against Apollinaris he finds the thesis perfectly sufficient “that Christ had two substances, the one divine, the other human, the one from the Father, the other from His Mother.” Hilary very frequently employs the expressions “utraque natura”, “persona”; he also writes de trin. IX. r4: “utriusque naturæ persona.” In the “Statuta ecclesiæ antiqua” (Mansi III., p. 950) we have: “qui episcopus ordinandus est, antes examinetur . . . si incarnationem divinam non in patre neque in spiritu s. factam, sed in filio tantum credat, ut qui erat in divinitate dei patris filius, ipse fieret in homine hominis matris filius, deus verus ex patre, homo verus ex matre, carnem ex matris visceribus habens et animam humanam rationalem, simul in eo ambæ naturæ, i.e., deus et homo, una persona, unus filius, unus Christus.” For details see below. af3 300 See Vol. II., p. 275 ff. 301 Nevertheless he strongly emphasised the thought of the deification of the human nature. On the other hand it is possible to attribute to him a doctrine of two natures.

measured by the Gospel, but by the dead state of things which had prevailed a hundred years before.

The assertion of Arius and his pupils that the Logos took only a human body gave the impulse to renewed consideration of the problem. Like Paul of Samosata the Lucianists would have nothing to do with two natures, but they taught the doctrine of one halfdivine nature which was characterised by 147human feelings, limited knowledge and suffering.302 Like Paul of Samosata they also found fault with the orthodox on the ground that their Christology led to the assumption of two Sons of God or two natures; for these were still regarded as identical. The reply made by the orthodox at first to this charge lacked theological precision. Just because Athanasius was as much convinced of the necessity of the Incarnation (ἐνανθρώπησις) as of the unity of the personality of Christ as Redeemer, he did not put the doctrine in fixed formulæ. On the one hand, as against Arius, he made a sharp distinction between what the God and what the man in Christ had done, in order to keep the Logos Omoousios free of everything human; on the other hand, however, he wished the divine and human to be thought of as a perfect unity; for it is to a strictly uniform being that we owe our salvation, the Word made flesh, the λόγος σαρκωθείς.303 148The prolix amplifications of Hilary304 were

302

Most instructive in this connection is the otherwise interesting Creed of Eudoxius of Constantinople (Caspari, Quellen IV., p. 176 ff.): πιστεύοµεν εἰς ἕνα, τὸν µόνον ἀληθινόν, Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα, τὴν µόνην φύσιν ἀγέννητον καὶ ἀπάτορα, ὅτι µηδένα σέβειν πέφυκεν ὡς ἐπαναβεβηκυῖα· καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον, τὸν υἱόν, εὐσεβῆ ἐκ τοῦ σέβειν τὸν πατέρα, καὶ µονογενῆ µέν, κρείττονα πάσης τῆς µετ᾽ αὐτὸν κτίσεως, πρωτότοκον δέ, ὅτι τὸ ἐξαίρετον καὶ πρώτιστόν ἐστι τῶν κτισµάτων, σαρκωθέντα, οὐκ ἐναθρωπήσαντα, οὔτε γὰρ ψυχὴν ἀνθρωπινην ἀνείληφεν, ἀλλὰ σὰρξ γέγονεν, ἵνα διὰ σαρκὸς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὡς διὰ παραπετάσµατος Θεὸς ἡµῖν χρηµατίσῃ· οὐ δύο φύσεις, ἐπεὶ µὴ τέλειος ἦν ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ᾽ ἀντὶ ψυχῆς Θεὸς ἐν σαρκί· µία τὸ ὅλον κατὰ σύνθεσιν φύσις· παθητὸς δι᾽ οἰκονοµίαν· οὔτε γὰρ ψυχῆς ἢ σώµατος παθόντος τὸν κόσµον σώζειν ἐδύνατο· Ἀποκρινέσθωσαν οὖν, πῶς ὁ παθητὸς καὶ θνητὸς τῷ κρείττονι τούτων Θεῷ, πάθους τε καὶ θανάτου ἐπέκεινα, δύναται εἶναι ὁµοούσιος. In the same way Eunomius, see Epiph. ac8 H. 69. 19, Ancor. 33. 303 Curiously enough Athanasius throughout merely touched on the Christology of Arius. He afterwards stated his views in greater detail in opposition to Apollinaris, see Atzberger, Logoslehre d. h. Athan., p. 171 ff. In the “Orations against the Arians” the distinction between the divinity and humanity of Christ is brought prominently forward. The unity is next secured again by means of the deceptive formula that the flesh of the Logos was just his own flesh, his humanity (Orat. III. 32: ὅθεν τῆς σαρκὸς πασχούσης

still more uncertain, so much so that there was some justification for the charge brought against orthodoxy by its opponents, that it led to a division of the Son of God from the Son of Man. But Athanasius had not reflected on this; in this connection too he had stated the mystery simply and forcibly, frequently in the words of Irenæus. The Logos not only had a man, did not only dwell in a man, but was man. He united what was ours with Himself in order to give us what was His. The Logos is not, however, thereby lowered, but on the contrary, the human is raised higher.305 The question as to the extent of what was comprised in the human nature was one which Athanasius did not think out. He preferred to speak of a natural union, an ἕνωσις φυσική, in Christ, but in this connection he uniformly disregarded the human personality. The free will was the category used, roughly speaking, at that period to express what is called in modern times “human personality”. But Athanasius had not yet thought of this term in connection with

οὐκ ἦν ἐκτὸς ταύτης ὁ λόγος· διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται τὸ πάθος; see also the particularly characteristic word ἰδιοποίησις used for the assumption of the flesh. In the case of Athanasius it may already be very clearly seen that it was not religious feeling, but solely the biblical tradition regarding Christ (His weakness and His capacity for being affected in a human way,) which led him in the direction of the doctrine of the two natures. That tradition was a serious stumbling-block. But Athanasius used neither the formula “δύο φύσεις” nor the other “µία φύσις”. (See also Reuter, Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. VI., p. 184 f.) He speaks of divinity and humanity or of Θεὸς λόγος and σάρξ. So far as I know the formula µία φύσις was brought into use by Apollinaris, while, so far as I know, we first meet with the other, the δύο φύσεις, in Origen, and next in the mouths of the Arians who reproached the orthodox with their use of it—with the exception of a doubtful fragment of Melito, where, moreover, we have δύο οὐσίαι. The Cappadocians were the first to make use of the expression again in attacking Apollinaris, inasmuch as they made a sharp distinction between “two natures” and “two Sons”. Owing to its use by the Cappadocians the formula of “two natures” had almost already become orthodox and had been regularly introduced into ecclesiastical language, or, to put it otherwise, the tradition which had come down from Origen and the presence of which is scarcely anywhere noticeable in Athanasius himself, penetrated into the Church in connection with this matter also by means of the Cappadocians. Cyril himself accordingly employed the expression. Thus ac8 the problem raised by Reuter, op. cit. 185 f., as to how it comes about that Cyril employs an Origenistic formula, which nevertheless is not to be found in Athanasius, is solved. We have to remember that there was a revival of Origenism in consequence of the theological work of the Cappadocians. For the rest “δύο φύσεις” as distinguished from “duo substantiæ” is to be regarded as a realistic speculative formula. 304 See especially lib. X. de trinit., Dorner I., pp. 1037-1071. 305 See the collection of passages referring to the matter in Dorner I., pp. 948-955. The Arian doctrine of the σῶµα ἄψυχον of Christ had already been combated by Eustathius, see Dorner, op. cit. 966-969.

Christ, because he had not learned anything from Origen. In all probability he found in fact no problem here, but, like Irenæus, a comforting mystery which could not be other than 149it was. He did not see that the mind must necessarily go astray on this matter either in the direction of the Gnostic doctrine of two natures or in that of the doctrine of unity, in the sense in which it was held by Valentinian, the doctrine of a heavenly humanity, or in the sense in which it was held by Arius. He believed that the doctrine of one composite being would serve his purpose which in any given case allowed of the distinction being made between what belonged to the divinity and what belonged to the humanity respectively. Neither did the great theologian who attached himself to Athanasius—namely, Marcellus—perceive yet the full difficulty of the problem. His energetic and practical theology could, however, only bring him nearer to the doctrine of a complete unity. The Logos is the Ego of the Personality of Christ; the nature which serves as an organ for the incarnate Logos and gives outward expression to his self-manifestation, is impersonal. The Logos is the ἐνέργεια δραστική, the divine energy; the body is the matter which is moved by it, which is transformed into a perfect instrument for the Logos. Marcellus was still further than Athanasius from assuming the existence of two separate, independent natures. He does indeed incidentally attack the Arian idea of the unity and he also employs the expression σύναφεια, connection, for the union of the Logos with humanity, but at bottom he sees at every point in the incarnate God-Logos a perfect unity.306 He thus thought about the matter as the great Christologist did after him, who first felt the difficulty of the problem and created a formula which did not harm Greek religious feeling, but rather gave it a secure basis, and which in doing this nevertheless left unnoticed an element of tradition which was indeed concealed, but was not to be rooted out. Apollinaris of Laodicea307 whose divine teachers were Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, who had learned from Athanasius, 150whose theological method was the Aristotelian one, and who because of this had been strongly influenced by the Arian theology, the zealous and acute opponent of Origen and Porphyry, the sober-minded exegete who preserved the most brilliant traditions of the school of Antioch and had a reverence for the 306

See Dorner p. 871 ff.; Zahn, Marcell., pp. 155-165. Dräseke, Zeitfolge d. dogmat. Schriften des A. v. Laod. (Jahrb. f. protest. Theol., 1887, Part 4). The same author, Apoll. v. Laodicea, nebst einem Anhange, Apollinarii Laod. que supersunt dogmatica (Texte u. Unters. z. Altchristl, Litt. Gesch, VII, 3, 4) in addition Jülicher in the Gött. Gel. Anz., 1893, No. 2. 307

letter of Scripture, made it the task of his life to combat the Origenistic and Arian theologies,—their doctrine of the Trinity and their Christology. Nemesius and Philostorgius have termed him the most important theologian of his age,308 and that in fact he was. The most striking proof of his importance is supplied by the fact that many of his works create the impression of having been written in later centuries, so energetically has he thought out the Christological problem and overtaken the coming generations. His syllogistic-dialectic and his exegetic method is akin to that of the later Antiochians, and consequently the Fourth Century possessed in Marcellus, Eunomius, Apollinaris and the Antiochians a series of theologians, who, although not unacquainted with Plotinus and Origen, did not all the same adhere to the Origenistic, Neo-Platonic speculative views, theologians who were united by their employment of the same philosophico-theological method, but who nevertheless arrived at wholly different results.309 151

Apollinaris in combating Arius and his changeable Christ, Χριστὸς τρεπτός, started by allowing that the assumption that in Christ the God-Logos who was equal in substance with God united Himself with a physically perfect man, necessarily led to the idea

308

According to Su 564 idas, referring hack to Philostorgius, Athanasius seemed a child alongside of Apollinaris, Basil, and Gregory of Nazianzus. 309 The fullest account of the Apollinarian Christology (after Walch) is that given by Dorner I., p. 985 ff. (but cf. now Dräseke). Since that account was written, however, thanks to the labours of Caspari (Alte and neue Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols, 1879) and Dräseke, a new and rich supply of material has been brought forward. These scholars have shewn that the Apollinarians have foisted (from about 400) writings by their master on recognised authorities, such as Gregor. Thaum., Athanasius, Felix of Rome, Julius of Rome, in order to accredit their theology. We still possess the greater part of these writings; see Caspari, Quellen, IV., p. 65 ff. (on the κατὰ µέρος πίστις); Dräseke in the Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. Vol. VI., VII., VIII., IX.; Jahrb. f. protest. Theol., IX., X., XIII., Ztschr f. wiss. Theol., XXVI., XXIX., XXX., collected together in the Monograph (Texte u. Unters. VII ac8 . 3, 4 by Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz, p. 92 ff.). The sources for Apollinaris previously known, i.e., the places where fragments are found, are besides Epiph., H. 77, Socrat., Sozom., the works of Athanasius (the genuineness of the work adv. Apoll. is disputed), of the Cappadocians, of Theodore and Theodoret.; see in addition the resolutions of Councils from 362 onwards, Mai, Script. Vet. nova Coll. T. VII. Spicil. X. 2 and catenas. Epiphanius treated Apollinaris in a friendly fashion, Athanasius corresponded with him, the Cappadocians at first revered him and always held him in high respect, while the Arian theologians extolled him as their ablest opponent. Cf. on this Vincent., Common. 15-20.

of two Sons of God, one natural and one adopted.310 A perfect God and a perfect man can never make a uniform being,311 and in this he was in agreement with Paul of Samosata, Marcellus and the Arians. They constitute on the contrary a hybrid form, i.e., a fabulous Minotaur, a cross breed, etc. But if there is no such thing as a union between a perfect God and a perfect man, then, if these premises are valid, the idea of the incarnation of God which is the whole point in question, disappears. And further the unchangeableness and sinlessness of Christ disappears also, for changeableness and sin belong to the nature of the perfect man. We are, therefore, not to see in the Redeemer a perfect man, we are on the contrary to assume and believe that the Logos assumed human nature, namely, the animated σάρξ, but that He Himself became the principle of self-consciousness and self-determination (πνεῦµα) in this σάρξ. Freedom too is an attribute of the perfect man, but— this as against Origen—Christ cannot possibly have possessed this freedom; for the Godhead in Him would have destroyed it. God, however, destroys nothing He has created.312 Apollinaris sought to prove his doctrine out of the central convictions of Greek piety, and at the same time to establish 152it by Biblical and speculative arguments. In a lying age he stated it with the most refreshing candour. Everything that Christ had done for us God must have done, otherwise it has no saving power: “The death of a man does not abolish death”—ἀνθρώπου θάνατος οὐ καταργεῖ τὸν θάνατον.313 Everything that He did must be perfect else it avails us nothing. There is here thus absolutely no room for a human ego. This would do away with the redemption. If it had been present in Him, then Paul of Samosata would be right, and

310

Gregor. Antir. 42. According to Apollinaris two knowing and willing beings could not possibly be united in one being. Here we can see the Antiochian tradition which had come from Paul of Samosata: δύο τέλεια ἓν γένεσθαι οὐ δύναται. (So Apollinaris according to what purports to be the work of Athanasius against him, I. 2 Migne, Vol. 26, p. 1096.) 311 Εἰ ἀνθρώπῳ τελείῳ συνήφθη Θεὸς τέλειος, δύο ἂν ἦσαν, εἷς µὲν φύσει υἱὸς Θεοῦ, εἷς δὲ θετός (Dräseke, Texte u. Unters. VII. 3, 4, p. 388). 312 There are three theses which Apollinaris everywhere attacks, and from these we can easily understand what his own theology is. He wishes to disown (1) the view that there are two Sons, (2) the idea that Christ was an ἄνθρωπος ἔνθεος, the view he attributed to Marcellus, since heathens and Jews could also believe in a Christ of this kind, (3) the view that Christ was a free and therefore a changeable being. He a ac8 ccordingly directs his attacks (1) against the Gnostic division of Christ and Jesus, (2) against Paul, Marcellus, and Photinus, (3) against Origen and Arius. 313 Antir. 51.

Christ would be merely an inspired man, ἄνθρωπος ἔνθεος; but such a being cannot give us any help; for if he had not essentially united humanity with Himself how could we expect to be filled with the divine nature? Further, if he had been a man he would have been subject to weaknesses, but we require an unchangeable spirit who raises us above weaknesses.314 Therefore He must have assumed our nature in such a way that He made it the perfect organ of His Godhead and Himself became its νοῦς—the human nature of Christ “is not moved separately”—οὐ κινεῖται ἰδιαζόντως. But this is also the doctrine of Scripture. It says that the Logos became flesh, and by this is denoted the animated body, not the νοῦς. It does not say “He assumed a man”, but that “He was found as a man”—ὡς ἄνθρωπος. It teaches that He appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh—ἐν ὁµοιώµατι σαρκὸς ἁµαρτίας, and was in the likeness or according to the likeness of men—ἐν ὁµοιώµατι ἀνθρώπων or καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν. It shews finally that there was in Him the most perfect unity of the human and the divine, so that it says of the humanity what holds good of the divinity and vice versa; God was born and died, and so on. At the same time, however, the Godhead is not to be thought of as capable of suffering. Owing to the intimate union with the σάρξ which was 153wholly and entirely its σάρξ, it shared in a complete fashion in the suffering, and the efficacy of redemption consists only in the fact that it did so share in it. And conversely the σάρξ is entirely taken up into the nature of the Logos. “The flesh therefore is divine, because it is united with God, and it indeed saves”—θεϊκὴ ἄρα σάρξ, ὅτι Θεῷ συνήφθη καὶ αὕτη µὲν σώζει.315 Starting from

314

Athan. adv. Apoll. I. 2: ὅπου τέλειος ἄνθρωπος, ἐκεῖ ἁµαρτία. It is just from the νοῦς; that sin springs. In addition Antir. 40, 51: Ἡ σὰρξ ἐδεῖτο ἀτρέπτου νοῦ, µὴ ὑποπίπτοντος αὐτῇ διὰ ἐπιστηµοσύνης ἀσθένειαν, ἀλλὰ συναρµόζοντος αὐτὴν ἀβιάστως ἑαυτῷ . . . Οὐ δύναται σώζειν τὸν κόσµον ὁ ἄνθρωπος µὲν ὢν καὶ τῇ κοινῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φθορᾷ ὑποκείµενος. We must accordingly seriously accept the thought that in Christ the Godhead was not a force, but τὸ ὑποκείµενον. Antir. 39: Οὐ σώζεται τὸ ἀνθρώπινον γένος δι᾽ ἀναλήψεως νοῦ καὶ ὅλου ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλὰ διὰ προσλήψεως σαρκός. Apollinaris was conscious that he was the first to perceive what the incarnation of God meant. 315 Apollinaris assumes the existence in Christ of what is indeed a composite nature, but which is nevertheless a nature possessing oneness. The µία φύσις τοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένη is his formula (see the letter to the Emperor Jovian in Hahn, Symbole 2, § 120: ὁµολογοῦµεν . . . οὐ δύο φύσεις τὸν ἕνα υἱόν, µίαν προσκυνητὴν καὶ µίαν ἀπροσκύνητον, ἀλλὰ µίαν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένη ac8 καὶ προσκυνουµένην µετὰ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ µιᾷ προσκυνήσει.) He, besides, expressly teaches that the σαρκωθεὶς οὔκ ἐστιν ἕτερος παρὰ τὸν ἀσώµατον; he demands a perfect

this Apollinaris attempted to give his doctrine a speculative basis. This also rests on Scripture passages, but at the same time it refers back to a peculiar metaphysic. The attempt indeed to reach it was made long before his day, and it is uncertain how far he himself followed it out, since those who tell us about it had here an occasion for special pleading. Apollinaris starts from the Scriptural statement that Christ is the heavenly man, the second spiritual, heavenly Adam. (See also John III. 13.) Close upon this idea he, like Marcellus, puts in the more general idea of Aristotle that the divine is always related to the human as the moving to the moved.316 As such 154they stand opposed. This relation first reached perfect outward embodiment and manifestation in the word made flesh, the 40e1 λόγος σαρκωθείς. But the Logos as “the mover” was from all eternity destined to become the λόγος σαρκωθείς. He has always been in mysterious fashion “mind incarnate”—νοῦς ἔνσαρκος, and “spirit made flesh”—πνεῦµα σαρκωθέν. Therefore He could be and had to be the λόγος σαρκωθείς, the Logos made flesh. He certainly did not bring His flesh with Him from heaven, but He is nevertheless the “heavenly man”; because it was intended that He should become flesh, His flesh is consubstantial with His Godhead; His Godhead comprised within it the future moment of the incarnation from all eternity,

ἀντιµεθίστασις τῶν ὀνοµάτων and he here reasons again mainly from the standpoint of Greek religious feeling: Ἄλλης καὶ ἄλλης οὐσίας µίαν εἶναι καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν προσκύνησιν ἀθέµιτον, τουτέστιν ποιητοῦ καὶ ποιήµατος, Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπου. Μία δὲ ἡ προσκύνησις τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ ὀνόµατι νοεῖται Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος. Οὐκ ἄρα ἄλλη καὶ ἄλλη οὐσία Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος· ἀλλὰ µία κατὰ σύνθεσιν Θεοῦ πρὸς σῶµα ἀνθρώπινον, or ἀδύνατον τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ προσκυνητὸν ἑαυτὸν εἰδέναι καὶ µή. Ἀδύνατον ἄρα τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι Θεόν τε καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ὁλοκλήρου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν µονότητι συγκράτου φύσεως θεϊκῆς σεσαρκωµένης, see still other passages in Dorner I., p. 999 ff. The flesh must therefore be adored also; for it constitutes an inseparable part of the one substance: ἡ σὰρξ τοῦ κυρίου προσκυνεῖται καθὸ ἕν ἐστι πρόσωπον καὶ ἕν ζῶον µετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. 316 Mai VII., p. 70 (the letter of the Apollinarian Julian): Ἐκ κινητοῦ καὶ ἀκινήτου, ἐνεργητικοῦ τε καὶ παθητικοῦ, τὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι µίαν οὐσίαν καὶ φύσιν σύνθετον, ἑνί τε καὶ µόνῳ κινουµένην θελήµατι· καὶ µιᾷ ἐνεργείᾳ τά τε θαύµατα πεποιηκέναι καὶ τὰ πάθη, µόνος καὶ πρῶτος ὁ πατὴρ ἡµῶν Ἀπολλινάριος ἐφθέγξατο, τὸ κεκρυµµένον πᾶσι καταφωτίσας µυστήπριον; see also l.c., p. 301, where Apollinaris himself has ac8 developed the thought of the one being (ἕν ζῶον) composed of the ruling moving principle of activity, and the σῶµα, the passive principle: σὰρξ, Θεοῦ σὰρξ γενοµένη, ζῶόν ἐστι µετὰ ταῦτα συντεθεῖσα εἰς µίαν φύσιν. P. 73: Οὐδεµία διαίρεσις τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ ἐν θείαις φέρεται γραφαῖς· ἀλλ᾽ ἔστι µία φύσις, µία ὑπόστασις, µία ἐνέργεια.

because only thus was it destined to be in the most perfect way the authoritative principle, the ἡγεµονικόν, of the creature. And just for this reason the historical incarnation which cannot be denied, is the direct opposite of anything like the accidental and arbitrary inspiration of a man. It is the realisation of an idea which always had its reality in the essence of the Logos, the heavenly man, the mediator (µεσότης) between God and humanity. After the incarnation too everything in this heavenly man is divine; for death could be overcome only if it was God who suffered and died. The human is purely the passive element only, the organ of the Godhead and the object of redemption.317 317

Apollinaris has not himself put in words those furthest reaches of his speculations in any of the numerous confessional formulæ of his which we possess. (See, e.g., the two Confessions in the κατὰ µέρος πίστις.) Much, too, of what is said by Gregory in his letters to Kledonius and by Gregory of Nyssa in the Antir. may be exaggerated, but as regards the main point Apollinaris’s own words prove that he really went the length of attributing the moment of the σάρξ in some form or other to the Logos in the pretemporal existence. He conceived of the nature of the Logos as that of the mediator; it was only by so conceiving of it that the µία φύσις could get justice done to it, and he accordingly does not hesitate to take something from the Godhead itself, without detriment to its homousia. The essential characteristic of the πνεῦµα which the Logos is, consists in this, that it includes the idea of the mediator, i.e., the type of humanity. In this sense he could say: ἡ θεία σάρκωσις οὐ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπὸ τῆς παρθένου ἔσχεν (Antir. 15), or (c. 13), προϋπάρχει ὁ ἄνθρωπος Χριστός, οὐχ ὡς ἐτέρου ὄντος παρ᾽ αὐτὸν τοῦ πνεύµατος, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τοῦ κυρίου ἐν τῇ τοῦ θεανθρώπου φύσει θείου πνεύµατος ὄντος. The Logos was already man before He appeared on earth, since the statement holds good: αὐτὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ θεότητα ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄνθρωπον εἶναι. This conception, however, which was not meant to take from the historical fact of the incarnation, but was intended, on the contrary, to make its reality certain, now led him fu 564 rther to the idea that neither is the Godhead present in the Logos, in its totality: οὐδεµία µεσότης ἑκατέρας ἔχει τὰς ἀκρότητας ἐξ ὁλοκλήρου, ἀλλὰ µερικῶς ἐπιµεµιγµένας. As the middle colour between black and white has not merely the white in it in an imperfect way, but also the black, as spring is half winter and half summer, as the mule is neither wholly horse nor wholly ass, so the mixture of divinity and humanity in the Logos, at least in the Logos as appearing on the earth, is of such a kind that neither element is entirely perfect: οὔτε ἄνθρωπος ὅλος οὔτε Θεός. How far the doctrine of Apollinaris did actually lead to this conclusion—and we have here a clear example of the imperfect way in which the Homousia was understood amongst the neo-orthodox of the East; how far his opponents, including not only the Gregories, but also Theodoret, H. F. IV. 8, were justified in asserting that his Trinity was composed of a great, a greater, and a greatest; how far he made use of the old traditional image of the sun and the sunbeam in order to build up on the basis of the Homousia a graduated Trinity, are points which still require to be thoroughly investigated in the light of the new material we now possess. But if his Christ actua ac8 lly was the middle being his opponents represent it to have been,

155

This doctrine, estimated by the presuppositions and aims of the Greek conception of Christianity as religion, is complete. Apollinaris set forth in a way that cannot be surpassed, energetically developed and in numerous works untiringly repeated, with the pathos of the most genuine conviction, what at heart all pious Greeks believed and acknowledged. Every correction made on his Christology calls in question the basis or at least the vitality of Greek piety. Only this perfect unity of the person guarantees the redemption of the human race and its acquiring of a divine life. “Oh new creation and wondrous mingling. God and flesh produced one nature!” (ὦ καινὴ κτίσις καὶ µίξις θεσπεσία, Θεὸς καὶ σάρξ µίαν ἀπετέλεσαν φύσιν!) All else in the Redeemer is non-existent for faith. The assumption of a human separate personality 156in Christ does away with His power as Redeemer. Thousands before Apollinaris felt this and had a vague idea of its truth. He alone understood and preached it. He did not juggle with what was a matter of indifference to Faith or dangerous to Faith, but did away with it.318

one can only be astonished to observe how in the case of Apollinaris speculation regarding Christ has returned to the point it started from. For this Christ is actually the Pauline Christ, the heavenly spiritual being (ἐν µορφῇ Θεοῦ), who assumed the body, i.e., the flesh, neither ὁ Θεός nor man, but as God and as a man, who is nevertheless the mediator or reconciler between God and man because being without sin He has done away with sin and death in His body and consequently for humanity generally—the second Adam, the heavenly man. It cannot be doubted either but that Apollinaris formed his views chiefly on the New Testament; for he was above all an exegete—though unfortunately what is his in the numerous collections of passages, in those of Cramer preeminently, has up till now not been ascertained nor has any test been applied to find out what belongs to him—and he endeavoured to be true to the words of the Bible without applying the allegorical method of Origen, as his notable adherence to the primitive Christian eschatology, the reign of a thousand years, proves. 318 The confessional formulæ of Apollinaris and his pupils emphasised as a rule only the homousia of the Logos, the assumption of flesh from Mary and the perfect unity (ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ µίαν τὴν προσκύνησιν τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῆς σαρκός). The somewhat long creed in the κ. µ. πίστις is the most instructive, see Caspari IV., p. 18, there too, p. 20, will be found the shorter one, and at p. 24 that of the Apollinarian Jobius. In the latter we have: ὁµολογῶ τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, ἐξ αἰῶνος µὲν ἄσαρκον Θεὸν λόγον, ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων δὲ αἰώνων σάρκα ἐξ ἁγίας παρθένου ἑνώσαντα ἑαυτῷ, εἶναι Θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον, ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτόν, ὑπόστασιν µίαν σύνθετον καὶ πρόσωπον ἓν ἀδιαίρετον, µεσίτευον Θεῷ καὶ ἀνθρώποις καὶ συνάπτον τὰ διῃρηµένα ποιήµατα τῷ πεποιηκότι, ὁµοούσιον Θεῷ κατὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς πατρικῆς οὐσίας ὑύ eb0 άρχουσαν αὐτῷ θεότητα, καὶ ὁµοούσιον ἀνθρώποις κατὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως

But he perceived at the same time that that separate personality is present whenever a human νοῦς is attributed to Christ. This decided the matter so far as he was concerned. Christ possessed no human νοῦς. He was honest enough not to say anything more about the perfect humanity of Christ, but openly avowed that Christ was not a complete man.319 The fact that Apollinaris, when called on to decide between the interests of the Faith and the claims of tradition, unhesitatingly decided in favour of the former, is fitted to call forth our admiration, and is a clear proof of the great bishop’s piety and love of truth. But the very frankness of his language reminded the Church that the Gospel and partly tradition also demand a complete human nature for Christ. Even before the appearance of Apollinaris the conflict with Arius had, from about the year 351, taken a turn which made it as necessary to emphasise the complete human nature of the incarnate one as to reject the 157thought of a transformation of the Logos into flesh or of a depotentiation. The Christological question became involved with the Trinitarian, and the latter was illustrated by the aid of the former. The full humanity was supposed to prove the full Godhead ex analogia; it had been reached in the struggle against Gnosis, and it was required in order to explain the Gospel accounts which otherwise cast a shadow on the Godhead of the Redeemer. Accordingly the complete humanity of Christ was first expressly asserted at the Council of Alexandria in 362 and, in fact, in opposition320 to the views of Apollinaris.321 The great literary activity of the bishop

ἡνωµένην αὐτῷ σάρκα, προσκυνούµενον δὲ καὶ δοξαζόµενον µετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός· ὅτι δι᾽ αὐτῆς ἡµῖν γέγονεν λύτρωσις ἐκ θανάτου καὶ κοινωνία πρὸς τὸν ἀθάνατον· ἄκρως γὰρ ἡνωµένη ἡ σὰρκ τῷ λόγῳ καὶ µηδέποτε αὐτοῦ χωριζοµένη, οὔκ ἐστιν ἀνθρώπου, οὐ δούλου, οὐ κτιστοῦ προσώπου, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου, τοῦ δηµιουργοῦ, τοῦ ὁµοουσίου τῷ Θεῷ, τουτέστιν τῇ ἀσωµάτῳ οὐσίᾳ τοῦ ἀρρήτπυ πατρός. It is difficult to say whether the long Creed printed by Caspari, p. 163 f., and which in its formalism bears a resemblance to the Athanasian, is Apollinarian or Monophysite. 319 Apollinaris did not deny the homousia of Christ with humanity, but he conceived of it as a likeness in nature = ὁµοίωµα. The later Apollinarians even emphasised the homousia, but they were thinking of a body and the ψυχὴ σαρκική. 320 See Dräseke, Texte and linters. VIII. 3. 4., p. 28 f. 321 Athan. Tom. ad. Antioch. 7. He first establishes the truth that the Word of God did not come in Christ to a holy man as it came to the prophets, on the contrary: αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, καὶ ἐν µορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων ἔλαβε δούλου µορφήν, ἔκ τε τῆς Μαρίας τὸ κατὰ σάρκα γεγένηται ἄνθρωπος δι᾽ ἡµᾶς, καὶ οὕτω τελείως καὶ ὁλοκλήρως τὸ ἀνθρώπινον γένος ἐλευθερούµενον ἀπὸ τῆς ἁµαρτίας ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ

who was equally distinguished as exegete and apologist and as a systematic theologian, and who gathered around him a band of enthusiastic pupils, falls within the sixties.322 With the beginning of the seventieth year of the century the Cappadocians came forward in opposition to their old master, shewed now their unconcealed 158indignation and sought to cast suspicion on his doctrine of the Trinity also. Apollinaris accordingly retorted by treating them as they treated him. How far Athanasius himself was mixed up with the controversy is a point which is still uncertain. Apollinaris separated from the Church about the year 375. Soon after he consecrated Vitalius bishop of Antioch.323 It was the West led by Bishop Damasus which hastened to the assistance of the orthodoxy of the East held in fetters under Valens, and which at the Roman Council of 377 condemned Apollinarianism.324 It could do this with a good conscience since it had always understood the “filius hominis” in the thesis in the full extent of the term and had had no difficulties about the unity. Basil had been the denouncer of the Apollinarian heresy (Ep. 263). The Council of Antioch of 379 sided with the Romans, and that held at Constantinople in 381 in

ζωοποιούµενον ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν εἰσάγεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. Then it is further said: ὡµολόγουν γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο, ὅτι οὐ σῶµα ἄψυχον οὐδ᾽ ἀναίσθητον οὐδ᾽ ἀνόητον εἶχεν ὁ σωτήρ, οὐδὲ γὰρ οἷόν τε ἦν, τοῦ κυρίου δι᾽ ἡµᾶς ἀνθρώπου γενοµένου, ἀνόητον εἶναι τὸ σῶµα αὐτοῦ, οὐδὲ σώµατος µόνου, ἀλλὰ καὶ ψυχῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ λόγῳ σωτηρία γέγονεν. Finally, however, the identity 6be of the Son of God and the Son of man is strongly emphasised. It was the same person who asked about Lazarus and who raised him from the dead. He asked ἀνθρωπίνως, He raised from the dead θεϊκῶς. 322 In the way in which it kept firmly together, in its veneration for the master, in its activity and vivacity and finally in the efforts made by the members of it to carry their point in the Church, the school of Apollinaris reminds us of the school of Lucian. Like the latter it was chiefly an exegetical school, and at the same time like it it was a school for theologico-philosophical method after the manner of the Aristotelian dialectic. Such conditions always give rise to a peculiar arrogance and to a confident feeling of superiority to everybody else. “It was our father Apollinaris who first and who alone uttered and put in a clear light the mystery which had been hidden from all—namely, that Christ became one being out of the moving and the immovable”: it is thus that one Apollinarian writes to another and in so doing shews that the real interest of the school was in the methodical and the formal. The fact that afterwards falsification was carried to such an extraordinary extent in the school is a sign that the Epigoni aspired to secure power at all costs. 571 323Sozom. H. E. VI. 25; Epiph. H. 67. 21, 23-25; Gregor. Naz., ep. ad Cledon. II. 2; Basil, ep. 265, 2. On him see Dräseke, Ges. patrist. Abbandl. (1889), p. 78 ff. 324 See the fragment “Illud sane miramur”, Rade, p. 113 f., Mansi III., p. 461; see also the fragment “Ea gratia”, Mansi III., p. 460.

its first canon expressly condemned the heresy of the Apollinarians. The anathemas of Damasus which belong perhaps to the year 381, condemn (No. 7) “those who say that the Word of God dwelt in human flesh in place of the rational and intellectual soul of man, since the Son Himself is the Word of God and was not in His body in place of a rational and intellectual soul, but assumed and saved our soul, i.e., a rational and intellectual soul without sin,” (“eos, qui pro hominis anima rationabili et intelligibili dicunt dei verbum in humana carne versatum, quum ipse filius sit verbum dei et non pro anima rationabili et intelligibili in suo corpore fuerit, sed nostram id est rationabilem et intelligibilem sine peccato animam susceperit atque salvaverit.”325 Before this those are condemned on the other hand “who assert the existence of two sons, one before time and another after the assumption of flesh from the Virgin”—“qui duos filios asserunt, unum ante sæcula et alterum post assumptionem carnis ex virgine”—With all the zeal of a fanatic who had nevertheless not made the matter his own, Damasus, under the guidance of Jerome, soon 159after the year 382, once more took up the question and warned the Church against the doctrine of Apollinaris and his pupil Timothy: “Christ the Son of God by His passion brought the most complete redemption to the human race in order to free from all sin the whole man who lies in sin. If therefore anyone says something was wanting either in the humanity or divinity of Christ, he is filled with the spirit of the devil and proves himself to be a son of hell.326 Why therefore do you once more demand of me the condemnation of Timothy? He has already been deposed here by the sentence of the Apostolic chair, Bishop Peter of Alexandria being also present at the time, together with his teacher Apollinaris, and must await on the day of judgment the chastisement and punishment due to his sin.”327 Apollinaris was condemned. One after another the representatives of the nonAlexandrian theology, Paul, Marcellus, Photinus, Apollinaris were cut off from the Church. The Antiochians will follow them, but the turn of Origen and his pupils is also to come; the Cappadocians only will be saved “so as by fire.” The homousia or the identity in nature,—for both words were used,—of the humanity of the Redeemer and humanity, was thus acknowledged. And as a matter of fact many and important arguments could be alleged in support of it. One has to make use of

325

See Hahn, op. cit., p. 200. add 326See the fragment “Illud sane miramur”: “If an imperfect man was assumed then the gift of God is imperfect, because the whole man has not been redeemed.” 327 Theodoret, H. E. V. 10.

the most desperate exegesis in order to banish it from the Synoptics. And further Christ redeemed only what He assumed; if He did not assume a human soul then the latter has not been redeemed, and this appeared a very obvious argument. Finally, it was only by the assumption of the completeness of the human nature in Christ that His divinity seemed to be secured against sinking down into the region of human feelings and suffering. But what signified these advantages if the unity was insecure? And Apollinaris was perfectly right: it was insecure. His opponents, the Cappadocians, might indeed be able to refute him as regards separate points,328 but they 160could not escape from the reproach he brought against them that they reduced the doctrine to the idea of an inspired man. In proportion, however, as they sought to escape it, their assertion of the completeness of the human nature in Christ became a mere assertion. Their long-winded, obscure, and hazy deductions made in truth a miserable appearance alongside of the unambiguous, coherent, and frank avowals of their opponent. There are two natures,329 but yet there is only one; there are not two Sons, but the divinity effects one thing, the humanity another; Christ possessed human freedom, and nevertheless He acted within the limits of divine necessity. On the other hand, the whole position of the later Monophysites, thought out to all its conceivable conclusions, is already to be found in Apollinaris; but his opponents had not yet at their command a fixed terminology whereby to preserve the contradiction and to protect it against

328

See several letters of Basil, the two letters of Gregory of Nazianzus to Kledonius and his ep. ad. Nectar. sive Orat. 46, also the Antirrhet. of Gregory of Nyssa and his work ad Theophil. They enter upon an examination of the Scripture proofs of Apollinaris and also of his argument that the Logos could not have assumed a rational, free nature, since in this case he must necessarily have destroyed freedom, which is not, however, the Creator’s way of doing: φθορὰ τοῦ αὐτεξουσίου ζώου τὸ µὴ εἶναι αὐτεξούσιον· οὐ φθείρεται δὲ ἡ φύσις ὑπὸ τοῦ ποιήσαντος αὐτὴν· οὐκ ἄρα ἑνοῦται ὁ ἀνθρωπος Θεῷ (Antirrh. 45). Gregory’s remarks on this are extremely weak. The only striking thing is to be found in the detailed arguments in which it is shewn that the picture of the Christ of the Gospels includes a human soul; for it was neither the God-Logos nor the irrational flesh which was sad, which trembled, feared, etc., but the human spirit; see also Athan. c. Apoll. I., 16-18. 329 The definite formula “δύο φύσεις” without some qualifying clause is rarely met with in the East before the time of the great Antiochians, though it is otherwise in the West. But expressions such as that of Eusebius, H. E. I. 2, 1, are, however, frequent: ∆ιττοῦ ὄντο ac8 ς τοῦ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τρόπου, καὶ τοῦ µὲν σώµατος ἐοικότος κεφαλῇ ᾗ Θεὸς ἐπινοεῖται, τοῦ δὲ ποσὶ παραβαλλοµένου, ᾗ τὸν ἐν ἡµῖν ἄνθρωπον ὁµοιοπαθῆ τῆς ἡµῶν αὐτῶν ἕνεκεν ὑπέδυ σωτηρίας, γένοιτ᾽ ἂν ἡµῖν, etc. The Arian theologians always reproached the orthodox with teaching the doctrine of δύο φύσεις.

disintegration. At bottom their views were the same as those of Apollinaris, they did not think of two strictly separate natures; but they were unwilling to give up the perfect human nature, and they had learned too much from Origen to sacrifice the thought of freedom to the constitution of the God-man.330 161Probably an

330

It is unnecessary to give any summary of the numerous different forms in which the Cappadocians set forth their view as against Apollinaris (see Ullmann, Gregor. v. Naz., p. 276 ff.; Dorner I., pp. 1035 f., 1075 f.; Schwane II., pp. 366-390), for what they wish and do not get at—the unity, namely—is obvious, while their terminology on the other hand is still uncertain. At this time expressions and images of the most varied kind were in use (δύο φύσεις, δύο οὐσίαι, µία φύσις, σάρκωσις, ἐνανθρώπησις, θεάνθρωπος, ἕνωσις οὐσιώδης, ἕνωσις φυσική, ἕνωσις κατὰ µετουσίαν, σύγκρασις, µιξις, συνάφεια, µετουσία, ἐνοίκησις, the humanity of Christ was described as καταπέτασµα or παραπέτασµα as ναός, as οἶκος, as ἱµάτιον, as ὄργανον. In the writings of the Cappadocians most of these terms are still found side by side; the only idea which is definitely rejected is that of the change into flesh whether by kenosis or by actual transmutation. The unchangeable; the divinity, remains unchangeable; it merely takes to itself what it did not possess. How the unlimited united with the limited is just the point which is left obscure. We might imagine we were listening to a teacher of the period before Irenæus when we hear Gregory of Nazianzus say that the unlimited dealt with us through the medium of the flesh as through a curtain, because we were not capable of enduring His pure Godhead (Orat. 39, 13, similarly Athanasius). He also teaches that Christ by assuming humanity did not become two out of one (masc.), but out of two became one (neut.). We can imagine it is Apollinaris who is speaking when he further declares that God is both, the one who assumes and what is assu 564 med, and uses the word σύγκρασις in this connection (Orat. 37. 2, this word is frequently met in Methodius). This thought is expressed in an almost stronger form in Orat. 38. 13 (see Orat. 29. 19): “Christ is one out of the two opposite things, out of flesh and spirit, of which the one deifies while the other was deified, ὢ τῆς καινῆς µίξεως, ὢ τῆς παραδόξου κράσεως! The eternally existing comes into being, the uncreated is created, the unlimited limits itself, since—and now the thought takes an Origenistic turn—the rational soul is the means whereby a union is brought about between the Godhead and the gross flesh.” As if it were possible to stop short at this function of the human soul, as if the human soul did not include the free will regarding which Gregory here maintains a prudent silence. On the other hand, however, Gregory maintains in opposition to Apollinaris that “there are undoubtedly two natures, God and man; soul and body are also in Him, but there are not two Sons or Gods, since there are not two men in one, because Paul speaks of an inner and an outer man”—this argument is specially weak since it is just the argument which Apollinaris could make use of. “To put it in a word: He is one and again He is another, in so far as He is Saviour, but He is not one per 564 son and again another person—God forbid. For both exist in the union which has been accomplished since God is made human and man is made divine, or however it may be expressed” (Ep. ad. Cledon. I.). Gregory as a pupil of Origen sees no difficulty in putting two different substances together into one. But neither does he follow the Chalcedonian

historical and biblical element had a share in turning them against Apollinaris, the thought of the man Jesus as he is presented in the Gospels, this, however, not as something which had a wellunderstood religious value, but as a part of the tradition of the schools and as a relic of antiquity. None of the religious thoughts current at that time led to the idea of a “perfect man” with a free will, i.e., as an individual. 162The idea that the human vows cannot have been saved if Christ did not assume it too, was one which they themselves could not honestly believe in, for they stripped His humanity of the principle of individuality and of more than that. In Apollinaris, on the contrary, it was really the sovereignty of faith which supplied him with his doctrine. He merely completed the work of Athanasius inasmuch as he added to it the Christology which was demanded by the Homousia of the Logos. They both made a supreme sacrifice to their faith in that they took from the complicated and contradictory tradition regarding Christ those elements only which were in harmony with the belief that He was

Creed since with him it was not a question of a union of divinity and humanity in a third, but a question of fusion, and this spite of the δύο φύσεις. In their struggle with Apollinaris the Cappadocians nowhere intentionally arrived at the line of thought followed by the school of Antioch at a later time, though, what is very rare, a formula here and there has an Antiochian appearance. They are at bottom Monophysites, although they were the first to make the ominous “two natures” of Origen fit for church use. It was only because they were compelled that they trouble themselves about the question of freedom in Christ, and the thought once occurred to Gregory of Nyssa (Antir. 48) that Christ would not have possessed any ἀρετή if He had been without αὐτεξούσιον. What most strongly impressed the Christian world in general was certainly the view that Christ had to give His body as a ransom for our body, His soul for our soul, His spirit for our spirit. There was undoubt 564 edly some real justification for this thought since Apollinaris, or his pupils, seem to have carried their Paulinism so far (for so at least it would appear from some undoubtedly uncertain indications in the work of Athan. adv. Apollo, sec. I., 2 sq., II. 11) as to assert that Christ had only done away with the sin and death belonging to the flesh and thus renewed the flesh, but that the purification of the spirit was something which each individual had to carry out for himself by the imitation of Christ on the basis of that purification; in this sense redemption was not yet perfect. Σαρκὸς µὲν καινότητα Χριστὸς ἐπιδέδεικται καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν, τοῦ δὲ φρονοῦντος ἐν ἡµῖν τῆν καινότητα διὰ µιµήσεως καὶ ὁµοιώσεως καὶ ἀποχῆς τῆς ἁµαρτίας ἕκαστος ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἐπιδείκνυται (I. 2) or τῇ ὁµοιώσει καὶ τῇ µιµήσει σώζεσθαι τοὺς πιστεύοντας καὶ οὐ τῇ ἀνακαινίσει (II. 11). In opposition to this thesis, which probably really originated with Apollinaris since it is in harmony with the traditions of the school of Antioch, his opponents had certainly good reason for emphasising the full extent of the work of Chr a97 ist if the whole structure of the faith of that time were not to be rendered insecure. Kenotic statements such as we meet with in Hilary are, so far as I know, not to be found in the writings of the Cappadocians.

the Redeemer from sin and death. They neglected everything else: λόγος ὁµοούσιος ἐν σαρκί, (µία φύσις σύνθετος)—the cosubstantial Logos in the flesh, (one composite nature)—was the watchword of Apollinaris, in the sense of a perfectly uniform being. This Apollinarianism dressed in orthodox garb exercised the strongest possible influence upon Church doctrine in the Fifth Century. The Church, however, rejected this particular 163form of unity and maintained the idea of “the perfect man”, “the perfect humanity” in the unity. The Church kn 86c4 ew what it wanted to do—to unite contradictions; there were not to be two sons, but two natures; not two natures, but one substance; though it certainly did not know how this was to be conceived of. Nor did it know how the contradiction was to be expressed. But while it thus loaded its own faith with a heavy burden and thereby weakened its power, by preserving the thought of the perfect humanity of Christ, it did an inestimable service to later generations. And there was further one good result which even those times got the benefit of. The Gnostic speculations regarding the heavenly origin of the flesh of Christ, the transformation of God into a man, and such like, were now forbidden, or at least were rendered excessively difficult. 164

Chapter III. The Doctrine of the Personal Union of the Divine and the Human Natures in the Incarnate Son of God.

CHAPTER III. THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSONAL UNION OF THE DIVINE AND HUMAN NATURES IN THE INCARNATE SON OF GOD. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

THE course of theological development in ecclesiastical antiquity may in some parts be compared to the windings of a descending spiral. Starting from any given point we seem to be always getting further away, and finally we come back to it again; only we are a stage lower down. The great Trinitarian controversy of the Fourth Century has its starting-point in the Christological doctrine of Paul of Samosata: Christ, the deified man inspired by the power of God and one with God in loving affection and in energy of will. Opposed to this doctrine was the belief that Christ is co-substantial with God, the Θεός ὁµοούσιος, who has become man. This article of faith established itself after Arianism and other middle doctrines had been rejected. But when in the course of the

development both the perfect Godhead and the perfect humanity of Christ had been elevated to the rank of an article of faith, it looked as if the unity could be secured only by once more following the path taken by Paul of Samosata, by emphasising the spiritual and moral unity of God and man. This idea of the unity was indeed made more difficult now that the God in Christ had to be conceived of as a personal being, but any other unity no longer offered itself to thinking people who were unwilling to give up clear views on the subject. And it was still permissible to hold this view of the unity; for though the doctrine of Apollinaris had been repudiated, no fixed idea was thereby arrived at as to the nature of the union of the divine and the human. All the conceivable forms in which the conception of 165the union of the divine and the human might be put, were still at anyone’s disposal, especially as no single term was yet in regular use. As it was the Antiochian Apollinaris who worked out to its logical conclusion the doctrine of the Trinity as regards Christology, so it was his compatriots who worked out to its logical conclusion the formula “perfect God and perfect man.” This conclusion was indeed the opposite of the doctrine of Apollinaris. He had shewn every clear thinker that it was impossible to carry out the idea of the incarnation without deducting something from the essence of humanity, and that the incarnate one could have only one nature (µία φύσις). But if the human nature in the incarnate one was nevertheless to be complete,—and the Church maintained that it was,—then the conception of the incarnation would have to get a new form. And if piety should suffer in the process, well, there was and there still is a stronger interest than that of piety—namely, that of truth. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

§ 1. The Nestorian Controversy. I. The most zealous opponents of Apollinaris were his compatriots and scientific friends, the Antiochian theologians, distinguished by methodical study of Scripture, sober thinking in imitation of Aristotle, and the strictest asceticism. They alone had during many decades worked out the Christological dogma in a scientific way in opposition to Arius and Apollinaris. Following the example of Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodorus of Mopsuestia treated it with the greatest fulness by making use of the philosophical theological fundamental conceptions which Paul of Samosata had already employed, and by turning to account the biblical results of the exegetical labours of the school of Antioch. The Antiochians based their position on the Ὁµοούσιος and did not

wish either to interfere with the divine personality of the Logos. But at the same time they fully accepted the perfect humanity of Christ. The most important characteristic of perfect humanity is its freedom. The thought that Christ possessed a free will was the lode-star of their Christology. To this was added the other thought that 166the nature of the Godhead is absolutely unchangeable and incapable of suffering. Both of these thoughts have at least no concern with the belief in the real redemption of humanity from sin and death through the God-man. The Christology of the Antiochians was therefore not soteriologically determined; on the contrary, the realistic-soteriological elements were attached to it by way of supplement.331 In the view of the Antiochians it followed from the premises above mentioned, that Christ possessed, strictly speaking, two natures and that the supposition of a natural union (ἕνωσις φυσική, ἕνωσις καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν) was prejudicial both to the humanity and the divinity of Christ, as the doctrines of Arius and Apollinaris shewed. It was, on the contrary, necessary to maintain that the God-Logos assumed a perfect man of the race of David and united him with Himself. He dwelt (ἐνοίκησις) in the man Jesus from the 331

In respect of scientific method we may regard Paul of Samosata, Dorotheus, Lucian, the Lucianists such as Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Emesa, Theodore of Heraklea, Eustathius, Marcellus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Apollinaris, Diodorus, Theodore, Polychronius, Chrysostom; Theodoret, etc., as forming a union of like-minded scholars as opposed to the school of Origen. Regarded in a theological aspect their differences are manifold. Diodorus of Tarsus (+ shortly before 394) and his school constitute a special group here. Diodorus “the ascetic who was punished in his body by the Olympian gods”, was the recognised head. His numerous works, of which only fragments are preserved, are specified in the Diction. of Chr. Biogr. I., p. 836 sq. He was as prolific an apologist, controversialist, and dogmatist as he was an exegete. His most important pupils were Theodore of Mopsuestia (+ 428) and Chrysostom. The former is the typical representative of the whole tendency. Of the astounding mass of his works a good deal has been preserved. To what is printed in Migne, T. 66, we have to add, above all, the edition of his commentary on the Pauline letters by Swete, 2 vols., 1882; the fragments of the dogmatic works are given in the second volume, pp. 289-339. Sachau edited, in 1869, Syrian fragments with a Latin translation; in addition Bäthgen in the Ztschr. f. Atlich. Wissensch. V., p. 53 ff., Möller, in Herzog’s R.-Encykl. XV. 2, P. 395 ff.; Gurjew, Theodor von Mopsu., 1890 [Russian]. On the Antiochian School Münscher (1811), Kihn (1866), Hergenröther (1866). Specht, Theodor v. M. u. Theodoret, 1871; Kihn, Theodor v. Mops. 1880. Glubokowski has written a very comprehensive and thorough monograph on Theodoret in Russian (2 vols. 1890). Bertram, Thedoreti doctrina christologica. Hildesiæ, 1883. On Theodoret’s brother, Polychronius, see Bardenhewer, 1879. Chrysostom did not take any part in the work of giving Christology a sharply outlined form. Theodoret taught the same doctrine as Theodore, but finally capitulated.

time of the conception. This indwelling332 is to be 167conceived of according to the analogy of the indwelling of God in men generally. It is not a substantial indwelling, not κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, for this involves a transmutation or else limits the God-head. Nor is it any mere indwelling of inspiration, but a gracious indwelling,κατὰ χάριν (κατ᾽ εὐδοκίαν), i.e., God out of grace and in accordance with His own good pleasure has united Himself with the man Jesus in the way in which He unites Himself with every pious soul, only that in the case of Jesus the union was besides a perfect one in virtue of the perfection of his piety. It is to be thought of as a species of combination (συνάφεια), or we may express it thus: God dwells in the man as in a temple.333 The human nature, therefore, as nature remains purely unchanged, for grace leaves the nature as it is. This nature, then, like all human nature, was also a free selfdeveloping nature. As man Jesus Christ had to pass through all the stages of moral growth as a free self-acting agent. Over him and in him God did undoubtedly always hold sway as a supporting power, but He did not interfere with the development of the character belonging to his human nature, which by independent action confirmed itself in the good. In accordance with this the union was only a relative one (ἕνωσις σχετική) and was at the outset only relatively perfect, i.e., the God-Logos united Himself with the man Jesus as early as the time of his conception, forseeing of what sort he would be (κατὰ πρό̥γνωσιν ὁποῖός τις ἔσται), but this union merely began then in order to become a more intimate union at every stage of the human development.334 It consisted in the common feeling and energy of the two natures as well as in the common direction given to the will; it was therefore essentially a moral union. By means of it, however, there appeared at the close of the human development of Jesus and in virtue of the elevation which was granted to him as the reward of his perseverance, 168a subject or individual worthy of adoration, (I separate the natures, I unite the adoration: χωρίζω τὰς φύσεις, ἑνῶ τὴν προσκύνησιν). Still we must not speak of two sons or two lords, but, on the contrary, we have to adore one person, whose unity, however, is not a substantial one, but κατὰ

af9 332Athanasius also used the word in a natural way, e.g., de incarn. 9. 333 Athanasius also employed this image, e.g., l.c. c. 20. 334 It was always and from the first dependent on God’s good pleasure in the virtue of the man Jesus; for to Theodore the general proposition held good without any exception that God bestows grace solely in proportion to the free exercise of virtue. Grace is always reward; see the large fragment from the seventh book of the work περὶ ἐνανθρωπήσεως in Swete II., p. 293 sq. Theodore paid special attention to the baptism of Jesus also.

χάριν. The formula of the distinction of the natures and the unity of the person is to be found in Theodore. But the unity of the person is the unity of names, of honour, of adoration.335 Since, however, each nature in Christ is at the same time person, it was here that the peculiar difficulty of the Antiochian Christology made its appearance. The union does not at bottom result in any unity of the person; it is merely nominal. The Antiochians had two persons in Christ, a divine and a human (δύο ὑποστάσεις or πρόσωπα). When, spite of this, they spoke of one, this was really a third, or rather, to put it more correctly, it was only in the combination (συνάφεια), and indeed in the last resort it was only in the relation of believers to Jesus Christ that the latter appeared as a unity. It was in accordance with this that the conception of the Incarnation took its shape. Two natures are two subjects; for a subjectless or impersonal spiritual nature does not exist Since accordingly one subject cannot become the other, for if it did it would either have to cease to exist itself or would have to transform itself, it is also impossible that the Logos can have become man. It is only in appearance that He became something through the incarnation, through “becoming man”; in reality He assumes something in addition to what He had. Since the sphere of the unity is solely the will, the attributes, experiences, and acts of the two natures are to be kept strictly apart. It was the man only who was born; it was he who suffered, trembled, was afraid, died. To maintain that this could be said of God is both absurd and blasphemous. So too accordingly Mary is not to be called the mother of God, not at least in the proper sense of the term.336 But the Christian 169adores Jesus Christ as the one Lord, because God has also raised to divine dignity the man who in feeling was united with the Logos so as to form a unity. In accordance with this conception, though certainly invitis autoribus, the humanity in the person of Christ came again to the front as a humanity which experienced merely the effects produced by the divine Logos who remained in the background. Since the distinction between person and nature was not fundamental, was not made in a realistic way, that is, and since the possibility of the substantial union of two persons was denied as we can see already from the case of Paul of Samosata, since further, in opposition to Paul, the Godhead in Christ was recognised as being a substantial

335

“Unam offer venerationem.” The designation θεοτόκος was already quite current about 360. Instances of its use at an earlier period may be found in Pierius and Alexander of Alexandria, see accordingly Julian c. Christ., p. 276 E. 336

Godhead, unity was not attained, as opponents at a later time justly observed. When again, as in the case of the Antiochians, an approach was made towards this unity, then the divine factor, contrary to the pre-supposition which was strictly clung to, threatened to become an inspiring and supporting power, and hence the reproach brought against them of Ebionitism, Somosatenism, Photinianism, or of Judaising. It would appear that the Antiochians rarely took the doctrine of redemption and perfection as the starting-point of their arguments, or when they did, they conceived of it in such a way that the question is not of a restitution, but of the still defective perfection of the human race, a question of the new second katastasis. The natural condition of humanity, of which liability to death forms a part, can be improved; humanity can be raised above itself by means of a complete emancipation from the sense life and by moral effort. This possibility, which lies open to everyone who summons up courage to raise himself by the exercise of free will above his inherited nature, has become a fact through Christ the second Adam. This fact has an immeasurable significance, for its effects now uphold everyone who honestly strives so to raise himself. The second Adam who has already appeared will once more appear from heaven ἐπὶ τῷ πάντας εἰς µίµησιν ἄγειν ἑαυτοῦ—in order to bring all to imitate him. He already points out to all “the path to the angelic life”, and, judging from the way in which they sometimes work out the thought, it almost looks as if in the 170view of the Antiochians the whole thing reduced itself to this alone. The hints given here towards a spiritual conception of the redemption through Christ have not, as one can see, resulted from perceiving that everything depends on a transformation of the feelings and will, and in the case of the Antiochians themselves they have by no means entirely displaced the realistic and mystical conception of redemption. In the indefinite form which is peculiar to them, they were thoughts of reason and results of exegesis, but not thoughts of faith. We hail them as cheering proofs of the fact that the feeling of the spiritual character of the Christian religion had not at that time wholly died out amongst the Greeks; but there can be no doubt of this, that these Antiochians were further away from the thought of redemption as the forgiveness of sins and regeneration than from the idea of a realistic redemption. While in Christology they illustrated in an admirable way the weak side and in fact the impossibility of this idea, they did not understand how to point these out in reference to soteriology itself. The latter was with them always vague and tinged with a strongly moralistic element. Its connection with the Christology was loose and indefinite, while the development of the latter in the form of positive doctrines was no less questionable, contradictory and uncouth than the theses of

their opponents; for the Antiochians out of one being made two and thereby introduced an innovation into the Church of the East. Only Gnostics had before them taught the doctrine of two strictly different natures in Christ. The fact too that the redemption work of Christ was essentially attributed to the man Jesus and not to God was a further innovation. It was a flagrant contradiction that Theodore would not entertain the idea of two Sons although he assumed the presence of two natures and rejected the thought of an impersonal nature. But though we might criticise the Christology of the Antiochians still more severely, we must not forget that they held up before the Church the picture of the historical Christ at a time when the Church in its doctrinal formulæ was going further away from Him. One has indeed to add that they also directed attention to the incomprehensible essence of the God-Logos which ostensibly remained behind this picture, 171and did not on that account possess the power of presenting the historical Christ to the minds of men in a forcible way. But still that these theologians should have done what they did at that time was of immeasurable importance. It is to them the Church owes it that its Christology did not entirely become the development of an idea of Christ which swallowed up the historical Christ. And there is still something else for which these Antiochians are to be praised. Although they professed to preserve the traditional elements of dogma as a whole, they nevertheless essentially modified them by perceiving that every spiritual nature is a person and that what gives character and value to the person is feeling and will. This view, which was inherited from the Adoptionists and Paul, restores to the Christian religion its strictly spiritual character. But the Antiochians as Easterns were able to get possession of this knowledge only in a way which led from religion to moralism, because they based the spiritual on freedom, while again they understood freedom in the sense of independence even in relation to God. It was Augustine in his thought of liberty as “adhærere deo” and as “necessitas boni” who first united the most ardent piety with the recognition of Christianity as the spiritual-moral religion. It is, however, worth remembering that alone of all the Easterns the Antiochians and the theologians who sympathised with them took an interest in the Augustinian-Pelagian controversy—though they undoubtedly sided with Pelagius. For this interest proves that spite of the Eastern fog of mysteries, they were accessible to the freer air in which that controversy was fought out. Their opponents in the East wished to have mystery and spiritual freedom side by side; they, however, strove to lift the

whole of religion up into the sphere of the latter—and they led it in the direction of moralism.337 What confused the Antiochian

337

Compare, above all, the full Confession of Theodore in Mansi IV., p. 1347 sq. ac8 (Hahn, § 139) which gives an admirable view of the Christology of Theodore and of its tendency. The word συνάπτετθαι (συνάφεια) occurs more than a dozen times (so far as I know the word is first found within Christology in a fragment of Hippolytus [ed. Lagarde, p. 202]; ἵνα ὁ πρωτότοκος Θεοῦ πρωτοτόκῳ ανθρώπῳ συναπτόµενος δειχθῇ, Julius Afr. in his letter to Aristides [ed. Spitta, p. 121] uses συνάφεια in the sense of blood-relationship); λόγος ἄνθρωπον εἴληφε τέλειον ἐκ σπέρµατος ὄντα Ἀβραὰµ καὶ ∆αυΐδ is the principal thesis (also τέλειον τὴν φύσιν). The exaltation is strongly emphasised; then we have: δέχεται τὴν παρὰ πᾶσης τῆς κτίσεως προσκύνησιν, ὡς ἀχώριστον πρὸς τὴν θείαν φύσιν ἔχων τὴν συνάφειαν, ἀναφορᾷ Θεοῦ καὶ ἐννοίᾳ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως τὴν προσκύνησιν ἀπονεµούσης. Καὶ οὔτε δύο φαµὲν υἱοὺς οὔτε δύο κυρίους . . . κύριος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ὁ Θεὸς λόγος, ᾧ συνηµµένος τε καὶ µετέχων θεότητος κοινωνεῖ τῆς υἱοῦ προσηγορίας τε καὶ τιµῆς· καὶ φιὰ τοῦτο οὔτε δύο φαµὲν υἱοὺς οὔτε δύο κυρίους. In what follows the doctrine of the two sons is again disowned and this with a certain irritation, as is also the idea that our Sonship can be compared with that of Christ, (µόνος ἐξαίρετον ἔχων τοῦτο ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν λόγον συναφείᾳ τῆς τε υἱότητος καὶ κυριότητος µετέχων, ἀναιρεῖ µὲν πᾶσαν ἔννοιαν δυάδος υἱῶν τε καὶ κυρίων). Theodore thus did not teach the doctrine of two sons, one natural and one adopted, but that of one son who communicated his name, his authority, and his glory to the man Jesus in virtue of the συνάφεια. This was indeed the impossible shift of one in a dilemma. At the end of the Creed the doctrine of the two Adams—a specially Antiochian doctrine cf. Apoll.—and that of the two states are developed in detail. The commentaries of Theodore ought to be studied in order that it may be seen how γνώµη and µίµησις—as opposed to φύσις—were for him the main thing. Both in our case and in that of Christ everything was to depend upon freedom, disposition, ac8 and the direction of the will. In what follows I quote some passages from the dogmatic works of Theodore by way of explaining and illustrating the account given in the text; Diodorus is in complete agreement with Theodore so far as it is still possible for us to check his statements. Theodore, de myster. I. 13 (Swete, p. 332): “Angelus diaboli est Samosatenus Paulus, qui purum hominem dicere præsumpsit dominum J. Chr. et negavit existentiam divinitatis unigeniti, quæ est ante sæcula”; cf. adv. Apollin. 3 (Swete, p. 318), where Theodore places Paul together with Theodotus and Artemon and condemns him. Theodore, περὶ ἐνανθρωπήσεως 1. 1 (Swete, p.291): “præcipuum Christo præter ceteros homines non aliquo puro honore ex deo pervenit, sicut in ceteris hominibus, sed per unitatem ad deum verbum, per quam omnis honoris ei particeps est post in cœlum ascensum”; l. 2 (p. 291): “homo Jesus similiter omnibus hominibus, nihil differens connaturalibus hominibus, quam quia ipsi gratiam dedit; gratia autem data naturam non immutat, sed post mortis destructionem donavit ei deus nomen supra omne nomen . . . o gratia, quæ superavit omnem naturam! . . . sed mei fratres dicunt mihi: “non separa hominem et deum, sed unum eundemque dic, hominem dicens connaturalem mihi deum”; si dicam connaturalem deum, dic quomodo homo et deus unum est? numquid una natura hominis et dei, domini

et servi, factoris et facturæ? homo homini consubstantialis est, deus autem deo consubstantialis est. Quomodo igitur homo et deus unum per unitatem esse potest, qui salvificat et qui salvificatur, qui ante sæcula est et qui ex Maria adparuit”? l.c. 1. 2 (p. 292): “quando naturas quisque discernit, alterum et alterum necessario invenit . . . hoc interim item persona idem ipse invenitur, nequequam confusis naturis, sed propter adunationem quæ facta est adsumpti et adsumentis . . . sic neque naturarum confusio fiet neque personæ quædam prava divisio, maneat enim et naturarum ratio inconfusa et indivisa cognoscatur esse persona; illud quidem proprietate naturæ . . . illud autem adunatione personæ, in una adpellatione totius considerata sive adsumentis sive etiam adsumpti natura”; l.c. 1. 7 (p. 294): οὐσίᾳ µὲν οὖν λέγειν ἐνοικεῖν τὸν Θεὸν τῶν ἀπρεπεστάτων ἐστίν . . . οὔτε οὐσίᾳ λέγειν οὔτε µὴν ἐνεργείᾳ οἷόν τε ποιεῖσθαι τὸν Θεὸν τὴν ἐνοίκησιν (both would draw him into the sphere of ἀνάγκη and limit him). ∆ῆλον οὖν ὡς εὐδοκίᾳ λέγειν γίνεσθαι τὴν ἐνοίκησιν πρ 564 σήκει, εὐδοκία δὲ λέγεται ἡ ἀρίστη καὶ καλλίστη θέλησις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἣν ἂν ποιήσηται ἀρεσθεὶς τοῖς ἀνακεῖσθαι αὐτῷ ἐσπουδακόσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ εὖ καὶ καλὰ δοκεῖν αὐτῷ περὶ αὐτῶν . . . ἄπειρος µὲν γὰρ ὢν ὁ Θεὸς καὶ ἀπερίγραφος τὴν φύσιν πάρεστιν τοῖς πᾶσιν· τῇ δὲ εὐδοκίᾳ τῶν µὲν ἔστιν µακράν, τῶν δὲ ἐγγύς. This ἐνοίκησις, however, as is shewn in what follows, has different τρόποι; in its unique and perfect form it is in the “Son” only; l.c. (p. 297): Ἰησοῦς δὲ προέκοπτεν . . . χάριτι παρὰ Θεῷ—χάριτι δὲ, ἀκόλουθον τῇ συνέσει καὶ τῇ γνώσει τὴν ἀρετὴν µετιών, ἐξ ἧς ἡ παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ χάρις αὐτῷ τὴν προσθήκην ἐλάµβανεν . . . δῆλον δὲ ἄρα κἀκεῖνο, ὡς τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀκριβέστερόν τε καὶ µετὰ πλείονος ἐπλήροῦ τῆς εὐχερείας ἢ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἀνθρώποις ἦν δυνατόν, ὅ ac8 σῳ καὶ κατὰ πρόγνωσιν τοῦ ὁποῖός τις ἔσται ἑνώσας αὐτὸν ὁ Θεὸς λόγος ἑαυτῷ ἐν αὐτῇ διαπλάσεως ἀρχῇ, µείζονα παρεῖχεν τὴν παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ συνέργειαν πρὸς τὴν τῶν δεόντων κατόρθωσιν . . . ἥνωτο µὲν γὰρ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τῷ Θεῷ ὁ ληφθεὶς κατὰ πρόγνωσιν· ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ διαπλάσει τῆς µήτρας τὴν καταρχὴν τῆς ἑνώσεως δεξαµενος; l.c. 1. 8. (p. 299): πρόδηλον δὲ ὡς τὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως ἐφαρµόζον· διὰ γὰρ ταύτης συναχθεῖσαι αἱ φύσεις ἓν πρόσωπον κατὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ἀπετέλεσαν (Matt. XIX. 6, is now brought in as an analogy; we also no longer speak κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἐνώσεως λόγον of two persons, but of one, δηλονότι τῶν φύσεων διακεκριµένων; ὅταν µὲν γὰρ τὰς φύσεις διακρίνωµεν, τελείαν τὴν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγοῦ φαµέν, καὶ τέλειον τὸ πρόσωπον· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπρόσωπον ἔστιν ὑπόστασιν εἰπεῖν· τελείαν δὲ καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φύσιν καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον ὁµοίως· ὅταν µέντοι ἐπὶ τὴν συνάφειαν ἀπίδωµεν, ἓν πρόσωπον τότε φαµέν: l.c. 1. 9 (p. 300): Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο— ἐνταῦθα τὸ “ἐγένετο” οὐδαµῶς ἑτέρως λέγεσθαι δυνάµενον εὑρήκαµεν ἢ κατὰ τὸ δοκεῖν . . . τὸ δοκεῖν οὐ κατὰ τὸ µὴ εἰληφέναι σάρκα ἀληθῆ, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ µὴ γεγενῆσθαι: ὅταν µὲν γὰρ “ἔλαβεν” λέγῃ οὐ κατὰ τὸ δοκεῖν ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ ἀληθὲς λέγει· ὅταν δε “ἐγένετο”, τότε κατὰ τὸ δοκεῖν· οὐ γὰρ µετεποιήθη εἰς σάρκα; l.c. 1. 10 (p. 301): καταβέβηκεν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ νὲν τῇ εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐνοικήσει· ἔστιν δὲ ἐν οὐρανῷ τῷ ἀπεριγράφῳ τῆς φύσεως πᾶσιν παρών; l. c. 1. 12 (p. 303): ἀληθῆ υἱὸν λέγω τὸν τῇ φυσικῇ γεννήσει τὴν υἱότητα κεκτηµένον· ἑποµὍ 564 νως δὲ συνεπιδεχόµενον τῇ σηµασίᾳ καὶ τὸν κατὰ ἀλήθειαν τῆς ἀξίας µετέχοντα τῆ πρὸς

172theology

and involved it in contradictions was apparently the load of tradition, i.e., the adhesion to the belief that Jesus Christ possessed a divine nature. This belief, however, constituted 173the strong foundation of the theology of their opponents. Their Christology was built up on this thesis. For the Antiochians 174it was simply a fact to which they had to adapt themselves, although they had not themselves felt its truth in this form. The view adopted by the Alexandrians, above all by Cyril, is undoubtedly the ancient view, that namely of Irenæus, Athanasius, and the Cappadocians, even when we make allowance for the falsification of tradition by the Apollinarians. The interest they had in seeing in Christ the most perfect unity of the divine and human, and therefore their interest in the reality of our redemption, determined the character of the development of the doctrines. Up till the year 431, and even beyond that time, this was wanting in formal thoroughness and scientific precision. This is as little an accident as the fact that Athanasius supplied no scientific doctrine of the Trinity. The belief in the real incarnation of God was only capable of the scientific treatment which Apollinaris had given it. If this were forbidden then theologians were debarred from all treatment of the subject with the exception of the merely analytic and descriptive or scholastic mode of treatment. This latter was not, however, yet in existence. But also apart from this, belief in the real incarnation simply demanded a forcible and definite statement of the secret, nothing more: σιωπῇ προσκυνείσθω τὸ ἄρρητον—let the secret be adored in silence. We must live in the feeling of this secret. This is why Cyril also stated his faith in what was essentially a polemical form only; he would not have taken long to have given a purely positive statement of it. Therefore it is that without knowing it he has recourse to Apollinarian works

αὐτὸν ἑνώσει. For the explanations given of Luke I. 31 f.; 1 Tim. III. 16; Matt. III. 14, IV. 4, see p. 306 f., l.c. 1. 12 (p. 308): ἑνώσας αὐτὸν ἑαυτῷ τῇ σχέσει τῆς γνώµης, µείζονά τινα παρεῖχεν αὐτῷ τὴν χάριν, ὡς τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν χάριτος εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἑξῆς διαδοθησοµένης ἀνθρώπους· ὅθεν καὶ τὴν περὶ τὰ καλὰ πρόθεσιν ἀκέραιον αὐτῷ διεφύλαττεν; see the sequel where the thought is developed that the man Jesus voluntarily willed the good, his will being protected by the God-Logos; l.c. 1. 15 (p. 309): “utrumque iuste filius vocatur, una existente persona, quam adunatio naturarum effecit” l.c. c. 15 (p. 310): Mary may as well be called θεοτόκος as ἀνθρωποτόκος, but the latter τῇ φύσει τοῦ πράγµατος the former τῇ ἀναφορᾷ. Adv. Apollin. l.c. (p. 313): the distinction between ναός (the man Jesus) and ὁ ἐν ναῷ Θεὸς λόγος· next: ἔστιν µὲν γὰρ ἀνοήτ ac8 ν τὸ τὸν Θεὸν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου γεγεννῆσθαι λέγειν. In the eighth Sermon of the “Catechism” Theodore has employed the Aristotelian category “secundum aliquid” in order to shew, that a thing may be a unity in one respect and a duality in another.

when he wishes to bring forward a plain and intelligible formula in opposition to the Antiochians and so to make the mystery clearer— and he is continually in danger of over-stepping the limits of his own religious thought—and therefore it is finally, that his terminology has so little fixity about it.338 175Still he vindicated the religious thought of Greek piety: (“If the God-Logos did not suffer for us in a human way then He did not accomplish our salvation in a divine way, and if He was only man or a mere instrument then we are not truly redeemed.” “Our Immanuel would not in any way have benefited us by His death if He had been a man; but we are redeemed because the God-Logos gave His own body to death.”) Neither Cyril’s personal character nor the way in which he devised and carried on the controversy ought to be allowed to lead us astray as regards this fact: for his Christianity did not succeed in making him just. It was as easy for Cyril to formulate the thought of faith as it was for Athanasius and the Cappadocians. Faith does not in his case start from the historical Christ, but from the Θεὸς λόγος, and is occupied only with Him. By the Incarnation the God-Logos incorporated with Himself the whole human nature and still remained the same. He did not transform Himself, but He took up humanity into the unity of His substance, without losing any of it; on the contrary, He honoured it and raised it into His divine substance. He is the same with human nature as He was before the

338

In many respects his language is more certain than that of the Cappadocians and Athanasius: he no longer speaks, so far as I know, of mingling, fusion and so on, but in other respects his language is not behind theirs in uncertainty, and in denying “freedom” to Christ, he comes nearer to Apollinaris than they, for they in fact made use also of the conception of “two natures.” The works of Cyril are in Aubert. Vol. VI. and VII., Migne Vols. 75-77. Most of what bears on the subject under discussion will be found also in Mansi T. IV., V. Specially notable are his letters to the Egyptian monks, to Nestorius (3) to John of Antioch, to Succensus (2) to the Constantinopolitan and Alexandrian Churches, the liber de recta in Jesum fide addressed to Theodosius, the book and the oration on the same subject addressed to the Empress, the explanation of the 12 anathemas and their vindication as against Theodoret, the five books against Nestorius, the dialogue on the Incarnation of the only-begotten, the other dialogue: “Οτι εἷς ὁ Χριστός and the tractate κατὰ τῶν µὴ βουλοµένων ὁµολογεῖν θεοτόκον τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον. On Cyril’s theology see Dorner, Thomasius, (Christology) and H. Schultz. Koppalik, Cyril, Mainz 1881. That the work published by Mai (Script. Vet. Nova Coll. I., VIII.) περί τῆς τοῦ κυρίου ἐνανθρωπήσεως does not belong to Cyril has been shewn by Ehrhard (the work attributed to Cyril of Alex. περὶ τ. τ. κυρ· ἐνανθ., a work of Theodoret of Cyrus. Tübingen, 1888). In this treatise will be found a full and thorough account of the Christological formulæ of Cyril.

Incarnation, the one indivisible subject which merely added something to itself just in order to take up into its nature this something thus added. Everything which the human body and the human soul of the God-Logos endured, He Himself endured, for they are His body and His soul.339 The characteristic moments in this 176conception are “one and the same” (εἷς κὰι ὁ αὐτός) that is, the God-Logos, “the making the flesh His own by way of accommodation” (ἰδίαν ποιεῖν τὴν σάρκα οἰκονοµικῶς), “He remembered who He was” (µεµένηκε ὅπερ ἦν), “out of two natures one” (ἐκ δύο φύσεων εἷς), or “the joining of two natures in an unbroken union without confusion and unchangeably” (συνέλευσις δύο φύσεων καθ᾽ ἕνωσιν ἀδιάσπαστον ἀσυγχύτως καὶ ἀτρέπτως), “the Logos with His own flesh” (ὁ λόγος µετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός), hence the “physical union” (ἕνωσις φυσική) or “hypostatic union” (καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν), and finally, “one nature of the God-Logos made flesh” (µία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένη),340 yet “not so that the difference of the two natures is done away with by the union” (οὐχ᾽ ὡς τῆς τῶν φύσεων διαφορᾶς ἀνῃρηµένης διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν). Cyril scarcely touched upon the distinction between φύσις (οὐσία) and ὑπόστασις, which had nevertheless already come to be current among the Antiochians so far as Christology was concerned; still he never says “of two hypostases” (ἐκ δύο ὑποστασεων) or “a union in nature” (ἕνωσις κατὰ φῦσιν).341 He was not able to make that distinction, because in his view φύσις and ὑποστασις meant the same thing as applied to the divine nature, but not as applied to the human. What rather is really characteristic in Cyril’s position is his express rejection of the view that an individual man was present in Christ, although he attributes to Christ all the elements

339

I purposely cite no passages; they would not, t 559 aken separately, prove the doctrine here summarised, but would, on the contrary, point now in one direction and now in another. That the group of phrases given in the text embodies Cyril’s view and in a measure embodies it completely, will be allowed by everyone acquainted with the subject. Nor as regards Christology can I hope much from a careful monograph on Cyril on the lines of a history of dogma, such as has recently been asked for; for beyond what is adduced above Cyril had no theological interest; his way of formulating his views might, however, easily lead to his having a very complicated “Christology” attributed to him. 340 According to an expression taken from a work of Apollinaris which Cyril considered as Athanasian, because the Apollinarians had fathered it on Athanasius. 341 ad3 See Loofs, Leontius, p. 45.

of man’s nature.342 For Cyril, however, everything depends on the possibility and actuality of such a human nature, on the fact, namely, that in Christ a hypostatic union was reached and that this union forthwith purified and 177transfigured human nature generally. Christ can be the second Adam for men only if they belong to him in a material sense as they did to the first Adam, and they do belong to Him materially only if He was not an individual man like Peter and Paul, but the real beginner of a new humanity. Cyril’s view, moreover, was determined as a whole by the realistic thought of of redemption.343 Still it is not a matter of accident that he so frequently uses σάρξ for “human nature”, although in opposition to Apollinaris he acknowledged the human conscious soul in Christ. It was only σάρξ, that he could freely employ straight off in this connection, not πνεῦµα and ψυχή. The proposition that before the Incarnation there were two φύσεις, but after it only one, is, however, of special importance for Cyril’s conception of the Incarnation. This perverse formula, which Cyril repeats and varies endlessly, regards the humanity of Christ as having existed before the Incarnation, and therefore in accordance with the Platonic metaphysic, but does not do away with the humanity after the Incarnation, on the contrary, it merely transfers it entirely to the substance of the God-Logos. Both natures are now to be distinguished θεωρίᾳ µόνῃ—a phrase which he uses very frequently, i.e., it is in virtue of the physical or natural unity that the Logos has actually become man. This physical unity does not, however, mean that the Godhead thereby becomes capable of suffering: but the Logos suffers in His own flesh and was born of Mary as regards His own humanity. He is thus God crucified, (Θεὸς σταυρωθείς)—the Logos suffered without suffering, i.e., in His flesh (ἔπαθεν ὀ λόγος ἀπαθῶς, i.e, ἐν σαρκί)—and Mary is θεοτόκος, in so far as the σάρξ, which she bore constitutes an indissoluble unity with the Logos. (What belonged to the Logos thus became the property of the humanity, and again what belonged to the humanity became the property of the Logos— 342

The Ep. ad Succens. supplies the most important proof-passages here. Cyril’s thought is that the substance (οὐσία) of the human nature in Christ does not subsist on its own account, but that it is nevertheless not imperfect since it has its subsisting element in the God-Logos. This either means nothing at all or it is Apollinarianism. 343 Orat. ad imp. Theodos. 19, 20 (Mansi IV. 641): An apparent body would have been sufficient if the God-Logos had merely required to show us the path to the angelic life. But He became a perfect man, ἵνα τῆς µὲν ἐπεισάκτου φθορᾶς τὸ γήϊνον ἡµῶν ἀπαλλάξῃ σῶµα, τῇ καθ᾽ ἕνωσιν οἰκονοµίᾳ τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῷ ζωὴν ἐνιείς, ψυχὴν δὲ ἰδίαν ἀνθρωπίνην ποιούµενος ἁµαρτίας αὐτὴν ἀποφήνῃ κρείττονα, τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως τὸ πεπηγός τε καὶ ἄτρεπτον, οἷάπερ ἐρίῳ βαφὴν, ἐγκαταχρώσας αὐτῇ.

γέγονε τοίνυν ἴδια µὲν τοῦ λόγου τὰ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, ἴδια δὲ πάλιν τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος τὰ αὐτοῦ λόγου). Therefore this 178σάρξ of Christ can in the Lord’s Supper be the means of producing divine life, although it has not disappeared as human flesh.344 Is this conception Monophysitism? It is necessary to distinguish here between the phraseology and what is actually stated. As regards their actual substance all conceptions may be described as Monophysite or Apollinarian which reject the idea that Christ was an individual man; for between the doctrine of the hypostatic union and the most logical Apthartodocetism there are only grades of difference. No hard and fast line can be drawn here, although very different forms of monophysitism were possible according as the consequences of the Incarnation for the divinity of Christ on the one hand, or for His humanity on the other were conceived of in a concrete way and definitely stated. But according to ecclesiastical phraseology only those parties are to be described as monophysite who rejected the deliverance of the Council of Chalcedon. But this deliverance presupposes the existence of factors which did not yet lie within the mental horizon of Cyril. In these circumstances we must content ourselves with saying that nowhere did Cyril intentionally deviate to the right hand, or to the left, from the line of thought followed by the Greek Church and its great Fathers in their doctrine of redemption. He was a Monophysite in so far as he taught that the Logos after the Incarnation continues to have as before one nature only; but as the opponent of Apollinaris he did not wish to mix the human nature with the divine 2b0e in Christ.345 The assertion of a perfect humanity, unmingled natures, must be allowed to stand, for it is really impossible to put in an intelligible 179form any part of these speculations which treat of substances as if they had no connection whatever with a living person. It is really not any more difficult to

344

Cyril connected the Christological dogma in the form in which he put it, with the Lord’s Supper and also with baptism. 345 Similarly also Loofs op. cit., p. 48 f. As Loofs rightly remarks, the distinction between the ac8 natures which Cyril wished to have made was nevertheless not one solely in thought, but I cannot find any word which expresses what he wanted. It is obvious that as regards the docetic and Apollinarian ideas (apparent-humanity, κρᾶσις, σύγχυσις, τροπή), which were current and which were still widely spread at the time, Cyril’s influence was of a wholesome kind. It is wonderful how firm he was here. Perhaps it is herein that his greatest significance lies. And yet the best of what he had he had got from Apollinaris. Moreover, before Cyril, Didymus in Alexandria had already put together and used the words ἀτρέπτως, ἀσυγχύτως in his formula for the Incarnation; see Vol. III., p. 299. They were therefore not a monopoly of the Antiochians.

put up with the contradiction here than it is to tolerate the whole method of looking at the question. Both constitute the great mystery of the faith. Monophysitism, which limits itself to the statement that in Christ out of two perfect natures, divinity and humanity, one composite or incarnate divine nature has come into existence, and which will have nothing to do with the idea of a free will346 in Christ, is dogmatically consistent. It has indeed no longer the logical satisfying clearness of the Apollinarian thesis; it involves an additional mystery, or a logical contradiction, still in return for this it definitely put into words the by no means unimportant element of “perfect humanity”. But this Monophysitism, when distinctly formulated as ἕνωσις φουσική, certainly made it plain to the Greeks themselves that it was no longer possible to reconcile the Christ of faith with the picture of Christ given in the Gospels; for the idea of the physical unity of the two natures and of the interchange of properties, which Cyril had worked out in a strict fashion, swallowed up what of the human remained in Him. Arrived at this point three possible courses were open. It was necessary either to revise the doctrine of redemption and perfection which had the above-mentioned statement as its logical result—a thing which was not to be thought of,—or else theologians would have to make up their minds still further to adapt the picture of the historical Christ to the 180dogmatic idea, i.e., to destroy it altogether, which was logical Monophysitism, or finally, it would be necessary to discover a word, or a formula, which would mark off the dogma of faith from Apollinarianism with still greater sharpness than had been done by the catchword “perfect humanity”. It was therefore necessary to intensify the contradictions still further, so that it was no longer only the concrete union of the natures which appeared as the secret, but the

346

Like Apollinaris, Cyril also regarded with the deepest abhorrence the thought that Christ possessed a free will. Everything seemed to them to be made uncertain if Christ was not ἄτρεπτος. We can quite understand this feeling; for all belief in Christ as Redeemer is, to say the least of it, indifferent to the idea that Christ might have done other than He did. But that age was in the direst dilemma; for “freedom” was at that time the only formula for the “personality” of the creature, and yet it at the same time necessarily involved the capability of sin. In this dilemma the true believers resolved to deny freedom to Christ. With these accordingly the Apollinarians who had been excluded from the Church were able once more to unite. “All with the exception of a few,” writes Theodoret H. E. V. 3, cf. V. 37, “came over to the Church and again took part in Church fellowship; they had not, however, all the same, got rid of their earlier disease, but still infected many with it who before had been sound. From this root there sprang up in the Church the doctrine of the µία τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῆς θεότητος φύσις, which attributes suffering to the Godhead too of the only begotten.”

conception of the union itself already involved a contradictio in adjecto and became a mystery. If it could be maintained that the natures had become united without being united, then on the outside everything seemed to be as it should be, and Apollinaris was as certainly beaten as Paul of Samosata—and this was maintained. But certainly no pupil of Athanasius or Cyril hit on a notion such as this, which paralysed the force of the thought: λόγύς σαρκωθείς. A danger lurked here which had finally a momentous result. The expression of the faith which was constantly being burdened with fresh contradictions so that no legitimate element might be wanting to it, had to forfeit its strength.347 Its place was finally taken by a complicated formula which it was no longer possible to make one’s own through feeling, the mystery of conceptions put in the form of concrete ideas. If theologians might no longer teach as Apollinaris taught and in fact no longer quite in the way in which Cyril taught, they saw themselves under the necessity of using a complicated formula. But to begin with it seemed as if Cyril had carried his point.348 The controversy broke out in Constantinople and was throughout carried on with ambitious designs and for the purposes of ecclesiastical policy. In the person of Nestorius an ascetic Antiochian was again raised to the dignity of Bishop of Constantinople (428). The bishop of the capital just because he was 181the bishop was an object of jealousy to the Alexandrian Patriarch and as an Antiochian he was doubly so. A conceited preacher and one who plumed himself on being an enemy of heretics, but not a man with any meanness about him, Nestorius, who was supported by his presbyter Anastasius, gave offence in the capital by using the catchwords of the Antiochian dogmatic and by the contest he engaged in against the description of Mary as θεοτόκος. With great frankness Nestorius described the statements regarding the God who was wrapped in swaddling clothes and fastened to the Cross, as heathen fables. His Christology349 was 347

Thomasius in his description of t 564 he Christology of Cyril sees only difficulties, but no contradictions. Nor has he fully understood the relation between Apollinaris and Cyril. 348 Cyril never sought subsequently to tone down in appearance the paradox of the mystery of the Incarnation by means of logical distinctions. In this connection it is important to note that he allows that Nestorius wishes a ἕνωσις τῶν προσώπων (Ep. ad C P. Mansi IV., p. I005), but that he himself rejects such a union because the important thing is the union of the natures. 349 Some of his writings in Mansi IV., V., see also VI., VII., IX. On the beginning of the controversy Socrat. H. E. VII. 29 sq. cf. the letters of Cœlestin and Vincent.

that of Theodore; it cannot be said that he developed it further; on the contrary, one can see the influence of Chrysostom. Nestorius seems scarcely to have mentioned the human development of Jesus, and he seems to have laid greater emphasis on the idea of the union than Theodore (“one Christ”), if also only in the form of the συνάφεια and προσκύνησις; but he was, above all, concerned in getting rid of “the corruption of Arius and Apollinaris.” Cyril took advantage of the excitement in the Capital, which would perhaps have quieted down spite of some unruly priests and monks, in order to stir up the Egyptian monks, the Egyptian clergy in Constantinople, and the imperial ladies. The result was an angry correspondence with Nestorius, who was, moreover, protected by the Emperor. Cyril wrote in a more dignified way than his rival, but the hierarchs since the days of Cyprian had always known better how to take up an outwardly dignified attitude than their opponents. The narrow-minded patriarch of the capital was characterised by a simple pride.350 He expressed himself in an inconsiderate and imprudent way 182in his letters, and his conduct in his diocese was no less inconsiderate and imprudent, for there he went on with the work of deposition and attacked “Apollinarianism” as if it had been a red rag. The formula employed by the two opponents were no longer very different. Everything depended on how they were accentuated. Both spoke of two natures and one Christ, and the one wished as little to be an Apollinarian as the other did to be a “blasphemous”351 Samosatene. Cyril did not deny that the Godhead was incapable of suffering, and Nestorius was prepared to use even the formula θεοτόκος with a qualification.352 But in reality they were undoubtedly separated from each other by a deep gulf Common. 563 17 sq. The sermons of Nestorius, above all, deserve attention. The history is in Hefele, op. cit. II. 2, pp. 141-288, who is indeed wholly biassed. See Walch, Ketzergesch., Vol. V.; Largent, S. Cyrille et le concile d’Éphèse (Rev. des quest. hist., 1872, July). Older accounts by Tillemont and Gibbon. 350 Luther (“Von den Conc. u. K K.”, Vol. 25, pp. 304 ff., 307), falling back on Socrates, has rehabilitated Nestorius: “One can see from this that Nestorius, though a proud and foolish bishop, is in earnest about Christ; but in his folly he does not know what he is saying and how he is saying it, like one who was not able to speak properly of such things and yet wished to speak as if he knew all about it. 351 565 So Nestorius himself in the third letter to Cœlestin. 352 This was the case from the first; see already the first letter to Cœlestin. In the third letter he proposed to the Pope that the latter should see that neither θεοτόκος nor ἀνθρωποτόκος was used, but χριστότοκος; “This controversy about words,” he adds moreover, “will not in my opinion occasion any difficult enquiry at the Council nor will it interfere with the doctrine of the divinity of Christ.”

represented in the former case by the ἕνωσις φυσική, (the physical union,) and in the latter by the ἕνωσις κατὰ συνάφειαν, (the union by combination,) and they can scarcely be blamed if they indulged in specious arguments; for both views were intelligible only when one went behind the formulæ, and in the case of many if not actually in that of the leaders, ideas which went a great deal further were as a matter of fact concealed behind the formulæ.353 Nestorius addressed himself to the Roman bishop Cœlestin as a colleague of co-ordinate rank, Cyril did the same soon after as an informant moved by a sense of duty, and therewith the controversy came to have a universal importance. But owing to the interference of the Roman bishop on behalf of Cyril it also took a wholly unexpected turn; for there is not 183perhaps in the history of dogma a second fact of equal importance which so thoroughly deserves to be pronounced a scandal nor one which at the same is so little to the credit of its author, as the interference of the Pope on behalf of Cyril. He had indeed sufficient reason for doing this. Since the time of Athanasius and Julius, and in fact from the days even of Demetrius and Fabian, it had always been the traditional dogmatic policy of the Roman Chair to support the Alexandrian Patriarch, as conversely the latter in his struggle against the ambitious patriarch of New Rome necessarily looked for his natural ally in old Rome.354 Further Nestorius had shewn himself unwilling to excommunicate right off the Pelagians who had been condemned by the Pope and who had fled to Constantinople. Finally, he had not in his writing generally given token of the submission which the Apostolic Chair already demanded. But what does that signify in face of the fact that Cœlestin in interfering on behalf of Cyril disowned his western view and in the most frivolous fashion condemned Nestorius without having considered his teaching. That he did both things may be easily shewn. In his letter to the Pope Nestorius laid before the latter the formula “utraque natura quae per conjunctionem summam et inconfusam in una persona 353

In this contest Nestorius directs his attack against Photinianism, as representing the idea that the Word had first originated with the Virgin, against Apollinarianism, against the idea that the flesh 561 of Christ was no longer flesh after the Resurrection, and therefore against the “deificatio” of the flesh, and against the mingling of the natures (first letter to Cœlestin). As a matter of fact nothing of all this applied to Cyril. The latter fought against Nestorius as if it were a matter of combating Paul of Samosata, and in this Cœlestin made common cause with him (see his first letter to the Church of Constantinople c. 3). The real difference was: Did God become man or did He not? 354 The solidarity between Rome and Alexandria is emphasised also in the letters of Cœlestin to Cyril (I. I), to John of Antioch (c. 2) and to Nestorius (c. II).

unigeniti adoratur”355 (“the two natures which, perfectly joined together and without confusion, are adored in the one person of the only-begotten”). This was substantially the Western formula, and Cœlestin himself held no other view.356 He did not, however,

355

567

356

Ep. II. Nest. ad Cœlest. (Mansi IV., p. 1024.)

It was substantially the Western formula: see on this above, p. 145, and Reuter, Ztschr. fur K: G. VI., p. 156 ff. Augustine, Cœlestin’s authority, had taught the doctrine of una persona and two natures, or still more frequently the “duæ substantiæ” which corresponds more closely with the Western conception; he had further used “deus (ex patre) et homo (ex matre), or “verbum et homo” or “deus-homo.” He had rejected every view which taught the changeableness of God, and explained that the “forma dei” remained together with the “forma servi” after the “assumptio carnis”. He had not himself questioned the relative correctness of the idea of the indwelling of the Godhead in Christ after the fashion of the indwelling of the Godhead in believers, i.e., as in a temple, if he also clung to the view that the Word became flesh. It is undoubted that according to Augustine, “Christ is the collective person comprising a duality” in connection with which we have to distinguish between what relates to the fo 564 rma dei and the forma servi. It is only with certain qualifications that the formula “God was crucified” is to be employed, the perfectly correct statement is only “Christus crucifixus est in forma servi.” The passages in which Augustine speaks of “caro dei”, “natus ex femina deus” etc., are extremely rare, and for him these formulæ have in my opinion no real importance; for the reconciling work of Christ belongs according to Augustine to his humanity; see above. Here he is therefore in agreement with the Antiochians. (The fact that in one passage Augustine, like Tertullian, speaks of “mingling”, is of no importance). We meet with the same thing in Ambrose (de incarn. Sacram.) and again in Vincentius and Leo I. They all go back together to Tertullian (see above). Ambrose like Augustine speaks of two substances (natures) and he is “still more zealously intent than the latter in preserving the two in their integrity”: “Servemus distinctionem divinitatis et carnis.” Apollinaris has no more violent opponent than Ambrose. According to him the Johannine “becoming flesh” first gets its true meaning through “He dwelt among us.” When we speak of the death and passion of Christ we ought to add “secundum carnem”. And naturally in this connection emphasis is also laid on the “unus et idem”, but the co-existen 564 ce of the formæ dei et servi is maintained. And here, as in Augustine, we meet with the formula that the Logos assumed a man. In fact Ambrose, the keenest opponent of Apollinaris, turned against the ἀντιµετάστασις τῶν ὀνοµάτων as against a dangerous, Apollinarian mode of speech, and went so far in regard to the distinction of the natures as even to hazard (c. 2, § 13) the bold statement: “Fieri non protest, ut, per quem sunt omnia, sit onus ex nobis.” (More detailed information in Förster, Ambrosius, p. 128 f., 136 f.) The remaining evidence, moreover, which we possess in the shape of Papal letters etc., proves that the Westerns since the time of Tertullian and Novatian—in the latter also we find the “utraque substantia” (not “natura”) and the “sociatus homo et deus”—possessed a christological formula on which they were all agreed, based on their creed, and to which they had strictly adhered, (see the admirable remarks of Reuter op. cit. p. 191 f.). This form was

closely akin to that of the Antiochians, although it rested on a different basis. The Antiochians, without being influenced by the West, had reached quite independently the formula “two natures, one person.” Not only the “mild” Antiochians (Loofs op. cit., p. 49 f.), but Theodore also (see above) and Nestorius had employe 564 d it. We must certainly admit that there is a radical difference, the Antiochian formula would strictly have run thus: The two natures, which are two hypostases, constitute together one prosopon or person who is to be adored, i.e., in the view of the Antiochians nature and hypostasis coincided and the undivided subject possessed its unity only in the union, the name, in the position of authority and in adoration. On the other hand we should have to paraphrase the Western form of the doctrine which was outlined by Tertullian, developed by Ambrose and handed on to the theologians of subsequent times, thus: Jesus Christ as one and the same possesses two substances (properties) or two co-existent forms (status, forma). The difference is obvious at the first glance. The former formula is of a speculative kind and from general conceptions constructs a personal being, the latter on the contrary assigns “the state of life” to a person, it is, so to speak (see above), of a legal or political kind. The two formulæ are thus quite disparate (the Antiochian and Alexandrian are on the contrary formally similar) and therefore it is very possible that the Western form in fine, considered from the religious point of view, contains a side which is more akin to the Alexandrian than to the Antiochian form. But in the formulæ Nestorius was in agreement wi ac8 th Cœlestin, and it cannot be proved that the Pope was able to look behind the formula (see the “simplicior” in Mansi V., p. 702). In fact the opposite can be proved. In all his numerous letters he took good care in connection with this affair not to state his own Christological view. If anything escapes him it does not remind us at all of Cyril’s views, see, e.g., the letter to the Church of Constantinople (Mansi IV., p. 1044): “Nestorius denies that the Logos assumed a man for our sakes.” He fastens solely on the θεοτόκος to which objection had been taken by Nestorius and he adduces a sort of argument in proof of its antiquity taken from a poem of Ambrose. Beyond this nothing else occurs in his letters to shew what was really to blame in the Christology of Nestorius. In place of this he from the very start loads him with abuse, with threats from the Bible and with imprecations of a wholly general character, denounces him to his Church as a heretic and writes him a letter (Mansi IV., p. 1026 sq.), which in its unfairness and bare-faced audacity is one of the vilest compositions we have of the fourth and fifth centuries. In his instructions to his legates too and in his letter to the Council, he carefully guarded against using any Christological formula at all, and he knew very well why. As Nestorius had expressed himself, particularly towards the end, his Christology came so near to that of Augustine that Cœlestin at all events was not able to distinguish the one from the other. Cœlestin’s main concern, however, was by no means with the Christology, but rather with the person of Nestorius because the latter had not treated the Pelagians ad nutum papæ. He accordingly, instructed his legates simply to take Cyril’s side, and in his letter to the Council contented himself with an exhortation to the members to preserve the old faith without saying what the old faith was. There is, however, not the slightest ground for the assumption that Augustine’s affair with the Galilean monk and presbyter Leporius (about 426, Mansi IV., pp. 518, 519 sq.) probably had an influence upon Cœlestin. This controversy, which was quickly settled,

trouble himself 184about the formula, put his own Christology on one side and declared in favour of Cyril, while he made everything depend on the one point “θεοτόκος” in order at least to produce an appearance of difference, although this was just the very point regarding which Nestorius was prepared to make concessions. 185

The Pope had determined to put down Nestorius. A Roman Synod (430) demanded of him immediate recantation on pain of excommunication. As if by way of insult Cyril was charged by the Pope himself with the duty of carrying the sentence out. Nestorius himself, whose Church was revolutionised, now 186urged the Emperor to call a General Council, and in addition to this collected a number of accusations against Cyril for the way in which he had discharged the duties of his office. To the twelve anathemas which an Alexandrian Council under the presidency of Cyril had served on him, and which embodied the teaching of Cyril in sharply cut phrases (θεοτόκος γεγέννηκε σαρκικῶς σάρκα γεγονότα τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ λόγον—ἕνωσις καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν—ἕνωσις φυσική—σὰρξ τοῦ κυρίου ζωοποιός,—the mother of God bore flesh born after the manner of flesh, the Logos of God—hypostatic union—natural union—the life-giving flesh of the Lord) he replied by twelve counter-anathemas.357 This sealed the breach. The Emperor, displeased with Cyril, summoned a Council to meet at Ephesus at Whitsuntide 431. Cyril who appeared with some 50 bishops, here shewed how an Emperor, such as Theodosius was, ought to be treated. Without waiting for the arrival of the Syrians under John

undoubtedly shews that on the basis of the formulæ of Tertullian and Novatian, discussions regarding the mystery of the person of Christ had been started in the West too, which led to considerable division of opinion, and that in opposition to this the Westerns held firmly to their “unus et idem” which, however, was something different from the Antiochian ἓν πρόσωπον (Leporius would have nothing to do with the idea of a deus natus et passus; Augustine and Aurelius of Carthage forced him to recant: the Confession o ab5 f Leporius is in Hahn, Symbole 2, § 138). But in the affair with Nestorius Cœlestin nowhere referred to the heresy of Leporius and to his recantation. The commonitorium of Vincentius best shews how little disposed those in the West were to have their own Christological form of doctrine interfered with by the East or by the recognised Council of Ephesus. In this book, written soon after 431, the Creed of Ephesus is highly praised and Nestorius is abused, but at the same time the Christological formula of Tertullian and no other is used, and what is said exhibits complete uncertainty regarding the teaching of Nestorius. 357 Mansi IV., pp. 1081 sq., 1099 sq., Hahn, § 142, 143. In the third thesis of Nestorius the permanence of the difference of the two natures also after the Incarnation is strongly emphasised. The fifth thesis runs thus: “Si quis post assumptionem hominis naturaliter dei filium unum esse audet dicere, anathema sit.” It is the most questionable one.

of Antioch, the cautious friend (?) of Nestorius,358 the Egyptian party supported by the bishop of Ephesus, Memnon, on its own authority and spite of the opposition of the Imperial commissioner, constituted itself the Council, treated Nestorius who naturally did not appear at this meeting, but waited in the city for the Syrians, as an accused person, approved of all Cyril’s declarations as being in harmony with 187Holy Scripture and the Nicene Creed, pronounced the deposition of Nestorius and declared him to have forfeited priestly fellowship. In opposition to this petty assembly, which did not set up any new creed, but which on the contrary took up the position that the sole question had reference to the Nicene Creed which was in danger, Nestorius and his friends, as soon as the Syrians arrived, held the legal Council under the presidency of the Imperial Commissioner and pronounced sentence of deposition on Cyril and Memnon. It was only now that the Papal legates arrived in Ephesus and they at once took the side of Cyril.359 In accordance with their instructions they reopened the case pro forma, in order to exalt the authority of the Apostolic Chair. Cyril’s party complied with this, and the Legates then agreed to everything which had been done, after all the documents had been once more read over.360 With the cry, “the whole Council thanks the new Paul Cœlestin, the new Paul Cyril, Cœlestin the guardian of the faith, Cœlestin who concurs with the Council: One Cœlestin, one Cyril, one faith of the Council, one faith of the whole world,”361 this

358

John of Antioch was perhaps also one of the false friends of Nestorius. The matter is still not quite clear—spite of the Coptic sources which are now at our command. Probably John came so late intentionally, in order to be able to turn the scale; from the first his attitude towards Nestorius had been an equivocal one. We may indeed assume that he wished to get rid both of Nestorius and of Cyril in order to secure for himself the supreme influence over the Church. 359 Otherwise the Westerns were not present at all. 360 577 Besides Cœlestin’s letter to the Council a similar one from the Carthaginian Archbishop Capreolus who excused the absence of the Africans was read again. This letter too is instructive because the bishop does not go beyond counselling that no change should be made on the ancient faith. He expresses no opinion on the question in dispute, (Mansi IV., p. I207 sq.). 361 Mansi l.c. p. 1287. At the close the Council did the Pope the further favour of condemning the Pelagians. Thus both parties were quits. Cœlestin condemned Nestorius without knowing what his teaching was and thereby disparaged his own doctrine, and the followers of Cyril condemned the Pelagians without thoroughly examining their theses and condemned themselves in condemning them. We may put it thus and yet not mistake the peculiar solidarity which existed between the Antiochians and the Pelagians; for the Ephesian judges knew nothing of this. It was Cassian who first drew attention 564 to it (libr. VII., de incarn. Chr.).

assembly closed, which sought to maintain the ancient Nicene faith and did maintain it, at which, however, there was no discussion, but at which unanimity was reached solely on the basis of a selection of authorities.362 188

The following will be found in the historical accounts. The Emperor, instead of standing up for the right, allowed himself to be overawed. At first it is true the resolutions of Cyril’s Council were annulled, but thereafter the controversy was to be settled in true Byzantine fashion by the removal of the leaders. The Emperor gave the force of law both to the deposition of Cyril and Memnon and to that of Nestorius. The Alexandrians, however, were united and followed one master, but this was not the case with the opposite party. Nestorius who was violent but not tenacious, resigned; soon, however, his isolation was to change to imprisonment. In the eyes of the Emperor the doctrine which he represented was by no means condemned; but Cyril succeeded in getting permission to resume possession of his bishopric, and by means of intrigue and bribery his party continued more and more to gain ground at the Court and the capital. Still he could not reckon on a victory as regards the dogmatic question; he had to be content with knowing that a man who was acceptable to him occupied the chair of Constantinople. The Emperor sought to bring about a union, and the friends of Nestorius became disunited. One section under the leadership of John of Antioch was prepared to come to terms, and to this party Theodoret,363 the most distinguished Antiochian scholar, also belonged, though undoubtedly with a certain reserve. Another section actively resisted. Cyril’s behaviour in the year 432-433 is little to his credit. To him it was of more importance to get the condemnation of his mortal enemy, Nestorius, carried through in the Church, than to preserve his dogmatic system pure. Thus he subscribed the creed submitted by the moderate Antiochians, without, however, retracting his earlier opinions, and in return for this got some of the heads of the opposite party, above all, John of Ephesus, to abandon

362

See the Acts in Mansi; Vicentius too in the so-called Second Commonitorium describes the procedure; they interrogated antiquity. “Peter of Alex., Athanasius, Theophilus of Alex., the three Cappadocians, Felix and Julius of Rome were quoted at Ephesus as teachers, councillors, witnesses and judges (what, however, was quoted from them originated with Apollinaris!), and also Cyprian and Augustine.” According to Vincentius these constituted “the hallowed decalogue”. But in addition to these the opinions of others were also adduced. 363 He was now the spiritual leader of the Antiochians. He fought untiringly for the view that God was incapable of suffering.

Nestorius. Cyril could save his consistency by interpreting this Antiochian creed in accordance with his Christology; the friends of Nestorius were not able to 189escape the disgrace which they had brought upon themselves by their treachery towards their ill-used friend. But in a question which was for him a matter of faith Cyril had agreed to a compromise, in proof of the fact that all hierarchs are open to conviction when they are in danger of losing power and influence.364 He could, moreover, reckon on the victory of his opponents being a Pyrrhic victory. His own reputation and that of his dogmatic system went on increasing; thousands of monks were busy spreading it, and Cyril himself was constantly working at the Court and in Rome. The condemnation of Nestorius was followed by the most disgraceful treatment of the unfortunate bishop. In consequence of the confusion which arose because he was condemned while his teaching was tolerated by others, the whole party was weakened; the strict Nestorians separated from the others,365 and since Cyril had not been under the necessity 190of 364

The Creed of Union is in Mansi V., pp. 781, 291, 303. (Hahn § 99). It was composed as early as the year 431, probably by Theodoret; and was sent from Ephesus to be submitted to the Emperor, Cyril subscribed it in the year 433. The Creed is a dogmatic work of art in which the Antiochians, however, could without much difficulty recognise their views, but not so Cyril. The second, and really important half runs thus: δύο γὰρ φύσεων ἕνωσις γέγονε· διὸ ἕνα Χριστόν, ἕνα ὑιόν, ἕνα κύριον ὁµολογοῦµεν. Κατὰ ταύτην τὴν τῆς ἀσυγχύτου ἑνώσεως ἔννοιαν ὁµολογοῦµεν τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον θεοτόκον, [Nestorius had already admitted this, and he might in fact have subscribed this creed without any scruples of conscience] διὰ τὸ τὸν Θεὸν λόγον σαρκωθῆναι καὶ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς συλλήψεως ἑνῶσ ac8 αι ἑαυτῷ τὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς ληφθέντα ναόν. Τὰς δὲ εὐαγγελικὰς καὶ ἀποστολικὰς περὶ τοῦ κυρίου φωνὰς ἴσµεν τὸυς θεολόγους ἄνδρας τὰς µὲν κοινοποιοῦντας, ὡς ἐφ᾽ ἑνὸς προσώπου, τὰς δὲ διαιροῦντας, ὡς ἐπὶ δύο φύσεων (Cyril admitted that!) καὶ τὰς µὲν θεοπρεπεῖς κατὰ τὴν θεότητα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὰς δὲ ταπεινὰς κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα αὐτοῦ παραδιδόντας. This formula of union which reflects no discredit on the Antiochians, especially as they, like the Arians and Semi-Arians before them, had a theological rather than a religious interest in the problem, is markedly different from the later Chalcedonian formula. It does not abandon an intelligible position as that was understood by the Antiochians. Cyril had to content himself with the words ἕνωσις and θεοτόκος and had to put up with the absence of συνάφεια. He naturally clung firmly to the µία φύσις σεσαρκωµένη, declaring that the creed of union merely excluded the misinterpretations of the doctrine he had hitherto taught, misinterpretations which he had himself always disavowed; in fact he went so far as to assert that the Antiochians too understood the difference of the natures after the incarnation as being purely a distinction in thought. 365 This was a slow process which began with the emigration to Edessa and was concluded only at the end of the fifth century with the formation of a strictly exclusive Nestorian Church. It maintained itself in the extreme East of Christendom, in East Syria

retracting anything, he was able to direct his energies towards getting the decrees of his assembly accepted as orthodox, as ecumenical decrees, under cover of the union-creed. He did actually succeed in a few years in getting this done in the East; in the West they had ranked as such from the first. The situation continued to be perplexed and became more and more disingenuous. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

§ 2. The Eutychian Controversy. Cyril died in the year 444; there were in his own party some who so far as he was concerned had never forgiven him the union of 433 which had led Cyril to agree to the expression “δύο φύσεις”.366 His successor was Dioscurus who, according to the testimony of his own adherents, though not indeed the equal of his predecessor, was also not unlike him. The Alexandrian bishops from Athanasius to Dioscurus have something in common. They strove to make themselves the masters of Egypt and the leaders of the Church of the East.367 Their resistance to the power of the State was not less strong than their hatred of the 191parvenu, the bishop of New Rome, whose aspirations after power they wished to put a stop to. We can only compare them with the great Popes, and the comparison is so far a just one inasmuch as they aimed at making

and Persia, and soon took on a national colouring; on the strongly marked national consciousness of the Nestorians in Church matters, see Horst, Elias von Nisibis, p. 112 ff. The Emperor Zeno put an end to their existence in the Empire in 489. All the successors of Theodosius II. persecuted them. How the latter came to have such a ferocious hatred of Nestorius whom he had once protected has not, however, been yet explained. The Emperor gave orders that all the writings of Nestorius were to be burned and that his followers were to be called “Simonists”. The result was that the writings ac8 of Diodorus and Theodore were all the more eagerly circulated in the East and translated into other languages. Edessa in particular did a great deal in the way of getting the GreekAntiochian literature put into Syrian (Persian, Armenian). Much that is of a free and antique character has been preserved in the Nestorian-Persian or Chaldean Church; Assemani, Bibl. Orient. III., 2; Silbernagl, Kirchen des Orients p. 202 ff.; Kattenbusch, op. cit. I., p. 226 ff. For the history of dogma, in the strict sense of the word, the Nestorians are no longer of any importance. 366 See Isidor Pelus. epp. I., Nos. 323, 334; Acacius of Melitene, ep. ad Cyril. in Mansi V., p. 860 (998 sq.). Cyril himself (ep. ad Eulog. Migne, Vol. 97, p. 225) says that people are now speaking reproachfully of him: διὰ τί δύο φύσεις ὀνοµαζόντων αὐτῶν ἡνέσχετο ἢ καὶ ἐπῇνεσε ὁ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας. Fuller details in Ehrhard, op. cit., p. 42 f. 367 See, above all, the Church History of Socrates, who thoroughly understood this aspiration of theirs.

Egypt a sort of independent ecclesiastical State. Each bishop in the series from Athanasius to Dioscurus came nearer accomplishing this design.368 In following out this policy they relied upon three powerful forces, on Greek piety and monasticism, on the masses of the lower classes, and on the Roman Bishop who had an equal interest in keeping down the bishop of Constantinople, and in making head against the State. In the respect first mentioned, Theophilus’ change of front is specially characteristic. He abandoned science, i.e., Origenism, as soon as he perceived that a stronger force was present in the Church,—namely, the orthodoxy of the monks and of the religious communities. From that time onwards the Alexandrian bishop stood at the head of ecclesiastical traditionalism; he decisively rejected Greek science. But in doing this he surrendered what was an important element in the influence he could exercise on the rest of the churches, and the loss of this was a momentous one. He became a national Coptic bishop. This brings us to the second point. Like all 192despots, the great Alexandrian bishops sought the support of the masses. They were demagogues. They flattered the people and sought to please them, while they hampered and crushed the aristocracy composed of the bishops, the scholars and the upper classes. Athanasius had already begun this policy, in fact he was not in all probability the first to follow it. Each of his successors went a step further on these lines. But the Copts were not the Romans; the master of the eternal city could always think of ruling the world. A

368

Of all the great bishops of the Empire the Roman and Alexandrian bishops alone possessed a traditional policy which was strictly adhered to, and acted in accordance with it. They accordingly really became forces in history. The Chair of Antioch never had a policy; in the conflicts with the Arians it became a mere puppet after the Church already sixty years before this had had to come to its assistance, and it possessed no fixed traditions. The position taken up in the Nestorian controversy by the feeble and unreliable John is typical of the bishops of Antioch (see his letter to Sixtus of Rome). It is customary to complain of the hierarchial aa6 imperiousness of Athanasius, of the violent actions of Theophilus, Cyril, and Dioscurus, and of the unfeeling policy of the Roman bishops, and to contrast them with the Bishops of Antioch. But people do not reflect that when forces manifest themselves they have to adapt themselves to the material upon which they are to work, and quite as little do they try to imagine what appearance the history of the Church would have presented without the “violences” of the Roman and Alexandrian bishops. Those who at the present day complain, together with their dogmatic system, would not at all events have been here at all if these tyrannical and unfeeling princes of the Church had not existed, and the tame dogmatic of the present time would never have made its appearance apart from the fanatical dogmatic of those despots. It may be incidentally remarked that we ought hardly to conclude from Mansi VI., p. 1008, that Dioscurus wished to restore Origen’s reputation.

Coptic despot, however, who had rejected all that belonged to the Greek world, could only dream of world-empire.369 Cyril had the Egyptian clergy and people completely under his power; but the less wise Dioscurus by his unconcealed despotism created an aristocratic reaction in the country. In him we see the downfall and overthrow of the policy of the Alexandrian chair. Had he been a man like Leo I., Christianity might perhaps have got a second Rome in Alexandria.370 But there was no room in the world for two such chairs. The traditional policy of common action which had for so long united Rome and Alexandria, was bound to reach a point at which it turned into bitter enmity. The Byzantine patriarch accordingly turned this enmity to account. It is indeed possible to trace back the whole difference between the Roman and the Alexandrian bishop to the brusque and imprudent conduct of Dioscurus, or, with a still greater show of justice, to Leo’s love of power;371 but this would be to take a narrow view of the 193matter. About the middle of the fifth century the Alexandrian bishop was on the point of becoming master of Egypt and at the same time master of the East. Rome would not have been Rome if she had looked calmly on at a result such as this, to which indeed she had

369

Hellenism in the East received its death-blow owing to the downfall of the Alexandrian bishop in the year 451; with Theophilus the process of estrangement between the Church and Hellenism had undoubtedly already begun. 370 The unique position of the Alexandrian Chair till 450 and its policy, have up till now not had justice done them in our histories. The bishop of Alexandria ranked as the second in Christendom (see above, at the Council of 381) and corresponding to this position was a certain right which is indeed difficult to define—of oversight, or better, the exercise of an oversight over the churches of the East in the Fourth and Fifth centuries, which was being more and more widely recognised. The Alexandrian bishops attempted to develop the position which they thus occupied to a position of primacy. 371 Sixtus III., Cœlestin’s successor, as his letters prove, continued on the best of terms with Cyril and silently repulsed the attempt made by two Nestorian bishops, Eutherius and Helladius, to break up the union between Rome and Alexandria (see the letter of the two amongst the letters of Sixtus). His epistle to John of Ephesus proves (ep. 6) that he had inherited his predecessor’s hatred of Nestorius. On the other hand the sole letter of Leo I. to Dioscurus which we possess, and which was written soon after his enthronement (445), surprises us by its tone which recalls the letters of Victor and Stephanus, and by its demands. Dioscurus could not have forgotten a letter such as this. Still it is not till the time of the Council of Ephesus that we have plain evidence of the dissension between the two bishops (see Leo’s ep. 43 sq.). The way in which Dioscurus treated Leo’s epistle and the legates secured for him the bitter enmity of the Pope. The question now was: Rome or Alexandria? Previous to this Leo himself, like his predecessors, had in Christology used a form of statement which was Cyrillian, or Tertullian-Augustinian. He says Serm. 34. 4: “dei filius naturæ carnis immixtus”, and 23. 1: “naturæ alteri altera miscebatur.”

herself contributed so long as she was concerned in defending herself against a more powerful enemy. It is here that we have the key to the proper understanding of the direction taken by Roman policy in the East, and it is owing to it that the history of dogma too has taken a wholly unexpected turn. For once that opposition had sprung up between Rome and Alexandria it could not be but that the profound dogmatic difference between the two which Cœlestin had disregarded in order to humble the Emperor and the Constantinopolitan bishop, should find expression. But if Rome came off victorious, then the dogmatic development of the East was bound to enter a new, and what was essentially, a foreign channel. Conversely again, the permanent victory of the Second Council of Ephesus (449) would, owing to the weakness of the State, have been equivalent to the victory of Egypt in the Church and probably also in the Empire; for Empire and Emperor had come to be entirely dependent on the Church which culminated in the Alexandrian chair and its monks. Pope and Emperor therefore made common cause; in the years 450-451 they had a common enemy and realised the solidarity of their interests. But the political victory of Rome did not correspond with the victory of Leo in the dogmatic question over the East under the leadership of Alexandria. The Emperor went about the matter in an extremely clever way. While making use of 194the Roman bishop in so far as he found him necessary in order to carry out his purpose, which was to deliver the Empire and the Church from the despotism of Alexandria based as it was on dogmatics, he at the same time deprived him of the power of extending in any way his influence in the East by raising his own court-patriarch to a position of equal rank and importance with the Pope. Simultaneously with the downfall of his Alexandrian colleague Leo I. had to direct his attention once more to his Constantinopolitan colleague, behind whom stood no less a person than the Emperor himself—the Byzantine idea of the state. He now promptly resumed the traditional policy of his chair and sought to form a connection with Proterius, the successor of Dioscurus. He, however, no longer found in Alexandria a powerful monarch, but only the shadow of such a ruler, the Melchitian bishop of a small party who soon fell a victim to the fanaticism of the Egyptians. But on the other hand the Emperor had dearly bought his victory over the hankering after independence on the part of the Church in the East, in the form in which it had been fostered by the monkish church of the Copts under the Alexandrian patriarchs. He plunged the East into a state of frightful confusion, and his policy, which was a clever one for the moment, resulted in being the direst calamity for the Eastern Empire, since it set free the centrifugal and national forces of the Eastern provinces. It was possible to overthrow the Egyptian

ecclesiastical State, but this done, it was no longer possible permanently to retain Egypt. It was possible to deliver the Empire and Constantinople from the domination of a dogmatic which was hostile to the State, but it was not possible to force a foreign dogmatic on the people of the East. The Roman bishop, however, also soon saw that he was further from the attainment of his aim than ever, and the proud language employed by Leo’s successors towards the Emperor and the East and which reminds us of the mediæval Popes, is not so much a token of actual power as a proof of the breach and estrangement between East and West which had occurred, and so of the actual powerlessness of Rome. The Emperor could no longer get at the Pope, but neither could the Pope get at the Emperor and the East; he came to have no influence. 195A section of the Easterns could come to terms with the dogmatic decree of Chalcedon—it is always possible to come to terms with dogmatic decrees—and while acknowledging its authority could nevertheless give expression to what was truly essential in the Faith of the East; but the twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon, which had reference to the Roman bishop, was no “noumenon” which could be got over by scholastic refinement. Rome had the satisfaction of having dictated its Christological formula to the Byzantine State-Church, just as it had previously taken the biggest share in the work of getting the Trinitarian formula accepted, but this very Church now took up a position of extreme isolation relatively to Rome and the West. The Byzantine Patriarch, although his power was always more and more restricted within the domain in the East over which he ruled, was an invincible opponent; for he was simply the exponent of all the peculiar powers still possessed at the time by the State of Constantine and Theodosius I. and by the Greek Church. This is the general outline of the circumstances we have to take into account in studying the history of the “Eutychian Controversy.” What happened here was, mutatis mutandis, repeated in the controversy about images in so far as the State in this struggle in the same way resisted the authority of the Church which sought to crush it. It was successful in both instances. The power which had opposed the State in Egyptian Monophysitism and set itself against it in the matter of the adoration of images, was one and the same. But the nature of the victory was different in the two cases. In the middle of the Fifth Century the State, unfortunately for itself, did not possess the power of putting up with the dogmatic teaching of its opponent while humiliating the opponent himself; or shall we say: it did not think of the power it had, and to its own loss lent an ear to the suggestions of a foreign power, namely, the Roman bishop. In the ninth century, however, it was able to let its opponent have its own way in the domain of

dogma and worship—for the adoration of images was restored,— and yet to make it submit to its laws and attach it to its interests. A powerful ruler, who would have accepted the dogmatic decree 196of the second Council of Ephesus but who would have been at the same time able to break the political power of Dioscurus and to compel the monks and Copts to submit—would perhaps—if it is permissible to make such a reflection—have been able to maintain the unity of the Empire of Constantius and to preserve for the Eastern provinces the Græco-Christian culture. Of what incalculable importance this would have been! But it is useless to pursue a line of thought such as this. It follows from these considerations that the history of dogma has to be regarded almost exclusively in its connection with politics, not merely after the Council of Chalcedon, but already previous to this. The forces which from 444 onwards determined the great decisions and actions were throughout political. It was individuals only who really thought of the Faith when they spoke of the Faith; they brought about crises, but they no longer determined the course things were to take. Nor is it the case that what was dogmatically “the right thing” gained acceptance here as if by a wonderful arrangement of things; for if, as is reasonable to suppose, “the right thing” here can only be what is in harmony with Greek religious feeling, then it did not gain entire acceptance. And in pronouncing an opinion on this, whether we take our stand at a very much earlier or at a very much later period, it may certainly be maintained that the decision of Chalcedon was the happiest amongst those that were at all possible at the time; but to see this can in no way alter the opinion that the Council of Chalcedon, which to distinguish it from the Robber Council372 we might call the Robber and Traitor Council, betrayed the secret of Greek Faith. It is only with the forces of history that the historian is concerned; and so, from about 444 onwards, the political historian almost entirely takes the place of the historian of dogmas. If the latter is willing to keep strictly to his own domain but a small extent of ground is left to him, which, since what does not change awakens no interest, gets smaller and smaller from century to century. 197

If it be asked, what is the saddest and most momentous event in the history of dogma since the condemnation of Paul of Samos ata,

569

372

Thomasius (Dogmengesch. I. 2, p. 367) also pronounces the Council of Chalcedon “hardly less stormy” than that of the year 449.

we must point to the union of the year 433. The shadow of this occurrence rests on the whole subsequent history of dogma.373 It bore two sorts of evil fruit. In the first place it permanently prohibited Greek piety from establishing the formula which was alone appropriate to it: µία φύσις θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένη—one incarnate nature of the divine Logos. (The relief which the Creed of Ephesus of 449 was supposed to bring, came too late.) In the second place it introduced such a stagnation into the dogmatic question that every one who attempted to state his Christological views ran the risk of being regarded as a heretic, while on the other hand people found it possible when they so desired, to give a favourable turn to every dogmatic utterance. It threw the East into 198a state of confusion and made of Christology an armoury of poisoned weapons for the warfare of ecclesiastical politics. A middle party was formed from each of the two sides. To one of these Theodoret belonged, and to another Dioscurus (Cyril). But the representatives of these middle parties were no nearer each

373

The documentary material bearing on the Eutychian controversy has been for the most part printed in Mansi T. V. sq.; where also will be found the letters of Leo I. (cf. the edition of Ballerini) and those of Theodoret having reference to the subject. Historical accounts in Prosper, Liberatus, Facundus, in the hist. eccl. of Zacharias of Mytilene hitherto published only in Syrian, in the breviculus hist. Eutych. (Sirmond’s App. ad Cod. Theodos.), in Euagrius, Theophanes, and many later Greek and particularly Oriental chroniclers. To these have been added in recent times, apart from Zacharias (see Krüger, Monophys. Streitigkeiten, 564 1884) first of all the hitherto unknown Appellations of Flavian and Eusebius of Doryläum to Leo I. (see Guerrino Amelini, S. Leone magno e l’Oriente. Roma 1882, Grisar i. d. Ztschr. f. Kath. Theo]. VII., 1883, p. 191 f., Mommsen, Neues Archiv. XI. 2, 1886, p. 361 f.); second, the Acts of the Robber-Council according to a Syrian MS., in German by Hoffmann (Kiel 1873), in an English translation with rich additions from other Syrian MSS, by Perry, The Second Synod of Ephesus 1881, and previously published by the same writer, An Ancient Syriac Docum. etc., Oxford 1867; Martin, Actes du Brigand. d’Éphese, traduct. faite sur le texte Syriaque, 1875 by the same, Le Pseudo-Synode connu dans l’hist. sous le nom de Brigandage d’Éphese, étudié d’après ses actes retrouvés en Syriaque, 1875, thirdly the publication of Révillout, Récits de Dioscore, exilé à Gangres, sur le concile de Chalcédoine, translated into French from the Coptic, (Rev. Egyptol. 1880, p. 187 sq., 1882, p. 21 sq., 1883, p. 17 sq.); see Krüger op, cit. p. 12 f. Accounts in Baronius, Tillemont, Gibbon, Walch, Schröckh, Neander and Hefele; cf. the works on Leo I. by Quesnel, Arendt, Perthel. Spite of these works we do not yet possess a critical account of the history of the Church and of dogma for the all important years previous to the Council of Chalcedon. The 564 most important preliminary work in this direction would be a monograph on Theodoret, the man who in my opinion was the most truth-loving and the least guided by considerations of policy of the Fathers of that period. This has been done by a Russian, Glubokowski (see above); but it is unfortunately not accessible to German science.

other than the two extremes. If they employed the same formulæ they nevertheless gave them a different meaning, and they were at the same time intent upon protecting their extreme associates so far as possible. The Alexandrians had acquired the sovereignty of the East at the price of union. The “high-priest Emperor” and his eunuchs abandoned themselves more and more to their guidance. Under the feeble Theodosius the Empire was in danger of becoming an ecclesiastical state led by Alexandria. In addition to this, under cover of the formula of concord the doctrine of the one nature was propagated, and even the extravagances of earlier times again made their appearance. Cyril himself who was so cautious otherwise in his use of formulae, had not been able to avoid the use of the questionable Apollinarian conception, according to which the nature or hypostasis of the incarnate Logos is a “certain middle something”,374 and accordingly it is not astonishing to find that his followers went still further. The brave and indefatigable Theodoret375 did indeed keep a look-out against the ἕνωσις φυσική, “the suffering God”, the κρᾶσις or mixture, in short, against the anathemas of Cyril, while at the same time he parried the attacks of Cyril on Theodore of Mopsuestia. But spite of the great prudence shewn by Theodoret in keeping to a middle path Dioscurus succeeded in calumniating him at the Court, after he had himself in his character as supreme bishop interfered in the affairs of Antioch.376 Theodoret was instructed to keep to his diocese. 199Still greater was the hatred of the Alexandrians against the bold and worldly-minded Bishop Ibas of Edessa, Theodore’s enthusiastic supporter. Dioscurus had apparently made up his mind to bring the East under his authority and gradually to exterminate all who in a half way or who wholly accepted the Antiochian theology. The formula: two natures or hypostases, one Christ, was to disappear from the Church. In the capital the old and respected Archimandrite Eutyches supported his views, taking his stand on the Christology of Cyril.

374

See, e.g., de recte fida ad Theodos. (Mansi IV., p. 693): Ἰ. Χρ. ἀνθρωπίνοις τε αὖ καὶ τοῖς ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ἰδιώµασιν εἰς ἕν τι τὸ µεταξὺ συγκείµενος. 375 See, above all, his “Eranistes”. The work of the Catholic Bertram, Theodoreti doctrina christologica, 1883, is painstaking but biassed; se aaa c. Theol. Lit. Ztg., 1883, No. 24; Möller in Herzog’s R.-Encyklop. sec ed. XV., p. 401 ff., The question of Theodoret’s orthodoxy is certainly a very troublesome one for a Catholic. 376 Dioscurus treated the metropolitan Irenæus of Tyre, and Theodoret in the year 448, in the style of one who was primate of the whole Greek Church and was recognised by the Emperor as such.

Still it was no mere calumny when his opponents maintained that in the course of the violent attack on the Nestorians he had himself fallen into the error of making Apollinarian statements. Already in the year 448 Bishop Domnus of Antioch had denounced him on these grounds to the Emperor. But no action was taken until Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaum brought a similar charge against him before Flavian who was bishop of Constantinople at the time. Eutyches afterwards asserted that he had done this from personal hatred, and one cannot get rid of the suspicion that he was right; for Eusebius himself had formerly been one of most bitter opponents of Nestorius. In any case a certain obscurity hangs over the outbreak of the controversy, and the energy too with which Flavian at once took the matter up is strange. He was on bad terms with the court and particularly with the all-powerful Chrysaphius with whom Eutyches stood in high favour. The bishop probably felt that he was hampered by the Archimandrite and wanted to get rid of him. It is useless to look for any religious motives in the case of Flavian, whose Christological statements bear a pretty close resemblance to those of Cyril, though they did actually fall short of them.377 The Council of Constantinople 200(448) which followed on this and with whose procedure we are well acquainted, shewed the frivolity of the attack on Eutyches, though it shewed too how the influential archimandrite set his bishop at defiance. In reference to the dogmatic question Eutyches acted with great prudence, and, though indeed with some hesitation, gave his assent to the formula of the Creed of Union, “of two natures, one Christ” (one hypostasis, one person). But one can plainly see that this formula, in so far as it was taken as implying the continued existence of the two natures after the union, was one which Eutyches would regard

377

Flavian takes his stand on the Union of 433 though he inclines to the Antiochian interpretation of it; see his confession in Mansi VI., p. 541: καὶ γὰρ ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ὁµολογοῦντες τὸν Χριστον µετὰ τὴν σάρκωσιν τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρώπησιν, ἐν µιᾷ ὑποστάσει καὶ ἐν ἑνὶ προσώπῳ (a distinction is thus drawn between φύσις and ὑπόστασις, while ὑπόστασις and πρόσωπον are regarded as parallel terms, and accordingly the way is paved for the Chalcedonian formula in the East also), ἕνα Χριστόν, ἕνα υἱόν, ἕνα κύριον ὁµολογοῦµεν, καὶ µίαν µὲν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου φύσιν σεσαρκωµένην µέντοι καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσασαν λέγειν οὐκ ἀρνούµεθα—the letter is addressed to Leo, and Flavian was apparently not yet aware what Leo’s views were and whether perhaps he did not adhere entirely to the doctrine of Cyril. The prudent patriarch accordingly “confesses” two natures after the incarnation also and yet one!—διὰ τὸ ἐξ ἀµφοῖν ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν κύριον ἡµῶν Ἰ. τὸν Χρ. Τοὺς δὲ δύο υἱοὺς ἢ δύο ὑποστάσεις etc.; a condemnation of Nestorius follows. Here at all events the way is paved for the Chalcedonian formula but, characteristically enough, by a bishop who sought to take up a safe position relatively to both sides.

as objectionable. “Two natures after the union” was rightly felt to be Nestorian and above all to be an “innovation”. Eutyches, indeed, corrected the incautious statements he had made at an earlier time, divergent from the middle path of the formula of unity—my God is not of the same substance with us;378 He has no “body of a man” (σῶµα ἀνθρώπου), but only a “human body” (σῶµα ἀνθρώπινον). But this was of no avail. It was insisted that he taught a “blending” (σύγκρασις) and “confusion” (σύγχυσις), and after the most disgraceful proceedings the records of which were besides falsified, he was deposed “amid tears” on account of Valentinian and Apollinarian heresy. This was done by people who themselves professed to acknowledge Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius and its approval by the Synod of Ephesus, 201as well as the epistle of Cyril to John of Antioch. Both parties laboured to secure the favour of the Court, the capital, and the Roman bishop, and the Court sided with Eutyches. People’s views were still everywhere ruled by the condemnation of Nestorius and there was no inclination to change sides. Flavian, “the moderate Antiochian” played a dangerous game when he sought to increase the authority of his chair in face of the court and the ruling system of dogma. Leo I. who was applied to by Eutyches first, was for some weeks uncertain which course to take (Leon. epp. 20 sq.). He was disposed to regard the Constantinopolitan Patriarch as his born enemy; but he had soon to recognise the fact that his strongest enemy was to be looked for elsewhere. Dioscurus, who substantially agreed with Eutyches and who long ere this took an active part in different provincial Synods in the East as supreme bishop, had already annexed the question and moved the Emperor to summon a Council. The Pope’s policy was now marked out for him. He must not strike either upon the Constantinopolitan Scylla or upon the Alexandrian Charybdis, but on the contrary, as his predecessor Julius had done, he must attempt to bring the true faith and with it himself to the East. Dioscurus was determined to use

378

The statement when compared with Cyril’s doctrine can scarcely be regarded as open to suspicion. Eutyches recognised the existence of two natures previous to the incarnation, i.e., allowed that the distinction in thought was an ideal moment, but he could not admit the perfect homousia of the body of the Logos with our body after the incarnation, since that body was to be thought of as having been deified. Cyril had not indeed openly said that the actual body of the Logos was not ὁµοούσιος with our body, but still he could scarcely avoid that conclusion. Eutyches rejected as a calumny the charge brought against him of teaching that Christ brought his flesh from heaven, on the contrary indeed he was the first to declare in the course of the debate that the Holy Virgin is homousios with us and that from her our God became flesh. He wished in this way to escape making any direct admission.

every means to exploit the Council in his own interests. It was to establish the authority of the Alexandrian Patriarch and of the Alexandrian Christology in the Church of the East. He was prudent enough all the same to employ no new formula while attempting this. The Nicene Creed was alone to be regarded as authoritative, of course according to the interpretation put upon it by the anathemas of Cyril. Whoever went a word beyond this was to be considered an innovator, a heretic. This was his standpoint and he found a pliant Emperor and a minister who were favourably disposed toward him and who were prepared to hand over the Church to him in order to humiliate the occupant of the episcopal chair of the capital for the time being whom they hated, a policy which was treachery to the State.379 Dioscurus was equipped with full 202powers as master of the Synod. It was called together in accordance with his ideas, even a representative of the monastic order was present—a novelty at a Council—and Theodoret was excluded. Leo had meanwhile discovered that Eutyches was a heretic380 (ep. 27) and bethought himself of the Western Christological form of doctrine which his predecessors, Cœlestin and Sixtus, and he himself seem up to this time to have forgotten. The summoning of a Council caused him grave anxiety; Flavian, who had seriously displeased the Pope by his independent attitude, nevertheless suddenly became his dear friend who had been attacked, and along with the legates who attended the Council Leo sent numerous letters to all in the East concerned in the affair (epp. 28-38), to Flavian (28, 36, 38), to the Emperor (29, 37), to Pulcheria (30, 31), to the Constantinopolitan archimandrites (32), to the Council (33) and to Bishop Julian of Kos (34, 35). He repeatedly observes that a synodal decision was not at all necessary, and that the Council was superfluous.381 But what he was now above all concerned with was to furnish Flavian with dogmatic instructions and to draw the attention of the Council to the unique dignity of the Roman Chair ad7 379See the letter of the Empress Eudokia to Theod. II. (Leo. ep 57): ἐγράφη γὰρ ἐνταῦθα πᾶσαν φιλονεικείαν κεκινῆσθαι, ὥστε φλαυιανὸν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἐκ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων πραγµάτων ἐπαρθῆναι. 380 Leo’s admission is amusing reading (ep. 34 I): “Diu apud nos uncertum fuit, quid in ipso Eutyche catholicis displiceret.” Now Eutyches is the child of the devil who denies the reality of the body of Christ. Leo represents him in the bluntest fashion as the out and out doketist. 381 Ep. 36 ad Flav.: “Et quia clementissimus imperator pro ecclessiæ pace sollicitus synodum voluit congregari, quamvis evidenter appareat, rem, de qua agitur, nequaquam synodali indigere tractatu” etc.; ep. 37 ad Theod. II.: “præsertim cum tam evidens fidei causa sit, ut rationabilius ab indicenda synodo fuisset abstinendum” etc.

which had already decided the question. The latter of these two things he did in Epistle 33, which contains a daring attempt to misrepresent382 the conditions under which the Council had come 203together, while he accomplished the former by the dogmatic epistle he sent to Flavian. It contains a paraphrase of the Christological section of the work of Tertullian adv. Prax. (cf. Novatian de trinitate) in accordance with the views, and in part in the words, of Ambrose and Augustine, with special reference to Eutyches, and in combating the views of the latter it accordingly undeniably goes a step beyond what had hitherto been accepted in the West, though not any further than the situation for the moment demanded. This document, which was highly lauded in subsequent times and is to the present day, contains nothing new. What, however, is of importance in it is that the West, i.e., the Pope, has here kept in view the peculiar character of its Church. It is consequently an evidence of power, and the Christology set forth in it may at the same time have actually corresponded with the inclinations of the Pope. But on the other hand it ought not to be forgotten that the situation, as represented by Nestorianism already condemned and Eutychianism about to be rejected, appeared directly to call for the old Western formula “duæ substantiæ (naturæ) in una persona”, and that the Pope expressed himself more fully regarding it than tradition justified.383 The Pope

382

Leo writes here as if in this affair of Eutyches the Emperor had had recourse to him first as the successor of Peter, and as if he had at once unfolded the true doctrine of the Incarnation on the basis of the confession of Peter and thereby refuted Eutyches (“religiosa clementissimi principis fides sciens ad suam gloriam maxime pertinere, si intra ecclesiam catholicam nullius erroris germen exsurgeret, hanc reverentiam divinis detulit institutis, ut ad sanctæ dispositionis effectum auctoritatem apostolicæ sedis adhiberet, tamquam ab ipso Petro cuperet declarari, quid in eius confessione laudatum sit, quando dicente domino: quem me esse dicunt ho 564 mines filium hominis?” etc.). The Council is merely an opus superadditum, “ut pleniori iudicio omnis possit error aboleri.” Thus the condemnation of Eutyches is already decided upon and the Council has merely to repeat it. The Pope enjoins this. 383 The letter to which not till a later date, however, (see Mansi VI., p. 962 sq.) though by Leo himself, proofs were appended from Hilary, Augustine, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom and Cyril, begins with a reference to the Roman Creed which in the view of Leo decides the whole question in its opening words; for the three statements: “Credere in patrem omnipotentem, et in Christum Iesum filium eius unicum dominum nostrum, qui natus est de spiritu sancto et Maria virgine”, demolish “the devices of almost all heretics.” They involve the nativitas divina, and the nativitas te 564 mporalis which in no way injures the former. We should not have been able to overcome the author of sin and death if the deus ex deo had not assumed our nature. If Eutyches was unable to recognise that this was taught in the Creed, then certain passages (which the Pope now adduces)

ought to have convinced him—as if Eutyches had ever denied the truth of this thought! The idea of a non-human body of Christ cannot be proved from the miraculous birth; for the Holy Spirit merely gave the impulse; the reality of the body of Christ was got from the body of Maria semper virgo (c. 2). This is followed by the proposition in the style of Tertullian: “Salva igitur proprietate utriusque naturæ et substantiæ (both words should be noted) et in unam coeunte personam suscepta est a maiestate humilitas”, attached to which we have a series of expressions which are supported by statements in Damasus, Ambrose, Augustine, and partly also in Tertullian; thus, “natura inviolabilis unita est naturæ passibili”, “mediator dei et hominum homo Iesus Christus”, “mori potest ex uno, mori non potest ex altero⍊ac8 , “in integra veri hominis perfectaque natura verus natus est deus, totus in suis, totus in nostris”, “assumpsit formam servi sine sorde peccati, humana augens, divina non minuens”, “exinanitio inclinatio fuit miserationis, non defectio potestatis”, “tenet sine defectu proprietatem suam utraque natura, et sicut formam servi dei forma non adimit, ita formam dei servi forma non minuit” This was the way in which God met the cunning of the devil, in order that we should not be lost contra dei propositum (c. 3). Next follow the old Western paradoxes of the “invisibilis factus visibilis” etc. The fourth chapter contains the detailed development of the doctrine. The human nature in Christ was not absorbed by the divine; on the contrary “agit utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est verbo scilicet operante quod verbi est et carne exsequente quod carnis est.” The flesh never loses the “natura nostri generis”. In accordance with this the evangelic history is apportioned between the human and the divine nature of him “qui unus idemque est”. “Quamvis enim in domino T. Chr. dei et hominis (!) una persona sit, aliud tamen est, unde in utroque communis est contumelia, aliud unde communis est gloria”. “Propter hanc unitatem personæ”, as it is put in c. 5, “in utraque natura intelligendam et filius hominis legitur descendisse de cœlo” etc., that means as Leo now shews, that we can and must interchange the opera. “That the Son of God was crucified and buried, we all confess in the Creed.” Christ established this article of faith in the 40 days after the Resurrection, after Peter had already before this acknowledged the identity of the Son of God and the Son of Man. All ought accordingly to see that the “proprietas divinæ humanæque naturæ” “individua permanet” in Him, and consequently know that “Word” and “Flesh” are not the same, but that the one Son of God is aa2 Word and Flesh. Eutyches, who has by the most barefaced fictions emptied of its meaning the mystery to which alone we owe our redemption and separates the human nature from Jesus, incurs the sentence pronounced in 1 John IV. 2, 3. He must also necessarily deny the reality of the passion and death of Christ and thus subvert everything, the Spirit of sanctification, the water and the blood. In his concluding chapter Leo discusses the statement of Eutyches that before the union there were two natures and one after it and expresses his astonishment that “none of the judges censured such a foolish and perverse avowal and passed over such an absurd and blasphemous utterance as if they had heard nothing to which to take exception.” The first half of the statement is as impious as the second; this statement which had been passed over ought “si per inspirationem misericordiæ dei ad satisfactionem causa perducitur,” to be made a clean sweep of as a pestilential opinion. The Pope hopes that Eutyches will amend and in this case the greatest mercy will be shewn him. The statements in this twenty-eighth letter

were further supplemented in letter 35 addressed to Julian. Here (c. 1) Nestorius too is regarded as a heretic; as against Eutyches the view is made good that it is not only a question of the Creator being known, but also of the creature being redeemed. Here we meet with the statement “in susceptione hominis non unius substantiæ, sed unius eiusdemque personæ”, here the unity of the person is made intelligible (see Cyril) by pointing to unity of body and soul in man, and here finally the statement of Eutyches examined in the sixth chapter of letter 28 and which was not censured at Constantinople, is further dealt with. Leo understands it as meaning that the human nature of Christ had been already created before the Incarnation and accordingly classes it along with the statement of Origen regarding the pre-existence of the soul which had been already condemned. See also letter 59. A few remarks on the catchwords ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως will perhaps not be out of place here. (The words ἀδιαιρέτως and 58a ἀχωρίστως do not require any special genetic explanation.) They have sprung from two sources in the history of dogma. The first of these is to be found in Tertullian’s work adv. Prax. Tertullian c. 27 wrote in opposition to certain monarchian ideas, according to which the spiritus (= deus = pater = Christus) was either changed into the caro (= homo = filius = Jesus) or else was united and mingled with the caro so as to form a tertium quid and therefore a new being, and thus disappeared in the new being. The view thus developed became universally known through Novatian who adopted it in part, but particularly by means of Leo’s doctrinal letter. It runs: “Si enim sermo ex transfiguratione et demutatione substantiæ caro factus est, una iam erit substantia ex duabus, ex carne et spiritu, mixtura quædam, ut electrum ex auro et argento et incipit nec aurum esse, id est spiritus, neque argentum, id est caro, dum alterum altero mutatur et tertium quid efficitur.” Thus Jesus would be no longer either God or Man: ita ex utraque neutrum est; aliud longe tertium est quam utrumqu aa0 e. But both the passages in the Psalms (LXXXVII. 5) and the Apostle (Rom. I. 3) teach de utraque eius substantia. Videmus duplicem statum, non confusum sed coniunctum, in una persona, deum et hominem Iesum . . . Et adeo salva est utriusque proprietas substantiæ, ut et spiritus res suas egerit in illo, i.e., virtutes et opera et signa, et caro passiones suas functa sit, esuriens sub diabolo, sitiens sub Samaritide . . . denique et mortua est. Quodsi tertium quid esset, ex utroque confusum, ut electrum, non tam distincta documenta parerent utriusque substantiæ. Sed et spiritus carnalia et caro spiritalia egisset ex translatione aut neque carnalia neque spiritalia, sed tertiæ alicuius forma ex confusione . . . Sed quia substantiæ ambæ in statu suo quæque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operæ et exitus sui occurrerunt.” The second source is to be found in the Eastern and Western authors who wrote against Apollinaris; these maintained the ἀσυγχύτως and ἀτρέπτως, and this was quite the current view in the time of Cyril. Cyril, in a great number of passages asserts that according to his doctrine the two natures are joined together ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀναλλοιώτως, ἀµεταβλήτως, without there having been any kind of mingling (σύγχυσις, σύγκρασις, συνουσίωσις) (see adv. Nest. 1. 5, c. 4—ad Theodos. n. 6, 10—ep. 3 ad Nestor. Migne, Vol. 77, p. 109— adv. neg. deip. n. 2—epil. ad. I—adv. Theodoret. ad. 4, 5, 8, 10—adv. Orient, ad 1, 10, 11—ep. ad Maxim., Vol. 77, p. 152—ad Acac. Ber. 160—ad Joan. 180—ad Acac. Mel. 192—ad Eulog. 225—ad Valerian. 257—1 ad Succ. 232, 36—2 ad Succ. 237, 40—ad Euseb. 288—Explan. Symb. 304—Quod un. Christ. Vol. 75, p. 1361—Hom. XV., Vol.

77, p. 1092—in Luc., Vol. 72, p. 909—c. Julian. I., 10, Vol. 76, p. 1012—Hom. ad Alex., Vol. 77, pp. 1112, 1113—in ep. ad Hebr., Vol. 74, p. 1004—Resp. ad Tiberium ed. Pusey c. 6, 7, III., p. 587 sq. Cyril devoted a special work to this subject entitled 58c κατὰ συνουσιαστῶν which I regard as one of his last). Nevertheless he defended the word κρᾶσις as against Nestorius (adv. Nestor. c. 3) as an expression used by the fathers to bring out the closeness of the union of the two natures, and unhesitatingly employs certain forms of speech compounded of it or its synonyms. (Ehrhard op. cit., p. 44.) Further, both of these, the amplifications of Tertullian and those of the anti-Apollinarian Greek fathers, refer back to philosophical usage, but this usage explains at the same time why Cyril and others could indeed adopt the expression κρᾶσις but not σύγχυσις. The Stoics (see Zeller. Philos. d. Griechen III. 3, p. 127) drew a distinction between παράθεσις, µῖξις, κρᾶσις and σύγχυσις. “The παράθεσις is the σωµάτων συναφὴ κατὰ τὰς ἐπιφανε ac8 ίας, as in the case of the mixing of different kinds of grain”—they have the Nestorians in view—: µῖξις on the contrary is δύο ἢ καὶ πλειόνων σωµάτων ἀντιπαρέκτασις δἰ ὅλων, ὑποµενουσῶν τῶν συµφυῶν περί αὐτὰ ποιοτήτων, as in the case of the union of fire with iron and of the soul with the body; but speaking more accurately a mingling of this sort of dry bodies should be called µῖξις, and of fluid bodies κρᾶσις (the κρᾶσις δἰ ὅλων of the Stoics presupposes the permeability of the bodies and assumes that the smaller body when mingled with a larger body spreads itself over the entire extent of the latter and is thus to be found in every particle of it [ὡς µηδὲν µόριον ἐν ἀυτοῖς εἶναι µὴ µετέχον πάντων τῶν ἐν τῷ µίγµατι], but that both preserve their own peculiarities in the mingling; thus the “mixtio” does not exclude, but on the contrary includes the salva proprietas utriusque substantiæ). The σύγχυσος finally is δύο ἢ καὶ πλειόνων ποιοτήτων περὶ τὰ σώµατα µεταβολὴ εἰς ἑτέρας διαφερούσης τούτων ποιότητος γένεσιν, i.e., the old substances and their qualities cease to exist (φθείρεσθαι) and a third body comes into existence.” Tertullian, the Stoic, rested his ideas apparently on these philosophical theorems and first of all applied this materialistic view to the relation of the two substances in Christ (he and Novatian, who was also a Stoic, accept the µῖξις and reject the σύγχυσις; but along with this Tertullian has further a juristic set of conceptions (una persona, duæ substantiæ). In his tre 564 atise “Ammonius Sakkas and Plotinus” (Archiv. f. Gesch. d. Philos. VII. Vol. H. 3) Zeller, however, has called attention to the fact that Ammonius Sakkas (Plotinus) described the relation of body and soul in man in the sense of the Stoic κρᾶσις (µῖξις) (the soul entirely permeates the body and unites itself with it so as to form one substance, but nevertheless remains unchanged and retains its proprietas salva) and that Nemesius expressly says that this view of the matter, in support of which he appeals to Porphyry, is to be applied to the relation of the two natures in Christ. Now, however, not only the Eastern bishops but also Leo I. expressly appeal in support of their Christology to the relation between body and soul. There can therefore be no doubt but that this is to be traced back to the Neo-Platonic school which had adopted a Stoic terminology. Plotinus calls the soul not only ἀπαθής but also ἄτρεπτος (because in the union it undergoes no change); but, as Zeller observes, he never speaks of ἀσύγχυτος 564 . This word, however, once more occurs in Porphyry and is used to designate the union. Consequently so far as the Easterns are concerned the

204throughout

puts the interests of our salvation in the foreground; he wants exactly what Cyril and Eutyches also want, but he goes on to give an explanation which Cyril at any rate would have entirely repudiated, [Cyril said that the idea of redemption demands the deification of the human nature, Leo went on to shew that this same idea demands a true human nature which 205remains absolutely unchanged], and which, so far, goes beyond the use and wont doctrine of the West and actually approaches Nestorianism, inasmuch as the Pope uses by preference “nature” in place of substance and speaks of a peculiar mode of action on the part of each nature, and thus really hypostatises each nature. In Leo’s view the “Person” is no longer entirely the 206one subject with two “properties”, but the union of two hypostatic natures. In a word, the unity is neither made intelligible by Leo nor did he consider what was the supreme concern of the pious Greeks in this matter, namely, to see in the humanity of Christ the real deification of human nature generally. Nor is there any trace in the doctrinal letter of anything 207like an express repudiation of Nestorius, not to speak of the Antiochian Christology.384 The Council was opened at Ephesus in August 449. Dioscurus presided and assigned the second place to the representative 208of

ἀτρέπτως is to be referred to Plotinus and the ἀσυγχύτως to Porphyry (Zeller), while the West through Tertullian took the “non confusus” direct from the Stoa. 384 It may also be said that the speculations of Cyril and the Alexandrian theologians begin where Leo leaves off, and for this reason it is altogether astonishing to read in Thomasius (Dogmengesch., Vol. I., p. 365) that Leo in his epistle seeks to gather up both negatively and positively the results of the Christological movement so far as it had gone. Leo did not think of this. He contents himself with making the thought definite and confessing with full assurance that Christ was perfect God and perfect man, an 55c d points out that redemption demands the divinity and the humanity. But the question as to the relation into which the divinity and the humanity have come to each other, was one which really never gave him any concern when he thought of redemption. This, however, was the main question with Cyril, Eutyches and Dioscurus. It cannot accordingly be said that Leo and they are in direct contradiction. On the contrary, Cyril and his followers further developed the problem in concrete fashion in the name of the Faith, ex necessitate fidei so to speak, while with Leo it was in true Western fashion left in the indefinite form of conceptions. This is how the matter stands on a favourable view of Leo’s position; for as soon as we take his development of the doctrine in a concrete sense and transfer it into the region of the Eastern controversy it can be understood only as Nestorian. With Leo it is not at all a question of a union of the two natures. It may, however, help towards forming a fair and correct estimate of Leo’s position to note that he (mistakenly) saw in Eutychianism the recurrence of a danger which he had so energetically warded off in his struggle with Manichæism (see his sermon). He in fact opposes “Eutychianism” as if it were Manichæism.

the Roman bishop. There were one hundred and thirty-five members present. The bishops who had sat in judgment on Eutyches were not allowed to vote, since the Synod meant to proceed with a revision of that process. Dioscurus put the Pope’s letter to the Council amongst the Acts, but did not have it read out, and in fact treated Rome as non-existent. Not Rome but Alexandria was to speak. It was a bold stroke, but Dioscurus had got authority from the Emperor. As regards its proceedings the Council does not compare unfavourably with other Councils. What gave it its peculiar character was the fact that it was guided by a powerful and determined will, that of Dioscurus. The latter got the Council simply to resolve not to go beyond the conclusions come to at Nicæa and Ephesus. The affair of Eutyches was next taken up; he declared that he took his stand on the teaching of these Councils and repudiated Manes, Valentin, Apollinaris, and Nestorius. In the course of the debate it became evident that those present regarded the formula “after the Incarnation one nature”, as alone orthodox— with the addition: “made flesh and made man” (σεσαρκωµένην καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσασαν), and that they condemned the doctrine of two natures after the Incarnation. In this sense Eutyches was declared by all to be orthodox. Rome’s legates refrained from voting. Domnus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem also concurred, and even three of the bishops who had condemned Eutyches at Constantinople did the same. Dioscurus now proceeded to take aggressive steps. Each bishop was required to state in writing whether he considered that those should be punished who in the course of their theological investig 2058 ations had gone beyond the Nicene Creed. Dioscurus got the answer he wished, and even the Roman legate did not oppose the question when put in this form. On the basis of this resolution the Council pronounced sentence of deposition on Flavian and Eusebius of Doryläum, Domnus and Juvenal concurring. Both of the deposed bishops were present and soon after appealed to the Pope, whose legates, moreover, had at least shewn some hesitation at the Council, though after the first session they took no further share in the proceedings. In the second and third sessions Dioscurus got the detested Ibas 209deposed (to whom the saying was currently attributed “I do not envy Christ because He became God; for I too can become God if I wish”), the Sabinian bishop of Perrha and several others;385 also Theodoret,386 the pillar of the East, and

56c 385This has reference to the proceedings of the year 448 (Irenæus of Tyre) into which I cannot enter. The Syrian Acts first threw light on them as well as on the Councils of Tyre and Berytus. 386 See Martin, op. cit. p. 186 sq.

finally even Domnus of Antioch.387 The fact that he had for so long sided with Dioscurus availed him nothing. He had latterly drawn back, was unwilling to take part in the ecclesiastico-political revision of the Canons of Nicæa and Constantinople which Dioscurus was contemplating, and was generally in his road. Never before at any Council had a Patriarch scored such a victory, The atmosphere was cleared; the triumph of the old Confession of Nicæa and Ephesus (431) which alone was recognised by the pious Greeks as embodying their faith, had been secured; the Christology of Cyril, the one incarnate nature of the God-Logos, had been acknowledged as the true one; those who opposed it had partly been deposed and partly had submitted; arrangements had already been made for securing suitable successors to those who had been deposed, and an Alexandrian priest, Anatolius, was appointed to Constantinople. The Church of the East lay at the feet of the Alexandrian Patriarch and he had attained everything with the concurrence of the Emperor.388 He had doubtless made use of force; but it was the State in fact which stood behind him; the police and the monks of Barsumas had, to be sure, over-awed the Fathers; but far worse than the terrors of this Council were the calumnies 210spread regarding it on the part of those who two years later had to extenuate their dastardly treachery. If we consider who were present at the Council we must conclude that Dioscurus, to whom even Theodoret on one occasion (ep. 60) bore favourable testimony, cannot have found it necessary to employ any very great amount of actual force. That Flavian was trampled on and left half dead is anything but certain, and a Council which more than any other gave expression to the tradition of the religious feeling of the time and to what it considered of vital importance, does not deserve the name “Robber-Council” (Leo, ep. 95). Regarded from the standpoint of the Church of the East something of importance had actually been attained, and what had been thus attained had the guarantee of permanence so long as foreign elements did not come in to disturb it. 387

See Martin, p. 196 sq. The charges brought against him by Egyptians at the third sitting of the Council of Chalcedon (Mansi VI. p. 1006-1035) even after making all due allowance for the calumnies in them, afford interesting proofs of how he disregarded the imperial authority in Egypt and how he weakened the authority of the State there and also of the extent to which he was master of Egypt and now threatened to become master of the State. Tillemont XV. p. 589, very justly says: “Dioscore règne partout.” See, above all, p. 1032: ∆ιόσκορος πάντα ἀκαθοσιώτως πράττων, νοµίζων τε ἀνωτέρω πάντων εἶναι, οὔτε τοὺς θείους τύπους οὔτε τὰς µεγίστας ἀποφάσεις συνεχώρησεν ἐκβιβασθῆναι, ἑαυτοῦ τὴν χώραν µᾶλλον ἤ τῶν κρατούντων εἶναι λέγων. 388 ac8

But Dioscurus had not reckoned on the death of the Emperor which was near at hand, nor with the Roman bishop, nor finally on the widespread aversion felt towards the right wing of his army which was Apollinarian in disguise. He had rehabilitated Eutyches without, however, getting the questionable statements to which the latter had formerly given utterance, proscribed, though the allegation that he endorsed them is a falsehood asserted by his embittered opponents at Chalcedon. This was a blunder in policy which was calculated to bring on a reaction introduced from the outside, and the reaction taking its start from this, might in the state in which matters then were, overthrow the great work which had been accomplished without in appearance abandoning the position gained in the year 431. At first Dioscurus was still master of the situation. While all those who felt themselves injured by him betook themselves to Leo as the only refuge,389 and while the latter hastened to reject the resolutions of the Council, Dioscurus pronounced sentence of excommunication upon Leo,390 prepared 211now to measure his strength with the last remaining opponent too, whom he had treated at Ephesus as a nonentity. Leo was in an extremely difficult position, as letters 43-72 prove. If the decree of Ephesus were to become permanent it was all over with his orthodoxy as well as with the primacy of his chair. He assembled a Council and at the same time got all the members of the imperial family of the Western Empire, when they came to Rome, to write letters to Theodosius against the “episcopus Alexandrinus sibi omnia vindicans” (45, 2), against the Council in support of his just claim to be considered supreme judge in matters of faith,391 and in

389

See Theodoret’s letters 113 and ff. Theodoret speaks in terms of high praise of Leo’s ep. dogmatica, and as a matter of fact he had no reason for suspecting it in any way. In letter 121 he expressly says that Leo’s letter agrees with τοῖς παρ᾽ ἡµῶν καὶ συγγραφεῖσι καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἐκκλησίας κηρυχθεῖσιν ἀεί. 390 See the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon in Mansi VI., p. 1009; the matter is, however, not quite certain. It is even probable that Dioscurus did not excommunicate Leo till shortly before the Council of Chalcedon. 391 Valentinian III. writes to Theod. II. (ep. Leon. 55): “The Faith must get into confusion, ἣν ἡµεῖς ἀπὸ τῶν προγόνύ 55e ν παραδοθεῖσαν ὀφείλοµεν µετὰ τῆς προσηκούσης καθοσιώσεως ἐκδικεῖν καὶ τῆς ἰδίας εὐλαβείας τὴν ἀξίαν τῷ µακαρίῳ ἀπστόλῳ Πέτρῳ ἄτρωτον καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἡµετέροις χρόνοις διαφυλάττειν, ἵνα ὁ µακαριώτατος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς Ῥωµαίων πόλεως, ᾧ τὴν ἱερωσύνην κατὰ πάντων ἡ ἀρχαιότης παρέσχε, χώραν καὶ εὐπορίαν ἔχειν περί τε πίστεως καὶ ἱερέων κρίνειν. Flavian was right in appealing to him. It is a curious spectacle! Both Emperors are entirely in the hands of their Patriarchs, the one in the hands of Dioscurus, and the other as here in the hands of Leo. Never yet had the State been so much under priestly

favour of calling a new Council to meet in Italy. He saw himself under the necessity of repeatedly assuring the Emperor of the East that he also held firmly to the Nicene Faith; he took care not to mention what it was exactly that he found fault with in the dogmatic decrees of Ephesus; he simply insisted on the condemnation of Eutyches as a Manichean and a Doketist, and was slow about recognising the new bishop of Constantinople, the creature of Dioscurus. He yielded nothing as the successor of Peter, but neither did he gain anything. Theodosius stood firm, maintained that the Council had merely defended antiquity against the innovations of Flavian, and coldly replied to the letters of his imperial relations in the West, declining to take any action. A less politic Pope than he was, would have brought on a breach backed up as he would have been by the whole West and by the Emperor of the West, but Leo waited and did not wait in vain. 212

Theodosius II.392 died on the 28th of July, 450, and the situation was at once altered. Pulcheria who mounted the throne and offered her hand to Marcian, had always deplored her brother’s miserable misrule, and his proteges were her enemies. She specially guided the ecclesiastic 666c al policy of the Government, while Marcian fought its enemies outside. The Court resolved to free itself and the State from the Alexandrian despot. This could not be done without the help of Rome, for—and this is a fact of the highest importance—the Council of 449 had really pacified the Church of the East. Of course there were some who were discontented, but they were in the minority. The Court could not in carrying out its new policy reckon on the support of any united and reliable party. It was only in Constantinople that it was able to make way quickly, for there Flavian was not yet forgotten. The Church of the East had enjoyed peace since August. In order that the State might get back its independence, this Church which had been pacified, had to be disturbed anew and reduced to the most lamentable condition. Marcian, whose recognition as Emperor Dioscurus had sought to prevent in Egypt, at once addressed a letter to Leo. He formally handed over to the latter the primacy with which his predecessor had actually invested Dioscurus, and announced besides his

authority. The Emperors who were powerless to do anything themselves played the one primate against the other. 392 abd He had, however, begun to shew a certain amount of hesitation during the last months, as is evident from the recall of Pulcheria and the banishment of his minister Chrysaphius. See Krüger, op. cit. p. 56.

readiness to summon the Council desired by Leo.393 Soon after an epistle reached Leo from Pulcheria which announced the change of view on the part of the bishop of Constantinople. He had subscribed Leo’s dogmatic letter, that sent to Flavian, and had condemned the erroneous doctrine of Eutyches; the Emperor had also ordered the recall of the bishops who had been deposed by the Council, and their reinstatement 213in office was reserved for the Council over which, if possible, Leo was to preside in person and which was to be held in the East. As a matter of fact in the capital itself, after a local Synod had been called, everything was already going as the Emperor, or rather, as the Empress, desired. The wretched toady, the patriarch, the creature and the betrayer of Dioscurus, was prepared to do everything the Court wished. In view of the completely changed circumstances Leo had no longer any wish for a Council, because a Council might always mean action which was dangerous for the Pope. He now took up the position that his letter was sufficient, that the bishops were individually to bind themselves to accept the doctrine set forth in it, and that by their return to orthodoxy and the erasure of the names of Dioscurus, Juvenal, etc., from the Diptychs, the RobberCouncil would be rendered powerless for harm. He wished on his own initiative and apart from any Council, but with the assistance of his legates, to act the part of judge and to receive to favour or punish as impenitent each individual bishop; the bishop of Constantinople was to act with him in the matter as his mandatory. He therewith made an actual beginning with the business and it was now fairly on its way. And as a matter of fact Leo may have been naïve enough to imagine that the solution of the dogmatic difficulty of the East was contained in his sorry letter, for it seems never to have occurred to the Pope that there could be any other Christologies besides the “correct” one, Doketism, and the doctrine of Paul of Samosata. He had no appreciation of the subtle, though no doubt partly incorrect formulæ of the Greek theologians; but he was sure of his ground, and it was with this feeling that the letters 82-86 were composed, in which the Pope sought at all costs to prevent the calling of a Council as being unnecessary and

393

Marcian ep. in Leon. epp. 73: “Pro reverenda et catholica religione fidei Christianorum tuam sanctitatem principatum in episcopatu divinæ fidei possidentem sacris litteris in principio justum credimus alloquendam . . . omni impio errore sublato per celebrandam synodum te auctore maxime pax circa omnes episcopos fidei catholicæ fiat!” It was in these terms that Marcian wrote to Leo! But he had in view merely an Eastern Council; see the second letter (ep. 76).

inopportune.394 But Marcian required the Council for himself and for the Eastern Church, in which, since the change of rulers, no one knew what he should believe, and in which, for the time, many bishoprics were held by two bishops or had no bishop at all. The Emperor had no desire 214to surrender to the Pope while claiming his help. He issued an edict ordaining the Council to meet at Nicæa in September 451, and Leo had to acquiesce, though with a very bad grace (ep. 89). He arranged to send four legates and deputed to one of them, Bishop Paschasinus, the duty of presiding in his stead; for Marcian had designated Leo himself as leader of the future Council, and so what Dioscurus had got for himself in 449 after a struggle, the Pope now secured without taking any trouble.395 Still Leo was extremely uneasy. His numerous letters (89-95) prove that he was afraid of “innovations contrary to the Nicene Creed”, i.e., divergences from his doctrinal letter. He accordingly kept constantly counselling mildness and forgiveness; whoever would only condemn Eutyches and recognise the Nicene Creed was to be regarded as orthodox. The controversy regarding the Faith was in no case to be renewed, everything was clear and finally decided. In his letter to the Council (93) he expressly guarded his position by hinting that besides the condemnation of Eutyches, that of Nestorius also in the year 431, must remain in force. This request was rather an act of self-justification than a demand; for there were very few in the East who were disposed to rehabilitate Nestorius, but then there was no actual repudiation of the “heretic” in the epistola dogmatica. But all this did not in fine constitute the Pope’s greatest anxiety. What he dreaded above all was the restoration of the power of the bishop whom his predecessors in alliance with the Alexandrians had humbled, the bishop of Constantinople, behind whom was Constantius’ idea of the State. Now, however, he was at enmity with the old ally and had in fact humiliated him to the dust,396 but with the downfall of the enemy the support he had given disappeared too. The Pope’s anxiety comes out in the precise instructions given to the legates:397 “You may not permit the constitution set up by 215the

394

The Westerns could not come, he writes, because of the distress occasioned by the

Huns.

395

Still the presidency was only an honorary presidency; even Hefele admits that “the official conducting of the business” was looked after by the Imperial Commissioners. As a matter of fact the Romish Legates were merely the first to record their vote. 396 One of the instructions given by Leo to his legates is to the effect that Dioscurus ought not to have a seat in the Council, but should only be heard as a defendant; Mansi VI , p. 580 sq. 563 397 Mansi VII., p. 443.

holy Fathers (the sixth Canon of Nicæa according to the Roman forgery) to be violated or diminished by any rash action. . . . and if perchance some trusting to the dignity of their cities shall have attempted to appropriate anything for themselves, this you may check with befitting firmness.” (“Sanctorum patrum constitutionem prolatam nulla patiamini temeritate violari vel imminui . . . ac si qui forte civitatum suarum splendore confisi aliquid sibi tentaverint usurpare, hoc qua dignum est constantia retundatis”). In order to ensure the Emperor’s personal presence which the Roman legates insisted upon, the Council was at the last moment transferred to Chalcedon in the neighbourhood of the capital, and was opened on the eighth of October, 451. As regards the number of those who took part in it—between 500 and 600 and perhaps over 600—no earlier Council can compare with this one, which was “politically and ecclesiastically one of the most important of all”,398399 a memorial of the restoration of the authority of the State accomplished by Pulcheria and Marcian, but for this very reason a memorial of the enslavement of the spirit of the Eastern Church which here, in connection with the most important doctrinal question, surrendered to the Western supreme bishop allied with the Emperor. We have no right at all to say that possibly the “authorised moment of truth” of the Antiochian Christology triumphed at Chalcedon over the dogmatic ideas of the Alexandrians and the monks, for the representatives of this Christology had long ere this succumbed to the power of the Alexandrian Confession. The unspeakably pitiful behaviour too of the Patriarchs of Antioch and of the largest section of the bishops who were theologians in sympathy with them,—the Antiochian middle-party which dates from 433— proves that the members of this school conscious of their miserable powerlessness, had of their own free will long ere this renounced all attempts to influence the Church. The disgrace attaching to this Council consists in 216the fact that the great majority of the bishops who held the same views as Cyril and Dioscurus finally allowed a formula to be forced upon them which was that of strangers, of the Emperor and the Pope, and which did not correspond to their belief. Judging by the Acts of the Council we can be in no doubt as

398

Ranke, Weltgesch. IV. 1, p. 324. Luther, who is, speaking generally, not favourably disposed towards the Chalcedonian Council, says of it (von Conciliis and Kirchen, Erl. Ed., Vol., 25, p. 351): “The Fourth Council of Chalcedon had 630 members, almost as many as all the others, and yet they were quite unequal to the Fathers at Nicæa and Constantinople.” 399

regards the following points:400 (1) that the views of the great majority of the Fathers assembled at Chalcedon agreed neither with those of Leo nor with those of Flavian who represented the Antiochian middle-party, that on the contrary they, and above all the Illyrian, Palestinian, and Egyptian bishops, wished for nothing else beyond the ratification of the Creeds of Nicæa and Ephesus as understood by Cyril;401 (2) that for this reason the formula, “out of two natures Christ is,” with the addition either expressed or understood, that after the Incarnation the God-Logos had only one nature which had become flesh, alone answered to the faith of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Anatolius and of the majority of the bishops; (3) that far from Theodoret and his friends possessing the sympathy of the majority of the members of the Council, they had to endure the worst forms of abuse, being called “Jews”, while Theodoret succeeded in saving his orthodoxy only by allowing his opponents to extort from him the condemnation of Nestorius;402 (4) 217that the Imperial Commissioners directed all the proceedings and were resolved from the first to get the deposition of Dioscurus carried through at the Council, although they gave the Council the

ada 400

From the Récits de Dioscore (Krüger op. cit. 12 ff. 61-68) we gather—what was hitherto not known—that Dioscurus was to be won over in a friendly way by the Court after he had arrived at Constantinople from Alexandria. accompanied by fewer bishops than he had intended to have with him, in consequence of an intrigue. We now know that he was conducted to a meeting of ecclesiastical notables and that there he also met the Emperor and Pulcheria. Every effort was made to get him to agree to the ep. Leonis; but he remained firm and it is said that by his glowing words against the two natures he for the time being again won over the bishops (Anatolius, Juvenal, Maximus of Antioch and others) as well as the Senate to his doctrine. This is very probable. The story given in Krüger, p. 62, shews by what a spirit of rebellion against the State and Emperor he and his followers were animated. It follows from the Acts that during the first session of the Council of Chalcedon he was still a power. 401 Those too who held Antiochian views were undoubtedly no small number, namely, bishops from Syria, Asia, Pontus, and Thrace; they could accept Leo’s letter: but (1) they were in the minority. (2) Partly by their repudiation of Nestorius and partly by what they did at Ephesus in 449 they had made the sacrifcium intellectus fidei and were thus spiritually demoralised. Others might without trouble have gained all they wanted so far as they were concerned. 402 The threatening and abusive language (“Whoever divides Christ ought to be divided himself; dismember them, cast them out, etc.”) used at Chalcedon was not any milder than that used at Ephesus in 449. Theodoret condemned Nestorius at the eighth sitting, Mansi VII., p. 185 sq. From the time of Leo I., moreover, the orthodox and those whose views were more of the type of the school of Antioch, applied the worst term of abuse, “Jew”, to the Eutychians (Monophysites) because they ac8 ostensibly denied the Incarnation.

show of freedom; (5) that the Imperial Commissioners had been at the same time instructed to press for the establishment of a new doctrinal formula on the basis of Leo’s letter in order to bring to an end the intolerable state of things which had prevailed in the Church of the East owing to the annulling of the resolution of 449; (6) that the Roman legates were at one with the Commissioners in their determination to get the Council to decree the deposition of Dioscurus and the setting up of a dogmatic confession, but that they differed from them so far in that they wished Dioscurus to be described as a heretic, in other words, as a rebel against the Pope, and at the same time exerted themselves simply towards getting Leo’s ep. dogmatica accepted in the Church; (7) that Dioscurus had to submit to a judicial process of an extremely disgraceful and unjust kind, that he acquitted himself worthily, and firmly maintained his position as the successor of Athanasius, and that in the end he was in no sense deposed on the ground of heresy, nor on account of murder, but on the ground of certain irregularities, including contempt for the divine canon, and disobedience to the Council,403 while his deceased opponent Flavian 218was on the other hand rehabilitated;404 (8) that the bishops who had met together with him at Ephesus at first attempted to make out that the vote they gave there had been extorted by force, but that afterwards when they found they could not prove this they described themselves in the most dishonourable way as erring men who had gone wrong and begged forgiveness, although as a matter of fact they did not deny their faith at Ephesus in the year 449, but now at Chalcedon;405 (9) that, considering the views of the faith prevailing

403

Dioscurus protested that he did not assume that there was any mixing of the natures; and nobody was able to prove the opposite against him; see Mansi VI., p. 676: ∆ιόσκορος εἶπεν· οὔτε σύγχυσιν λέγοµεν οὔτε τοµὴν οὔτε τροπήν. ἀνάθεµα τῷ λέγοντι σύγχυσιν ἢ τροπὴν ἢ ἄνάκρασιν. On the other hand he was not refuted when he (p. 683) asserted: “Flavian was justly condemned because he still maintained two natures after the union. I can prove from Athanasius, Gregory, and Cyril that after the union we ought rather to speak only of one incarnate nature of the Logos. I will be rejected together with the Fathers, but I am defending the doctrine of the Fathers, and yield on no point.” He approved of the expression “out of two natures”; one can readily understand how as early as the second session he no longer wished to appear at the Council. 404 In connection with this affair Juvenal and the Palestinian bishops changed their opinion in the most disgraceful fashion. 405 Some of them had agreed with Flavian in 448, with Dioscurus in 449, and now they agreed with the Council! Even the Imperial Commissioners blamed the bishops for the contradiction in which they entangled themselves when they gave out that their vote of the year 449 had been purely extorted from them; see Mansi VI., p. 637 fin. It has to be noted, moreover, that throughout the proceedings it was much more—in fact it was

at the time, the great majority of the bishops were able to comply with a new rule of faith even though it might be expressed in the usual terms, only by doing violence to their consciences, and that they finally deceived themselves by drawing the delusive distinction that it was not a question of an exposition (ἔκθεσις) but of an interpretation (ἑρµηνεία); (10) that spite of all the pressure put on them by the Roman legates and the commissioners, the majority under the guidance of Anatolius while expressly emphasing the fact that Dioscurus was not deposed on account of heresy—Anatolius had always in his heart agreed with the views of Dioscurus—further attempted to set up a doctrinal formula in which the distinction between the two natures was made one in thought only, and which made it possible to speak of one nature after the Incarnation,406 and that three statements particularly, in the third and fourth chapters of Leo’s letter to Flavian, (see above) appeared to the bishops 219to be intolerably Nestorian;407 (11) that the bishops abandoned their proposed formula only after the most violent threats on the part of the Emperor, among which too was a threat to transfer the Council to Italy, and that they outwardly reconciled themselves to the statements of Leo with which they had found fault by deluding themselves with the false idea that Cyril said very much what Leo said and that both were in agreement; (12) that the new doctrinal formula408 would nevertheless not have been carried through if it had not finally been established under severe pressure at a secret commission, and that this formula is so far lacking in veracity in that it is intended to contain the genuine doctrine of Cyril and recognises the resolution of the Cyrillian Council of 431, while it gives it the go-bye in so far as it sets aside the unity and union of the natures.

almost exclusively—a question of persons, of their standing, or of the right or wrong of their condemnation, and therefore as to Nestorius, Cyril, Flavian, Eutyches, Theodoret, Dioscurus, Leo, than a qu ac8 estion of the actual matter in hand. In the first place everyone took care not to touch the real point or to have anything to do with constructing formula., and in the second place the personal question was with most of them the main thing. 406 See the proceedings in Mansi VII., p. 97 sq. 407 The expression so frequently used by the Westerns, God has assumed “a man”, was also found fault with, but not officially. 408 The formula was probably already drawn up when the Chalcedonian Council began; that commission cannot have got it ready in the short time it had; it even appears to follow from what is said in the Récits de Dioscore that it had already been laid before the Court previous to the meeting of the Council.

The imperial-papal formula was proclaimed and adopted at the fifth sitting.409 It first of all confirms the decision of Nicæa a, Constantinople, and Ephesus, it then explains that the Creed which had been handed down is sufficient in itself, but that on account of the teachers of false doctrine who on the one hand reject the designation θεοτόκος and on the other wish to introduce the idea of a confusion (σύγχυσις) and mixing (κρᾶσις) of the natures, “and absurdly fabricate only one nature for the flesh and the Godhead,”410 and consider the divine nature of the only-begotten to be capable of suffering, the Council has adopted both the letters of Cyril to Nestorius411 and the Easterns, as 220well as the letter of Leo. It is therefore directed both against those who break up the mystery of the Incarnation into two sons, and also against those who consider the Godhead of the only-begotten to be capable of suffering, who imagine a mingling and a fusion and declare the human substance of Christ to be a heavenly substance: “those who on the one hand assert two natures in the Lord before the union and those on the other hand who imagine one after the union, be anathema.” (καὶ τοὺς δύο µὲν πρὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως φύσεις τοῦ κυρίου µυθεύοντας, µίαν δὲ µετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ἀναπλάττοντας, ἀναθεµατίζει). (This was the sacrifice of the thought of Faith.) “Following therefore the holy Fathers, we all agree in teaching plainly that it is necessary to confess one and the same Son our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect alike in His divinity and perfect in his humanity, alike truly God and truly man,” (Ἑποµενοι τοίνον τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁµολογεῖν υἱὸν τὸν κύριον ἡµῶν Ἰ. Χρ. συµφώνως ἅπαντες ἐκδιδάσκοµεν, τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν θεότητι καὶ τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπὸτητι, Θεὸν ἀληθῶς καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς τὸν αὐτόν). This is further developed in detail, then we have: “We acknowledge one and the same Christ in two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; nowhere is the difference of the natures annulled because of the union, but on the contrary the property of each of the two natures is preserved; each nature coming together into one person and one hypostasis, not divided or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God-Logos.” (ἕνα καί τὸν αὐτὸν 409

See Mansi VII., p. 107 sq. Rarely had any one to my knowledge expressed himself in this way after Apollinaris (µίαν εἶναι τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῆς θεότητος φύσιν), but the Bishops had first to distort the faith which they themselves had avowed and which they now nevertheless rejected, in order to turn it into a heresy. The “Eranistes 564 of Theodoret, however, attacks those who “make the divinity and humanity into one nature.” 411 The Anathemas of Cyril are also implicitly to be understood as included in these; see Loofs, op. cit. p. 50 f. 410

Χριστὸν . . . ἐν δύο φύσεσιν412 ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωρίζοµεν· οὐδαµοῦ τῆς τῶν φύσεων διαφορᾶς ἀνῃρηµένης διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, σωζοµένης δὲ µᾶλλον τῆς ἰδιότητος ἑκατέρας φύσεως. καὶ εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ µίαν ὑπόστασιν συντρεχούσης, οὐκ εἰς δύο πρόσωπα µεριζόµενον ἢ διαιρούµενον, ἀλλὰ ἕνα 221καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν καὶ µονογενῆ, Θεὸν λόγου). The decree appeals in support of these statements to the Old Testament, to Jesus Christ Himself, and—to the Nicene Creed; at the close it is said that no one is to accept or teach any other creed, that on the contrary only this form of belief is to be handed down in connection with the instruction of Jews, heathen, and heretics. The Emperor had now got what he wished. He had shewn that he ruled the Church, and he had got a formula according to which he was able henceforth to decide what was orthodox and what was heretical.413 An end was put to the uncertain state of things which permitted everyone to appeal to the 318 bishops and in doing this to think whatever he liked. In the full consciousness of his triumph Marcian appeared in person along with Pulcheria at the sitting

412

It is here that the difficulty occurs which has been so much discussed, namely, that the Greek text gives ἐκ δύο φύσεων and the Latin “in duabus naturis”. Judging from all that preceded this, one cannot but hold that Tillemont, Walch, Gieseler, Neander, Hefele and others are right (as against Baur and Dörner) and look for the original reading in the latter phrase. The form in which we have the Greek text is of course not a mere error, but is an ancient falsification. In the per 564 iod from the fifth to the seventh century the falsification of acts was an important weapon for the defence of what was sacred. 413 This prospect was indeed a delusive one; for since the Council had expressly appealed both to Cyril and to Leo, its decree could be interpreted according to the views either of the one or of the other, and consequently the old trouble was really there again. The three decrees of February 7th, March 13th, and July 28th, 452, (Mansi VII., pp. 476, 477, 501) are a proof of the energy and vigour with which the Emperor purposed to enforce the Chalcedonian Creed. According to the first of these all controversy was to cease, nobody was to dispute publicly regarding the faith. Whoever does this is looking in broad daylight for a false light, commits an act of sacrilege, insults the holy Council and betrays the secret to the Jews and the heathen. He must accordingly expect severe punishment, which has been already fixed and which will he of different degrees for the separate classes of the community. Acco 564 rding to the third edict Eutychians and Apollinarians are forbidden to have pastors; those who contravene this order are to be punished with confiscation of their goods and exile. The right of assemblage, the right of building churches, and of being together in monasteries, is withdrawn from them. Their property is to go to the Exchequer. So too they are deprived of the power of inheriting anything and of bequeathing anything. Eutychian monks are to be treated as Manicheans, are to be driven from their “stalls” and removed from the soil of the Empire. Eutychian writings are to be burned, etc. Eutyches and Dioscurus themselves must go into exile.

immediately following (6), and addressed the Council, making express reference to Constantine. He was greeted with acclamations from the whole Council: “We all so believe; we are all orthodox; this Faith has saved the world; hail to Marcian, the new Constantine, the new Paul, the new David! You are the peace of the world; Pulcheria is the new Helena!” But the Pope too had got what he wanted, if not everything. His letter had not been 222given straight off the place of a doctrinal ordinance, but the Conciliar-decree had proceeded from this letter; his dogmatic teaching was acknowledged, and in his address to the Council Marcian had given expression to this fact. The truth is that without the help of the Papal legates Marcian could not have effected anything. But the Church of the East had been deprived of its faith.414 The ἕνωσις φυσική, the natural union, was not mentioned; no one could any longer unhesitatingly teach that the God-Logos had taken up the human nature into the unity of his unique substance and made it the perfect organ of His deity. The construction of a Christology based on the God-Logos was severely shaken; the “two hypostases” (δύο ὑποστάσεις) were not expressly condemned. In the “coming together” (συντρέχειν) each nature continues to exist in its own mode of being; the divinity has not absorbed the humanity nor has the humanity been exalted to the height of the divinity, but the human and divine natures are simply united in the person of the Redeemer, and therefore only mediately and in an individual (individuum). No pious Greek who had had Athanasius and Cyril for his teachers could acknowledge that to be “the right mean”; it was not even a formula of compromise like that of the year 433; it was the abandonment of the work of developing the Christological formula strictly in accordance with soteriology. The latter itself now became uncertain. If humanity was not deified in Christ, but if in His case His humanity was merely united with the divinity by the prosopon or person, then wh 2b20 at effect can a union such as that have for us? That formula can only be of advantage either to the detested “moralism” of the Antiochians, or to mysticism, which bases its hope of redemption on the idea that the God-Logos continually unites Himself anew with each individual soul so as to form a union. The four bald negative terms (ἀσυγχύτως etc.,) which are supposed to express the whole truth, are in the view of the classical

414

In respect of its relation to the orthodox faith and of the fact that it owed its origin to the Emperor, the Chalcedonian Creed may be compared with the decrees of the last Councils of Constantius. It is true that orthodoxy afterwards found it easier to reconcile itself to the two natures than to the “likeness”. Still perhaps it might have come to terms with the latter als a8f o.

theologians amongst the Greeks, profoundly 223irreligious. They are wanting in warm, concrete substance; of the bridge which his faith is to the believer, the bridge from earth to heaven, they make a line which is finer than the hair upon which the adherents of Islam one day hope to enter Paradise. One may indeed say that the Chalcedonian Creed preserved for the East the minimum of historical conception which the Church still possessed regarding the person of Christ, by cutting short the logical results of the doctrine of redemption, which threatened completely to destroy the Christ of the Gospels. But the Fathers who accepted the Creed did not think of that. They in fact accepted it under compulsion, and if they had thought of this, the price which they paid would have been too dear; for a theology which, in what is for it the most important of all questions, has recourse to mere negatives, is selfcondemned. Nor is it of any use to point to the fact that the Council merely gave the mystery a definite standing and thereby furthered the interests of the Greek Church and the Greek theology. The true mystery on the contrary was contained in the substantial union of the two natures themselves. It was seriously damaged by being banished from its place here, and when in place of it the conception of the union, a conception which was supposed at the same time to involve a state of separation, was raised to the position of the secret of faith. The real mystery was thus shoved aside by a pseudo-mystery which in truth no longer permitted theology to advance to the thought of the actual and perfect union. Monophysitism which holds to the statement that, without prejudice to the homoousia of the body of Christ with our body, the God-Logos made this body His own body and for this reason took it up into the unity of His substance, is without doubt the legitimate heir of the theology of Athanasius and the fitting expression of Greek Christianity.415 The proposition, however, which was 224now to pass for orthodox, “each nature in communion with the other does what is proper to it,” (agit utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est) actually makes two subjects out of one and betokens a lapse from the ancient faith. That the view we have here expressed is correct is attested by the previous history of the formula of the two natures

415

We can only adduce one consideration here, namely, that it was essential to this Christianity which had the New Testament beside it, that it should never, just because of this, develop in a logical way as a mystical doctrine of redemption. Understood in this sense no objection can be taken to the statement that the logical development of the monophysite faith even in its least extravagant form, was bound to come into conflict with certain elements of the ecclesiastical tradition, or with certain New Testament passages which could not be given up.

and the one person. Up to this time scarcely anything had been known in the East of a “nature without hypostasis” (φύσις ἀνυπόστατος), although the Antiochians had distinguished between φύσις and πρόσωπον. It is attested further by the melancholy proceedings at the Council itself, and, as will be shewn, it is attested above all by the history which follows. A formula was now introduced which could ultimately be traced to a legal source and which for that reason could be transformed into a philosophical-theological formula only by a scholastic. At Chalcedon only a part of the deputation of monks who had approached the Council with the prayer that the ancient faith might not suffer harm, and also the majority of the Egyptian monks, remained firm.416 We cannot say, however, whether the action of the latter was an instance of the courage of faith. Their request that the Council should not compel them to accept the formula since in this case they would be killed after their return to Egypt, their despairing cry, “We shall be killed, if we subscribe Leo’s epistle; we would rather be put to death here by you than there; have pity on us: we would rather die at the hands of the Emperor and at your hands than at home,” proves that they were still more afraid of Coptic fanaticism than of the Emperor’s police. They were allowed to postpone their subscription till a new bishop should be appointed to Alexandria, since they had explained that without a new bishop they could do nothing. They were not, however, to stir from Constantinople till then. The Council was to be a Council of peace after the downfall of Dioscurus. All were pardoned, even Ibas himself, and on the other hand, the traitorous associates of Dioscurus at whose head stood Juvenal of Jerusalem. All were restored to their bishoprics so far as that was at all feasible. A series of Canons 225was then issued dealing with the regulation of ecclesiastical matters. The seventeenth Canon asserted in a blunt fashion what was a fundamental Byzantine principle: “let the arrangement also of the ecclesiastical districts follow that of the civil and state places.” (τοῖς πολιτικοῖς καὶ δηµοσίοις τόποις καὶ τῶν ἐκκκλησιαστικῶν παροικιῶν ἡ τάξις ἀκολουθείτω). The twenty-eighth, under cover of an appeal to the third Canon417 of 381, struck a blow at Rome by ordaining that the patriarch of Constantinople was to enjoy similar privileges to those possessed by the bishop of Rome, was to be

416

See the proceedings of the fourth sitting. The Romans before this had no official knowledge whatever of this Canon, and in praxi it had not been entirely enforced, even in the East itself, as the Robber-Synod shews. 417

second to him in rank, and was to get an enormous extension of his diocese—namely, over Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. The proceedings in connection with this matter do not belong to the history of dogma, although Leo combated the resolution with dogmatic arguments drawn from tradition. The Roman legates, we may note, entered their protest. The Emperor once more created for himself a patriarch primi ordinis, after that the patriarch of Alexandria had had to be overthrown, and it was the bishop of his own capital whom he put alongside of the Roman bishop. The Council had to ask the Pope to confirm the twenty-eighth Canon by way of return, as it was openly put, for the acknowledgment of his dogmatic letter in the East.418 But the Pope remained firm; his letters 104-107 prove that he had no intention of surrendering the grand success he had secured just in the East. A primacy of the East in Constantinople was the greatest possible danger, and for this reason Leo at once again took up the cause of the chairs of Alexandria and Antioch. In fact he now even shewed some hesitation in giving his approval of the resolutions of the great Councils generally, so that the Monophysites came to be 226under the pleasing delusion that he was inclined to side with them. (!)419 He soon entirely broke with Anatolius and entered into negotiations with the new bishop of Alexandria (ep. 129) and with the bishop of Antioch (ep. 119) whose position in their patriarchates he sought to strengthen, and whom he begged to send him more frequently information regarding their affairs that he might be able to render them assistance. Soon, however, the Constantinopolitan bishop Anatolius found himself in such a difficult position owing to the new dogmatic controversies, that he preferred to shelve the Canon complained of and once more to seek the friendship of Leo which he did indeed secure. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

§ 3. The Monophysite Controversies and the Fifth Council.420 418

Leo, ep. 98. The letter is full of flattery of the Pope; see c. I. It follows too from the formally very submissive epistle of Anatolius to Leo (ep. 100) that an attempt had been made to induce Leo by flattery to acknowledge the 28th Canon. We gather from Marcian’s epistle to Leo (ep. 100) that the Emperor considered that Canon as the most important ordinance of the Council together with the doctrinal decision. For details see Kattenbusch, op. cit. I., p. 87 ff., where the Canons 9 and 17 are discussed. b01 419See ep. 110; the approval followed in ep. 114, with certain reservations because of Canon 28; see ep. 115-117. 420 The enormous and varied documentary material is given only in part in Mansi VIIIX. The Pope’s letters are in Thiel, 1867. Much new in Mai’s Script. Vet. Nova Coll.; Joh. of Ephesus (Monophysite) hist. eccl., German translation by Schönfelder, 1862,

I. The severest condemnation of the Chalcedonian Creed as decree wrung from the Eastern Churches, is to be found in the history of the next 68 years. These years are not only marked by the most frightful revolts on the part of the populace and the monks, particularly in Egypt, Palestine, and a part of Syria, but also by the attempts of the Emperors to get rid of the decree which had been issued with a definite end in view, and which was a source of difficulty and threatened the security 227of the Empire.421 They were all the more under the necessity of making these attempts, that in the East energetic theologians who could defend the Chalcedonian Creed were entirely lacking. At this period it maintained its position only by means of the great importance given to it by the imposing Council, by the majority of the clergy in the capital, and by the Roman bishop. These were strong forces; but the strength of the opposition to it, which was supported by the increasing aversion to the Byzantine Emperor and his Patriarch, by

something different in Land, Anecd. Syr. Information regarding further sources in Möller, Monophysiten (R.-Encykl. X.) and Loofs, Leontius, 1887, (Texte u. Unters. III. 1, 2). Accounts by Tillemont, Gibbon, Walch, Schröckh, Hefele, Dorner, Baur, cf. the articles on the subject by Möller, Gass, and Hauck in the R.-Encykl.: in the same place the special literature in connection with the Theopaschitian, Tritheistic, and Origenist controversies and that of the Three Chapters. The special investigations, however, which had been carried on up till the beginning of the 18th century have rarely been resumed in recent times, but see Gieseler, Comment., qua Monophys. opin. illustr., 2 parts, 1835, 1838; Krüger, Monophys. Streitigkeiten, 1884 and Loofs, op. cit.; Kleyn, Bijdrage tot de Kerkgeschiedenis van het Oosten gedurende de zesde Eeuw, 1891 (from the chronicle of Dionysius of Tellmahre, who made extracts from the Church History of John of Ephesus. Kleyn gives the portions referring to the 6th century; they are identical with the second and third parts of John’s Church History. Kleyn has published for the first time the sections for the years 481-561 [in Dutch]; they are of great importance for the history of Monophysitism, its spread, and the persecution it underwent). 421 Leo I., Martian’s successor, had already made a beginning with this, though he proceeded cautiously; see Leon. papæ ep. 145-158, 160-165, 169-173. One can see here what trouble it cost the Pope to maintain the Chalcedonian C 55f reed. The opposition parties made the strongest efforts to prove that the Chalcedonian Creed was Nestorian. Of the memorial of Timotheus Aelurus (Heruler? hardly) the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria, Gennadius says (de vir. inl. 73): “librum valde suasorium, quem pravo sensu patrum testimoniis in tantum roborare conatus est, ut ad decipiendum imperatorem et suam hæresim constituendam pæne Leonem, urbis Romæ pontificem, et Chalcedonensem synodum ac totos occidentales episcopos illorum adminiculo Nestorianos ostenderet.” The fact that the Emperor Leo called for an expression of opinion regarding the Chalcedonian Creed, was a step towards getting rid of it.

n 6108 ational aspirations and personal antipathies.422 was also great. In addition to this the pious-minded felt as much aggrieved by the fact that a new formula had been introduced at all as by what was in the formula itself.423 The Encyclical letter (ἐγκύκλιον) of the usurper 228Basilikus (476) which abrogated the Chalcedonian Creed and decided in favour of Monophysitism, had certainly only a passing importance.424 But state-policy was successful in uniting a section of the Chalcedonians and Monophysites by means of a Henoticon (482), which, when issued as an imperial edict by Zeno, virtually annulled the decree of 451.425 The result was that soon instead of two parties there were

422

Monasticism which was hostile to the State, the aspirations after independence on the part of the Egyptians, and jealousy of the influence of the Byzantine Patriarch, all played a part behind Monophysitism. This feeling of jealousy was shared by the Roman bishop who, however, felt himself under the necessity primarily of guarding the dogmatic formula. acd 423 See the opinion of a Pamphylian Council supplied to the Emperor, printed in Mansi VII. p. 573-576. We can see from this that not only was the new definition which went beyond the Nicene Creed felt to be objectionable by the bishops, but that they disapprove too of the distinction of nature and person, prefer to speak with Cyril of one nature and wish to make the Chalcedonian Creed authoritative only in connection with controversies as being a formula which originated in and was rendered necessary by controversy, but not for the instruction of ordinary Christians. The Armenian Church has kept to this position; it is not Monophysite, but Cyrillian; see Arsak Ter Mikelian, Die Armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zur Byzantischen vom. 4-13 Jahrh., Leipzig 1892, cf. Karapet, Die Paulikianer, (Leipzig 1893) p. 54 ff. 424 Basilikus had the ep. Leon. ad Flav. and the Chalcedonian Creed condemned. About 5oo bishops of the South and West actually subscribed it, but not Acacius; see Euagr. h. e. III. 4. The decree takes its stand upon the Nicene Creed and the two following Councils, but orders the Chalcedonian canons to be burned. Basilikus afterwards withdrew it (Euagr. III. 7), see also the epp. Simplicii papæ. 425 The Henotikon (Euagr. III. 14) declares in the first part that the sole authoritative creed is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan, and excludes all the other σύµβολα or µαθήµατα; it then expressly condemns Nestorius and Eutyches while accepting the anathemas of Cyril. Then, however, there further follows a full Christological Confession in which the following statements are specially worthy of note: ὁµολογοῦµεν τὸν µονογενῆ τοῦ Θεοῦ υἱὸν . . . ἕνα τυγχάνειν κ aac ὶ οὐ δύο· ἑνὸς γὰρ εἶναι φαµὲν τὰ τε θαύµατα καὶ τὰ πάθη ἅπερ ἑκουσίως ὑπέµεινε σαρκί . . . ἡ σάρκωσις ἐκ τῆς θεοτόκου προσθήκην υἱοῦ οὐ πεποίηκε. µεµένηκε γὰρ τριὰς ἡ τριὰς καὶ σαρκωθέντος τοῦ ἑνός τῆς τριάδος Θεοῦ λόγου . . . πάντα δὲ τὸν ἕτερόν τι φρονήσαντα ἢ φρονοῠντα, ἢ νῦν ἢ πώποτε ἢ ἐν Καλχηδόνι ἢ οἵᾳ δήποτε συωόδῳ ἀναθήµατίζοµεν. An appeal on behalf of union is then made to the Egyptians to whom the epistle is addressed. Its dogmatic substance is not orthodox; the insincere way, however, in which the Council of

three; for not only did the strict Monophysites renounce their allegiance to the Alexandrian patriarch Peter Mongus who had concluded a union with his Constantinopolitan colleague Acacius, but the Roman bishop too, Felix II., (see the epp.) rejected the Henoticon and pronounced sentence of excommunication on Acacius. Old and New Rome, which were already separated by political circumstances, now came to be divided ecclesiastically, and this schism lasted from 484 to 519. Since the Henoticon soon shewed itself to be ineffective, it would have been brought to an end sooner if Rome had not insisted on the condemnation of Acacius by his successors. The Monophysites soon came forward again openly rejecting the Chalcedonian Creed, and those in the Eastern Empire who adhered to it, and also the Henotics, had at first difficulty in preventing the new Emperor Anastasius from formally doing 229away with the unfortunate decree.426 The confusion was now greater than it had ever been. People who used one and the same Christological formula were often further apart and more bitter against one another than were those who were separated by. the wording of the formulæ. If the Emperor had not been a capable ruler, things in the Empire would have got out of joint. He was meanwhile always approaching nearer to Monophysitism with which he was personally in sympathy, and on the side of which stood not only the more fanatical, but also the more capable theologians, such as Philoxenus of Mabug, and Severus. In Syria and Palestine the Monophysite cause already triumphed amid terrors of all sorts; but the capital, Constantinople, and Thrace, with the true instinct of self-preservation held to the Chalcedonian Creed against the Emperor, the patron of heretics, and Vitalian,427 a fierce general, a semi-barbarian, and rebel who was yet the forerunner of Justinian who taught him politics, made common cause with the Chalcedonians against his monarch. The Emperor had to submit to the powerful general; but it was not possible, even by making all sorts of concessions in regard to the dogmatic question, to get Rome, which put forward exorbitant claims, to agree to a policy of oblivion in reference to Acacius. Anastasius did not come to any agreement with the Pope Hormisdas. But what he did not succeed in doing was successfully

Chalcedon is not condemned, but ignored, shews that there was a desire to tolerate Monophysitism. The Emperor. indeed cannot be blamed for issuing the edict; in doing this he simply did his duty. But Petrus Mongus played a double game, and so too did Acacius. 426 See Rose, Kaiser Anastasius I., Halle, 1882. 427 On the importance of the part played by Vitalian, see Loofs, p. 243 ff., and in addition Joh. Antioch. in Müller, Fragm. hist. gr. V., p. 32 sq.

accomplished by his successor Justin, or rather by the nephew and director of the new Emperor Justin, Justinian, in conjunction with Vitalian. They saw that for the re-establishment of the authority of the Emperor and the state in the Empire, the re-establishment of the Chalcedonian Creed and of the league with Rome, was indispensable. After that the authority of the four Councils had been once more solemnly recognised in Constantinople, everywhere throughout the Empire the orthodox raised their heads. Hormisdas did not himself appear in the capital; but his legates succeeded in getting almost everything he had asked. Again did the Roman bishop, like Leo before him, help the Byzantine State to gain 230the victory over the ecclesiastical movements. Orthodoxy was again restored and the names of the authors and defenders of the Henotikon, from Acacius and Zeno downwards were erased from the sacred books (519). The purification of Syria and its chair from the monophysite heresy meanwhile created some difficulty. The attempt to get the more determined Monophysites out of the way was, it is true, successful, but as soon it became a question as to who were to be their successors, it at once became evident again that the Chalcedonian Creed was understood in a different way in Rome and in the East respectively, and that the East had not got rid of the suspicion of Nestorianism so far as Rome was concerned. This difference emerged in a very characteristic fortn in the socalled Theopaschitian controversy.428 The formulæ, “God has suffered”, “God was crucified”, were time-honoured forms429 of speech in the Church and had never been quite forgotten. But after there had been so much speculation regarding the Trinity and the Incarnation, these formula came to be discussed too. Still, even after the formation of the Chalcedonian Creed, it seemed to be impossible to disapprove of them; for if Mary was to be called θεοτόκος this meant that they were approved of. Nevertheless opposition soon shewed itself when the Monophysite patriarch of Antioch, Petrus Fullo, with the approval of his co-religionists, formulated the Trishagion as follows: Holy God, Holy the mighty one, Holy the immortal one who was crucified for us: ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι᾽ ἡµᾶς. The Emperor approved of this innovation which, however, at once met with opposition in Antioch itself, and which cost one of those who had to do with it his life. In the capital a controversy broke out when some Scythian monks, whose soundness in the faith was unimpeachable, defended the orthodoxy of the formula, “one of the Trinity was crucified—suffered in the flesh” (“unum de trinitate, 428 429

See Hauck in the Realencyklop. Vol. XV. p. 534 ff. See Vol. I., p. 187.

esse crucifixum—passum carne”), about the year 518. The legates of Pope Hormisdas, bearing in mind Leo’s doctrinal letter, opposed it as being incompatible with the Catholic Faith! The Pope himself 231was now concerned in the matter. A decision was necessarily urgently desired—on the part of the Emperor too; for the relations had become so strained that any sudden movement might throw the whole Church into confusion. Hormisdas hesitated about giving an answer; he neither wished to disavow his legates nor too openly to reject the formulæ. The decision which he finally gave in a letter to the Emperor Justin (521), was to the effect that everything was already decided, without, however, saying what was to be regarded as authoritative. This declaration which shewed his perplexity roused just indignation not only in Constantinople but also in North Africa. Justinian, who at first did not approve of the formula,—so long, that is, as he still followed in the wake of Vitalian,— afterwards held to it all the more strongly, the more he urged the strictly Cyrillian interpretation of the Chalcedonian Creed. When he had the power he got the Popes too to acknowledge it, had the faithful but impolitic partisans of Rome, the Akoimetan monks in Constantinople, excommunicated, and finally got the formula sanctioned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, that our Lord who was crucified in the flesh, Jesus Christ, was one of the Trinity.430 It is apparently necessary to make a sharp distinction between the attempt of the Monophysites to give an extension to the Trishagion in a Theopaschitian sense, and the assertion of the Scythian monks that the doctrinal formula: “One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh”, was orthodox. That attempt was rejected because it involved an innovation in worship and because it could be interpreted in a Sabellian sense. Orthodoxy putting this meaning on it, gave the name “Theopaschitian” a permanent place in its collection as a heretical name. On the other hand it was, to begin with, purely owing to Roman obstinacy that the formula proposed by the Scythians, and which, moreover, rather justifies than adopts the monophysite formula, was objected to. But it has been recently very justly remarked431 that the cause of the offence which the formula gave, 232even to some of the Chalcedonians, is not to be looked for within the Christological, but on the contrary within the Trinitarian, domain. This brings us to a complete change which

430

See on the controversy Marcellinus, Euagr. Theophanes, Victor Tun., The Letters of Hormisdas, Mansi VIII. c. IX. Noris, Hist. Pelag. Disser. I. 1702. On the Scythian Monks, see Loofs, pp. 229-261. 431 See Loofs, op. cit., pp. 53, 231 f., 248 ff., whose splendid investigations have been made use of is what follows.

took place in the theology of that period and which claims the most serious attention. Attention has been already drawn to the fact, (Vol. III., p. 154 and above p. 126) that in the course of the transition from the fifth to the sixth century Aristotelianism once more became the fashion in science. This revolution helped to bring about the naturalisation of the Chalcedonian Creed in the Church, or what amounts to the same thing, contributed towards reconciling Greek religious feeling to it. While up to the beginning of the sixth century orthodoxy was without any theologians, we come across a man in the first half of the century who both as theologian and student of dogma was as able as he was prolific, and in the case of whom one feels that while he believes and thinks as Cyril believed and thought, his determined defence of the Chalcedonian Creed was nevertheless not in any way forced out of him—Leontius of Byzantium (c. 485-543).432 When, however, we try to find out by what means he, as a theologian of the school of Cyril, succeeded in accommodating himself to the Chalcedonian Creed, it becomes clear that he was helped to this by the Aristotelian conceptual distinctions, and therefore by scholasticism. Leontius was the first scholastic.433 While, owing to his faith, he stood in an intimate relation to Greek religious feeling, the Chalcedonian formula presented itself to him as an inviolable doctrine promulgated by the Church. But 233while he unweariedly defended it against Nestorians, Apollinarians, and Severians, dogmatic and religious considerations were put entirely into the background; their place was taken by an exposition of doctrine based on philosophical conceptions.434 He treated of substance, genus, species, individual being, of the attributes which constitute the substance, of

432

Loofs was the first to throw light on his works, his personality, and his history. This description is to be taken with the qualification that in his theological thinking he still shewed a certain freedom. While the proofs alleged by Loofs in favour of the view that the “Origenist” Leontius is identical with the Byzantine (pp. 274-297) are indeed not absolutely decisive, though to my mind they are convincing, one can see that Leontius held the great master in veneration without following him in his doubtful statements. But nothing is more characteristic of the period upon which the Church had now entered than the fact that even this academic veneration for Origen was no longer tolerated. Leontius was described as “Origenist” and Loofs’ conjecture is quite correct (p. 296) that Joh. Damascenes, that in a certain sense the Eastern Church itself, consigned this theologian of theirs to oblivion because he was still too liberal. 434 See Loofs, p. 60: “It is neither exegetical, nor religious arguments which are given a foremost place, but philosophical, and the philosophical theory upon which the arguments of our author rest, has a decidedly Aristotelian and not a Platonic origin. Our author is a forerunner of John of Damascus.” 433

inseparable accidents and of separable accidents.435 It was on the result of these discussions that the conceptions of the natures and the hypostasis in Christ were based; the Aristotelian δευτέρα οὐσία, or second substance, was given a place of prominence, and thus the Chalcedonian Creed was justified. All the Aristotelian splitting of conceptions did not, it is true, cover the most crucial point of all—namely, the exposition of the unity. Here, however, Leontius had recourse to the idea of the Enhypostasis of the human nature; thus proving in the clearest way that he wished to keep the Chalcedonian definition on the lines laid down by Apollinaris and Cyril and not on those laid down in Leo’s doctrinal letter.436 In the whole way in which Leontius 234transferred the NestorianMonophysite controversy into the region of Philosophy, we may accordingly see a momentous revolution. This much, however, is certain, that his violent µετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος was the condition of the gradual reconciliation of the East with the Chalcedonian Creed437 and that in intrinsic importance it may be classed along with the method of counting up authorities. Only in this way was it possible for Leontius to accept the formula as authoritative, and,

435

See the explanations given by Loofs of the apparatus of conceptions used by Leontius, p. 60-74. The entire distinction between the Western conception and that which combines the views of Cyril and Leontius is to be found in scientific form in the statement of Leontius: οὐκ ἔστι φύσις ἀνυπόστατος . . . ἀνυπόστατος µὲν οὖ φύσις, τουτέστιν οὐσία, οὐκ ἂν εἴη ποτέ. The Western legal fiction of a distinction between person and nature is here pitched aside. I do not enter into further detail regarding the theology of 564 Leontius because in an outline of the History of Dogma it must suffice to ascertain its tendency and methods. Anything further belongs to the history of theology. 436 The expedient of the enhypostasis was adopted in order to meet the objection urged by the Monophysite Severus against the Chalcedonian Creed and Leo’s doctrine, that two energies necessarily lead to two hypostases. Leontius, following up a hint of Cyril herewith shews that if the relative standards of criticism are once abandoned, all Greeks who start from the doctrine of redemption, must be Apollinarians in disguise. Leontius was the first who definitely maintained that the human nature of Christ is not ἀνυπόστατις nor on the other hand an independent ὑπόστασις, but that it has its ὑποστῆναι ἐν τῷ λόγῳ. Leontius refers to the mode of the existence of the ποιότητες οὐσιώδεις in the ousia. The comparison is naturally defective since these ποιότητες do not in themselves constitute a ab3 φύσις. In fact all comparisons are defective. Neither Plato nor Aristotle is responsible for this philosophy. A pious Apollinarian monk would probably have been able to say with regard to the ὑποστῆναι ἐν τῷ λόγῳ: “Apollinaris says pretty much the same thing only in somewhat more intelligible words.” 437 Loofs, p. 72 ff. shews that the Chalcedonian element is strongly represented in the doctrine of Leontius and that in the efforts he made to do it justice we see the presence of the modern element of personality as distinguished from physic, though indeed only as a kind of shadow of it.

spite of the dry form in which it was put, to regard it with respect from the religious point of view and at the same time to see in it an inexhaustible subject for the display of dialectical skill. It is undeniable that Chalcedonian orthodoxy was first firmly established in the East in the age of Justinian, that is to say, inner agreement with the Chalcedonian Creed was then first secured to any large extent, and this without abandoning Cyril’s religious theology, but on the contrary while emphasising it and giving it the preference.438 If this is so then the only possible explanation of these facts is that supplied by the entrance of Aristotelian scholasticism into the Church. The Chalcedonian dogma is lost in philosophical theology. The Faith and the Church were to a certain extent relieved, feeling reassured by the knowledge that the dogma was in safe keeping and in good hands, as it were. One can forget the scruples to which it gives rise, when one is confident that there are scholars who are able by the aid of a definite set of technical terms to make everything right. Here, too, for this reason, the work of the historian of dogma ceases; his place is taken by the historian of theology. 235

Leontius was himself one of the Scythian monks.439 The fact that this great opponent of the Monophysites championed the Theopaschitian formula and his criticism of the Antiochian theology, prove how far removed he was from Nestorianism. But the formula by its characteristic difference from the older conception, that of Petrus Fullo, further proves that the introduction of the Aristotelian philosophy into theology called for a restatement of the docttine of the Trinity. The “unus ex trinitate” is opposed to the “thrice holy” who was crucified for us. Tritheistic tendencies were not wanting at that period, and this is true of both sides in so far as attention was given to the Aristotelian philosophy. That Petrus Fullo, who as a Monophysite so energetically made the Trinity into a unity, was, it is true, no Aristotelian, but neither is his formula in any way typical of Monophysitism as a whole.

438

The energetic opposition to the Antiochian theology is specially worthy of note in this connection. lip to the beginning of the Sixth Century the Chalcedonians were in such a state of alarm owing to the decree, that they could find no. fixed point from which to carry on the old and to them supremely important struggle against the “dismemberment”. Leontius was the first to resume Cyril’s attack on it and to carry on the interrupted work of repelling the most dangerous of all enemies. 439 See Loofs, p. 228 ff.

The latter on the contrary for the two or three generations after the Chalcedonian Creed, shews that it had in it sufficient life and vigour to be accessible to the influence of the most varied movements and thoughts. It shews during this period that it was the expression of spiritual and theological life in the East generally. The state of petrifaction, barrenness, and barbarism into which it afterwards got, did not yet actually exist, although signs of its approach were evident amongst the fanatical masses and the ignorant monks. It is significant, to begin with, that Monophysitism did not allow itself to be carried to extremes by the blow dealt it by the Chalcedonian Creed. That is a proof of the goodness of its cause and of its power. The Monophysites were strongly bent on keeping clear of “Eutychianism”. Anything like mingling or transformation was out of the question, in fact Eutyches himself was abandoned to his fate.440 Then the readiness shewn by a large section of the Monophysites to come to terms with orthodoxy if only the Chalcedonian Creed and the objectionable dogmatic development in Leo’s doctrinal letter were got out of the way, is a proof that they really strictly maintained the position of Cyril. This is true very specially of the most important champion of 236Monophysitism—Severus. The attempt has indeed been to draw a distinction, as regards doctrine, between Cyril and Severus, but the attempt does not seem to me to have been successful.441 Cyril, equally with Severus, would have objected to Leo’s assertion that each nature in Christ effects what is peculiar to it, though in conjunction with the other. The emphasis laid by Severus on the one energy is genuinely Cyrillian, and the expression borrowed from the Areopagite, ἐνέργεια θεανδρική, “theandric energy”, by no means approaches so near the limits of the permissible as the expression θεοτόκος. But neither is there any difference in the formulæ, µία φύσις τοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένη, “one incarnate nature of the Logos” and µία φύσις τοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένου, “one nature of the incarnate Logos”; for Cyril too,

440

See Martin, Pseudo-Synode, p. 53. See Loofs, p. 53 ff. The sources of information regarding the Christology of Severus are given there, p. 54. I refrain from giving any account of it (see Gieseler, op. cit. I., Dorner II., p. 166 ff.), since its identity with Cyril’s doctrine seems to me to follow from the evidence brought forward by Loofs. It is interesting to note that Severus deduces from the Chalcedonian Creed the hypothesis of two natural energies and two wills, and further employs this deduction against his opponents as an argumentatio ad absurdum. No one in the East knew just at that time what was still to come in the succeeding century. The statement of Severus: οὐκ ἐνεργεῖ ποτὲ φύσις οὐχ ὑφεστῶσα, from which he concludes that in Leo’s view there are two hypostases, is highly noteworthy and is quite in accordance with Cyril’s ideas. Gieseler, op. cit. I., p. 9. 441 579

logically attributed one nature not only to the God-Logos but also to the Christ. The communication of properties according to him, involves in every respect the natures. But there is not even any trace of a theological difference between Severus and Leontius.442 The difference consists purely in the extent to which each was desirous of accommodating his views to the Chalcedonian Creed and interpreting Leo’s doctrinal letter in bonam partem, and also in the philosophico-theological terminology 237employed. The statements of Severus regarding the one composite nature, the µεταστοιχείωσις443 or transformation etc., express absolutely nothing else than what is found in the formulæ of Leontius which are in part expressed in an entirely different and in fact in an opposite way. Leontius accepts the enhypostasis of the human nature in Christ, and Severus strictly defends himself against the supposition that he teaches that the human nature in any way loses its natural peculiarity in the union. It is simply that unfortunate Chalcedonian Creed which stands between the opponents, and what separates them therefore is the question as to whether the Western terminology is to be followed or not. That this is the case is proved by the attitude taken up by Severus to the Extreme Right of his party. The Henoticon had already split up the Egyptian Monophysites. One section of them had renounced connection with Petrus Mongus (ἀκέφαλοι). But in Syria, too, at the beginning of the Fifth Century we find several tendencies amongst them. The blow dealt them after the restoration of orthodoxy in 519 drove them to Egypt, and there actual splits took place. Even the strictest party amongst them did not put forth the catchword “transformation”; but in seriously reflecting on the problem as to how a human nature must be constituted after a God had made it His own, they arrived at propositions which were perfectly logical and which for this very reason referred back to Irenæus, Clemens Alex., Origen, Gregory Nyss., Hilary, Apollinaris, and to some utterances of Dioscurus and Eutyches. Their leader, Julian of Halica 2058 rnassus who was opposed by the Severians, developed the doctrine of the one nature into the doctrine of the identity of the

442

See the 30 κεφάλαια of Leontius κατὰ Σευήρου ac8 (Migne 86, 2, p. 1901 sq.). See the notice in Loofs, p. 79 ff. It is highly amusing to notice how two authors whose ideas are exactly the same appear to have absolutely distinct views owing to the different terminology, “one nature”, “two natures”. In Thesis XI. where the Trinity and Christology are treated together in a scientific way, Leontius says: “If, according to Gregory, we have in the case of the Holy Trinity the reverse of what we have in the οἰκονοµία κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα, then in the case of the latter we must have two natures and one hypostasis, just as in that of the former we have three hypostases and one nature.” 443 See Gieseler, op. cit. II. p. 3.

substance and properties of the divinity and the humanity in Christ. The hypothesis of the indestructibleness of the body of Christ from the moment of the assumptio, became the shibloleth of the “Julianists” or Gaians, who, now nicknamed Aphthartodoketæ and Phantasiasts by the Severians, retorted with the word “Phthartolatry”. The Julianists, whose point of view was determined solely by the thought of redemption, did not shrink from maintaining the perfect glorification of the body of Christ from the very first, and in accordance with this saw 238in the emotions and sufferings of Christ not the natural—though in reference to the Godhead the voluntary—states consequent on the human nature, but the acceptance of states κατὰ χάριν, which were regarded as having no inner connection with the nature of the Redeemer as that of the God-man. This nature being entirely free from all sin was also supposed to have nothing in common with suffering and death.444 In opposition to this view the Severians laid

444

The extremely instructive second treatise of Gieseler supplies us with abundant material. Gieseler has brought out two things at the same time (1) that these Julianists (see the sixth anathema of Julius, p. 6) started from the idea of redemption, according to which the Logos assumed our flesh (ὁµοούσιος), but that as it (second Adam) was not subject to sin so neither was it subject to corruptio, and that in the moment of the assumptio He raised it to the state of the Divine. A homousia of the body of Christ with our body after the Incarnation would do away with all the comfort and the certainty of redemption. For the Logos assumed our nature just in order that He might free it from φθορά; if therefore the human nature of Christ had been still subject to φθορά then redemption would be rendered uncertain. Gieseler has shewn (2) that this idea is identical with the idea of the classic fathers of the Church, that while they undoubtedly shewed some hesitation as regards the conclusions to be drawn from it, still all the conclusions drawn by the Julianists, or by Philoxenus, are represented in one or other of the classical witnesses. Above all the Julianist and Philoxenian statement that in the case of Christ all passiones were not assumed naturally, but in the strictest sense voluntarily, κατ᾽ οἰκονοµίαν or ac8 ὰ χάριν, (Gieseler, p. 7) is merely the vigorous echo of the oldest religious conviction. It was the sharper distinction between the divinity and the humanity in the incarnate one, worked out in the Arian controversy, that first endangered this conviction. Apollinaris sought to give some help here, but it was no longer of any avail. Gieseler very rightly calls attention to the fact that in the Apollinarian school the dispute between the Polemians and Valentinians corresponds exactly to the dispute between the Julianists and Severians, i.e., in the case of the former the same conclusions had been already drawn and had in turn been denied, which the Monophysites afterwards drew. Of these some went the length of assuming the divinity of Christ's blood and spittle (see besides, Athanasius, ad Serap. IV. 14; “Christ spat as a man, and His spittle was filled with the Godhead”), and, strictly speaking, the Church itself never could nor would dispense with this ancient idea spite of its doctrine of the two natures. The very same people who got excited about Aphthartodoketism had never any scruples in speaking

so much stress on the relation of the sufferings of Christ to the human side of Christ's nature 239in order to rid them of anything doketic, that no Western could have more effectively attacked doketism than they did.445 We find in general amongst the Severians such a determined rejection of all doctrinal extravagances—though these are not to be regarded as absurdities, but as signs of the settled nature of the belief in redemption—that we are glad to be able clearly to see how unnecessary it was in the East to adopt the Chalcedonian Creed, and to replace the µία φύσις of Cyril by the doubtful doctrine of the two natures. One section of the Monophysites nevertheless went the length of asserting that the human soul of Christ was not omniscient (“Agnoetæ”), so that as regards the one energy of the God-Man, a distinction is to be drawn even in the sphere of knowledge between what it did as possessed of divine knowledge and what it did as humanly ignorant. This idea yields to none of the Monophysite eccentricities in absurdity,446 and indeed it differs from them for the worse by the fact of its having no religious thought as its basis. While one section of the Monophysites thus did the work of criticising their own party better than any Chalcedonian could have done without incurring the reproach of Nestorian-ism, a philosophy of identity made its appearance amongst certain individuals in the party itself, which might have raised the fear that it would turn into Pantheism, if there had been any danger of its doing this at the time. On the mystical side, this had indeed been accomplished long ago, but this was very far from involving an intellectual mode of conceiving of things. Still it is of importance to note that an approach was made

about the blood of God, and in thinking of that blood as actually divine. We cannot therefore avoid seeing in Aphthartodoketism the logical development of the Greek doctrine of salvation, and we are all the more forced so to regard it that Julian expressly and ex necessitate fidei acknowledged the homousia of the body of Christ with our body at the moment when the Logos assumed it, and rejected everything of the nature of a heavenly body so far as its origin was concerned. 445 The passages are in Gieseler I. p. 20. The distinctions which were made are highly significant in view of the period of scholasticism which was approaching. There are two sorts of φθορά; Christ was subject to the natural πάθη of the body, but not to the φθορά as ἡ εἰς τὰ ἐξ ὧν συνετέθη τὸ σῶµα στοιχεῖα διάλυσις. (Gieseler, p. 4). 446 Thomasius indeed finds it “remarkable” (p. 375) that the majori ac8 ty of the orthodox teachers of the Church, Jerome, Ambrose, the Patriarch Eulogius, the Roman Gregory, rejected the doctrine of the Agnoetæ and attributed to Christ an absolute knowledge which he concealed temporarily only κατ᾽ ὀικονοµίαν. These Fathers had not yet succeeded in doing what the Agnoetæ and the modern theologians can manage and do—namely, to imagine a Christ who at the one and the same time knew as God what he did not know as man and was yet all the while one person.

in this direction from two sides. First there were Monophysites who took up with the thought that the body of Christ from 240the moment of the assumptio was to be considered as untreated, the view of the Aktistetæ. If the Father can communicate to the Son the attribute of unbegottenness, and at that time no one any longer doubted that he could, why should the Logos not also be able to give His body the attributes of the uncreated; and in fact if it is His body, could He help doing this? Here already we meet with the thought that something created can nevertheless be something eternal. We hear no more of a flesh which was brought hither from heaven, but a kindred idea takes the place of this heretical thought. In the second place there were people, the Adiaphorites,447 who refused to make any distinction between the divinity and the humanity in Christ, and this denial of all distinction further led some Syrian and Egyptian monks to the speculative idea, or to put it otherwise, gave increased strength to the speculative idea, that Nature in general is of one substance with God (see Vol. III., p. 302), a thought which had points of contact with mystical religious practices.448 If all these movements illustrate the inner life of Monophysitism which within itself once more passed through old forms of development, the attention it gave to the Aristotelian philosophy and such excellent works as those published by Joh. Philoponus, finally proves too that it did not in any way shrink from contact with the great spiritual forces of the time. The tritheistic controversy was in all essential respects fought out on its own ground, and the boldness and freedom shewn by the scholarly Monophysites, in the face too of tradition,449 bears witness to the fact that in the Chalcedonian Creed a foreign power had imposed itself on the Church of the East.450 241

447

See Möller, R.-Encykl. X., p. 248. Stephanus Niobes is mentioned as the originator of this line of thought. 448 Frothingham in his Stephen bar Sudaili (1886) has now given us information regarding the Syrian Pantheistic thinkers amongst the Monophysites about the year 500 and further down. All Scotus Erigena is in Barsudaili. The Pantheistic mysticism of this Syrian and his friends merits the serious attention not of the historian of dogma, but of the historian of philosophy and culture. Scotus and the Pantheistic Mystics of the Middle Ages stand in closer connection with these Syrians than with the Areopagite. 1 Cor. XV. 28 supplies the central doctrine here. 449 See Stephanus Gobarus in Photius, Cod. 232. He is also Aristotelian and Tritheist; noteworthy also for his bold criticism of tradition. 450 On the Tritheists, see Schönfelder, Die Kirchengesch. des Johann v. Ephesus, p. 267 ff. The works of Philoxenus 561 , Bishop of Hierapolis, who has lately been termed the best Syrian stylist, have been hitherto wholly neglected and still await an editor.

2. The restitution of orthodoxy in the year 519 coincides with the successful efforts of the theologians who were skilled in the Aristotelian philosophy, to furnish the Church which clung to the Chalcedonian Creed with a good conscience. It is possible to accept the Chalcedonian Creed as authoritative and at the same time to think exactly as Cyril thought: this was the result arrived at by the “new Cappadocians”, the “new Conservatives”, as Leontius and his friends came to be called, who made terms with the two natures in the same way as the oriental scholars in the Fourth Century did with the ὁµοούσιος; and it is this conviction which lies at the basis of Justinian’s policy in reference both to the Church and the State. If the efforts of former emperors in so far as they favoured Monophysitism were directed towards getting rid of the Chalcedonian Creed or consigning it to oblivion, the policy of the Emperor, which had the support of the new conservative theology, was to make use of the power which every fait accompli, and therefore too a Council, supplies, and at the same time to do justice 6bbd to the old tendencies of Greek piety. It was the Roman bishop who was hardest hit by such a policy. For the second time he had contributed towards giving the Emperor of the East a firmer position in the country, this time by doing away with the schism. But the friend had not become any more harmless than he was in the year 451. As at that time he was, after having done what was required of him, quietly pushed back within his own boundaries by the 28th Canon of the Council, so on this occasion too he was to get a poor reward for his services. It was not intended that Rome should triumph in the East, but that the Emperor of the East should once more become the Lord of Rome. The dogmatic union with the West represented the terms on which it was to be made ecclesiastically and politically subject to the Emperor. Justinian’s policy has in it an element of greatness. He once more set up the world-empire and pacified the Church, and yet his civil and ecclesiastical policy of conquest was unsound and 242its results lacked permanence. He did not know how to win over the Monophysites, and by his Western policy he did harm to the much more important Eastern policy. Some years after his accession Justinian arranged a grand religious discussion in Constantinople between the Severians and the Theopaschitian Orthodox (531). It is of some importance because it shews the extent of the advances made by the Orthodox towards the Monophysites under the guidance of Hypatius of Ephesus in conformity with the wish of the Emperor.451 The orthodox held firmly to the Chalcedonian 451

See the Acts in Mansi VIII., p. 817 sq., Loofs, p. 263 f. Leontius took part in the discussion and it was dominated by his theology.

Creed, but allowed that the Council had also approved of the phrase, one incarnate nature (!);452 on the other hand they rejected as Apollinarian forgeries the testimonies of their opponents in reference to the condemnation of the words “in duabis naturis” on the part of the ancient fathers.453 About the same time the Emperor issued several edicts regarding the true Faith (533), which in thesi were based on the Chalcedonian Creed, but did not reproduce its formulæ; on the contrary they evaded the use of them and contained besides, the addition that it is necessary to believe that the Lord who suffered was one of the Holy Trinity.454 The Emperor, who had himself an interest in dogma, already here shewed what his policy was, namely, to take back the Church in all that was essential entirely to Cyril, but to allow the Chalcedonian Creed to remain authoritative. Thus as matters stood, the formula: ἕνα τῆς ἁγίας τρίαδος πεπονθέναι σαρκί, “one of the Holy Trinity suffered in the flesh”, was a henotikon. But the Empress went still further. She had always favoured the Monophysites, one cannot even say secretly; the various threads of the undertaking the object of which was to assist “the pious doctrine” to triumph, 243all met in her cabinet, and it appeared not impossible that the Emperor might in the end be got also to agree to the formal abandonment of the Chalcedonian Creed and consequently to a new actual henotikon.455 The appointment of Anthimus, a Monophysite in disguise, as patriarch of the Capital, and the admission of Severus to the Court, prepared the way for the final blow which was to be struck at the Chalcedonian Creed. But once more did the Roman bishop, who was informed of what was going on by Ephraem of Antioch, save orthodoxy. In the year 536 Agapetus appeared at the Court of the Emperor and succeeded in getting Anthimus removed from his post and excommunicated. A Council which was held under the presidency of the new patriarch Mennas at Constantinople in the year 536, after the death of Agapetus who died in the capital, and which has left behind an extensive

452

See 823: “Sancta synodus utrosque sermones (two and one natures) pari honore suscepit et pertractat.” 453 ac0 It was here that the Areopagite was first cited as an authority—by the Severians, p. 820; his writings were, however, described by the orthodox as doubtful. 454 Cod. Justinian (ed. Krüger), de summa trinit. 6-8. The words: ἑνὸς καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τὰ τε θαύµατα καὶ τὰ πάθη, ἅπερ ἑκουσίως ὑπέµεινεν σαρκί . . . οὔτε τετάρτου προσώπου προσθήκην ἐπιδέχεται ἡ ἁγία τρίας, are worthy of note. Pope John II., 534, had to approve of the Theopaschitian addition. 455 Loofs, p. 304 f., has shewn, however, that at this time Justinian was following the lead of Leontius.

collection of Acts,456 put an end to the Monophysitism which was making overtures in an underhand way, acknowledged anew the expression: “ἐν δύο φύσεσι”, “in two natures”, and deposed and anathematised Anthimus. It is important that the Council which followed in the track of the theology of Leontius and upon which Leontius himself had some influence, roundly declared through its leader that nothing whatever ought to be done in the Church contrary to the will and command of the Emperor, but at the same time also added the following: “We both follow and obey the apostolic throne (Rome) and we regard those in communion with it as in communion, and those condemned by it we also condemn”: ἡµεῖς τῷ ἀποστολικῷ θρόνῳ ἐξακολουθοῦµέν τε καὶ πειθόµεθα καὶ τοὺς κοινωνικοὺς αὐτοῦ κοινωνικοὺς ἔχοµεν, καὶ τοὺς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κατακριθέντας καὶ ἡµεῖς κατακρίνοµεν.457 The days when the names of Marcian and Leo were mentioned together, seemed to have returned. But the Pope at this time was no Leo, and Justinian was more than Marcian. Besides Anthimus, Severus, about whom the very worst calumnies were spread—that he was a heathen in disguise—and the heads of the Monophysite party of conciliation, 458 244were condemned. Justinian confirmed this sentence by a decree (Aug. 536), while he threatened all adherents of the accused with exile and ordered the books of Severus as also those of Porphyry,459 to be burned. At the first glance it seems paradoxical that the Emperor, who was himself not without Monophysite leanings, was now so genuinely furious at Severus and accused him at once of Nestorianism460 and Eutychianism. But after what has been remarked above, (p. 241) the charge of Nestorianism is quite intelligible, and we can understand too the aversion felt by the Emperor who had himself an interest in dogma. A Monophysitism, such as that of Severus, which merely rejected the Chalcedonian Creed, but which, moreover, in combating Aphthartodoketism got the length of teaching in the most definite way the “division” of Christ, when once it was thoroughly understood, could be regarded only with antipathy by the Imperial theologian who had on the contrary always wished to have the Chalcedonian Creed and Aphthartodoketism. A Jerusalem Council repeated the decrees of the Council of Constantinople;461 but it was impossible to restore tranquillity in Egypt. The Severian

456

Mansi VIII., pp. 877-1162. P. 970. 458 P. 1150 sq. 459 P. 1154. 460 P. 1151. 461 Mansi VIII., p. 1164 sq. 457

Theodosius had to make way for the Julianist Gajanus as Patriarch, and the Patriarch sent by the Emperor so seriously compromised his patron that he had to be excommunicated.462 In the measures he took the Emperor, however, never lost sight of his design which was to win over the Monophysites, and it is at this point that the humiliation of the Roman bishop begins, though he was himself undoubtedly mainly to blame. The theology of Antioch was still something highly objectionable in the eyes of all pious-minded persons. It seemed to be favoured by Leo’s doctrinal letter and in fact to be put in a place of honour, and yet a large section of the Eastern Orthodox were at one with all Monophysites in holding that the great Antiochians “would have betrayed the secret”. People hated it for the same reason that they hate the Liberals 245in the Church at the present day, and the Emperor certainly did not hate it least, not to speak of the Empress, the patroness of all pious monks. The Antiochians got the blame of “denying the divinity of Christ” and of dividing the one Christ into two. The influential bishop, Theodorus Askidas of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, is said to have advised the Emperor to make use of this widespread hatred in the interest of his ecclesiastical policy. This man, an enthusiastic pupil of Origen, had suffered seriously from the condemnation of the latter463 to which he had assented against his will, and in order to divert attention from Origen (Euagr. E. H. IV. 38) he got the Emperor persuaded to believe that a great many Monophysites could be won over if a blow was struck at the Antiochians.464 As a matter of fact what had given

462

Liberat. Brev. 23. On this (in the year 544) see the concluding chapter. Since in the conflict with Origenism Christology did not constitute the main cause of offence, we can leave it out of account here. Still it must be admitted that certain features of the Christology of Origen were acceptable to the Monophysites and to the monks with Monophysite tendencies, and the discussions about Origen in the sixth century took their start from here. 464 Regarding the Three Chapters’ dispute and the Fifth Council, there has been a great controversy in the Catholic Church, which dates very far back and which is still continued. We owe this controversy to the writings of the Jesuit Halloix (for Origen; and unfavourable to the Fifth Council); the Augustinian Noris (Diss. historica de synodo V., in favour of the Council) the Jesuit Garnier, in the 17th century, and later, to those of the Ballerini. In more recent times Vincenzi has sought in a big work which falsifies history (In S. Gregorii Nyss. et Origenis scripta et doctrinam nova defensio, 5 Vols. 1864 sq.) to justify the ac8 theses of Halloix, to rehabilitate Origen and Vigilius, and on the other hand partly to “re-model” the Council and partly to bring it into contempt. The Romish Church is not yet quite clear as to the position it should take up in reference to the older Antiochians and Theodoret, and further, to Origen and Vigilius. I am not acquainted with the work of Punkes, P. Vigilius und der Dreicapitelstreit, München 1865. The fullest 463

most serious offence to the Monophysites in connection with the Council of Chalcedon, was that it pronounced Ibas and Theodoret orthodox and was silent about Theodore.465 The Emperor, supported by Theodora, who 246had long ago established a Monophysite branch-regime which made its influence felt as far as Rome, issued, apparently in 543, an edict,466 in which the person and writings of Theodore, the Anti-Cyrillian writings of Theodoret, and the letter of Ibas to the Persian Maris,467 were condemned. This was the edict of the τρία κεφάλαια, the three points or chapters. The orthodox found themselves placed by it in a most painful position. It was a political move on the part of the Emperor forced on him by the circumstances in which he was placed, and a better one could not have been contrived.468 The faithful adherents of the Fourth Council had to face the alternative either of actually departing from orthodoxy by the rejection of heterodox doctrines—for it was evident that a revision of the Chalcedonian Creed was intended, which limited freedom in the interpretation of it—or of having to defend what was questionable by way of protecting doctrinal unity; for nobody could deny but that Theodore in particular had actually taught heterodox doctrine. At the same time a sort of question du fait was to be decided in addition. The question as to the views held by the Council regarding things which it had not discussed, was to be settled. The Emperor dictated what these views were. Distinctions were to be made between what the whole Council had approved of and what

Protestant account is still that of Walch, Vol. VIII. The most thorough study of the chief opponent of the imperial policy, Facundus of Hermiane in North Africa, has been published by a Russian, Dobroklonskij (188o); see on his work Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1880, n. 26. 465 Theodore had still in the East and even in the monasteries some secret adherents, apart from the Nestorians; see Loofs, pp. 274-297, 304. 466 No longer preserved. 467 Mansi VIII., p. 242 sq. 468 Loofs, op. cit. has shewn that Justinian’s policy, which struck at once at Origen and at Theodore, was occasioned by the disturbances in the monasteries of Palestine where both had their sympathisers who had already come into sharp conflict with each other. “The explanation of the fact that Justinian pretty much about the same time struck at Origen with the one hand and at the Three Chapters with the other, is to be found not in the ill-humour of Theodorus Askidas, but in the state of things in Palestine.” The energetic attack alre 55f ady made by Leontius on Theodore in the years 531-538 had prepared the way for a decree which enjoined that the Chalcedonian Creed must positively not he interpreted in the sense in which it was understood by Theodore; see Loofs, p. 307. The resolution to add the writings of Ibas and Theodoret, seems only to have been come to at the last moment.

had been approved of merely by individual members; for example, in reference to the letter of Ibas. It was plain that all this was bound only to be to the advantage of the Monophysites. It might be easy to point out to the Western opponents 247of the imperial decree that they had been too sharp-sighted in hunting for traces of Monophysite leaven, but as regards the main point they were entirely in the right. The condemnation of the three chapters, so far as its tendency was concerned, involved a revision of the Chalcedonian Creed. But the Emperor was in the right too; for he corrected the conciliar-decree in accordance with the spirit of the Eastern Church, which had been repressed at Chalcedon itself. He destroyed the Western influence; he carried the Chalcedonian Creed back to Cyril; he restored the dogmatic thought of the two Councils of Ephesus, without meddling with the Creed of Chalcedon. All four patriarchs of the East took offence at the condemnation of the Three Chapters and all four signed it after a brief hesitation. Thus powerfully did the Emperor make his rule felt in the Church; there had been no such monarch since Constantius and Theodosius I. The patriarchs worked their bishops and they too all submitted, although they felt it difficult to consent to the condemnation of a bishop who a hundred years before this had died at peace with the Church. What, however, they did not feel, was the desolation created by this imperial measure. Origen was already condemned; the condemnation of the Antiochene theology now followed on his. It was now that the Church first fully provided itself with a falsified tradition, by shutting out its true Fathers as heretics under the patronage of Justinian. It is pretended that its theology had always been the same, and any one who at an earlier period had taught otherwise, was no Father and Shepherd, but an innovator, a robber and murderer. This Church tolerated no recollection of the fact that it had once allowed room within it for a greater variety of opinion. Justinian who closed the School of Athens, also closed the schools of Alexandria and Antioch! He is the Diocletian of theological science and the Constantine of scholasticism! In doing this he did not, however, impose anything on the Church; on the contrary he ascertained what were the true feelings of the majority, probably realised them himself, and by satisfying them made the Church obedient to the State; for the World-Church is to be feared only when provoked; when satisfied it will allow any kind of yoke to be imposed upon it. 248

The outbreak of the controversy of the Three Chapters which followed on this and its history, have an interest for the history of dogma merely owing to the fact that the North African bishops and, speaking generally, most of the Western bishops made such an energetic resistance to the condemnation of the Three Chapters.

The conduct of the Africans and especially the work of Facundus “pro tribus capitulis”, are honourable pages in the history of the Punic Churches. On the other hand in the conduct of the Roman Bishop we have a tragedy, the hero of which was no hero, but on the contrary a rogue. Vigilius, the creature of Theodora, the intellectual murderer of his predecessor, the man who was Monophysite or Chalcedonian in accordance with orders, constantly changed his opinion in the course of the controversy, according as he considered compliance with feeling in the West or compliance with the commands of the Emperor, the more necessary. Twice over he was forced by the Emperor to appear before the tribunal of the Church as a liar when Justinian produced secret explanations of his which contradicted his public utterances. His conduct both before the great Council and after it was equally lamentable. The poorest of all the Popes was confronted with the most powerful of the Byzantine Emperors.469 Justinian considered a great Council to be necessary although he himself, about the year 551, issued a second edict dealing with the affair of the Three Chapters. This edict470 which was framed by the Emperor himself who was always theologically inclined, contains in the most verbose form the strictly Cyrillian interpretation of the Chalcedonian decree. The Cyrillian formula of the “one nature” is approved of, attention being, however, directed to the fact that Cyril made no distinction between nature and hypostasis. Christ is one “composite hypostasis”—ὑπόστασις σύνθετος. The Antiochian theology is rejected in strong terms, the three chapters are condemned in this connection; but it is asserted that we must abide by the Chalcedonian 249Creed. In order to sanction this edict, the Fifth Ecumenical Council was opened at Constantinople in May 553, Vigilius protesting. The patriarch of the capital presided. The Acts have not come down to us in their original form; we have only part of them in a Latin translation. But we know from the proceedings of the Sixth Council that interpolations were put into the Acts in the 7th century (on the part of the Monothelites?) and that these interpolations were traced at the time by means of palæographic investigations, though the documents which had been foisted in were in no sense forgeries. The proceedings of the Council which consisted of about 150 members amongst whom there were very few Westerns, were unimportant; all it had to do was to throw the halo of the Church round the imperial edicts. It condemned Origen, as Justinian 469

Duchesne, Vigile et Pélage, 1884. Mansi IX., p. 539 sq. Loofs has briefly indicated the nature of the Emperor’s theological writing (p. 310 f.) and has shewn how closely it is related to that of Leontius. 470

desired;471 it condemned the Three Chapters and consequently the Antiochian theology as Justinian desired; it sanctioned the theopaschitian formula as Justinian desired, and in its 14 longwinded anathemas it adopted the imperial edict of 551 as its own. But amongst those who thus said yes to everything, there were few who spoke contrary to their convictions. The Emperor was really the best dogmatist of his time and of his country—if it is the duty of the dogmatist to ascertain the opinions of the majority. While giving a position of exclusive authority to the interpretation of the Chalcedonian Creed on the lines of the theology of Cyril, he hit upon the sense in which it was understood by the Church of the East, i.e., by the majority in it.472 The importance of the dogmatic 250finding of 553 ought not to be underrated. In a certain sense the blow which the West gave to the East at the Fourth Council was parried by the Fifth Council—in the fashion in which this is done in general in matters of dogma. Rome had given the formula of the two natures to the East, but a hundred years later the East dictated to the West how this formula was to be understood, an interpretation of it which in no way corresponded to the actual wording of the formula. At first undoubtedly the decree of the Fifth

acd 471So with reason Noris, the Ballerini, Möller (R. Encykl. XI., p. 113) and Loofs (pp. 287, 291) as against Hefele and Vincenzi. 472 The anathemas so far as their positive form is concerned come very near Monophysitism without actually falling into it—the most distinct divergence is in No. 8. No. 7 goes furthest in the direction of meeting Monophysitism: εἴ τις ἐν δύο φύσεσι λέγων, µὴ ὡς ἐν θεότητι καὶ ἀνθρωπότητι τὸν ἕνα κύριον ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν γνωρίζεσθαι ὁµολογεῖ, ἵνα διὰ τούτου σηµάνῃ τὴν διαφορὰν τῶν φύσεων, ἐξ ὧν ἀσυγχύτως ἡ ἄφραστος ἕνωσις γέγονεν, οὕτε τοῦ λόγου εἰς τὴν τὴς σαρκὸς µεταποιηθέντος φύσιν, οὔτε τῆς σαρκὸς πρὸς τοῦ λόγου φύσιν µεταχωρησάσης— µένει γὰρ ἑκάτερον ὅπερ ἐστὶ τῇ φῦσει, καὶ γενοµένης τῆς ἑνώσεως καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν—, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ διαιρέσει τῇ ἀνὰ µέρος τὴν τοιαύτην λαµβάνει φωνὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ κατὰ Χριστὸν µυστηρίου, ἢ τὸν ἀριθµὸν τῶν φύσεων ὁµολογῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐνὸς κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σαρκωθέντος, µὴ τῇ θεωρίᾳ µόνῃ τὴν διαφορὰν τούτων λαµβάνει, ἐξ ὧν καὶ συνετέθη, οὐκ ἀναιρουµένην διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν—εἷς γὰρ ἐξ ἀµφοῖν, καὶ δἰ ἐνὸς αµφότερα—ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τούτῳ κὲχρηται τῷ ἀριθµῷ, ὡς κεχωρισµένας καὶ ἰδιοϋποστάτους ἔχει τὰς φύσεις· ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεµα ἔστω. Observe how the conception of number too gets a new meaning in Dogmatics and how in the dogmatic sense the conception of number is to be taken in one way in connection with the dog 55e ma of the Trinity and again in a different way in connection with the Christological dogma. There we have already the whole of scholasticism! In the same way “θεωρία” is now a conception which has first to get a new form for Dogmatics. All throughout in these conceptions things which are irreconcileable must be shewn to be reconciled.

Council called forth serious opposition in the West.473 But first Vigilius submitted,474 then five years later the African Church followed his example.475 Still the position of the successor of Vigilius, Pelagius I., was very seriously endangered in the West. The Churches of Upper Italy under the guidance of Milan and Aquileia renounced their allegiance to Rome. Never in antiquity was the apostolic chair in such a critical condition as at that time. Its occupant appeared to many in the West in the light of a State bishop at the beck of Constantinople and deprived of ecclesiastical freedom. The Lombard conquests set him free and rescued him from his position of dependence on Byzantium. Gregory I. having once more regained strength politically and his help being regarded as indispensable by those in Upper Italy who were threatened by the Arians and the pagans, again gained over the larger part of Upper Italy together with the Archbishop of Milan, though indeed it was at the price of a temporary disavowal of the Fifth Council.476 Another part stood 251aloof from Rome for a whole century. But in the West too at the same period there was a decay of all independent interest in theological questions; when it once more revived, the Church had the Fifth Council and the Cyrillian Dogmatics, The East had revenged itself. And yet one may doubt if Justinian’s policy was the right one which in dogmaticis aimed at a mean between the Western and the Egypto-Syrian dogmatic. It stopped half-way. For the sake of the West and of the basis supplied by the Council of 451, the Emperor had adhered to the Chalcedonian Creed; for the sake of the Monophysites and of his own inclinations he decreed the Theopaschitian formula and the rejection of the Three Chapters. But in doing this he roused the West against the spirit of Constantinople and against the Byzantine State, at the very moment when he was making friendly overtures to it, and yet he did not gain over the Monophysites.477 He could not find the right dogmatic formula for the World-Empire which he created; what he did settle was the specific formula for the patriarchate of Constantinople and its immediate belongings. He, however, saw

473

The opposition in the East was wholly unimportant; see Hefele, p. 903 f. Two statements of Dec. 553 and Feb. 554. Hefele, 905 ff. 475 568 Hefele, p. 913 f. 476 Gregor I., epp. 1. IV., 2-4, 38, 39. Gregory had to make his orthodoxy certain by acknowledging the four Councils. He was silent about the Fifth. 477 It was only temporally that the Melchites, led by some distinguished patriarchs, once more got the mastery in Egypt; see Gelzer, Leontios von Neapolis, Lehen des h. Johannes des Barmherzigen, Ezbischofs v. Alexandrien 1893. 474

that himself; he wished to sanction Aphthartodoketism (564)478 which was in harmony with his own dogmatic views and which might perhaps win over the Monophysites. His policy was a logical one, and the Emperor set about carrying it out with his wonted energy, beginning as usual by deposing the patriarch of the capital. We cannot now say what would have happened; the opposition of the Bishops, led this time by the Patriarch of Antioch, Anastasius Sinaita, would perhaps have been overcome; but the Emperor died in November, 565, and his successor Justin II. did not continue this policy. Still, under Justin II. the attempts to gain over the Monophysites, by dragonnades and by friendly methods, did not cease. 206b 1 Even at that time the Imperial bishops were throughout kept from acceding to the 252extreme demands of the Monophysites by their desire to preserve communion with the West. The vacillation in the imperial policy, its partial success and partial failure, and the divisions among the Monophysites themselves, etc., belong to Church-History. The way was being prepared for renouncing entirely the authority of Byzantium—and here the political-national movement everywhere preceded the other,—and for the organisation in each case of a separate ecclesiastical constitution. These aims were not definitely accomplished till the seventh century, under entirely altered political conditions.479 xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

4. The Monergist and Monothelite Controversies. The Sixth Council and Johannes Damascenus.480

478 526

Euagr. H. E. IV. 39, 40. A sort of henoticon of Justin’s in Euagr. V. 4; cf. the Church History of John of Ephesus. 480 On the Syro-Jacobite-Monophysite, the Coptic-Monophysite, the Abyssinian Church, as well as on the Armenian Church which continued to be Cyrillian, not Monophysite in the strict sense of word—see the article in Herzog’s R. Encykl., and better in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. and in Kattenbusch, op. cit. I., p. 205 ff.; cf. also Sibernagl op. cit. b08 481See the material in Mansi X., XI.; in addition the works of Maximus Confessor, of Anastasius Biblioth., of Anastasius Abbas, and the Chronographs; see also the Lib. pontif. and the works of Joh. Damascenus. Accounts by Combefis (1648), Tamagnini (1678), Assemani (1764), Gibbon, Walch (Vol. 9), Schröckh, Hefele, Baur, and Dorner. Further, Möller in Herzog’s R. Encykl. (Art. “Monothel.”), Wagenmann, there also, Art. “Maximus Confessor”. 479

Paul of Samosata equally482 with the old Antiochians483 had affirmed the doctrine of the one will (µία θέλησις) in reference to Jesus Christ. The statement of the former, “the different natures and the different persons have one single mode of union,— agreement in will, from which it plainly appears that there is a unity as to energy in the things thus joined together,” (αἱ διάφοροι φύσεις καὶ τὰ διάφορα πρόσωπα ἕνα καὶ µόνον ἑνώσεως ἔχουσι τρόπον τὴν κατὰ θέλησιν σύµβασιν, ἐξ ἧς ἡ κατὰ ἐνέργειαν ἐπί τῶν οὕτως συµβιβασθέντων ἀλλήλοις ἀναφαίνεται µονάς), lies at the basis of the Antiochene Dogmatic even after it had taken definite shape as a doctrine of two natures. They were thus Monothelites. On the other hand, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril, and the Areopagite had taught the doctrine of one energy in Christ, 253the latter with the definite addition “θεανδρική”.484 The Antiochians and those last mentioned meant, however, something different by their respective statements. The view of the Antiochians was that the human nature by placing itself at the service of the divine was wholly filled with the divine will—their µία θέλησις was not the product of a physico-psychological, but of an ethical, mode of regarding Christ. The Alexandrians regarded the God-Logos as the subject of the God-Man who had made the human nature His own and used it as his organ; they thus thought of a unity of energy having its roots in the unity of the mysterious constitution of the God-Man. In Leo’s doctrinal letter there was what was for the East a new conception of it—“Agit utraque forma quod proprium est”, “each nature does what is peculiar to it”, though undoubtedly “cum alterius communione”—“in union with the other”. This way of conceiving of it was indirectly sanctioned by the Chalcedonian decree. In the century following it gave great offence; it besides rendered it necessary to consider the nature of the energy, the willing and the acting of Christ, and as a matter of fact it was the most serious stumbling-block for the Severians whose thesis “one 482

See Vol. III., p. 41. In the “Ekthesis” it is expressly admitted that Nestorius did not teach the doctrine of two wills. 484 Dionys. Areop. (Opp. ed. Corderius, edit. Veneta 1755, T. I., p. 593), ep. 4, (ad Caium): ἡµεῖς δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν οὐκ ἀνθρωπικῶς ἀφορίζοµεν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος µονον (οὐδὲ ὑπερούσιος ἢ ἄνθρωπος µόνον) ἀλλ᾽ ἄνθρωπος ἀληθῶς, ὁ διαφερόντως φιλάνθρωπος ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπους καὶ κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων οὐσίας ὁ ὑπερούσιος οὐσιωµένος . . . καὶ γὰρ ἵνα συνελόντες εἴπωµεν οὐδὲ ἄνθρωπος ἦν, οὐχ ὡς µὴ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, ἀνθρώπων ἐπέκεινα, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς ἄνθρωπος γεγονώς. Καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν οὐ κατὰ Θεὸν τὰ θεῖα δράσας, οὐ τὰ ἀ 564 θρώπεια κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνδρωθέντος Θεοῦ καινήν τινα τὴν θεανδρικὴν ἐνέργειαν ἡµῖν πεπολιτευµένος. 483

composite nature” (µία φύσις σύνθετος) naturally demanded the “one energy” (µία ἑνέργεια). But still owing to the Chalcedonian Creed a theory gradually got a footing in the Church according to which each nature was considered by itself while the unity was consequently conceived of as a product, and the doctrine of the Agnoetæ (see p. 239) which made its appearance amongst the Severians proves that even this party could not avoid what was a sort of splitting up of the one Christ. The neo-orthodox theology of a Leontius and Justinian spite of its Cyrillian character required that Christ should be conceived of as having two energies, although it is going too far to maintain 254that already in the time of Justinian the question had been decided485 in accordance with the later orthodox view.486 One might try to explain the fact that the question was raised in the seventh century at all, from the “inner logic” of the matter; but the dogma in the form in which it was settled under Justinian, still left room for the raising of countless other questions which were not less important. As a matter of fact it was a purely political consideration, the desire, namely, to win back the Monophysite provinces, which conjured up the controversy. The latter accordingly essentially belongs to political history and it will be sufficient here to fix the most important points, since the doctrine of one will equally with that of two wills would have been in harmony with the decisions of the Fourth and Fifth Councils. The patriarch of the capital, Sergius, advised his emperor, the powerful and victorious Heraclius, (610-641) to secure the conquests he had once more made in the South and East by meeting the Monophysites half way with the formula that the GodMan consisting of two natures effected everything by means of one divine-human energy. In support of this doctrine Sergius collected together passages from the Fathers, large numbers of which belonging both to ancient and recent times, lay to hand, won over influential clergy in Armenia, Syria, and Egypt, and succeeded in conjunction with the Emperor in filling the eastern Patriarchates with men whose views were similar to his own and actually laid the foundation of a union with the Monophysites (633). But a

485

Loofs, p. 316. According to anathema No. 3 of the Fifth Council the active principle in the Redeemer is the undivided person who as such performs miracles and suffers. No. 8 is undoubtedly opposed to this: µενούσης ἑκατέρας φύσεως, ὅπερ ἐστίν, ἡνῶσθαι σαρκὶ νοοῦµεν τὸν λόγον. The dispute as to whether there was one will or two, dates at least as far back as the beginning of the 6th century; but the assertion of two wills is as a ac7 rule charged against the orthodox by their opponents as the logical result of their views. 486

Palestinian monk named Sophronius, who was afterwards bishop of Jerusalem, came to Egypt, declared the µ 6bd0 α ἐνέργεια to be “Apollinarianism”, seriously embarrassed the imperial Patriarch, Cyrus, in Alexandria, and impressed even Sergius to whom he had recourse. As on the one hand, however, 255there was a desire not to abandon again the position gained in reference to the Monophysites, and as on the other it was necessary to avoid the appearance of endangering orthodoxy, Sergius now declared that all discussion of the question of energies was to cease, and signified his wish in this matter to his colleagues in Alexandria and to the Emperor himself. He wrote at the same time to Bishop Honorius of Rome.487 The latter at that time published the celebrated letter which played such an important part in 1870 and the treatment of which in the second edition of Hefele’s History of the Councils has justly occasioned so much surprise.488 Honorius in this letter describes Sophronius as a man who is stirring up new controversies, praises Sergius for his great prudence in discarding the new expression (µία ἐνέργεια) which might be a stumblingblock to the simple, declares that Holy Scripture makes no mention either of one energy or of two energies, that the latter expression is suggestive of Nestorianism and the former of Eutychianism, and incidentally states as something self-evident that “we confess one will of the Lord Jesus Christ” (ἕν θέληµα ὁµολογοῦµεν τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), that is, the one will of the Godhead. This was not yet in any sense a controversial question; but Sergius in his letter to Alexandria had regarded it as likewise self-evident that in putting the question of the energies into the background he could not in any case agree to the doctrine of two wills.489 Meanwhile Sophronius in his character as the new bishop of Jerusalem had issued a work definitely based on the Chalcedonian Creed as interpreted by Leo’s doctrinal letter. Two energies are to be recognised in the one Christ who is in both the same. One and the same Christ followed the energy both of his divine and also of his human nature. Still Sophronius does not say anything of two wills. 256He likewise had recourse to Rome, and Honorius, like Sergius, made an effort to bring about union between the contending parties in the Eastern Church by dissuading them from employing the

487

Shortly before this the controversy between Rome and Byzantium regarding the title “Ecumenical Patriarch” had been going on; see Gelzer in the Jahrbb. f. Protest. Theol. 1887, p. 549 ff., and Kattenbusch, op. cit. I., p. 111 f. 488 See S. Theol. Lit. Ztg., 1878, No. XI. The letter is in Mansi, XI., p. 538 sq. 489 The heterodoxy of Honorius does not certainly amount to much, since he adheres to Leo’s doctrinal letter and since nothing was yet decided regarding the energies and the will.

formula. Heraclius gave his support to these efforts and published an edict drawn up by Sergius (638), the Ecthesis, which forbade the use both of µία ἐνέργεια and of “two energies” as equally dangerous expressions. The latter expression, it was maintained, leads to the assumption of two conflicting wills in Christ, while Christ has only one will since the human nature acts only in accordance with the God-Logos who has assumed it.490 The personality of the Redeemer thus appears, in strict accordance with the theology of Cyril, as built up on the basis of the God-Logos. But already Rome and the West once more bethought themselves of their dogmatics. Every attempt to meet the views of the Monophysites always brought the Byzantine Emperor into conflict with Rome. Pope John IV. as early as the year 641 condemned Monothelitism at a Roman Council. Immediately thereafter Heraclius died, putting the responsibility of the Ecthesis on to Sergius. The latter had died previously to this; Pyrrhus, who held similar views, took his place. After severe struggles in the palace, which Pyrrhus had to pay for by his deposition, Constans II., a grandson of Heraclius, became emperor. Those at the Court were resolved to maintain the Ecthesis and not to submit to the Roman bishop, Theodore.491 Meanwhile North Africa had become the second headquarters of the Dyothelites. The Byzantine governor there, Gregory, the patron of the monks, who was on bad terms with the Court, made use of the African dislike of Byzantium and its dogmatics in order, if possible, to detach the Province from Constantinople, and with him sided the most learned Chalcedonian of the East, 257Maximus (Confessor) and many other Easterns, monks especially, who had fallen out with the Emperor.492 Pyrrhus too took up his quarters in North Africa and was easily converted to dyotheletism. In Rome he completed his change of opinion and was recognised by Theodore as the legitimate bishop of Constantinople. The Emperor was flooded with addresses from North Africa the aim of which was to induce him to enter the lists on behalf of orthodoxy. But the defeat of Gregory by the Saracens 490

Mansi, X., p. 931 sq.: “We must confess one will in our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, implying that at no time did his flesh animated by a reasonable soul accomplish what was natural for it to do, separately, and by its own impulse, in opposition to the suggestion of the God-Logos who was hypostatically united with it, but that on the contrary it acted only when and how and in the way the Logos wished.” 491 John IV. had already, moreover, attempted to hush up the conduct of Honorius, to excuse it, that is. 565 492 Battifol, L’abbaye de Rossano, Paris, 1891, has given us information of first-rate quality regarding the exodus of the Greek monks and priests to (North Africa) Sicily and Calabria. Lower Italy underwent at that time a new Hellenisation.

weakened the courage and interfered with the plans of the AntiByzantine coalition. Pyrrhus with all possible speed once more made his peace with the Emperor and with the Imperial dogmatics; but the Roman bishop stood firm, condemned Pyrrhus, and pronounced sentence of deposition on Paul who was at the time occupying the Byzantine chair. The Emperor, on the advice of Paul and in order to pacify the Empire, issued in the year 648 the Typus, which bears the same relation to the doctrine of the wills as the Ecthesis does to the doctrine of the energies. It simply prohibits under severe penalties all controversy regarding the question as to whether it is necessary to believe in one will and one energy or in two wills and two energies, and forbids the prosecution of any one because of his position on this question. For the sake of the Westerns the Ecthesis was removed from the principal church of the capital.493 But Rome was far from accepting this part-payment as a full discharge. It had wholly different plans. The situation seemed a favourable one for estranging from the Emperor the entire orthodoxy of the East and binding it to the successor of Peter, 258in order to shew the Byzantine ruler the power of the Apostolic chair. What Justinian had done to the latter was to be requited, although Constans was the Sovereign of Rome. The new Pope, Martin I., who, like many of his predecessors, had formerly been the Papal Apokrisiar in Constantinople, got together a large Council in the Lateran in October 649. Over a hundred Western bishops attended; they were surrounded by numerous Greek priests and monks who had fled from Constans, first to North Africa, and then after the catastrophe there, to Sicily, Calabria, and Rome. The Council was a conspiracy against Constantinople, and he who was at the head of it was raised to the throne without the imperial sanction. We have here a continuation of the policy of Gregory I., but in a more energetic and menacing form. The dyothelite doctrine after a discussion lasting over several sittings, was made a fixed dogma by the help of the huge patristic apparatus contributed by the

493

Mansi X., p. 10t9 sq. The form of the Typus as distinguished from the Ecthesis is worthy of note. It no longer speaks the theological language which Justinian above all had naturalised. Constans in fact more and more gave evidence of possessing qualities which make him appear akin in spirit to the iconoclastic Emperors of a later time. Conversely, amongst the most outstanding monks and priests of the seventh century we already meet with that enmity to the State, in e84 other words, that desire to see the Church independent of the State, which occasioned the frightful struggle in the eighth and ninth centuries. In this respect the position taken up by Maximus Confessor who contested the right of the Emperor to interfere in dogmatic questions and disputed his sacerdotal dignity, is specially characteristic.

Greeks,494 and finally a symbol was adopted which added on to the Chalcedonian Creed the words, “two natural wills” (“duas naturales voluntates”) “two natural operations” (duas naturales operationes), without detriment to the unity of the person (“one and the same Jesus Christ our Lord and God as willing and effecting divinely and humanly our salvation”—“eundem atque unum dominum nostrum et deum I. Chr. utpote volentem et operantem divine et humane nostram salutem”), and allowing in fact the validity of the proposition when correctly understood; “one incarnate nature of the divine Logos”—µία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένη. The twenty canons attached to the Creed define the doctrine more precisely and cover the whole of Christology. In the eighteenth canon Origen and Didymus are reckoned amongst the other “nefandissimi hæretici”. In addition, the fathers of Monothelitism, of the Ecthesis and the Typus, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, and also the three Constantinopolitan patriarchs, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul were condemned. Monothelitism was designated as Monophysitism, while the Typus again was described as the godless decree which robbed Jesus 259Christ of His will, His action, and consequently of His natures generally. Maximus Confessor too stated this brilliant thought with many variations.495 When we read the resolutions of this Council the impression produced is that of a polemic encounter arranged with some secret end in view. Martin now made the most strenuous endeavours to get authority over the Churches of the East by the help of the decision of the Council. Like a second Dioscurus he interfered with Eastern affairs, made use of the desperate state of the Churches in the East which were in part in the possession of the Saracens and consequently were no longer in connection with Constantinople, in order to play the roll of supreme bishop, and accordingly worked in direct opposition to the imperial interests and perhaps even conspired with the Saracens. The Emperor now proceeded to take energetic measures. The first attempt to seize the Pope miscarried, it is true, owing to the faithlessness of the Exarch who was sent to Italy. But the new Exarch succeeded in getting Martin into his power (653). As a traitor who had secretly made common cause with the Saracens and as a bishop who had been illegally appointed, he was brought to Constantinople. Dishonoured and disgraced he was then banished to the Chersonesus where he died 494

“We have a library, but no manuscripts,” wrote the Pope in that same year to Bishop Amandus. 495 The Acts of the Council, which even yet enjoys a special authority in the Romish Church, are in Mansi XI., the Creed, p. 1150; see also Hahn 2, § 110.

in the year 655. At the same time proceedings were taken against the dogmatic theologian of Dyothelitism, the monk Maximus, the mystic and scholastic, who for the sake of scholasticism was unwilling to do without the complicated formuke of the two natures, two wills, two operations in the one person, and who had actually made a profound study of them. In Rome Eugenius was now chosen as Pope and he was disposed to come to some arrangement. At the same time the most reasonable proposal was made which could possibly have been made in the circumstances: It was allowable to speak of two natural wills which, however, in accordance with the hypostatic union, become one hypostatic will. Maximus probably endeavoured to prevent the West from falling into this “heresy”, but the successor of Eugenius (+ 657) Vitalian, gave in without any 260explanations and once more restored the communion with Constantinople which had for so long been interrupted. Constans himself visited Rome in the year 663; the peace lasted till the violent death of the Emperor (668) when he was staying at Syracuse. Rome’s lofty plans seemed to be destroyed. The revolution in policy which now followed in Constantinople is not perfectly comprehensible spite of the obvious explanation that the Monophysite provinces were lost and that consequently there was no longer any reason for shewing any enthusiasm on behalf of Monothelitism or for opposing the establishment of Dyothelitism. Then we may reflect further that, as a matter of fact, the Chalcedonian Creed the more it was regarded from the outside demanded the doctrine of two wills, and that this doctrine alone possessed in Maximus a theologian of weight. But these considerations do not entirely clear up the facts of the case. Constantine Pogonatus seems really to have held the memory of Pope Vitalian in honour because the latter had supported him in putting down the usurpers. For this very reason he hesitated to comply with the wish of the Eastern Patriarchs that Vitalian’s name should be erased from the diptychs—the bishop of Constantinople could never desire to enter into alliance with Rome.496 It was perhaps a real love of peace or still more a perception of the fact that Italy must not be lost to the Empire, and that Italy, moreover, could be retained only by an alliance with the Roman see, which induced the Emperor to arrange a meeting and a conference of the opposing parties. In the year 678, taking up an entirely impartial attitude, he requested the Roman bishop to send representatives to the capital to attend a gathering of this kind.

496

There was once more friction between Rome and the patriarch of Constantinople, and this threatened to make the old controversy a pretext for quarrelling.

Rome, i.e., the new bishop Agatho, said nothing at first; why is not quite clear. At any rate he once more set afloat in the West certain declarations in favour of the doctrine of two wills. Meanwhile the Patriarch Theodore of Constantinople and Macarius of Antioch who, however, resided in the Capital, succeeded in getting the Emperor’s sanction for erasing Vitalian’s name from the diptychs. Finally, Agatho sent the desired deputies, 261together with a very comprehensive letter which was modelled in imitation of Leo’s doctrinal letter, and in which at the same time the infallibility of the Roman see in matters of faith was expressed in a supremely self-conscious fashion.497 From this time onwards the Emperor was resolved to yield to the Pope in everything (why?). By means of an edict addressed to George, the new patriarch of the Capital, who had shewn himself pliable, he now summoned a Council to meet, which though it was not originally intended by the Emperor himself to be ecumenical, did nevertheless come to be this. It lasted from November 680 to September 681, had 18 sittings and was attended by about 170 bishops. (The Byzantine East was already very seriously curtailed owing to the Mohammedan conquests.) It was presided over by the Emperor, or, what is the same thing, by the imperial representatives, while the Roman Legates voted first. It may be called the Council of antiquaries and palæographists; for really dogmatic considerations were hardly adduced. On the contrary, operations were conducted on both sides by the help of the voluminous collections of the Acts of earlier Councils and whole volumes of citations from the Fathers, which, however,—and this is in the highest degree characteristic—were after delivery sealed until the exact time when they were to be read out, so that they might not be secretly falsified at the very last moment. Moreover, palæographic investigations were conducted which were not without result.498 Monothelitism had not a few supporters; the most energetic of these was the Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius, who amongst other things appealed to Vigilius, but was forbidden to do so; the letters, it was alleged, were tampered with, which was not the case. Other fathers expressed a desire that it should not be permissible to go beyond the conclusions of the Five Councils in any direction. A proposal was also made at the sixteenth sitting to grant two wills for the period of Christ’s earthly life, but to allow of only one after the Resurrection.499 But the new “Manichean” and “Apollinarian” was promptly expelled from 262the place of meeting. The experiment

497

Mansi XI., pp. 234-286. The Acts of the Council in Mansi, XI. 499 Mansi XI., p. 611 sq. 498

made by another Monothelite and which he carried on for two hours, of laying his creed on the body of a dead person in order to restore him to life and thus to prove the truth of the doctrine of one will, miscarried.500 The Council knew what the will of the Emperor was, and following the lead of the Patriarch of the Capital, placed itself at the disposal of “the new David” who “has thoroughly grasped the completeness of the two natures of Christ our God”! Vitalian’s name was restored; in accordance with the wish of Agatho a long series of Constantinopolitan patriarchs from Sergius downward together with Macarius and other Monothelites were condemned, amongst whom Pope Honorius too was put.501 Finally a creed full of coarse flattery of the Emperor was adopted,502 and this completed the triumph of the Pope over Byzantium. Two natural θελήσεις ἢ θελήµατα were acknowledged and two natural energies existing indivisibly (ἀδιαιρέτως), unchangeably (ἀτρέπτως), undividedly (ἀµερίστως), unconfusedly (ἀσυγχύτως) in the one Christ. They are not to be thought of as mutually opposed, on the contrary, the human will follows the divine and almighty will and far from resisting or opposing it, is in subjection to it. The human will is thus not done away with; but there is on the other hand a certain interchange; it is the will of the divine Logos, just as the human nature without being done away with has nevertheless become the nature of the divine Logos. The Conciliar epistle to Agatho extols the latter as an imitator of the prince of the Apostles and as the teacher of the mystery of theology.503 The Monothelites who had been condemned by the Council were handed over to him to be further dealt with—an unheard of act hitherto. In the West the decrees were universally accepted—in Spain too, where, soon after, the Augustinian interpretation of the Chalcedonian Creed was advanced yet a stage further (as we see 263in Adoptianism). In the East again the adoption of Dyothelitism which, backed up by the authority of Rome had gained the victory, did not by any means proceed smoothly. Not only did a Monothelite reaction ensue, which was, however, definitely disposed of504 in the year 713, but there was, above all, a reaction against the penetration of the Roman spirit into the East. This which began with the second Trullan Council in 692 was continued in the age of the iconoclastic Emperors and of Photius. Apart,

500

Fifteenth Session, Mansi XI., p. 602 sq. For the mode in which this “problem” is treated by Roman theologians, see Hefele III., pp. 290-313. 1a5 502Mansi XI., p. 631 sq. acb 503Mansi XI., p. 658 sq. 504 On the Maronites, see Kessler in Herzog’s R.-Encykl. IX., p. 346 ff. 501

however, from the controversy about the “filioque” which was dragged in and which has already been treated of above p. 126, it belongs entirely to political history, or to that of worship and discipline. It is incontrovertible that Rome at the Fourth and Sixth Councils permanently gave her formula to the East and that this formula admits of a Græco-Cyrillian interpretation only by the use of theological artifice. But this interpretation had been given to it already at the Fifth Council and had an effect on Rome herself, who from this time onward had to tolerate also the µία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένη—the one incarnate nature of the divine Logos.505 This circumstance explains on the one hand the strange lack of vigour shewn by the Easterns in combating Dyothelitism, and on the other hand the paradoxical fact that the ablest of the Eastern theologians, even the Mystics, supported the doctrine of the two wills. But in order to explain the action of the Mystics it is necessary further to point to the fact that it was no longer possible to do without the scholastic theology of the neo-orthodox, Leontius and Justinian, which had the “duality” as its presupposition, and in conjunction with Mysticism presented a subject for endless speculations. To this was added the fact that the Eucharist and the whole system of worship, already satisfied in a much more certain and more living way than did the system of dogma which had become purely “sacred antiquity”, the feeling of the Church as to what was of direct concern and of supreme 264importance in the past—namely, the thought of deification. This is shewn by the nature of the discussions in the Sixth Council. The impression we get that at that time believing thought, in the sense of a direct and living interest in the spiritual and religious substance of the Faith, had been entirely blighted, very strongly induces us to look for the life of this Church in some other sphere. And if we ask where we are to look for it, the image-controversies on the one hand, and the scholastic investigations of Johannes Damascenus on the other, supply the answer. The dogma which had been already settled at the Fifth Council and which at the Sixth Council had been once more revived and—not without danger—meddled with, embodied itself in cultus and science. The Christological propositions which are worked out in the Dogmatics of Johannes Damascenus, especially in the third book, are—even according to Thomasius—stated in “what is pretty much

505

Why in accordance with this the use of the formula ἓν θέληµα θεανδρικόν not allowed together with the doctrine of the two wills, is a point that is not easily understood. It was owing to Romish obstinacy.

a scholastic form”. It is the idea of distinction which dominates the method of treatment. Christ did not assume human nature in its generic form—for John as an Aristotelian is aware that the genus embraces all individuals—but neither did he unite himself with a particular man; on the contrary he assumed the human nature in such a way that he individualised what he assumed and what is not a part but the whole. This is the kind of cross which had already been recognised by Leontius, which has no hypostasis of its own and yet is not without it, but which possessing its independent existence in the hypostasis of the Logos is enhypostatic. Thus Christ is the composite hypostasis. The “centaur” and “satyr” against which Apollinaris had warned the Church, have thus not been avoided The hypostasis belongs to both natures and yet belongs wholly to each of them. But the divine nature preponderates very considerably (cf. the old deceptive analogy of the relation between soul and body in man, III., 7) and it has been correctly remarked that with Johannes Damascenus the Logos is at one time the hypostasis and then again the composite being of Christ as something between. In any case the humanity is in no way considered as formally entirely homogeneous with the divinity. This is shewn too in the 265doctrine of the interchange (µετάδοσις), appropriation, exchange, (οἰκείωσις, ἀντίδοσις) of the peculiarities of the two natures, which John conceives of as so complete that he speaks of a “coinherence or circumincession of the parts with one another⍊2058 —εἰς ἄλληλα τῶν µέρων περιχώρησις. The flesh has actually become God, and the divinity has become flesh and entered into a state of humiliation. This exchange is to be conceived of as implying that the flesh also is permitted to permeate the divinity, but this is allowed only to the flesh which has itself first been deified; i.e., it is not the actual humanity which permeates the divinity; hence the Logos too remains entirely untouched by the sufferings. Everything is accordingly in this way assigned to the two wills and the two operations. The religious point of view of the whole system is that of Cyril, but this point of view cannot be perfectly realised by means of the “duality” already laid down in the dogma. Just for this reason a certain amount of room is left for the human nature of Christ and for the work of the philosophers. That is why the Christology of Johannes Damascenus has become classical.506

506

It is characteristic of the way in which John works out the doctrine, that his arguments throughout are based on passages quoted verbally from the Fathers, though the names of the authors are frequently not given. A mosaic of citations lies at the basis of the scholastic distinctions; Leontius is most frequently drawn upon, but he is never mentioned by name. John is also dependent to a very great extent on Maximus. How

scholasticism has stifled theology is most strikingly shewn in proposition III. 3 (ed. Lequien 1712, I., p. 207): ἀλλὰ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ποιοῦν τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς τὴν πλάνην, τὸ ταὐτὸ λέγειν τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὴν ὑπόστασιν. I imagine that as late as the fifth century any theologian who would have drawn the inference of heresy in this fashion, would have made himself ridiculous. That was the achievement of the neo-orthodox, the Aristotelians from Leontius onwards. A detailed description of the Christology of the Damascene belongs to the history of theology. But it may not be without use to mention the topics which he dealt with here: III. 2: How the Word was conceived and concerning his divine incarnation. 3: Of the two natures in 564 opposition to the Monophysites. 4: On the nature and mode of the antidosis. 5: On the number of the natures (ὁ ἀριθµὸς οὐ διαιρέσεως αἴτιος πέφυκεν, p. 211). 6: That the whole divine nature in one of its hypostases united itself with the whole human nature and not a part with a part. 7: On the one composite hypostasis of the divine Logos. 8: Against those who say that the natures of the Lord must be brought under the category either of continuous or discrete quantity. 9: An answer to the question whether there is an enhypostatic nature (here, p. 218, the enhypostasis). 10: On the Trishagion. 11: περὶ τῆς ἐν εἴδει καὶ ἐν ἀτόµῳ θεωρουµένης φύσεως καὶ διαφορᾶς, ἑνώσεώς τε και σαρκώσεως καὶ πῶς ἐκκληπτέον, τὴν µίαν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένην (one of the main chapters from the scholastic point of view). 12: On θεοτόκος as against the Nestorians. 13: On the properties of the two natures. 14: On the wills and the αὐτεξούσια of Christ (the fullest chapter together with 15: On the energies which are in Christ). 16: Against those who say: as man has two natures and two energies, so we must attribute to Christ three natures and the same 564 number of energies—a very ticklish problem. 17: On the deification of the nature of the flesh of the Lord and of His will. (As is the case throughout the discussion here starts from the contradictio in adjecto and conceals it under distinctions: the flesh has become divine, but in the process has undergone neither a µεταβολή, nor τροπή nor ἀλλοίωσις nor σύγχυσις; it has been deified κατὰ τὴν καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν οἰκονοµικὴν ἕνωσιν or κατὰ τὴν ἐν ἀλλήλαις τῶν φύσεων περιχώρησιν. The old image of the glowing iron). 18: Once more regarding the wills, the αὐτεξούσια, the double-understanding, the double-gnosis, the double-wisdom of Christ. 19: On the ἐνέργεια θεανδρική. 20: Of the natural and blameless feelings (Christ possessed them, but the number of them given is very limited). 21: Of the ignorance and servitude of Christ (because of the hypostatic union neither ignorance nor servitude can be attributed to Christ relatively to God). 22: On the προκοπή in Christ (as a matter of fact the idea of προκοπή is plainly rejected: the “increase in wisdom” is explained: διὰ τῆς αὐξήσεως τῆς ἡλικίας τὴν ἐνυπάρχουσαν αὐτῷ σοφὍ 564 αν εἰς φανέρωσιν ἄγων. This is genuine docetic Monophysitism; to this it is added that “he makes man’s advance in wisdom and grace his own advance.” John is here in the most patent perplexity). 23: Of fear (the fear which Christ had and which he did not have. He had natural fear “voluntarily”). 24: Of the Lord’s praying (He prayed, not because there was any need for Him to do it, but because He occupied our place, represented what was ours in Himself, and was a pattern. Thus the prayer in Matt. XXVI. 39 was meant merely to convey a lesson; Christ wished at the same time to shew by it that He had two natures and two natural but not mutually opposed wills—this is just the

266 267 268

Chapter IV. The Mysteries and Kindred Subjects. C. THE ENJOYMENT OF REDEMPTION IN THE PRESENT.

CHAPTER IV. THE MYSTERIES AND KINDRED SUBJECTS. THERE is an old story of a man who was in a condition of ignorance, dirt, and wretchedness and who was one day told by God that he might wish for anything he liked and that his wish would be granted. And he began to wish for more and more and to get higher and higher, and he got all he wanted. At last he got

explanation formerly given by Clemens Alex. when he stated that Christ, whom he himself conceived of in a docetic fashion, voluntarily did what was human, in order to refute the Docetae. Christ spoke the words in Matt. XXVII. 46 purely as our representative). 25: On the οἰκείωσις (this chapter too begins, like most of them, with the distinction, that there are two forms of assumption, the φυσική and προσωπική or σχετική. Christ assumed our nature φυσικῶς, but also σχετικῶς, i.e., took our place by way of sympathy or compassion, took part in our forlorn condition and our curse and “in ou 564 r place uttered words which do not suit His own case”). 26: Of the sufferings of the body of the Lord and of the absence of feeling in His godhead. 27: That the divinity of the Word was not separated from the soul and the body even in death, and continued to be an hypostasis. 28: Of the corruption and decay (as against Julian and Gajan; but here again a distinction is drawn between two kinds of φθορά). 29: Of the descent into Hades. The contents even of the Fourth Book are still Christological, but this may be due to an oversight. One may admire the energy and formal dexterity of Johannes, but still what we have is merely one and the same method of distinction, which, once discovered, can be easily and mechanically employed, as the application of a new chemical method to an indefinite number of substances. Even this brief synopsis will, however, have brought out one thing, if it was still necessary that this should be done—namely, that in Greek Dogmatics in their religious aspect Apollinaris had triumphed. The moderate docetism which the latter expressed in a plain, bold and frank way forms the basis of the orthodox idea of Christ, though it is indeed concealed under all sorts of formulæ. As regards these, orthodoxy approaches much nearer to the Antiochians than to Apollinaris; but as regards the matter of the doctrine, all that ac8 was preserved of the Antiochian doctrine was the statement that Christ had a real and perfect human nature. This statement came to have a great importance for the future, not of the East, but of the West; but, if I am not mistaken, it helped to preserve the Byzantine Church too from getting into that condition of desolation into which the Monophysite Churches got, though it is true that in the case of the latter other causes were at work.

presumptuous and wished he might become like God Himself, when at once he was back again in his dirt and wretchedness. The history of religion is such a story; but it is in the history of the religion of the Greeks and the Easterns that it came true in the strictest sense. They first wished to have material goods by means of religion, then political, æsthetic, moral, and intellectual goods, and they got everything. They became Christians and desired perfect knowledge and a supra-moral life. Finally they wished even in this world to be as God in knowledge, bliss, and life, and then they fell down, not all at once, but with a fall that could not be stopped, to the lowest stage in ignorance, dirt, and barbarity. Any one who at the present day studies the condition of Greek religion amongst the orthodox and the Monophysites, and not merely the religion of the untrained masses, but also the ritual of worship and the magical ceremonies practised by the ordinary priests and monks and their ideas of things, will with regard to many points get the impression that religion could hardly fall lower.507 269It has really become “superstitio”, a chaos of mixed and entirely diverse but at the same time rigidly fixed maxims and formula;, an unintelligible and long-winded ritual of a patchwork kind, which is held in high esteem, because it binds the nation or the tribe together or unites it to the past, but which is still a really living ritual only in its most inferior parts.508 If we were to imagine that we knew nothing, absolutely nothing, of Christianity in its original form and of its history in the first six centuries, and had to determine the genesis, the earlier stages, and the value of the original religion from a consideration of the present condition, say, of the Jacobite or of the Ethiopian Church, how utterly impossible this would be.509 What we have here is a forbidding and well-nigh dead figure of which only some members and these not the principal members are still living, whose nobler parts are so crusted over that so far as their essence is concerned they defy any

507

That an honest and genuine faith can live and does live within these husks is not to be denied. 508 Even in these, as experience teaches us, religion may still continue to live for some. Thus the symbol and cult of the Cross in the Greek Church keeps alive a feeling of the holiness of the suffering of the righteous one and a reverence for greatness in humility. 509 This impossibility may serve as a warning to us in regard to the interpretation of other religions, of their mythologies and ritual formularies. We know most religions only in the form of “superstitio”, i.e., in the form in which they have come down to us they are for the most part already in an entirely degenerate state, or have become petrified. Who therefore would make bold to set about explaining these forms in the absence of all knowledge of the previous stages? It is an audacious undertaking.

historical explanation.510 Islam which swept violently over Christianity in this form was a real deliverer; for spite of its defects and barrenness it was a more spiritual power than the Christian religion which in the East had well-nigh become a religion of the amulet, the fetish, and conjurers, above which floats the dogmatic spectre, Jesus Christ.511 270

Many factors contributed to this final result, and above all, the stern march of political history and the economic distress. Closely connected with this was the abolition of the old distinctions between aristocrats, freemen, and slaves, and following upon this the penetration into the higher ranks of the religious and intellectual barbarism which had never been overcome in the lower ranks. Christianity itself contributed in the most effective fashion towards the decomposition of society; but having done this, it was not able to elevate the masses and to build up a Christian Society in the most moderate sense of the word, on the contrary it made one concession after another to the requirements and wishes of the masses. The fact, however, that it thus soon became weak and allowed the “Christian religion of the second order” which originally had been merely tolerated, to exercise an ever increasing influence on the official religion, is to be explained from the attitude which the latter itself had more and more come to take up. The general idea of redemption which prevailed in the Greek Church had an eschatological character; redemption is deliverance from perishableness and death. But in Vol. III., pp. 163-190, attention was drawn to the fact that at all periods of its history the Greek Church was aware of possessing a means of salvation which already exists in the present and had its origin in the same source from which future redemption flows—namely, the incarnate person of Jesus Christ. The conception of this present means of salvation was originally of a spiritual kind; the knowledge of God

510

This judgment must stand although much that is ancient, genuine, and edifying is contained in the prayers and abd hymns of the liturgies of all the peoples belonging to the Greek Church. But it has become a formula and as a rule is not understood by the people. In this respect the orthodox churches are in a more favourable position, and much is now being done in order to make the liturgy more intelligible. 511 See Fallmerayer, Fragmente aus dem Orient, 1877, further the descriptions of the Easter festivals kept by the different ecclesiastical parties in Jerusalem and their image worship. By the Mohammedans too the Christian priest is frequently regarded as a conjurer and when they happen to be living in the same place with Christians, and are in dire distress, they visit the holy places and have recourse to the miracle-working reliques and images.

and of the world, the perfect knowledge of the conditions attached to the future enjoyment of salvation, and the power of doing good works, in short “teaching of dogmas and good works” (µάθηµα τῶν δογµάτων καὶ πράξεις ἀγαθαί) (Cyril of Jerus.), and in addition power over the demons (Athanasius). True, however, to the general mode of conceiving things and also to the heathen philosophies of religion of that period, this knowledge in reference to divine things soon came 271to be regarded not as in its nature a clear knowledge, or as having an historica 86c4 l origin, or as in its working something to be spiritually apprehended, but on the contrary as a sophia or wisdom, which being only half comprehensible and mysterious, originates directly with God and is communicated by sacred initiation.512 The uncertainty which in consequence seemed to attach to the content of this knowledge was more than counter-balanced by the consciousness that the knowledge so acquired and communicated, establishes a fellowship amongst those possessed of it and leads to real union with God and is thus not merely individual reflection. This magical-mystical element which attaches to knowledge as the present possession of salvation, is certainly also to be considered as a clumsy expression of the view that the summum bonum is higher than all reason.513 But the truth which the Eastern Christians wished to grasp and to retain, was not securely established by mystical rationalism. The combination, however, of the natural theology which had never been given up with mysticism,514 with the magical and sacramental, entailed above all this serious loss that less and less attention was given to the positive moral element, while the downfall of pure science made it possible for the theologians to take up with all sorts of superstition. It was not that the superstitio of the masses was simply forced upon them; in their own theology they endeavoured in ever increasing measure to reach a transcendental knowledge which could be enjoyed, as it were, in a sensuous way. Like their bloodrelations the Neo-Platonists, they were originally over-excited, and their minds became dulled, and thus they required a stronger and stronger stimulant. The most refined longing for the enjoyment of faith and knowledge was finally changed into barbarity. They wished to fill themselves with the holy and the divine as one fills 512

The beginnings of this transformation are, it is true, to be found far back in the past. We can already trace them in Justin, and perhaps in fact even in the Apostolic Age missionaries like Apollos regarded religion in this way. 513 See Vol. I., p. III, Vol. II., p. 349, n. 2. 514 See Vol. III., p. 253, and p. 272 f. Mysticism as a rule is rationalism worked out in a fantastic way, and rationalism is a faded mysticism.

oneself with 272some particular kind of food. In accordance with this the dogma, the µάθησις, was embodied in material forms and changed into a means of enjoyment—the end of this was the magic of mysteries, which swallows up everything, the sacred images, the sacred ritual. Christianity is no longer µάθησις and πράξεις ἀγαθαί, it is µάθησις and µυσταγωγία, or rather for the great majority it was to be only µυσταγωγία. The image-controversy shews us where the supreme interests of the Church are to be looked for. The development of what belongs to the sphere of mysteries and of cultus from the time of Origen to the ninth century does not form part of the History of Dogma. Together with the conceptions of baptism, the Lord’s Supper, sacraments, and images it constitutes a history by itself, a history which has never yet been written,515 and which runs parallel with the History of Dogma. In the Greek Church there was no “dogma” of the Lord’s Supper any more than there was a “dogma” of grace. And quite as little was there up to the time of the image-controversy a “dogma” of the saints, angels, and images; it was the θεοτόκος only that was found in the Catechism. But ritual was practised here with all the more certainty. There was a holy ritual; it was already firmly established in the days of Athanasius when the State united with the Church, and it was closely followed by a mystagogic theology. This mystagogic theology starting from a fixed point moved with the greatest freedom in the direction of a definitely recognised goal. The fixed starting-point it had in common with dogma. It was the idea that Christianity is the religion which has made the Divine comprehensible and offers it to us to be possessed and enjoyed. The definitely recognised goal was the establishment of a system of divine economy of a strictly complete kind as regards time and place, the factors of which it was composed and the means it employed, and which, while existing in the midst of what is earthly, allows the initiated by the help 273of sensuous media to enjoy the divine life. Those who above all developed this system did so with a certain reservation—it was not absolutely necessary. He who has speculation and ascetic discipline has in these as a personal possession, means which render it unnecessary for him to go in quest of sensuous signs and initiation in common. This was the view of Clemens and Origen, and after them the same opinion was expressed by the most important mystagogues of the earlier period, that is, by all those who created mystagogy; for no one

515

The best treatment of the subject is in von Zerschwitz, System der Kirchl. Katechetik, Vol. I.; see also his article “Liturgie” in Herzog’s R.-Encyckl., and ed., and cf. the investigations of the disciplina arcana by Rothe, Th. Harnack and Bonwetsch.

creates anything without having the consciousness of being above his creation. But the Epigoni receive everything which has come to be what it is under the form of authority, and accordingly it becomes more and more impossible for them to distinguish between end and means, actual things and their substitutes, between what occupies a ruling place and what is subordinate. The spiritualism which, partly in self-protection and partly following its craving for fantastic creations and sensuous pictures, creates for itself in the earthly sphere a new world which it fills with its own ideas, is at the last menaced and crushed by its own creations. But then the spirit which has been artificially enclosed in it vanishes too, and there is nothing but a dead, inert remainder. On it accordingly that veneration is ever more and more bestowed which formerly was supposed to belong to the spirit which had been confined within the matter. Herewith polytheism in the full sense of the word is once more established, it matters not what form dogmatics may take. Religion has lost touch with spiritual truth. When for it a definite space is sacred—in the strictest sense of the word,—and in the same way a definite place, definite vehicles, bread, wine, images, crosses, amulets, clothes, when it connects the presence of the Holy with definite persons, vessels, ceremonies, in short with the exact carrying out of a carefully prescribed ritual, then though this ritual may have the form it always had and may even include in it the most sublime and exalted thoughts, it is played out as spiritual religion and has fallen back to a low level. But this was the final fate of the religion of the Greeks, which adorns itself with the name “Christian”. The private religion of thousands of its adherents, measured by 274the Gospel or the Christianity of Justin may be genuinely Christian,—the religio publica has only the incontestable right to the Christian name,—and in possessing the Holy Scriptures it has what cannot be lost, the capability of reforming itself. Its fundamental dogma, which in the end determined its entire practice, namely, that the God-man Jesus Christ deified the human substance and in accordance with this attached a system of divine forces to earthly media, did not enable it to overcome the old polytheism of the Greeks and barbarians, but on the contrary rendered it incapable of resisting this. This is not the place to discuss the question as to the extent to which religion succumbed to it and the consequences of this, nor as to the influence exercised by the Neo-Platonic ecclesiastical science and by the ancient religions and mysteries respectively. All we can aim at doing is to establish the fact that the µυσταγωγία which the µάθησις had in view, gradually brought about the decay of the latter. It is only now that we are able perfectly to understand why such a determined resistance was made in the Greek Church

to all fresh attempts to give dogma a fixed form, a resistance which could be overcome only by the most strenuous efforts. It was not only the traditionalism native to all religions which thus offered resistance, but the interests bound up with the ritualistic treatment of dogma and to which serious injury was done by the construction of new formulae. If the practical significance of dogma lay not only in the fact that salvation was attained hereafter on the basis of this Faith, but also in the fact that on the basis of this Faith Christians were already initiated in this world,—in worship,—into fellowship with the Godhead and were able to enjoy the divine, it was necessary that the expression of this truth should be raised above all possibility of change. The liturgical formula which is constantly repeated, is what can least of all stand being altered. Accordingly it is only when we consider how dogmatic controversies have necessarily always been controversies about words which demanded admission into the liturgy, as was the case with the foreign Nicene catch-words, the θεοτόκος, the theopaschitian formula etc., and finally the “filioque”, that we can understand the suspicion which they 275necessarily roused. We can still see in fact from the state of things in our own churches at the present time how such a liturgy or such a book of praise which in no way corresponds to the creed, causes no difficulty, while even the best innovation has a most disturbing effect. The value of the ritual of worship lies always in its antiquity, not in its dogmatic correctness. Thus the µυσταγωγία which rested on the fundamental thoughts of the µάθησις, and which in fact issued from it, was the stoutest opponent of a doctrina publica which was advancing to greater precision of statement. In the end it actually reduced it to silence. In the controversy of Photius with Rome in reference to the Holy Spirit the charge brought against the West of having altered the wording of the Creed was urged quite as strongly as the charge of having tampered with the doctrine. One may in fact say that the Greeks regarded the former as worse than the latter. This is the most telling proof of the fact that the daughter became more powerful than the mother, that the µυσταγωγία had come to occupy a place of central importance. This, however, took place long before the days of Photius. The dogmatic controversies of the seventh century are in truth only a kind of echo of no importance, which merely gave dogma the illusory appearance of an independent life. The nature of the controversy makes it evident to any one who looks at the matter more closely, that the dogma had already become a petrifaction and that the kindred ideas of antiquity and of the stability of worship already dominated everything. It is the age of Justinian which brings the independent dogmatic development to an end. At that time the liturgy too received what was practically its final revision. The final

completion of dogma ensued under the guidance of scholasticism which now established itself in the Church. Mystagogic theology, which now first began to spread widely, followed the completed liturgy. In this connection we may mention Leontius on the one side and Maximus Confessor who belonged to the seventh century on the other. Dogma as treated in the scholastic and ritualistic fashion is no longer µάθησις at all, in the strict sense of the word. It is, like the Eucharist or the “authentic” image, a divine marvel, a paradoxical, sacred 276datum,516 which scholasticism labours to elevate to being µάθησις, and which mysteriosophy exhibits in worship as something to be enjoyed. We might content ourselves with these hints regarding the fate of dogma. It will, however, be proper to select two subjects from the rich and complicated material of the history of worship and the mysteries and by means of them to give a somewhat more precise outline of the course of development. These are the ideas of the Lord’s Supper in connection with which we have to pay attention to the mysteries in general, and the worship of angels, saints, the Virgin Mary, martyrs, relics, and images. As regards the latter, the action ensued in the eighth and ninth centuries which brings to an end the history of dogma or the history of religion in the Eastern Church generally. From this date onwards it has had merely an outward history, a history of theology, of mysticism, and ritualism. § I. At the beginning of the Fourth Century the Church already possessed a large series of “mysteries” whose number and limits were, however, not in any way certainly defined.517 They are τελεταί, mystic rites, which are based on λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ, words of God; amongst these Baptism, together with the practice of anointing which was closely connected with it, and the Lord’s

516

The description of the doctrine, i.e., the fides quæ creditur, as µυστήριον (sacrament), dated back to ancient times, hence too the practice of keeping the Creed secret. 517 See Kattenbusch, op. cit. I., p. 393 ff. “The mysteries represent by their form the dogma” . . . “It is in this connection too that the comparison of the details in the Liturgy with the life of Jesus a ac6 s known to us from the Gospel and for which Sophronius of Jerusalem had already prepared the way, first appears in the true light. The arrangement of the Liturgy represents the history of the Incarnation. In this way the whole form of the Liturgy came to share in the value attached to the dogma. Only he who acknowledges the orthodox Liturgy is a Chalcedonian.”

Supper,518 were the most highly esteemed; while 277from them a part of the other mysteries had also been developed. Symbolic acts, originally intended to accompany these mysteries, got detached and became independent. It was in this way that Confirmation originated519 which is already reckoned by Cyprian as a special “Sacramentum”, which Augustine designates520 a “Sacramentum Chrismatis”, and which is called by the Areopagite a “mystery of the mystic oil” (µυστήριον τελετῆς µύρου). Augustine too knows of a “Sacramentum Salis” as well as many others,521 and the Areopagite makes special mention of six mysteries: of enlightenment (φωτίσµατος), of coming together or communion (συνάξεως εἴτ᾽ οὖν κοινωνίας), of the mystic oil (τελετῆς µύρου), of priestly consecrations (ἱερατικῶν τελειώσεων), of monastic consecration (µοναχικῆς τελειώσεως), and the mysteries in reference to the holy dead (µυστήρια ἐπὶ τῶν ἱερῶς κακοιµηµένων).522 This enumeration is not, however, in any way typical, and its author can hardly have intended it to be taken as absolutely complete. “Mysterium” is every symbol, any material thing, in connection with which anything sacred is to be thought of, every action done in the Church, every priestly performance.523 These mysteries correspond to the heavenly mysteries which have

518

There are many passages which prove how closely Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were linked together, and regarded as the chief mysteries. What Augustine de pecc. mer. et remiss. remarks (24, 34) can hardly be held to apply only to the Punic Christians. “Optime Punici Christiani baptismum ipsum nihil aliud quam ‘salutem’ et sacramentum corporis Christi nihil aliud quam ‘vitam’ vocant, unde nisi ex antiqua, ut existimo, et apostolica traditione” etc. It was chiefly through the Lord’s Supper that the element of mysteries found an entrance into the religion of spirit and truth. This way of treating the elements used in it, which are nevertheless expressly described as symbols, supplied the point of departure for the development of the greatest importance. 519 Cypr. ep. 72. I. We find it first amongst the Gnostics alongside of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; see Excerpta ex Theodoto, the Coptic-gnostic writings and the ritual of the Marcianites. Cf. on this sacrament Schwane, Dogmengesch. II., p. 968 ff. 520 C. litt. Petiliani II., c. 104, 239. 521 54f De pecc. merit. II., 42. 522 See de eccles. hierarch. 2-7. To the author the most of these mysteries are not separate mysteries, but represent a whole series of different mysteries. The last mentioned has nothing to do with extreme unction, but designates certain practices in connection with the treatment of the corpse. 523 The “aliud videtur, aliud intellegitur” (Augustine) is the best definition of the sacrament or mystery.

their source in the 278Trinity and in the Incarnation.524 As every fact of revelation is a mysterium in so far as the divine has through it entered into the sphere of the material, so conversely every material medium, and thus too the word or the action, is a mysterium as soon as the material is a symbol or vehicle of the divine. But even in the earliest times no strict distinction was made between symbol and vehicle. The development consists in this that the symbol more and more retreated behind the vehicle, that new heathen symbols and ritual actions were adopted in increasing numbers and that finally the vehicle was no longer conceived of as a covering for or outward embodiment of a truth, but as a deified element, as something essentially divine.525 It is obvious that this way of regarding the “mysteries”, amongst which the sign of the cross, relics, exorcism, marriage, etc., were reckoned, made it impossible to think of them as having a marked and lofty dogmatic efficacy. The rigid dogmatic even forbade such an assumption. As Greek theology regards the Church as an institute for salvation only when it is thinking of heathen and lapsed members or members who are minors, because the doctrine of freedom and redemption does not allow of the thought of a saving institute or of a community of believers chosen by God, in the same way and for the same reasons it knows nothing of a means of grace for those who are already believers, so far as by this is meant the sin-destroying, reconciliatory activity of God attached to a material sign and always strictly limited in its range, and which has for its object the re-establishment of justice and charity or of the filial relation. The ancient Church knew nothing of such means of grace. Accordingly since it desired to have mysteries, believed it possessed them in actions which had been handed down, and was strongly influenced by the dying heathen cultus, it had 279to content itself with the inexpressibleness of the effect of the mysteries. This conception forms the basis even where, following the directions of the New Testament,526

524

The orthodox Greek Church came to reckon the sacraments as seven owing to the influence of the West, i.e., gradually from the year 1274 onwards. Still the number seven never came to have the importance attached to it in the West. 525 In Athanasius we already meet with both modes of expression: (1) “The Logos became flesh, in order that he might offer his body for all, and we by participating in his spirit may be made divine” (de decret. synod. Nic. 14); (2) “We are made divine inasmuch as we do not participate in the body of a man, but receive the body of the Logos Himself” (ad. Maxim. phil. 2). 526 Here already at this early stage the difficult question emerges which even at the present day troubles many amongst ourselves, as to whether the ceremonies of the Old Testament, circumcision for instance, were sacraments.

regeneration, the forgiveness of sins, the bestowal of the spirit, etc., are deduced in rhetorical language from separate sacraments. The assumption that the sacramental actions had certain inexpressible effects—the doctrine of freedom prevented the magical-mystical effects which were specially included under this head from being embodied in a dogmatic theory—logically led, however, to these being performed in such a way that the imagination was excited and the heavenly was seen heard, smelt, and felt, as for example in incense and the relics and bones of martyrs. The enjoyment of salvation on the part of him who participated in these rites, was supposed to consist in the elevating impression made on the imagination and the sensuous feelings. He was supposed to feel himself lifted up by means of it into the higher world, and in this feeling to taste the glory of the supersensuous, and for this reason to carry away the conviction that in a mysterious fashion soul and body had been prepared for the future reception of the immortal life. Such being the theory it was an easy step from this to combine all the mysteries into one great mystery in worship, and this was what actually took place. With this as the starting-point the “Church” too accordingly became a holy reality, the institution for worship, the holy mechanism, which supplies the believer with heavenly impressions and raises him to heaven. The idea of the Church which had the most vitality in the East was that of something which, regarded as active, was “the lawful steward of the mysteries” (“ὁ γνήσιος τῶν µυστηρίων ὀικονόµος”) and conceived of as passive, was the image of the “heavenly hierarchy.” In strict logical fashion it developed from beginnings which already foreshadow the end. Although the beginnings are characteristically different, we find them in Antioch as well as in Alexandria and thus in both the centres of the East. In the case of the former of these cities the beginnings are to be 280looked for in Ignatius, the author of the Six Books of the Apostolic Constitutions, the editor of the Eight Books, and in Chrysostom, and together with them in Methodius. In the case of the latter the starting-point was supplied by Clemens, Origen, (Gregory of Nyssa) and Macarius. In the former everything from the first was intimately associated with the bishop and with worship, in the latter with the true Gnostic originally, then next with the monk. In the former the bishop is the hierurge and the representative of God, the presbyters represent the apostles, and the deacons Jesus Christ. This is the earthly hierarchy, the copy of the heavenly. Already with Ignatius the cultus dominates the entire Christian life; the holy meal is the heavenly meal, the Supper is the “medicine of immortality”—φάρµακον ἀθανασίας. By means of the one Church-worship we mount up to God; woe to him who takes no

part in it. All this is put in a stronger form in the Apostolical Constitutions, and is developed in a worthy and sensible fashion in the work of Chrysostom περὶ ἱερωσύνης. But in all this the attitude of the laity is a passive one; they make no effort, they allow themselves to be filled.527 The influential Methodius viewed the matter from a different standpoint. Although he is the opponent of the Alexandrians, he does not deny the influence which he had received from them. His realism and traditionalism are, however, of a speculative kind. They constitute the substructure of the subjectivity of the monkish mysticism. Christ must be born “rationally” (νοητῶς) in the believer; every Christian must by participating in Christ become a Christ. Methodius knew how to unite the ideas of a powerful religious individualism with the Mysticism which attaches itself to objective traditions. While protecting these latter against the inroads of a heterodox idealism, he nevertheless intended that 281they should merely constitute the premises of an individual religious life which goes on between the soul and the Logos alone. This was the fundamental thought of the great theologians of Alexandria. But they rarely connected the substructure of their theosophy with earthly worship, and still more rarely with earthly priests. Nevertheless their substructure was of a much richer kind than that of the Antiochians. There is probably no single idea connected with religion or worship, no religious form, which they did not turn to account. Sacrifice, blood, reconciliation, expiation, purification, perfection, the means of salvation, the mediators of salvation,—all these, which were connected with some symbol or other, played a rôle in their system. It was the hierarchical element alone which was kept very much in the background, nor was much prominence indeed given to the idea of the ritual unity of the Church which was a leading one with the Antiochians. Everything is directed towards the perfection of the individual, the Christian Gnostic, and everything is arranged in stages, a feature which is wanting in the system of the Antiochians. The Christian does not merely allow himself to be filled with the Holy; on the contrary he is himself here always engaged in independent effort inasmuch as 527

I here leave out of account the Syrian mysticism of the fifth and sixth centuries of which we first really got some idea from the admirable work of Frothingham, Stephen bar Sudaili, 1886. The philosophico-logical element is not entirely absent from the views of these Syro-Monophysite mystics who had relations with Egypt too, but still it always was kept in the background. We have in their case Pantheism of a strongly marked character represented by the consubstantiality of God and the universe, and in accordance with this they had a fondness for the “Origenistic” ideas of the history of the universe and of the restoration of all things.

he advances from secret to secret. At every stage some remain behind; each stage down to the last presents a real thing and the covering of a thing. Blessed is he who knows the thing or actual fact, still more blessed he who presses on to the next stage, but he too is saved who grasps the thing in its covering only. But with the stages of the mysteries the stages of the knowledge of the world further correspond. He who makes the mysteries his own, thinks at the same time on the progressively ordered world. He advances from the external world upwards to himself, to his soul, his spirit, to the laws of the world and the world-spirits, to the one undivided Logos who rules the universe, to the incarnate Logos, to the highest Reason, which lies behind the Logos, to what is above all reason—to God. The Cosmos, the history of redemption, the Bible are the great graduated, ordered mysteries which have to be traversed: all divine things and all human things—πάντα θεῖα καὶ πάντα ἀνθρώπινα. When we have 282once reached the end aimed at, all helps may be dispensed with. There is a standpoint viewed from which every symbol, every sacrament, every thing that is holy, which appears in a material covering, becomes profane, for the soul lives in the Holiest of all. “Images and symbols which set forth other things were of value so long as the truth was not present, but when the truth is present, it is necessary to do the things of the truth and not of the image or representation of it,” (αἱ εἰκόνες καὶ τὰ σύµβολα παραστατικὰ ὄντα ἑτέρων πραγµάτων καλῶς ἐγίνοντο, µέχρι µὴ παρῆν ἡ ἀλήθεια· παρούσης δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας δεῖ ποιεῖν, οὐ τὰ εἰκόνος). This holds good of the aspiring theologian; it holds good also in the main of the humblest, barbarous monk. But Christianity would not be the universal religion if it did not present salvation in the symbolic form at all stages. This thought separates the ecclesiastical theosophs of Alexandria from their Neo-Platonic and Gnostic brethren. In it the universalism of Christianity finds expression, but the concession is too great. It sanctions a Christianity which is bound up with signs and formulæ, the Christianity of the “εἰκόνες”. The most sublime spiritualism, as happened in expiring antiquity, made terms with the grossest forms of the religion of the masses,—or rather, here is expiring antiquity. That it could do this is a proof that a naturalistic or polytheistic element was inherent in itself. Because it did it, it was itself stifled by the power which it tolerated. The issue reveals the initial capital blunder. The mystical cultus of Antioch which culminates in the priest and divine service, and the philosophical mysticism of Alexandria which has ultimately in view the individual, the gnostic and the

monk, already converge in Methodius and the Cappadocians;528 they next converge in the works of the pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.529 It was owing to Maximus Confessor 283that in this combination they became the power which dominates the Church.

aeb 528

Gregory of Nazianzus (in laud. Heron. c. 2) thus speaks from the altar to Hero “Approach hither, near to the Holy places, the mystic table and me, τῷ διὰ τούτων µυσταγωγοῦντι τὴν θέωσιν, οἷς σε προσάγει λόγος καὶ βίος καὶ ἡ διὰ τοῦ παθεῖν κάθαρσις.” 529 The article by Möller in Herzog’s R.-Encyklop. III., p. 616 ff. enables us to understand how the Dionysius question stood in the year 1878 (the best analysis is by Steitz, in the Jahrhb. für deutsche Theol., 1866, p. 197 ff; there are valuable if not quite convincing discussions by Hipler, 1861 and in the Kirchenlex. 2 III., p. 1789 ff., cf. the work of Engelhardt, Die angebl. Schriften des A. Dionysius, Sulzbach, 1823). Within recent years, however, several new publications based on the sources, and discussions, have appeared, which shew that nothing has really yet been certainly established; see Pitra, Analecta Sacra III., on this Loofs in the ThLZ., 1884, Col. 554 f.; Frothingham, Stephen bar Sudaili, the Syrian Mystic and the Book of Hierotheos, 1886; in addition Baethgen in the ThLZ, 1887, No. 10; Skworzow, Patrologische Untersuchungen, 1875; Kanakis, Dion. d. Areopagite, 1881; Dräseke (Ges. Patrist. Abhandl., 1889, p. 25 ff.; Dionysios v. Rhinokolura, in addition Gelzer in the Wochenschrift f. Klass. Philol., 1892, separate impression); Jahn, Dionysiaca, 1889; Foss, Ueber den Abt Hilduin von St. Denis and Dionysius Areop. in the Jahresbericht des Luisenstadt. R.-Gymnasiums z. Berlin, 1886. The most ancient testimony to the existence of these works is to be found in the Church History attributed to Zacharias of Mitylene (Land, Anecd. Syr. III., p. 228). Severus quoted them at a Council at Tyre which cannot have been held later than the year 513. Still older would be Cyril’s testimony in the work against Diodorus and Theodore, which even if it ought not to be attributed to Cyril, belongs to the fifth century. “Although the manuscript reading in Liberatus Brev. 10 is corrupt still it ought probably to be emended thus: Dionysii Areopagitæ, (Dionysii) Corinthiorum episcopi” (Gelzer). Hipler, Pitra, Dräseke, Möller, Kanakis (who wishes to fix the date of the writings definitely for about 1 ac8 20) have pronounced against the old assumption of a (pious) fraud, and have referred the writings to the second half of the fourth century. They have besides sought to shew that we ought probably to make a distinction between the several works which now bear the name of Dionysius, and that the oldest of the writings bearing this name are in all probability not forgeries, though forgers and interpolators did seize upon them in the fifth or sixth century, and that therefore, as is so frequently the case, it was not the author, but tradition which first committed the forgery. But if Frothingham is right, the writings ought to be put later, and Gelzer as against Dräseke has advanced some very strong arguments in favour of the idea of an original pia fracas—after the analogy of the NeoPlatonic interpolations—that is in support of the hypothesis “that the author of these writings purposely intended from the first to secure a loftier authority from them than they would otherwise have had by means of the prestige attaching to works contemporary with the Apostles.” “The author of the Dionysian writings was merely following the usages of the schools, in transferring his works to the apostolic age.” The question of date

is consequently not yet settled, (second half of the fourth and fifth century). The period previous to 400 seems to me the more probable, but there are so many points connected with these writings which are still obscure that one must refrain from pronouncing an opinion until a new, thorough, and comprehensive investigation has been made.

Everything was grouped round the Lord’s Supper,530 and as

530

Baptism may be left out of account; for the views held regarding it did not undergo any actual development within the period we treat of (see Vol. II., 140.) Naturally the general and changing ideas of the mysteries exercised an influence upon baptism, but it was rarely studied ex professo. It besides occupied an isolated position since it could never be brought into intimate connection with worship. What was certain was that baptism actually purifies from sins committed previous to it, i.e., destroys them, and consequently constitutes the beginning of the process which makes the mortal man imperishable. It is thus the source and beginning of all gifts of grace. But as was the case in regard to the other mysteries, so here too there were theologians who, in imitation of Origen, held the view that there w ac8 as a mysterious purification of the soul, and regarded the water as a symbol, but all the same as the absolutely necessary symbol, which just for this very reason is not simply a “symbol” in the modern sense of the word (see the Cappadocians). The intellectualism of these theologians and their inability to believe in an actual forgiveness of sins, led them in the case of baptism to prefer the idea of a φωτισµός—the primitive designation of the sacrament—and thus of a physical purification (κάθαρσις) or else to think of the proof it gave of such a purification. Other theologians, however, from the days of Cyril of Alexandria downwards, in accordance with their ideas of the Lord’s Supper with which, following John XIX. 34, baptism was always ranged (Johannes Damascenus still gives prominence to these two sacraments only), assumed that there was an actual µεταστοιχείωσις of the water into a divine material, which took place by means of the descent of the spirit which followed the invocation of God. Tertullian (de bapt.) and Cyprian had already taught similar doctrine in the West. Cyril of Jerusalem too (cat. III. 3, 4) held the view that there was a dynamic change in the water. But it is Cyril of Alexandria (Opp. IV., p. 147) who first says: ∆ιὰ τῆς τοῦ πνεύµατος ἐνεργείας τὸ αἰσθητὸν ὕδωρ πρὸς θείαν τινὰ καὶ ἀπόρρητον µεταστοιχειοῦται δύναµιν, ἁγιάζει δὲ λοιπὸν τοὺς ἐν οἷς ἂν γένοιτο. Still the Church did not get the length of having distinct and definite formulæ for the sacramental unity of water and spirit, for the moment, and for the means whereby this unity was produced. Although the statement held good that baptism was absolutely necessary to salvation, still people shrank more from the unworthy reception of it than from the danger of definitely dispensing with it. In the fourth century people kept postponing it repeatedly—so as not to use this general means till the hour of death. Baptism was accordingly regarded by many in praxi not as initiation into the Christian state, but as the completion of it. Some very characteristic passages in Augustine’s Confessions, e.g., show this (e.g., Confess. VI. 4): it was possible in the fourth century to rank as a Christian, though one was not yet baptised. But the great Church-Fathers of the fourth century defended the practice of infant-baptism which had been already handed down, and this was established in the fifth century as the general usage. Its complete adoption runs parallel with the death of heathenism. As regards baptism by heretics ac8 , the view held in the Eastern Church at the beginning of the fourth century was that it was not valid. But it gradually, though hesitatingly, receded somewhat from this position (see the decisions of 325 and 381). A distinction was made between those sects whose baptism was to be recognised, or was to

284was

the case in an earlier period, it still continued to be regarded from a twofold point of view, the sacrificial and the 531 285sacramental. The mystery with which it came to be increasingly surrounded and the commemorations which took place at its celebration, preserved to the Lord’s Supper in wholly altered conditions within the world-Church which embraced the Empire, its lofty and at the same time familiar, congregational character.532 No rigidly doctrinal development of the Lord’s Supper followed on this. But probably the presence of changes in the conceptions formed of the Lord’s Supper both in its sacrificial and in its sacramental aspect, might be proved. These changes, however, take place throughout within the limits which were already fixed in the third century. The blend of a sublime spiritualism and a sensuous realism was already in existence in the third century. Any progress which took place could consist only in this, that religious materialism advanced further and further and forced spiritualism to retire. Its advance was, ho 2058 wever, furthered above all by the fact that the dogma of the Incarnation was brought into connection with the Lord’s Supper. This is the most important fact connected with this development, for now the Lord’s Supper became, as it were, the intelligible exponent of the entire dogmatic system, and at the same time the hitherto vague ideas regarding the kind and nature of the body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, came to have a firmly fixed form. If previous to this Christians had never of set purpose thought of the body of the historical Christ when speaking of the body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, but of His spirit, His word, or the remembrance of His

be supplemented by the laying on of hands, and those whose baptism had to be repeated (this is still what we have in the ninty-fifth canon of the Trullan Synod 692). The Church did not, however, arrive at any more fixed view on the matter, since just those fathers of the fourth century who where held in the highest esteem generally demanded re-baptism. Whether one ought to re-baptise the heretic or to anoint him or merely to lay the hand upon him, is a point that is not certainly decided up to the present time. The Greek Church very frequently still repeats baptism at the present clay; see Höfling, Sacr. der Taufe, 1848; Steitz, Art. “Ketzertaufe” in Herzog’s R.-Encykl. 2nd ed.; Kattenbusch, op. cit. I., p. 403 ff. 531 See Vol. II., p. 136, and p. 146. 532 It is very worthy of note that already in the fourth century the Lord’s Supper was regarded as the expression of a particular form of Confession. Philostorgius (H. E. III. 14) tells us that up to the time of Aëtius the Arians in the East had joined with the orthodox in prayers, hymns, etc., in short in almost all ecclesiastical acts, but not in the “mystic sacrifice.” In the commemorations from that time onwards connection with the Church found public expression. Cancelling of Church membership was regularly expressed by erasure of the name in the commemoration from the diptychs.

body offered up, or of something inexpressible, something glorified which 286passed for being His body, now the idea emerged that the material element which is potentially already the body of Christ according to Gregory of Nyssa, is by priestly consecration or more correctly, by the Holy Spirit who also overshadowed Mary, changed with the real body of Christ or else taken up into it. The Incarnation is not repeated in the Lord’s Supper, but it is continued in it in a mysterious fashion, and the dogma is practically attested in the most living and marvellous way through this mystery. The priest is here, it is true, the minister only, not the author; but in connection with such a transaction to be the servant who carries out what is done, means to be engaged in an inexpressibly lofty service which raises one even above the angels. The whole transaction, which is based on the Incarnation, is thus beyond a doubt itself the mystery of the deification (θέωσις). The connection is exceptionally close; for if the act gets its essence and its substance from the Incarnation, while the latter again has in view the deification, it is itself the real means of the deification. It is the same thought as that which had already been indicated by Ignatius when he described the holy food as the “medicine of immortality” (φάρµακον ἀθανασίας); but it is only now that this thought is taken out of the region of uncertain authority and has fixity given to it by getting a thoroughly firm foundation. But perhaps the point that is most worthy of note is, that in reference to the elements phrases were used by the Greek Fathers of a later period, which, as applied to the dogma of the Incarnation, had to be discarded as Gnostic, doketic, Apollinarian, or Eutychian and Apthartodoketic! People speak naïvely—up to the time of Johannes Damascenus, at least—of the changing, transformation, transubstantiation of the elements into the Divine. No attempt is made to form definite ideas regarding the whereabouts of their material qualities; they are wholly and entirely deified. In a word, the views held regarding the Lord’s Supper were for a long time Apollinarian-monophysite, and not dyophysite. But this makes it once more perfectly plain that what was regarded by the Greek Church as of real importance from the religious point of view, was adequately represented only by the teaching of Apollinaris and Monophysitism, and that the 287reasons which finally led to the adoption of Dyophysitism had no strict connection with the dogmatic system. As regards the sacrificial aspect of the holy action, the most important development consists in the advance made in the transformation of the idea of sacrifice, for which the way had been already prepared in the third century. The offering of the elements, the memorial celebration of the sacrifice of Christ in the sacrifice of the Supper, the offering of the gifts (προσφέρειν τὰ δώρα) and

the offering of the memorial of the body (προσφέρειν τὴν µνήµην τοῦ σώµατος) was changed into an offering of the body, (τὸ σῶµα τροσφέρειν) a propitiatory memorial sacrifice. “The sacrifice of His Son on the Cross was, as it were, put before God’s eyes and recalled to memory in order that its effects might be communicated to the Church.” Thus, owing to the influence of the heathen mysteries and in consequence of the development of the priestly notion, the idea crept in that the body and blood of Christ were constantly offered to God afresh in order to propitiate Him. And the more uncertain men became as to God’s feelings, and the more worldly and estranged from God they felt themselves to be, the more readily they conceived of the Supper as a real renewal of the Sacrifice of Christ and of His saving death. Christians had formerly made it their boast that the death of Christ had put an end to every sort of outward sacrifice; they had spoken of the “bloodless and rational and gentle sacrifice” (ἄναιµος καὶ λογικὴ καὶ προσηνὴς θυσία) or of the “immaterial and mental sacrifice” (θυσία ἀσώµατος καὶ νοερά). These modes of expression continued to be used in the third and fourth centuries, but the desire for a sensuous expiatory sacrifice, which had been present, though in a hidden form, at an early date, became stronger and stronger, and thus “flesh and blood”—namely, the flesh and blood of Christ—were described as sacrificial offerings. Thus men had once more a bloody sacrifice, though indeed without visible blood, and what it seemed not to have certainly accomplished when offered once, was to be accomplished by a repetition of it. And thus, as the act regarded as a sacrament was connected in the closest way with the Incarnation, and appeared as a mysterious, real representation of it, as something 288to be enjoyed by the believer, so, regarded as a sacrifice, it was now finally brought into the most intimate connection with the death of Christ, but in such a way that in it the saving sacrificial death likewise appeared to be continued, i.e., repeated. Is it possible to give the sacramental act a loftier position than this? Assuredly not! And yet it was nothing but pure Paganism which had brought this about. Since these developments took place most of the Churches of Christendom in the East and West have been fettered and enslaved by a “doctrine of the Supper” and a “ritual of the Supper”, which must be reckoned amongst the most serious hindrances which the Gospel has experienced in the course of its history. Neither the calling out of elevated feelings, nor the superabundance of intellectual force, of acuteness and “philosophy” which has been expended in connection with this, can undo the mischief which has been incalculable and which is still going on. And as in the fifth and sixth centuries the Supper was conceived of as the resultant of the system of dogma as a whole (the Trinity and the Incarnation), and

was supposed to be equivalent to it, and to give a lively representation of it, so the same is still the case at the present day. The “doctrine” of the Supper has been treated in such a way as in the first place to sanction the dogma of the Incarnation, and in the second place to gather up to a point the entire confessional system of doctrine and the conception of the Church. In the whole history of religions there is probably no second example of such a transformation, extension, demoralisation and narrowing of a simple and sacred institution! Sure and logical as was the course of the development of the ritual and doctrine of the Supper in the Greek Church, no dogma in the strict sense of the word was set up, because there was no controversy unless about points of no importance. But just for this very reason the doctrin 6bd0 al pronouncements scarcely ever get beyond the stage of unfathomable contradictions and insoluble oracles. Christians felt so comfortable in the darkness of the mystery; they laid hold of this or the other extravagant form of expression without being afraid of being corrected or being forced to pay respect to a fixed form of words sanctioned by ecclesiastical usage. Anything that sounded 289pious and edifying, profound and mysterious, could be freely used in connection with the mystery. And since the words which were used in this connection, such as spirit (πνεῦµα), spiritually (πνευµατικῶς), flesh (σάρξ), body (σῶµα) had a three-fold and a manifold meaning533 in ecclesiastical usage, since Scripture itself supplied various allegories in connection with this matter, using flesh of Christ as equal to the Church, flesh of Christ as equal to His words, etc., since John VI. as compared with the words of institution supplied endless scope for speculation and rhetoric, since the consequences and the terminology of the dogma of the Incarnation were on the same lines,—and in addition, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and certain ideas of the Church,—since finally the sacramental and sacrificial elements were at one time kept strictly separate and at another ran into one another, the utterances of the Greek Fathers in reference to the Supper constitute as a rule the most forbidding portions of their works. But to give a logical solution and orderly reproduction of their thoughts is not at all the historian’s business, for in attempting such a task he would constantly be in danger of missing the meaning of the Fathers. For this reason we here renounce any such attempt. It will be sufficient to note the tendency and progress of the development in the Fathers who are 533

Let any one take a proposition such as this from Athanasius: πνεῦµα ζωοπ ac8 οιοῦν ἡ σάρξ ἐστι τοῦ κυρίου, διότι ἐκ πνεύµατος ζωοποιοῦ συνελήµφθη, in order to form an idea of how one may twist and turn the words.

to be referred to in what follows.534 That the increasingly complex 290form taken by doctrine was of no advantage to real religion may be inferred from the one fact that the effects of the Supper were always described in an absolutely vague fashion. Nor did the θεώσις, that process to which was attached this high-sounding name, really mean anything, for it was impossible to understand it in any serious sense. The idea that freedom was the basis of all that was good, was in the way of this. This θεώσις, which is experienced in imagination, threatened, in the case of the Greeks themselves, to change into a mere play of fancy; for as soon as they realised that they were moral beings, they thought of nothing else save of the exalted God, of His demand that they should renounce the world and do good, and of the duty which lay upon man of living a holy life in order to die a blessed death. For this very reason they were also unable to reach any complete confidence in the promise of the forgiveness of sins given in the Supper. In place of this, however, religious materialism went to absurd lengths, while at the same time the ascetic theosoph was always free respectfully to ignore the whole transaction.

Only a few hints regarding the course taken by the development of the doctrine can fitly be given here: Origen supplies the starting-point. “In his view the eucharistic body was only the Word of God or of the Logos as being a substitute for his appearance in the flesh; the shew-bread was for him the type of the Word in the old Covenant; for as this was placed, as it were, before the eyes of God as a propitiatory memorial object, so the Church also puts a bread before God which has a great propitiatory

534

In the essays by Steitz on the doctrine of the Supper in the Greek Church (Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theol. IX., pp. 409-481; X., pp. 64-152, 399-463; XI., pp. 193-253: XII., pp. 211-286; XIII., pp. 3-66) we possess an investigation of the subject which is as comprehensive as it is thorough. The author, however, does not seem to me always to have hit the mark in the judgments he passes. He makes too many distinctions, and in particular his view as to the existence of a strictly distinct symbolic doctrine of the Supper is hardly tenable in the form in which he seeks to develop it. A purely symbolic conception of the Supper never existed, for it was always harmoniously united with a ritual which was based on a very realistic way of conceiving of it. What we now call “symbol” is something wholly different from what was so-called by the ancient Church. On the other hand, after the sacramental magic in its coarsest form had found its way into the Church, “symbolic” statements were always tolerated because the symbol was really never a mere type or sign, but always embodied a mystery; see Vol. II. p. 143. On the doctrine of the Supper cf. further the monographs by Rückert, Kahnis, Ebrard.

power—namely, the commemoration, the word regarding His passion and death with which Christ introduced and founded the Supper. But the bread of blessing was in his view the symbol only of this word, only of His eucharistic body, but not of His body offered up on the Cross, and if he does once call the latter “the typical and symbolic body”, he did this only in the sense referred to. This is just what is peculiar and characteristic in his standpoint, that whenever he speaks of the Supper or indeed in a more general 291sense of the eating of the flesh or of the drinking of the blood of Christ, he does this without any reference to the body which He had as man or to the blood which flowed in the veins of this body.”535 The body and blood of Christ are knowledge, life, and immortality, not, however, as a mere thought or as a symbol, but in inexpressible reality. In Eusebius we already note an advance, and in fact in the “Demonstratio” and in the work “de eccles. theologia” he has several new categories. In his case already the offering of the memorial of the body (µνήµην τοῦ σώµατος προσφέρειν) passes over into the offering of the body (τὸ σῶµα προσφέρειν). He has the propitiatory memorial sacrifice. But from the sacramental point of view the consecrated elements are still for him symbols of the mystical body of Christ, i.e., of His word: only from the sacrificial point of view do they already possess the value of mysterious symbols of the actual body, the body which was once offered up.536 It is impossible to extract a doctrine from the confused statements of Athanasius, nor will it do to make him a “symbolist”.537 Probably, however, Athanasius comes nearer to Origen in his conception of the Supper than in any other part of his doctrine.538 The statement of Basil (ep. 8, c. 4) is genuinely Origenist: “We eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood in that by His Incarnation and His life which was manifest to the senses, we become partakers of the Logos and of wisdom. For he described His whole mystical appearance as flesh and blood and thereby indicated the doctrine which is based on practical, physical, and theological science, and by which the soul is nourished and is meanwhile prepared for the vision of the truly existent.” But the Cappadocians likewise had already advocated a theurgy of the most palpable kind—in all the Fathers the spiritualistic amplifications of the doctrine occur, always with reference to John VI. As regards the doctrine of the Supper, “Realism” and Real Presence of the true body of Christ (or

535

Steitz X., p. 99. Demonstr. ev. I. 10; de eccles. theol. III. 12; Steitz X., p. 99 ff. 537 So rightly Thomasius I., p. 431 ff. as against Steitz X., p. 109 ff. 538 See ad Serap. IV., espec. c. 19 and the Festival-letters. 536

transubstantiation) are for us at the present day equivalent. In 292ancient times, however, there was a “realism” which had no reference whatever to that real presence, but which on the contrary regarded a spiritual mystical something as really present. Hence the controversy on the part of historians of dogma and of ecclesiastical parties regarding the doctrine of the Supper held by the Fathers. They are “Symbolists” in respect of the real presence of the true body; indeed as regards this they are in a way not even symbolists, since they had not that body in their minds at all. But they know of a mystical body of Christ which is for them absolutely real—it is spirit, life, immortality, and they transferred this as real to the celebration of the Supper.539 According to Macarius too, Christ gives Himself and the soul to be eaten spiritually (hom. 27, 17), but this spiritual eating is the enjoyment of something actual. Macarius, however, while he had the individual soul in view always thought of the Church; for to this noteworthy Greek mystic who, moreover, knew something of sin and grace, as to Methodius, the soul is the microcosm of the Church and the Church is the macrocosm of the soul. But the statements made by him and Methodius in respect to this point, were not further followed out.540 The influence of the sacrificial conception of the consecrated elements, as being the antitypes of the broken body of Christ, on the sacramental conception, can be traced already in Eustathius and in the Apostolical Constitutions;541 its presence is perfectly apparent in the mystagogic catechetics of Cyril of Jerusalem. But I suspect that in their catechetical instruction Basil and Gregory did not express themselves differently from him. Besides the many other passages having reference to the subject, Catech. 293V., 7 is specially important. “And next after we have sanctified ourselves (through prayer), we pray the gracious God that He will send down His Holy Spirit on the elements presented, in order that He may make the bread into the body of Christ and the wine into the blood of Christ; for' what the Holy Spirit touches is wholly sanctified and transformed

539

On Basil Steitz X., p. 127 ff., on Gregor Naz. the same, p. 133 ff. From Basil’s ninety-third letter in particular we see that for him spiritualism was in no sense opposed to the most superstitious treatment of the Supper. Quite correctly Ullmann, Gregor, p. 487: “It is difficult to determine what Gregory understood by eating and drinking the blood of Christ, and in any case no dogma which may be regarded as peculiarly belonging to Gregory can be deduced from it.” In him we find the expression for t ac8 he consecrated elements “ἀντίτυπα τοῦ τιµίου σώµατος καὶ αἵµατος”, an expression which Eusebius in his day might have used and which Eustathius did use (Steitz X., p. 402). 540 On Macarius, see Steitz X., p. 142 ff. 541 Steitz X., pp. 402-410.

(µεταβέβληται).” Here therefore we have a plain assertion of the µεταβολή which is effected by the Holy Spirit in the Supper, and Cyril in fact appeals to the miracle of Cana. At the same time “Cyril is the first church-teacher who treats of baptism, the oil, and the Eucharist, in their logical sequence, and in accordance with general principles.” The element which may be termed the symbolic, or better, the spiritual element, is nowhere wanting in his theology, and in fact it still quite clearly constitutes its basis; but we see it supplemented by that “realism” which already regards the details of the act of ritual as the special subject of instruction. The epiklesis or invocation, brings with it a dynamic change in the elements in the Supper as in all mysteries. By partaking of the holy food one becomes “a bearer of Christ”; the flesh and blood of Christ is distributed amongst the members of the body. In Cyril’s view the elements in their original form have after consecration wholly disappeared. “Since now thou art taught and convinced that the visible bread is not bread, although to the taste it appears to be such, but the body of Christ; and that the visible wine is not wine, although to taste it seems to be such, but the blood of Christ, comfort thine heart,” (Catech. V., 9). But still we might make a mistake if we were to attribute to the theologian what is said by the catechist. Extravagances of this sort still belonged at that time to the liturgical and catechetical element, but were not a part of theology.542 But the miracle of Cana and the multiplication of the bread now became important events for teachers, as indeed is evident from the sculpture of the Fourth Century, and even such a pronounced Origenist as Gregory of Nyssa for whom indeed σύµβολον was equivalent to ἀπόδειξις (a setting forth) and γνώρισµα (mark or token) and who laid down the principle “Christianity has its 294strength in the mystic symbols” (ἐν τοῖς µυστικοῖς συµβόλοις ὁ χριστιανισµὸς τὴν ἴσχον ἔχει),543 as catechist propounded a physiological philosophically constructed theory regarding the spiritual nourishing power of the elements which were changed into the body of the Lord, which in religious barbarity far outstrips anything put forward by the Neo-Platonic Mysteriosophs. It makes it plain to us that in the fourth century Christianity was sought after not because it supplied a worship of God in spirit and in truth, but because it offered to men a spiritual sense-enjoyment with which neither Mithras nor any other god could successfully compete. Gregory wished for a spiritual and corporal “communion and mixing” (µετουσία καὶ ἀνάκρασις) with the Redeemer. The only help against the poison which has crept

542 543

On Cyril, see Steitz X., pp. 412-428. C. Eunomium XI., T. II., p. 704.

into our body is the antidote of the body of Him who was stronger than death. This antidote must be introduced into the body. It accordingly transforms and alters our body (µεταποιεῖν καὶ µετατιθέναι; µετάστασις, µεταστοιχείωσις, ἀλλοίωσις). The actual body of Christ as immortal is thus the remedy against death; it must therefore, like other sorts of good, be partaken of bodily. This partaking takes place in the Supper; for through the act of consecration the bread and wine are changed into the flesh and blood of the Lord (µεταποίησις) in order that through partaking of them our body may be transformed into the body of Christ (µεταστοιχείωσις; see Justin). These transubstantiations are proved by a philosophical exposition of matter and form, potentiality and actuality; at this point Aristotle had already to be brought forward to furnish the necessary proof. The paradox was held to be not really so paradoxical. The body of the Logos, it was affirmed, itself consisted of bread; the bread was virtually (δυνάµει) the body etc. But more important than these dreadful expositions of a pharmaceutical philosophy was the close connection which Gregory formed by means of them between the Eucharist and the Incarnation. He was the first, so far as I know, to do this. The older Fathers also, indeed, while by the eucharistic body they understood the word and the life, always regarded the Incarnation as the fundamental condition, which alone made that 295use of it possible. But since they did not entertain the idea of the real body of Christ, the Incarnation and Eucharist—apart from some attempts by Athanasius—still remained unconnected. It was otherwise with Gregory. For him the transformation of the consecrated bread into the body of Christ was the continuation of the process of the Incarnation. “If the existence of the whole body depends on nourishment while this consists of food and drink; if, further, bread serves for food, and water mixed with wine for drink, and if the Logos of God, as has been already proved, is united (συνανεκράθη) in his character as God and Logos with human nature, and, having entered our body, produced no different or new constitution for human nature, but rather sustained his body by the usual and fitting means and supported life by food and drink, the food being bread; then, just as in our case, he who sees the bread to some extent perceives the human body therein, because when the bread enters the latter it becomes part of it, so in that case the body which conceals God within it, and which received the bread is to a certain extent identical with the bread . . . for what is characteristic of all was also admitted regarding the flesh of Christ, namely, that it was also supported by bread, but the body was by the residence in it of the Divine Logos transformed (µετεποιήθη) to a divine sublimity and dignity. We accordingly are

now also justified in believing that the bread consecrated by the word of God is transformed into the body of the God-Logos. For that body was also virtually bread, but was consecrated by the residence in it of the Logos, who dwelt in the flesh. Accordingly as the bread transformed in that body was invested with divine energy we have the same thing happening here. For in the former case the grace of the Word sanctified the body which owed its existence to, and to a certain extent was, bread, and similarly, in the present instance, the bread, as the apostle says, is made holy by God’s Word (Logos) and command; not that it is first changed into the body of the Logos by being eaten, but that it is at once transformed into his body by the Logos (by its consecration) in accordance with the saying of the Logos, ‘This is my body’.” Gregory argues similarly as regards the wine and blood, and 296then continues: “Since then that flesh which received God also received this portion (wine, blood) into its substance, and God made manifest by that means interfused himself in the perishable nature of men, in order that by communion with deity the human might be deified; therefore he implants himself in all who have believed in the dispensation of grace, by means of the flesh whose substance consists of both wine and bread, condemning himself to the bodies of believers, so that by union with that which is immortal man also might become a participator in immortality. And these things he grants to the power of the blessing, having therefore transformed the nature of the phenomena (Ἐπεὶ οὖν καὶ τοῦτο τὸ µέρος [wine, blood] ἡ θεοδόχος ἐκείνη σὰρξ πρὸς τὴη σύστασιν ἑαυτῆς παρεδέξατο, ὁ δε φανερωθεὶς Θεὸς διὰ τοῦτο κατέµιξεν ἑαυτὸν τῇ ἐπικήρῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φύσει, ἱνα τῇ τῆς θεότητος κοινωνίᾳ συναποθεωθῇ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, τούτου χάριν πᾶσι τοῖς πεπιστευκόσι τῇ οἰκονοµίᾳ τῆς χάριτος ἑαυτὸν ἐνσπείρει διὰ τῆς σαρκός ἧς ἡ σύστασις ἐξ οἴνου τε καὶ ἄρτου ἐστὶ, τοῖς σώµασι τῶν πεπιστευκότων κατακρινάµενος, ὡς ἂν τῇ πρὸς τὸ ἀθάνατον ἑνώσει καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀθανασίας µέτοχος γένοιτο. Ταῦτα δὲ δίδωσι τῇ τῆς εὐλογίας δυνάµει πρὸς ἐκεῖνο µεταστοιχειώσας τῶν φαινοµένων τὴν φύσιν). It was henceforth impossible for any other theory to outbid this one, which followed the practice. It is the foundation for all farther developments, especially the liturgical, and is responsible for nominally Christian heathenism. It sprang from Gregory the “spiritualist”, the disciple of Origen! It explains why all purer science necessarily ceased. No independent theology could long hold its ground side by side with such an intoxicating speculation.544 For the rest, Gregory did not teach transubstantiation in the later Western sense. According to him

544

Catech. magna 37, Steitz X., pp. 435-446.

only the form (εἶδος)of the elements, not the substance, was changed. His theory is therefore rightly described as one of transformation. Nor was he quite clear about the relation of the eucharistic to the real—transfigured—body. He did not entertain the idea of a complete identity, but only of a qualitative unity. The consecrated elements were qualitatively identical with the body, which the Logos had employed as his organ. 297

Chrysostom, on the contrary, spoke of a complete identity, and did not shrink from the boldest and most repugnant expressions. “In proof of his love he has given us the body pierced with nails, that we might hold it in our hands and eat it; for we often bite those whom we love much.”545 “Christ permits us to glut ourselves on his flesh.” Chrysostom won't remove our horror of cannibalism by spiritualising the rite. “In order then that the disciples might not be afraid, he drank first, and thus introduced them undismayed into the Communion of his mysteries; therefore he drank his own blood.” “Reflect, that the tongue is the member with which we receive the awful sacrifice.” “Our tongue is reddened by the most awful blood.” “He has permitted us who desire it not merely to see, but to touch and eat and bury our teeth in his flesh, and to intermingle it with our own being.”546 The fact that at the same time the benefit contained in the Lord’s Supper is described as being perceived by the mind, a νοήτον, hardly affects the result, for of course the body, however real, of a God is a νοητόν. Like Gregory, Chrysostom speaks of a refashioning and transforming (µεταρρυθµίζειν and µετασκευάζειν) of the elements, which Christ, the Holy Ghost, effects through the priest by means of the invocation—not of the words of institution which do not constitute the medium among the Greeks. Very instructive, moreover, is the reference to the Incarnation. “The Church sees the Lord lying in the crib wrapped in swaddling-clothes—an awful and wonderful spectacle; for the Lord’s table takes the place of the crib, and here also lies the body of the Lord, not wrapped in swaddling-clothes, but surrounded on all sides by the Holy Ghost.” Chrysostom, accordingly, went decidedly farther in this point also than Gregory, with whom he agreed in the assumption of an essentially corporeal effect of the participation.547 545

Hom. 24 in 1 ep. ad. Cor. c. 4. Hom. de beato 55e Philogono 3; see Steitz X., pp. 446-462, from whom also the above quoted passages are taken. 547 Compare also the offensive expressions of Theodoret (Interpret. in cant. cantic. C. 3, Opp. II., p. 89 Schulze): οἱ τοίνυν ἐσθίοντες τοῦ νυµφίου τὰ µέλη καὶ πίνοντες αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷµα τῆς γαµικῆς αὐτοῦ τυγχάνουσι κοινωνίας. But the same author writes 546

298

To Dionysius, who was thoroughly Neoplatonic, the ethical central notion consists in mystical union [= θέωσις (deification) = ἀφοµοίωσις (likeness) + ἕνωσις (union)]. The complicated “hierarchies” in heaven and in the Church—“purifying, illuminating, perfecting” = deacons, priests, and bishops—act as intermediaries. This they accomplish by the mysteries which likewise are graded; to the bishops is reserved the consecration of the priests, the consecration of the anointing oil and of the altar. So the Lord’s Supper, as in the case of Cyril of Jerusalem, is no longer treated apart; it has its place along with five other mysteries. Dionysius was enabled to evolve a mystical doctrine dealing with each mystery by a close examination of its ritual performance. A deeper sense is given to each little detail; it has a symbolical significance; “symbolical” is indeed not a strong enough term. There is really a mystery present; but this conception does not prevent the expert in mysteries from after all regarding everything as the covering of a single inner process: the return of the soul from multiplicity to unity, from finitude and disunion to the ocean of the divine being. The Eucharist which accompanies and completes the pr 6108 ocess contributes to that which was begun in baptism. The liturgical performance is rendered symbolical in every part. Moreover, the consecrated elements are themselves treated as symbols. The realistic view of Chrysostom is not found in Dionysius. The realism consists, so to speak, in the fixity and integrity of the liturgical performance. Otherwise it is true of the Lord’s Supper, what Dionysius says generally of all mysteries: “The majority of us do not believe in what is said regarding the divine mysteries; for we only see them through the sensible symbols attached to them. We ought to strip the symbols off and behold them by themselves when they have become naked and pure; for thus seeing them we should revere the spring of life pouring into itself, both beholding it existing by itself and being a kind of single force, simple, self-moved, self-acting, not abandoning itself, but furnishing the science of all sciences, and 548 299ever itself seen by itself.” And it is characteristic that it was (Dial. Inconfus.): οὐδὲ γὰρ µετὰ τὸν ἁγιασµὸν τὰ µυστικὰ σύµβολα τῆς οἰκείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως. µένει γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας καὶ τοῦ σχήµατος καὶ τοῦ εἴδους καὶ ὁρατά ἐστι καὶ ἁπτά, οἷα καὶ πρότερον ἦν. ace 548 Dionys. ep. 9, I ed. Corder (1755) I., p. 612: Ἀπιστοῦµεν οἱ πολλοὶ τοῖς περὶ τῶν θείων µοστηρίων λόγοις· θεώµεθα γὰρ µόνον αὐτὰ διὰ τῶν προσπεφυκότων αὐτοῖς αἰσθητῶν συµβόλων. ∆εῖ δὲ καὶ ἀποδύντας αὐτὰ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν γυµνὰ καὶ καθαρὰ γενόµενα ἰδεῖν· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν θεώµενοι σεφθείηµεν πηγὴν ζωῆς εἰς ἑαυτὴν χεοµένην καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς ἑστῶσαν ὁρῶντες καὶ µίαν τινὰ δύναµιν, ἁπλῆν,

precisely the consecration of the monk which constituted the highest mystery. Nothing but the tradition of the Church prevented Dionysius ranking it actually above the Eucharist. Dionysius does not discuss the Eucharistic sacrifice at all.549 The following period was set the task of combining the crass realism of Gregory of Nyssa and Chrysostom with the ritualism of Dionysius, without at the same time wholly destroying the hidden spiritual element which depreciated all rites in comparison with the inner feeling and exaltation. But from the beginning of the fifth century conceptions of the Eucharist were very decidedly influenced by the Christological differences. If the conception of the Eucharist was connected with that of the Incarnation, then it could not be a matter of indifference to the former, whether in the latter the two natures were held to be fused in one or to remain separate. Monophysites and Orthodox, however, had always been and remained of one mind regarding the Lord’s Supper. Cyril argued over and over again from the Lord’s Supper in support of the Incarnation and vice versa, and it was strictly due to him that the Church learned the connection between the two and never lost it. Even Leo I. can discuss it.550 Nay, the incorruptibility of the Eucharistic body was now accepted without question, while this view, when applied to the Incarnation, was called, at least in later times, Aphthartodoketism. Cyril had no fixed doctrinal formula for the Lord’s Supper; he did not go so far as Chrysostom.551 But since the body was to him, because of the one 300nature made flesh (µία φύσις σεσαρκωµένη), God’s body, it was in the full sense of the term “life-giving” (ζωοποιός). Accordingly he also maintained that it was not, as Nestorius taught, the body of a man that lay on the altar, but the body of God.552 When we partake of the flesh of Christ, he implants it in us; he does not thereby become man in

αὐτοκίνητον αὐτοενέργητον, ἑαυτὴν οὐκ ἀπολείπουσαν, ἀλλὰ γνῶσιν πασῶν γνώσεων ὑπάρχουσαν, καὶ ἀεὶ δι᾽ ἑαυτῆν ἑαυτὴν θεωµένην. 549 Mönchsweihe de eccles. hierarch. I. 6, Abendmahl l.c. I. 3, pp. 187-198; on Dionysius’ whole teaching on the Sacraments, see Steitz XI., pp. 216-229. 550 Ep. 59. 551 On the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper as held by Theodore, Theodoret, Nestorius, and Pseudo-Chrysostom, see Steitz XII, pp. 217-435. Theodoret can be described with most reason as a believer in the symbolical character of the rite. Yet on the other hand it was maintained in the school of Theodore, in order to separate deity and humanity in Christ, that in the Lord’s Supper the humanity of the Redeemer is received. This was very stoutly and acutely opposed by Leontius (in Mai, Vet. 552 Script. nova coll. VI., p. 312) and that as a deification of man. 552 Ep. 12 ad Cœlest.

us—this mystical inference is rejected,—but our body is transformed and becomes immortal. We do not yet find in Cyril, however, the contention that the real body of Christ is present in the eucharistic body; it is rather only an operative presence that is meant; the eucharistic body is identical in its effects with the real.553 It was the strict Monophysites who could bring the eucharistic and the earthly body quite closely together, because they also held the earthly body to be imperishable;554 while the Severians still kept the two apart. But even the strict Monophysites did not, so far as is known, advance beyond identity in operative power.555 The decisive step was taken in the age of the orthodox renaissance under the shield of Aristotle, accordingly by the scholastics of the sixth century. Here we have above all and first to name Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople in the time of Justinian. He based his view “on the conception derived from the system of Dionysius, that the cause exists by itself apart from its effects, but multiplies itself potentially in them and enters wholly into each, and proved that the ascended body abides complete [in substance] and undivided in itself [in heaven], and yet is received completely by each communicant in the portion of bread dispensed to him.” Eutychius teaches a real multiplication of one and the same body of Christ in its antitypes—for as such he still describes the consecrated elements; but this 301multiplication is not one of substance, but of power. At any rate the separate existence of the eucharistic body side by side with the real is here for the first time given up.556 Even before this, Isidore of Pelusium had demonstrated that the eucharistic body passed through the same stages of deification (θέωσις) as the real. “It is partaken as capable of suffering and mortal; for it is broken and is bruised by our teeth; yet it is not destroyed, but is transformed in the communicant into the immortal body.”557

553

On Cyril, see Steitz XII., pp. 235-245. Nilus held the same view, l. c., pp. 245-248. Anastasius Sinaita made experiments to refute them, demonstrating that the consecrated host actually did decay; Steitz XII., pp. 215, 271 f. ada 555 Steitz XII., pp. 248-256. 556 Steitz XII., pp. 214, 256-262. 557 Steitz XII., pp. 215, 262 ff. 554

John of Damascus settled this question also.558 In the 13th chapter of Book IV. of his system of doctrine he gave a theory of the mysteries—Baptism and the Lord’s Supper—based on that of Gregory of Nyssa, but at the same time he was the first to perfect the conception of the identity of the eucharistic and the real body of Christ. John begins with the corruption of humanity and the Incarnation. From the latter we obtain the new birth and the twofold food, that we may become sons. and heirs of God. The birth and food required to be spiritual as well as corporeal, for we are both. As regards the food, he himself in the last night ate the ancient passover, and then gave the New Testament. God is all powerful and creates by word and spirit. As he sent forth the light, as his spirit formed a body from the flesh of the virgin and without seed, so the same spirit, falling like rain on the field, changes bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ; an analogy drawn from the process of nourishment as in Gregory of Nyssa. We may ask here as Mary did: How can that be? And we must once more answer: The Holy Spirit comes upon it. And in fact God has taken for his purpose the commonest things that we through the common and natural may be transplanted into the supernatural. But he now writes: “The body is truly made one with the deity, the body which came from the holy virgin, 302not that the body which was assumed comes down from heaven, but the very bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of God. And if you ask how this happens, it is enough for you to hear that it is by the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord also by the Holy Spirit assumed flesh for himself and in himself.”559 In what follows the view is expressly rejected that it is a different body of Christ that is in question: there are not two bodies, but one. Further: “The bread and wine are not types of the body and blood of Christ; not so, but the very body of the Lord deified.”560 The bread of the communion is not simple bread, but is united with the deity; it has accordingly two natures.

558

On the mystics before him and after Dionysius, and their in part significant modification of the ideas of Dionysius under the influence of Aristotle, see Steitz. XI., pp. 229-253. How closely the Trinity, Incarnation, and Eucharist were conceived to be connected, in the 7th century, may be seen from the Confession of Macarius of Antioch at the sixth Council, Mansi XI., p. 350 sq. 559 Σῶµά ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ἡνώµενον θεότητι, τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου σῶµα, οὐχ ὅτι τὸ ἀναληφθὲν σῶµα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ κατέρχεται, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ ἄρτος καὶ οἶνος µέταποιοῦνται εἰς σῶµα καὶ αἷµα Θεοῦ. εἰ δὲ τὸν τρόπον ἐπιζητεῖς, πῶς γίνεται, ἀρκει σοι ἀκοῦσαι, ὅτι διὰ πνεύµατος ἁγίου, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐξ τῆς ἁγίας θεοτόκου διὰ πνεύµατος ἁγίου ἑαυτῷ καὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὁ κὍ 564 σάρκα ὑπεστήσατο. 560 Οὐκ ἔστι τύπος ὁ ἄρτος καὶ ὁ οἶνος τοῦ σώµατος καὶ αἵµατος Χριστοῦ· µὴ γένοιτο, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ σῶµα τοῦ κυρίου τεθεωµένον.

The body united with the deity is, however, not one nature, but the one is that of the body, the other that of the deity combined with it, so that the two together constitute not one nature but two. Only the not yet consecrated elements, moreover, are to be called “antitypes”; in this way Basil also used the word (!). The mystery, however, is called “participation” because through it we possess a share in the deity of Jesus, but “communion” first, because we have communion with Christ, and secondly, because by the holy food we are united with one another, one body of Christ, members in his body, and therefore of one another. Therefore we have anxiously to watch lest we “participate” with heretics, or allow them to “participate” with us. Finally, it is still to be noticed that, according to John, the sacred food was not subject to the natural processes in the body. This is the classical doctrine of the Lord’s Supper in the Greek Church up to the present day. By the Holy Ghost bread and wine are received into the body of Christ. The eucharistic body is that which was born of the virgin, not, however, by a transubstantiation, as if the body of Christ descended suddenly from heaven and took the place of the elements, but by transformation 303and assumption, just as in the Incarnation. The bread-body is received into the real body and is thus identical with it.561 That is the last word of the Greek Church—only now was the mystery perfect. Only now was the real presence of the true body originated, the doctrine which the Churches of to-day, except the Reformed, wrongly assign to antiquity, nay, to the Apostolic age itself. It is true that Scholastics and Mystics have taught much that was original on the Lord’s Supper in the Greek Churches since John; spiritualism also was not abolished; but the history of dogma can give no place to these individual pronouncements.562 The sacrificial character and the reference to the crucifixion, which are so strikingly neglected by John, were again made prominent in after times.563 The physical and liturgical miracle was never, however, so logically analysed or reduced to the categories of being and phenomenon, substance and accident, in the Greek Church as in the West. Attempts at this were made; but they never

561

Steitz XII., pp. 216 f., 295-286. See Steitz XIII., pp. 3-66. The two controversies about the Lo ac5 rd’s Supper of 1155 and 1199 are relatively the most important. 563 The magical view of the Lord’s Supper is also seen in the practice of children’s communion, which first attested by Cyprian (by Leucius?), became the rule in the East, after infant Baptism had been established. Participation in the Lord’s Supper was even held to be absolutely necessary; so already Cyprian, Testim. III. 25. See the Art. “Communion of Children” by v. Zerschwitz in Herzog’s R.-Encykl., 2nd ed. 562

obtained any far-reaching importance in the official doctrine. The second Nicene Council of A.D. 787 took its stand on the conception of John. The last exclamations of the assembled Fathers were: “Whoever does not confess that Christ, on the side of his humanity, has an unlimited form, let him be anathema. May the memory of Germanus (of Constantinople) and of John (of Damascus) endure for ever.”564 304

§ 2. Christianity of the Second Rank. There existed in Christendom, ever since there was a doctrina publica, i.e., from the end of the second century, a kind of subsidiary religion, one of the second rank, as it were subterranean, different among different peoples, but everywhere alike in its crass superstition, naïve doketism, dualism, and polytheism. “When religions change, it is as if the mountains open. Among the great magic snakes, golden dragons and crystal spirits of the human soul, which ascend to the light, there come forth all sorts of hideous reptiles and a host of rats and mice.” Every new religion invigorates the products of the ancient one which it supersedes. In one aspect of it we know very little of the “Christianity” of the second rank, for it had no literary existence;565 in another we are thoroughly familiar with it; for we only need to set before us, and to provide with a few Christian reminiscences, the popular conditions and rites with which Christianity came in contact in different provinces,566 as also the tendencies, everywhere the same, of the superstitious mob, tendencies inert in the moral sphere, exuberant in the realm of fancy. Then we have this second-class Christianity. It consisted in worship of angels—demigods and demons, reverence for pictures, relics, and amulets, a more or less impotent enthusiasm for the sternest asceticism—therefore not infrequently strictly dualistic conceptions—and a scrupulous observance of certain things held to be sacred, words, signs, rites, ceremonies, places, and times. There probably never was an age in which Christendom was free from this “Christianity”, just as there

564

See Mansi XIII., p. 398 sq. and Hefele III., p. 473. On the present doctrine and practice of the Greek Churches as regards the Eucharist, see Gass, Symbolik, pp. 252277.; Kattenbusch l.c. I., p. 410 ff. There as also in the Index of Hefele’s Conciliengesch. (esp. Vol III. under “Abendmahl”, “Messe”) we obtain information also as to the numerous detailed decisions bearing on the rite (leavened bread, etc.); compare Heineccius, Abbildung der alten and neuen griechischen Kirche, 1711. 565 Yet some of the apocryphal Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Apocalypses, etc., come under this head. 566 The works of Usener and Dieterich ( , Leipzig, 1893) are valuable.

never will be one in which it shall have been overcome. But in the fully formed Catholic Church as it passes over into the Middle Ages, this Christianity was not only dragged along with it as a tolerated, because irremovable, burden, but it was to a very large extent legitimised, though under safeguards, and fused with the doctrina publica. Catholicism as it meets us in Gregory the Great and in the final decisions of the seventh 305Council, presents itself as the most intimate union of Christianity of the first order with that subterranean, thoroughly superstitious, and polytheistic “Christianity”; and the centuries from the third to the eighth mark the stages in the process of fusion, which seems to have reached an advanced point even in the third and was yet reinforced from century to century to a most extraordinary extent. It is the business of the historian of the Church and of civilisation to describe these developments in detail, and to show how in separate provinces the ancient gods were transformed into Christian saints, angels, and heroes, and the ancient mythology and cultus into Christian mythology and local worship. This task is as aesthetically attractive as that other which is closely allied to it, the indication of the remains of heathen temples in Christian Churches. The temple of Mithras which became St. George’s Church, proves that St. George was Mithras; in St. Michael the ancient Wotan had been brought to life again, just as Poseidon in St. Nicholas; the different “mothers of God”, who were honoured with all sorts of sacred offerings—one preferred fruits, another animals—only show that Demeter, Venus, Juno, and countless other great mothers and holy or unholy virgins, had merged in the one mother.—The provincial calendars and various “Church Years” conceal significant reminiscences from the old heathen times. Here, however, we are only interested in the questions of principle, how far all this had forced its way into the doctrina publica, and how it was possible for that religion, whose strong point had once been a horror of idols, to admit this stuff as something sacred. As regards the second question, the points of contact existed in the doctrina publica itself. The following may have been the most important. In the first place, the doctrina had been constructed by the aid of Greek and Roman intellectual culture and philosophy. These, however, were connected by a thousand ties with mythology and superstition, which were not got rid of by assigning a “noumenon” to everything. We need only recall the single instance of Origen to see that the father of free and spiritual theology was at the same time the patron of 306every superstition that would admit of receiving the least grain of spiritual contents. Secondly, the doctrina publica sanctioned the Old Testament. Before this, indeed, and even to some extent in the time of the

conflict with Gnosticism great pains had been taken to prove that the Old Testament was a Christian book, and to allegorise all its ceremonial features. But the power of interpretation had weakened more and more in comparison with the strength of the letter. What a wealth was embraced in the book of material drawn from the most varied stages of religious history! This material was sacred. No one indeed now got circumcised, or offered bloody sacrifices, or refrained from eating pork, but what did that signify if everything else gradually came somehow or other to be accepted? From the third century the Church needed infinitely more than a doctrina publica; it needed a sacred constitution, holy priests and a holy ritual. The Old Testament from which pretty nearly anything can be legitimised also legitimised this. Thus, side by side with revelation in the form of sacred doctrine, there arose an indefinitely increasing mass of sacred things which could be justified from the Old Testament alone. For its sake the old strict exclusion of the literal meaning of the book and of its ceremonies was abandoned, slowly indeed, but surely. At first the attempt was made to proceed circuitously, and to attribute the ceremonial decrees to the Apostles, because men were still unwilling to appeal directly to the Old Testament commands; but they then became bolder, and finally felt no scruple about using the Old Testament down to matters of detail, the special points of the Temple ritual— the cherubim being cited, for example, in support of the right to worship pictures. Thirdly, the sacred rites of Baptism, and especially of the Eucharist, offered points of contact for the intrusion of Christianity of the second rank into official Christianity. The public doctrine had already, at a very early date, treated and regarded these rites as mysteries in the ancient sense. Thus the door was thrown wide open to the inrush of everything of the character of a mystery, magic, liturgical miracles, and fetishes. Fourthly, devil, and angels had played a great part even in primitive Christianity. The official doctrine, 307however, at first paid comparatively little heed to them; yet they had always employed the imagination even of the most enlightened. Round these traditions the popular conceptions now gathered, and the doctrina publica was almost defenceless against them. When in the fourth and fifth centuries the masses streamed into the Church, it was not in a position, in spite of catechetical instruction, to exercise any control over them, or to examine the (mental) luggage of those desiring admission. Nay, more, the monks, who in the same period had with such extraordinary rapidity obtained full charge of piety, moved in this world of demons and angels, and cherished the ancient mythology under a Christian name. To live in the sphere of pure and impure spirits, to be visited, refreshed, strengthened by the former, and to

be tempted and assailed by the latter, soon was held to be a sign of a heroic Christianity; and to this the official doctrine had to accommodate itself. Besides the cultus, men obtained their edification from a pious light literature whose dualism and exotic character might lead the critic to assign it wrongly to the Gnosticism of the second century.567 But the Church was perhaps even more strongly influenced by the Neoplatonic doctrine of spirits. In devoting itself to a lofty intuition, and, like the Gnostics of old, seeing between God and the world hosts of graded moons (angels) who as the “heavenly hierarchy”—in reality as cosmical powers —reduced the many to the one, this doctrine legitimised the superstitious and barbarous conceptions of demigods and genii. The one God, whom the people had never understood, threatened to disappear, even in the views of refined theologians, behind the whole complicated intermediaries who appeared more tangible and therefore more trust 3084 worthy. Who can wonder that now the cultured Christian, if a mystic, also preferred in his religious difficulties to resort to these courts rather than to turn directly to God? If the supreme God had appointed and set these courts between himself and his world, then it would 308be presumption and aimless effort to ignore them. Only the strict ascetic might venture that. But he also would rather dwell in fancy in the magnificent, beautifully ordered world of spirits, where the golden buckets ascend;568 he would rather picture the fulness and variety of the immortal life than dwell for ever on the desolate and terrifying thought of the One, who was so incomprehensible, that not even his Being could be conceived. Fifthly, as a residuum of the idea that all Christians were “saints”, and that the Church possessed apostles, prophets, and spiritual teachers, the conviction had remained that there had been a Heroic Age, and that those who had then won a name for themselves were “saints”. They were added to the Patriarchs and Old Testament Prophets, and they continued to receive successors in the martyrs and great ascetics. The most cultured theologians had already set up theories of the power of these heroes to intercede with God, and of their special relation to Christ. The anniversaries of the birth or death of the saints were celebrated, and thus they offered themselves in the most natural way to take the place of the dethroned gods and their festivals. They fell into

567

To the monks there fell as a rule in the East the role of mediators between Christianity of the first and second rank. They perhaps contributed most strongly to the transference of catchwords of the former into the latter, and of the spirit of the latter into the former. 568 The Manichæans held a similar doctrine.

line with the angelic powers, and were held to be more trustworthy than the latter. Among them Mary came to the front, and the course of the development of dogma specially favoured her, and her alone. A woman, a mother, made her appearance in proximity to the deity; and thus at last it became possible to include in Christianity the recognition of that which had been most foreign to primitive Christianity—homage paid to sex, the sacred, the divine, in a female form. The Gospel to the Hebrews had already, indeed, made the Lord say, “My mother the Holy Ghost”; but this thought was yet sexless, so to speak, and was besides never made use of in the great Church. Mary now became the mother, the bearer, of God. Sixthly, from the earliest times the Christians had looked on death as holy; it was the birth-hour of the true life; for in this world life meant for the Christians to practise dying, and to have died was to live in immortality. Accordingly, everything 309connected with blessed death, had already been touched by the breath of immortality. The martyrs exhaled this breath; therefore their very bones were more precious than gold or jewels. The worship of the dead began early, and only a few opposed it. The heathen use of fetishes and amulets revived in the cultus of the dead and of relics; in this form it was destitute of the aesthetic charm which antiquity knew how to give to its amulets and little sanctuaries, and for this reason the refined taste of enthusiastic Epigoni rose in disgust against the veneration of bones and corpses (see Julian’s attacks). But the Christians satisfied themselves from the contrast between the sensuous appearance and its religious value that their faith was unique and elevated. since it found the divine in the very dust and fragments of death. Therefore they were certain of not being heathen in revering those amulets and relics; for heathenism sought and found its sacred things in the bloom of life, but Christianity in death. With the service of the relics was most intimately connected the veneration of the saints, and the two led to the veneration of pictures and idols. For, seventhly, the doctrina publica, as has been shown in our whole account, contained to an increasing extent the impulse to transform the µάθησις (doctrine) into mysteries; this impulse it followed continually in the treatment of the Eucharist. But in doing so, it opened up the way to the boundless desire to enjoy the holy everywhere and with the whole five senses, and it then obeyed this desire itself. The Lord’s Supper became the centre of an ever extending circle of material sacred things which could be seen, heard, tasted, smelt, and touched. The religious was much more closely connected with the material than with the moral. That, however, meant the relapse to religious barbarism and the worship

of images. This might be transfigured in poetry—everything now showed a trace of God; it could even be spiritualised pantheistically—God is the world, and the world is the deity revealed; but within Christianity it was nothing but apostasy. But further, the senses which seek to perceive and therefore do perceive that which is holy, become dull and blind in presence of that which is actually perceptible, and dazzle the reason. The reason became 310accustomed to a fabulous world of wonders, and more and more lost all rational standards. Even the most cultured Fathers from the fifth century ceased to be capable of distinguishing between the real and unreal; they were defenceless against the most absurd tales of the miraculous, and lived in a world of magic and enchantment. Then there once more emerged practices which date from the earliest age of civilisation. Soothsaying, auguries, examination of sacrifices, inquiries at oracles of every sort:— they had lost their name and their ritual, but they were now revived in all that was essential as Christian, though in new forms. Bibliomancy, questioning the Bible like a book of oracles, arose. Synods at first denounced it, but even great doctors of the Church favoured the evil habit. Ordeals, which were by no means originated by the Germans, came into vogue. Two clerics of North Africa were suspected of a scandalous act; both denied the charge; one must have been guilty; Augustine sent them over sea to the grave of S. Felix of Nola. There they were to repeat their assertions; Augustine expected that the saint would at once punish the liar. At the sixth Council a Monothelite offered to prove the truth of his confession by writing it and placing it on the breast of a dead man, when the dead would rise up. The Fathers of the Council accepted the test. In cases of sickness questions were addressed to this or that saint; the patient slept in his chapel; on certain days lodging in the chapel was more effective than on others, etc., etc. The sources of the fifth to the eighth century contain hundreds of such cases; not only did the foolish multitude take part in them, but, as the above passages have shown, the spiritual leaders themselves. The impulse to mystagogy, and the misguided craving to feel the proximity of the deity, without being or becoming a new man, were to blame for this decline and fall. Only two points can be cited. First, the better Christians still continued to seek and find an object of thought (νοητόν) in the thousand liturgical sacred things, the thought and its envelopment interchanged with each other in an attractive play. Thus these men defended themselves against the charge of worshipping idols. Secondly, the honour to be assigned to idols was and continued to be 311uncertain; it was not equal to that of God or of Jesus Christ or to the authority of Holy Scripture, and one might even finally disown them; any one might confine himself to the doctrina

publica, and privately interpret in his own way its sensuous and magical portions, if only he did not attack them. But the poor common people knew nothing of this secret privilege of the learned, nor might they share in it. And even scholars were themselves burdened with an immense amount of stuff to which they had to dedicate their piety. It is the same to-day. The pious regard which is required by the whole complex of ecclesiasticism, intimately interwoven as it is with nationality, restricts the capacity to win independent power in religion, and to take earnestly and devoutly what is really earnest and holy. No religion gains anything through time; it only loses. If a hurricane does not pass over it and purify it again and again, it gets stifled in its own withered foliage. No hurricane has yet swept over the Churches of the East. And yet they possess in the Gospel, which they too read, an element of movement which perhaps in some future time will bring life to the dry bones. On the worship of angels, see Vol. III., Chap. IV. and Schwane, Dogmengeschichte II., pp. 299-328. The seventh general Synod decided that angels must also be portrayed because they were finite in form, and had appeared to many in a human shape. The theologoumenon of Dionysius, who was not the first to teach it, concerning the nine choirs of angels, obtained general acceptance. The conception of the manifold guardian ministry of the angels became more and more important. Even Schwane confesses here: “the doctrine that every man possessed such a guardian spirit appears to have been allied to the old heathen idea of genii, but was also founded on Holy Scripture” (p. 315). The worship and invocation of angels became established; but the Church held in principle to the position that the angelic cultus was not identified with the worship of God.569 312

In reference to the Saints, Cyril says in his fifth mystagogic catechism (c. 9); “Then we also remember those who have already

569

On the extension of angel-worship we have an interesting bit of evidence as early as the fourth century in Didymus, De trinit. II. 7, p. 250 (ed. Mingarelli): ∆ιὸ µετὰ τὰς ἐκκλησίας καὶ οἶκοι εὐκτήριοι τῷ Θεῷ τῆς προηγορίας ὑµῶν (scil. of the angels) ἐ 564 πώνυµοι, ᾧ εὐάρεστος ξυνωρὶς ἀρχαγγέλων, οὐκ ἐν µόναις ταῖς πόλεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ στενωποῖς ἰδίᾳ καὶ οἰκίαις καὶ ἀγροῖς ἱδρύθησαν, χρυσῷ καὶ ἀργύρῳ ἢ καὶ ἐλέφαντι κοσµηθέντες· ἴασίν τε οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ εἰς τὰ ἀπωτέρω τῆς ἐνεγκαµένης αὐτοὺς χωρία τὰ ἔχοντα οἷον ὡς πρυτάνια ἐπιτευγµάτων τὰ εὐκτήρια προβεβληµένα, οὐκ ὀκνοῦντες καὶ πέλαγος διαλαβεῖν ἢν δέοι µακρόν . . . ὡς πειραθησόµενοι πλείονος εὐνοίας µὲν τῆς περὶ τὴν πρεσβείαν ἀπὸ ὑµῶν, µετουσίας δὲ τῆς τῶν φιλοτιµουµένων ὑπὲρ τοῦ εὖ ἀγαθῶν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ.

fallen asleep, first the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that God through their prayers and intercession may accept our supplication.” So also Augustine. This circle was extended after the fifth century by the addition of holy bishops, monks, and nuns. The power of the Saints to intercede was always the reason why honour and invocation (τιµὴ καὶ ἐπίκλησις) were due to them. The ancient little martyr-chapels of the saints now became great Churches. The complete apotheosis of the saints was denied in principle. The offerings brought on the anniversaries of Saints and Martyrs were always meant for God. But the connecting of the service of the Saints with the eucharistic sacrifice gave the former an extraordinary value. Banquets were regularly held on their anniversaries—a genuinely heathen custom, and in vain did men like Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory of Nazianzus inveigh against them. The ideas of the communion of the Saints, and its typical import—every class gradually obtained its Saint—were certainly very valuable, and in this sense the worship of the Saints was not entirely unjustifiable; but the harm was greater than the benefit. The worship of God suffered, and crass superstition was introduced, especially in connection with the relics. This was first perceived by the Gallican priest Vigilantius who had witnessed the gross disorder prevalent at the sacred sites of Palestine,570 Vigilantius (end of the fourth century) went to the roots of the worship of the Saints with his criticism, not only disputing th 6108 e power of their intercession, but denying its existence, since the Saints were not yet in heaven with Christ. Against him Jerome maintained (c. Vigil. 6) a “ubique esse” of the saints, Apostles, and Martyrs, since they were wherever 313Christ was. Augustine also, who refers to similar contentions, showed that the Saints continued to have the power and the will to participate in earthly things. Vigilantius had rightly perceived the danger of an actual fusion of the service of God and of the Saints, and his attack resulted, at least, in a sharper distinction being drawn in theory. This was also, however, done by the Greeks; they reserved worship (λατρεία) to God, and described the veneration of the Saints, in language already used by Cyril of Alexandria, as a becoming honour (τιµὴ σχετική).571

570

Jerome c. Vigilant. 564 and ep. ad Riparium. Worship was more and more paid to the saints as ascetics and workers of miracles. Men wished to receive front the miracle-workers what they praised in the ascetics; for the worship was not platonic, but was always covetous. The great patterns for biographies of ascetics were the Life of Anthony by Athanasius, and the Lives of the Egyptian monks by Jerome. These were followed in the West by the saintly novels on Martin of Tours by Sulpicius Severus, and the Egyptian Tales of Johannes Cassianus. Comprehensive works 571

Most offensive was the worship of relics.572 It flourished to its greatest extent as early as the fourth century, and no Church doctor of repute restricted it. All of them rather, even the Cappadocians, countenanced it. The numerous miracles which were continually wrought by bones and relics seemed to confirm their worship. The Church therefore would not give up the practice, although a violent attack was made upon it by a few cultured heathens, and besides by Manichæans. Moreover, in the Church itself a scanty opposition arose here and there. The strict Arians (Eunomians) appear to have been more backward about this worship (c. Vigil, 8), and Vigilantius assailed the worshippers of relics, with Julian-like acuteness, though he was moved by the thought of the divine worship in spirit and truth. He called the adorers of relics “suppliants to refuse and servants of idols.” He would have nothing to do with the lights kindled before relics, the praying and kissing, or the pomp with which they 314were surrounded (c. 4). But that did as little good as his unsuccessful attacks on pilgrimage to the holy sites of Palestine. Men continued to seek the living among the dead, and soon it was enjoined as an universal command—and first in the West—that every altar must have its relics; see Canon 17 of the 6th Synod of Carthage, and Canon 2 of a Parisian Council in Hefele III., p. 70. The altar was no longer merely the table of the Lord, but at the same time the memorial of some Saint or other. Yet in France it was still necessary for a long time to defend the practice against Vigilantius who had obtained no ally in Augustine, although that great theologian well knew that God required a spiritual service.573 In the East, after Constantine Copronymus had attacked the relics along with the images, their worship was expressly enjoined by the seventh Synod; see the

soon appeared in the East, of which the φιλόθεος ἱστορία of Theodoret, the Historia Lausiaca of Palladius, and the corresponding sections of Sozomen’s Church History, deserve special mention. The ἀποφθέγµατα of Macarius are uniqne. The biographies of saints and martyrs of the Jacobites, Copts and Abyssinians are, thanks to a gloomy and desolate fancy, particularly repulsive. We need only here mention the collection (Simeon Metaphrastes) and the ritual use of 564 the biographies (Menaen, Synaxarien, etc.). 572 On the differences between East and West in the cultus of the relics, see Sdralek, Art. Reliquien in Kraus, Realencyklop. der Christl. Alterthümer. 573 On the continued influence of Vigilantius in France, see the tractate of Faustus of Reji de symbolo (Caspari, Quellen IV., p. 273); “Ut transeamus ad sanctorum communionem. Illos hic sententia ista confundit, qui sanctorum et amicorum dei cineres non in honore debere esse blasphemant, qui beatorum martyrum gloriosam memoriam sacrorum reverentia monumentorum colendam esse non credunt. In symbolum prævaricati sunt, et Christo in fonte mentiti sunt, et per hanc infidelitatem in medio sinu vitæ locum morti aperue 53f runt.”

transactions at the fourth and seventh sittings (Hefele III., pp. 466, 472) as also the seventh Canon of the Council: “As every sin is followed by others in its train, the heresy of the iconoclasts dragged other impieties after it. They have not only taken away the sacred pictures, but they have abandoned other usages of the Church, which must now be renewed. We order therefore that relics be deposited with the usual prayers in all temples which have been consecrated without possessing any. But if in future a bishop consecrates a Church not having relics he shall be deposed.” On the worship of saints and relics in the modern Greek Church, see Gass, Symbolik, p. 310 ff., Kattenbusch l.c. I., p. 465 f. Along with relics and pictures the sign of the cross—this from an early date: see even Justin—the volume of the Gospels, the eucharistic vessels and many other things were held to be especially holy. On the cross and the form in which it was to be made, on which great stress is placed, see Gass, p. 184 f. Mary takes the first place among the saints. She came into even in the first three centuries.574 So early began the legends and aprocryphal narratives that dealt with her; her place in the Symbol next the Holy Spirit insured a lofty position to her for all time. Pierius, Alexander of Alexandria, and Athanasius, already called her mother of God, and her virginity was maintained before, during and after the birth, the birth itself being embellished with miracle, as in the case of the Gnostics. But Mary obtained her chief, her positively dogmatic significance from the fact that the dogma of the Incarnation became the central dogma of the Church. Even the arguments of Irenæus are in this respect very significant (Mary and Eve); but it was only from the fourth century that the consequences were drawn. It would lead us too far to give here a history of mariolatry even in outline.575 The orthodox Fathers of the Greek Church in the fourth century were still comparatively reserved. Ambrose and Jerome, above all, in their controversy with Jovinian, initiated the Church in the worship of Mary.576 Ambrose 315notice

574

See Vol. I., p. 258; II., p. 277. A good review is given by Benrath, “Zur Gesch. der Marienverehrung”, re-printed from the Theol. Studien and Kritik., 1886. A list is given in it of Catholic literature, in which the works of Marraci, Passaglia, Kurz (1881), Scheeben (1882), and von Lehner (1881, also a 2nd ed.) are especially noteworthy. Art. “Maria” by Steitz in the R.-Encykl., Rösch, Astarte Maria (Stud. u. Krit., 1888, pp. 265-299). Kattenbusch, l.c. I., p. 464 f. 589 576 Jovinian, so passionately handled by Jerome, had, in keeping with his depreciatory view of virginity in general, denied among other things the perpetua virginitas of Mary. But other Western writers, like Bonosus and Helvidius, held the same view, and found supporters in their own time in Illyria. Bonosus held heterodox views, besides, of the person of Christ (compare the Art. on him in Herzog’s R.-Encykl.). 575

who exerted so strong an influence upon Augustine is especially to be mentioned as patron of this worship. He taught that Mary took an active share in the work of redemption, and already applied Gen. III., 3 to the holy virgin. In his time, again, the fables about Mary, which had long been in existence, began to be recognised as authoritative in the Church. All that had been sung in her praise by extravagant Latin, Greek, and Syrian poets and novelists, was consolidated into a kind of doctrine. It was believed as early as the end of the fourth century that Mary had not died, 316but had been removed from the earth by a miracle. Yet the Arabian Collyridians, who presented her with offerings of bread-cakes, as if she had been a goddess, were anathematised (Epiph. H. 78). The Nestorian controversy brought Mary into the centre next Christ. She was the rock from which was hewn the deified body of the God-Logos. Nestorius cried in vain to Cyril, and with him to the whole Church, “Don't make the virgin into a goddess”; at Ephesus Cyril exalted her for ever in the Catholic Church above all creatures, above Cherubim and Seraphim, and set her at the right hand of the Son. He started the permutatio nominum by which everything held true of the Son might be said to a great extent of the mother, because without her there would have been no God-man. She now really became a factor in dogma, which cannot be said of any saint or angel; for the name “she who bore God” (bride of the Holy Spirit) was thoroughly meant. It may be said in many respects that the orthodox now taught regarding Mary what the Arians had taught regarding Christ; she was a demi-god mediating between God and men. John of Damascus summarised the Greek theory in De fide orth. III., 12 and in the three homilies devoted to Mary. “The name ‘Bearer of God’ represents the whole mystery of the Incarnation. The Holy Spirit purified Mary with a view to the conception.” John adopted the whole mass of legend up to the Ascension. Her share in the work of redemption is strongly emphasised; her body remained uncorrupted. Yet it is noteworthy that John was much more cautious in his dogmatic work than in his homilies. The Synod of A.D. 754, hostile as it was to saints and pictures, did not venture to interfere with mariolatry; indeed it expressly avowed its orthodoxy on this point; but that was not enough for the opposition. Theodorus Studita described the iconoclasts as opponents of the worship of Mary—see his ἐγκώµιον εἰς τὴν κοίµησιν of Mary; and it was only by the Synod of 787 that feeling in the East was satisfied. But in spite of all the extravagances with which she was honoured—the successive rise of numerous festivals, the annunciation, birth, death, reception, introduction into the temple—she is only recognised after all in Greek dogmatics as the great patroness and intercessor 317for men. There is not a word of her having been free from the stain of original sin. It has been

rightly said that she soon took a much more independent position in Western piety. “The prayers to Mary in the Greek Euchologion have a very uniform tone, because they dwell persistently on the desire for support and help.” (Gass, l.c. p. 183). In a word, although she is also called “Lady” by the Greeks, she is not the “Queen” who rules Christendom and the world, and commands in heaven. She is not the “Mother of sorrows”; that itself gives a different meaning to the feeling in the two Churches. But the superstition which is practised among the masses in connection with her pictures is perhaps worse in the East than in the West. The distinctive character of the Greek Church was most clearly expressed in the worship of pictures, in the form in which it was dogmatically settled after the controversy on the subject.577 There had been pictures from early times, originally for decorative purposes, and afterwards for instruction, in the grave-yards, churches, memorial chapels, and houses, and fixed to all sorts of furniture. Opposition had existed, but it came to an end in the Constantinian age. The people were to learn from the pictures the histories they depicted; they were looked on as the books of the unlearned.578 At the same time the 318picture was to adorn holy places. But still another interest gradually made itself felt, one that had formerly been most strenuously resisted by early Christianity. It is natural for men to desire relics and images of venerated

577

On the controversy about images, see Mansi XII.-XIV., and the works of John of Damascus, Theodore Studita, Theophanes, Gregory Hamartolus, Cedrenus, Zonaras, Constantine Manasses, Michael Glycas, Anastasius and others. Works by Goldast (1608), Dallaeus (1642), Maimbourg (1683), Spanheim (1686), Walch (Vol. X. of the Ketzergesch.), Schlosser (1812), Marx (1839), Hefele (Concil. Gesch. III. 2, p. 366 ff.; IV. 2, p. 1 ff.), Schenk, Kaiser Leo III. (Halle, 1880). On the relation of Armenia to the image-controversy, ac8 see Karapet Ter Mkrttschian, Die Paulikianer (Leipzig, 1893), p. 52 ff., and there also the part on the controversies and the history of the sects, p. 112 ff., etc.; see especially the K.-Gesch. of Hergenröther. Gass, Symbolik, p. 315 ff. Kattenbusch l.c. I., p. 467 ff., and the monograph by Schwarzlose, Der Bilderstreit, ein Kampf der griechischen Kirche um ihre Eigenart and ihre Freiheit, 1890. 578 But at the same time, some ranked the pictures much higher than exegesis, as is shown by the interesting letter of Bishop David of Mez-Kolmank on images and drawings to John Mairogomier (translated by Karapet, l.c., p. 52): . . . “This sect arose after the time of the Apostles, and first appeared among the Romans, wherefore a great Synod was held at Cæsarea, and the command was given to paint pictures in the House of God. These painters became arrogant, and sought to have their art placed above all other ecclesiastical arts. They said: “Our art is light, for, while few read the Holy Scriptures, it enlightens equally old and young.” This and other passages by Armenius show, besides, that there were “iconoclastic heretics” long before the Emperor Leo. The Marcionites (Paulicians) also rejected pictures and crosses.

beings, to withdraw them from profane use, and to treat them with deep devotion. Christianity had originally resisted this impulse, so far as anything connected with the deity was concerned, in order not to fall into idolatry. There was less repugnance, however, to it, when it dealt with Christ, and almost none from the first in the case of martyrs and heroic characters. From this point the veneration of relics and pictures slowly crept in again. But from the fifth century it was greatly strengthened, and received a support unheard of in antiquity, through the dogma of the incarnation and the corresponding treatment of the Eucharist. Christ was the image (εἰκών) of God, and yet a living being, nay, a life-giving spirit (πνεῦµα ζωοποιόν); Christ had by the incarnation made it possible to apprehend the divine in a material form, and had raised sensuous human nature to the divine: the consecrated elements were εἰκόνες of Christ and yet were his very body. These ideas introduced thought to a new world. It was not only the Areopagite and the mystics who saw in all consecrated finite things the active symbol of an eternal power, or perceived the superiority of the Christian religion to all others in the very fact that it brought the divine everywhere into contact with the senses. They merely raised to the level of a philosophic view what the common man and the monk had long perceived, namely, that everything secular which has been adopted by the Church became, not only a symbol, but also a vehicle of the sacred. But amid secular things the image, which bore as it were its consecration in itself, appeared to be least secular. Pictures of Christ, Mary, and the saints, had been already worshipped from the fifth 319(fourth) century with greetings, kisses, prostration, a renewal of ancient pagan practices. In the naïve and confident conviction that Christians no longer ran any risk of idolatry, the Church not only tolerated, but promoted, the entrance of paganism. It was certainly the intention to worship the divine in the material; for the incarnation of deity had deified nature (φύσις). A brisk trade was carried on in the seventh and beginning of the eighth century in images, especially by monks; churches, and chapels were crowded with pictures and relics; the practice of heathen times was revived, only the sense of beauty was inverted. It was not fresh life that seemed fair, but, though a trace of the majestic might not be lacking, it was the life consecrated to asceticism and death. We do not know how far artistic incapacity, how far the dogmatic intention, contributed to the Byzantine ideal of the saints. “Authentic” pictures were in existence, and numberless copies were made from them. By their means, monkish piety, engaged in a stupid staring at sacred things, ruled the people, and dragged Christianity down to deeper and deeper depths.

But this monkish piety, which prevailed from the Bishops down, had become more and more independent in relation to the State. None of his successors had mastered the Church, like Justinian; and it was the aim of the iconoclastic emperors to reduce it to complete subjection to the State, to make it a department of the State. They sought at the same time to have a State Church into which they could force the sects, Jews and Mohammedans, without imposing what was most obnoxious to them, that which made official Christianity into heathenism —the worship of images. They meant therefore to decide what was Christian, and how the cultus ought to be framed, and in doing so they were aided by the fact that it could be shown without any difficulty that the worship of images was something relatively novel and alien. We cannot say more; for they themselves were violent and rude barbarians, military upstarts, who depended on the sword. They had abandoned the idea of the Church as the chief support of the empire; it was to be the chief servant. Instead of priests they had soldiers. They merely wished that the Church should not give trouble, and that it 320should be possible in any given case to make whatever use of it the State might require. Image-worship may look like religious barbarism; but it was associated with all the spiritual forces still possessed at that time in Christendom. The iconoclastic imperial power was much more barbarous, though we have to admit that Constantine Copronymus possessed brilliant gifts as a ruler. However, the emperors found bishops who made common cause with them, and it cannot be denied that some of these had religious motives for attacking the images. Here and there the hostility of the Jews and of Islam may have set them thinking about the matter; others sought for means of winning or conciliating the Mohammedans. Their opponents described the Arabians as the teachers of the iconoclastic emperors. In A.D. 726 Leo the Isaurian took the matter in hand.579 A general opposition at once arose. “The king must not decide

579

Schwarzlose (l.c., p. 36 ff.) has anew examined the origin of the controversy, in order to determine the external causes. But the matter has not yet been made clear. The following points fall to be considered. (1) Lesser reactions against the worship of images, which proceeded from the bosom of the Church even before the outbreak of the controversy, but which were only locally important. (2) Accusations by the Jews that the Christians ran counter to the prohibition of images in the Old Testament; the intervention of an Arabian Khalif, A.D. 723 (Jezid II.), against the Christian worship of images and of Mary (influenced by Judaism?); influence of the Jews on Leo the Isaurian (?). (3) A theological iconoclastic party in Phrygia, gathered round the Bishop of Nacolia [on this Schwarzlose, as it seems to me rightly, lays particu 564 lar stress]; this party perhaps took its stand on ancient Montanistic and Novatian reminiscences—the Paulicians are also

concerning faith” (µὴ δεῖν βασιλέα περὶ πίστεως λόγον ποιεῖσθαι). This general idea accompanied the whole dispute. From the days of Maximus Confessor, the leaders of the Greek Church insisted on the independence of the Church in relation to the State, and the Roman Bishops supported them in their efforts. They were for that very reason on the side of image-worship, just as, conversely, Charlemagne and his Franks were averse 321from it. At the same time the influence of other motives than those of ecclesiastical politics should not be denied.580 It was perhaps the greatest and the least expected crisis ever experienced by the Byzantine Church.581 The issue deprived it of any further independent history, of middle ages, or of a modern era. The image-worshippers, with the Pope at their head, replied to the imperial edict by referring to express divine statutes, to the Labarum of Constantine, and to the great Fathers of the fourth century, who had taught that the worship passed from the image to its prototype.582 They appealed to a picture at Paneas of which Eusebius had spoken, but above all to the incarnation of the Logos. “Had God not become man, we would not portray him in a human form.” The prohibitions of the Old Testament signified nothing to the contrary; for idols are only pictures of things which do not exist. We do not worship idols like the golden calf. He who makes use of the Old Testament in the Jewish fashion and charges the Church with idolatry is a reprobate Jew. Besides, Israel had possessed divine images of its own; it only refused to value them—Moses’ rod, the golden pitcher, the cover of the ark etc.; had it worshipped these, it would not have fallen down before idols. All sculpture made in the name of God was venerable and holy.583 These were the most important arguments.

said to have been inconoclasts; Leo’s contact with the above party in his time of military service. (4) The resolve of the Emperors no longer to depend for support on the spiritual power of the Church, but on the army, yet on the other hand to perfect the imperial papacy—after the pattern of the Khalif: βασιλεὺς καὶ ἱερεύς εἰµι. Karapet, l.c., lays stress on the part played by Islam, but will have nothing to do with Jewish influences. The Emperor wished to play the same part as the Khalif. 580 Reuter, Gesch. der relig. Aufkläring in MA. I., p. 10 ff. 581 On ac8 the external course of the controversy in detail, see Schwarzlose, l.c., p. 51 ff. 582 A passage from the works of Basil was especially important (δι᾽ εἰκόνος ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ ἀρχετύπου γίνεται); but Funk (Quartalschr., 1888) has shown that while Basil certainly uttered this saying, his meaning was different from that of the later imageworshippers; by εἰκών he meant Christ himself to whom the worship passed. 583 Gregory II. Ep. ad German. in Mansi XIII., p. 91 sq.

But the Emperor appointed a Patriarch favourable to him in Constantinople, and sought to get the Pope of Rome into his power. The latter, in his letters to him584 defending the images, emphasized the points, first, that there were χειροποίητα (images made with hands) which had been prompted by God, and were therefore sacred and, secondly, ἀχειρποίητα (not made with hands), 322as e.g., the picture which Christ had sent to Abgar. The latter, the ἀχειροποίητα, played a great, indeed the decisive, role in the Church of the East. Moreover, we see from the Pope’s letters that the imperial edict not only affected image worship as the veneration of idols, stones, walls, and boards, but also the veneration of martyrs as polytheism, and that the military Emperor plumed himself on his likeness to Josiah (Hezekiah). Thereupon the Pope wrote him that the dogmas of the Church were the affair of Bishops and not of the Emperor; as the former might not interfere in civil matters, so neither might the latter in ecclesiastical. The Emperor replied that he was at once Emperor and Priest. But Gregory was not to be dismayed; his second letter was even more forcible than his first. John of Damascus, securely protected by a Khalif, also raised his voice in three apologies on behalf of the images.585 In these the adoration of images is made to form an integral part of the dogmatic theory of the Incarnation. We adore the Creator who became a creature; with him is inseparably connected the purple garment of the body. Therefore, while God himself cannot be portrayed, the incarnate God can. The Mosaic law only forbade the ‘adoration of service’ (προσκύνησις λατρείας), but not adoration (προσκύνησις) in general. Images are visible forms representative of the invisible; the Son alone indeed is a perfect (identical) copy; but other images are also connected with the subject they portray, and from eternity one of every creature has existed in the presence of God. Gregory and John have a very great deal in common in their arguments, so that we see clearly how dependent the former was on Greek writers,586 but not only is the whole subject more thoroughly treated in John, but it is

584

Mansi XII., pp. 959 sq., 975 sq. Opp. ed. Lequien I., pp. 305-390; see Langen, Joh. von Damasc., p. 129 ff. Schwarzlose (l.c., pp. 202-223) has described very thoroughly the theology of the supporters of images. On the third of the Damascene’s apologies, see l.c., p. 103 ff., on the spurious letter to the Emperor Theophilus, p. 109 ff. 586 Apparently this opinion is not yet sufficient. Following doubts already expressed by Semler, Rössler, Malfatti, and Duchesner, Schwarzlose (l. c., p. 113 ff.) has brought forward reasons worth considering for holding that Gregory’s two lette 551 rs in their present form cannot have come from the hand of Gregory II. Interpolations have been inserted by a Greek. 585

more strictly based on dogmatics. He even goes so 323far as to see in the rejection of images Manichæism, the contempt of matter which the God-Logos had hypostatically united with himself. We find a frightful confusion of ideas in an apparently simple and solid argument. All dogma, wherever John lays his hands on it, culminates in the images. The doctrines of the Holy Ghost, of death, unction and the cross, all require this worship. But the freedom of the Church from the State was also strongly emphasised by the subject of the Khalif, so that once more the parallelism with Grego 35e8 ry’s letters is striking, so much so as almost to cast doubt on the genuineness of the latter or of John’s apologies. It was the prerogative not of Emperors but of Councils to control Church affairs. The power of binding and loosing had been granted not to Emperors, but to Apostles, Bishops, and Doctors. In the second address John assails the Emperor still more sharply. At the same time, he now maintains that the Church is governed by the written and unwritten institutions of the Fathers; the worship of images belongs to the latter. It was difficult to produce proof from tradition, and many patristic passages could be instanced against it. Hence “unwritten” tradition. The adoration of the cross and of relics was always embraced in the defence, and even the Old Testament analogy was cited in its support. In the third address it is again declared that adoration is due only to God and the body united with the Deity, and that the incarnate God is alone to be portrayed. Then the abandonment of Scriptural evidence for images is made up for by an indirect proof. Here it occurs to the apologist, that in fact all the catchwords of orthodox dogma do not exist in the Bible. Next, we have a detailed philosophy of images: the Son is the perfect resemblance of God, and the Holy Ghost of the Son. Images are the ideas of things; man is the likeness of God; the word is the image of thought; recollection of the past and representation of the future are images. Everything is an image, and the image is everything. The saints themselves are worshipped in their pictures. This is followed by the treatment of the Eucharist, next by a long section on the degrees of worship; it is abasement in presence of the object revered. 324To this is appended the mention of the curative shadow of the Apostles, the handkerchief, and the boys who ridiculed Elisha. Thus we are led up to relics, saints, and pictures, the crib,. Golgotha, the cross, nails, sheets, swaddling-clothes, and vesture, and again to books of the Gospels, sacred vessels, candlesticks and crosses etc. in the Church. Even the adoration of princes is recalled. Numerous patristic passages, some of them forged, are quoted.

After the death of Leo, and the overthrow of an anti-emperor supported by those friendly to images, the son of the former, Constantine Copronymus, carried out his father’s policy with an iron hand. He summoned the general Synod, already planned by his father, to Constantinople A.D. 754. Three hundred and thirtyeight bishops assembled, but the Patriarchs were absent. Archbishop Theodosius of Ephesus presided.587 The proceedings are only in part known, through those of the seventh general Council.588 In the decision (ὅρος) of the Synod Christianity is abruptly contrasted with idolatry, but the veneration of images is idolatry. There were hardly many Bishops, who could or dared use such language honestly or from the heart. The majority played the hypocrite from dread of the emperor in declaring that the veneration of images was a work of Satan, introduced into the Church of the pure doctrine, in order to seduce men from the lofty adoration of God, or in describing painting as the sinful art by which the incarnation of Christ was blasphemed. But it sounds strangest of all to hear that these Bishops charged the image worshippers at once with Nestorianism and Eutychianism. They were Nestorians since it was of course only possible to represent the humanity of Christ, and thus his divinity and humanity were sundered; and they were Eutychians in so far as they sought at the same time to represent his divinity and accordingly confounded it with his humanity. The only image allowed—and this is an 325important declaration—were the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper. Starting from the prohibition of the portrayal of Christ, images in general were argued against. Further, Christianity rejected along with heathenism not only sacrificial, but pictorial, worship. The saints live with God; to recall them to earthly life by means of a dead art was blasphemy. Men ought to continue to worship and invoke them, but to condemn their pictures. No reference seems to have been made to relics. We have now a series of excellently chosen passages from the Bible and the Fathers. In conclusion, stringent penalties were attached to the worship of images, and a string of anathemas crowns the whole. “We also believe that we speak apostolically and have the Holy Spirit.” They had in fact uttered fine propositions, and used words which had ceased for centuries to be heard so distinctly in the Greek Church; but did they themselves believe in these words?

587

Schwarzlose (l.c., pp. 76-101) has well described the iconoclastic party and its whole system. “The iconoclasts rejected the religious use and adoration of pictures, because not only according to their view were they contrary to Scripture, tradition, and dogma, but also seduced the Church into heresy and heathenism.” 588 Mansi XIII., p. 205 sq.

They were under the yoke of the Emperor. The clergy obeyed when the decrees were published; but resistance was offered in the ranks of the monks. Many took to flight, some became martyrs. The imperial police stormed the Churches, and destroyed those images and pictures that had not been secured. The iconoclastic zeal by no means sprang from enthusiasm for divine service in spirit and in truth. The Emperor now also directly attacked the monks; he meant to extirpate the hated order, and to overthrow the throne of Peter. We see how the idea of an absolute military state rose powerfully in Constantinople, how it strove to establish itself by brute force. The Emperor, according to trustworthy evidence, made the inhabitants of the city swear that they would henceforth worship no image, and give up all intercourse with monks. Cloisters were turned into arsenals and barracks, relics were hurled into the sea, and the monks, as far as possible, secularised. And the politically far-seeing Emperor at the same time entered into correspondence with France (Synod of Gentilly, A.D. 767) and sought to win Pepin, History seemed to have suffered a violent rupture, a new era was dawning which should supersede the history of the Church. But the Church was too powerful, and the Emperor was not master of Oriental Christendom, but only of part of it. The orthodox Patriarchs of the East (under the rule of Islam) declared against the iconoclastic movement, and a Church without monks or pictures, in schism with the other orthodox Churches, was a nonentity. A spiritual reformer was wanting. Thus the great reaction set in, after the death of the Emperor (A.D. 775), the ablest ruler Constantinople had seen for a long time. This is not the place to describe how it was inaugurated and cautiously carried out by the skilful policy of the Empress Irene,589 cautiously, for a generation had already grown up that was accustomed to the cultus without images. An important part was played by the miracles performed by the re-emerging relics and pictures. But the lower classes had always been really favourable to them; only the army and the not inconsiderable number of bishops who were of the school of Constantine had to be carefully handled. Tarasius,590 the new Patriarch of Constantinople and a supporter of images, succeeded, after overcoming much difficulty, and especially distrust in Rome and the East, after also removing the excited 326even

589 adb

See Phoropulos, Εἰρηνη ἡ Ἀθηναια αὐτοκρατειρα Ῥωµαιων. Μερος á ann 769-788. It is important that the iconoclastic emperors belonged to Asia Minor, while Irene was Athenian. 590 Heikel (Helsingfors, 1889) has published in Greek for the first time the vita Tarasii, written by Deacon Ignatius.

army, in bringing together a general Council of about 350 bishops at Nicæa, A.D. 787, which annulled the decrees of A.D. 754.591 The proceedings of the seven sittings592 are of great value, because very important patristic passages have been preserved in them which otherwise would have perished; for at this Synod also the discussions turned chiefly on the Fathers. The decision (ὅρος) restored orthodoxy and finally settled it. The first six Synods with their anathemas and canons were first confirmed, and it went on: “We decide with all precision and fitness to set up, along with the form of the precious and life-giving cross, the august and holy images made with colours or of 327stone or other suitable material, in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and garments, on walls and tablets, in houses and on the streets: both the image of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and of our undefiled Lady, the holy mother of God, and of the august angels, and all saintly and pious men; for the prototypes being constantly seen represented in images, the spectators are excited to remember and long for them, and to bestow reverence and due veneration on the images, not indeed the true worship according to our faith which is due to God alone; but (as it becomes us) to make an offering of incense and lights in their honour to the form of the precious and life-giving cross, to the holy Gospels, and the other sacred erections, as was the pious custom of the ancients; for the honour paid to the image passes to the prototype; and he who adores the image adores in it the being or object portrayed.”593

591

A first attempt to hold a Synod failed A.D. 786, since the majority of the bishops were still adverse, and were supported by the army. 592 See Mansi XIII., pp. 992-1052. The quotations in the Libri Carolini furnish many problems. 593 Ὁρίζοµεν σὺν ἀκριβείᾳ πάσῃ καὶ ἐµµελείᾳ παραπλησίως τῷ τύπῳ τοῦ τιµίου καὶ ζωοποιοῦ σταυροῦ ἀνατίθεσθαι τὰς σεπτὰς καὶ ἁγίας εἰκόνας, τὰς ἐκ χρωµάτων καὶ ψηφῖδος καὶ ἑτέρας ὕλης ἐπιτηδείως ἐχούσης ἐν ταῖς ἁγίαις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίαις, ἐν ἱεροῖς σκεύεσι, καὶ ἐσθῆσι, τοίχοις τε καὶ σανίσιν, οἴκοι τε καὶ ὁδοῖς· τῆς τε τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰκόνος, καὶ τῆς ἀχρά ac8 του δεσποίνης ἡµῶν τῆς ἁγίας θεοτόκου, τιµίων τε ἀγγέλων, καὶ πάντων ἁγίων καὶ ὁσίων ἀνδρῶν· ὅσῳ γὰρ συνεχῶς δι᾽ εἰκονικῆς ἀνατυπώσεως ὁρῶνται, τοσοῦτον καὶ οἱ ταύτας θεώµενοι διανίστανται πρὸς τὴν τῶν πρωτοτύπων µνήµην τε καὶ ἐπιπόθησιν, καὶ ταύταις ἀσπασµὸν καὶ τιµητικὴν προσκύνησιν ἀπονέµειν, οὐ µὴν τὴν κατὰ πίστιν ἡµῶν ἀληθινὴν λατρείαν, ἢ πρέπει µόνῃ τῇ θείᾳ φύσει· ἀλλ᾽ ὃν τρόπον τῷ τύπῳ τοῦ τιµίου καὶ ζωοποιοῦ σταυροῦ καὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις εὐαγγελίοις καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἱεροῖς ἀναθήµασι, καὶ θυµιαµάτων καὶ φώτων προσαγωγὴν πρὸς τὴν τούτων τιµὴν ποιεῖςθαι, καθὼς καὶ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις εὐσεβῶς εἴθισται· ἡ γὰρ τῆς εἰκόνος τιµὴ ἐπὶ τὸ

Just as at Trent, in addition to the restoration of mediæval doctrine, a series of reforming decrees was published, so this Synod promulgated twenty-two canons which can be similarly described. The attack on monachism and the constitution of the Church had been of some use. They are the best canons drawn up by an Œcumenical Synod. The bishops were enjoined to study, to live simply and be unselfish, and to attend to the care of souls; the monks to observe order, decorum, and also to be unselfish. With the State and the Emperor no compromise was made; on the contrary, the demands of Maximus 328Confessor and John of Damascus are heard, though in muffled tones, from the canons.594 Still, though the Byzantine Church possessed in the next period an abbot—Theodorus Studita595—who championed, as none but a Nicholas or Gregory could, the sovereignty over princes of God’s law and the Church, it did not win freedom and independence. However, the repeated and for decades successful attempts made by military Emperors in the ninth century to get rid of the imageworship which had only brought defeat to the State, were finally frustrated.596 The great Theodore maintained the orthodox cause unflinchingly against Leo the Armenian and Michael the Stammerer. Their successor Theophilus was a relentless foe to images and the monks. Then came an Empress, Theodora, who finally restored the worship. This took place at the Synod held at Constantinople A.D. 842. This Synod decreed that a Feast of Orthodoxy (ἡ κυριακὴ τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας) should be celebrated annually, at which the victory over the iconoclasts should be regularly remembered. Thus the whole of orthodoxy was united in image-worship.597 50dc

πρωτότυπον διαβαίνει· κἀὶ ὁ προσκυνῶν τὴν εἰκόνα, προσκυνεῖ ἐν αὐτῇ τοῦ ἐγγραφοµένου τὴν ὑπόστασιν. 594 See the Canons 3, 6 and 12. Theodorus Studita a few years later triumphantly asserted the famous 3rd Canon: “Any choice of a bishop, priest or deacon emanating from a secular prince is invalid.” 595 See Thomas, Theodor von Studion, Leipzig 1892. 596 The superstition indulged 563 in by the image-worshippers is shown by the epistle of Michael the Stammerer to Ludwig the Pious (Mansi XIV., p. 399); see Hefele IV., p. 40. 597 See also the decision of the 8th general Synod, sessio X. (Mansi XVI., p. 161). An Oriental Christian—an Armenian, but in this question all Orientals are agreed—writes at the present day: A Christianity which is stunted and disguised in pictorial forms, if it belongs to the Church, i.e., if it is determined by the history and the spiritual genius of a people, is much stronger and more justified than any conceptions coloured by sectarianism or rationalism, however much these may appeal to modern taste (Karapet l. c., p. 116).

In this way the Eastern Church reached the position which suited its nature. We have here the conclusion of a development consistent in the main points. The divine and sacred, as that had descended into the sensuous world by the incarnation, had created for itself in the Church a system of material, supernatural things, which offered themselves for man’s use. The theosophy of images corresponded to the Neo-platonic conception, connected with that of the Incarnation, of the one unfolding 329itself in a plurality of graded ideas (original types) down to the earthly. The theme had, as the image-worshippers said, been already touched on by Basil (“the knowledge of the prototype comes through the image”: δι᾽ εἰκόνος ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ ἀρχετύπου γίνεται); Gregory of Nazianzus (“it is the nature of the image to be a copy of the prototype and of what is said”: αὕτη εἰκόνος φύσις µίµηµα εἶναι τοῦ ἀρχετύπου καὶ οὗ λέγεται); the Areopagite (“truly visible images are the seen [representatives] of the unseen” ἀληθῶς ἐµφανεῖς εἰκόνες εἰσὶ τὰ ὁρατὰ τῶν ἀοράτων); Theodoret (“sin alone has no copy”) and others.598 All that had been wanting was a correct understanding and a bold carrying out of the truth. And lastly, that nothing be left out, Aristotelian scholasticism found its account here also. It had been maintained long ago, and supported by reference to the pictures “not made with hands” (ἀχειροποίητα), that not painting, but the tradition and law of the Church created the types—see also the decision of the seventh Council. But Theodorus Studita went still further.599 To him the picture was almost more important than the correct dogmatic formula; for in his view the relation of the copy to the original was a necessary one, and there was complete identity in so far as while the material was different, the form (the hypostasis) was the same. Theodore maintained that the material was indifferent, but that in the form of the authentic pictures one possessed the real Christ, the real Mary, and the real saints. They all bore their prototype in themselves, and this prototype was independent of the personal impress; it went on imprinting itself from picture to picture, at first spontaneously—for these men caught at the absurdity of images not made with hands (εἰκόνες ἀχειροποίητοι), then through the artist, if he reproduced the type faithfully.600

598

See passages in Gass, p. 319 f. ac9 See Opp. Theodori ed. Sirmond T.V. Here we have collected the Antirrhetic. (I.=III.) c. Iconomachos, Confutatio Poematum Iconomachorum, Quæstiones propositæ Iconomachis, the Capita VII. adv. Iconom., and the Ep. ad Platon. de cultu ss. imag. The two books of epistles (l.c.) contain abundant material regarding the images. 600 The chief passages are collected in great abundance and are well arranged by Sirmond T.V. sub voce “Imagines” in the index. 599

With this science of images composed of superstition, magic and scholasticism we may fitly close the development. The 330Greek Church has almost entirely excluded plastic representations, and its practice of art has, in consequence of the ban placed on it by the “authentic” picture, never been anything but stunted. No one can deny that the image-worshippers had some justification in their controversy with the iconoclasts; and for Greek Christianity, as it was, image-worship was a vital question. But in the great conflict waged for a century by the Byzantine Church with the State, not only did its distinctive character, but its freedom, depend on the issue. Great monks had tried to educate the Church up to the idea of freedom. In the fight to retain its character it was victorious; but in that for liberty it succumbed. 331

Chapter V. Appendix.—Sketch of the History of the Genesis of the Orthodox System.

CHAPTER V. APPENDIX.—SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE GENESIS OF THE ORTHODOX SYSTEM. ORIGEN had drawn up a system of Christian theology based on the four principles, God, the world, freedom, and Holy Scripture, and depending on the old Catholic Church doctrine. It is the only original scientific system ever produced by the Greek Church. The conception of a scientific system of truth is in itself philosophical; it has not come from religion which consists rather in faith in revelation. But the science of the time had conceded a lofty place within itself to this very belief in revelation, and, on the other hand, it was an innate instinct of the Christian faith to give an account of itself. Origen’s undertaking and the manner in which he carried it out contained as many repellent as attractive features for his Christian contemporaries and the future. As a whole it held its ground only in the narrow circle of friends and followers;601 but its effects were nevertheless incalculable. If Origen had recast the whole faith (Pistis) into a science (Gnosis) the immediate consequence, by no means intended by him, was that some of his gnostic (theological) propositions were introduced into the faith, and that conversely

601

Theognostus, Origen’s disciple, made a new attempt at constructing a system, see Vol. III., p. 96.

others were amended in accordance with the language of the antignostic Catholic Kerygma. The system was thus dislocated, and with good reason; for it was a system, simply because in spite of its scrupulous regard for the Bible, history, and freedom, it had transformed history into a natural process. In opposing the notoriously heterodox points of the system—the pre-existence of souls, pre-temporal 332fall of souls, eternal creation of the world, the doctrine of the transfigured body, and Apokatastasis—an attack was made, if not always consciously, on its principles which became conspicuous in these points. For the above doctrines were not appendages which could be deleted; they rather expressed most clearly the fundamental thought of the system, that God is all in all, and that the doctrine of the Church was dealing with wholly inadequate symbols in concerning itself with the conceptions of the creation of the world in time, the historical fall and redemption, the judgment, and a twofold final destiny. Men desired science, and there was, as in all ages, only one science; then it was simply that which Origen had represented. But at the same time none would abandon the traditional tenets as absolutely valid truths, partly in the interest of conservatism, partly because it was vaguely felt that scientific theology did not do justice to the distinctive character of Christian faith. That was the dilemma; but in one point all thinkers were agreed with Origen, viz., that the final aim of faith and of the theology accompanied by asceticism, was participation in the knowledge and consequently the life of the Deity. They were all intellectualists, even, so far as we are acquainted with them, the earliest opponents of Origen, including Methodius.602 And theology brought about in the case of nearly all of them a loss to faith incalculable in its consequences—the fading of moral responsibility and of the conception of the judgment. No doubt the “Judgment” was maintained as before, and that against Origen; but the thought had lost and continued more and more to lose its allcommanding position in doctrine. At the beginning of the fourth century,603 Christianity was, again in consequence of the theology, on the point of disruption. Eusebius has himself admitted the danger in the outward organisation, and it was a result of the cleavage in thought. Bishops spoke authoritatively in the East who had learned from Origen all sorts of ideas that put the doctrine of the Church in danger of running to seed. A compact school was in the 333field that, while it considered itself very scientific and genuinely

602

Besides him the earliest opponents—after Demetrius—were Peter of Alexandria and Eustathius of Antioch. Pamphilus and Eusebius wrote against Origen’s enemies. 603 See the details in Vol. III., pp. 121-162.

biblical, yet without knowing or intending it, secularised Christianity. Constantine on the one hand, and Athanasius on the other, saved Christendom. Athanasius was no follower of Origen; he was more akin to Irenæus. In giving the central place to the thought of Christ’s essential unity with God, and in carrying it out, he also set the theology of the future, as it seems, on a new, or rather on the old Irenæan basis. But he was no theologian, or, better, he ceased to be one from the moment when he perceived the central significance of the above conception of faith. He hardly touched, let alone solved, the problem of correlating it with all the other results of contemporary knowledge, with the whole of natural theology. He had enough to do in showing that a conception still alien, at any rate to the majority, and clothed in an unfamiliar word, was scriptural, traditional, and fundamental, and in obviating objections. A kind of system was rather constructed by the strict Arians—Aëtius and Eunomius—by means of Aristotelian philosophy. Every professed system up till past the middle of the fourth century was heterodox, with the sole exception of that of Marcellus; but while he made a bold front against the whole doctrine of Origen, he seemed to fall into long refuted errors. His fate itself proves that one thing, in whose assertion orthodox and Arians were agreed, was already inseparably bound up with the Christianity of the cultured, viz., the Neo-platonic doctrine of God and his revelation. The one party—the Arians—might supplement it with Aristotelianism, the other might give the widest scope to the conception of salvation embodied in Jesus Christ, but in the above fundamental thought both were agreed, and the common veneration of Origen is proof of this.604 Cyril’s catechisms show the procedure followed in the catechetic instruction of the cultured. They are based on the Symbol, and its separate points are proved from Scripture. Agreement with Scripture is sufficient; it also guarantees, so to speak, the unity, or, better, it suppresses the craving for strict unity. Revelation, as contained in the oracles of Scripture, was to satisfy all wants. The catechist did not indeed renounce rational argument in 334support of separate points of doctrine, but he did not offer anything like a system. On the other hand, traditionalism and the mysticism of the cultus were already strongly marked. Nor was the latter unconnected with Origen; on the contrary, no theologian of early times did so much to further it as he. The transference of Athanasius’ thought into the scientific theology, i.e., into Origenism, was the work of the Cappadocians. Among them Gregory of Nyssa was the most thorough adherent of

604

On Ar 564 ians and orthodox, see Chap. I.

Origen. Though not without some reservations, yet it can be said that he represented the fundamental conception of Origen.605 His “Great Catechism” is the only writing of the fourth century which can be compared to the work “De principiis”; but it contains a much narrower range of ideas, and is by no means, even in Gregory’s own view, a complete work on dogma.606 Next to the Cappadocians, Didymus of Alexandria is to be named as a disciple of Origen. It was of immense importance that, just before complete traditionalism settled on the Church, these men took up the cause of theological science in Origen’s sense, further, that at this very time men were found in the West to communicate the views of the Cappadocians 335and Didymus to their native land, and, finally, that the Byzantine Church never ventured to condemn the works of the Cappadocians—of Gregory of Nyssa. The last is especially a fact which cannot fail to excite astonishment; but what would have been left to the Greek Church from the sixth century down, if to the condemned doctors of the Church and their writings we had further to add the main works of Gregory of Nyssa. Since, however, the Church has steadily acknowledged the orthodoxy of the Cappadocians,607 Origen himself has after all been always

605

The reservations are, certainly, not unimportant. If Gregory also shared Origen’s starting-point, viz., the antithesis of the spiritually divine and the sensuous, yet he had a more distinct grasp of the notion of creation, and attempted to understand the sensuous as a necessary side of human nature. Finally, however, he also regards the whole development explored by Christian theology as a cosmical process; only the process does not appear so manifest as in Origen, who besides had also, judging from Clement of Alex., introduced ideas alien to it. 606 Everything in the “Great Catechism” is rational. The author begins by expounding the doctrine of the Trinity as the jus ac8 t mean between Jewish monotheism and heathen polytheism. He also shows that it occurs in the Old Testament (c. 1-4). Then follows the account of the doctrine of the Incarnation (c. 5-32), which forms the subject proper of the Catechism. It is treated from the most varied sides; the reason, nature, and result of the incarnation are discussed. It is proved from the essential attributes of God as well as the state of men; and it is shown that on the one hand it corresponds to the goodness, justice, wisdom, and power of God, and on the other presupposes the condition of evil, death, and freedom in man. Christ became man for all, but he is the physician only for the virtuous. The old question why he appeared so late is also (c. 29) discussed. The conclusion is taken up with expositions of Baptism, the Last Supper, and faith, which constitute the new birth, i.e., virtuous life (c. 33-40). Origen’s conceptions, though grouped round a new centre in that of Athanasius, run through the whole; this is still more conspicuous in some of the other writings by the same author. 607 The Cappadocians were always held to be the foremost among theologians. Thus Theodore of Studion says (Antirrhet II. adv. Iconom., p. 123, edit. Sirmond.): καὶ δὴ ἀκουσόµεθα τῶν κορυφαιοτάτων πατέρων, Γρηγορίου µὲν τοῦ θεολόγου . . .

looked at as only half a heretic. Up to the present day the members of the two Catholic Churches do not know exactly how they ought really to regard him. He has remained a thorn in the flesh of the Church. At the close of the fourth century it was settled that the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation constituted the faith; for they were most intimately connected, and the former was fixed in terms of the Incarnation. The great Apollinaris, a systematic theologian and besides an opponent of Origen’s method, and the Cappadocians established this conviction. By this means an immense gain was made on the one hand, but on the other not much; for what good did it do to confess these doctrines, as long as it was possible by means of philosophy to furnish very different versions of them, or while the infinite number of other tenets, which fell within the range of theology and required absolutely to be discussed in terms of the Symbol or of Holy Scripture, were destitute of any fixed form? We must again, or, rather still conceive the state of matters during the whole of the fourth century on to its close as being mutatis mutandis the same as when Gnosticism flourished, though a consensus of opinion was not wanting in the Church. 336There was no recognised conception of the nature of the Incarnation, after the bold and sanguine attempt of Apollinaris had been rejected as heretical, and the hundred and one “doctrines” which floated round the Trinitarian and Christological dogma were as fickle and uncertain as the waves of the sea. It was not known what belonged to the “faith”, whether to include psychology, or natural science. Everything offered itself, and nothing could be declared indifferent without danger; it was uncertain, too, in what form it did belong to faith. No one knew how the Bible was to be interpreted, whether literally, or typically, or spiritually; no form of interpretation could be wholly accepted or wholly rejected. It was not known what was to be expected in a future state; and as much doubt prevailed about the beginning as about the end of things. Conceptions still existed of God, the earth, heaven, Christ, the glories of Paradise and the horrors of the judgment, like those prevalent among the old “Saints” of the second century, and they were firmly held with less sanctity, but the same fanaticism, by the new saints, the monks.

Βασιλείου δὲ τοῦ µεγάλου, and of the former (Iamb. 67, p. 766): Βρονθῶν τὰ θεῖα τῇ βοῇ τῶν δογµάτων, Ἠχήσας ὄντως τὴν ὑπουράνιον, µάκαρ· Καὶ πάσας ἀπρὶξ µωράνας τὰς αἱρέσεις, Τον κόσµον ἐστήριξας ἐν τοῖς σοῖς λόγοῖς. From the sixth century Gregory of Nyssa put his admirers in a precarious position by his manifestly heterodox doctrines. They were hushed up; yet their author is not placed by the Greeks of to-day on quite the same high level as Basilius and Gregory of Nazianzus.

On the other hand, both among monks and others, conceptions existed such as Origen cherished from which the many-coloured pictures and dramatic scenes had disappeared: men believed in eternal worlds, the original affinity of the human spirit with God, in the one unfolding itself into the many, and the many necessarily returning into the one. And in the fourth century Christians, and even clerics, went beyond Origen. To them the coverings and masks into which he had transformed the realistic doctrines of the Church were still more transparent. A man was now a Christian because every one was or was becoming one; but he would not cease being a philosopher. It was hardly necessary to come to terms with the doctrine of the Trinity, for, one or two points being set aside, it was held to be correct, rational, and Platonic. The Incarnation caused greater difficulty, but the Cappadocians themselves had shown how it could be under-stood rationally. A still further step was taken; the humanity assumed by God was dealt with in a free and easy manner. Speculation found plenty of expedients by which to pare down the paradox and to reduce it to the level of the intelligible. 337But once one had formulated, somehow or other, his assent to the Trinity and Incarnation he was really free and could apply Greek learning (Ἑλληνικὴ παιδεία) as much as he pleased to Christian truth, interpreting its myths.608 Moreover, there were Christianised philosophers who succeeded by an artifice in uniting the sublimest spiritualism with superstition; they inculcated a ritualistic immanence of the pneumatic in material, if consecrated, things, and transformed the whole world and history into a descending series of types and symbols, which appeared at the same time as effective vehicles of the divine. Creation was the evolution of the one into a world of ideas, symbols and types—every potency being the copy of a higher, and the pattern for a lower one; and redemption was completed in the mysteries of thought and the cultus, which led from type to type, from potency to potency, up to the all-

608

Nothing is more instructiv 55f e here than the study of the noble Synesius. Thousands must have held the same views as he at the transition from the fourth to the fifth century; but few possessed the honesty of this Bishop or the clearness of his mind; see above all his letter to his brother Euoptius, when confronted by the question whether he should or should not accept the bishopric offered him. He was then still a Neoplatonist, and, though he afterwards modified his views to some extent, he never ceased to be one. But he openly declared that while he would not give up science, he would accept outwardly the mythical wrapping (τὰ δ᾽ ἔξω φιλοµυθῶν), since the people did not endure the clear light.—Even at the end of the fourth century, Church Fathers found it necessary to oppose the idea first broached by Celsus, that Christ had borrowed from Plato.

embracing One. Thus Iamblichus had taught; Neoplatonic philosophers of the fourth and fifth centuries followed him, and as they were in a position to conserve heathen mythologies and cults by this view, Christians transferred the conception and method to Christianity. To them the Incarnation no longer appeared as an isolated paradox; it was a special instance, or the verification, or necessary result, of the cosmical process. The great Unknown, who probably belonged to Alexandria, and who is called PseudoDionysius, “in an elaborate conception of the world, smuggled into the Greek Church and its theology the Neoplatonism into which the other doctors of the Church had only dipped timidly, (?) and on this foundation he con 4b72 structed his theory of the heavenly hierarchy, and its copy, the hierarchy of the Church.”609 Dionysius 338seems to be a realist in the sense of the Church; he lets everything realistic stand; but it is all in fact simply a wrapping; nothing is and nothing happens which is not self-evolved in the process of the Cosmos. At the same time it is unmistakable that, though the form by which it is expressed is not satisfactory, the nature of the good is perceived—it consists in inner union with God.610 It was of inexpressible importance that 339from and after

609

Steitz, Jahrhb. XI., p. 195. 569 610On the system of Dionysius, see Steitz l.c., pp. 197-229. The fundamental thought of Dionysius is the absolute transcendence of God; but God is to him, at the same time, absolute causality; as causality he still stands outside of the world (the many), but yet the forces emanating from him can on the other hand be regarded as a selfreduplication (πολλαπλασίαζεσθαι). Thus the attempt was made to combine the thought of the transcendence of the One with Pantheism. This One is force and movement in virtue of the ἔρως (ἀγάπη) dwelling in it, and thus it issues from itself in order to return to itself. This emanation, however, is identical with the fixing of προορισµοί and παραδείγµατα; i.e., the finite conceived as pure forms exists from eternity in God himself, nay, treated and conceived as one, it is himself. In him and belonging to him the forces are always immaterial, undivided, identical. From the standpoint of God, accordingly, the whole process of the world is simply pure self-movement; but viewed from beneath it is one of unfolding, division, and descent, and again of ascent, unification, and return to the One. We mu 564 st always maintain both, rest and movement, transcendence and immanence, unity and multiplicity. To this correspond the kataphatic and the apophatic theologies. The former descends from God to things in order from the effects to draw conclusions as to the absolute, inexhaustible, nature of the One. The latter rises from things to God, in order to deny regarding him all that may be conceived, and to find him exalted above the antithesis of error and truth, of not-being and being. The latter is to Dionysius the more appropriate, but the two methods ought not to contradict each other; for the Deity is placed even above the antithesis formed by the statements of the apophatic and kataphatic theology. In his fifth Epistle, Dionysius says (I., p. 594, ed. Corder): ὁ θεῖος γνόφος ἐστὶ τὸ ἀπρόσιτον φῶς—how often since that

has been repeated by mystics!—ἐν ᾧ κατοικεῖν ὁ Θεὸς λέγεται· καὶ ἀοράτῳ γε ὄντι διὰ τὴν ὑπερέχουσαν φανότητα καὶ ἀπροσίτῳ τῷ αὐτῷ διὰ τὴν ὐπερβολὴν τῆς ὑπερουσίου φωτοχυσίας, ἐν τούτῳ γίγνεται πᾶς ὁ Θεὸν γνῶναι καὶ ἰδεῖν ἀξιούµενος αὐτῷ τῷ µὴ ὁρᾷν µηδὲ γινώ ac8 , ἀληθῶς ἐν τῷ ὑπὲρ ὅρασιν καὶ γνῶσιν γιγνόµενος. The thought of God’s transcendence was the decisive point. To the unmoved mover every spirit, nay, everything in its own way strives to rise. “A nameless longing passes through all the veins of nature;” God himself comes not nearer but men can force themselves up to him. Evil consists in being separated from hum; it is a pure negation; it does not exist in relation to God for it is a negative in the sphere of the many, which yet in view of God constitute a non-material unity: it is the unnatural, that which does not correspond to the nature of the various beings and things, each taken in its distinctive character. In so far as these are, they are good; but in so far as they are not what they ought to be, they contain evil in themselves. It remains obscure, however, how they cannot he what they ought. Is it due to the multiplication in itself, or to an unknown hindrance? In any case the good is union with God. At this point begins the most characteristic work of Dionysius, its mystical and scholastic feature. This union, like everything else, has its stages; it is consummated by purification, illumination, and perfecting. As the sun dispels darkness, then fills everything with light, and brings it to perfection, so also does the Deity. And everything in the Cosmos contributes to this process; it is the object and agent of redemption; it is a universe of symbols which lead to God, but which cannot be entirely transcended in this world; for we only see through a mirror in a dark saying. The process itself is no pure process of thought; thinking is only its accompaniment; it is a process of the action of being upon being; therefore the symbol and the rite which offer themselves to the feeling of the soul that is passive and yields itself up to them. Accordingly we have, at the close, the passive intuition, in which man no longer participates in anything external, is no longer conscious of anything positive, but negativing all things, loses himself in the inscrutable. Yet there is no negation from which it would not be necessary to separate the Deity by a ὑπέρ; the imagination must cast anchor before the portals of the inscrutable and incomprehensible. The purifying, illuminating, and perfecting rites are imparted to men by the heavenly and ecclesiastical hierarchies. But between these and the Deity Dionysius has placed the Church doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. The former has been outwardly treated orthodoxly on the whole, yet in such a way that it after all merely assumes the form of a Trinity in revelation i i.e., the persons are regarded as the a8b first stages in the multiplication of the Deity which is continued in the heavenly hierarchy; however, this way of looking at the matter is disguised from view. As regards the Incarnation, the system has naturally no room for it; for regard for the transcendence of the Deity prevents it from recognising any incarnation, and in consequence of his immanence the whole process of the Cosmos itself is the materialising and manifestation of the Deity in the world. Yet the Incarnation is maintained; but, since this was impossible, it is not made the central point, but serves as the foundation of various speculations, and the illustration of valuable thoughts. The result of the Incarnation in Jesus is conceived as a raising of human nature to its highest power, and not properly as a fusion of two natures (yet we have the expression: καινὴ θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια); for even in the manifestation of Jesus the Deity remains concealed

the sixth century the writings of the Unknown, which also betrayed the influence of Aristotle, were held to be the works of an Apostolic personage. Neoplatonism and the mysticism of the Cultus were thus declared to be part of classic Christianity. The representatives of the “common sense” of the Church at the end of the fourth century were quite aware of the 340heterodoxies which existed in spite of, and side by side with, the confession of the Trinity and Incarnation; some of them indeed were themselves not content with the generally received doctrine. They desired a God with eyes, ears and limbs, a resurrection of the identical body, and a visible glorious kingdom of Christ at the end of the world. Even an exceedingly cultured exegete like Apollinaris made common cause with them in the last point. A founder was sought for heterodoxies; it was impossible to blame Manichæism for everything. Ἑλληνικὴ παιδεία was held to be the culprit, and therefore also Origen, the man who was said, not without reason, to have introduced it into Christian theology. A passionate opposition was raised in Egypt among the Scetian monks, and in Palestine where Origen had many admirers. It was, above all, the narrow but honest Epiphanius who saw in Origen the father of Arianism and many other heresies. The comprehensive chapter against him in the former’s Panarion (H. 64) is the first polemical writing we possess of ecclesiastical traditionalism against Origen; it is by no means unskilful; it does not confine itself to details, but disputes e fundamento the title to a place in the

and incomprehensible. Like all symbols and phenomena the Incarnation is in a certain sense a disguising of the Deity. With Jesus Dionysius also connects a few realistic Church doctrines as to redemption, victory over the demons, and ογενεσία; but the Incarnation really is the representation of God’s unfolding of himself in general. As regards the actual redemption of individuals the main stress is placed in this system on the two hierarchies and the mysteries. These hierarchies are genuinely Neo-platonic. The heavenly was formed by the graded choirs of angels (Triads, see Vol. III., Chap. 4) which themselves consecrated severally by the higher, consecrate severally the lower; the historical Christ even had his place among them. The ecclesiastical hierarchy consisted of the bishops, priests, and deacons; and the means which acted from beneath upwards were the six mysteries (see Chap. IV.). In the work on the ecclesiastical hierarchy these mysteries are minutely explained. Every openly heterodox opinion is, as generally, once more avoided. “The Areopagite has given the Church an exposition of all the mystic rites, such as it had not possessed till then, in which every act of the cultus has its peculiar, deeper reference and secret meaning. His exposition attaches itself in form to Christian dogma, and could therefore serve as a pattern to the Church theologians of the following centuries. As regards the matter, indeed, the case is different; for the Christian dogmas themselves merely appear as the dress of Neo-platonic ideas, to which the inflexible form offers a stubborn resistance.”

Church of a theology such as Origen offered.611 The “Expositio fidei catholicæ ecclesiæ” appended to the Panarion shows, indeed, the complete inability of Epiphanius to give an account of the faith; it loses itself as usual in irrelevant discussions, and the positive contents are extraordinarily scanty. But the attack on Origen (compare also the somewhat earlier “Ancorates”) 341opened the first great controversy over the question whether scientific theology as understood by Origen was legitimate or not. Walch has described the history of this controversy with his usual thoroughness. It is acknowledged how disagreeably the action of Epiphanius disturbed the circle of Origen’s monkish admirers, who were congregated in Palestine under the protection of the likeminded John, Bishop of Jerusalem. The dream that one might be both a pillar of the Church and a theologian like Origen was dissipated. Jerome preferred to remain a pillar and to abandon Origen. After his desertion and his betrayal of his friend Rufinus, he became the father of the “science of the Church.” To some extent he is a type of this “science” up to the present day. It lives on fragments of the men whom it declares to be heretics. It accepts just as much from them as circumstances permit, and retains of the old what it can maintain with decency. It cultivates a little literalness, a little allegory, and a little typology. It attacks all questions with a parade of freedom from prejudice; but anything inconvenient it surrounds with a thousand invented difficulties. It is proud of its free-thought in matters of no importance, and hides itself finally, when hot pressed, behind a brazen stare. It characterises its friends as “well-disposed”, homines boni, and slanders its opponents. Where evasion is no longer possible, it states the inexorable historical fact as a major premise; to this it adds a minor taken from its prejudices, and then it solves the syllogistic problem by the aid of piquant conceits.612 It can be incredibly frivolous and again pedantically learned, just as it suits.

5a1 611H. 64 c. 73; Σύ, Ὠριγένη, ἀπὸ τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς παιδείας τυφλωθεὶς τὸν νοῦν ἐξήµεσας τὸν ἰὸν τοῖς πειθεῖσί σοι, καὶ γέγονας αὐτοῖς εἰς βρῶµα δηλητηρίου, δι᾽ ὧν αὐτὸς ἡδίκησαι ἀδικήσας τοὺς πλείους. 612 For a parallel to this characterisation compare Luther, Vom Papstthum zu Rom wider den hochberühmten Romanisten zu Leipzig (Weimarer Ausgabe, Vol. VI. 304): Lieber Romanist, wer hat daran gezweiffelt, dass das alt Gesetz and seine Figuren mussen ym Neuen erfullet werden? man durfft deiner Meisterschaft hirynnen nichts Aber hie soltestu dich lassen sehen and beweysen deine hohe Kunst, das die selb Erfulling durch Petrum odder denn Bapst gescheh: Da schweygestu wie eiu S ac8 tock, da zu reden ist, and schwetzist da nit not zu redenn ist. Hastu dein logica nit bass gelernet? Du probirst die minores, die niemant anficht, and nympst fur gewiss die minores, die ydermann anficht, and schleussist was Du wilt.

Only one question does not occur in its catechism, and it is always hard to drive it home, viz., what is historical truth? That is the science of—Jerome. 342

Epiphanius’ breach with John led to the intervention of the Alexandrian Bishop Theophilus, who, at the time, still refused to yield to the “anthropomorphists”, and adhered to Origen’s party. Rome also took part in the dispute which, settled as between the bishops, broke out anew between the two scholars. Rufinus was only able to defend Origen’s orthodoxy by the doubtful assumption that “heretics” had corrupted his works But that helped neither him nor Origen. Origen was condemned and Rufinus censured in Rome in A.D. 399 by the ignorant Anastasius. The errors charged against Origen (see Hieron. ad Pammach.) were, a subordinationist doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of the preexistence of souls and their condemnation to enter into bodies, the view of the future conversion of the devil and the demons, the interpretation of the skins in Gen. III. to mean the body, the spiritualising of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, the explanation of Paradise as spiritual, and the too extensive use of the allegorical method, etc. Not only, however, did Rome renounce Origen, but Alexandria also. Theophilus saw that his power in Egypt would be shaken if he did not rely upon the masses of stupid and fanatical Coptic monks, the anthropomorphists, in whose circles a material God was defended in doggerel rhymes, and the ancient apocalyptic literature was greedily read. Theophilus wheeled round, abandoned, and that with strong personal feeling, the admirers of Origen among the monks, and, with the approval of Rome, hurled his anathemas against him. Jerome, ever on the alert to blot out the stain that attached to him from having once venerated the great theologian, translated into Latin Theophilus’ slanderous Easter epistle against Origenism, although he must have seen through its calumnies. In Constantinople, however, the fight waged by Theophilus against his former friends, the Nitrian monks, was followed by that agitation of which Chrysostom was a victim. It was the first violent attempt of the Alexandrian Patriarch, who by his alliance with the masses had won a secure position in his own diocese, to get possession of the Constantinopolitan patriarchate, the capital, and whole Church of the East. Meanwhile it was only in the West that the influence of 343Origen was really deeply shaken by these endeavours. Jerome persuaded the Western Church that Origen was the father of Pelagianism; Vincentius of Lerinum held him up as an example along with Apollinaris and other heretics; Leo I. considered him a heretic, and Gelasius insisted that Jerome’s criticism should be

maintained in dealing with his works.613 Orthodoxy held its ground unshaken as regards all the points of doctrine touching on the dogmas of the Trinity and Incarnation, which in the West were hardly ever subjects of controversy. Jerome now became the standard theologian and exegete. Everything ancient and distinctive, even where it did not lie in the direction of Origenism, disappeared more and more in the West. The Western Church became the Church of Jerome; but it became also—to its lasting benefit—the Church of Augustine (see Vol. V.). It was different in the East. The transformation of the controversy about Origen into a conflict between two great Patriarchs, in which Origen was soon lost sight of, and the rehabilitation, belated indeed, of Chrysostom, favoured the impugned reputation of the great theologian. But even apart from this, his influence was too deeply rooted to be upset by a single bishop, no matter how powerful. His individuality represented the Ἑλληνική παιδεία, with which men would not dispense. They were willing to recognise the dogma of the Church, i.e., the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation; but they sought besides freedom to interest themselves in (theological) science. The Church History of Socrates shows the undiminished influence of Origen—see above Vol. III., p. 146 and elsewhere; even before Socrates, the celebrated Evagrius of Pontus had sturdily defended him, and Sozomen himself, monkish and narrow as he was, was no opponent of Origen. The outbreak of the Nestorian and Monophysite controversies as to the nature of the Incarnation soon thrust everything else into the background, and procured for Origen’s cause a temporary peace. It is fitting that we should here take a glance at the Patriarchate Antioch and its neighbouring territories. The circumstances there were wholly peculiar. The East swarmed with old and new sects. All sorts betook themselves thither, and,. beside the official Christianity only to be met with in Greek cities, there existed an assortment of the most varied Christian communions. Even in the fifth century the Bishops had to face conflicts there which had almost died out in Rome, Byzantium, and Alexandria, as early as the third century. Therefore the Bishops living in or sprung from that quarter still possessed the lofty conviction that they were constantly fighting the battles of the Lord, and hastening from

344of

613

The so-called decree of Gelasius, which obtained a far-reaching importance in the West is also otherwise important from the condemnation it passed on the whole of earlier Christian literature. The orthodox Church was determined to vilify and then to bury its own past in order to maintain undisputed the fiction that it had always remained the same.

victory to victory. Nestorius, Theodoret, and others plume themselves in their correspondence with their Western brethren on their merits as antagonists of heretics;614 even Chrysostom was their inexorable enemy. As a matter of fact, the continuance of these conflicts was of vast consequence to the whole Church. Gnosticism and Manicheism dogged the steps of the Eastern Bishops, and compelled them to adhere strictly to the ancient regula fidei with its antignostic impress. They could not, as in Alexandria and Constantinople, confine their interest to the Incarnation. They had to defend the doctrine, point by point, in its whole extent,. and were thus prevented from casting themselves into the arms of one transcendent idea. They were pious after the monkish fashion, like the Egyptians; nay, their Bishops outdid those of Egypt in asceticism; they were not less realistic in what belonged to the Cultus than the rest; they were as much to the 345front when it was necessary to defend an old doctrine. But their scientific theologians—Palestine stands by itself—were not followers of Origen, and in their fights with heretics they could not use his teaching. They used a more liberal and, again, a more rational, a less flighty, exegesis, and a sober philosophy. Both these were given them by Lucian, and it was, lastly, one and the same school which extended from Lucian to Theodoret, and stretched far beyond the latter into the Christian schools of the Persian kingdom. The character and significance of this school have been discussed above in various chapters—see especially Vol. III., ch. 3. It sharply contested Origen’s hermeneutics, but did not vilify the great man. Its own exegetical and biblical-theological method, with

614

The later antignostic writings and compendiums, those of Ephraem, Epiphanies, Theodoret, Esnik, etc., are all, in so far as they are not mere extracts from. older works, from the East. Mohammedans, besides the later Nestorian and Jacobite scholars, confessedly turned their attention to the Christian sects still existing in the East, to one of which Islam owes the best of its teaching. Theodoret is full of self-praise over his actions, and sports them over and over again to prop up his imperilled orthodoxy. In Ep. 81 (IV., p. 1141, ed. Schulze) he writes: κώµας ὄκτω τῆς Μαρκίωνος καὶ τὰς πέριξ κειµένας, ἀσµένας πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐφοδήγησα· ἄλλην κώµην Εὐνοµιανῶν—we see that the sects are tabulated according to their origin—πεπληρωµένην καὶ ἄλλην Ἀρειανῶν τῷ φωτὶ τῆς θεογνωσίας προσήγαγον. καὶ διὰ τὴν θείαν χάριν οὐδὲ ἓν παρ᾽ ἡµῖν αἱρετικῶν ὑπελείφθη ζιζάνιον. Ep. 145 (IV., p. 1246) he tells how he fought steadily against Greeks, Jews, Arians, Eunomians, Apollinarians, and Marcionites ibid, p. 1252: πλείους ἢ µυρίους τῶν τοῦ Μαρκίωνος πείσας προσήγαγον τῷ παναγίῳ βαπτίσµατι. In Hæret. fab. I. 20 he records that he had confiscated more than 553 200 copies of the Diatessaron.

some admirable features, indeed, omitted, and a little of the literal and allegorical added, gradually became, in consequence of its appropriateness and thanks to the influence of Chrysostom, the ruling one. And the use of Aristotelian philosophy in the Antiochene school was an indication for the future. But the ablest of the Antiochenes finally came under censure on account of his Christology, and, over and above his Christology, he was charged with various heresies, especially Pelagianism. In fact, his whole system, and he possessed a system to a greater extent than any other after Origen, was a rational one; it was natural theology without any transcendentalism. He is therefore a source of great difficulty to the Church up to the present time; it declines to go further in condemning him than the fifth Council, indeed it only recognises conditionally the censure of the “chapters”. Theodoret’s work is without the boldness of Theodore, his anthropology and his doctrine of grace as well as his Christology approximating to the traditional teaching. Among other things, he appended to his compendium of heretical fables a fifth book, “θείων δογµάτων ἐπιτµή” (an epitome of divine dogmas), which must be described as the first attempt at a system after Origen, and which apparently exercised great influence on John of Damascus. This “epitome” has a lofty significance. It combines the Trinitarian and Christological dogma with the whole circle of the doctrines connected with the symbol. It reveals an attitude 346as markedly biblical as it is ecclesiastical and rational. It throughout observes the “just mean”. It is almost complete, the Last Supper being omitted, and it especially takes realistic Eschatology once more into account.615 It has adopted none of the obnoxious doctrines of Origen, and yet he himself is not treated as a heretic.616 An actual system this epitome is not; but the consistent sobriety and lucidity in the discussion of details, and the careful biblical proof lend to the whole a stamp of unity. It could not yet indeed give satisfaction, firstly, because of the personality of its author, and,

615

Theodoret discusses (1) the First Principle and the Father, (2) the Son, (3) the Holy Spirit and the divine names, (4-9) creation, matter, ions, angels, demons, and man, (10) providence, (11-15) the Incarnation, and that in general as well as in reference to separate points of doctrine, e.g., the assumption of a real body of a soul, and generally of the complete human nature, and the resuscitation of this nature, (16) the identity of the just and beneficent God, (17) God is the author of both Testaments, (18) Baptism, (19) the resurrection, (20) the judgment, (21) the promises, (22) the second advent of Christ, (23) Antichrist, (24) virginity, (25) marriage, (26) second marriage, (27-29) fornication, penitence and continence. 616 Theodoret has not introduced him into his catalogue of heretics.

secondly, because there was an entire absence of mysticism and Neoplatonism from his doctrinal conception. In the second half of the fifth century everyone was occupied with the decree of Chalcedon. Cyril of Alexandria, the Christologian whom bishops and monks had understood best, had to reconquer his whole influence side by side with the creed of Chalcedon. The only two great theologians whom the Eastern Church has possessed—Origen and Theodore, the former a follower of Plato, the latter of Aristotle, both biblicists though in very different ways,—were discredited, but not condemned. It was on the soil of Palestine, and among the monks there, that admiration for Origen came into collision with that for Theodore. We are well informed as to the living spiritual movements in the cloisters of Palestine at the beginning of the sixth century. Origenism experienced a regular renaissance, although it had never died out.617 Its “peculiar doctrines”, which had sprung from rational mysticism, were in particular taken up again, or at least declared to be arguable. The Cappadocians were 347appealed to in support of their validity. Origenism was defended under very different shades. There was an extreme right, and even pillars of orthodoxy were found on this side,618 and there was a left, which surpassed even Origen in daring. He led some of his admirers over to the Areopagite and the Neo-Platonists. The works of the Unknown were brought out, studied, and, as it appears, edited. Some went the length of undisguised Pantheism, like Stephen bar Sudaili, or the author of the book of Hierotheus, “On the hidden mysteries of the Deity.”619 No Gnostic of the second century had erected a nihilistic philosophy on the ground of Christianity so boldly as this writer.620

617

Walch l.c., p. 618 ff.; Möller in the R.-Encykl. XI., p. 512 f.; Loofs, Leontius, p. 274 ff.; Bigg, l.c. 618 Leontius, as Loofs has shown. 619 See the analysis of this extraordinarily interesting work, not yet printed, in Frothingham’s Stephen bar Sudaili, 1886, p. 92 f.; the writer ably calls attention also to the connection with the renaissance of Origenism. 620 Frothingham rightly says, p. 49 f.: “His system was openly pantheistic, or, to speak more philosophically, Pan-nihilistic; for, according to him, all nature even to the lowest forms of animal creation, being simply an emanation from the Divinity-Chaos, finally returns to it; and, when the consummation has taken place, God himself passes away and everything is swallowed up in the indefinite chaos, which he conceives to be the first principle and the end of being and which admits of no distinction.” The contents of the five books are according to Fr. as follows: I.—On God, the Universal Essence and distinct existences. II.—The various species of motion, the ascent of the mind towards God, during which it must endure the sufferings of Christ. III.—The resurrection of the

But the admirers of Origen met with opponents in Palestine, not only among the dull herd of monks and the traditionalists, but also among the adherents of the sober science and Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia. And, in addition, there was rising up a new power, Aristotelian scholasticism, which took possession of the monophysite as well as the orthodox dogma, but only concluded a firm alliance with the latter, through Leontius, the great opponent of Nestorianism and of Theodore—see above, p. 232 f. The Antiochene school was smitten with its own weapons. The great dogmas of the Church, hallowed by age, seemed to receive their sanction from the re-invigorated 348rated Aristotelianism, because they were peculiarly adapted for dialectical treatment. Thus the age of Justinian shows the Church of the East in a state of the liveliest spiritual agitation. All the great powers of the past, Neoplatonist and Aristotelianism, Origen and Theodore, were again living forces; a new combination was drawing near, and all efforts to stifle by conciliar decrees the living spirit in the Church seemed to have been vain. But the movements were but limited in extent and energy; the “new combination” was in truth the death of real science—a thinking which started in the middle of its subject, and for which that which was alone worth reflection was held to be beyond the range of discussion. Trifling monks, who excommunicated and denounced each other, talked big; and there sat at Constantinople an emperor who, himself a theologian, thirsted for the fame of creating a uniform science as well as a uniform belief. The dispute of the Palestinian monks and the scholasticism of a theologian like Leontius gave him his chance. The Emperor did not need to publish an edict requiring the followers of Origen and Theodore to annihilate one another; they took care of that for themselves. The spectacle of the two “sciences”, of Origen and the Antiochenes, tearing each other to pieces, in the age of Justinian, has something tragi-comical about it, recalling the tale of the two lions. The fifth Council confirmed this, after the Emperor had himself, in his epistle to Mennas, declared, and Vigilius—with other Patriarchs—had repeated, the condemnation of Origen. The fifteen anathemas against Origen,621 on which his condemnation at the Council was based, contained the following points. (1) The preexistence of souls and

mind, the vicissitudes of its conflict with the powers of evil, and its final identification with Christ. IV.—The mind becomes one, first with Christ, 522 then with the Spirit and the Father, and finally becomes absorbed. V.—All nature becomes confounded with the Father; all distinct existence and God himself passes away; Essence alone remains. 621 Compare with this the ten anathemas in the epistle to Mennas and the Vitæ Sabæ, Euthymii and Cyriaci, Loofs l.c., p, 290 f.

Apokatastasis; (2) the doctrine of the upper world of spirits, their original equality, and their fall; (3) the view that sun, moon, and stars belonged to this world of spirits, and had also fallen; (4) the doctrine that the differences in the bodies of the spirits was a consequence of this fall; (5) the opinion that the higher spirits become lower ones, or men, and vice versâ; (6) Origen’s doctrine of creation, and that it was not accomplished by the Trinity; (7) the Christology 349which taught that Christ became for all grades of spirits—each in its own form—that which he had become for men through the Incarnation, so that he assumed different bodies and received different names; (8) the contention that the Logos was only to be called Christ by a misuse of language (καταχριστικῶς), that accordingly a distinction was to be drawn between them; (9) the opinion that not the Logos, but a creaturely mind (νοῦς) which he had assumed became man; (10) the assertion of the spherical and ethereal form of the resurrection-body, and of the annihilation of the material body; (11) the interpreting of the judgment to mean this annihilation, and the view that at the end of the world there would only exist non-material nature (spirit); (12) the view that the Logos united with every man and spirit as he had done with the vouc he had assumed: heresy of the Isochristians who appealed to Origen, see, besides, Methodius; (13) the assertion of the similarity of the νοῦς, called Christ, to all other rational beings; (14) the view of the ultimate cessation of all plurality of persons and of multiplicity of knowledge (gnosis), the doctrine of reversion to unity and of apokatastasis; (15) the view of the identity of the pretemporal with the final life of spirits. Since the “Three Chapters” were condemned at the same time, Origen and Theodore were both got rid of.622 The latter found more energetic defenders than the former; but the majority of his admirers held aloof. The fact that the Augustinian West took up his cause best shows that we must not over-value this championship. The condemnation of the “peculiar doctrines” of Origenism meant much more. Henceforth buoys were laid down, which marked off the Neo-platonic channel in which men moved under the guidance of the “apostolic” Dionysius. Origen’s doctrines of the consummation, and of spirits and matter might no longer be maintained. The judgment was restored to its place, and got back even its literal meaning. The mysticism of the Cultus was carried continually further; it received a new impetus; but it adhered much more closely to 350tradition. The anti-gnostic regula fidei was 622

The religious policy of Justinian and the fifth Council had accordingly the same significance for the (orthodox) East as the so-called Gelasian decree for the West. In the former as in the latter history was extinguished and theology fettered.

finally restored, and the great cultus-mystic of the seventh century not only respected it, but worked within its lines. Maximus Confessor held the same relation to the Areopagite, as did the Cappadocians to Origen, and Theodoret to Theodore.623 But he was not only a mystic; he was also a scholastic and dialectician. There were no longer any theologians who reflected independently “de principiis.” God, the world, freedom, Christ, and Scripture were no longer the first principles, but, instead, the fixed doctrines regarding them drawn from tradition. Science took for granted the foundations guarded by the Church, and passing to the upper story went on building there. A latent free thought, indeed, still remained. If everything was symbolical and figurative, then, no matter how closely the spiritual might be combined with the material, the idea could not perish that the theologian who was in a position to grasp the subject matter did not require figures. While mysticism and scholasticism might not shrink from a figurative philosophy in the most daring sense of the term, they could not stifle the view that took every sort of figure and all history as a covering, nor could they blame the self-criticism of the Christian who was ashamed of being confined in this body.624 For learning (µαθήσις) the Cappadocians (the two Gregorys, next to them Athanasius and Cyril) were regarded as the principal authorities; for mystagogy (µυσταγωγία), the Areopagite and Maximus; for philosophy, Aristotle; and for homiletics (ὁµιλία), Chrysostom. The man, however, who embraced all that, who had transferred the scholastic dialectic method, which had been brought by Leontius to bear on the dogma of the Incarnation, to the whole sphere of the “divine dogma” as that had been fixed by Theodoret, was John of Damascus. Through him the Greek Church gained the orthodox system, but not the Greek Church alone. John’s work was no less 351important to the West.625 “He was the cope-stone of antiquity and the transition to a new age, because his writings, translated into Latin, became confessedly a foundation of the mediæval theology of the West.” He was above all a scholastic. To him each difficulty was but an incitement to split up notions artificially, and to find a new one to which nothing in the world

b0a 623See on him the Art. of Wagenmann in the R.-Encykl. and Steitz XI., p. 209; on the Cultus-mystics Sophronius of Jerusalem and Germanus of Constantinople, see Steitz XI., pp. 238 f. and 246 f. 624 The saying is due to Porphyry who has used it of Plotinus (Vita I.): Πλωτῖνος ὁ φιλόσοφος ἐῴκει µὲν αἰσχυνοµένῳ ὅτι ἐν σώµατι εἴη. 625 See Bach, Dogmengesch. des Mittelalters I., p. 49 ff. Bach begins with good reason, pp. 6-49, with Dionysius and Maximus.

corresponds except that very difficulty which the new notion was meant to remove. John even put the fundamental question of mediæval science, that as to nominalism and realism; and he solved it by a modified Aristotelianism. All doctrines were in his view given already; he took them from findings of the Councils and the works of recognised Fathers. He held it to be the task of science to edit them. In this way the two chief dogmas were introduced into the circle of the doctrines of the old antignostically interpreted Symbol. A very modest use was made of the allegorical explanation of Holy Scripture. The letter ruled wholesale, at any rate much more thoroughly than in the case of the Cappadocians. In consequence of this, natural theology was shut out from sight; it was hedged round by extremely realistic Bible narratives confidingly accepted.626 But the most serious fact was that the close connection which in Athanasius, Apollinaris, and Cyril of Alexandria had united the Trinity and Incarnation, or dogma in general, with the thought of salvation, was completely loosened. This process had begun with the Council of Chalcedon, and John had a mass of dogmas which it was necessary to believe; but they had ceased to be clearly subordinate to a uniform conception of their purpose. The object which dogma once served as the means remained; but the means had changed. Instead of dogma, we have the Cultus, the mysteries, into which Book IV. enters (IV. 17-25 are to be regarded as appendices). In consequence of this the system is destitute of inner vital unity.627 It is really 352not an account of faith, but of its presuppositions, and its unity depends on the form of treatment, the high antiquity of its doctrine, and Holy Scripture. The dogmas had become the sacred inheritance

626

Yet the rational method was by no means given up; on the contrary, it was retained; see, e.g., the rational arguments for the Trinity, I. 6, 7. 627 The plan of the work is as follows: Book I. discusses the Deity, the Trinity and the attributes of God; Book II. the creation, angels, paradise, and man, giving an elaborate psychology; Book III. the Incarnation, the two natures, and Christology—see above, Chap. 3, conclusion; Book IV. continues the Christology up to Chap. 8 and then discusses—very characteristically—baptism, including the µῦρον, faith, the sign of the cross and faith, adoration towards the East, the mysteries (the Eucharists), Mary the mother of God and the genealogy of Christ, the veneration of the sa 599 ints and their relics, pictures and, only then, Scripture. To the chapter on Scripture a series of chapters are appended containing hermeneutical rules for the exposition of Scripture, dealing with the statements regarding Christ—where we have a precise distinction made between the τρόποι of the hypostatic union—those concerning God in his relation to evil, the apparent existence of two principles, the law of God, and the law of sin and the Sabbath. The conclusion consists of chapters on virginity, circumcision—the position of these headings is reversed—on Anti-Christ and the resurrection.

from the classic antiquity of the Church, but they had, as it were, fallen to the ground. The worship of images, mysticism, and scholasticism ruled the Church. The two latter bore much fair fruit in after times; for the spirit which strives towards God cannot be stifled by anything, and is capable even of constructing a restricted science. But the history of dogma came to an end in the Greek Church a thousand years ago, and its reanimation cannot easily be conceived. A reformation could only set in in the cultus. The adoption of a few Catholic or Protestant theologumena in later catechisms and books of doctrine has hitherto been without effect, and will in the future hardly obtain any. Independent theology had been extinguished in the churches of the East; but alongside these churches there arose all the more energetically, from the seventh century, the sects, old enemies in new forms, Marcionites (as Paulicians) and Manichæans, and in addition many other curious bodies, the necessary products of religious movements among tribes falling into barbarism, and but little trained by the Church. On the shaping of the dogmas of the Church these sects exerted not the slightest influence; and for that very reason they do not belong to the history of dogma.628 353

Again, this history has nothing to say about the scientific life of the Byzantine Church, or the many theories and disputes which arose out of it, and, on the other hand, from mystical speculations; for all that had little or no effect on dogma. No doubt an isolated theological question was decided at this or that Synod; or individual theologians elaborated in a praise-worthy fashion theological conceptions, as e.g., in reference to the crucifixion of Christ, atonement, and substitution; no doubt another rather important dispute—the Hesychastic controversy—agitated the Church in the fourteenth century; but dogma, and to some extent the Church itself, remained ultimately unaffected. For centuries the intellectual work of the Church consisted in the development of Church legislation, and its theologians either wrote on exegesis, history, and biography, following traditional patterns, or composed ascetic books. Finally, to the history of dogma belongs neither the development of the schism with the West, nor the silent process, in which the Eastern Church has taken over, since the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, a great deal from the ecclesiastically more

628

Besides the old researches of Engelhardt (1827), Gieseler (1829, 1846, 1849), see now Döllinger, Beitr. z. Sectengesch. des Mittelalters (1890) and Karapet Ter Mkrttschian, Die Paulikianer (1893).

vigorous West. Apart from the “filioque” discussed above, the development of the schism was not determined by dogmatic factors, and the silent process629 which lasted up to the end of the seventeenth century, and to which the Church owes, e.g., the settling of its Canon of the Bible, the doctrine of the seven sacraments, a kind of doctrine of transubstantiation, a more certain doctrine of purgatory, development of the doctrines of sin and grace, a more sharply defined theory and practice of the sacrament of penance etc., has come to an end at a time when we have accurate knowledge, and will perhaps never be fully explained. The only definite dogmatic interests shown in it are anti-protestant.

629

Compare as to this Kattenbusch, Vergleichende Confessionskunde I. passim. The general intellectual life in Eastern Rome is best discussed in the excellent work of Krumbacher, Gesch. d. Byzant. Litteratur, München, 1891.

Indexes Index of Scripture References Genesis 3:3 3:21 Deuteronomy 6:4 32:39 Judges 4 5 11 Esther 13:8 Psalms 2:7 2:7 35:10 45:2 45:2 45:8 87:5 102:28 110:3 110:3 145:13 Proverbs 8 8:22 8:22 8:23 8:30 8:30 Isaiah 40:28 53:8 Lamentations 4:20 Malachi 3:6 Matthew 3:14 3:17 3:17 4:4 6:25 10:29 11:27 12:28 12:31 16:17 17:5 19:6 26:39 26:39 26:41 27:46 27:46 28:18 28:19 28:19 Mark 13:32 Luke 1:31 2:52 28:19 John 1:1 1:1 1:1-3 1:3 1:8 1:13 1:18 1:18 3:13 5 10:15 10:30 10:30 10:30 11:34 12:27 12:28 12:30 13:21 14:8 14:9 14:9 14:10 14:10 14:28 14:28 14:28 17:3 19:34 Acts 2:1-47 2:36 Romans 1:3 1:20 8:3 8:32 8:32 9:5 1 Corinthians

1:24 1:24 15:28 15:28 2 Corinthians 5:19 Ephesians 7 12 26 36 59 81 145 263 Philippians 2:6 2:6 Colossians 1:5 1:15 1:16 554 572 1 Timothy 3:16 Hebrews 1:2 1:3 1:3 1:4 2:10 3:2 13:8 1 John 4:2 4:3 5:1 5:20 Revelation 1:4

Index of Greek Words and Phrases • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• • •

• •

ὕλη Μερος ἀίδίος ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς καὶ συνυπάρχει τῷ πατρί ἀγάπη 1b00 ἀγένητα ἀγένητος—διάφορα ἔχει τὰ σηµαινόµενα. καὶ οἱ µέν, τὸ ὄν µὲν µήτε δὲ γεννηθέν, µήτε ὅλως ἔχον τὸν αἴτιον, λέγουσιν ἀγέννητον, οἱ δε τὸ ἄκτιστον ἀγέννητον οὐ λέγεται γεννητοῦ ἀγέννητον, οὐδὲ γεννητὸν ἀγεννήτου γεννητόν ἀγέννητος ἀγέν[ν]ητος ἀγενητογενής ἀγεννησία ἀγεννησία, γεννησία, ἐκπόρευσις ἀδύνατον τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ προσκυνητὸν ἑαυτὸν εἰδέναι καὶ µή. Ἀδύνατον ἄρα τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι Θεόν τε καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ὁλοκλήρου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν µονότητι συγκράτου φύσεως θεϊκῆς σεσαρκωµένης ἀδιαίρετος ἑνότης ἀδιαιρέτως ἀεὶ ἀκέφαλοι ἀκρίβεια τῆς τῶν προσώπων ἐπιγνώσεως ἀκριβέστεροι ἀληθῆ υἱὸν λέγω τὸν τῇ φυσικῇ γεννήσει τὴν υἱότητα κεκτηµένον· ἑποµένως δὲ συνεπιδεχόµενον τῇ σηµασίᾳ καὶ τὸν κατὰ ἀλήθειαν τῆς ἀξίας µετέχοντα τῆ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἑνώσει ἀληθῶς ἐµφανεῖς εἰκόνες εἰσὶ τὰ ὁρατὰ τῶν ἀοράτων ἀλλὰ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ποιοῦν τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς τὴν πλάνην, τὸ ταὐτὸ λέγειν τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἀλλότριος καὶ ἀνόµοιος κατὰ πάντα τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας καὶ ἰδιότητος. Μεµερισµέναι τῇ φύσει καὶ ἀπεξενωµέναι καὶ ἀπεσχοινισµέναι καὶ ἀλλότριοι καὶ ἀµέτοχοί εἰσιν ἀλλήλων αἱ οὐσίαι τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος; ἀλλοίωσις ἀµερίστως

• •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

ἀνάγκη ἀνάγκη καὶ ἐν τούτῳ τὴν ταυτότητα πρὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα σώζειν, 20: µὴ µόνον ὅµοιον τὸν υἱὸν ἀλλὰ ταὐτὸν τῇ ὁµοιώσει ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι . . . οὐ µόνον ὅµοιος ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀδιαίρετος ἐστι τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας, καὶ ἕν µέν εἰσιν αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ πατήρ. 24: ἑνότης καὶ φυσικὴ ἰδιότης . . . τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς φύσεως καὶ τὴν ταυτότητα τοῦ φωτὸς µὴ διαιρῶµεν ἀνόµοιοι πάµπαν ἀλλήλων ταῖς τε οὐσίαις καὶ δόξαις ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον. τὸν γοῦν λόγον φησὶν εἰς ὁµοιότητα δόξης καὶ οὐσίας ἀλλότριον εἶναι πολυτελῶς ἑκατέρων τοῦ τε πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος. ὁ υἱὸς διῃρηµένος ἐστὶν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀµέτοχος κατὰ πάντα τοῦ πατρὸς ἀνόµοιος ἀνόµοιος καὶ κατὰ πάντα καὶ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἀνεκδιήγητος ὑπόστασις τοῦ µονογενοῦς Θεοῦ ἀνθρώπου θάνατος οὐ καταργεῖ τὸν θάνατον ἀνθρωπίνως ἀνθρωποτόκος ἀντίτυπα τοῦ τιµίου σώµατος καὶ αἵµατος ἀντιµεθίστασις τῶν ὀνοµάτων ἀντιµετάστασις τῶν ὀνοµάτων ἀνυπόστατις 101c ἀπάντων ὁρατῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ σωµατικοῦ εὐσεβῶς καὶ τὴν περὶ τοῦ ὁµοίου ἔννοιαν ἡµᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀσωµάτου πατρός τε καὶ υἱοῦ διδαχθῆναι ἀπόδειξις ἀπαθής ἀπαραλλάκτως ὅµοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἀποφθέγµατα ἀρετή ἀρχή ἀρχή ἀρχαί ἀσύγχυτος ἀσυγχύτως ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀναλλοιώτως, ἀµεταβλήτως ἀτρέπτως ἀτρέπτως, ἀσυγχύτως ἀφοµοίωσις ἀχειροποίητα

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• •

•

• •

ἀχειρποίητα ἀχωρίστως ἄγραφα ἄλογος ἄλογος καὶ ἄσοφος ἄναιµος καὶ λογικὴ καὶ προσηνὴς θυσία ἄναρχος γέννησις παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος ἔνθεος ἄσοφος ἄτοµα ἄτρεπτος ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι᾽ ἡµᾶς Ἀεὶ θέος, ἀεὶ υἱός, ἅµα πατήρ, ἅµα υἱός, συνυπάρχει ὁ υἱὸς ἀγεννήτωςLightfoot (S. Ignatius Vol. II., p. 90 ff.) has published a learned discussion on ἀγένητος ad9 Ἀθανάσιον ἐπαινῶν ἀρετὴν ἐπαινέσοµαι Ἀπιστοῦµεν οἱ πολλοὶ τοῖς περὶ τῶν θείων µοστηρίων λόγοις· θεώµεθα γὰρ µόνον αὐτὰ διὰ τῶν προσπεφυκότων αὐτοῖς αἰσθητῶν συµβόλων. ∆εῖ δὲ καὶ ἀποδύντας αὐτὰ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν γυµνὰ καὶ καθαρὰ γενόµενα ἰδεῖν· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν θεώµενοι σεφθείηµεν πηγὴν ζωῆς εἰς ἑαυτὴν χεοµένην καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς ἑστῶσαν ὁρῶντες καὶ µίαν τινὰ δύναµιν, ἁπλῆν, αὐτοκίνητον αὐτοενέργητον, ἑαυτὴν οὐκ ἀπολείπουσαν, ἀλλὰ γνῶσιν πασῶν γνώσεων ὑπάρχουσαν, καὶ ἀεὶ δι᾽ ἑαυτῆν ἑαυτὴν θεωµένην Ἀπολογητικός Ἄλλης καὶ ἄλλης οὐσίας µίαν εἶναι καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν προσκύνησιν ἀθέµιτον, τουτέστιν ποιητοῦ καὶ ποιήµατος, Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπου. Μία δὲ ἡ προσκύνησις τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ ὀνόµατι νοεῖται Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος. Οὐκ ἄρα ἄλλη καὶ ἄλλη οὐσία Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος· ἀλλὰ µία κατὰ σύνθεσιν Θεοῦ πρὸς σῶµα ἀνθρώπινον Ἄρρητος Θεὸς ἶσον οὐδὲ ὅµοιον οὐχ ὁµόδοξον ἔχει. ὁ υἱὸς ἴδιον οὐδεν ἔχει τοῦ Θεοῦ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐστιν ἶσος ἀλλ᾽ οὐδε ὁµοούσιος αυτῷ ἐγκύκλιον ἐγκώµιον εἰς τὴν κοίµησιν

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

ἐγράφη γὰρ ἐνταῦθα πᾶσαν φιλονεικείαν κεκινῆσθαι, ὥστε φλαυια 563 νὸν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἐκ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων πραγµάτων ἐπαρθῆναι ἐκ ἐκ δύο ὑποστασεων ἐκ δύο φύσεων εἷς ἐκ τής οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς δηλητηρίου φρατρίας ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν ἐννοιῶν ἐκπόρευσις ac0 ἐκ, διά, ἐν ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσάµενον ἐν ὁµοιώµατι ἀνθρώπων ἐν ὁµοιώµατι σαρκὸς ἁµαρτίας ἐν ᾧ κατοικεῖν ὁ Θεὸς λέγεται· καὶ ἀοράτῳ γε ὄντι διὰ τὴν ὑπερέχουσαν φανότητα καὶ ἀπροσίτῳ τῷ αὐτῷ διὰ τὴν ὐπερβολὴν τῆς ὑπερουσίου φωτοχυσίας, ἐν τούτῳ γίγνεται πᾶς ὁ Θεὸν γνῶναι καὶ ἰδεῖν ἀξιούµενος αὐτῷ τῷ µὴ ὁρᾷν µηδὲ γινώσκειν, ἀληθῶς ἐν τῷ ὑπὲρ ὅρασιν καὶ γνῶσιν γιγνόµενος ἐν αλλήλοις ἐν δύο φύσεσι ἐν µέσῃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ συνεδρίῳ πλειστάκις ἐν µορφῇ Θεοῦ ἐν σαρκί ἐν τοῖς µυστικοῖς συµβόλοις ὁ χριστιανισµὸς τὴν ἴσχον ἔχει ἐνέργεια δραστική ἐνέργεια θεανδρική ἐνανθρώπησις ἐνανθρωπήσαντα ἐνοίκησις ἐξ ἀµφοῖν ἐξ ὑποκειµένου τινός 56d ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων; θελήµατι καὶ βουλῇ ὑπέστη πρὸ χρόνων καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων ὁ υἱός ἐξ υἱοῦ ἐπὶ τῷ πάντας εἰς µίµησιν ἄγειν ἑαυτοῦ ἐπινοία

•

• •

•

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

ἐρωτήσεις τοιγαροῦν καὶ ἀποκρίσεις ἐντεῦθεν ἀνεκινοῦντο, ἐβασανίζετο ὁ λόγος τῆς διανοίας τῶν εἰρηµένων ἐχαρίσατο· ἑνὸς καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τὰ τε θαύµατα καὶ τὰ πάθη, ἅπερ ἑκουσίως ὑπέµεινεν σαρκί . . . οὔτε τετάρτου προσώπου προσθήκ 564 ν ἐπιδέχεται ἡ ἁγία τρίας ἑνὸς µόνου προσεγγραφέντος ῥήµατος τοῦ Ὁµοουσίου, ὃ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡρµήνευσε λέγων ὅτι µὴ κατὰ σωµάτων πάθε λέγοιτο Ὁµοούσιος, οὔτε κατὰ διαίρεσιν, οὔτε κατὰ τινα ἀποτοµὴν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑποστῆναι . . . θείοις δὲ καὶ ἀπορρήτοις λόγοις προσήκει τὰ τοιαῦτα νοεῖν ἑνότης ἑνότης ὁµοιώσεως κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἑνότης πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ἑνώσας αὐτὸν ἑαυτῷ τῇ σχέσει τῆς γνώµης, µείζονά τινα παρεῖχεν αὐτῷ τὴν χάριν, ὡς τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν χάριτος εἰς πάν 562 τας τοὺς ἑξῆς διαδοθησοµένης ἀνθρώπους· ὅθεν καὶ τὴν περὶ τὰ καλὰ πρόθεσιν ἀκέραιον αὐτῷ διεφύλαττεν ἑρµηνεία ἑρµηνεία εἰς τὸ σύµβολον ἑτερότης ἑτερότης κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἑτεροούσιον ἑτεροούσιος ἑτεροφυές ἑτεροφυεῖς ἓν θέληµα θεανδρικόν ἓν πρόσωπον 55a ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ µίαν τὴν προσκύνησιν τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῆς σαρκός ἔκθεσις ἔκπεµψις ἔξωθεν ἁπλῶς ὅµοιος ἔπαθεν ὀ λόγος ἀπαθῶς ἔρως ἔστιν µὲν γὰρ ἀνοήτον τὸ τὸν Θεὸν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου γεγεννῆσθαι λέγειν ἔχεις τοῦ µυστηρίου τὰ ἔκφορα, καὶ ταῖς τῶν πολλῶν ἀκοαῖς οὐκ ἀπόρρητα· τὰ δὲ ἄλλα εἴσω µαθήσῃ, τῆς

• • • •

• •

•

• • • • • • • • • • •

•

τριάδος χαριζοµένης, ἅ καὶ κρύφεις παρὰ σεαυτῷ σφραγῖδι κρατούµενα ad4 ἕν εἶδος θεότητος ἕν ζῶον ἕν θέληµα ὁµολογοῦµεν τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ προσωπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐξ οὗ ὁ υἱὸς γεννᾶται καὶ τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεται, διὸ καὶ κυρίως τὸν ἕνα αἴτιον ὄντα τῶν αὐτοῦ αἰτιατῶν ἕνα Θεόν φαµεν. ἕν πρόσωπον ἕνα Χριστόν, ἕνα υἱόν, ἕνα κύριον ὁµολογοῦµεν, καὶ µίαν µὲν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου φύσιν σεσαρκωµένην µέντοι καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσασαν λέγειν οὐκ ἀρνούµεθα ἕνα καί τὸν αὐτὸν Χριστὸν . . . ἐν δύο φύσεσινIt is here that the difficulty occurs which has been so much discussed, namely, that the Greek text gives ἐκ δύο φύσεων ἕνα τῆς ἁγίας τρίαδος πεπονθέναι σαρκί ἕνωσις ἕνωσις καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσις κατὰ συνάφειαν ἕνωσις κατὰ φῦσιν ἕνωσις σχετική ἕνωσις τῶν προσώπων ἕνωσις φουσική ἕνωσις φυσική ἕνωσις φυσι ac7 ή, ἕνωσις καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν Ἐκ κινητοῦ καὶ ἀκινήτου, ἐνεργητικοῦ τε καὶ παθητικοῦ, τὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι µίαν οὐσίαν καὶ φύσιν σύνθετον, ἑνί τε καὶ µόνῳ κινουµένην θελήµατι· καὶ µιᾷ ἐνεργείᾳ τά τε θαύµατα πεποιηκέναι καὶ τὰ πάθη, µόνος καὶ πρῶτος ὁ πατὴρ ἡµῶν Ἀπολλινάριος ἐφθέγξατο, τὸ κεκρυµµένον πᾶσι καταφωτίσας µυστήπριον Ἐπεὶ οὖν καὶ τοῦτο τὸ µέρος [wine, blood] ἡ θεοδόχος ἐκείνη σὰρξ πρὸς τὴη σύστασιν ἑαυτῆς παρεδέξατο, ὁ δε φανερωθεὶς Θεὸς διὰ τοῦτο κατέµιξεν ἑαυτὸν τῇ ἐπικήρῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φύσει, ἱνα τῇ τῆς θεότητος κοινωνίᾳ συναποθεωθῇ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, τούτου χάριν πᾶσι τοῖς πεπιστευκόσι τῇ οἰκονοµίᾳ τῆς χάριτος ἑαυτὸν ἐνσπείρει διὰ τῆς σαρκός ἧς ἡ σύστασις ἐξ οἴνου τε καὶ ἄρτου ἐστὶ, τοῖς σώµασι τῶν πεπιστευκότων κατακρινάµενος, ὡς ἂν τῇ πρὸς τὸ ἀθάνατον ἑνώσει καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀθανασίας

•

• • • •

• • •

•

•

• • • •

• •

µέτοχος γένοιτο. Ταῦτα δὲ δίδωσι τῇ τῆς εὐλογίας δυνάµει πρὸς ἐκεῖνο µεταστοιχειώσας τῶν φαινοµένων τὴν φύσιν Ἐρρωµένους καὶ ἐρρωµένας ὑµᾶς ὁ ὤν αὐτογένντος Θεός, ὁ καὶ µόνος ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς προσαγορευθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀποσταλέντος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὑποστάντος τε ἀληθῶς πρὸ αἰώνων καὶ ὄντος ἀληθῶς γεννητῆς ὑποστάσεως, διατηρήσει ἀπὸ τῆς ἀσεβείας, ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡµῶν, δι᾽ οὗ πᾶσα δόξα τῷ πατρὶ καὶ νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀµήν. ac1 Ἑλλήνων ἑρµηνεῖαι. Ἑλληνικὴ παιδεία Ἑλληνική παιδεία Ἑποµενοι τοίνον τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁµολογεῖν υἱὸν τὸν κύριον ἡµῶν Ἰ. Χρ. συµφώνως ἅπαντες ἐκδιδάσκοµεν, τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν θεότητι καὶ τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπὸτητι, Θεὸν ἀληθῶς καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς τὸν αὐτόν Ἒκθεσις πίστεως Ἔκθεσις πίστεως ἤτοι περὶ τριάδος Ἕν τὸ ἀγένητον, ἓν δὲ τὸ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀληθῶς καὶ οὐκ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ γεγονός, καθόλου τῆς φύσεως τῆς ἀγενήτου µὴ µετέχον, ἀλλὰ γεγονὸς ὁλοχερῶς ἕτερον τῇ φύσει κ. τῇ δυνάµει. ἡ γὰρ πόλις ὑµῶν τῷ µεγέθει καὶ τῷ τόπῳ πλεῖστον ὅσον διαφέρει καὶ περιφανῶς ἀποδέδεικται δευτέρα τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον ἡ δὲ ὑπόστασις οὐσία ἐστί, καὶ οὐδὲν ἄλλο σηµαινόµενον ἔχει ἢ αὐτὸ τὸ ὄν, ὅπερ Ἰερεµίας ὕπαρξιν ὀνοµάζει λέγων . . . ἡ γαρ ὐπόστασις καὶ ἡ οὐσία ὑπαρξίς ἐστιν ἡ εἰς τὰ ἐξ ὧν συνετέθη τὸ σῶµα στοιχεῖα διάλυσις ἡ θεία σάρκωσις οὐ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπὸ τῆς παρθένου ἔσχεν 56c ἡ κυριακὴ τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας ἡ µὴν αὐγὴ οὐ κατὰ προαίρεσιν τοῦ φωτὸς ἐκλάµπει. κατά τι δὲ τῆς οὐσίας συµβεβηκὸς ἀχώριστον. ὁ δὲ υἱὸς κατὰ γνώµην καὶ προαίρεσιν εἰκών ὑπέστη τοῦ πατρός. βουληθεὶς γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς γέγονεν υἱοῦ πατὴρ καὶ φῶς δεύτερον κατὰ πάντα ἑαυτῷ ἀφωµοιωµένον ὑπεστήσατο ἡ µόνας ἦν, ἡ δυὰς δὲ οὐκ ἦν πρὶν ὑπάρξει ἡ οὐσία ἐστὶν ἀφθαρσία τε καὶ φῶς αὐτοόν, ἁπλοῦν τε καὶ µονοειδὲς, ἡ δὲ τούτου (scil. τοῦ δηµιουργοῦ)

• • • •

•

• •

• •

οὐσία διττὴν µέν τινα δύναµιν προήγαγεν, αὐτὸς δε τοῦ κρείττονός ἐστιν εἰκῶν. µηδέ σε τὰ νῦν τοῦτο θορυβείτω, θέλουσαν µαθεῖν, ύ 564 ῶς ἀπὸ µιᾶς ἀρχῆς τῶν ὅλων οὔσης τε καὶ ὁµολογουµένης ἡµῖν καὶ πεπιστευµένης, τῆς ἀγεννήτου καὶ ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἀγαθῆς, συνέστησαν καὶ αὗται αἱ φύσεις, ἥ τε τῆς φθορᾶς καὶ ἡ τῆς µεσότητος, ἀνοµοούσιοι αὗται καθεστῶσαι, τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσἰν ἔχοντος τὰ ὅµοια ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὁµοούσια γεννᾶν τε γαὶ προφέρειν· µαθήσῃ γὰρ ἑξῆς καὶ τὴν τούτου ἀρχήν τε καὶ γέννησιν ἡ οὐσία τοῦ πατρός ἐστιν ἀρχὴ καὶ ῥίζα καὶ πηγὴ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἡ σὰρξ τοῦ κυρίου προσκυνεῖται καθὸ ἕν ἐστι πρόσωπον καὶ ἕν ζῶον µετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἡγεµονικόν ἡµεῖς δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν οὐκ Ἅ ac8 νθρωπικῶς ἀφορίζοµεν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος µονον (οὐδὲ ὑπερούσιος ἢ ἄνθρωπος µόνον) ἀλλ᾽ ἄνθρωπος ἀληθῶς, ὁ διαφερόντως φιλάνθρωπος ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπους καὶ κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων οὐσίας ὁ ὑπερούσιος οὐσιωµένος . . . καὶ γὰρ ἵνα συνελόντες εἴπωµεν οὐδὲ ἄνθρωπος ἦν, οὐχ ὡς µὴ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, ἀνθρώπων ἐπέκεινα, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς ἄνθρωπος γεγονώς. Καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν οὐ κατὰ Θεὸν τὰ θεῖα δράσας, οὐ τὰ ἀνθρώπεια κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνδρωθέντος Θεοῦ καινήν τινα τὴν θεανδρικὴν ἐνέργειαν ἡµῖν πεπολιτευµένος ἡµεῖς τῷ ἀποστολικῷ θρόνῳ ἐξακολουθοῦµέν τε καὶ πειθόµεθα καὶ τοὺς κοινωνικοὺς αὐτοῦ κοινωνικοὺς ἔχοµεν, καὶ τοὺς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κατακριθέντας καὶ ἡµεῖς κατακρίνοµεν ἡνῶσθαι τῷ Θεῷ τὸν λόγον ἣν ἡµεῖς ἀπὸ τῶν προγόνων παραδοθεῖσαν ὀφείλοµεν µετὰ τῆς προσηκούσης καθοσιώσεως ἐκδικεῖν καὶ τῆς ἰδίας εὐλαβείας τὴν ἀξίαν τῷ µακαρίῳ ἀπστόλῳ Πέτρῳ ἄτρωτον καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἡµετέροις χρόνοις διαφυλάττειν, ἵνα ὁ µακαριώτατος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς Ῥωµαίων πόλεως, ᾧ τὴν ἱερωσύνην κατὰ πάντων ἡ ἀρχαιότης παρέσχε, χώραν καὶ εὐπορίαν ἔχειν περί τε πίστεως καὶ ἱερέων κρίνειν ἤ ταυτοούσιος ἦν ὅλως γεννητὸν οὐδέν, πατὴρ δὲ ἦν µόνος ἀγέννητος . . . ἐπεὶ δὲ ἦν ac8 όνιµος, ἔδοξεν αὐτῷ ποτὲ τὸ

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

κάλλιστον καὶ τελεώτατον, ὃ εἷχεν ἐν αὐτῷ, γεννῆσαι καὶ προαγαγεῖν· φιλέρηµος γὰρ οὐκ ἦν· Ἀγάπη γάρ, φησίν, ἦν ὅλος, ἡ δὲ ἀγάπη οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγάπη, ἐὰν µὴ ᾖ τὸ ἀγπαώµενον . . . τελειότερος δὲ ὁ πατήρ, ὅτι ἀγέννητος ὢν µόνος ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἦν, ἀεὶ Ἡ σὰρξ ἐδεῖτο ἀτρέπτου νοῦ, µὴ ὑποπίπτοντος αὐτῇ διὰ ἐπιστηµοσύνης ἀσθένειαν, ἀλλὰ συναρµόζοντος αὐτὴν ἀβιάστως ἑαυτῷ . . . Οὐ δύναται σώζειν τὸν κόσµον ὁ ἄνθρωπος µὲν ὢν καὶ τῇ κοινῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φθορᾷ ὑποκείµενος ἰδίαν ποιεῖν τὴν σάρκα οἰκονοµικῶς ἰδιότης ἰδιότης τῆς οὐσίας ἰδιότητες χαρακτηρίζουσαι, ἐξαίρετα ἰδιώµατα ἰδιότροπος ἀνεκδιήγητος ὑπόστασις ἰδιοποίησις ἱερατικῶν τελειώσεων ἱµάτιον ἴδιον ἴδιον τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ γέννηµα Ἅ ac1 διον υἱοῦ ἴδιος ἵνα ὁ πρωτότοκος Θεοῦ πρωτοτόκῳ ανθρώπῳ συναπτόµενος δειχθῇ ἵνα τῆς µὲν ἐπεισάκτου φθορᾶς τὸ γήϊνον ἡµῶν ἀπαλλάξῃ σῶµα, τῇ καθ᾽ ἕνωσιν οἰκονοµίᾳ τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῷ ζωὴν ἐνιείς, ψυχὴν δὲ ἰδίαν ἀνθρωπίνην ποιούµενος ἁµαρτίας αὐτὴν ἀποφήνῃ κρείττονα, τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως τὸ πεπηγός τε καὶ ἄτρεπτον, οἷάπερ ἐρίῳ βαφὴν, ἐγκαταχρώσας αὐτῇ. Ἰησοῦς δὲ προέκοπτεν . . . χάριτι παρὰ Θεῷ—χάριτι δὲ, ἀκόλουθον τῇ συνέσει καὶ τῇ γνώσει τὴν ἀρετὴν µετιών, ἐξ ἧς ἡ παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ χάρις αὐτῷ τὴν προσθήκην ἐλάµβανεν . . . δῆλον δὲ ἄρα κἀκεῖνο, ὡς τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀκριβέστερόν τε καὶ µετὰ πλείονος ἐπλήροῦ τῆς εὐχερείας ἢ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἀνθρώποις ἦν δυνατόν, ὅσῳ καὶ κατὰ πρόγνωσιν τοῦ ὁποῖός τις ἔσται ἑνώσας αὐτὸν ὁ Θεὸς λόγος ἑαυτῷ ἐν αὐτῇ διαπλάσεως ἀρχῇ, µείζονα παρεῖχεν τὴν παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ συνέργειαν πρὸς τὴν τῶν δεόντων κατόρθωσιν . . . ἥνωτο µὲν γὰρ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τῷ Θεῷ ὁ ληφθεὶς κατὰ

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

πρόγνωσιν· ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ διαπλάσει τῆς µήτρας τὴν καταρχὴν τῆς ἑνώσεως δεξαµενος Ἰ. Χρ. ἀνθρωπίνοις τε αὖ καὶ τοῖς ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ἰδιώµασιν εἰς ἕν τι τὸ µεταξὺ συγκείµενος Ἰ. Χρ. ὄντα πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐν ὑποστάσει . . . µένοντα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ab8 ὁ ἀριθµὸς οὐ διαιρέσεως αἴτιος πέφυκεν ὁ ἐν ναῷ Θεὸς λόγος· ὁ Θεός ὁ Χριστὸς τρεπτὸς µὲν τῇ γε φύσει τῇ οἰκείᾳ ὁ γνήσιος τῶν µυστηρίων ὀικονόµος ὁ δὲ περὶ τοῦ πνεύµατος λόγος ἐν παραδροµῇ κεῖται, οὐδεµιᾶς ἐξεργασίας ἀξιωθείς, διὰ τὸ µηδέπω τότε κεκινῆσθαι τὸ ζήτηµα ὁ θεῖος γνόφος ἐστὶ τὸ ἀπρόσιτον φῶς ὁ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν Θεὸς τῷ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν Θεῷ ὁµοούσιος! ὁ λόγος µετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός ὁ υἱὸς ἔχει ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τὴν ταυτότητα ὁµιλία ὁµοίαις δόξαις: ἀνεπίµικτα ἑαυταῖς εἰσιν αἱ ὑποστάσεις αὐτῶν, µία τῆς µιᾶς ἐνδοξότερα δόξαις ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον. Ξένος τοῦ υἱοῦ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ὁ πατήρ, ὅτι ἄναρχος ὑπάρχει ὁµοίωµα ὁµοίωσις τοῦ υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ὁµογενεῖς ὁµοιότης adf ὁµοιούσιος ὁµοιούσιος ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας ὁµοιον κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, οὗ τὴν γέννησιν οὐδεὶς οἶδεν ὁµοιος ὁµολογῶ τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, ἐξ αἰῶνος µὲν ἄσαρκον Θεὸν λόγον, ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων δὲ αἰώνων σάρκα ἐξ ἁγίας παρθένου ἑνώσαντα ἑαυτῷ, εἶναι Θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον, ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτόν, ὑπόστασιν µίαν σύνθετον καὶ πρόσωπον ἓν ἀδιαίρετον, µεσίτευον Θεῷ καὶ ἀνθρώποις καὶ συνάπτον τὰ διῃρηµένα ποιήµατα τῷ πεποιηκότι, ὁµοούσιον Θεῷ κατὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς πατρικῆς οὐσίας ὑπάρχουσαν αὐτῷ θεότητα, καὶ ὁµοούσιον ἀνθρώποις κατὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως ἡνωµένην αὐτῷ σάρκα, προσκυνούµενον δὲ καὶ δοξαζόµενον µετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός· ὅτι δι᾽ αὐτῆς ἡµῖν γέγονεν λύτρωσις ἐκ θανάτου καὶ κοινωνία πρὸς

•

•

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

τὸν ἀθάνατον· ἄκρως γὰρ ἡνωµένη ἡ σὰρκ τῷ λόγῳ καὶ µηδέποτε αὐτοῦ χωριζοµένη, οὔκ ἐστιν ἀνθρώπου, οὐ δούλου, οὐ κτιστοῦ προσώπου, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου, τοῦ δηµιουργοῦ, τοῦ ὁµοουσίου τῷ Θεῷ, τουτέστιν τῇ ἀσωµάτῳ οὐσίᾳ τοῦ ἀρρήτπυ πατρός. ὁµολογοῦµεν τὸν µονογενῆ τοῦ Θεοῦ υἱὸν . . . ἕνα τυγχάνειν καὶ οὐ δύο· ἑνὸς γὰρ εἶναι φαµὲν τὰ τε θαύµατα καὶ τὰ πάθη ἅπερ ἑκουσίως ὑπέµεινε σαρκί . . . ἡ σάρκωσις ἐκ τῆς θεοτόκου προσθήκην υἱοῦ οὐ πεποίηκε. µεµένηκε γὰρ τριὰς ἡ τριὰς κ 551 ὶ σαρκωθέντος τοῦ ἑνός τῆς τριάδος Θεοῦ λόγου . . . πάντα δὲ τὸν ἕτερόν τι φρονήσαντα ἢ φρονοῠντα, ἢ νῦν ἢ πώποτε ἢ ἐν Καλχηδόνι ἢ οἵᾳ δήποτε συωόδῳ ἀναθήµατίζοµεν ὁµολογοῦµεν . . . οὐ δύο φύσεις τὸν ἕνα υἱόν, µίαν προσκυνητὴν καὶ µίαν ἀπροσκύνητον, ἀλλὰ µίαν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένην καὶ προσκυνουµένην µετὰ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ µιᾷ προσκυνήσει ὁµοούσιοι ὁµοούσιον ὁµοούσιον τῷ πατρί ὁµοούσιος ὁµοούσιος τῷ Θεῷ adb ὁµοούσιος᾽” ὁµοφυές ὁµοφυεῖς ὄργανον ὅ τῇ µὲν δυνάµει καὶ ὐµεῖς φρονεῖτε, τῷ δε ὀνόµατι µόνον ἀρνεῖσθε διὰ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ὅ τοῖς τριακοσίοις ἤρεσεν ἐπισκόποις ὀυδὲν ἔστιν ἔτερον ἤ τοῦ Θεοῦ γνώµη, µάλιστά γε ὅπου τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα τοιούτων καὶ τηλικούτων ἀνδρῶν ταῖς διανοίαις ἐγκείµενον τὴν θείαν βούλησιν ἐξεφώτισεν ὅθεν τῆς σαρκὸς πασχούσης οὐκ ἦν ἐκτὸς ταύτης ὁ λόγος· διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται τὸ πάθος ὅλη τριὰς εἷς Θεός ἐστιν ὅµοια ὅµοιον ὅµοιον πατρὶ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς—ὅµοιον κατὰ πάντα ὡς οἱ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ λέγουσιν ὅµοιος ὅµοιος κατὰ πὰντα καὶ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ὅµοιος κατὰ τὰς γραφάς ὅµοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν

•

•

• • •

•

• •

• • •

ὅµοιος, κατὰ τὸν ὅµοιον τρόπον καὶ ὁ υἱὸς πνεῦµα ὢν καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τατρὸς πνεῦµα γεννηθείς, κατὰ µὲν τὸ πνεῦµα ἐκ πνεύµ 564 τος εἶναι τὸ αὐτό ἐστιν, κατὰ δὲ τὸ ἄνευ ἀπορροίας καὶ πάθους καὶ µερισµοῦ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθῆναι ὅµοιός ἐστι τῷ πατρί ὅπερ φησὶν ὁ κύριος οὐ πατέρα ἑαυτὸν ἀναγορεύων οὐδὲ τὰς τῇ ὑποστάσει δύο φύσεις µίαν εἶναι σαφηνιζων, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι τὴν πατρικὴν ἐµφέρειαν ἀκριβῶς πέφυκεν σώζειν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ πατρός, τὴν κατὰ πάντα ὁµοιότητα αὐτοῦ ἐκ φύσεως ἀποµαξάµενος καὶ ἀπαράλλακτος εἰκὼν τοῦ πατρὸς τυγχάνων καὶ τοῦ πρωτοτύτου ἔκτυπος χαρακτήρ ὅπου τέλειος ἄνθρωπος, ἐκεῖ ἁµαρτία ὅρος ὅτι εἴποµεν, Ἀρχὴν ἔχει ὁ υὑός, ὁ δὲ Θεὸς ἄναρχ ac8 ός ἐστι. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο διωκόµεθα, καὶ ὅτι εἴποµεν, Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐστίν Ὁ δὲ οὔτε ὑπεραπελογήσατο, οὔτε πάλιν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀπεχθῶς ἡνέχθη, µόνον δὲ διὰ τοῦ προσώπου µειδίασας ὑπέφηνε , µοχθηρίας µὴ µακρὰν αὐτὸν εἶναι, καὶ ὡς ἀπολογησάµενον εἶχε Ὁµοιούσιος Ὁµολογίαν εἶναι τὴν µὲν ἐν τῇ πίστει καὶ πολιτείᾳ, τὴν δὲ ἐν φωνῇ· ἡ µὲν οὖν ἐν φωνῇ ὁµολογία καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν γίνεται, ἣν µόνην ὁµολογίαν ἡγοῦνται εἶναι οἱ πολλοί, οὐχ ὑγιῶς· δόνανται δὲ ταύτην τὴν ὁµολογίαν καὶ οἱ ὑποκριταὶ ὁµολογεῖν. Ὁµοούσιος Ὁµοουσιος Ὁρίζοµεν σὺν ἀκριβείᾳ πάσῃ καὶ ἐµµελείᾳ παραπλησίως τῷ τύπῳ τοῦ τιµίου καὶ ζωοποιοῦ σταυροῦ ἀνατίθεσθαι τὰς σεπτὰς καὶ ἁγίας εἰκόνας, τὰς ἐκ χρωµάτων καὶ ψηφῖδος καὶ ἑτέρας ὕλης ἐπιτηδείως ἐχούσης ἐν ταῖς ἁγίαις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίαις, ἐν ἱεροῖς σκεύεσι, καὶ ἐσθῆσι, τοίχοις τε καὶ σανίσιν, οἴκοι τε καὶ ὁδοῖς· τῆς τε τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰκόνος, καὶ τῆς ἀχράντου δεσποίνης ἡµῶν τῆς ἁγίας θεοτόκου, τιµίων τε ἀγγέλων, καὶ πάντων ἁγίων καὶ ὁσίων ἀνδρῶν· ὅσῳ γὰρ συνεχῶς δι᾽ εἰκονικῆς ἀνατυπώσεως ὁρῶνται, τοσοῦτον καὶ οἱ ταύτας θεώµενοι διανίστανται πρὸς τὴν τῶν πρωτοτύπων µνήµην τ 564 καὶ ἐπιπόθησιν, καὶ ταύταις ἀσπασµὸν καὶ τιµητικὴν προσκύνησιν ἀπονέµειν, οὐ µὴν τὴν κατὰ

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• •

πίστιν ἡµῶν ἀληθινὴν λατρείαν, ἢ πρέπει µόνῃ τῇ θείᾳ φύσει· ἀλλ᾽ ὃν τρόπον τῷ τύπῳ τοῦ τιµίου καὶ ζωοποιοῦ σταυροῦ καὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις εὐαγγελίοις καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἱεροῖς ἀναθήµασι, καὶ θυµιαµάτων καὶ φώτων προσαγωγὴν πρὸς τὴν τούτων τιµὴν ποιεῖςθαι, καθὼς καὶ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις εὐσεβῶς εἴθισται· ἡ γὰρ τῆς εἰκόνος τιµὴ ἐπὶ τὸ πρωτότυπον διαβαίνει· κἀὶ ὁ προσκυνῶν τὴν εἰκόνα, προσκυνεῖ ἐν αὐτῇ τοῦ ἐγγραφοµένου τὴν ὑπόστασιν. Ὅν τρόπον γὰρ ἡ ἄρρητος αὐτοῦ ὑπόστασις ἀσυγκρίτῳ ὑπεροχῇ ἐδείχθη ὑπερκειµένη πάντων οἷς αὐτὸς τὸ εἶναι ἐχαρίσατο, οὕτως καὶ ἡ ac8 υἱότης αὐτοῦ κατὰ φύσιν τυγχάνουσα τῆς πατρικῆς θεότητος ἀλέκτῳ ὑπεροχῇ διαφέρει τῶν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ θέσει υἱοτεθέντων. ὐπόστασις ὑιοπάτωρ ὑπέρ ὑπόστασιν ὑπόστασιν µὲν λέγοµεν ἡγούµενοι ταὐτὸν εἶναι εἰπεῖν ὑπόστασιν καὶ οὐσίᾳν ὑπόστασις ὑπόστασις σύνθετος ὑποστάσεις ὑποστῆναι ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ὑποστασις ὕπαρξις ὕστερον-πρότερον Ὑπόστασις ὡµολόγουν γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο, ὅτι οὐ σῶµα ἄψυχον οὐδ᾽ ἀναίσθητον οὐδ᾽ ἀνόητον εἶχεν ὁ σωτήρ, οὐδὲ γὰρ οἷόν τε ἦν, τοῦ κυρίου δι᾽ ἡµᾶς ἀνθρώπου γενοµένου, ἀνόητον εἶναι τὸ σῶµα αὐτοῦ, οὐδὲ σώµατος µόνου, ἀλλὰ καὶ ψυχῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ λόγῳ σωτηρία γέγονεν. ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὡς δὲ ἐζητεῖτο τῆς πίστεως ὁ τρόπος, ἐναργὴς µὲν ἔλεγχος τὸ γράµµα τῆς Εὐσεβίου προὐβάλλετο βλασφηµίας. ἐπι πάντων δ 564 ὲ ἀναγνωσθὲν αὐτίκα συµφορὰν µὲν ἀστάθµητον τῆς ἐκτροπῆς ἕνεκα τοῖς αὐτηκόοις προὐξένει, αἰσχύνην δ᾽ἀνήκεστον τῷ γράψαντι παρεῖχεν ὡς µηδὲν µόριον ἐν ἀυτοῖς εἶναι µὴ µετέχον πάντων τῶν ἐν τῷ µίγµατι ὡς οἰκεῖα µέλη

• •

• • • • • •

•

•

•

ὢ τῆς καινῆς µίξεως, ὢ τῆς παραδόξου κράσεως ὥσπερ ἀντίκειται τῇ βουλήσει τὸ παρὰ γνώµην, οὕτως ὑπέρκειται καὶ προηγεῖται τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι τὸ κατὰ φύσιν. οἰκίαν µὲν οὖν τις βουλευόµενος κατασκευάζει, υἱὸν δὲ γεννᾷ κατὰ φύσιν. καὶ τὸ µὲν βουλήσει κατασκευαζόµενον ᾔρξατο γίνεσθαι καὶ ἔξωθέν ἐστι τοῦ ποιοῦν ac8 τος· ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἲδιόν ἐστι τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς γέννηµα καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἔξωθεν αὐτοῦ· διὸ οὐδε βουλεύεται περὶ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα µὴ καὶ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ δοκῇ βουλεύεσθαι· ὅσῳ οὖν τοῦ κτίσµατος ὁ υἱὸς ὑπέρκειται, τοσούτῳ καὶ τῆς βουλήσεως τὸ τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ὥστε δύο µὲν εἶναι πατέρα καὶ υἱόν, µονάδα δὲ θεότητος ἀδιαίρετον. ὦ καινὴ κτίσις καὶ µίξις θεσπεσία, Θεὸς καὶ σάρξ µίαν ἀπετέλεσαν φύσιν ὸὐσία ῥίζα ῥῆµα Βρονθῶν τὰ θεῖα τῇ βοῇ τῶν δογµάτων, Ἠχήσας ὄντως τὴν ὑπουράνιον, µάκαρ· Καὶ πάσας ἀπρὶξ µωράνας τὰς αἱρέσεις, Τον κόσµον ἐστήριξας ἐν τοῖς σοῖς λόγοῖς. ∆ῆλον οὖν ὡς εὐδοκίᾳ λέγειν γίνεσθαι τὴν ἐνοίκησιν προσήκει, εὐδοκία δὲ λέγεται ἡ ἀρίστη καὶ καλλίστη θέλησις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἣν ἂν ποιήσηται ἀρεσθεὶς τοῖς ἀνακεῖσθαι αὐτῷ ἐσπουδακόσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ εὖ καὶ καλὰ δοκεῖν αὐτῷ περὶ αὐτῶν . . . ἄπειρος µὲν γὰρ ὢν ὁ Θεὸς καὶ ἀπερίγραφος τὴν φύσιν πάρεστιν τοῖς πᾶσιν· τῇ δὲ εὐδοκίᾳ τῶν µὲν ἔστιν µακράν, τῶν δὲ ἐγγύς ∆ιὰ τῆς τοῦ πνεύµατος ἐνεργείας τὸ αἰσθητὸν ὕδωρ πρὸς θείαν τινὰ καὶ ἀπόρρητον µεταστοιχειοῦται δύναµιν, ἁγιάζει δὲ λοιπὸν τοὺς ἐν οἷς ἂν γέν ac8 οιτο ∆ιὸ µετὰ τὰς ἐκκλησίας καὶ οἶκοι εὐκτήριοι τῷ Θεῷ τῆς προηγορίας ὑµῶν (scil. of the angels) ἐπώνυµοι, ᾧ εὐάρεστος ξυνωρὶς ἀρχαγγέλων, οὐκ ἐν µόναις ταῖς πόλεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ στενωποῖς ἰδίᾳ καὶ οἰκίαις καὶ ἀγροῖς ἱδρύθησαν, χρυσῷ καὶ ἀργύρῳ ἢ καὶ ἐλέφαντι κοσµηθέντες· ἴασίν τε οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ εἰς τὰ ἀπωτέρω τῆς ἐνεγκαµένης αὐτοὺς χωρία τὰ ἔχοντα οἷον ὡς πρυτάνια ἐπιτευγµάτων τὰ εὐκτήρια προβεβληµένα, οὐκ ὀκνοῦντες καὶ πέλαγος διαλαβεῖν ἢν δέοι µακρόν . . . ὡς πειραθησόµενοι πλείονος εὐνοίας µὲν τῆς περὶ

•

•

•

•

• • •

τὴν πρεσβείαν ἀπὸ ὑµῶν, µετουσίας δὲ τῆς τῶν φιλοτιµουµένων ὑπὲρ τοῦ εὖ ἀγαθῶν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ. ∆ιόσκορος εἶπεν· οὔτε σύγχυσιν λέγοµεν οὔτε τοµὴν οὔτε τροπήν. ἀνάθεµα τῷ λέγοντι σύγχυσιν ἢ τροπὴν ἢ ἄνάκρασιν ∆ιόσκορος πάντα ἀκαθοσιώτως πράττων, νοµίζων τε ἀνωτέρω πάντων εἶναι, οὔτε τοὺς θείους τύπους οὔτε τὰς µεγίστας ἀποφάσεις συνεχώρησεν ἐκβιβασθῆναι, ἑαυτοῦ τὴν χώραν µᾶλλον ἤ τῶν κρατούντων εἶναι λέγων ∆ιατί οὖν οἱ Ἀρειανοὶ τοιαῦτα λογιζόµενοι καὶ νοοῦντες οὐ συναριθµοῦσιν ἑαυτοὺς µετὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων; καὶ γὰρ κᾳκεῖνοι, ὥσπερ καὶ οὖτοι, τῇ κτίσει λατρεύουσι παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα τὰ πάντα Θεόν· ἀλλὰ τὸ µὲν ὄνοµα τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν φεύγουσι, διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀνοήτων ἀπάτην, τὴν δὲ ὁµοίαν ἐκείνοις διάνοιαν ὑποκρίν ac8 νται. καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὸ σοφὸν αὐτῶν, ὅπερ εἰώθασιν λέγειν, οὐ λέγοµεν δύο ἀγέννητα, φαίνονται πρὸς ἀπάτην τῶν ἀκεραίων λέγοντες· φάσκοντες γὰρ· “οὐ λέγοµεν δύο ἀγέννητα,” λέγουσι δύο Θεοὺς καὶ τούτους διαφόρους ἔχοντας τὰς φύσεις, τὸ µὲν γενητήν, τὸ δὲ ἀγένητοι. Εἰ δὲ οἱ µὲν Ἕλληνες ἑνὶ ἀγενήτῳ καὶ πολλοῖς γενητοῖς λατρεύουσιν. οὗτοι δὲ ἑνὶ ἀγενήτῳ καὶ ἑνὶ γενητῷ, οὐδ᾽ οὕτω διαφέρουσιν Ἑλλήνων. ∆ιττοῦ ὄντος τοῦ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τρόπου, καὶ τοῦ µὲν σώµατος ἐοικότος κεφαλῇ ᾗ Θεὸς ἐπινοεῖται, τοῦ δὲ ποσὶ παραβαλλοµένου, ᾗ τὸν ἐν ἡµῖν ἄνθρωπον ὁµοιοπαθῆ τῆς ἡµῶν αὐτῶν ἕνεκεν ὑπέδυ σωτηρίας, γένοιτ᾽ ἂν ἡµῖν ∆ιωκόµεθα Εἰ ἀνθρώπῳ τελείῳ συνήφθη Θεὸς τέλειος, δύο ἂν ἦσαν, εἷς µὲν φύσει υἱὸς Θεοῦ, εἷς δὲ θετός Εἰ γὰρ πνεῦµα ὁ πατήρ, πνεῦµα καὶ ὁ υἱός, πνεῦµα καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα, οὐ νοεῖται πατὴρ ὁ υἱός· ὑφέστηκε δὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦµα, ὅ οὐ νοεῖται υἱός, ὅ καὶ οὐκ ἔστι . . . Τὰς ἰδιότητας προσώπων ὑφεστώτων ὑποστάσεις ὀνοµάζουσιν οἱ ἀνατολικοί, οὐχὶ τὰς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις τρεῖς ἀρχὰς ἢ τρεῖς θεοὺς λέγοντες . . . Ὁµολογοῦσι γὰρ µίαν εἶναι θεότητα . . . ὅµως τὰ πρόσωπα ἐν ταῖς ἰδιότησι τῶν ὑποστάσεων εὐσεβῶς γνωρίζουσι, τὸν πατέρα ἐν τῇ πατρικῇ αὐθεντίᾳ ὑφεστῶτα νοοῦντες, καὶ τὸν υἱὸὐ µέρος ὄντα τοῦ πατρός, ἀλλὰ καθα ab6 ρῶς ἐκ πατρὸς τέλειον ἐκ τελείου γεγεννηµένον καὶ ὑφεστῶτα ὁµολογοῦντες, καὶ τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον, ὅ ἡ

•

•

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

•

θεία γραφὴ παράκλητον ὀνοµάζει, ἐκ πατρὸς δι᾽ υἱοῦ ὑφεστῶτα γνωρίζοντες . . . Οὐκοῦν ἐν πνεύµατι ἁγίῳ υἱὸν ἀξίως νοοῦµεν, ἐν υἱῷ δὲ µονογενεῖ πατέρα εὐσεβῶς καὶ ἀξίως δοξάζοµεν Εἰ δύο αἰτίαι ἐν τῇ θεαρχικῇ καὶ ὑπερουσίῷ τριάδι καθορᾶται, ποῦ τὸ τῆς µοναρχίας πολυύµνητον καὶ θεοπρεπὲς κράτος Εἰ τό; Ἑκ γαστρός, καὶ τό· Ἐκ πατρὸς ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἥκω, ὡς µέρος τοῦ ὁµοουσίου καὶ ὡς προβολὴ ὑπὸ τινων νοεῖται, σύνθετος ἔσται ὁ πατὴρ καὶ διαιρετὸς καὶ τρεπτὸς καὶ σῶµα . . . καὶ τὰ ἀκόλουθα σώµατι πάσχων ὁ ἀσώµατος Θεός. Εἰρηνη ἡ Ἀθηναια αὐτοκρατειρα Ῥωµαιων Εἱ καὶ ἕτερόν ἐστιν ὡς γέννηµα ὁ υἱός, ἀλλὰ ταὐτόν ἐστιν ὡς Θέος· καὶ ἕν εἰσιν αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ πατὴρ τῇ ἰδιότητι καὶ οἰκειότητι τῆς φύσεως καὶ τῇ ταυτότητι τῆς µιᾶς θεότητος Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα, δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Θεὸν τέλειον ἐκ Θεοῦ τελείου Θεὸς δεύτερος Θεὸς λόγος 576 Θεὸς ξένος καὶ ἄγραφος Θεὸς παντοκράτωρ Θεὸς σαρκωθεὶς δι᾽ ἡµᾶς Θεὸς σταυρωθείς Θεόν Θεός Θεός ὁµοούσιος Θεότης, οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, ἰδίοτης τῆς οὐσίας, οἰκειότης τῆς οὐσίας (ὑποστάσεως) Θεοῦ θελήσει ὁ υἱὸς ἡλίκος καὶ ὅσος ἐστίν, ἐξ ὅτε καὶ ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ ἀπὸ τότε ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπέστη, ἰσχυρός Θεὸς ὤν Κοινὸ 564 τὸ µὴ γεγονέναι καὶ ἡ θεότης. Ἴδιον δὲ πατρὸς µὲν ἡ ἀγεννησία, υἱοῦ δὲ ἡ γέννησις, πνεύµατος δὲ ἡ ἔκπεµψις Λὐξάνοντος ἐν ἡλικίᾳ τοῦ σώµατος, συνεπεδίδοτο ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ η τῷς θεότητος φανέρωσις . . . τὸ ἄνθρώπινον προέκοπτεν, ὑπεραναβαῖνον κατ᾽ ὀλίγον τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν καὶ θεοποιούµενον καὶ ὄργανον τῆς σοφίας πρὸς τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῆς θεότητος καὶ τὴν ἔκλαµψιν αὐτῆς γενόµενον

•

• • • • •

•

•

• •

• • • •

•

Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο—ἐνταῦθα τὸ “ἐγένετο” οὐδαµῶς ἑτέρως λέγεσθαι δυνάµενον εὑρήκαµεν ἢ κατὰ τὸ δοκεῖν . . . τὸ δοκεῖν οὐ κατὰ τὸ µὴ εἰληφέναι σάρκα ἀληθῆ, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ µὴ γεγενῆσθαι: ὅταν µὲν γὰρ “ἔλαβεν” λέγῃ οὐ κατὰ τὸ δοκ 541 εῖν ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ ἀληθὲς λέγει· ὅταν δε “ἐγένετο”, τότε κατὰ τὸ δοκεῖν· οὐ γὰρ µετεποιήθη εἰς σάρκα Μία οὐσία (µία θεότης) ἐν τρισὶν ὑποστάσεσιν Νεκυια Οὐ σώζεται τὸ ἀνθρώπινον γένος δι᾽ ἀναλήψεως νοῦ καὶ ὅλου ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλὰ διὰ προσλήψεως σαρκός Οὐδέν ἐστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, πάντα δὲ βουλήµατι αὐτοῦ γενόµενα Οὐδεµία διαίρεσις τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ ἐν θείαις φέρεται γραφαῖς· ἀλλ᾽ ἔστι µία φύσις, µία ὑπόστασις, µία ἐνέργεια 587 Οὐκ ἄρα καταβὰς ἐβελτιώθη ἀλλὰ µᾶλλον ἐβελτίωσεν αὐτὸς τὰ δεόµενα βελτιώσεως· καὶ εἰ τοῦ βελτιῶσαι χάριν καταβέβηκεν, οὐκ ἄρα µισθὸν ἔσχε τὸ λέγεσθαι, υἱὸς καὶ Θεός, ἀλλὰ µᾶλλον αὐτὸς υἱοποίησεν ἡµᾶς τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἐθεοποίησε τοὺς ἀνθρώπους γενόµενος αὐτὸς ἄνθρωπος. Οὐκ ἄρα ἄνθρωπος ὢν ὕστερον γέγονε Θεός, ἀλλὰ Θεὸς ὢν ὕστερον γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, ἵνα µᾶλλον ἡµᾶς θεοποιήσῃ Οὐκ ἔστι τύπος ὁ ἄρτος καὶ ὁ οἶνος τοῦ σώµατος καὶ αἵµατος Χριστοῦ· µὴ γένοιτο, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ σῶµα τοῦ κυρίου τεθεωµένον Οὐκ ἔστι φύσις ἀνυπόστατος Οὐκοῦν διὰ τῆς πρὸς φιλιππησίους ἐπιστολ 564 ῆς ἐδίδαξεν ἡµᾶς πῶς ἡ ὑπόστασις τοῦ υἱοῦ ὁµοία ἐστὶ τῇ ὑποστάσει τοῦ πατρός· πνεῦµα γὰρ ἐκ πατρός. Καὶ κατὰ µὲν τὴν τοῦ πνεύµατος ἔννοιαν Οὐσία Οτι εἷς ὁ Χριστός Πέπονθέ τι δεινόν Πῶς ἄν περιεργάσαιτό τις τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου ὑπόστασιν, ἐκτὸς εἰ µὴ µελαγχολικῇ διαθέσει ληφθεὶ τυγχάνοι. Πῶς γὰρ, εἰ µὴ ἡ µονὰς ἀδιαίρετος οὖσα εἰς τριάδα πλατύνοιτο, ἐγχωρεῖ, αὐτὸν περὶ τοῦ πνεύµατος ποτὲ µὲν λέγειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ποτὲ δὲ λέγειν, ἐκεῖνος ἐκ τοῦ ἐµοῦ λήψεται καὶ Ἅ 564 ναγγελεῖ ὑµῖν

• •

•

• • • •

•

•

Παρὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ Πιστεύοµεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν, καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρός µονογενῆ—τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός—Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα—ὁµοούσιον τῷ πατρί—δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τὰ δε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸν δι᾽ ἡµᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡµετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα, ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα, καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡµέρᾳ, ἀνελθόντα εἰς [τοὺς]οὐρανούς, ἐρχόµενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ ν 564 εκρούς, καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα Πιστεύοµεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, τὸν τῶν ἁπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν, καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς, υἱὸν µονογενῆ, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννηµένον, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα, τὸν διὰ τὴν ἡµετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσάµενόν καὶ παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡµερᾳ καὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, καὶ εἰ ἔν πνεῦµα ἅγιον Πλωτῖνος ὁ φιλόσοφος ἐῴκει µὲν αἰσχυνοµένῳ ὅτ 564 ἐν σώµατι εἴη Πρὶν γενηθῇ ἤτοι κτισθῇ ἤτοι ὁρισθῇ ἤ θεµελιωθῇ, οὐκ ἦν, ἀγένητος γὰρ οὐκ ἦν Πρόσωπον Σύ, Ὠριγένη, ἀπὸ τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς παιδείας τυφλωθεὶς τὸν νοῦν ἐξήµεσας τὸν ἰὸν τοῖς πειθεῖσί σοι, καὶ γέγονας αὐτοῖς εἰς βρῶµα δηλητηρίου, δι᾽ ὧν αὐτὸς ἡδίκησαι ἀδικήσας τοὺς πλείους. Σῶµά ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ἡνώµενον θεότητι, τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου σῶµα, οὐχ ὅτι τὸ ἀναληφθὲν σῶµα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ κατέρχεται, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ ἄρτος καὶ οἶνος µέταποιοῦνται εἰς σῶµα καὶ αἷµα Θεοῦ. εἰ δὲ τὸν τρόπον ἐπιζητεῖς, πῶς γίνεται, ἀρκει σοι ἀκο 53c ῦσαι, ὅτι διὰ πνεύµατος ἁγίου, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐξ τῆς ἁγίας θεοτόκου διὰ πνεύµατος ἁγίου ἑαυτῷ καὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὁ κύριος σάρκα ὑπεστήσατο Σαρκὸς µὲν καινότητα Χριστὸς ἐπιδέδεικται καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν, τοῦ δὲ φρονοῦντος ἐν ἡµῖν τῆν καινότητα

• •

•

• •

•

•

• • • • •

•

• •

διὰ µιµήσεως καὶ ὁµοιώσεως καὶ ἀποχῆς τῆς ἁµαρτίας ἕκαστος ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἐπιδείκνυται Συλλουκιανιστής Τὴν πάλαι γὰρ αὐτοῦ κακόνοιαν τὴν χρόνῳ σιωπηθεῖσαν νῦν διὰ τούτων (by letters) ἀνανεῶσαι βουλόµενος, σχηµατίζεται µὲν ὡς ὑπὲρ τούτων γράφων· ἔργῳ δὲ δείκνυσιν, ὡς ὅτι ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ σπουδάζων τοῦτο ποιεῖ 58c Τὸν µέντοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆς τιµῆς µετὰ τὸν τῆς Ῥώµης ἐπίσκοπον, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώµην Τῆς ἀνθρωπότητός ἐστιν ἡ ὕψωσις Ταύτης ὑφ᾽ ἡµῶν ἐκτεθείσης τῆς πίστεως οὐδείς παρῆν ἀντιλογίας τόπος, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτός τε πρῶτος ὁ θεοφιλέστατος ἡµῶν βασιλεὺς ὀρθότατα περιέχειν αὐτὴν ἐµαρτύρησεν. οὕτω τε καὶ ἑαυτὸν φρονεῖν συνωµολόγησε· καὶ ταύτῃ τοὺς πάντας συγκατατίθεσθαι, ὑπογράφειν τε τοῖς δόγµασι καὶ συµφωνεῖν τούτοις αὐτοῖς παρεκελεύετο Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας· Ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε ἦν καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετ 54c ο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι [ἢ κτιστὸν] ἢ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ [τούτους] ἀναθεµατίζει ἡ καθολικὴ [καὶ αποστολικὴ] ἐκκλησία Τούτων ἕκαστον εἶναι καὶ ὑπάρχειν πιστεύοντες, πατέρα ἀληθινῶς πατέρα, καὶ υἱὸν ἀληθινῶς υἱόν, πνεῦµά τε ἅγιον ἀληθινῶς πνεῦµα ἅγιον, καθὰ καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡµῶν ἀποστέλλων εἰς τὸ κήρυγµα τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ µαθητὰς εἶπε· Τοῦ Ἑλληνισµοῦ λήξαντος ὁ τοῦ Ἀρειανισµοῦ πόλεµος ἰσχυρῶς ἐκράτει Χριστὸς οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθινὸς Θεός Χριστὸς τρεπτός ac6 αἰτιατά αἱ διάφοροι φύσεις καὶ τὰ διάφορα πρόσωπα ἕνα καὶ µόνον ἑνώσεως ἔχουσι τρόπον τὴν κατὰ θέλησιν σύµβασιν, ἐξ ἧς ἡ κατὰ ἐνέργειαν ἐπί τῶν οὕτως συµβιβασθέντων ἀλλήλοις ἀναφαίνεται µονάς αἱ εἰκόνες καὶ τὰ σύµβολα παραστατικὰ ὄντα ἑτέρων πραγµάτων καλῶς ἐγίνοντο, µέχρι µὴ παρῆν ἡ ἀλήθεια· παρούσης δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας δεῖ ποιεῖν, οὐ τὰ εἰκόνος αἴτιος ὁµοίας αὐτοῦ οὐσίας αὐγή, ἀκτίς, ἥλιος

• • •

• • •

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

αὐτὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ θεότητα ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄνθρωπον εἶναι αὐτὸς ὁ Θεός αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, καὶ ἐν µορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων ἔλαβε δούλου µορφήν, ἔκ τε τῆς Μαρίας τὸ κατὰ σάρκα γεγένηται ἄνθρωπος δι᾽ ἡµᾶς, καὶ οὕτω τελείως καὶ ὁλοκλήρως τὸ ἀνθρώπινον γένος ἐλευθερούµενον ἀπὸ τῆς ἁµαρτίας ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ζωοποιούµενον ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν εἰσάγεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν αὐτεξούσια αὐτεξούσιον αὐτοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ µετέχοντες τοῦ Θεοῦ µετέχειν λεγόµεθα, καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ὃ ἔλεγεν ὁ Πέτρος ἵνα γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως 57e αὐτοι αὕτη εἰκόνος φύσις µίµηµα εἶναι τοῦ ἀρχετύπου καὶ οὗ λέγεται αγέννητοι. αγεν[ν]ητα βέλτιον οἰκονοµηθῆναι τὴν ἀλήθειαν βαπτιζοµεν εἰς τριάδα ὁµοούσιον βασιλεὺς καὶ ἱερεύς εἰµι βλέπε τὴν κτίσιν γέγονε τοίνυν ἴδια µὲν τοῦ λόγου τὰ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, ἴδια δὲ πάλιν τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος τὰ αὐτοῦ λόγου γένεσις καὶ π ac8 οίησις γέννηµα γέννηµα τοῦ πατρὸς γεννᾶν, γίγνεσθαι, κτίζειν γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς µονογενῆ Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηζέντα γεννησία γεννητός γεννητοί γνήσιος γνώµη γνώρισµα γνησίως γεγεννηµένῳ γνωρίζεται ὁ υἱὸς καὶ ὁ πατὴρ χαρακτηρίζεται. Τὸ γὰρ ἀπαυγάσµα τῆς δόξης µὴ εἶναι λέγειν συναναιρεῖ καὶ τὸ πρωτότυπον φῶς, οὗ ἐστιν ἀπαύγασµα . . . τῷ µὴ εἶναι τὸν τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ χαρακτῆρα

• • •

• • • •

• • •

•

• •

• •

συναναιρεῖται κᾳκεῖνος, ὁ πάντως παῤ αὐτοῦ χαρακτηριζόµενος γυµνὴ φωνή γυµναστικῶς δέχεται τὴν παρὰ πᾶσης τῆς κτίσεως προσκύνησιν, ὡς ἀχώριστον πρὸς τὴν θείαν φύσιν ἔχων τὴν συνάφειαν, ἀναφορᾷ Θεοῦ καὶ ἐννοίᾳ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως τὴν προσκύνησιν ἀπονεµούσης. Καὶ οὔτε δύο φαµὲν υἱοὺς οὔτε δύο κυρίους . . . κύριος κατ᾽ 55f ὐσίαν ὁ Θεὸς λόγος, ᾧ συνηµµένος τε καὶ µετέχων θεότητος κοινωνεῖ τῆς υἱοῦ προσηγορίας τε καὶ τιµῆς· καὶ φιὰ τοῦτο οὔτε δύο φαµὲν υἱοὺς οὔτε δύο κυρίους. δόγµατα δύναµις δραστική δύο ἀχώριστα πράγµατα δύο ἢ καὶ πλειόνων ποιοτήτων περὶ τὰ σώµατα µεταβολὴ εἰς ἑτέρας διαφερούσης τούτων ποιότητος γένεσιν δύο ἢ καὶ πλειόνων σωµάτων ἀντιπαρέκτασις δἰ ὅλων, ὑποµενουσῶν τῶν συµφυῶν περί αὐτὰ ποιοτήτων δύο ὑποστάσεις eb1 δύο γὰρ φύσεων ἕνωσις γέγονε· διὸ ἕνα Χριστόν, ἕνα ὑιόν, ἕνα κύριον ὁµολογοῦµεν. Κατὰ ταύτην τὴν τῆς ἀσυγχύτου ἑνώσεως ἔννοιαν ὁµολογοῦµεν τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον θεοτόκον δύο µὲν εἰσιν, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ παρήρ ἐστι καὶ οὐχ ὁ αὐτὸς υἱός ἐστι· καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ἐστι καὶ οὐχ ὁ αὐτὸς πατήρ ἐστι· µία δὲ ἡ φύσις δύο οὐσίαι δύο σοφίας εἶναι. µίαν µὲν τὴν ἰδίαν καὶ συνυπάρχουσαν τῷ Θεῷ, τὸν δὲ υἱὸν ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ σοφίᾳ γεγενῆσθαι καὶ ταύτης µετέχοντα ὡνοµάσθαι µόνον σοφίαν καὶ λόγον· ἡ σοφία γὰρ τῇ σοφίᾳ ὑπῆρξε σοφοῦ Θεοῦ θελῆσει. Οὓτω καὶ λόγον ἕτερον εἶναι λέγει παρὰ τὸν υἱὸν ἐν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ τούτον µετέχοντα τὸν υἱὸν ὡνοµάσθαι πάλιν κατὰ χάριν λόγον καὶ υἱόν . . . Πολλαὶ δυνάµεις εἰσί, καὶ ἡ µὲν µία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν ἰδία φύσει καὶ αῒδιος, ὁ δε Χριστὸς πάλιν οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθονὴ δύναµις τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ µία τῶν λεγοµένων δυνάµεων ἐστι καὶ αὐτός, ὧν µία καὶ ἡ ἀκρὶς καὶ ἡ κάµπη κ.τ.λ. δύο τέλεια ἓν γένεσθαι οὐ δύναται δύο φύσεις

•

• •

• • •

• • •

• • •

•

• •

δύο φύσεις, δύο οὐσίαι, µία φύσις, σάρκωσις, ἐνανθρώπησις, θεάνθρωπος, ἕνωσις οὐσιώδης, ἕνωσις φυσική, ἕνωσις κατὰ µετουσίαν, σύγκρασις, µιξις, συνάφεια, µετουσία, ἐνοίκησις δευτέρα οὐσία δηλονότι τῶν φύσεων διακεκριµένων; ὅταν µὲν γὰρ τὰς φύσεις διακρίνωµεν, τελείαν τὴν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγοῦ φαµέν, καὶ τέλειον τὸ πρόσωπον· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπρόσωπον ἔστιν ὑπόστασιν εἰπεῖν· τελείαν δὲ καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φύσιν καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον ὁµοίως· ὅταν µέντοι ἐπὶ τὴν συνάφειαν ἀπίδωµεν, ἓν πρόσωπον τότε φαµέν διὰ τί δύο φύσεις ὀνοµαζόντων αὐτῶν ἡνέσχετο ἢ καὶ ἐπῇνεσε ὁ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας 6d4 διὰ τὸ ἐξ ἀµφοῖν ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν κύριον ἡµῶν Ἰ. τὸν Χρ. Τοὺς δὲ δύο υἱοὺς ἢ δύο ὑποστάσεις διὰ τὸ τὸν Θεὸν λόγον σαρκωθῆναι καὶ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς συλλήψεως ἑνῶσαι ἑαυτῷ τὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς ληφθέντα ναόν. Τὰς δὲ εὐαγγελικὰς καὶ ἀποστολικὰς περὶ τοῦ κυρίου φωνὰς ἴσµεν τὸυς θεολόγους ἄνδρας τὰς µὲν κοινοποιοῦντας, ὡς ἐφ᾽ ἑνὸς προσώπου, τὰς δὲ διαιροῦντας, ὡς ἐπὶ δύο φύσεων διὰ τῆς αὐξήσεως τῆς ἡλικίας τὴν ἐνυπάρχουσαν αὐτῷ σοφίαν εἰς φανέρωσιν ἄγων διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ ὑποστάσεις οἱ ἀνατολικοὶ λέγουσιν, ἵνα τὰς ἰδιότητας τῶν προσώπων ὑφεστώσας καὶ ὑπαρχούσας γνωρίσωσιν διά ad8 διάστηµα διὸ κἂν πατέρα µόνον ὀνοµάζωµεν, ἔχοµεν τῷ ὀνόµατι τοῦ πατρὸς συνυπακουοµένην τὴν ἔννοιαν τοῦ υἱοῦ, πατὴρ γὰρ υἱοῦ πατὴρ λέγεται· κἂν υἱὸν µόνον ὀνοµάσωµεν, ἔχοµεν τὴν ἔννοιαν τοῦ πατρός, ὅτι υἱὸς πατρὸς λέγεται δι᾽ ἡµᾶς καὶ ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν τοῦτο πάλιν περὶ αὐτοῦ γέγραπται. ὥσπερ γὰρ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ Χριστὸς ἀπέθανε καὶ ὑψώθη, οὕτως ὡς ἄνθρωπος λέγται λαµβάνειν ὅπερ εἶχεν ἀεὶ ὡς Θεός, ἵνα εἰς ἡµᾶς φθάσῃ καὶ ἡ τοιαύτη δοθεῖσα χάρις δι᾽ ἦς τὰ ὅλα ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου, ἢ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντος πατρὸς γεγέννηται δι᾽ εἰκόνος ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ ἀρχετύπου γίνεται

• • • • • • •

• •

• • • • •

•

δι᾽ οὗ δι᾽ υἱοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν διαµένοντα βασιλέα καὶ Θεὸν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας δοὺς τῷ υἱῷ καὶ τῆς ἰδίας ἀϊδιότητος ἔννοιαν καὶ γνῶσιν, ἵνα τὴν ταυτότητα σώζων κ.τ.λ. δυνάµει δυνάµεις εἰ δὲ ὡς ἀπαξιῶν ὁ Θεὸς τὰ ἄλλα ἐργάσασθαι, τὸν µὲν υἱὸν µόνον εἰργάσατο, τὰ δὰ ἄλλα τῷ υἱῷ ἀνεχειρίσεν ὡς βοηθῷ· καὶ τοῦτο µὲν ἀνάξιον Θεοῦ· οὐκ ἔσ 564 τι γὰρ ἐν θεῷ τύφος εἰ δὲ ταπεινοῖς, οὐκ οἰκονοµικοι εἰ κτίσµα δὲ ἦν τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον, οὐκ ἄν τις ἐν αὐτῷ µετουσία τοῦ Θεοῦ γένοιτο ἡµῖν· ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἄρα κτίσµατι µὲν συνηπτόµεθα, ἀλλότριοι δὲ τῆς θείας φύσεως ἐγινόµεθα, ὡς κατὰ µηδὲν αὐτῆς µετέχοντες . . . εἰ δὲ τῇ τοῦ πνεύµατος µετουσίᾳ γινόµεθα κοινωνοὶ θείας φύσεως, µαίνοιτ᾽ ἄν τις λέγων τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς κτιστῆς φύσεως, καὶ µὴ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ· διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἐν οἷς γίνεται οὗτοι θεοποιοῦνται· εἰ δὲ θεοποιεῖ, οὐκ ἀµφίβολον, ὅτι ἡ τούτου φύσις Θεοῦ ἐστι εἰκόνες εἰκόνες ἀχειροποί aa6 ητοι εἰκών εἰς ἄλληλα τῶν µέρων περιχώρησις εἴ τις ἐν δύο φύσεσι λέγων, µὴ ὡς ἐν θεότητι καὶ ἀνθρωπότητι τὸν ἕνα κύριον ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν γνωρίζεσθαι ὁµολογεῖ, ἵνα διὰ τούτου σηµάνῃ τὴν διαφορὰν τῶν φύσεων, ἐξ ὧν ἀσυγχύτως ἡ ἄφραστος ἕνωσις γέγονεν, οὕτε τοῦ λόγου εἰς τὴν τὴς σαρκὸς µεταποιηθέντος φύσιν, οὔτε τῆς σαρκὸς πρὸς τοῦ λόγου φύσιν µεταχωρησάσης—µένει γὰρ ἑκάτερον ὅπερ ἐστὶ τῇ φῦσει, καὶ γενοµένης τῆς ἑνώσεως καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν—, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ διαιρέσει τῇ ἀνὰ µέρος τὴν τοιαύτην λαµβάνει φωνὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ κατὰ Χριστὸν µυστηρίου, ἢ τὸν ἀριθµὸν τῶν φύσεων ὁµολογῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐνὸς κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σαρκωθέντος, µὴ τῇ θεωρίᾳ µόνῃ τὴν διαφορὰν τούτων λαµβάνει, ἐξ ὧν καὶ συνετέθη, οὐκ ἀναιρουµένην διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν—εἷς γὰρ ἐξ ἀµφοῖν, καὶ δἰ ἐνὸς αµφότερα—ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τούτῳ κὲχρηται τῷ ἀριθµῷ, ὡς κεχωρισµένας καὶ ἰδιοϋποστάτους ἔχει τὰς φύσεις· ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεµα ἔστω εἶδος

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

•

•

•

εἷς κὰι ὁ αὐτός εὔδηλον ὅτι διὰ τοῦτο εἴρηκεν ἑαυτὸν µὲν ἐν τῷ πατρὶ, ἐν ἑαυτῷ δὲ πάλιν τὸν πατέρα, ἐπεὶ µήτε τὸν λόγου, ὅν διεξήρχετο, ἑαυτοῦ φησιν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τοῦ πατρὸς δεδωκότος τὴν δύναµιν 584 ζητῶν ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς ζωοποιός θέωσις θείων δογµάτων ἐπιτµή θεότης θεώσις θεανδρική θελήσεις ἢ θελήµατα θεογενεσία θεοτόκος θεοτόκος γεγέννηκε σαρκικῶς σάρκα γεγονότα τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ λόγον θεωρίᾳ µόνῃ abe θεωρία θεϊκὴ ἄρα σάρξ, ὅτι Θεῷ συνήφθη καὶ αὕτη µὲν σώζει θεϊκῶς θυσία ἀσώµατος καὶ νοερά κάθαρσις κήρυγµα τῆς µοναρχίας κίνησις κώµας ὄκτω τῆς Μαρκίωνος καὶ τὰς πέριξ κειµένας, ἀσµένας πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐφοδήγησα· ἄλλην κώµην Εὐνοµιανῶν καὶ ἔσται (ὁ δηµιουργὸς) µὲν καταδεέστερος τοῦ τελείου Θεοῦ, ἅτε δὴ καὶ γεννητὸς ὢν καὶ οὐκ ἀγέννητος—εἷς γὰρ ἐστιν ἀγέννητος ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα . . . µείζων δὲ καὶ κυριώτερος τοῦ ἀντικειµένου γενήσεται καὶ ἐτέρας οὐσιας τε καὶ φύσεως πεφυκὼς παρὰ τὴν ἑκατέρων τούτων οὐσίαν . . . τοῦ δὲ πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων τοῦ ἀγεννήτου καὶ γὰρ ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ὁµολογοῦντες τὸν Χριστον µετὰ τὴν σάρκωσιν τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρώπησιν, ἐν µιᾷ ὑποστάσει καὶ ἐν ἑνὶ προσώπῳ καὶ δὴ ἀκουσόµεθα τῶν κορυφαιοτάτων πατέρων, Γρηγορίου µὲν τοῦ θεολόγου . . . Βασιλείου δὲ τοῦ µεγάλου καὶ δὴ ταύτης τῆς γραφ͂ς ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ὑπαγορευθείσης

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

• • • • • • • • •

570 καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν µονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁµοούσιον τῷ πατρί, δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο. καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόµενον, τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συνπροσκυνούµενον καὶ συνδοξαζόµενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ εἰς τὸν µονογενῆ αὐτοῦ υἱόν, τὸν κύριον ἡµῶν Ἰ. Χρ., τὸν πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός . . . λόγον ὄντα καὶ σοφίαν καὶ δύναµιν καὶ ζωὴν καὶ φ῍ ac7 ς ἀληθινόν καὶ οὐκ ἄδηλον, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι τῶν πολλῶν τὸ πνεῦµα, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἄγγελος, ἀλλ᾽ ἕν ὄν. µᾶλλον δὲ τοῦ λόγοῦ ἑνὸς ὄντος ἴδιον καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἑνὸς ὄντος ἴδιον καὶ ὁµοούσιόν ἐστίν καὶ τὰς µὲν θεοπρεπεῖς κατὰ τὴν θεότητα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὰς δὲ ταπεινὰς κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα αὐτοῦ παραδιδόντας καὶ τῆς φύσεως οἰκειότητα καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ὁ πατὴρ ἀόρατος ὑπάρχει καὶ οὔτε ὁρᾶν οὔτε γιγνώσκειν τελείως καὶ ἀκριβῶς δύναται ὁ λόγος τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὃ γιγνώσκει καὶ ὃ βλέπει ἀναλόγως τοῖς ἰδίοις µέτροις οἶδε καὶ βλέπει, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡµεῖς γιγνώσκοµεν κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν δύναµιν. Ὁ υἱὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ οὐσίαν οὐκ οἶδε καὶ τοὺς δύο µὲν πρὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως φύσεις τοῦ κυρίου µυθεύοντας, µίαν δὲ µετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ἀναπλάττοντας, ἀναθεµατίζει καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν καινὴ θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια κακῶν κάκιστον ἡ ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ συµβόλῳ προσθήκη κατὰ Σευήρου κατὰ µέρος πίστις κατὰ πάντα 55a κατὰ πάντα ὅµοιον κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ, συνετῶν Θεοῦ, παίδων ἁγίωνµ ὀρθοτόµων, ἅγιον Θεοῦ πνεῦµα λαβόντων, τάδε ἔµαθον ἔγωγε ὑπὸ τῶν σοφίης µετε χόντων, ἀστείων, θεοδιδάκτων, κατὰ πάντα σοφῶν τε· τούτων κατ᾽ ἴχνος ἦλθον ἐγὼ βαίνων ὁµοδόξως ὁ περικλυτός,

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

ὁ πολλὰ παθὼν διὰ τὴν Θεοῦ δόξαν, ὑπό τε Θεοῦ µαθὼν σοφίαν καὶ γνῶσιν ἐγὼ ἔγνων κατὰ πρό̥γνωσιν ὁποῖός τις ἔσται κατὰ συνουσιαστῶν κατὰ τὰς τῶν σωµάτων ὁµοιότητας, ταῖς τοµαῖς ἤ ταῖς ἐκδιαιρέσεων ἀπορροίαις ad3 κατὰ τὴν ἐν ἀλλήλαις τῶν φύσεων περιχώρησιν κατὰ τὴν καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν οἰκονοµικὴν ἕνωσιν κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ αἰτίας λόγον κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἐνώσεως λόγον κατὰ τῶν µὴ βουλοµένων ὁµολογεῖν θεοτόκον τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον κατὰ φύσιν τυγχάνουσα τῆς πατρικὴς θεότητος κατὰ χάριν κατὰ χάριν (κατ᾽ εὐδοκίαν) κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν κατ᾽ ὀικονοµίαν κατ᾽ οἰκονοµίαν κατ᾽ οὐσίαν καταβέβηκεν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ νὲν τῇ εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐνοικήσει· ἔστιν δὲ ἐν οὐρανῷ τῷ ἀπεριγράφῳ τῆς φύσεως πᾶσιν παρών καταπέτασµα καταχριστικῶς κεφάλαια κηρύγµατα κοινόν κρᾶσις 564

• • • • • • • • • •

κρᾶσις δἰ ὅλων κρᾶσις (µῖξις) κρᾶσις, σύγχυσις, τροπή κτίσµα κτίσµα πεποιήται ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων καὶ ἕν τῶν πάντων ἐστίν? κτίσµα τέλειον κτιστὸν εἶναι καὶ θεµελιωτὸν καὶ γενητὸν τῇ οὐσίᾳ κυρίως Θεός κ. µ. πίστις λέγοντες µὲν γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι τὸν Θεὸν ἀγένητον ἐκ τῶν γενοµένων αὐτὸν ποιητὴν µὍ abb νον λέγουσιν, ἵνα καὶ

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

τὸν λόγον ποίηµα σηµάνωσι κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν ἡδονήν· ὁ δὲ τὸν Θεὸν πατέρα λέγων εὑθὺς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ τὸν υἱὸν σηµαίνει λόγύς σαρκωθείς λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος ἄνθρωπον εἴληφε τέλειον ἐκ σπέρµατος ὄντα Ἀβραὰµ καὶ ∆αυΐδ λόγος ὁµοούσιος ἐν σαρκί, (µία φύσις σύνθετος) λόγος σαρκωθείς λόγος-κτίσµα λατρεία λεκτικὴ ἐνέργεια λογος ἐνδιάθετος ἤ προφορικός µάθηµα τῶν δογµάτων καὶ πράξεις ἀγαθαί µάθησις µέρος ὁµοούσιον τοῦ πατρός µέρος τοῦ πατρὸς ἢ τοῦ υἱοῦ µὴ δεῖν βασιλέα περὶ πίστεως λόγον ποιεῖσθαι µία ἀρχή µία ἐνέργεια µία ἑνέργεια µία ὑπύστασις µία θέλησις 571 µία οὐσία µία τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῆς θεότητος φύσις µία φύσις µία φύσις θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένη µία φύσις σύνθετος µία φύσις σεσαρκωµένη µία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένη µία φύσις τοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένη µία φύσις τοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένου µία φύσις, δύο φίσεις µίαν ὑπό ac8 στασιν, ἣν αὐτοὶ οἱ αἱρετικοὶ οὐσίαν προσαγορεύουσι µίαν δὲ φρονοῦµεν διὰ τὸ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν καὶ διὰ τὴν ταυτότητα τῆς φύσεως· µίαν γὰρ θεότητα καὶ µίαν εἶναι τὴν ταύτης φύσιν πιστεύοµεν µίαν εἶναι τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῆς θεότητος φύσιν µίαν οἴδαµεν καὶ µόνην θεότητα τοῦ πατρός µίαν οὐσίαν τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις µίµησις

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

µόνῳ τῷ πατρὶ τῷ γεγεννηκότι κατὰ πάντα τρόπον ὄµοιος µόνος ἀγέννητος µόνος ἐξαίρετον ἔχων τοῦτο ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν λόγον συναφείᾳ τῆς τε υἱότητος καὶ κυριότητος µετέχων, ἀναιρεῖ µὲν πᾶσαν ἔννοιαν δυάδος υἱῶν τε καὶ κυρίων µόνος γεννητός µῖξις µῦρον µαθήµατα µαθήµατα τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς φιλοσοφίας µαθήσις µεµένηκε ὅπερ ἦν µενούσης ἑκατέρας φύσεως, ὅπερ ἐστίν, ἡνῶσθαι σαρκὶ νο ac6 ῦµεν τὸν λόγον µεσότης µεσιτεία µεσιτεύουσα φύσις µονογενής µετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος µετάδοσις µεταβέβληται µεταβολή µεταποίησις µεταποιεῖν καὶ µετατιθέναι; µετάστασις, µεταστοιχείωσις, ἀλλοίωσις µεταρρυθµίζειν µετασκευάζειν µεταστοιχείωσις µετεποιήθη µετουσία µετουσία καὶ ἀνάκρασις µετοχῇ καὶ αὐτὸς εθεοποιήθη µνήµην τοῦ σώµατος προσφέρειν µονὰς τῆς θεότητος µονάδα τῆς θεότητος ἀδιαίρετον καὶ ἄσχιστον· λεχθείη µία ἀρχὴ θεότητος καὶ οὐ δύο ἀρχαί ὅθεν κυρίως καὶ µοναρχία ἐστιν µονάς µοναχικῆς τελειώσεως 566 µονογενὴς Θεὸς µονογενής, πρωτότοκος µονογενῆ µονογενῆ Θεὸν

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • •

µονογενῆ Θεὸν, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, ἄτρεπτον τε καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον, τῆς θεότηρος οὐσίας τε καὶ βουλῆς καὶ δυνάµεως καὶ δόξης τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα, Θεὸν λόγον µονογενῆ, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ὑπάρχοντα καὶ συνόντα τῷ γεγεννηκότι αὐτὸν πατρί µονοούσιος µοούσιος µυστήρ 55e α ἐπὶ τῶν ἱερῶς κακοιµηµένων µυστήριον µυστήριον τελετῆς µύρου µυσταγωγία ναός νοήτον νοῦς νοῦς ἔνσαρκος νοητόν νοητῶς νοµίσας ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ κεῖσθαι τὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας οἰκείωσις οἰκείωσις, ἀντίδοσις 56a οἰκεῖον ἀξίωµα οἰκονοµία οἰκονοµία κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα οἰκονοµηθῆναι τὴν ἀλήθειαν οἱ ἄγαν παρ᾽ ἡµῖν ὁρθόδοξοι οἱ δὲ οἱ δὲ προφάσει τῆς τοῦ ὁµοουσίου προσθήκης τήνδε τὴν γραφὴν πεποιήκασιν οἱ τοίνυν ἐσθίοντες τοῦ νυµφίου τὰ µέλη καὶ πίνοντες αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷµα τῆς γαµικῆς αὐτοῦ τυγχάνουσι κοινωνίας οἵ οὐδὲ τῶν ἀρχαίων τινὰς συ 564 γκρίνειν ἑαυτοῖς ἀξιοῦσιν, οὐδὲ οἷς ἡµεῖς ἐκ παίδων ὡµιλήσαµεν διδασκάλοις ἐξισοῦσθαι ἀνέχονται· ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τῶν νῦν πανταχοῦ συλλειτουργῶν τινὰ εἰς µέτρον σοφίας ἡγοῦνται· µόνοι σοφοὶ καὶ ἀκτήµονες καὶ δογµάτων εὑρεταὶ λέγοντες εἶναι, καὶ αὐτοῖς ἀποκεκαλύφθαι µόνοις, ἄπερ οὐδενὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον ἑτέρῳ πέφυκεν ἐλθεῖν εἰς ἔννοιαν οἶκος οὐ βουλήσει οὐδὲ θελήσει οὐ κάµνει ὁ Θεὸς προστάττων, οὐδε ἀσθενεῖ πρὸς τὴν τῶν πάντων ἐργασίαν, ἵνα τὸν µὲν υἱὸν µόνος µόνον

• • • • •

• •

•

• • •

κτίσῃ, εἰς δὲ τὴν τῶν ἄλλων δηµιουργίαν ὑπουργοῦ καὶ βοηθοῦ χρείαν ἔχῃ τοῦ υἱοῦ. οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐ ac8 ὲ ὑπέρθεσιν ἔχει, ὅπερ ἄν ἐθελήσῃ γενέσθαι, ἀλλὰ µόνον ἡθέλησε καὶ ὑπέστη τὰ πάντα, καὶ τῷ βουλήµατι αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς ἀνθέστηκε. Τίνος οὖν ἕνεκα οὐ γέγονε τὰ πάντα παρὰ µόνου τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ προστάγµατι, ᾧ γέγονε καὶ ὁ υἱός . . . ἀλογία µέν οὖν πᾶσα παρ᾽ αὐτοἱς· φασὶ δὲ ὅµως περὶ τούτου, ὡς ἄρα θέλων ὁ Θεὸς τὴν γενητὴν κτίσαι φύσιν, ἐπειδὴ ἑώρα µὴ δυναµένην αὐτὴν µετασχεῖν τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ἀκράρου χειρὸς καὶ τῆς παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ δηµιουργίας, ποῖει καὶ κτίζει πρώτως µόνον ἕνα καὶ καλεῖ τοῦτον υἱὸν καὶ λόγον, ἵνα τούτου µέσου γενοµένου οὕτως λοιπὸν καὶ τὰ πάντα δὶ αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι δυνηθῆ· ταῦτα οὐ µόνον εἰρήκασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ γράψαι τετολµήκασιν Εὐσέβιός τε καὶ Ἀρεῖος καὶ ὁ θύσας Ἀστέριος οὐ κατά τινα χρῆσιν Ἑλληνικὴν λαµβάνεται τοῖς πατράσι τὸ ὄνοµα τῆς οὐσίας οὐ καταµερίζειν τὴν µονάδα οὐ κινεῖται ἰδιαζόντως οὐ παρὰ γνώµην οὐ τοσοῦτον ἐκ τοῦ ἀϊδίου γνωρίζεται κύριος, ὅσον ὅτι υἱός ἐστι τοῦ Θεοῦ· υἱὸς γὰρ ὤν ἀχώριστός ἐστι τοῦ πατρός . . . καὶ εἰκὼν καὶ ἀπαύγασµα ὢν τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχει καὶ τὴν ἀϊδιότητα τοῦ πατρός οὐδὲ Θεὸς ἀληθινός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος οὐδὲ γὰρ Πλάτων τὸ δεύτερον καὶ τὸ τρίτον ac6 αἴτιον, ὡς αὐτὸς ὀνοµάζειν εἴωθεν, ἀρχὴν ὑπάρξεως εἰλιφέναι φησί, καὶ Ὠριγένης συναΐδιον πανταχοῦ ὁµολογεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τῷ πατρί οὐδὲ γὰρ µετὰ τὸν ἁγιασµὸν τὰ µυστικὰ σύµβολα τῆς οἰκείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως. µένει γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας καὶ τοῦ σχήµατος καὶ τοῦ εἴδους καὶ ὁρατά ἐστι καὶ ἁπτά, οἷα καὶ πρότερον ἦν οὐδ᾽ ἄχρι τινὸς ἐννοίας οὐδεµία µεσότης ἑκατέρας ἔχει τὰς ἀκρότητας ἐξ ὁλοκλήρου, ἀλλὰ µερικῶς ἐπιµεµιγµένας οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ υἱός, πάντων γὰρ γενοµένων ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων καὶ πάντων ὄντων κτισµάτων καὶ ποιηµάτων γενοµένων, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γέγονε, καὶ ἠν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γένηται, ἀλλ᾽ ἀρχὴν τοῦ κτίζεσθαι ἔσχε καὶ αὐτὸς . . . Ἦν µόνος ὁ Θεὸς καὶ οὔπω ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ἡ σοφία, εἶτα θέλησις ἡµᾶς δηµιουργῆσαι, τότε δὴ πεποίηκεν

• • • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

• • • •

ἕνα τινὰ καὶ ὡνόµασεν αὐτὸν λόγον καὶ σοφίαν καὶ υἱόν, ἵνα ἡµᾶς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ δηµιουργήσῃ οὐκ ἀεί ὁ Θεὸς πατὴρ ἦν, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ὅτε ὁ Θεὸς µόνος ἦν καὶ οὔπω πατὴρ ἦν, ὕστερον δὲ ἐπιγέγονε πατήρ οὐκ ἐνεργεῖ ποτὲ φύσις οὐχ ὑφεστῶσα οὐκ ἔστι φύσις ἀνυπόστατος . . . ἀνυπόστατος µὲν οὖ φύσις, τουτέστιν οὐσία, οὐκ ἂν εἴη ποτέ ac9 οὐκοῦν τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ πατρὶ οἰκεῖον ἀξίωµα φυλακτέον, µηδένα τοῦ εἶναι αὐτῷ τὸν αἴτιον λέγοντας, τῷ δὲ υἱῷ τὴν ἁρµόζουσαν τιµὴν ἀπονεµητέον, τὴν ἄναρχον αὐτῷ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς γέννησιν ἀνατιθέντας οὐσίᾳ ἕν ἐστιν αὐτὸς γεννήσας αὐτὸν πατήρ οὐσίᾳ µὲν οὖν λέγειν ἐνοικεῖν τὸν Θεὸν τῶν ἀπρεπεστάτων ἐστίν . . . οὔτε οὐσίᾳ λέγειν οὔτε µὴν ἐνεργείᾳ οἷόν τε ποιεῖσθαι τὸν Θεὸν τὴν ἐνοίκησιν οὐσία οὐσία οὐσία ἀκατάληπτος . . . τὸ· Θεὸς, οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντος σηµαίνει οὐσία ἀνυπόστατος οὐσία κοινή οὐσίαι, ὑποστάσεις οὐσία, ὑπόστασις οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, ὑποκείµενον οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, φύσις οὐσία, φύσις οὐχ᾽ ὡς τῆς τῶν φύσεων διαφορᾶς ἀνῃρηµένης διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν οὑσία 562 οὔτὲ υἱοπάτορα φρονοῦµεν ὡς οἱ Σαβέλλιοι, λέγοντες µονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁµοούσιον καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἀναιροῦντες τό εἶναι υἱὸν οὔτε ἄνθρωπος ὅλος οὔτε Θεός οὔτε µήν, τρία ὁµολογοῦντες πράγµατα καὶ τρία πρόσωπα οὗ βασιλεια ἀκατάλυτος οὖσα διαµενεῖ εἰς τοὺς ἀπείρους αἰῶνας· ἔσται γὰρ καθεζόµενος ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐ µὸνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ µέλλοντι οὗτος ἐν Νικαίᾳ πίστιν ἐξὲθετο οὗτος ἐν Νικαίᾳ πίστιν ἐξέθετο acb οίκονοµία πάθη

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

•

• • •

• • • • •

•

πάθη συµβεβηκότα πάντα πάντα θεῖα καὶ πάντα ἀνθρώπινα πάντων ὁρατῶν πίστις, µάθηµα πᾶς πατὴρ ὁµοίας αὐτοῦ οὐσίας νοεῖται πατήρ πᾶσα πρότασις ἢ γένος ἔχει κατηγορούµενον ἢ εἶδος ἢ διαφορὰν ἢ συµβεβηκὸς ἢ τὸ ἐκ τούτων συγκείµενον· οὐδὲν δὲ ἐπὶ ἁγίας τριάδος τῶν εἰρηµένων ἐστὶ λαβεῖν. σιωπῇ προσκυνείσθω τὸ ἄρρητον πῶς γὰρ ἐπίσκοποι ὄντες ἀκολουθήσαν πρεσβυτέρῳ παρὰ παρά παράθεσις παράθεσις, µῖξις, κρᾶσις παραδείγµατα παραπέτασµα πατέρα οὐκ ἄν τις εἴποι, µὴ ὑπάρχοντος υἱοῦ· ὁ µὲν τοι ποιητὴν λέγων τὸν Θεὸν οὐ πάντως καὶ τὰ γενόµενα δηλοϊ· ἔστι γὰρ καὶ πρὸ τῶν ποιηµάτων ποιητής· ὁ δὲ πατέρα λέγων εὐθὺς µετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς σηµαίνει καὶ τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ ὕπαρξιν. διὰ τοῦτ 558 ο καὶ ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν εἰς τὸν πατέρα πιστεύει· εἰς γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας πιστεύει, καὶ οὕτως µία ἐστιν ἡ πίστις εἰς ἕνα Θεόν πατὴρ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ, υἱὸς ἐν τῷ παρτί . . . ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ θεότης τοῦ πατρός ἐστι . . . ἡ θεότης καὶ ἡ ἰδιότης τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ εἶναι τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐστί πατήρ πατρικὴ θεογονία πεπληρωµένην καὶ ἄλλην Ἀρειανῶν τῷ φωτὶ τῆς θεογνωσίας προσήγαγον. καὶ διὰ τὴν θείαν χάριν οὐδὲ ἓν παρ᾽ ἡµῖν αἱρετικῶν ὑπελείφθη ζιζάνιον πεποιήκασι 55a περὶ ἐνανθρωπήσεως περὶ ἱερωσύνης περὶ ὑποταγῆς περὶ διαφορᾶς οὐσίας καὶ ὑποστάσεως—περὶ τοῦ οἴεσθαι λέγειν Θεούς—πρὸς Ἕλληνας ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν ἐννοιῶν περὶ τῆς ἐν εἴδει καὶ ἐν ἀτόµῳ θεωρουµένης φύσεως καὶ διαφορᾶς, ἑνώσεώς τε και σαρκώσεως καὶ πῶς ἐκκληπτέον, τὴν µίαν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένην

•

• • • • • • •

•

•

• • • • • • • • •

περὶ τοῦ τόµου τῶν ∆υτικῶν καὶ τοὺς ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ ἀπεδεξάµεθα τοὺς µίαν ὁµολογοῦντας πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύµατος θεότητα 57a περὶ τριάδος περὶ τριαδ. περὶ τ. τ. κυρ· ἐνανθ. περί τῆς τοῦ κυρίου ἐνανθρωπήσεως περιχώρησις πηγή, αρχή, αἰτία τῆς θεότητος πιστεύοµεν εἰς ἕνα, τὸν µόνον ἀληθινόν, Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα, τὴν µόνην φύσιν ἀγέννητον καὶ ἀπάτορα, ὅτι µηδένα σέβειν πέφυκεν ὡς ἐπαναβεβηκυῖα· καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον, τὸν υἱόν, εὐσεβῆ ἐκ τοῦ σέβειν τὸν πατέρα, καὶ µονογενῆ µέν, κρείττονα πάσης τῆς µετ᾽ αὐτὸν κτίσεως, πρωτότοκον δέ, ὅτι τὸ ἐξαίρετον καὶ πρώτιστόν ἐστι τῶν 564 κτισµάτων, σαρκωθέντα, οὐκ ἐναθρωπήσαντα, οὔτε γὰρ ψυχὴν ἀνθρωπινην ἀνείληφεν, ἀλλὰ σὰρξ γέγονεν, ἵνα διὰ σαρκὸς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὡς διὰ παραπετάσµατος Θεὸς ἡµῖν χρηµατίσῃ· οὐ δύο φύσεις, ἐπεὶ µὴ τέλειος ἦν ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ᾽ ἀντὶ ψυχῆς Θεὸς ἐν σαρκί· µία τὸ ὅλον κατὰ σύνθεσιν φύσις· παθητὸς δι᾽ οἰκονοµίαν· οὔτε γὰρ ψυχῆς ἢ σώµατος παθόντος τὸν κόσµον σώζειν ἐδύνατο· Ἀποκρινέσθωσαν οὖν, πῶς ὁ παθητὸς καὶ θνητὸς τῷ κρείττονι τούτων Θεῷ, πάθους τε καὶ θανάτου ἐπέκεινα, δύναται εἶναι ὁµοούσιος πιστεύοµεν καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ εἰς παράκλησιν καὶ ἁγιασµὸν καὶ τελείωσιν τοῖς πιστεύουσι διδόµενον πιστεύο 554 εν τὸν παράκλητον, τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα, ὅπερ ἡµῖν αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος καὶ ἐπηγγείλατο καὶ ἕπεµψεν· καὶ τοῠτο πιστεύοµεν πεµφθέν, καὶ τοῦτο οὐ πέπονθεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἄνθρωπος πλήρης Θεὸς µονογενῆς, ἀναλλοίωτος πλατυσµὸς τῆς οὐσίας ἐστὶν ὁ υἱός πλείους ἢ µυρίους τῶν τοῦ Μαρκίωνος πείσας προσήγαγον τῷ παναγίῳ βαπτίσµατι. πνεῦµα πνεῦµα ἄκτιστον πνεῦµα ὁµοούσιον πατρὶ καὶ ὑιῷ πνεῦµα ζωοποιόν 574 πνεῦµα ζωοποιοῦν ἡ σάρξ ἐστι τοῦ κυρίου, διότι ἐκ πνεύµατος ζωοποιοῦ συνελήµφθη πνεῦµα σαρκωθέν

• • • • • • • •

• • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

πνευµατικῶς ποιότητες ποιότητες οὐσιώδεις ποιηθέντα πολλαπλασίαζεσθαι πράξεις ἀγαθαί πρὸ πάντων αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννηµένον πρόδηλον δὲ ὡς τὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως ἐφαρµόζον· διὰ γὰρ ταύτης συναχθεῖσαι αἱ φύσεις ἓ 563 ν πρόσωπον κατὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ἀπετέλεσαν πρόσωπα πρόσωπον πρώτη οὐσία πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον προβολὴ ἀγέννητος, ἐρυγή, γέννηµα, µέρος ὁµοούσιον, ἐξ ἀπορροῖας τῆς οὐσίας, µονὰς πλατυνθεῖσα, ἕν εἰς δύο διῃρηµένον προβολή προβολή, ἀπόρροια προκοπή προορισµοί προσκύνησις 55a προσκύνησις λατρείας προσφέρειν τὰ δώρα προσφέρειν τὴν µνήµην τοῦ σώµατος προσωπική προφάσει τῆς τοῦ Ὁµοουσίου προσθήκης τήνδε τὴν γραφὴν προϋπάρχει ὁ ἄνθρωπος Χριστός, οὐχ ὡς ἐτέρου ὄντος παρ᾽ αὐτὸν τοῦ πνεύµατος, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τοῦ κυρίου ἐν τῇ τοῦ θεανθρώπου φύσει θείου πνεύµατος ὄντος πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως σὰρξ τοῦ κυρίου ζωοποιός, 56f σὰρξ, Θεοῦ σὰρξ γενοµένη, ζῶόν ἐστι µετὰ ταῦτα συντεθεῖσα εἰς µίαν φύσιν σάρκωσις τοῦ λόγου σάρξ σύγκρασις σύγχυσις σύγχυσις, σύγκρασις, συνουσίωσις σύγχυσος σύµβολα σύµβολον

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

σύµφύρσις σύναφεια σύνταγµα διδασκα 564 λίας σῶµα σῶµα ἀνθρώπινον σῶµα ἀνθρώπου σῶµα ἄψυχον σαρκωθεὶς οὔκ ἐστιν ἕτερος παρὰ τὸν ἀσώµατον σεσαρκωµένην καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσασαν σιωπῇ προσκυνείσθω τὸ ἄρρητον σοφία ἀνυπόστατος στηλογραφία κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων συµβεβηκότα συνάξεως ac8 ἴτ᾽ οὖν κοινωνίας συνάπτετθαι (συνάφεια) συνάφεια συνέλευσις δύο φύσεων καθ᾽ ἕνωσιν ἀδιάσπαστον ἀσυγχύτως καὶ ἀτρέπτως συνήγορος συναλοιφή συνανεκράθη συνταγµάτιον συντρέχειν σχέσις σχήµατα καὶ ποιότητες σχετική σχετικῶς σωµάτων συναφὴ κατὰ τὰς ἐπιφανείας τὰ δ᾽ ἔξω φιλοµυθῶν τὰ κρατούµενα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως, οὐκ ἔχει ἔπαινον· τὰ δὲ σχέσει φιλίας κρατούµενα ὑπεραινεῖται τέλειον τὴν φύσιν τὴν ἐπ᾽ ἄµφω ῥοπήν τὴν ὑπόστασιν οὐσίαν τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ προέκοπτεν τὸ ἄγιον πνεῦµα οὐ κτίσµα οὐδὲ ξένον ἀλλ᾽ ἴδιον καὶ ἀδιαίρετον τῆς οὐσίας ύ 564 οῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ πατρός τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα κτίσµα πάλιν κτίσµατός φασιν εἶναι διὰ τὸ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τὰ πάντα γεγενῆσθαι τὸ ἴδιον τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός τὸ ἴδιον τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως τὸ ἴδιον τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας ἐστὶν ὁ υἱός, ἐν ᾧ ἡ κτίσις πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν κατηλλάσσετο τὸ ὄν

• • • •

•

• • • • • • • •

•

•

τὸ ὅλως µετέχεσθαι τὸν Θεὸν ἶσόν ἐστι λέγειν ὅτι καὶ γεννᾶ τὸ ὑποκείµενον τὸ αἴτιο eb0 τὸ αἶµα αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς . . . καὶ τὴν σάρκα ὑπὲρ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡµῶν καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ἡµῶν τὸ δὲ ὄνοµα τῆς οὐσίας ὅπερ ἁπλούστερον ἐνετέθη ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων, ἀγνοούµενον δὲ τοἶς λαοῖς σκάνδαλον ἔφερε, διὰ τὸ ἐν ταῖς γραφαὶς τοῦτο µὴ ἐκφέρεσθαι, ἤρεσε περιαιρεθῆναι καὶ παντελῶς µηδεµίαν µνήµην οὐσίας τοῦ λοιποῦ γίνεσθαι . . . µήτε µὴ δεῖν ἐπὶ προσώπου πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύµατος µίαν ὑπόστασιν ὀνοµάζεσθαι τὸ εἶδος τοῦτό ἐστι καὶ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόµενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν τὸ πεποιγµένον οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γενέσθαι, τὸ γενόµενον δε ἀρχὴν ἔχει τοῦ εἶναι τὸ σῶµα προσφέρειν τὸ σῶµα τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀνακραθὲν τῇ θεότητι εἰς τὸ αδηλότατον κεχωρηκέναι τὸ σῶµα τροσφέρειν τὸν δηµιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων τοῖς ποιήµασι συναριθµήσωσι τὸν µὲν Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐπίσκοπον . . . τοὺς δὲ τὴς Ἀνατολῆς ἐπισκόπους . . , φυλαττοµένων τῶν πρεσβείων τῇ Ἀντιοχέων ἐκκλησίᾳ . . , τοὺς τῆς Ἀσιανῆς διοικήσεως ἐπισκόπους . . . τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς . . . τοὺς τῆς Θρᾳκικῆς τὸν πατέρα µόνον ἄναρχον ὄντα καὶ ἀγέννητον γεγεννηκέναι ἀνεφίκτως καὶ πᾶσιν ἀκαταλήπτως οἴδαµεν· τὸν δὲ ὑιὸν γεγεννῆσθαι πρὸ αἰῶνων καὶκ µηκέτι ὁµοίως τῷ πατρὶ ἀγέννητον εἶναι καὶ αὐτὸν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀρχὴν ἔχειν τὸν γεννήσαντα πατέρα τὸν υἱὸν ἐν ταύτῇ τῇ σοφίᾳ γεγενῆσθαι ναὶ ταύτης µετέχοντα ὡνοµάσθαι µόνον σοφίαν καὶ λόγον . . . ∆ιὰ τοῦτο καὶ προγιγνώσκων ὁ Θεὸς ἔσεσθαι καλ 6d6 ὸν αὐτόν, προλαβὼν αὐτῷ ταύτην τὴν δόξαν δέδωκεν, ἣν ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἔσχε µετὰ ταῦτα· ὥστε ἐξ ἔργων αὐτοῦ, ὧν προέγνω ὁ Θεός, τοιοῦτον αὐτὸν νῦν γεγονέναι πεποίνκε . . . Μετοχῇ χάριτος ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πάντες οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸς λέγεται ὀνόµατι µόνον Θεός . . . Θεὸς ἔνεγκεν εἰς υἱὸν ἑαυτῷ τόνδε

• • • •

• • •

• •

•

• • •

• •

τεκνοποιήσας· ἴδιον οὐδὲν ἔχει τοῦ Θεοῦ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος . . . τῃ ὑποστάσει δύο φύσεις τῆς ἀκράτου χειρὸς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου ἐργασίαν βαστάξαι τῆς ἰδίας ὑποστάσεως θελητής τῆς πνευµατικῆς µεσιτευούσης ἀγάπης καὶ τοῦ κυριακοῦ φόβου, πᾶσαν µὲν καταστέλλοντος ἀνθρωπίνην προαπάθειαν, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν οἰκοδοµὴν προτιµοτέραν ποιοῦντος τῆς πρὸς τὸν καθ᾽ ἕνα συµπαθείας ἢ χάριτος 56d τῇ ἀναφορᾷ τῇ ὁµοιώσει καὶ τῇ µιµήσει σώζεσθαι τοὺς πιστεύοντας καὶ οὐ τῇ ἀνακαινίσει τῇ µὲν φύσει ὥσπερ πάντες οὕτω δὲ αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος ἐστὶ τρεπτός, τῷ δὲ ἰδίῳ αὐτεξουσίῳ, ἕως βούλεται, µένει καλός· ὅτε µέν τοι θέλει δύναται τρέπεσθαι καὶ αὐτὸς ὥσπερ καὶ ἥµεῖς, τρεπτῆς ὤν φύσεως . . . τῇ φύσει τοῦ πράγµατος τῶν ὀνοµάτων οὐχ ἁπλῶς οὐδὲ ἀργῶς κειµένων σηµαινόντων ἀκριβῶς τὴν οἰκείαν ἑκάστου τῶν ὀνοµαζοµένων ὑπόστασιν (N.B. = οὐσίαν) καὶ τάξιν καὶ δόξαν, ὡς εἶναι τῇ µὲν ὑποστάσει τρία, τῇ δὲ συµφωνίᾳ ἕν ac9 τῷ ἰδίῳ αἵµατι λυτρωσαµένου ἡµᾶς τοῦ κυρίου καὶ δόντος τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡµετέρων ψυχῶν καὶ τὴν σάρκα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀντὶ τῶν ἡµετέρων σαρκῶν τῷ διὰ τούτων µυσταγωγοῦντι τὴν θέωσιν, οἷς σε προσάγει λόγος καὶ βίος καὶ ἡ διὰ τοῦ παθεῖν κάθαρσις ταὐτόν ταὐτόν, ὡς κατὰ τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς ἔννοιαν ταὐτὸν. Οὐ ταὐτὸν δὲ ἀλλὰ ὅµοιον, διότι τὸ πνεῦµα, ὅ ἐστιν ὁ υἱός, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ πατήρ, καὶ ἡ σάρξ, ἣν ὁ λόγος ἀνέβαλεν, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ σπέρµατος καὶ ἡδονῆς, ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως ὡς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡµᾶς ἐδίδαξεν . . . ὁ πατὴρ πνεῦµα ὤν αὐθεντικῶς ποιεῖ, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς πνεῦµα ὢν οὐκ αὐθεντικῶς ποιεῖ ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ἀλλ᾽ ὁµοίως. Οὐκοῦν καθὰ µὲν σὰρξ καὶ σὰρξ ταὐτὸν, ὥσπερ καθὸ πνεῦµα καὶ πνεῦµα ταὐτόν. καθὸ δὲ ἄνευ σπορᾶς οὐ ταὐτὸν ἀλλ᾽ ὅµοιον, ὥσπερ καθὸ ἄνευ ἀπορροίας καὶ πάθους ὁ υἱὸς οὐ ταὐτὸν ἀλλ᾽ ὅµοιον ταὐτοούσιος ταύτην τὴν πίστιν καὶ ὑµῖν καὶ ἡµῖν καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς µὴ διαστρέθπυσι τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθοῦς πίστεως συναρέσκειν δεῖ· ἥν µόλις ποτὲ [sic] πρεσβυτάτην τε

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

οὖσαν καὶ ἀκόλουθον τῷ βαπτίσµατι καὶ διδάσκουσαν ἡµᾶς πιστεύειν εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος, δηλαδὴ θεότητός τε καὶ δυνάµεως καὶ οὐσίας µιᾶς τοῦ πατρός καὶ τοῦ 564 υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγιου πνεύµατος πιστευοµένης, ὁµοτίµον τε τῆς ἀξίας καὶ συναϊδίου τῆς βασιλείας, ἐν τρισὶ τελείαις ὑποστάσεσιν ἤγουν τρισὶ τελείαις ὑποστάσεσιν ἤγουν τρισὶ τελείοις προσώποις, ὡς µήτε τὴν Σαβελλίου νόσον χώραν λαβεῖν συγχεοµένων τῶν ὑποστάσεων, εἴγουν τῶν ἰδιοτήτων ἀναιρουµένων, µή τε µὴν τὴν τῶν Εὐνοµιανῶν καὶ Ἀρειανῶν καὶ Πνευµατοµάχων βλάσφηµίαν ἰσχύειν, τῆς οὐσίας ἢ τῆς φύσεως ἢ τῆς θεότητος τεµνοµένης καὶ τῇ ἀκτίστῳ καὶ ὁµοουσίῳ καὶ συναϊδίῳ τριάδι µεταγενεστέρας τινὸς ἢ κτιστῆς ἢ ἑτεροουσίου φύσεως ἐπαγοµένης. ταῦτα οἱ κατὰ τὰ ἑσπέρια µέρη ἐπίσκοποι διὰ τὸ ἀλλογλώσσους εἶναι καὶ διὰ τὸ µὴ συνιέναι οὐ προσεδέχοντο, Ἅ 560 ρκεῖν τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ πίστιν λέγοντες ταυτότης ταυτότης τῆς φύσεως ταυτότις τῆς φύσεως ταυτούσιος τελείαν τελετῆς µύρου τελεταί τιµὴ ἁρµόζουσα τιµὴ καὶ ἐπίκλησις τιµὴ σχετική το γὰρ ὅµοιον ποιότης ἐστίν, ἥτις τῇ οὐσίᾳ προσγενοιτ᾽ ἄν 568 τοῖς παρ᾽ ἡµῶν καὶ συγγραφεῖσι καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἐκκλησίας κηρυχθεῖσιν ἀεί τοῖς πολιτικοῖς καὶ δηµοσίοις τόποις καὶ τῶν ἐκκκλησιαστικῶν παροικιῶν ἡ τάξις ἀκολουθείτω τοῦ λόγου τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ ά. πνεύµατος κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, τρεῖς διὰ τοῦτο Θεοὺς ποιοῦµεν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος. Καὶ εἰ ζητοῖεν, τίς τοῦ υἱοῦ ἡ ὑπόστασις ἐστιν, ὁµολογοῦµεν ὡς αὕτη ἦν ἡ µόνη τοῦ πατρὸς ὁµολογουµένη τοῦ υἱοῦ µετέχοντες τοῦ Θεοῦ µετὍ 563 χειν λεγόµεθα . . . ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἔννοια καὶ κατάληψις γνῶσίς ἐστι περὶ

• •

• • • • • • • • •

• • •

• • • • • • • • • •

•

τοῦ πατρός, διὰ τὸ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ ἰδίον εἶναι γέννηµα τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός τοῦτο δὲ πάλιν ἐὰν ἕτερον ᾖ παρὰ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ ἶσον ἄτοπον ἀπαντήσει, µέσου πάλιν εὑρισκοµένου τούτου ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ υἱοῦ, ἥτις ποτέ ἐστι τοῦτο τὸ ὄνοµα τρία κεφάλαια τρίτη διαθήκη τρόποι τρόποι ὑπάρξεως 565 τρόπος ὑπάρξεως, ἰδίωµα τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις τρεῖς µερικαὶ οὐσίαι τριάδα τελείαν ἐκ τελειῶν τριῶν, µονάδος µὲν κινηθείσης διὰ τὸ πλούσιον, δυάδος δὲ ὑπερβαθείσης, ὑπὲρ γὰρ τὴν ὕλην καὶ τὸ εἶδος, ἐξ ὧν τὰ σώµατα, τριάδος δὲ ὁρισθείσης διὰ τὸ τέλειον, πρώτη γὰρ ὑπερβαίνει δυάδος σύνθεσιν, ἵνα µήτε στενὴ µένῇ ἡ θεότης µήτε εἰς ἄπειρον χέηται· τὸ µὲν γὰρ ἀφιλότιµον, τὸ δὲ ἄτακτον, καὶ τὸ µὲν Ἰουδαϊκὸν παντελῶς, τὸ δὲ Ἑλληνικὸν καὶ πολύθεον. τροπή υἍ abb ὸν ὑποστήσαντα ἰδίῳ θελήµατι ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον υἱὸν µονογενῆ . . . κτίσµα τοῦ Θεοῦ τέλειον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς ἕν τῶν κτισµάτων, γέννηµα, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς ἕν τῶν γεννηµάτων . . . Πατὴρ δοὺς αὐτῷ πάντων τὴν κληρονοµίαν . . . Ὁ υἱὸς µόνος ὑπὸ µόνου τοῦ πατρὸς ὑπέστη υἱὸς φάρµακον ἀθανασίας φύσει φύσει ἔχει τὴν πατρικὴν οὐσίαν φύσει κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ταῦτα φύσεις φύσις φύσις ἀνυπόστατος φύσις οὐσία φύσις (µίαν φύσιν ἐν τρισὶν ἰδιότησι, νοεραῖς τελείαις, καθ᾽ ἑαυτὰς ὑφεστώσαις, ἀριθµῷ διαιρεταῖς καὶ οὐ διαιρεταῖς θεότητι) φύσις (οὐσία)

• •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • •

φθείρεσθαι φθορὰ τοῦ αὐτεξουσίου ζώου τὸ µὴ εἶναι αὐτεξούσιον· οὐ φθείρεται δὲ ἡ φύσις ὑπὸ τοῦ ποιήσαντος αὐτὴν· οὐκ ἄρα ἑνοῦται ὁ ἀνθρωπος Θεῷ φθορά φιλόθεος ἱστορία ad4 φυσική φυσικῶς φωτίσµατος φωτισµός χειροποίητα χρῆ γὰρ εἰδέναι, ὅτι τὸ ἀγένητον, διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς ν γραφόµενον, τὸ ἄκτιστον ἤ τὸ µὴ γενόµενον σηµαίνει, τὸ δὲ ἀγέννητον, διὰ τῶν δύο ν γραφόµενον, δηλοῖ τὸ µὴ γεννηθέν χριστότοκος χωρίζω τὰς φύσεις, ἑνῶ τὴν προσκύνησιν ψυχὴ σαρκική ψυχή . . . γεννήσαντα υἱὸν µονογενῆ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνών, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ τὰ ὅλα πεποίηκε . . . κτίσµα τοῦ Θεοῦ τέλειον . . . θελήµατι τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸ χρόνων καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων κτίσθέντα, καὶ τὸ ζῆν καὶ τὸ εἶναι παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς εἰληφότα καὶ τὰς δόξας συνυποστήσαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ πατρὸς. Οὐ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ δοὺς αὐτῳ πάντων τὴν κληρονοµίαν ἐστέρησεν ἑαυτὸν ὧν ἀγεννήτως ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ. πηγὴ γὰρ ἐστι πάντων, ὥστε τρεῖς εἰσιν ὑποστάσεις . . . Ὁ υἱὸς ἀχρόνως γεννηθεὶς οὐκ ἦν πρὸ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐστιν ἀΐδιος ἤ συναΐδιος ἤ συναγένητος τῷ πατρὶ οὐδὲ ἅµα τῷ πατρὶ τὸ εἶναι ἔχει . . . Ἀρχὴ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ὁ Θεός, ἀρχεῖ γὰρ αὐτοῦ ὡς Θεὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ πρὸ αὐτοῦ ὥν.

Index of Latin Words and Phrases • • • •

• • • • •

•

• • • •

• •

essentia, substantia, natura quæ determinatur per formam Agit utraque forma quod proprium est Angelus diaboli est Samosatenus Paulus, qui purum hominem dicere præsumpsit dominum J. Chr. et negavit existentiam divinitatis unigeniti, quæ est ante sæcula Christus crucifixus est in forma servi. Christus deus et homo Christus in forma dei manens formam servi accepit. Corpus cæleste Credere in patrem omnipotentem, et in Christum Iesum filium eius unicum dominum nostrum, qui natus est de spiritu sancto et Maria virgine Cunctos populos, quos clementiæ nostræ regit temperamentum in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum Petrum apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat quamque pontificem Damasum sequi claret et Petrum Alexandriæ episcopum virum apostolicæ sanctitatis, hoc est, ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam evangelicamque doctrinam patris et filii et spiritus sancti unam deitatem sub pari majestate et sub pia trinitate credamus (this is the Western-Alexandrian way of formulating the problem). Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti, reliquos vere dementes vesanosque judicantes hæretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere, divina primum vindicta, post etiam motus nostri, quem ex cælesti arbitrio sumpserimus, ultione plectendos Demonstratio Diu apud nos uncertum fuit, quid in ipso Eutyche catholicis displiceret. Ea gratia Et quia clementissimus imperator pro ecclessiæ pace sollicitus synodum voluit congregari, quamvis evidenter appareat, rem, de qua agitur, nequaquam synodali indigere tractatu Ex professo Expositio fidei catholicæ ecclesiæ ac8

• • • • • • • •

•

• •

• • •

• • • • •

• •

•

Fieri non protest, ut, per quem sunt omnia, sit onus ex nobis. Illud sane miramur In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas Mysterium Nicæna synodus auctore Hosio confecta habebatur. Non propter me ista vox (John XII. 30 Non vis eum substantivum habere in re per substantiæ proprietatem, ut res et persona quædam videri possit Optime Punici Christiani baptismum ipsum nihil aliud quam ‘salutem’ et sacramentum corporis Christi nihil aliud quam ‘vitam’ vocant, unde nisi ex antiqua, ut existimo, et apostolica traditione Pro reverenda et catholica religione fidei Christianorum tuam sanctitatem principatum in episcopatu divinæ fidei possidentem sacris litteris in principio justum credimus alloquendam . . . omni impio errore sublato per celebrandam synodum te auctore maxime pax circa omnes episcopos fidei catholicæ fiat! Propter hanc unitatem personæ Quamvis enim in domino T. Chr. dei et hominis (!) una persona sit, aliud tamen est, unde in utroque communis est contumelia, aliud unde communis est gloria Quicunque vult salvus esse. Quod erat in causa, apparet in effectu! Quod si odit anima mea vocem homousion et nolim ea uti, non ero hæreticus. Quis enim me coget uti, modo rem teneam, quæ in concilio per scripturas definita est? Etsi Ariani male senserunt in fide, hoc tamon optime, sive malo sive bono animo, exegerunt, ne vocem profanam et novam in regulis fidei statui liceret. Quot verba, tot scandala! Sacramentum Sacramentum Chrismatis Sacramentum Salis Salva igitur proprietate utriusque naturæ et substantiæ (both words should be noted) et in unam coeunte personam suscepta est a maiestate humilitas Sancta synodus utrosq aa9 ue sermones (two and one natures) pari honore Sanctorum patrum constitutionem prolatam nulla patiamini temeritate violari vel imminui . . . ac si qui forte civitatum suarum splendore confisi aliquid sibi tentaverint usurpare, hoc qua dignum est constantia retundatis Servemus distinctionem divinitatis et carnis.

•

• • • •

•

• • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Si enim sermo ex transfiguratione et demutatione substantiæ caro factus est, una iam erit substantia ex duabus, ex carne et spiritu, mixtura quædam, ut electrum ex auro et argento et incipit nec aurum esse, id est spiritus, neque argentum, id est caro, dum alterum altero mutatur et tertium quid efficitur. Si quis post assumptionem hominis naturaliter dei filium unum esse audet dicere, anathema sit. Statuta ecclesiæ antiqua Unam offer venerationem. Ut transeamus ad sanctorum communionem. Illos hic sententia ista confundit, qui sanctorum et amicorum dei cineres non in honore debere esse blasphemant, qui beatorum martyrum gloriosam memoriam sacrorum reverentia monumentorum colendam esse non credunt. In symbolum prævaricati sunt, et Christo in fonte mentiti sunt, et per hanc infidelitatem in medio sinu vitæ locum morti aperuerunt. Videmus duplicem statum, non confusum sed coniunctum, in una persona, deum et hominem Iesum . . . Et adeo salva est utriusque proprietas substantiæ, ut et spiritus res suas egerit in illo, i.e. a patre et filio missus est idem filius, quia verbum patris est ipse filius ad nutum papæ adhærere deo agit utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est agit utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est verbo scilicet operante quod verbi est et carne exsequente quod carnis est. aliud videtur, aliud intellegitur alium autem quomodo accipere debeas jam professus sum, personæ, non substantiæ apparet proprietas utriusque personæ 57c argumentatio ad absurdum assumpsit formam servi sine sorde peccati, humana augens, divina non minuens assumptio assumptio carnis caro (= homo = filius = Jesus) caro dei commonitorium conditio conjuncti conserti et connexi gradus

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

consortes substantiæ patris contra dei propositum contradictio in adjecto corruptio cottidie oblectabar in persona cui inhærent cultus cum alterius communione ab1 cum grano salis de principiis de utraque eius substantia. de utroque processit dei filius naturæ carnis immixtus deificatio deitas, virtus, potestas, status derivatio deus (ex patre) et homo (ex matre) deus natus et passus deus-homo dictum est ‘tres personæ’ non ut illud diceretur, sed ne taceretur differentia per distinctionem disciplina arcana dispersio distributio, distinctio, dispositio, dispensatio diversitas divisio docta ignorantia doctrina doctrina de Christo doctrina publica duæ substantiæ duæ substantiæ (naturæ) in una persona duæ substantiæ in Christo Jesu, divina et humana duarum personarum conjunctio duas naturales operationes duas naturales voluntates duo substantiæ duplex status non confusus eos, qui pro hominis anima rationabili et intelligibili dicunt dei verbum in humana carne versatum, quum ipse filius sit verbum dei et non pro anima rationabili et intelligibili in suo corpore fuerit, sed nostram id est rationabilem et intelligibilem sine peccato animam susceperit atque salvaverit. ae6 episcopus Alexandrinus sibi omnia vindicans

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

epistola dogmatica eundem atque unum dominum nostrum et deum I. Chr. utpote volentem et operantem divine et humane nostram salutem ex analogia ex necessitate fidei ex patre solo ex professo ex unitate patris exinanitio inclinatio fuit miserationis, non defectio potestatis fatendum est, patrem et filium principium esse spiritus sancti, non duo principia. fides Athanasii fides catholica fides implicita fides quæ creditur filii personam . . . sic et cetera, quæ nunc ad patrem de filio vel ad filium, nunc ad filium de patre vel ad patrem, nunc ad spiritum pronuntiantur, unamquamque personam in sua proprietate constituunt filioque filius dei et filius hominis filius ex sua persona profitetur patrem filius hominis formæ cohærentes formæ dei et servi forma forma dei forma servi gradus homines boni homo Jesus similiter omnibus hominibus, nihil differens connaturalibus hominibus, quam quia ipsi gratiam dedit; gratia autem data naturam non immutat, sed post mortis destructionem donavit ei deus nomen supra omne nomen . . . o gratia, quæ superavit omnem naturam! . . . sed mei fratres dicunt mihi: “non separa hominem et deum, sed unum eundemque dic, hominem dicens connaturalem mihi deum”; si dicam connaturalem deum, dic quomodo homo et de 551 us unum est? numquid una natura hominis et dei, domini et servi, factoris et facturæ? homo homini consubstantialis est, deus autem deo consubstantialis est. Quomodo igitur homo et deus unum per unitatem

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

esse potest, qui salvificat et qui salvificatur, qui ante sæcula est et qui ex Maria adparuit humana et divina substantia in bonam partem in deo nihil quidem secundum accidens dicitur, quia nihil in eo mutabile est; nec tamen omne quod dicitur, secundum substantiam dicitur. Dicitur enim ad aliquid, sicut pater ad filium et filius ad patrem, quod non est accidens, quia et ille semper pater et ille semper filius in dogmaticis in duabis naturis in duabus naturis in integra veri hominis perfectaque natura verus natus est deus, totus in suis, totus in nostris in natura Christi corporis infirmitatem naturæ corporeæ non fuisse in praxi 577 in susceptione hominis non unius substantiæ, sed unius eiusdemque personæ in thesi in una persona in utraque natura intelligendam et filius hominis legitur descendisse de cœlo individua permanet individui et inseparati a patre individuum invisibilis factus visibilis invitis autoribus ita ex utraque neutrum est; aliud longe tertium est quam utrumque. librum valde suasorium, quem pravo sensu patrum testimoniis in tantum roborare conatus est, ut ad decipiendum imperatorem et suam hæresim constituendam pæne Leonem, urbis Romæ pontificem, et Chalcedonensem synodum ac totos occidentales episcopos illorum adminiculo Nestorianos ostenderet. locus classicus manifesta et 54f personalis distinctio conditionis (this too is a juristic conception) patris et filii mediator dei et hominum homo Iesus Christus mens ipsa, notitia mentis, amor—memoria, intelligentia, voluntas minores mixtio modi modus vivendi

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

mori potest ex uno, mori non potest ex altero mutatis mutandis mysterium nam nec semel sed ter ad singula nomina in personas singulas tinguimur nativitas divina nativitas temporalis naturæ alteri altera miscebatur. natura natura inviolabilis unita est naturæ passibili 570 natura nostri generis natus ex femina deus necessitas boni nefandissimi hæretici nomen, species, forma, gradus nomina non confusus non ut illud diceretur nulla est discrepantia divinitatis et operis; non igitur in utroque una persona, sed una substantia est”; but on the other hand: “non duo domini, sed unus dominus, quia et pater deus et filius deus, sed unus deus, quia pater in filio et filius in patre—nevertheless—unus deus, quia una deitas nullo prolatus et innatus nuncupativus officiales opera opus superadditum ordo urbium nobilium ad1 paracletus a patre filioque procedens passiones pater prima persona, quæ ante filii nomen erat proponenda pater, filius et spiritus sanctus—unus deus. permutatio nominum perpetua virginitas personæ persona personales substantiæ pia fracas portio dei portiones præcipuum Christo præter ceteros homines non aliquo puro honore ex deo pervenit, sicut in ceteris hominibus,

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

sed per unitatem ad deum verbum, per quam omnis honoris ei particeps est post in cœlum ascensum præsertim cum tam evidens fidei causa sit, ut rationabilius ab indicenda synodo fuisset abstinendum primi ordinis principium pro forma pro tribus capitulis processio proprietas proprietas divinæ humanæque naturæ proprietas salva proximæ personæ proximæ personæ officiales quæcumque ergo substantia sermonis (τοῦ λόγου qui duos filios asserunt, unum ante sæcula et alterum post assumptionem carnis ex virgine qui episcopus ordinandus est, antes examinetur . . . si incarnationem divinam non in patre neque in spiritu s. factam, sed in filio tantum credat, ut qui erat in divinitate dei patris filius, ipse fieret in homine hominis matris filius, deus verus ex patre, homo verus ex matre, carnem ex matris visceribus habens et animam humanam rationalem, simul in eo ambæ naturæ, i.e. ac6

• • • • • • • •

• • •

qui unus idemque est quid pro quo quo dicto (Matt. XVI. 17 quot personæ tibi videntur, Praxea? reductio ad absurdum regula fidei religio publica religiosa clementissimi principis fides sciens ad suam gloriam maxime pertinere, si intra ecclesiam catholicam nullius erroris germen exsurgeret, hanc reverentiam divinis detulit institutis, ut ad sanctæ dispositionis effectum auctoritatem apostolicæ sedis adhiberet, tamquam ab ipso Petro cuperet declarari, quid in eius confessione laudatum sit, quando dicente domino: quem me esse dicunt homines filium hominis? res sacrifcium intellectus fidei salva est utriusque proprietas substantiæ in Christo Jesu

• • • • • • •

• • • •

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

salva proprietas utriusque substantiæ salva utriusque substantiæ proprietate secundum aliquid secundum carnem secundum participationem sed conjunctus sed quia nostra loquendi consuetudo iam obtinuit, ut hoc intelligatur cum dicimus essentiam, quod intellegitur cum dicimus substantiam, non audemus dicere: unam essentiam tres substantias, sed unam essentiam vel substantiam, tres autem personas, quemadmodum multi Latini ista tractantes et digni auctoritate dixerunt, cum alium modum aptiorem non invenirent, quo enuntiarent verbis quod sine verbis intellegebant semper virgo sensus, affectus, motus separatio si Christus personæ paternæ spiritus est, merito spiritus, cujus personæ erat, id est patris, eum faciem suam ex unitate scilicet pronuntiavit si per inspirationem misericordiæ dei ad satisfactionem causa perducitur 554 si una persona et dei et domini in scripturis inveniretur, etc. sic voluit deus renovare sacramentum, ut nove unus crederetur per filium et spiritum, ut coram iam deus in suis propriis nominibus et personis cognosceretur. simplicior singula sunt in singulis et omnia in singulis et singula in omnibus et omnia in omnibus et unum omnia. singularitas numeri sociatus homo et deus societas nominum solus pater non legitur missus, quoniam solus non habet auctorem, a quo genitus sit vel a quo procedat species species indivisæ species, formæ gradus, res, personæ spiritus (= deus = pater = Christus) spiritus paracletus per filium est ada spiritus personæ ejus Christus dominus status status, forma substantia substantia divina

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

substantia impersonalis substantia materialis substantia, status, potestas, virtus substantiam substantiva res ex ipsius dei substantia summum bonum sunt semper unicem, neuter solus superstitio synodus sanctorum tenet sine defectu proprietatem suam utraque natura, et sicut formam servi dei forma non adimit, ita formam dei servi forma non minuit tertium quid tomus tres cohærentes tres personæ tres res et tres species unius et indivisæ substantiæ ubique esse una essentia tres substantiæ una persona una persona, duæ substantiæ una substantia unicus et singularis unitas ex semetipsa derivans trinitatem unitas substantiæ unius substantiæ unius substantiæ tres personæ uno statu unum de trinitate, esse crucifixum—passum carne unus deus est ipse trinitas, pater et filius et spiritus s. est unus deus unus et idem unus ex trinitate ut orientales episcopi ab occidentalibus judicarentur ut pleniori iudicio omnis possit error aboleri. utraque natura utraque natura quae per conjunctionem summam et inconfusam in una persona unigeniti adoratur utraque substantia utriusque naturæ persona utrumque iuste filius vocatur, una existente persona, quam adunatio naturarum effecit venia ex pœnitentia verbum et homo videmus duplicem statum non confusum sed conjunctum in una persona, deum et hominem Jesum

• •

vis inertiæ visibilem et invisibilem deum deprehendo sub manifesta et personali distinctione

Index of French Words and Phrases • • • •

Dioscore règne partout. du fait fait accompli parvenu

Index of Pages of the Print Edition ii iii iv iv vi vii viii ix x x xi xii xiii xiv 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 562 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ae5 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 568 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 aa6 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 586 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 ac8 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 53e 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 ac6 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 588 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353

i

HISTORY OF DOGMA BY

DR. ADOLPH HARNACK

VOLUME V ii iii

EDITORIAL NOTE. THE present volume is the first of three, which will reproduce in English the contents of Vol. III. of Harnack’s great work in the German original, third Edition. The author’s prefaces to the first and second Editions and to the third Edition are here translated. This volume deals with the epoch-making service of Augustine as a reformer of Christian piety and as a theological teacher, and with the influence he exercised down to the period of the Carlovingian Renaissance. The following volume will complete the history of the Development of Dogma by telling the story of Mediæval Theology. The concluding volume will treat of the Issues of Dogma in the period since the Reformation, and will contain a General Index for the whole work. A. B. BRUCE.

v

PREFACE TO FIRST AND SECOND EDITIONS. THERE does not yet exist a recognised method for presenting the History of Dogma of the Mediæval and more modern period. There is no agreement either as to the extent or treatment of our material, and the greatest confusion prevails as to the goal to be aimed at. The end and aim, the method and course adopted in the present Text-Book, were clearly indicated in the introduction to the first volume. I have seen no reason to make any change in carrying out the work. But however definite may be our conception of the task involved in our branch of study, the immense theological material presented by the Middle Ages, and the uncertainty as to what was Dogma at that time, make selection in many places an experiment. I may not hope that the experiment has always been successful. After a considerable pause, great activity has been shown in the study of our subject in the last two years. Benrath, Hauck, Bonwetsch, and Seeberg have published new editions of older Text-Books; Loofs has produced an excellent Guide to the History of Dogma; Kaftan has given a sketch of the study in his work on the Truth of the Christian Religion; Möller and Koffmane have dev 564 oted special attention to the sections dealing with it in their volumes on Ancient Church History. The study of these books, and many others which I have gratefully made use of, has shown me that my labours on this great subject have not remained isolated or been fruitless. The knowledge of this has outweighed many experiences which I pass over in silence. This concluding volume counts, to a greater extent than its predecessors, on the indulgence of my learned colleagues; for its author is not a “specialist,” either in the history of the Mediæval Church or in the period of the Reformation. But the advantage possessed by him who comes to the Middle Ages and vithe Reformation with a thorough knowledge of ecclesiastical antiquity perhaps outweighs the defects of an account which does not everywhere rest on a complete induction. One man can really review all the sources for the history of the Ancient Church; but as regards the Middle Ages and the history of the Reformation, even one more familiar with them than the author of this Text-Book will prove his wisdom simply by the most judicious choice of the material which he studies independently. The exposition of Augustine, Anselm, Thomas, the Council of Trent, Socinianism, and Luther rests throughout on independent studies. This is 564

also true of other parts; but sections will be found in which the study is not advanced, but only its present position is reproduced. I have spent a great deal of time on the preparation of a Table of Contents. I trust it will assist the use of the book. But for the book itself, I wish that it may contribute to break down the power that really dictates in the theological conflicts of the present, viz., ignorance. We cannot, indeed, think too humbly of the importance of theological science for Christian piety; but we cannot rate it too highly as regards the development of the Evangelical Church, our relation to the past, and the preparation of that better future in which, as once in the second century, the Christian faith will again be the comfort of the weak and the strength of the strong. Berlin, 24th Dec., 1889.

PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION. SINCE this volume first appeared, there may have been published about fifty monographs and more extensive treatises on the Western History of Dogma, most of which have referred to it. I have tried to make use of them for the new Edition, and I also proposed to make other additions and corrections on the viior 564 iginal form of the book, without finding myself compelled to carry out changes in essential points. I have thankfully studied the investigations, published by Dilthey in the Archiv f. Gesch. d. Philosophie, Vols. V. to VII., on the reformed system of doctrine in its relation to Humanism and the “natural system.” He has examined the reformed conceptions in connections in which they have hitherto been seldom or only superficially considered, and he has, therefore, essentially advanced a knowledge of them. Among the many objections to the plan of this work, and the critical standards observed in it, four are especially of importance. It has been said that in this account the development of Dogma is judged by the gospel, but that we do not learn clearly what the gospel is. It has further been maintained that the History of Dogma is depicted as a pathological process. Again, the plan of Book III., headed “The threefold outcome of Dogma,” has been attacked. And, lastly, it has been declared that, although the account marks a scientific advance, it yet bears too subjective or churchly a stamp, and does not correspond to the strictest claims of historical objectivity. As to the first objection, I believe that I have given a fuller account of my conception of the gospel th 564 an has been yet done in any text-book of the History of Dogma. But I gladly give here a brief epitome of my view. The preaching of Jesus contains three great main sections. Firstly, the message of the approaching Kingdom of God or of the future salvation; secondly, the proclamation of the actual state of things and of thoughts, such as are given in Matthew VI. 25-34; VII. 7-11; IX. 2; X. 28-33, etc. (see Vol. I., p. 74 f.); thirdly, the new righteousness (the new law). The middle section connected with Matthew XI. 25-30, and therefore also combined with the primitive Christian testimony regarding Jesus as Lord and Saviour, I hold, from strictly historical and objective grounds, to be the true main section, the gospel in the gospel, and to it I subordi 564 nate the other portions. That Christ himself expressed it under cover of Eschatology I know as well (Vol. I., p. 58) as the antiquarians who have so keen an eye for the everlasting yesterday,

As to the second objection I am at a loss. After the new viiireligion had entered the Roman Empire, and had combined with it in the form of the universal Catholic Church, the History of Dogma shows an advance and a rise in all its main features down to the Reformation. I have described it in this sense from Origen to Athanasius, Augustine, Bernard, and Francis, to mystic Scholasticism and to Luther. It is to me a mystery how far the history should nevertheless have been depicted as a “process of disease.” Of course superstitions accumulated, as in every history of religion, but within this incrustation the individual ever became stronger, the sense for the gospel more active, and the feeling for what was holy and moral more refined and pure. But as regards the development from the beginnings of the evangelic message in the Empire down to the rise of the Catholic Church, I have not permitted myself to speculate how splendid it would have been if everything had happened differently from what it did. On the other hand, I grant that I have not been able to join in praising the formation of that 564 tradition and theology which has lowered immediate religion to one that is mediated, and has burdened faith with complicated theological and philosophical formulas. Just as little could it occur to me to extol the rise of that ecclesiastical rule that chiefly means obedience, when it speaks of faith. But in this there is no “pathology”; the formations that arose overcame Gnosticism. My critics have not convinced me that the conception followed by me in reference to the final offshoots of the History of Dogma is unhistorical. But I readily admit that the History of Dogma can also be treated as history of ecclesiastical theology, and that in this way the account can bring it down to the present time. Little is to be gained by disputing about such questions in an either-or fashion. If we regard Protestantism as a new principle which has superseded the absolute authority of Dogmas, then, in dealing with the History of Dogma, we must disregard Protestant forms of doctrine, however closely they may approximate to ancient Dogma. But if we look upon it as a particular reform of Western Catholicism, we shall have to admit its doctrinal formations into that history. Only, even in that case, we must not forget that the Evangelical Churches, tried by the ixnotion of a church which prevail 564 ed for 1300 years, are no churches. From this the rest follows of itself. Finally, as regards the last objection, I may apply chiefly to my account a verdict recently passed by a younger fellow-worker:— “The History of Dogma of to-day is, when regarded as science, a half thing.” Certainly it is in its beginnings, and it falls far short of perfection. It must become still more circumspect and reserved; but

I should fear, lest it be so purified in the crucible of this youngest adept—who meantime, however, is still a member of the numerous company of those who only give advice—that nothing of consequence would remain, or only that hollow gospel, “religion is history,” which he professes to have derived from the teaching of four great prophets, from whom he could have learnt better. We are all alike sensible of the labours and controversies which he would evade; but it is one of the surprises that are rare even in theology, that one of our number should be trying in all seriousness to divide the child between the contending mothers, and that by a method which would necessarily once more perpetuate the dispute that preceded the division. The ecclesiastics among Protestants, although they arrogate to themselves the monopoly of “Christian” theology on the title-pages of their books, will never gi 564 ve up the claim to history and science; they will, therefore, always feel it their duty to come to terms with the “other” theology. Nor will scientific theology ever forget that it is the conscience of the Evangelical Church, and as such has to impose demands on the Church which it serves in freedom. Berlin, 11th July, 1897. ADOLF HARNACK. X

xi

CONTENTS. PART II. DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL DOGMA.

BOOK II. Expansion and Remodelling of Dogma into a Doctrine of Sin, Grace, and Means of Grace on the basis of the Church. Page

CHAPTER 564 I.—Historical Situation Augustine the standard authority till the period of the Reformation Augustine and Western Christianity Augustine as Reformer of Christian Piety Augustine as teacher of the Church Augustine and Dogma Dogma in the Middle Ages The German and Roman Peoples and Dogma Method of Mediæval History of Dogma Division into Periods CHAPTER II.—Western Christianity and Western Theolog 551 ians before Augustine Tertullian as Founder of Western Christianity Elements of Tertullian’s Christianity as elements of Western Christianity as a whole Law (lex) Juristic element Syllogistic and Dialectical xiiPsychological Biblical and Practical Eschatology and Morality Cyprian’s importance The Roman Church 577 Revolution under Constantine: Origen’s theology and Monachism are imported into the West Græcised Western Theology and the Old Latin type enter into Augustine

3-13 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 9 12 14-60 14 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 25 27 29

The importance to Augustine of the Greek scholars Ambrose (p. 29) and Victorinus Rhetor The influence upon him of genuine Latins Of Cyprian The Donatist Controversy Optatus Ambrose as Latin Results of Pre-Augustinian development Doctrine of the Symbol Death of Christ Soteriology The Church Rome and Heathenism CHAPTER III.—Historical Position of Augustine as Reformer of Christian Piety General Characteristics Augustine’s new Christian self-criticism Pre-Augustinian and Augustinian Piety Sin and Grace the decisive factors in Augustine The changed tone of Piety Criticism of this Piety Four elements constituting the Catholic stamp o aa5 f Piety α Authority of Church for Faith β God and Means of Grace γ Faith, Forgiveness of Sins, and Merit δ Pessimistic view of Present State Concluding remarks

33 37 38 38 42 48 53 53 54 564 55 59 59 61-94 61 66 67 69 72 75 77 78 83 87 91 93

xiii

CHAPTER IV.—Historical Position of Augustine as Teacher of the Church The new Dogmatic Scheme The connection with the Symbol Discord between Symbol and Holy Scripture Discord between Scripture and the principle of Salvation Discord between Religion and Philosophy Discord between Doctrine of Grace and Ecclesiasticism Contradictions within these series of conceptions Impossibility of an Augustinian system Universal influence of Augustine

95-240 95 95 98 99 100 101 101 102 103

Method of presenting Augustinianism; Dogma and Augustine 1. Augustine’s Doctrines of the First and Last Things 54f Augustine’s Theology and Psychology (“Aristoteles Alter”) were born of Piety Dissolution of the ancient feeling Psychological and Neo-Platonic view of the soul The ethical views interwoven with this (God, world, soul, will, love) Influence of Christian ecclesiasticism [On reason, revelation, faith, and knowledge] Authority of Christ and Christology Final aims in the other and this world Concluding observation 2. 59c The Donatist Controversy. The Work: De civitate Dei. Doctrine of the Church and Means of Grace Introduction The Church as Doctrinal Authority Unity of the Church Its Holiness Catholicity Apostolicity and other attributes Church and Kingdom of God Word and Sacrament The Sacraments Lord’s Supper Baptism xivOrdination The Church as societas sacramentorum As a heavenly communion As primeval As communio fidelium As numerus electorum Closing observations 3. The Pelagian Controversy. Doctrine of Grace and Sin Augustine’s Doctrine before the controversy General characteristics of Augustinianism and Pelagianism, as of Pelagius, Cælestius, and Julian Origin and nature of Pelagianism

104 l06-140 106 108 111 113 124 125 125 134 138 140-168 140 143 144 146 149 149 151 155 156 158 159 ab8 161 163 164 164 165 166 167 168-221 168 168 172

§ 1. The outward course of the dispute Pelagius and Cælestius in Rome and Carthage Events in Palestine Events in North Africa and Rome Condemnation in Rome; Julian of Eclanum Final Stages § 2. The Pelagian Doctrine Agreement and differences between the leaders 56d The chief doctrines The separate doctrines in their degree of conformity to tradition § 3. The Augustinian doctrine The doctrine of grace, predestination, redemption, and justification Doctrine of sin, original sin, and the primitive state Criticism of Augustinianism 4. Augustine’s explanation of the Symbol (Enchiridion ad Laurentium). New system of religion Exposition of Article I. Article II. Article III. Criticism of this exposition; old and new system of religion CHAPTER V.—History of Dogma in the West down to the beginning of the Middle Ages, A.D. 430-604 Historical position xv1. Conflict between Semi-Pelagianism and Augustinianism The monks of Hadrumetum and in South Gaul, Cassian Prosper De vocatione gentium Liber Prædestinatus Faustus of Rhegium Decree de libris recipiendis The Scythian monks, Fulgentius, Hormisdas Cæsarius of Arles, Synods of Valencia and Orange Results 2. Gregory the Great General characteristics Superstition, Christology, Intercessions Doctrine of Sin and Grace

173 173 177 181 186 187 188 189 191 196 203 204 210 217 222240567 223 225 228 234 241-273 242 245-261 246 249acc 250 251 252 255 255 257 260 262-273 262 263 266

Merits, satisfactions, saints, relics, purgatory Penance Gregory’s position between Augustine and the Middle Ages CHAPTER VI.—History of Dogma in the period of the Carlovingian Renaissance The importance of the Carlovingian epoch in the History of Dogma and of the Church 1 The Adoptian Controversy a. Genesis of the problem Spanish affairs and the dispute in Spain. Teaching of Elipandus, Felix and Beatus is Augustinian Dispute 564 before the Frankish and Roman tribunals Alcuin’s teaching. Influence of Greek conception Connection with doctrine of the Lord’s Supper Result 1 Controversy about Predestination b. The monk Gottschalk Rabanus and Ratrainnus, his opponents Controversy among Frankish and Lothringian Bishops. Objective untruthfulness of Gottschalk’s opponents. Synod at Chiersey Synod at Valencia Synods at Savonieres and Toucy 562 xvi

The theory consonant to Church practice holds the field under Augustinian formulas 2. Dispute as to the filioque and about images The filioque, the Franks and the Pope Attitude of the Franks to images The libri Carolini and the self-consciousness of the Frankish Church. Synod of Frankfurt Later history of images 3. Development of theory and practice of the Mass (the Dogma of the Lord’s Supper) and of Penance The three causes of the development of theory of the Lord’s Supper in the West The controversy defartu virgins The Augustinian conception promoted by Beda checked by Alcuin Paschasius Radbertus Rabanus and Ratramnus

267 269 270 274-331 274 278-292 278 281 287 289 291 292 292-302 293 295 299 299 300 301 302-308 302 305 306 308 308331566 308 310 311 312 318

Ideas of the Mass as part of the institution of expiation Practice of Confession: α The notion of God at its root β Development of institution of penance from Roman Church and German premis 549 es, Influence of Monachism γ Defective theory δ Growth of satisfactions and indulgences

322 323 324 326 327

1

Second Part. DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL DOGMA.

SECOND BOOK. Expansion and Remodelling of Dogma into a Doctrine of Sin, Grace and means of Grace on the basis of the Church.

2

“Domini mors potentior erat quam vita .. . Lex Christianorum crux est sancta Christi.” ae3 —Pseudo-Cyprian. “Die Ehrfurcht vor dem, was unter uns ist, ist ein Letztes wozu die Menschheit gelangen konnte and musste. Aber was gehörte dazu, die Erde nicht allein unter sich liegen zu lassen and sich auf einen höheren Geburtsort zu berufen, sondern auch Niedrigkeit and Armuth, Spott and Verachtung, Schmach and Elend, Leiden and Tod als göttlich anzuerkennen, ja selbst Sünde and Verbrechen nicht als Hindernisse, sondern als Fördernisse des Heiligen zu verehren!” —Goethe.

3

CHAPTER I. HISTORICAL SITUATION.1 THE history of piety and of dogmas in the West was so thoroughly dominated by Augustine from the beginning of the fifth century to the era of the Reformation, that we must take this whole time as forming one period. It is indeed possible to doubt whether it is not correct to include also the succeeding period, since Augustinianism continued to exert its influence in the sixteenth century. But we are compelled to prefer the views that the Reformation had all the significance of a new movement, and that the revolt from Augustine was marked even in post-tridentine Catholicism, as well as, completely, in Socinianism.2 In this second Book of the second Section, therefore, we regard the history of dogma of the West from Augustine to the Reformation as one complete development, and then, in accordance with our definition of dogma and its history,3 we add the “final stages of dogma” in their triple form—Tridentine Catholicism, Socinianism, and Protestantism. 2. In order rightly to appreciate the part played by Augusti ac8 ne, it is necessary first (Chap. II.) to describe the distinctive character of Western Christianity and Western theologians 4anterior to his appearance. It will then appear that while the West was prepared to favour Augustinianism, those very elements that especially characterised Western Christianity—the juristic and moralistic—resisted the Augustinian type of thought in matters of faith. This fact at once foreshadows the later history of Augustinianism in the Church. 3. Augustine comes before us, in the first place, as a reformer of Christian piety, altering much that belonged to vulgar Catholicism, and carrying out monotheism strictly and thoroughly.

ac7 1Baur, Vorles. üb. die christl. D.-G., 2nd vol., 1866. Bach, Die Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters, 2 vols., 1873, 1875. Seeberg, Die Dogmengesch. des Mittelalters (Thomasius, Die christl. Dogmengesch, 2 Ed., 2 vol., Division I.) 1888. All begin in the period after Augustine, as also Schwane, D.-G. der mittleren, Zeit 1882. Loofs, Leitfaden der D.-G., 3 Ed., 1893. Seeberg, Lehrbuch d. D.-G., Division I., 1895. 2 The complete breach with Augustine is indeed marked neither by Luther nor Ignatius Loyola, but first by Leibnitz, Thomasius, and—the Probabilists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. 3 Vol. I., § 1.

He gave the central place to the living relation of the soul to God; he took religion out of the sphere of cosmology and the cultus, and demonstrated and cherished it in the domain of the deepest life of the soul. On the other hand, we will have to show that while establishing the sovereignty of faith over all that is natural, he did not surmount the old Catholic foundation of the theological mode of thought; further, that he was not completely convinced of the supremacy of the religious over the moral, of the personal state of faith over ecclesiasticism; and finally, that in his religious tendencies, as generally, he remained burdened by the rubbish of ecclesiastical tradition. (Chap. III.) 4. Augustine falls next to be considered as a Church teacher. The union of three great circles of thought, which he reconstructed and connected absolutely, assured him, along with the incomparable impression made by his inexhaustible personality, of a lasting influence. In the first place, he built up a complete circle of conceptions, which is marked by the categories, “God, the soul, alienation from God, irresistible grace, hunger for God, unrest in the world and rest in God, and felicity,” a circle in which we can easily demonstrate the co-operation of Neoplatonic and monastic Christian elements, but which is really so pure and simple that it can be taken as the fundamental form of monotheistic piety in general. Secondly, he gave expression to a group of ideas in which sin, grace through Christ, grace in general, faith, love, and hope form the main points; a Paulinism modified by popular Catholic elements. Thirdly, he constructed another group, in which the Catholic Church is regarded as authority, dispenser of grace, and administrator of the sacraments, and, further, as the means and aim of all God’s ordinances. 5Here he always constructed, along with a wealth of ideas, a profusion of schemes 560 not formulas; he refashioned Dogmatics proper, and, speaking generally, gave the first impulse to a study which, as an introduction to Dogmatics, has obtained such an immense importance for theology and Science since the Scholastics. 5. On the other hand, Augustine always felt that he was, as regards Dogma, an Epigone, and he submitted himself absolutely to the tradition of the Church. He was wanting in the vigorous energy in Church work shown, e.g., by Athanasius, and in the impulse to force upon the Church in fixed formulas the truths that possessed his soul. Consequently the result of his life-work on behalf of the Church can be described thus. (1) He established more securely in the West the ancient ecclesiastical tradition as authority and law. (2) He deepened and, comparatively speaking, Christianised the old religious tendency. (3) In the thought and life of the Church he substituted a plan of salvation, along with an

appropriate doctrine of the sacraments, for the old dogma4 and the cultus 568 , and instilled into heart and feeling the fundamental conception of his Christianity that divine grace was the beginning, middle, and end; but he himself sought to harmonise the conception with popular Catholicism, and he expressed this in formulas which, because they were not fixed and definite, admitted of still further concessions to traditional views. In a word, he failed to establish without admixture the new and higher religious style in which he constructed theology. Therefore the ancient Greek dogma which aimed at deification, as well as the old Roman conception of religion as a legal relationship, could maintain their ground side by side with it. Precisely in the best of his gifts to the Church, Augustine gave it impulses and problems, but not a solid capital. Along with this he transmitted to posterity a profusion of ideas, conceptions, and views which, 6unsatisfactorily harmonised by himself, produced great friction, living movements, and, finally, violent controversies. 6. As at the beginning of the history of the Latin Church Cyprian followed Tertullian, and stamped the character of ancient Latin Christianity, so Gregory the Great succeeded Augustine, and gave expression to the mediæval character of Latin Christianity, a form which, under Augustinian form 564 ulas, often differs in whole and in details from Augustine. Dogma remains almost throughout, in the Middle Ages, the complex of Trinitarian and Christological doctrines which was handed down with the Symbol. But, besides this, an immense series of theological conceptions, of church regulations and statutes, already possessed a quasidogmatic authority. Yet, in acute cases, he could alone be expelled as a heretic who could be convicted of disbelieving one of the twelve articles of the Symbol, or of sharing in the doctrines of heretics already rejected, i.e., of Pelagians, Donatists, etc. Thus it remained up to the time of the Reformation, although the doctrines of the Church—the Pope, and the sacraments, the ecclesiastical sacrament of penance, and the doctrine of transubstantiation— claimed almost dogmatic authority, though only by being artificially connected with the Symbol.

4

The ancient dogma has thus formed building material in the West since Augustine. It has been deprived—at least in the most important respect—of its ancient purpose, and serves new ones. The stones hewn for a temple, and once constructed into a temple, now serve for the building of a cathedral. Or perhaps the figure is more appropriate that the old temple expanded into a cathedral, and wonderfully transformed, is yet perceptible in the cathedral.

7. The consolidation of the ecclesiastical and dogmatic system into a legal order, in harmony with the genius of Western Christianity, was almost rendered perfect by the political history of the Church in the period of the tribal migrations. The Germans who entered the circle of the Church, and partly became fused with the Latins, partly, but under the leadership of Rome, remained independent, received Christianity in i 564 ts ecclesiastical form, as something absolutely complete. Therefore, setting aside the Chauvinistic contention that the Germans were predisposed to Christianity,5 no independent theological movement took place for centuries on purely German soil. No German Christianity existed in the Middle Ages in the sense that there was a Jewish, Greek, or Latin form.6 Even if the 7Germans may have attempted to make themselves more thoroughly familiar with Latin Christianity, as e.g., the Slays did with the Greek—we may recall the old Saxon harmony of the Gospels, etc.—7 yet there was a complete absence of any indepen 564 dence in consciously appropriating it, up to the settlement of the Begging orders in Germany, properly speaking, indeed, up to the Reformation. Complaints of Papal oppressions, or of external ceremonies, cannot be introduced into this question. The complainers were themselves Roman Christians, and the never-failing sectaries paid homage, not to a “German” Christianity, but to a form of Church which was also imported. If up to the thirteenth century there existed in Germany no independent theology or science, still less was there any movement in the history of dogma.8 But as soon as Germans, in Germany and England, took up an independent part in the inner movement of the Church, they prepared the way, supported indeed by Augustine, for the Reformation. The case was different on Roman territory. We need not, of course, look at Italy, for the land of the Popes steadily maintained its characteristic indifference to all theology as theology. Apocalyptic, socialistic, and revolutionary movements

5

Seeberg, (Dogmengesch. des Mittelalters, p. 3), has repeated it. 56c 6Even the influence, which some have very recently sought to demonstrate, of German character on the formation of a few mediæval theologumena is at least doubtful (against Cremer). Die Wurzeln des Anselm’schen Satisfactions-begriffs in the Theol. Stud. u. Kritik., 1880, p. 7 ff., 1893, p. 316 ff., and Seeberg, l.c. p. 123. Fuller details in I., ch. 7, Sect. 4. 7 It was to the advantage, here and there, of simple piety that it had not co-operated in the construction of the Church. 8 Nitzsch, Deutsch ac8 e Gesch., II., p. 15: “(Up to the middle of the eleventh century) the task of administering property was more important to the German Church than the political and dogmatic debates of the neighbouring French hierarchy.” See also Döllinger Akad. Vorträge, vol. II., Lecture 1, at beginning.

were not wanting; Hippocrates and Justinian were studied; but the ideals of thinkers seldom interested Italians, and th 564 ey hardly ever troubled themselves about a dogma, if it was nothing more. Spain, also, very soon passed out of the intellectual movement, into which, besides, it had never thrown any energy. For eight centuries it was set the immense practical task of protecting Christendom from Islam: in this war it transformed the law of the Catholic religion into a military discipline. The Spanish history of dogma has been a blank since the days of Bishop Elipandus. 8

Thus France alone remains. In so far as the Middle Ages, down to the thirteenth century, possessed any dogmatic history, it was to a very large extent Frankish or French.9 Gaul had been the land of culture among Latin countries as early as the fourth and fifth centuries. ’Mid the storms of the tribal migrations, culture maintained its ground longest in Southern Gaul, and after a short epoch of barbarism, during which civilisation seemed to have died out everywhere on the Continent, and England appeared to have obtained the leadership, France under the Carlovingians—of course, France all 564 ied with Rome through Boniface—came again to the front. There it remained, but with its centre of gravity in the North, between the Seine and the Rhine. Paris was for centuries only second to Rome, as formerly Alexandria and Carthage had been.10 The imperial crown passed to the Germans; the real ruler of the world sat at Rome; but the “studium”—in every sense of the term—belonged to the French. Strictly speaking, even in France, there was no history of dogma in the Middle Ages. If the Reformation had not taken place, we would have been as little aware of any mediæval history of dogma in the West as in the East; for the theological and ecclesiastical movements of the Middle Ages, which by no means professed to be new dogmatic efforts, only claim to be received into the history of dogma because they ended in the dogmas of Trent on the one hand, and in the symbols of the Reformed Churches and Socinian Rationalism on the other. The whole of the Middle Ages presents itself in the sphere of dogmatic history as a transition period, the period when the Chur 564 ch was fixing its relationship to Augustine, and the numerous impulses originated by him. This period lasted so long,

9

See the correct opinion of Jordanus of Osnabrück (about 1285) that the Romans had received the sacerdotium, the Germans the imperium, the French the studium (Lorenz, Geschichtsquellen, 2 ed., vol. II., p. 296). 10 See on the importance of North-Eastern France, Sohm in the Ztschr. d. SavignyStiftung. German Division I., p 3 ff., and Schrörs, Hinkmar, p. 3 f. On Rome and Paris see Reuter, Gesch. d. Aufkl. I., p. 181.

(1) because centuries had to elapse before Augustine found disciples worthy of him, and men were in a position even to understand the chain of ecclesiastical and theological edicts 9handed down from antiquity; (2) because the Roman genius of the Western Church and the Augustinian spirit were in part illassorted, and it was therefore a huge task to harmonise them; and (3) because at the time when complete power had been gained for the independent study of Church doctrine and Augustine, a new authority, in many respects more congenial to the spirit of the Church, appeared on the scene, viz., Augustine’s powerful rival,11 Aristotle. The Roman genius, the superstition which, descending from the closing period of antiquity, was strengthened in barbarous times, Augustine, and Aristotle—these are the four powers which contended for their interpretation of the gospel in the history of dogma in the Middle Ages. 8. The M 564 iddle Ages experienced no dogmatic decisions like those of Nicaea or Chalcedon. After the condemnation of Pelagians and Semipelagians, Monothelites, and Adoptians, the dogmatic circle was closed. The actions in the Carlovingian age against images, and against Ratramnus and Gottschalk were really of slight importance, and in the fights with later heretics, so many of whom disturbed the mediæval Church, old weapons were used, new ones being in fact unnecessary. The task of the historian of dogma is here, therefore, very difficult. In order to know what he ought to describe, to be as just to ancient dogma in its continued influence as to the new quasi-dogmatic Christianity in whose midst men lived, he must fix his eyes on the beginning, Augustine, and the close, the sixteenth century. Nothing belongs to the history of dogma which does not serve to explain this final stage, and even then only on its dogmatic side, and this again may be portrayed only in so far as it prepared the way for the framing of new doctrines, or the official revision of the ancient dogmas. If my view is right, there are three lines to which we have to turn our attention. In the first place we must examine the history of piety, in so far as new tendencies were formed in it, based on, or existing side by side with Augustiniani 564 sm; for the piety which was determined by other influences led also to the 10construction of other dogmatic formulas. But the history of piety in the Middle Ages is the history of monachism.12 We may therefore conjecture

11

The derisive title of Augustine—“Aristoteles Pœnorum”—was prophetic. He got this name from Julian of Eclanum, Aug. Op. imperf., III., 199. 12 See Ritschl, Gesch. des Pietismus, vol. I., p. 7 ff., and my Vortrag über das Monchthum, 3 ed.

that if monachism really passed through a history in the Middle Ages, and not merely endless repetitions, it cannot be indifferent for the history of dogma. As a matter of fact, it will be shown that Bernard and Francis were also doctrinal Fathers. We may here point at once to the fact that Augustine, at least apparently, reveals a hiatus in his theology as dominated by piety; he was able to say little concerning the work of Christ in connection with his system of doctrine, and his impassioned love of God was not clearly connected in theory with the impression made by Christ’s death, or with Christ’s “work.” What a transformation, what an access of fervour, Augustinianism had to experience, when impassioned love to the Eternal and Holy One found its object in the Crucified, when it invested with heavenly glory, and referred to the sinful soul, all traits o ac8 f the beaten, wounded, and dying One, when it began to reflect on the infinite “merits” of its Saviour, because the most profound of thoughts had dawned upon it, that the suffering of the innocent was salvation in history! Dogma could not remain unaffected by what it now found to contemplate and experience in the “crucified” Saviour of Bernard, the “poor” Saviour of Francis.13 We may say briefly that, by the agency of the mediæval religious virtuosi and theologians, the close connection between God, the “work” of Christ, and salvation was ultimately restored in the Tridentine and ancient Lutheran dogma. The Greek Church had maintained and still maintains it; but Augustine had loosened it, because his great task was to show what God is, and what salvation the soul requires. In the second place, we have to take the doctrine of the Sacraments into consideration; for great as were the impulses 11given here also by Augustine, yet everything was incomplete which he transmitted to the Church. But the Church as an institution and training-school required the sacraments above all, and in its adherence to Augustine it was precisely his sacramental doctrine, and the conception connected therewith of gradual justification, of which it laid hold. We shall have to show how the Church developed this down to the sixteenth century, how it idealised itself in the sacraments, and fashioned them into being its peculiar agencies. In the third place, we have to pursue a line which is marked for us by the names of Augustine and Aristotle— fides and ratio, auctoritas and ratio intelligentia and ratio. To investigate this thoroughly would be to write the history of

13

Bernard prepared the way for transforming the Neoplatonic exercitium of the contemplation of the All and the Deity into methodical reflection on the sufferings of Ch ac8 rist. Gilbert says: “Dilectus meus, inquit sponsa, candidus et rubicundus. In hoc nobis et candet veritas et rubet caritas.”

mediæval science in general. Here, therefore, we have only to examine it, in so far as there were developed in it the same manifold fashioning of theological thought, and those fundamental views which passed into the formulas, and at the same time into the contents of the doctrinal creations, of the sixteenth century, and which ultimately almost put an end to dogma in the original sense of the term. But we have also to include under the heading “Augustine and Aristotle” the opposition between the doctrine of t 54e he enslaved will and free grace and that of free will and merit. The latter shattered Augustinianism within Catholicism. We cannot trace any dogma regarding the Church in the Middle Ages until the end of the thirteenth century, but this is only because the Church was the foundation and the latent co-efficient of all spiritual and theological movement.14 Our account has to make this significance of the Church explicit, and in doing so to examine the growth of papal power; for in the sixteenth century the claim of the Pope was in dispute. On this point the Western Church was split up. But further, Augustine had given a central place to the question of the personal position of the Christian, confusing it, however, by uncertain references to the Church and to the medicinal effect of 12the means of grace. And the mediæval movement, in proportion as the Church and the sacraments came to the front without any diminution of the longing for an independent faith, 57a 1 was led to the question of personal assurance. On this point also—justification—the Western Church was rent asunder.16 Thus an account of the history of dogma in the Middle Ages will only be complete if it can show how the questions as to the power of the Church (of the Pope, the importance of the Mass and sacraments) and justification came to the front, and how in these questions the old dogma, not indeed outwardly, but really, perished. In Tridentine Catholicism it now became completely,

14

The opposition to a sacerdotal Church which existed at all times, and was already strong in the thirteenth century, left no lasting traces down to the fourteenth. In this century movements began on the soil of Catholicism which led to new forms of the conception of the Church and compelled it to fix definitively its own. 15 In the Middle Ages every advance in the development of the authority and power of the Church was accompanied by the growing impression that the Church was corrupt. This impression led to the suspicion that it had become Babylon, and to despair of its improvement. 16 On this most important point the schism went beyond Augustine; for in the Middle Ages, as regards the ground and assurance of faith, Augustine of the Confessions and doctrine of predestination was played off against Augustine the apologist of the Catholic Church. Luther, however, abandoned both alike, and followed a view which can be shown to exist in Augustine and in the Middle Ages at most in a hidden undercurrent.

along with its new portions, a body of law; in Protestantism it was still retained only in as far as it showed itself, when compared with the Divine Word, to express the Gospel, to form a bond with the historical past, or to serve as the basis of personal assurance of salvation. There can be no doubt about the division into periods. After an introduction on Western Christianity and Theology before Augustine, Augustiniani 564 sm falls to be described. Then we have to discuss the epochs of (1) the Semipelagian controversies and Gregory I.; (2) the Carlovingian Renaissance; (3) the period of Clugny and Bernard (the eleventh and twelfth centuries); and (4) the period of the mendicant orders, as also of the so-called Reformers before the Reformation, i.e., of revived Augustinianism (thirteenth and fifteenth centuries). The Middle Ages only reached their climax after the beginning of the thirteenth century and, having grown spiritually equal to the material received from the ancient Church, then developed all individual energies and conceptions. But then at once began the crises which led to the 13Renaissance and Humanism, to the Reformation, Socinianism and Tridentine Catholicism. It is, therefore, impossible to delimit two periods within the thirteenth to the fifteenth century; for Scholasticism and Mysticism, the development of the authoritative, Nominalist, dogmatics, and the attempts to form new doctrines, are all interwoven. Reformation and Counter-reformation have a common root.

14

CHAPTER II. WESTERN CHRISTIANITY AND WESTERN THEOLOGIANS BEFORE AU 563 GUSTINE. THE distinctive character of Western Christianity has been frequently referred to in our earlier volumes. We may now, before taking up Augustine and the Church influenced by him, appropriately review and describe the Christianity into which he entered, and on which he conferred an extraordinarily prolonged existence and new vital energies by the peculiar form and training to which he subjected it. It was the Roman Church that transmitted Christianity to the Middle Ages. But it might almost be named the Augustinian-Gregorian17 with as much justice as that of the Augsburg Confession is called the Lutheran. If, however, we ascend the history of the Latin Church to as near its origin as we can, we find ourselves confronted by a man in whom the character and the future of this Church were already announced, viz., Tertullian. Tertullian and Augustine are the Fathers of the Latin Church in so eminent a sense that, measured by them, the East possessed no Church Fathers at all. 55b 18 The only one to rival them, Origen, exerted his influence in a more limited sphere. Eminently ecclesiastical as his activity was, his Christianity was not really ecclesiastical, but esoteric. His development and the import of his personal life were almost without significance for the mass; he continued to live in his books and among theologians. But with Tertullian and Augustine 15it was different. It is true that only a fraction of Tertullian’s teaching was retained, that he was tolerated by posterity only in Cyprian’s reduced version, and that Augustine became more and more a source of uneasiness to, and was secretly opposed by, his Church. Yet both passed into the history of the Western Catholic Church with their personality, with the characteristics of their Christian thought and feeling. The frictions and unresolved dissonances, in which they wore themselves out, were transmitted to the future as

17

After Gregory I. Möhler says very justly, from the Catholic standpoint (Patrologie, p. 737): “We are often surprised for a moment, and forget that in Tertullian we have before us a writer of the beginning of the third century, we feel so mush at home in reading the language, often very familiar to us, in which he discusses difficult questions concerning dogmatics, morals, or even the ritual of the Church.” 18

well as the concords they sounded, and the problems, which they could not master in their own inner experience, became the themes of world-historical spiritual conflicts. 56e 19 We can exhibit the superiority of Western to Eastern Christianity at many points; we can even state a whole series of causes for this superiority; but one of the most outstanding is the fact that while the East was influenced by a commonplace succession of theologians and monks, the West was moulded by Tertullian and Augustine. Roman Christianity, still (c. 180) essentially Greek in form, but already with important features of its own,20 had won the Great African to its service.21 It had already transmitted to him Latin translations of Biblical books; but on this foundation Tertullian laboured, creating both 527 thought and language, because he was able thoroughly to assimilate the new faith, and to express his whole individuality in it.22 In doing so he adopted all the elements which tradition offered him. First, as a Christian Churchman, he took up the old enthusiastic and rigorous, as well as the new anti-heretical, faith. He sought to represent both, and in his sovereign law to verify the strict lex of the ancient disciplina, founded on eschatological 16hopes, and allied with unrestrained pneumatic dogmatics, and also the strict lex of the new rule of faith, which seemed ancient, because the heretics were undoubtedly innovators. He sought to be a disciple of the prophets and an obedient son of his Episcopal teachers. While he spent his strength in the fruitless attempt to unite them, b05 23 he left both forces as an inheritance to the Church of the West. If the history of that Church down to the sixteenth century exhibits a conflict between orthodox clerical and enthusiastic, between biblical and pneumatic elements, if monachism here was constantly in danger of running into apocalyptics and enthusiasm, and of forming an opposition to the Episcopal and world-Church, all that is foreshadowed in Tertullian.

19

Ultimately men were content, indeed, with preserving the inconsistencies, treating them as problems of the schools, and ceasing to attempt to solve them; for time makes even self-contradictions tolerable, and indeed to some extent hallows them. 20 See the 1 Ep. of Clement, also the tractate on The Players, and the testimonies of Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth and others as to the old Roman Church. 21 De præscr. 36: “Si Italiæ adjaces habes Romam, unde nobis auctoritas quoque praesto est.” 22 On Church Latin, see Koffmane’s work, which contains much that is valuable, Gesch. des Kirchenlateins, 1879-1881. 23 See our expositions of this in Vol. II., p. 67 ff., 108 ff., 128 f., 311 aa4 f.

A further element, which here comes before us, is the juristic. We know that jurisprudence and legal thought held the chief place in mediæval philosophy, theology, and ethics.24 Post-apostolic Greek Christians had, indeed, already put Christianity forward as the “law,” and the Roman community may have cultivated this view with peculiar energy;25 but in and by itself this term is capable of so many meanings as to be almost neutral. Yet through the agency of Tertullian, by his earlier profession a lawyer, all Christian forms received a legal impress. He not only transferred the technical terms of the jurists into the ecclesiastical language of the West, but he also contemplated, from a legal standpoint, all relations of the individual and the Church to the Deity, and vice versâ, all duties and rights, the 17moral imperative as well as the actions of God and Christ, nay, their mutual relationship. He who was so passionate and fanciful seemed never to be thoroughly satisfied until he had found the scheme of a legal relationship which he could proclaim as an inviolable authority; he never felt secure until he had demonstrated inner compulsions to be external demands, exuberant promises to be stipulated rewards. But with this the scheme of personal rights was applied almost universally. God appears as the mighty partner who watches jealously over his rights. Through Tertullian this tendency passed into the Western Church, which, being Roman, was disposed to favour it; there it operated in the most prejudicial way. If we grant that by it much that was ac4 valuable was preserved, and juristic thought did contribute to the understanding of some, not indeed the most precious, Pauline conceptions, yet, on the whole, religious reflection was led into a false channel, the ideas of satisfaction and merit becoming of the highest importance, and the separation of Western from primitive and Eastern Christianity was promoted.26

24

See v. Schulte, Gesch. der Quellen and Lit. d. kanonischen Rechts, Vol. I., pp. 92103, Vol. II., p. 512 f. Also his Gedanken über Aufgabe and Reform d. jurist. Studiums, 1881: “The science of law was in practice the leading factor in Church and State from the twelfth century.” That it is so still may, to save many words, be confirmed by a testimony of Döllinger’s. In a memorable speech on Phillips he says, (Akad. Vorträge, Vol. II., p. 185 f.): “Frequent intercourse with the two closely-allied converts, Iarcke and Phillips, showed me how an ultramontane and papistical conception of the Christian religion was especially suggested and favoured by legal culture and mode of thought, which was dominated, even in the case of German specialists like Phillips, not by ancient German, but Roman legal ideas.” 25 On the designation of Holy Scripture as “lex” in the West, see Zahn, Gesch. d. neutestamentlichen Kanous, I. 1, p. 95 f. 26 Consider, e.g., a sentence like this of Cyprian De unit. 15: “Justitia opus est, ut promereri quis possit deum judicem.”

Another element is closely connected with the legal, viz., the syllogistic and dialetical. Tertullian has been extolled as a speculative theologian; but this is wrong. Speculation was not his forte; we perceive this very plainly when we look at his relation to Irenaeus. Notice how much he has borrowed from this predecessor of his, and how carefully he has avoided, in doing so, his most profound speculations! Tertullian was a Sophist in the good and bad sense of the term. He was in his element in Aristotelian and Stoic dialectics; in his syllogisms he is a philosophising advocate. But in this also he was the pioneer of his Church, whose theologians have always reasoned more than they have philosophised. The manner in which he rings the changes on auctoritas and ratio, or combines them, and spins lines of thought out of them; the formal treatment of problems, meant to supply the place of one dealing with the matter, until it ultimately loses sight of aim and object, and falls a prey to the delusion that the certainty of the conclusion 18guarantees the certainty of the premises—this whole method only too well known from mediæval Scholasticism, had its originator in Tertullian.27 In the classical period of eastern

27

A series of legal schemes framed by Tertullian for his dogmatics and ethics have been given in Vol. II., 279 f., 294 f., Vol. IV. pp. 110, 121. In addition to his speculation on substantia, persona, and 588 status, the categories offendere, satisfacere, promereri, acceptare, and rependere, etc., play the chief part in his system. Most closely connected with the legal contemplation of problems is the abstract reference to authority; for one does not obey a law because he finds it to be good and just, but because it is law. (Tertullian, indeed, knows very well, when defending himself against heathen insinuations, that the above dictum is not sufficient in the sphere of religion and morals, see e.g., Apolog. 4.) This attitude of Tertullian, led up to by his dialectical procedure and his alternations between auctoritas and ratio, produces in many passages the impression that we are listening to a mediæval Catholic. In regard to the alternation above described, the work De corona is especially characteristic; but so is Adv. Marc. I., 23 f. He writes, De pænit. 4: “Nos pro nostris angustiis unum inculcamus, bonum atque optimum esse quod deus præcipit. Audaciam existimo de bono divini præcepti disp ac8 utare. Neque enim quia bonum est, idcirco auscultare debemus, sed quia deus præcepit. Ad exhibitionem obsequii prior est majestas divinæ potestatis, prior est auctoritas imperantis quam utilitas servientis.” (Compare Scorp. 2, 3; De fuga, 4; De cor. 2.) But the same theologian writes, De pæn. 1: “Res dei ratio, quia deus nihil non ratione providit, nihil non ratione tractari intellegique voluit.” The work De pænit. is in general peculiarly fitted to initiate us into Tertullian’s style of thought. I shall in the sequel pick out the most important points, and furnish parallels from his other writings. Be it noticed first that the work emphasises the three parts, vera poenitentia (deflere, metus dei), confessio and satisfactio, and then adds the venia on the part of the effensus deus. In chap. II. we already meet with the expression “merita pænitentiæ.” There we read: “ratio salutis certam formam tenet, ne bonis umquam factis cogitatisve quasi violenta aliqua manus

injiciatur. Deus enim reprobationem bonorum ratam non habens, utpote suorum, quorum cum auctor et defensor sit necesse est, proinde et acceptator, si acceptator etiam remunerator bonum factum deum habet debitorem, sicuti et malum, quia judex omnis remunerator est causæ.” (De orat. 7: “pænitentia demonstratur acceptabilis deo;” we have also “commendatior”). Chap. III.; “Admissus ad dominica præcepta ex ipsis statim eruditur, id peccato deputandum, a quo deus arceat.” (The distinction between præcepta and consilia dominica is familiar in Tertullian; see Ad. uxor. II. 1; De coron. 4; Adv. Marc. II. 17. In Adv. Marc. I. 29, he says that we may not reject marriage altogether, because if we did there would be no meritorious sanctity. In Adv. Marc. I. 23, the distinction is drawn between “debita⍊52a and “indebita bonitas”). Chap. III.: as “Voluntas facti origo est;” a disquisition follows on velle, concupiscere, perficere. Chap. V.: “Ita qui per delictorum pænitentiam instituerat dominus satisfacere, diabolo per aliæ pænitentié pænitentiam satisfaciet, eritque tanto magis perosus deo, quanto æmulo ejus acceptus.” (See De orat. 11; “fratri satisfacere,” 18; “disciplinæ satisfacere,” 23; “satisfacimus deo domino nostro”; De jejun. 3; De pud. 9, 13; De pat. 10, 13, etc., etc.: “peccator patri satisfacit,” namely, through his penances; see De pud. 13: “hic jam carnis interitum in officium pænitentiæ interpretantur, quod videatur jejuniis et sordibus et incuria omni et dedita opera malæ tractationis carnem exterminando satis deo facere”). In ch. V. it is explained quite in the Catholic manner that 58f timor is the fundamental form of the religious relation. Here, as in countless other passages, the “deus offenses” moves Tertullian’s soul (see De pat. 5: “hinc deus irasci exorsus, unde offendere homo inductus.”) Fear dominates the whole of penitence. (De pænit. 6: “metus est instrumentum pænitentiæ.” In general “offendere deum” and “satisfacere deo” are the proper technical terms; see De pæn. 7: “offendisti, sed reconciliari adhuc potes; habes cui satisfacias et quidem volentem.” Ch. X.: “intolerandum scilicet pudori, domino offenso satisfacere.” Ch. XI.: “castigationem victus atque cultus offenso domino præstare.” Along with satisfacere we have “deum iratum, indignatum mitigare, placare, reconciliare.” Ch. VI: “omnes salutis inpromerendo deo petitores sumus.” Compare with this “ ad7 promereri deum” Scorp. 6: “quomodo multæ mansiones apud patrem, si non pro varietate meritorum . . . porro et si fidei propterea congruebat sublimitati et claritatis aliqua prolatio, tale quid esse opportuerat illud emolumenti, quod magno constaret labore, cruciatu, tormento, morte . . . eadem pretia quæ et merces.” De orat. 2: “meritum fidei.” 3: “nos angelorum, si meruimus, candidati”; 4: “merita cujusque.” De pænit. 6: “catechumenus mereri cupit baptismum, timet adhuc delinquere, ne non mereretur accipere.” De pat. 4: “artificium promerendi obsequium est, obsequii vero disciplina morigera subjectio est.” De virg. vel., 13: “deus justus est ad remuneranda quæ soli sibi fiunt.” De exhort. 1: “nemo indulgentia dei utendo promeretur, sed voluntati obsequendo;” 2: “deus quæ vult præcipit et accepto facit et æternitatis mercede dispungit.” De pud. 10: “pænitentiam deo immolare . . . magis merebitur fructum pænitentiæ qui nondum ea usus est quam qui jam et abusus est.” De jejun. 3: “ratio promerendi deum” [jejunium iratum deum homini reconciliat, ch. VII.]; 13: “ultro officium facere deo.” How familiar and important in general is to Tertullian the thought of performing a service, a favour to God, or of furnishing him with a spectacle! He indeed describes as a heathen idea (Apolog. 11) the sentence: “conlatio divinitatis

meritorum remunerandorum fuit ratio”; but he himself comes very near it; thus he says (De exhortat. 10): “per continentiam negotiaberis magnam substantiam sanctitatis, parsimonia carnis spiritum acquires.” He sternly reproves, Scorp. 15, the saying of the “Lax”: Christus non vicem passionis sitit; he himself says (De pat. 16): “rependamus Christi patientiam, quam pro nobis ipse dependit.” De pænit. 6: “Quam porro ineptum, quam pænitent 564 iam non adimplere, ei veniam delictorum sustinere? Hoc est pretium non exhibere, ad mercem manum emittere. Hoc enim pretio dominus veniam addicere instituit; hac pænitentiæ compensatione redimendam proponit impunitatem,” (see Scorp. 6: “nulli compensatio invidiosa est, in qua aut gratiæ aut injuriæ communis est ratio”). In Ch. VI. Tertullian uses “imputare,” and this word is not rarely found along with “reputare”; in Ch. VII. we have “indulgentia” (indulgere), and these terms are met somewhat frequently; so also “restituere” (ch. VII. 12: “restitutio peccatoris”). De pat. 8: “tantum relevat confessio delictorum, quantum dissimulatio exaggerat; confessio omni satisfactionis consilium est.” Further, ch. IX.: “Hujus igitur pænitentiæ secundæ et unius quanto in arte negotium est, tanto operosior probatio (that sounds quite mediæval), ut non sola conscientia præferatur, sed ac8 aliquo etiam actu administretur. Is actus, qui magis Græco vocabulo exprimitur et frequentatur, exomologesis est, qua delictum domino nostro confitemur, non quidem ut ignaro, sed quatenus satisfactio confessione disponitur, confessione pænitentia nascitur, pænitentia deus mitigator. Concerning this exhomologesis, this tearful confession, he goes on: “commendat pænitentiam deo et temporali afflictatione æterna supplicia non dicam frustratur sed expungit.” (“Commendare” as used above is common, see e.g., De virg. vel. 14, and De pat. 13: “patientia corporis [penances] precationes commendat, deprecationes affirmat; hæc aures Christi aperit, clementiam elicit.”). The conception is also distinctly expressed by Tertullian that in the ceremony of penance the Church completely represents Christ himself, see ch. X.: “in uno et altero ecclesia est, ecclesia vero Christus. Ergo cum te ad fratrum genua protendis, Christum contrectas, Christum exoras.” De pudic. 10, shows how he really bases pardon solely on the “cessatio delicti”; “etsi venia est pænitentiæ fructus, hanc quoque consistere non licet sine cessatione delicti. Ita cessatio delicti radix est veniæ ut venia sit pænitentiæ fructus.” Further ch. II.: “omne delictum aut venia dispungit aut poena, venia ex castigatione, poena ex damnatione”; but “satisfactio” is implied in the “castigatio.” In De pudic. 1 the notorious lax edict of Calixtus is called “liberalitas” (venia) i.e., “indulgence.” Let us further recall some formulas which are pertinent here. Thus we have the often-used figure of the “militia Christi,” and the regimental oath—sacramentum. So also the extremely characteristic alternation between “gratia” and “voluntas humana,” most clearly given in De exhort. 2: “non est bonæ et solidæ fidei sic omnia ad voluntatem dei referre et ita adulari unum quemque dicendo nihil fieri sine nutu ejus, ut non intel 564 legamus, esse aliquid in nobis ipsis. . . . Non debemus quod nostro expositum est arbitrio in domini referre voluntatem”; Ad uxor. 1, 8: “quædam enim sunt divinæ liberalitatis, quædam nostræ operationis.” Then we have the remarkable attempt to distinguish two wills in God, one manifest and one hidden, and to identify these with præcepta and consilia, in order ultimately to establish the “hidden” or “higher” alone. De exhort. 2 f.: “cum solum sit in nobis velle, et in hoc probatur nostra erga deum mens, an ea velimus quæ cum voluntate ipsius faciunt, alte et impresse

19theology

men did not stop at auctoritas and ratio; they sought to reach the inner convincing phases of authority, and understood by ratio the reason determined by the conception of the matter 540 20in question. In the West, auctoritas and ratio stood for a very long time side by side without their relations being fixed—see the mediæval theologians from Cassian—and the speculation introduced by Augustine was ultimately once more eliminated, 21as is proved by the triumph of Nominalism. Stoic, or “Aristotelian” rationalism, united with the recognition of empirical authority under cover of Augustinian religious formulas, remained the characteristic of Roman Catholic dogmatics and morality.28 But the Western type of thought possessed, besides this, an element in which it was considerably superior to the Eastern, the psychological view. The importance due to Augustine in this respect has been better perceived in recent years, and we may look for better results as regards the share of Scholasticism in the development of modern psychology. 58c 29 In Augustine himself Stoic rationalism was thrust strongly into the background by his supreme effort to establish the psychology of the moral and immoral, the pious and impious on the basis of actual observation. His greatness as a scientific theologian is found essentially in the psychological element. But that also is first indicated in Tertullian. As a moralist he indeed follows, so far as he is a philosopher, the dogmatism of the Stoa; but Stoic physics could lead into an empirical psychology. In this respect Tertullian’s great writing,

recogitandum esse dico dei voluntatem, quid etiam in occulto velit. Quæ enim in manifesto scimus omnes.” Now follows an exposition on the two wills in God, the higher, hidden, and proper one, and the lower: “Deus ostendens quid magis velit, minorem voluntatem majore delevit. Quantoque notitiæ tuæ utrumque proposuit, tanto definiit, id te sectari debere quod declaravit se magis velle. Ergo si ideo declaravit, ut id secteris quod magis vult, sine dubio, nisi ita facis, contra voluntatem ejus sapis, sapiendo contra potiorem ej ab4 us voluntatem, magisque offendis quam promereris, quod vult quidem faciendo et quod mavult respuendo. Ex parte delinquis; ex parte, si non delinquis, non tamen promereris. Non porro et promereri nolle delinquere est? Secundum igitur matrimonium, si est ex illa dei voluntate quæ indulgentia vocatur, etc., etc.” On the other hand, see the sharp distinction between sins of ignorance (“natural sins”) and sins of “conscientia et voluntas, ubi et culpa sapit et gratia,” De pud. 10. 28 Augustine has also employed both notions in countless places since the writings De Ordine (see II. 26: ad discendum necessarie dupliciter ducimur, auctoritate atque ratione) and De vera religione (45: animae medicina distribuitur in auctoritatem atque rationem). 29 See Kahl, Die Lehre vom Primat des Willens bei Augustin, Duns Scotus and Descartes 1886, as also the works of Siebeck; cf. his treatise “Die Anfänge der neueren Psychologie in der Scholastik” in the Ztschr. f. Philos. u. philosoph. Kritik. New series. 93 Vol., p. 161 ff., and Dilthey’s Einl. in d. Geisteswiss. Vol. I.

“De anima,” is an extremely important achievement. It contains germs of insight and aspirations which developed afterwards; and another Western before Augustine, Arnobius, also did better work in grasping problems psychologically than the great theologians of the East.30 This 22side of Western theology undoubtedly continued weak before Au ab6 gustine, because the eclecticism and moralism to which Cicero had especially given currency held the upper hand through the reading of his works.31 Finally, still another element falls to be mentioned which distinguishes the features of Western Christianity from the Eastern, but which it is hard to summarise in one word. Many have spoken of its more practical attitude. But in the East, Christianity received as practical a form as people there required. What is meant is connected with the absence of the speculative tendency in the West. To this is to be attributed the fact that the West did not fix its attention above all on deification, nor, in consequence, on asceticism, but kept real life more distinctly in view; it therefore obtained to a greater extent from the gospel what could rule and correct that life. Thus Western Christianity appears to us from the first more popular and biblical, as well as more ecclesiastical. It may be that this impression is chiefly due to our descent from the Christianity in question, and that we can never therefore convey it to a Greek32; but it is undeniable that as the Latin idiom of the Church was from its origin more popular than the Greek, which always retained something hieratic about it, so the West succeeded to a greater extent in giving effect to the words of the gospel. For both of these facts we have to refer again to Tertullian. He had the gift, granted to few Christian writers, of writing attractively, both for theologians and laymen. His style, popular and fresh, must have been extremely effective. On the other hand, he was able, in writings like De patientia, De oratione, De pænitentia, or De

30

See Franke, Die Psychologie and Erkenntnisslehre des Arnobius, 1878, in which the empiricism and criticism of this eclectic theologian are rightly emphasised. The perception that Arnobius was not original, but had taken his refutation of Platonism from Lucretius, and also that he remained, after becoming a Christian, the rhetorician that he had been before (see Röhricht Seelenlehre des Arnobius, Hamburg, 1893), cannot shake the fact that his psychology is influenced by the consciousness of redemption. 575 31Compare especially Minucius Felix and Lactantius. 32 Conversely it is quite intelligible that he who has started with the ideals of classic antiquity, and has assimilated them, should derive more pleasure from men like Clemens Alex. Origen and Gregory of Nazianzus than from Tertullian and Augustine. But this sympathy is less due to the Christianity of the former scholars. We are no longer directly moved by the religious emotions of the older Greeks, while expressions of Tertullian and Augustine reach our heart.

idololatria, to express the gospel in a concrete and homely form; and even in many of his learned and polemical works, which are full of paradoxes, antitheses, rhetorical 23figures, frigid sentences, and wild exaggerations, we do not fail to find the clear and pertinent application of evangelical sayings, astonishing only by its simplicity, and reminding us, where the thought takes a higher flight, not infrequently of Augustine. acd 1 The Christianity and theology of Tertullian, whose elements we have here endeavoured to characterise, were above all headed by the primitive Christian hope and morality. In these was comprehended what he felt to be his inmost thought. Both phases

33 acb

Not only is the distinction between “natura” and “gratia” (e.g., De anima 21), or between “gratia” and “virtus” common in Tertullian, not only has he—in his later writings—laid great stress on the continued effect of Adam’s sin and the transmission of death, but there also occur many detached thoughts and propositions which recall Augustine. (For the transmission of sin and death see De exhort. 2; Adv. Marc. I., 22; De pud. 6, 9; De jejun. 3, 4: “mors cum ipso genere traducto,” “primordiale delictum expiare,” cf. the expression “vitium originis”; further, also, the writing De pascha comput. 12, 21.)—De orat. 4: “summa est voluntatis dei salus eorum, quos adoptavit.” De pat. 1: “Bonorum quorundam intolerabilis magnitudo est, ut ad capienda et præstanda ea sola gratia divinæ inspirationis operetur. Nam quod maxime bonum, id maxime penes deum, nec alius id, quam qui possidet, dispensat, ut cuique dignatur.” De pænit. 2: “Bonorum unus est titulus salus hominis criminum pristinorum abolitione præmissa.” De pat. 12: “Dilectio summum fidei sacramentum, Christiani nominis thesaurus.” De orat. 4: In order to fulfil the will of God “opus est dei voluntate . . . Christus erat voluntas et potestas patris.” 5; “quidquid nobis optamus, in illum auguramur, et illi deputamus, quod ab illo exspectamus.” 9: “Deus solus docere potuit, quomodo se vellet orari.” De pænit. 2: “Quod homini proficit, deo servit.” 4: “Rape occasionem inopinatæ felicitatis, ut ille tu, nihil quondam penes deum nisi stilla situlæ et areæ pulvus et vasculum figuli, arbor exinde fias ills quæ penes aquas seritur, etc.” 4: “Obsequii ratio in similitudine animorum constituta est.” De orat. 7: “debitum in scripturis delicti figura est.” De bapt. 5: exempto reatu eximitur et poena. De pud. 22: “Quis alienam mortem sua solvit nisi solus dei filius.” Tertullian imputed the proposition “peccando promeremur” (De pud. 10) to his ecclesiastical opponents. The religious elements in his mode of thought seem to have been decided—apart from the New Testament books—by the reading of Seneca’s writings. In these Stoic morality seems to have been deepened, and in part transcended, by a really religious feeling and reflection, so that it was possible to pass from them to Pauline Christianity. Seneca, however, influenced Western thinkers generally: see Minucius Felix, Novatian, and Jerome De inl. vir. 12. Even in Cyprian there occur traits that might be termed Augustinian: notice how he emphasises the immanence of Christ in believers, e.g., Ep. 10, 3, and cf. the remarkable statement Ep. 10, 4: “Christus in cert 564 amine agonis nostri et coronat pariter et coronatur.” Add Ep. 58, 5: “Spiritus dei, qui cum a confitentibus non discedit neque dividitur, ipse in nobis loquitur et coronatur.” See also the Roman epistle Ep. 8, 3.

recur in a large section of Latin literature of the third 24and of the first half of the fourth century.34 There it is hardly possible to find any traces of Antignostic dogmatics; on the contrary, Apocalyptics were developed with extreme vividness, and morality, often Stoic in colouring, received a stringent form.35 The whole of the abundant literary labours and dogmatic efforts of Hippolytus seem to have been lost on the West from the first and completely. But Tertullian also was deprived by his Montanism of the full influence which he might have exerted on the Church.36 The results of his work passed to Cyprian, and, though much abbreviated and modified, were circulated by him. For the period from A.D. 260 down to Ambrose—indeed, properly speaking, to Augustine and Jerome—Cyprian became the Latin Church author par excellence. All known and unknown Latin writers of his time, and after him, had but a limited influence: he, as an edifying and standard author, dictated like a sovereign to the Western Church for the next 120 years. His authority ranked close after that of the Holy Scriptures, and it lasted up to the time of Augustine.37

34

Compare especially also the writings which are falsely headed with the name of Cyprian, and have begun to be examined in very recent years. 35 Compare the characteristics of the Christianity taught by Commodian, Arnobius, and Lactantius, vol. III. p. 77 ff. Novatian was accused of Stoicism by his opponents. Several of the writings headed by the name of Cyprian are very old and important for our knowledge of ancient Latin Christianity. I have verified that in the tractates De aleatoribus (Victor), Ad 54b Novatianum (Sixtus), and De laude mart. (Novatian) (Texte and Unters, VI., 1; XIII., 1 and 4; see also the writings, to be attributed to Novatian, De spectac, and De bono pudic.); but let anyone read also “De duobus montibus” in order to gain an idea of the theological simplicity and archaic quality of these Latins. And yet the author of the above treatise succeeded in formulating the phrase (c. 9): “Lex Christianorum crux est sancta Christi filii dei vivi.” Most instructive are the Instructiones of Commodian. The great influence of Hermas’ Pastor, and the interest directed accordingly to the Church, are characteristic of this whole literature. Even unlearned authors continued to occupy themselves with the Church, see the Symbol of Carthage: “credo remissionem peccatorum per sanctam ecclesiam.” 36 See my treatise on “Tertullian in der Litteratur der alten Kirche” in the Sitzungsber. d. K. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissensch, 1895, p. 545 ff. 57d 37 See a short demonstration of this in my Texten und Unters, V 1, p. 2, and elaborated in my Altchristl. Litt.-Gesch., Part I., p. 688 ff. Pitra has furnished new material for the acquaintance also of the East with Cyprian in the Analecta Sacra. Cyprian’s unparalleled authority in the West is attested especially by Lucifer, Prudentius, Optatus, Pacian, Jerome, Augustine, and Mommsen’s catalogue of the Holy Scriptures. The see of Carthage was called in after times “Cathedra Cypriani,” as that of Rome “Cathedra Petri.” Optat. I., 10.

25

ab7

Cyprian had hardly one original theological thought; for even the work “De unitate ecclesiæ” rests on points of view which are partly derived from the earlier Catholic Fathers, and partly borrowed from the Roman Church, to which they were indigenous. In the extremely authoritative work, “De opere et eleemosynis” the Tertullian conceptions of merit and satisfaction are strictly developed, and are made to serve as the basis of penance, almost without reference to the grace of God in Christ. Cyprian’s chief importance is perhaps due to the fact that, influenced by the consequences of the Decian storm he founded, in union with the Roman bishop Cornelius, what was afterwards called the sacrament of penance; in this, indeed, he was the slave rather than the master of circumstances; and in addition, he was yielding to Roman influences which had been working in this direction since Calixtus. He established the rule of the hierarchy in the Church in the spheres of the sacrament, sacrifice, and discipline; he set his seal on Episcopalianism; he planted firmly the conceptions of a legal relation between man and God, of works of penance as means of grace, and of the “satisfactory” expiations of Christ. He also created clerical language with its solemn dignity, cold-blooded anger, and misuse of Biblical words to interpret and criticise contemporary affairs—a metamorphosis of the Tertullian genius for language. Cyprian by no means inherited the interest taken by Tertullian in Antignostic theology. Like all great princes of the Church, he was a theologian only in so far as he was a catechist. He held all the more firmly by the symbol, and knew how to state in few words its undoubted meaning, and to turn it skilfully even against allied movements like that of Novatian. This had been learnt from Rome, where, since as early as the end of the second century, the “Apostles’” creed had been used with skill and tact against the motley opinions held about doctrine by Eastern immigrants. The Roman Bishops of the 26third century did not meddle with dogmatic disputes; the only two who tried it, and undoubtedly rendered great services to the Church, Hippolytus and Novatian, could not keep the sympathies of the clergy or the majority. In the West men did not live as Christians upon dogma, but they were obedient to the short law (lex) presented in the Symbol;38 they impressed the East by the confidence with which,

38

The perversions adopted in order to represent the Christians as being bound to the “lex” are shown, e.g., by the argument in the, we admit, late and spurious writing attributed to Cyprian De XII., abusivis sæculi, chap. 12: “Dum Christus finis a9e est legis, qui sine lege sunt sine Christo sunt; igitur populus sine lege populus sine Christo

when necessary, they adopted a position in dogmatic questions, following in the doctrine of the Trinity and in Christology an original scheme formed by Tertullian and developed by Novatian;39 while at the same time they worked at the consolidation of the constitution of the Church, the construction of a practical ecclesiastical moral code, as also the disciplining and training of the community through Divine Service and the rules of penance.40 The canons of Elvira, which, for the rest, are not lax, but are even distinguished by their stringency, show how strictness and clemency were united, Christendom being marked off from the world, while at the same time a life in the world was rendered possible, and even the grossest sins were still indulged in. The result was a complete ecclesi ac8 astical constitution, with an almost military organisation. At its head stood the Roman Bishop, who, in spite of the abstract equality of all Bishops, occupied a unique position, not only as representative, but also as actual defender of the unity of the Church, which, nevertheless, was 27severely shaken, first by Novatianism, and afterwards by Donatism. When Constantine granted toleration and privileges to the Church, and enabled the provincial Churches to communicate with all freedom, Rome had already become a Latin city, and the Roman community was thoroughly Latinised; elsewhere also in the West the Greek element, once so powerful, had receded. Undoubtedly, Western Christians had no other idea than that they formed a single Church with the East; they were actually at one with the Eastern tendency represented by Athanasius in the fundamental conceptions of the doctrines of God, Christ, and eternal salvation. But their interests were often divided, and, in fact, there was little mutual understanding, particularly after Cappadocian orthodoxy triumphed in the East. From the middle of the third century the weakening of the central power had once more restored their independence to all the provinces, and had thus

est.” As against this, verdicts such as that cursorily given by Tertullian (De spect. 2), that the natural man “deum non novit nisi naturali jure, non etiam familiari,” remained without effect. 39 See on this Vol. II., p. 279 f., 312 f., and Vol. III. and IV. in various places; cf. Reuter, Augustin. Studien, pp. 153-230. Since the West never perceived clearly the close connection between the result of salvation (ἀφθαρσία) and the Incarnation, there always existed there a rationalistic element as regards the person of Christ, which afterwards disclosed itself completely in Pelagianism. The West only completed its own theory as to Christ after it had transferred to His work conceptions obtained in the discipline of penance. But that took place very gradually. 40 Here again the Instructiones of Commodian are very instructive.

set free the principle of nationality; and this would have led to a complete reaction and wholesale particularism had not some energetic rulers, the migrations of the tribes, and the Church set up a barrier, which, indeed, ultimately proved too weak in the East. It was the great dogmatic controversies which compelled the provincial Churches to look beyond their own borders. But the sympathy of the West for the East—there never developed any vital interest in the opposite direction41—was no longer general or natural. It sprang, as a rule, from temporary necessities or ambitious purposes. Yet it became of incalculable importance for Western theology; for their relations with the East, into which the Western Church was brought by the Arian conflict, led Western Christians to observe more closely two great phenomena of the Eastern Church, the scientific theology (of Origen) and monachism. It may here be at once said that the contact and influence which thus arose did not in the end change the genius and 28tendency of the Western Church to its de 561 pths. In so far as a lasting change was introduced in the fifth century, it is not to be derived from this quarter. But for their suggestiveness, the capital and impulse which were received from the East cannot be highly enough appreciated We need only compare the writings of the Latin theologians who were not influenced by the Greeks,42 with Hilary, Victorinus Rhetor, Ambrose, Jerome, Rufinus, and the others dependent on them, in order to perceive the enormous difference. The exegetical and speculative science of the Greeks was imported into the West, and, besides monachism and the ideal of a virginity devoted to God, as the practical application of that science. The West was not disposed to favour either of these, and since it is always hardest to carry through changes in the rules of practical life, the implanting of monachism cost embittered conflicts.43 But the ideal of virginity, as denoting the love-bond with Christ, very soon established itself among the spiritual leaders of the West. (Even before this, Cyprian says, De hab. virg. 22: and you virgins have no husband, your lord and head is Christ in the

41

An exception of short duration is formed by the interest taken by the Antiochenes in the Western scheme of Christology during the Eutychian controversy: see the epistolary collection of Theodoret and his Eranistes, as also the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia. 42 E.g. Lucifer, so far as he does not simply imitate the Greeks. See on his “theology” Krüger’s Monograph, 1886. af2 43See Jovinian and Vigilantius, as also the conflicts of monachism in Spain and Gaul (cf. the works of Sulpicius Severus).

similitude and place of a man.)44 It then won through Ambrose the same significance for the West as it had obtained through Origen’s expositions of the Song of Songs and Methodius in the East. Nay, it was in the West that the ideal was first, so to speak, individualised, and that it created a profusion of forms in which it was allied with or excited the impassioned love of Christ.45 The theological science of the 29Greeks could not have domesticated itself, even if the time had been less unfavourable; just then its authority was tottering even in the East, after the Cappadocians seemed to have reconciled faith and knowledge for a brief period. Where one has once been accustomed to regard a complex of thoughts as an inviolable law, a legal order, it is no longer possible to awaken for it for a length of time the inner sympathy which clings to spheres in which the spiritual life finds a home; and if it does succeed in obtaining an assured position, its treatment assumes a different character; there is no freedom in dealing with it. As a matter of fact, the West was always less free in relation to dogma proper than the East in the classic period of Church theology. In the West men reflected about, and now and again against, dogma; but they really thought little in it. But how great, nevertheless, were the stores rescued to the West from the East46 by Greek scholars, especially Hilary, Ambrose, and Jerome, at a time when the Greek sun had already ceased to warm the West! In the philosophical, historical, and theological elements transplanted by them, we have also one of Augustine’s roots. He learned the science of 564 exegetical

44

“Virginibus nec maritus dominus, dominus vester ac caput Christus est ad instar et vicem masculi.” Before this he says of the Church (Cypr., de unit. 6): “sponsa Christi, unius cubiculi sanctitatem casto pudore custodit.” Afterwards this far from beautiful thought was transferred to the individual soul, and thus erotic spiritualism was produced. 45 See details in Vol. III., p. 129 f. The conception of Methodius was quite current in Latin writers at the end of the fourth century, viz., that Christ must be born in every Christian, and that only so could redemption be appropriated. Thus Prudentius sings, “Virginitas et prompta fides Christum bibit alvo cordis et intactis condit paritura latebris.” Ambrose, Expos. in ev. sec. Luc. I. II., c. 26: “Vides non dubitasse Mariam, sed credidisse et ideo fructum fidei consecutam. . . . Sed et vos beati, qui audistis et credidistis; quæcunque enim crediderit anima et concipit et generat dei verbum et opera ejus agnoscit. Sit in singulis Mariæ anima, ut magnificet dominum; sit in singulis spiritus Mariæ, ut exultet in deo. Si secundum carnem una mater est Christi, secundum fidem tamen omnium fructus est Christus. Omnis enim anima accipit dei verbum, si tamen immaculata et immunis a vitiis intemerato castimoniam pudore custodiat.” 46 We must pass by the older importer of Greek exegesis, Victorinus of Pettau, since, in spite of all his dependence on Origen, the L ac8 atin spirit held the upper hand, and his activity seems to have been limited.

speculation from Ambrose, the disciple of the Cappadocians, and it was only by its help that he was delivered from Manichæism. He made himself familiar with Neoplatonic philosophy, and in this sphere he was apparently assisted by the works of another Greek scholar, Victorinus Rhetor. He acquired an astonishing amount of knowledge of the Egyptian monks, and the impression thus received became of decisive importance for him. These influences must be weighed if we are to understand thoroughly the conditions under which such a 30phenomenon as that which Augustine offers us was possible.47 But, on the other hand, Augustine continues the Western line represented by Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, Optatus, Pacian, Prudentius, and also by Ambrose. Extremely characteristic is his relation to the Stoic Christian popular philosophy of Western teachers. We shall see that he retained a remnant of it. But his importance in the history of the Church, and of dogma, consisted essentially in the fact that he gave to the West, in place of Stoic Christian popular morality as that was co ac8 mprised in Pelagianism, a religious and specifically Christian ethic, and that he impressed this so strongly on the Church that its formulas at least maintain their supremacy up to the present day in the whole of Western Christendom. In getting rid, however, of Stoic morals, he also thrust aside its curious complement, the realistic eschatology in which the ancient Latin Christians had given specific expression to their Christian faith. Ambrose was sovereign among Western Bishops, and at the same time the Greek trained exegete and theologian. In both qualities he acted on Augustine, who looked up to him as Luther

47

We may disregard Jerome; he had no importance for Augustine, or if he had any, it was only in confirming the latter in his conservative attitude. This, indeed, does not refer to Jerome’s learning, which to Augustine was always something uncanny and even suspicious. Jerome’s erudition, acquired from the Greeks, and increased with some genius for learned investigations, became a great storehouse of the mediæval Church; yet Jerome did not mould the popular dogmatics of the Church, but confirmed them, and as a rhetorician made them eloquent, while his ascetic writings implanted monachism, and held out to it ideals which were in part extremely questionable. At the first glance it is a paradoxical fact that Jerome is rightly regarded as the doctor ecclesiæ Romanæ κατεξοχήν, and that we can yet pass him over in a history of dogma. The explanation of the paradox is that after he threw off the influence of Origen, he was exclusively the speaker and advocate of vulgar Catholicism, and that he possessed a just instinct for the “ecclesiastical mean” in controversies which were only to reveal their whole significance after his time (see the Semipelagian question and his relation to Augustinianism.) If that is a compliment to him, it is none to his Church. After Augustine’s time influences from the East were very scanty; yet we have to recall Junilius and Cassiodorus.

did to Staupitz.48 He comes first to be considered here 31in the latter respect. His education, his Episcopal chair in Milan, the Arian and Apollinarian conflict into which he had to enter, directed him to Greek theological literature. Philo, Hippolytus, Origen, and Basil were industriously read by him; he made extracts from them, and edited them in Latin.49 He was united with Basil, not only by similiarity of situation, but above all by agreement in character and attitude. Basil was his real teacher in doctrine, and while the former was met with distrust in Alexandria and Rome, Ambrose highly honoured him, and fully recognised his orthodoxy. The importance of this attitude of the Milanese Bishop for the closing of the Arian controversy, and for the reconciliation of Roman and Alexandrian orthodoxy with that of the Cappadocians, has been described in an earlier volume.50 It has indeed been recently shown, beyond dispute, that, in spite of his dependence on the Greeks, Ambrose preserved and further developed the Western system in his Christology.51 Tertullian, Novati 53f an—directly or indirectly—and Hilary influenced him. But on the other hand there is no mistake that he emphasised more strongly than Augustine the fundamental position of the Nicene decision,52 and that he was confirmed in his doctrine of the Two Substances by the Cappadocians, who had been involuntarily led to something approaching it in their fight against Apollinaris. Further, he treats the Logos in Jesus Christ so much as the subject, the human

48

See Augustine’s testimony as to Ambrose in the Ballerinis’ ed. of the latter’s works. Contra Jul. I. 4, 10: “Audi excellentem dei dispensatorem, quem veneror ut patrem; in Christo Jesu enim per evangelium me genuit et eo Christi ministro lavacrum regenerationis accepi. Beatum loquor Ambrosium cujus pro Catholica fide gratiam, constantiam, labores, pericula sive operibus sive sermonibus et ipse sum expertus et mecum non dubitat orbis prædicare Romanus.” Op. imperf. c. Julian. I., 2: “Quem vero judicem poteris Ambrosio reperire meliorem? De quo magister tuus Pelagius ait, quod ejus fidem ac8 et purissimum in scripturis sensum ne inimicus quidem ausus est reprehendere.” Pelagius’ own words in De gratia Christi et lib. arb. 43 (47): “Beatus Ambrosius episcopus, in cujus præcipue libris Romana elucet fides, qui scriptorum inter Latinos flos quidam speciosus enituit, cujus fidem et purissimum in scripturis sensum ne inimicus quidem ausus est reprehendere” (see c. Jul. I., 30). The fame of Ambrose is also proclaimed by Rufinus, who defends him against Jerome, “who, as an envious Augur, censured Ambrose’s plagiarisms from the Greeks, while he himself was much more culpable since he always posed as original.” 49 See detailed references in Förster, Ambrosius, p. 99 ff. 50 See Vol. IV., p. 93. 51 See Reuter, August. Studien, pp. 207-227. 52 See Ambrose de fid. I. prol et al. loc. in Reuter, 1.c. p. 185; on Augustine’s neutral position, id. p. 185 f.

substance so much as form and matter, that here again Greek 32influence—as in Hilary, who was similarly dependent on the Greeks—cannot be overlooked; for his own conception of the work of Christ conflicts with this stunted view of his human nature. But the most important influence of the East upon Ambrose does not lie in the special domain of dogmatics. It consists in the reception of the allegorical method of exegesis, and of many separate schemes and doctrines. It is true Ambrose had his own reservations in dealing with Plato and Origen; he did not adopt the consequences of Origen’s theology; aed 53 he was much too hasty and superficial in the sphere of speculative reflection to appropriate from the Greeks more than fragments. But he, as well as the heavier but more thorough Hilary, raised the West above the “meagreness” of a pedantically literal, and, in its practical application, wholly planless exegesis; and they transmitted to their countrymen a profusion of ideas attached to the text of Holy Scripture. Rufinus and, in his first period, Jerome also completed the work. Manichæism would hardly have been overcome in the West unless it had been confronted by the theosophic exegesis, the “Biblical alchemy” of the Greeks, and the great theme of virginity was praised with new tongues after Western Christians heard of the union of the soul with its bridegroom, Christ, as taught by Origen in his commentary on the Song of Songs.54 The unity, so far as at all attainable, of ecclesiastical feeling in East and West, was restored in the loftiest regions of theology about A.D. 390. But the fight against Origen, which soon broke out with embittered hatred, had, among other sad consequences, the immediate result that the West refused to learn anything further from the 33great theologian. The West never attained a strict system in the science of allegorical exegesis.

53

Not a few passages might here he quoted from Ambrose’s works. He rejects questionable principles held by Origen with tact and without judging him a heretic, always himself holding to the common Christian element. In a few important questi 564 ons, the influence of Origen—Plato—is unmistakable; as in the doctrine of souls and the conception of hell. Greek influence appears to me to be strongest in the doctrine of the relative necessity and expediency of evil (“amplius nobis profuit culpa quam nocuit”). Therefore, I cannot see in this doctrine a bold theory of evil peculiar to Ambrose, like Deutsch (Des Ambrosius Lehre von der Sünde, etc., 1867, p. 8) and Förster (l.c. pp. 136, 142, 300). The teleological view from the standpoint of the fuller restoration is alone new perhaps. 54 Ambrose, De Isaac et anima.

The sacred histories of the Old Testament were also transformed into spiritual narratives for the West by Hilary,55 Ambrose, Jerome, and Rufinus.56 In this transformation Western Christians obtained a multitude of separate mystical Neoplatonic conceptions, though they failed to obtain any insight into the system as a whole. Another Western, the rhetorician Victorinus, that “aged man, most learned and sk 564 illed in the liberal sciences, who had read and weighed so many works of the philosophers; the instructor of so many noble Senators, who also, as a monument of his excellent discharge of his office, had deserved and obtained a statue in the Roman Forum,” had initiated his fellow-countrymen into Neoplatonism by translations and original works.57 That happened before he became a Christian. Having gone over to Christianity at an advanced age, and become a prolific ecclesiastical writer, he by no means abandoned Neoplatonism. If I am not mistaken, Augustine made him his model in the crucial period of his life, and although he understood enough Greek to read Neoplatonic writings, yet it was substantially by Victorinus that he was initiated into them. Above all, he here learned how to unite Neoplatonic speculation with the Christianity of the Church, and to oppose Manichæism from this as his startingpoint. We do not require to describe in detail what the above combination and polemic meant to him. When Neoplatonism became a decisive element in Augustine’s religious and philosophical mode of thought, it did so ac8 also for the whole of the West. The religious philosophy of the Greeks was incorporated in the spiritual assets of the West, along with 34its ascetic and monachist impulses.58 But, unless all signs deceive, Augustine

55

On Hilary’s exile in the East, epoch-making as it was for the history of theology, and his relation to Origen, see Reinken’s IIilarius, 554 p. 128, 270, 281 ff. Augustine held him in high honour. 56 In the interpretation of the New Testament, Ambrose kept more faithfully to the letter, following the Western tradition, and declining the gifts of the Greeks. He describes Origen (Ep. 75) as “Longe minor in novo quam in veteri testamento.” But Western Christians were first made familiar with the Old Testament by the Greeks. 57 Aug. Confess. VIII., 2. See there also the story of his conversion. 58 If we disregard the fragments which reached the West through translations of Origen’s works, and plagiarisms from the Cappadocians, Neoplatonism, and with it Greek speculation in general, were imparted to it in three successive forms:—(1) By Victorinus and Augustine, and by Marius Mercator in the fourth and fifth centuries; (2) by Boethius in the sixth; (3) by the importation of the works of the Pseudo-Areopagite in the ninth century. Cassiodorus praises Boethius (Var. epp. 1, 45) for having given the Latins by translations the works of Pythagoras, Ptolemy, Nicomachus, Euclid, Plato the theologian, Aristotle the logician, Archimedes, and other Greeks. It seems now to me

received from Victorinus the impulse which led him to assimilate Paul’s type of religious thought; for it appears from the works of the aged rhetorician that he had appropriated Paul’s characteristic ideas, and Augustine demonstrably devoted a patient study to the Pauline epistles from the moment when he became more thoroughly acquainted with Neoplatonism. Victorinus wrote very obscurely, and his works found but a slender circulation. But this is not the only case in history where the whole importance of an able writer was merged in the service he rendered to a greater successor. A great, epoch-making man is like a stream: the smaller brooks, which have had their origin perhaps further off in the country, lose themselves in it, having fed it, but without changing the course 35of its current. Not only Victorinus,59 but ultimately

proven (Usener, Anecdoton Holderi, 1877) that Boethius was a Christian, and that he also wrote the frequently-suspected writings De sancta trimitate, Utrum pater et filius et spiritus s. de divinitate substantialiter prædicentur, Quomodo substantiæ in eo quod sint bonæ sint, cum non sint substantialia bona, De fide Catholica and Contra Eutychen et Nestorium. But he has influenced posterity, not by his Christian writings, but by his treatise, wholly dependent on Aristotle, “De consolatione philosophiæ.” which for that very reason could have been written by a heathen, and by his commentaries on Aristotle. He wa 561 s really, along with Aristotle, the knowledge of whom was imperfect enough, the philosopher of the early Middle Ages. On the system of Boethius, see Nitzsch’s monograph, 1860. Many of his ideas recall Seneca and Proclus; an examination of his relation to Victorious would be desirable. “In his system the foundation is formed by Platonism, modified by certain Aristotelian thoughts; besides this we have unmistakably a Stoic trait, due to the Roman and personal character of the philosopher and the reading of Roman thinkers. In this eclecticism Christianity occupies as good as no position. For that reason we must renounce the attempt to give a place to the system of Boethius among those which represent or aim at a harmonising or fusion of Christianity with Platonism (e.g., Synesius, Pseudo-Dionysius)”; compare Nitzsch, l.c. p. 84 f. The fact that this man, who, in view of death, consoled himself with the ideas of heathen philosophers, wrote treatises on the central dogma of the Church, affords us the best means of observing that the dogma of Christ presented a side on which it led to the forgetting of Christ himself. 59 ac1 It is to the credit of Ch. Gore that he has described, in his article “Victorinus” (Dict. of Christ. Biog. IV., pp. 1129-1138), the distinctive character of the theology of Victorinus and its importance for Augustine. He says rightly: “His theology is Neoplatonist in tone . . . he applied many principles of the Plotinian philosophy to the elucidation of the Christian mysteries. His importance in this respect has been entirely overlooked in the history of theology. He preceded the Pseudo-Dionysius. He anticipated a great deal that appears in Scotus Erigena.” In fact, when we study the works of Victorinus (Migne T. VIII., pp. 999-1310), we are astonished to find in him a perfect Christian Neoplatonist, and an Augustine before Augustine. The writings “Ad Justinum Manichæum,” and “De generatione verbi divini, and the great work against the Arians,

read like compositions by Augustine, only the Neoplatonic element makes a much more natural appearance in him than in Augustine, who had to make an effort to grasp it. If we substitute the word “natura” for “deus” in the speculation of Victorinus, we have the complete system of Scotus Erigena. But even this exchange is unnecessary; for in Victorinus the terminology of the Church only rests like a thin covering on the Neoplatonic doctrine of identity. God in himself is “motus”—not mutatio: “moveri ipsum quo est esse”; but without the Son he is conceived as ὁ µή ὤ (speculation on the four-fold sense of the µὴ εἶναι as in the later mystics). The Son is ὁ ὤν. It appears clearly in the speculation on the relation of Father and Son, that consequent—pantheistic— Neoplatonism is favourable to the doctrine of the Homoousia. Because the Deity is movere, the Father finds himself in a “semper generans generatio.” So the Son proceeds from him, “re non tempore posterior.” The Son is the “potentia actuosa”; while the Father begets him, “ipse se ipsum conterminavit.” The Son is accordingly the eternal object of the divine will and the divine self-knowledge; he is the form and limitation of God, very essence of the Father; the Father in perceiving the Son perceives himself (“alteritas nata”). “In isto sine intellectu temporis, tempore . . . est alteritas nata, cito in identitatem revenit;” therefore the most perfect unity and absolute consubstantiality, although the Son is subordinate. Victorinus first designated the Spirit as the copula of the Deity (see Augustine); it is he who completes the perfect circle of the Deity; “omnes in alternis exsistentes et semper simul ad2 ὁµοούσιοι divina affectione, secundum actionem (tantummodo) subsistentiam propriam habentes.” This is elaborated in speculations which form the themes of Augustine’s great work “De trinitate.” The number three is in the end only apparent; “ante unum quod est in numero, plane simplex.” “Ipse quod est esse, subsistit tripliciter.” While anyone who is at all sharp-sighted sees clearly from this that the “Son” as “potentia actuosa” is the world-idea, that is perfectly evident in what follows. All things are potentially in God, actually in the Son; for “filius festinat in actionem.” The world is distinguished from God, as the many from the one, i.e., the world is God unfolding himself and returning to unity sub specie æternitatis. That which is alien and God-resisting in the world is simply not-being, matter. This is all as given by Proclus, and therefore, while the word “cream” is indeed retained, is transformed, in fact, into an emanation. The distinction between deus ipse and quæ a deo is preserved; but, in reality, the world is looked at under the point of view of the Deity developing himself. Ad Justinum 4: “Aliter quidem quod ipse est, aliter quæ ab ipso. Quod ipse est unum est totumque est quidquid ipse est; quod vero ab ipso est, innumerum est. Et hæc sunt quibus refletur omne quod uno toto clauditur et ambitur. Verum quod varia sunt quæ ab ipso sunt, qui a se est et unum est, variis cum convenit dominare. Et ut omnipotens apparet, contrariorum etiam origo ipse debuit inveniri.” But it is said of these “varia,” that “insubstantiata sunt omnia ὄντα in Jesu, hoc est, ἐν τῷ λόγῳ. He is the unity of nature, accordingly elementum, receptaculum, habitaculum, habitator, locus naturæ. He is the “unum totum” in which the universum presents itself as a unity. And now follows the process of emanation designated as “creation,” in whose description are employed the Christian and Neoplatonic stages: deus, Jesus, spiritus, νοῦς, anima (as world-soul) angeli et deinde corporalia omnia subministrata.” Redemption through Christ, and the return ad deum of all essences, in so far as they are a deo, is Neoplatonically conceived,

as also we have then the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls and their pre-temporal fall. The Incarnation is admitted, but spiritualised, inasmuch as side by side with the conception of the assumption of a human form, which occurs once, the other prevails that Christ appears as burdened with humanity in its totality; ac8 “universalis caro, universalis anima; in isto omnia universalia erant” (Adv. Arian. III., 3). “Quia corpus ille catholicum ad omnem hominem habuit, omne quod passus est catholicum fecit; id est ut omnis caro in ipso crucifixa sit” (Ad Philipp, pp. 1196-1221; Adv. Arian. III., 3). But the most interesting features, because the most important for Augustine are (1), that Victorinus gives strong expression to the doctrine of Predestination—only he feels compelled in opposition to Manichæism to maintain the freedom of the will; and (2), that, especially in his commentaries, he places the highest value on justification by faith alone in opposition to all moralism. Neoplatonism had won his assent, or had prepared him in some measure to assent, to both these doctrines; we know, indeed, from other sources, that heathen Neoplatonists felt attracted to John and Paul, but not to the Synoptics or James. Thus Victorinus writes: “non omnia restaurantur sed quæ in Christo sunt” (p. 1245), “quæ salvari possent” (p. 1274), “universos sed qui sequerentur” (p. 1221). In a mystical way Christ is believing humanity (the Church), and believing humanity is humanity in general. Everything undergoes a strictly necessary development; therefore Victorious was a predestinationist. The passages in which Victorinus expresses himself in a strictly Pauline, and, so to speak, Antipelagian sense, are collected by Gore, p. 1137; see Ad Gal. 3, 22; Ad Philipp, 3, 9; “‘non meam justitiam’ tunc enim mea est vel nostra, cum moribus nostris justitiam dei mereri nos putamus perfectam per mores. At non, inquit, hanc habens justitiam, sed quam? Illam ex fide. Non illam quæ ex lege; væ in operibus est et carnali disciplina, sed hanc quæ ex deo procedit ‘justitia ex fide;’” Ad Phil. 4, 9; Ad Ephes. 2, 5: “non nostri laboris est, quod sæpe moneo, ut nos salvemus; sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est . . . nostrum pene jam nihil est nisi solum credere qui superavit omnia. Hoc est enim plena salvatio, Christum hæc vicisse. Fidem in Christo habere, plenam fidem, nullus labor est, nulla difficultas, animi tantum voluntas est . . . justitia non tantum valet quantum fides”; Ad Ephes. 1, 14; 3, 7; Ad Phil. 2, 13: “quia ipsum velle a deo nobis operatur, fit ut ex deo et operationem et voluntatem habeamus.” Victorinus has been discussed most recently by Geiger (Programme von Metten, 1888, 1889), and Reinhold Schmid (Marius Victorinus Rhetor u. s. Bez. z. Augustin. Kiel, 1895)—compare also the dissertation by Koffmane, De Mario Victorino, philosopho Christiano, Breslau, 18So. Geiger has thoroughly expounded the complete Neoplatonic system of Victorious; Schmid seeks, after ac8 an excellent statement of his theological views, to show (p. 68 ff.), that he exerted no, or, at least, no decisive influence on Augustine. I cannot see that this proof has really been successful; yet I admit that Schmid has brought forward weighty arguments in support of his proposition. The name of Victorinus is not the important point for the history of dogma, but the indisputable fact that the combination of Neoplatonism and highly orthodox Christianity existed in the West, in Rome, before Augustine, under the badge of Paulinism. Since this combination was hardly of frequent occurrence in the fourth century, and since Augustine gives a prominent place to Victorinus in his Confessions, it will remain probable that he was influenced by him. The facts that he was less Neoplatonic than Victorine, and afterwards even opposed him, do

also Ambrose himself, Optatus, Cyprian, and Tertullian were lost to view in Augustine; but they made him the proud stream in 36whose waters the banks are mirrored, on whose bosom the ships sail, and which fertilises and passes through a whole region of the world. 37For not only the work of those Greek Latins, but also the line of representatives of genuine Western theology and ecclesiasticism ended in Augustine.60 38

Augustine studied, above all, very thoroughly, and made himself familiar with Cyprian’s work. Cyprian was to him the “saintly,” the Church Father, κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, and his view of heresy and the unity of the Church was dependent on Cyprian. But

not weigh against the above contention. But it is positively misleading to argue like Schmid (p. 68) against Augustine’s Neoplatonism by appealing to the fact that from the moment of his rejection of Manichæism and semi-scepticism, he was a “decided Christian.” 60 Little is yet known regarding the history of ecclesiastical penance in the East; but I believe I can maintain that in the West the shock was less violent in its effect, which all official Church discipline received through the rapid extension of Christianity after Constantine. Here confidence in the Church was greater, the union of “sancta ecclesia” and “remissio peccatorum” closer (“credo remissionem peccatorum per sanctam ecclesiam”: Symbol. Carthag. ), and the sense of sin as guilt, which was to be atoned for by public confession and satisfactio, more acute. Whence this came, it is hard to say. In the East it would appear that greater stress was laid on the operations of the cultus as a collective institution, and on the other hand on private self-education through prayer and asceticism; while in the West the feeling was stronger that men occupied religious legal relationships, in which they were responsible to the Church, being able, however, to expect from the Church sacramental and intercessory aid in each individual case. The individual and the Church thus stood nearer each other in the West than in the East. Therefore, ecclesiastical penance asserted a much greater importance in the former than in the latter. We can study this significance in the work ac8 s of the Africans on the one hand, and of Ambrose on the other. They have little else in common, but they agree in their view of penance (Ambrose, De pænitentia). The practice of penance now acquired an increasing influence in the West on all conditions of the ecclesiastical constitution and of theology, so that we can ultimately construct from this starting-point the whole of Western Catholicism in the Middle Ages and modern times, and can trace the subtle workings of the theory of penance to the most remote dogmas. But Augustine once more marks the decisive impetus in this development. With him began the process by which what had long existed in the Church was elevated into theory. He indeed created few formulas, and has not even once spoken of a sacrament of penance; but, on the one hand, he has clearly enough expressed the thing itself, and, on the other, where he has not yet drawn the theoretical consequences of the practice of penance, he has left such striking gaps (see his Christology) that they were filled up by unostentatious efforts, as if inevitably, in after times.

standing as a Bishop, unassailed, on the founda 55f tion which Cyprian had created, Augustine did not find it necessary to state Episcopalianism so uncompromisingly as the former, and being occupied with putting an end to a schism which was different from the Novatian, he learned to take a different view of the nature of schisms from the Bishop whom he venerated as a hero.61 Cursory remarks show, besides, that Augustine had made himself familiar with the literature of the Novatian controversy, and had learned from it for his notion of the Church. Some works quoted by him we no longer possess—e.g., that of Reticius against the Novatians.62 What has been preserved to us of this literature,63 acd proves that the Western Church was continually impelled, by its opposition to the Novatians in the course of the fourth century, to reflect on the nature of the Church.64 But even when he entered into the Donatist controversy, Augustine did so as a man of the second or indeed of the third generation, and he therefore enjoyed the great advantage of 39having at his disposal a fund of conceptions and ideas already collected. In this sphere Optatus had especially wrought before him.65 This is not the place to describe the rise of Donatism; for the dispute did not originate in a dogmatic controversy.66 It arose in the first place out of Cæcilian’s action against the exaggerated veneration of martyrs, which disturbed the order and endangered the existence of the Church. Some of the clergy who did not desire

61

See Reuter, August. Studien, pp. 232 ff., 355. Lib I. c. Julian. 3 Op. imperf. c. Jul I., 55; Jerome de vir. inl., 82. 63 Pseudo-Cyprian = Sixtus II. ad Novatianum, Ambrosiaster in the Quæst. ex Vet. et Novo Testam. [the inserted tractate against Novatian] Pacianus c. Novat. 64 From Pacian’s Ep. I. ad Sempron. comes the famous sentence: “Chri ac8 stianus mihi nomen est, catholicus cognomen.” In the tractate of Ambrosiaster against Novatian, the objectivity of the Divine Word and of baptism, and their independence in their operation of the moral character of the priest, are consistently argued. In some of the sentences we imagine that we are listening to Augustine. On the whole, there is not a little in Ambrosiaster’s commentary and questions which must be described as leading up to Augustine, and is therewith genuinely Western. 65 Aug adv. Parmen. 1, 3: “Venerabilis memoriæ Milevitanus episcopus catholicæ communionis Optatus.” Fulgentius ranks Optatus along with Ambrose and Augustine. 66 See Deutsch, Drei Actenstücke z. Gesch. des Donatismus, 1875, P. 40 f. Völter, Der Ursprung des Donatismus, 1882; Harnack, Theol. Lit-Zeit., 1884, No. 4; on the other side, Reuter l.c. 234 ff. whose contradiction, however, partly rests on a misunderstanding of my view. Seeck. Zitschr. für K.-Gesch. X. 4. Duschesne gives the best account, Le doissier du Donatisme, 1890. 62

a strong episcopal power seem to have made common cause with the discontented and refractory enthusiasts, to whom Cæcilian had been obnoxious even when Deacon. In any case, a point of principle did not immediately emerge in the controversy. But it was soon introduced, and indeed there is no doubt that Cyprian was played off against himself.67 The Donatist party, which was at the same time, it appears, the African national party, found support both in Cyprian’s conception that the Bishop was only a Bishop if he possessed a certain Christian and moral quality, and in his defence of heretical baptism. The opposition, also carrying out ideas taught by Cyprian, gave such prominence to the official character of the episcopate, and the objective efficacy of the sacrament, that the personal quality of the official or dispenser became in ac8 different.68 It may be that those martyrs and relicworshipping 40enthusiasts in Carthage were inclined from the first to the conception once held by Cyprian against Calixtus and his successors, and that they thus required a standard of active, personal holiness for bishops, which could no longer be sustained in the great Church and during the devastating storms of the last persecution. But this cannot be proved. On the other hand, it is indisputable that, after the Synod of Arles, the controversy had reached a point where it must be regarded as the last link in the chain of the great phenomena (Encratites Montanists, adherents of Hippolytus and Novatians) in which Christendom strove against the secularisation that was imposed upon it by the removal of the attribute of holiness, and with it of the truth of the Church, from persons to institutions—the office and mysteries;69 this change

67

See Vol. II., p. 114 ff. Here these Africans abandoned the position, in the question of heretical baptisms, taken up by Cyprian; see the 8th Canon of Arles (A.D. 316): “De Afris quod propria lege sua utuntur, ut rebaptizent, placuit, ut si ad ecclesiam aliquis de hæresi venerit, interrogent eum symbolum; et si perviderint eum in patre et filio et spiritu sancto esse baptizatum, manus ei tantum imponatur ac8 ut accipiat spiritum sanctum. Quod si interrogatus non responderit hanc trinitatem, baptizetur.” Can. 13: “De his, qui scripturas s. tradidisse dicuntur vel vasa dominica vel nomina patrum suorum, placuit nobis, ut quicumque eorum ex actis publicis fuerit detectus, non verbis nudis, ab ordine cleri amoveatur. Nam si iidem aliquos ordinasse fuerint deprehensi et hi quos ordinaverunt rationales (able? capable?) subsistunt, non illis obsit ordinatio” (that is the decisive principle; even ordination by a traditor was to be valid). 69 Crises, similar to that of the Donatists, also arose elsewhere—as in Rome and Alexandria—at the beginning of the fourth century; but our information regarding them is wholly unsatisfactory; see Lipsius, Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe, p. 250 ff., where the epitaphs by Damasus on Marcellus and Eusebius are copied, and rightly compared with the passage in the Liber praedest., c. 16 on Heracleon (who is really Heraclius). 68

being due to the fact that 41otherwise men would have had to despair of the Christian character of the Church as Catholic. The Donatists denied the validity of any ordination conferred by a traditor, and therefore also of sacraments administered by a bishop who had been consecrated by a traditor. As a last remnant of a much more earnest conception, a minimum of personal worthiness was required of the clergy alone, and received into the notion of the Church itself: it was no longer Christian if this minimum was wanting, if the clergy—nothing being now said of the laity—were not free from every idolatrous stain. Compared with the measure of agreement which prevailed between Catholics and Donatists, the separate thesis of the latter looks like a caprice, and certainly much obstinacy, personal discontent, and insubordination lurked behind it. But we may not overlook the question of principle any more

Heraclius appears already (A.D. 307-309) to have exaggerated the view of the “objectivity” and power of the sacraments to such an extent as to declare all sins by baptised persons to be “venial,” and to hold a severe public penance to be unnecessary. Therefore it was said of him, “Christus in pace negavit” and “vetuit lapsos peccata dolere”; more precisely in Lib. prædest.: “Baptizatum hominem sive justum sive peccatorem loco sancti computari docebat nihilque obesse baptizatis peccata memorabat, dicens, sicut non in se recipit natura ignis gelu ita baptizatus non in se recipit peccatum. Sicut enim ignis resolvit aspectu suo nives quantæcunque juxta sint, sic semel baptizatus non recipit peccatorum reatum, etiam quantavis fuerint operibus ejus peccata permixta.” In this we can truly study the continuity of Western Christianity! How often this thought has cropped up on into the nineteenth century, and that precisely among evangelicals! It marks positively the “concealed poison,” which it is hard to distinguish from the wholesome medicine of evangelic comfort. But it is very noteworthy that this phase in the conception of the favoured position of the baptised can he first proved as existing in Rome. Developments always went furthest there, as the measures taken by Calixtus also show. Yet this one was rejected, after a schism had broken out in the community, and t 530 hat is perfectly intelligible; for apart from the ruinous frivolity which had come in with the above view, what importance could the priestly class retain if every baptised person might, without further ceremony, and if he only willed it, feel and assert himself to be a member of the congregation even after the gravest sin? It is not very probable that Heraclius developed his ecclesiastical attitude on the basis of the Pauline theory of baptism and of the faith that lays hold of Christ. If we were to understand the matter so, he would have been a Luther before Luther. We have probably to suppose that he saw in baptism the magical bestowal of a stamp, as in the conception taken of certain heathen mysteries. In the Meletian schism in Egypt, the difference in principles as to the renewed reception of the lapsed, co-operated with opposition to the monarchial position of the Alexandrian Bishop. The dispute, which thus recalls the Donatist controversy, soon became one of Church politics, and personal. (Compare Meletius and the later Donatists; the limitation of the whole question to the Bishops is, however, peculiar to the Donatists.) See Walch, Ketzerhistorie, Vol. IV., and Möller in Herzog’s R.-E. IX., p. 534 ff.

here than in the case of Novatianism. The legend of the Sybilline Books is constantly repeating itself in the history of spiritual conflicts. The remnant saved from the flames stands at as high a price as the whole collection. And what a price the Church has paid in order to escape the exhortations of separatists! The Novatian crisis—after the Decian persecution—drew ac8 from it the sacrament of penance, and thereby gave the impulse in general to substitute a system of sacraments for the sacrament that blotted out sin. (The formal establishment of the new sacrament had, indeed, still to be waited for for a long time.) The Donatist crisis— after the Diocletian persecution—taught the Church to value ordination as imparting an inalienable title (character indelebilis) and to form a stringent view of the “objectivity” of the sacraments; or, to use a plainer expression, to regard the Church primarily as an institution whose 42holiness and truth were inalienable, however melancholy the state of its members. In this thought Catholicism was first complete. By it is explained its later history down to the present day, in so far as it is not a history of piety, but of the Church, the Hierarchy, sacramental magic, and implicit faith (fides implicita). But only in the West did the thought come to be deliberately and definitely expressed. It also made its way in the East, because it was inevitable; but it did so, as it were, unconsciously. This was no advantage; for the very fact that this conception of the Church was definitely thought out in the West, led over and over again to the quest for safeguards, or a form which could be reconciled with living faith, and the requirements of a holy life. Even Augustine, who stated it definitely and fully, aimed at reconciling the Christian conscience with it. But he was not the first to declare it; he rather received it from tradition. The first representative of the new conception known to us, and Augustine also knew him, was Optatus. The work of Optatus, “De schismate Donatistarum,” was written in the interests of peace, and therefore in as friendly and conciliatory a tone as possible. This did not, indeed, prevent violent attacks in detail, and especially extremely insulting allegorical interpretations of texts from Scripture. But the author every now and then recalls the fact that his opponents are after all Christian brethren (IV., I., 2), who have disdainfully seceded from the Church, and only decline to recognise what is gladly offered them, Church fellowship. At the very beginning of his book, which, for the rest, is badly arranged, because it is a reply point by point to a writing by the Donatist, Parmenian, Optatus (I., 10 sq.)—differing from Cyprian—indicates the distinction in principle between heretics and schismatics, and he adheres firmly to the

distinction—already drawn by Ir ac8 enæus—to the end of his statement.70 Heretics are “deserters from or falsifiers of the Symbol” (I., 10, 12; II., 8), and accordingly are not Christians; the Donatists are seditious Christians. Since the definition holds (I., 11) that “a simple and true understanding 43in the law (scil. the two testaments), the unique and most true sacrament, and unity of minds constitute the Catholic (scil. Church),”71 the Donatists only want the last point to be genuinely Catholic Christians. The heretics have “various and false baptisms,” no legitimate office of the keys, no true divine service; “but these things cannot be denied to you schismatics,72 although you be not in the Catholic Church, because you have received along with us true and common sacraments” (I., 12). He says afterwards (III., 9): “You and we have a common ground in the Church (ecclesiastica una conversatio), and if the minds of men contend, the sacraments do not.” Finally, we also can say: “We equally believe, and have been stamped with one seal, nor did we receive a different baptism from you; nor a different ordination. We read equally the Divine Testament; we pray to one God. Among you and us the prayer of our Lord is the same, but a rent having been made, with the parts hanging on this side and on that, it was necessary that it should be joined.” And (III., 10) he remarks very spiritually, founding on a passage in Ezechiel: “You build not a protecting house, like the Catholic Church, but only a wall; the partition supports no cornerstone; it has a needless door, nor does it guard what is enclosed; it is swept by the rain, destroyed by tempests, and is unable to keep out the robber. It is a house wall, but not a home. And your part is a quasi ecclesia, but not Catholic.” V., 1: “That is for both which is common to you and us: therefore it belongs also 543 to you, because you proceed from us;” that is the famous principle which is still valid in the present day in the Catholic Church. “Finally, both you and we have one ecclesiastical language, common lessons, the same faith, the very sacraments of the faith, the same 44mysteries.” Undoubtedly Optatus also held ultimately that those

afc 70Parmenian denied this distinction. 71 “Catholicam (scil. ecclesiam) facit simplex et verus intellectus in lege (scil. duobus testamentis) singulare ac verissimum sacramentum et unitas animorum.” 72 Cyprian would never have admitted that. He accused the Novatians (Ep. 68) of infringing the Symbol like other heretics, by depriving the “remissio peccatorum” of its full authority; and he commanded all who had not been baptised in the Catholic Church to be re-baptised. Cyprian had on his side the logical consequence of the Catholic dogma of the Church; but since this consequence was hurtful to the expansion of the Church, and the development of its power, it was rejected with a correct instinct in Rome (see Ambrosiaster), and afterwards in Africa.

things possessed by the schismatics were in the end fruitless, because their offence was especially aggravated. They merely constituted a “quasi ecclesia.” For the first mark of the one, true, and holy Church was not the holiness of the persons composing it; but exclusively the possession of the sacraments. II., 1: “It is the one Church whose sanctity is derived from the sacraments, and not estimated from the pride of persons. This cannot apply to all heretics and schismatics; it remains that it is (found) in one place.” The second mark consists in territorial Catholicity according to the promise: “I will give the heathen for an inheritance, and the ends of the world for a possession.” II., 1: “To whom, then, does the name of Catholic belong, since it is called Catholic because it is reasonable and diffused everywhere?” ae9 1 Optatus did not succeed in clearly describing the first mark in its negative and exclusive meaning; we could indeed easily charge him with contradicting himself on this point. The second was all the more important in his eyes,73 since the Donatists had only taken hold in Africa and, by means of a few emigrants, in Rome. In both signs he prepared the way for Augustine’s doctrine of the Church and the sacraments, in which Optatus’ thought was, of course, spiritualised. Optatus has himself shown, in the case of Baptism (V., 1-8), what he meant by the “sanctity of the sacraments.” In Baptism there were 45three essentials: the acting Holy Trinity (“confertur a trinitate”), the believer (“fides credentis”), and the administrator. These three were not, however, equally important; the two first rather belonged alone to the dogmatic notion of Baptism (“for I see that two are necessary, and one as if necessary

73

Compare l.c.: “Ecclesiam tu, frater Parmeniane, apud vos solos esse dixisti; nisi forte quia vobis specialem sanctitatem de superbia vindicare contenditis, ut, ubi vultis, ibi sit ecclesia, et non sit, ubi non vultis. Ergo ut in particula Africæ, in angulo parvæ regionis, apud vos esse possit, apud nos in alia parte Africa non erit?” 74 In connection with the territorial catholicity of the Church, Optatus always treats the assertion of its unity. Here he is dependent on Cyprian; se 54b e besides the details in Book 2 those in Book 7: “Ex persona beatissimi Petri forma unitatis retinendæ vel faciendæ descripta recitatur;” ch. 3 “Malum est contra interdictum aliquid facere; sed pejus est, unitatem non habere, cum possis . . . ” “Bono unitatis sepelienda esse peccata hinc intellegi datur, quod b. Paulus apostolus dicat, caritatem posse obstruere multitudinem peccatorum” (here, accordingly, is the identification of unitas and caritas). . . . “Hæc omnia Paulus viderat in apostolis ceteris, qui bono unitas per caritatem noluerunt a communione Petri recedere, ejus scil. qui negaverat Christum. Quod si major esset amor innocentiæ quam utilitas pacis unitatis, dicerent se non debere communicare Petro, qui negaverat magistrum.” That is still a dangerous fundamental thought of Catholicism at the present day.

[quasi necessariam]75”), for the baptisers are not “lords” (domini), but “agents or ministers of baptism” (operarii vel ministri baptismi). (Ambrosiaster calls them advocates who plead, but have nothing to say at the end when sentence is passed.) They are only ministering and changing organs, and therefore contribute nothing to the notion and effect of Baptism; for “it is the part of God to cleanse by the sacrament.” But if the sacrament is independent of him who, by chance, dispenses it, because the rite presupposes only the ever the same Trinity and the ever the same faith,76 then it cannot be altered in its nature by th 564 e dispenser (V. 4: “the sacraments are holy in themselves, not through men: sacramenta per se esse sancta, non per homines”). That is the famous principle of the objectivity of the sacraments which became so fundamental for the development of the dogmatics of the Western Church, although it never could be carried out in all its purity in the Roman Church, because in that case it would have destroyed the prerogatives of the Clergy. It is to be noticed, however, that Optatus made the holiness of the sacraments to be effective only for the faith of the believer (fides credentis), and he is perfectly consistent in this respect, holding faith to be all important, to the complete exclusion of virtues. Here again he prepared the way for the future theology of the West by emphasising the sovereignty of faith.77 It is all 46the more shocking to find that even Optatus uses the whole reflection to enable him to depreciate claims on the life of the members of the Church. We see clearly that the Catholi ac8 c doctrine of the sacraments grew out of the desire to show that the Church was holy and therefore true, in spite of the irreligion of the

75

Notice that there already occur in Optatus terms compounded with “quasi” which were so significant in the later dogmatics of Catholicism. 76 Here stands the following sentence (V., 7): “Ne quis putaret, in solis apostolis aut episcopis spem suam esse ponendam, sic Paulus ait: ‘Quid est enim Paulus vel quid Apollo? Utique ministri ejus, in quem credidistis. Est ergo in universis servientibus non dominium sed ministerium.” 77 At this point there occur especially in V., 7, 8, very important expositions anticipating Augustine. “Ad gratiam dei pertinet qui credit, non ille, pro cujus voluntate, ut dicitis, sanctitas vestra succedit.”—“Nomen trinitatis est, quod sanctificat, non opus (operantis).”—“Restat jam de credentis merito aliquid dicere, cujus est fides, quam filius dei et sanctitati suæ anteposuit et majestati; non enim potestis sanctiores esse, quam Christus est.” Here follows the story of the Canaanitish woman, with the remarkable application: “Et ut ostenderet filius dei, se vacasse, fidem tantummodo operatam esse: vade, inquit, mulier in pace, fides tua te salvavit.” So also faith is extolled as having been the sole agent in the stories of the Centurion of Capernaum and the Issue of Blood. “Nec mulier petiit, nec Christus promisit, sed fides tantum quantum præsumpsit, exegit.” The same thoughts occur in Optatus’ contemporary, Ambrosiaster.

Christians belonging to it. But in aiming at this, men lit, curiously, upon a trace of evangelical religion. Since it was impossible to point to active holiness, faith and its importance were called to mind. A great crisis, a perplexity, in which, seeing the actual condition of matters, the Catholic Church found itself involved with its doctrine of Baptism, virtue, and salvation, turned its attention to the promise of God and faith. Thus the most beneficent and momentous transformation experienced by Western Christianity before Luther was forced upon it by circumstances. But it would never have made its way if it had not been changed by the spiritual experiences of a Catholic Christian, Augustine, from an extorted theory78 into a joyful and confident confession. Parmenian gave Optatus occasion to enumerate certain “endowments” (dotes) of the Church, i.e., the essential parts of its possession. Parmenian had numbered six, Optatus gives five: (1) cathedra (the [Episcopal] chair); (2) angelus; (3) spiritus; (4) fons; (5) sigillum (the symbol). The enumeration is so awkward that one can only regret that it is adapted to the formula of an opponent. But we learn, at least, in this way that Cyprian’s ideal of the unity of the Episcopate, as represented in Peter’s chair, had been received and fostered unsuspiciously in Africa. “Peter alone received the keys” (I., 10, 12). “You cannot deny your knowledge that on Peter, in the city of Rome, was first conferred the Episcopal chair, in which he sat, the head of all the Apostles, whence he was also called Cephas, in which one chair unity might be observed by all, lest the rest of 47the Apostles should severally defend one, each for himself, in order that he might now be a schismatic and sinner, who should appoint a second as against the one unique chair” (II., 2). The connection with Peter’s chair was of decisive importance, not only for Optatus, but also for his opponent (II., 4), who had appealed to 564 the fact that Donatists had also possessed a Bishop in Rome. Optatus, besides, discusses the second point, the angelus, who is the legitimate Bishop of the local community, the chair (cathedra) guaranteeing the œcumenical unity, and he emphasises the connection of the African Catholic Churches with the Oriental, and especially the seven-fold ecclesia of Asia (Rev. II., 3), almost as strongly as that with the Roman Church (II., 6; VI., 3). His disquisitions on spiritus,79 fons, and sigillum, are devoid of any special interest (II., 7-9). On the other hand, it is important to notice that he expressly subordinates the consideration of the endowments (dotes) of the Church, to the verificatio ac8 n of “its

78

This it was in the case of Ambrosiaster as well as in that of Optatus. The Donatist had said (II., 7): “Nam in illa (catholica) ecclesia quis spiritus esse potest, nisi qui pariat filios 564 gehennæ?” That is the genuine confession of separatists. 79

sacred members and internal organs” (sancta membra ac viscera ecclesia), about which Parmenian had said nothing. These consisted in the sacraments and the names of the Trinity “in which meet the faith and profession of believers” (cui concurrit fides credentium et professio). Thus he returns to his natural and significant line of thought.80 48

If Ambrosiaster and Optatus prepared the way for Augustine’s doctrines of the sacraments, faith, and the Church,81 Ambrose did so for those of sin, grace, and faith. We have endeavoured above to estimate his importance to Augustine as a disciple of the Greeks; we have now to regard him as a Western.82 But we have first of all to consider not the theologian, but the Bishop. It was the royal priest who first opened Augustine’s eyes to the authority and majesty of the Church. Only a Roman Bishop—even if he did not sit in the Roman chair—could teach him this, and perhaps the great work, De civitate Dei, would never have been written had it not been for the way in which this majesty had been impressed on

80

We may here select a few details from the work of Optatus as characteristic of Western Christianity before Augustine. He regularly gives the name of “lex” to both the Testaments; he judges all dogmatic statements by the symbolum apostolicum, in which he finds the doctrine of the Trinity, to him the chief confession, without therefore mentioning the Nicene Creed; he confesses “per carnem Christi deo reconciliatus est mundus” (I., 10); he declares (VI., 1): “quid est altare, nisi sedes et corporis et sanguinis Christi, cujus illic per certa momenta corpus et sanguis habitabat?” He speaks of the reatus peccati and meritum fidei; he has definitely stated the distinction between præcepta and consilia (VI., 4) in his explanation of the parable of the Good Samaritan. The innkeeper is Paul, the two pence are the two Testaments, the additional sum still perhaps necessary are the consilia. He describes the position of the soteriological dogma in his a9b time by the following exposition (II., 20):—“Est Christiani hominis, quod bonum est velle et in eo quod bene voluerit, currere; sed homini non est datum perficere, ut post spatia, quæ debet homo implere, restet aliquid deo, ubi deficienti succurrat, quia ipse solus est perfectio et perfectus solus dei filius Christus, cæteri omnes semi-perfecti sumus.” Here we perceive the great task that awaited Augustine. But even as regards Church politics Optatus betrays himself as an Epigone of the Constantinian era, and as a precursor of the Augustinian. See his thesis on the disloyalty of the Donatists to the State (III., 3): “Non respublica est in ecclesia, sed ecclesia in republica est, id est in imperio Romano.” 81 In the West, before Augustine, the conception of gratia exhausted itself in that of the remissio peccatorum. We can see this in propositions like the following from Pacian, sermo de bapt. 3:—“Quid est gratia? peccati remissio, i.e., donum; gratia enim donum est.” 82 In this respect Ambrose takes an isolated position; thus it is, e.g., characteristic that he does not seem to have read Cyprian’s works.

Augustine by Ambrose; for great historical conceptions arise either from the fascinating impression made by great personalities or from political energy; and Augustine never possessed the latter. It was, on the contrary, in Ambrose, the priestly Chancellor of the State, that the imperial power (imperium) of the Catholic Church dawned upon him,83 and his experiences of the confusion and weakness of the civil power at the beginning of the fifth century completed the impression. Along with t 564 his Ambrose’s sermons fall to be considered.84 If, on one side, they were wholly dependent on Greek models, yet they show, on the other hand, in their practical tone, the spirit of the West. Augustine’s demand that the preacher should “teach, sway, and move” (docere, flectere, movere) is as if drawn from those sermons. in spite of the asceticism and virginity which he also mainly preached, he constantly discussed all the concrete affairs of the time and the 85 49moral wants of the community. Thus Ambrose represents the intimate union of the ascetic ideal with energetic insistence on positive morality, a union which the Western mediæval Church never lost, however much practical life was subordinated to the contemplative. Three different types of thought are i ac8 nterwoven in Ambrose’s doctrine of sin and grace. First, he was dependent on the Greek conception that regarded evil as not-being, but at the same time as necessary.86 Secondly, he shows that he was strongly influenced by the popular morality of Ciceronian Stoicism,87 which was widespread among cultured Western Christians, and which had, by its combination with monastic morality, brought about, in Pelagianism, the crisis so decisive for the dogmatics of the West. Thirdly and finally, he carried very much further that view taken

83

I express myself thus intentionally; for Ambrose never, in words, thrust the actual, hierarchical Church into the foreground. 84 See proofs by Förster, l.c., p. 218 ff. af5 85See at an earlier (late the Instructiones of Commodian. Ambrose was not such an advocate of Monachism as Jerome. 86 See above, p. 31. 87 See Ewald, Der Einfluss der stoisch-ciceronianischen Moral auf die Darstellung der Ethik bei Ambrosius, 1881. “De officiis,” with all its apparent consistency, shows merely a considerable vacillation between virtue as the supreme good (in the Stoic sense) and eternal life—which latter term, for the rest, is not understood in its Christian meaning. The moralism of antiquity, as well as the eudaimonist trait of ancient moral philosophy dominate the book, in which ultimately the “true wise man” appears most clearly. In such circumstances the distinction drawn between præcepta and consilia, in itself so dangerous to evangelical morality, constitutes an advantage; for specifically Christian virtues appear in the form of the consilia.

by Tertullian of the radical nature of evil and the guiltiness of sin which was made his fundamental principle by Augustine. Evil was radical, and yet its root was not found in the sensuous, but in “pride of mind” (superbia animi); it sprang from freedom, and was yet a power propagating itself in mankind. The Greeks had looked on the universal state of sinfulness as a more or less accidental product of circumstances; Ambrose regarded it as the decisive fact, made it the starting-point of his thought, and referred it more definitely than any previous teacher—Ambrosiaster excepted—to Adam’s Fall.88 Passages occur in his works which in this respect do not fall a whit behind the famous statements of Augustine.89 50

But important as this phase was, in which thought was no longer directed primarily to sin’s results, or to the single sinful act, but to the sinful state which no virtue could remove, yet it is just in this alone that we can perceive the advance made by Ambrose. As regards religion, none is to be found in his works; for his doctrine ac8 of the traducian character and tenacity of sin was in no way connected with the heightened consciousness of God and salvation. Ambrose did not submit evil to be decided upon in the light of religion. Therefore he merely groped his way round the guilty character of sin, without hitting upon it; he could once more emphasise the weakness of the flesh as an essential factor; and he could maintain the proposition that man was of himself capable of willing the good. For this reason, finally, his doctrine of sin is to us an irreconcilable mass of contradictions. But we must, nevertheless, estimate very highly the advance made by Ambrose in contemplating the radical sinful condition. It was undoubtedly important for Augustine. And to this is to be added that he was able to speak in a very vivid way of faith, conceiving it to be a

88

Hilary also speaks of the vitium originis. See Deutsch, Des Ambrosius Lehre von der Sünde and Sündentilgung, 1867. Förster,1.c., p. 146 ff. All human beings are sinners, even Mary. The “hæreditarium vinculum” of sin embraces all. “Fuit Adam, et in illo fuimus omnes; periit Adam, et in illo omnes perierunt.” It is not only an inherited infirmity that ac0 is meant, but a guilt that continues active. “Quicunque natus est sub peccato, quem ipsa nosciæ conditionis hæreditas adstrinxit ad culpam.” No doctrine of imputation, indeed, yet occurs in Ambrose; for as he conceived it, mankind in Adam was a unity, in which took place a peccatrix successio, a continuous evolution of Adam’s sin. Accordingly no imputation was necessary. Ambrosiaster (on Rom. V., 12) has also expressed Ambrose’s thought: “Manifestum itaque est, in Adam omnes peccasse quasi in massa; ipse enim per peccatum corruptus, quos genuit, omnes, nati sunt sub peccato. Ex eo igitur cuncti peccatores, quia ex eo ipso sumus omnes.” In the West this thought was traditional after Tertullian. See Cyprian, Ep. 64, 5; De opere 1, and Commodian, Instruct. I., 35. 89

living communion with God or Christ. The religious individualism which shines clearly in Augustine already does so faintly in Ambrose: “Let Christ enter thy soul, let Jesus dwell in your minds. . . . What advantage is it to me, conscious of such great sins, if the Lord do come, unless He comes into my soul, returns into my mind, unless Christ lives in me?”90 And while 51in many passages he distinctly describes the merit gained by works, and love as means of redemption, yet in some of his reflections, on the other hand, he rises as strongly to the lofty thought that God alone rouses in us the disposition for what is good, and that we can only depend on the grace of God in Christ.91 St. Paul’s Epistles occupied the foreground in Ambrose’s thought,92 and from them he learned that faith as confidence in God is a power by itself, and does not simply fall into the realm of pious belief. However much he adds that is alien, however often he conceives faith to be an act of obedience to an external authority, he can speak of it in different terms from his predecessors. Faith is to him the fundamental fact of the Christian 564 life, not merely as belief in authority (“faith goes before reason,” fides prævenit rationem),93 but as faith which lays hold of redemption through Christ, and justifies because it is the foundation of perfect works, and because grace and faith are alone valid before God. “And that benefits me because we are not justified from the works of the law. I have no reason, therefore, to glory in my works, I have nothing to boast of; and therefore I will glory in Christ. I will not boast because I am just, but because I am

90

“Intret in animam tuam Christus, inhabitet in mentibus tuis Jesus. . . . Quid mihi prodest tantorum conscio peccatorum, si dominus veniat, nisi veniat in meam animam, redeat in meam mentem, nisi vivat in me Christus.” In Ps. CXIX., exp. IV., 26: in Luc. enarr., X., 7; in Ps. XXXVI., exp. 63. The passages are collected by Förster (see esp. De poenit., II., 8). See also Vol. III., p. 130. For the rest, the author of the Quæstiones ex Vet. et. Nov. Testam. (Ambrosiaster) could also speak in tones whose pathetic individualism recalls Augustine; cf. e.g., the conclusion of the inserted tractate c. Novat.: “ego . . . te (scil. deum) quæsivi, te desideravi, tibi credidi; de homine nihil speravi . . . ego verbis antistitis fidem dedi, quæ a te data dicuntur, quæque te inspirant, te loquuntur, de te promittunt; huic de se nihil credidi nec gestis ejus, sed fidei quæ ex te est, me copulavi.” 91 On Ps. CXIX., exp. XX., 14: “Nemo sibi arroget, nemo de meritis, nemo de potestate se jactet, sed omnes speremus per dominum Jesum misericordiam invenire— quæ enim spes alia peccatoribus?” 566 92 The interrogation mark in Reuter, August. Studien, p. 493, is due to exaggerated caution. The antithesis of nature and grace, which, wherever it occurs, has one of its roots in Paulinism, and was already familiar to Tertullian, is anew proclaimed in Ambrose; see De off. I., 7, 24; see also the address on the death of his brother. Ambrosiaster, too, makes use of the natura-gratia antithesis. 93 De Abrah., I., 3, 21.

redeemed. I will glory, not because I am without sins, but because my sins have been remitted. I will not glory because I have done good service, or because anyone has benefited me, but because the blood of Christ was 52shed for me.”94 That is Augustinianism before Augustine, nay abb , it is more than Augustinianism.95 In the dogmatic work of Western theologians of the fourth century, the genius of Western Christianity, which found its most vigorous expression in Cyprian’s De opere et eleemosynis, fell away to some extent. But it only receded, remaining still the prevailing spirit. The more vital notion of God, the strong feeling of responsibility to God as judge, the consciousness of God as moral power, neither restricted nor dissolved by any speculation on nature—all that constituted the superiority of Western to Eastern Christianity is seen in its worst form under the deteriorating influence of the legal doctrine of retribution, and the pseudo-moral one of merit.96 In view of this, the inrush of Neoplatonic mysticism was highly important; for it created a counterpoise to a conception which threatened to dissolve religion into a series of legal transactions. But the weightiest counterpoise consisted in the doctrine of faith and grace as proclaimed by Augustine. However, it will be shown that Augustine taught his new conception in such a form that it did not shatter the prevailing system, but could rather be admitted into it; perhaps the greatest triumph ever achieved in the history of religion by a morality of calculations over religion. The conception of religion as a legal relationship, which was concerned with the categories lex (law) delictum (fault) satisfactio, pœna (punishment) meritum, præmium, etc., was not destroyed by Augustine. Grace was rather inserted in a legal and objective form into the relationship, yet in such a way that it remained possible for the individual to construe the whole relationship from the point of view of grace. 53

94

De Jacob et vita beata I., 6, 21; other passages in Förster, pp. 160 ff., 303 ff. ace 95A detailed account would here require to discuss many other Western writers, e.g., Prudentius (see monographs by Brockhaus, 1872, and Rosier, 1886), Pacian, Zeno, Paulinus of Nola, etc.; but what we have given may serve to define the directions in which Western Christianity moved. As regards Hilary, Förster has shown very recently (Stud. u. Krit., 1888, p. 645 ff.) that even he, in spite of his dependence on the Greeks, did not belie the practical ethical interest of the Westerns. 96 The East knew nothing of this excessive analysis; it took a man more as a whole, and judged him by the regular course taken by his will.

We have attempted, in the above discussion, to exhibit the different lines existing in the West which meet in Augustine. Let us, in conclusion, emphasise further the following points. ad5 1. Along with Holy Scripture, the Symbol, the Apostolic “law” (lex), was placed in the West on an unapproachable height. This law was framed in opposition to Marcionitism, Sabellianism, Arianism, and Apollinarianism, without essential variations, and without any process of reasoning, as a confession of faith in the unity of God in three persons, as also in the unity of Christ in two substances. The Western Church, therefore, apparently possessed a lofty certitude in dealing with Trinitarian and Christological problems. But with this certitude was contrasted the fact, of which we have many instances, that under cover of the official confession many more Christological heresies circulated, and were maintained in the West than in the Churches of the East, and that in particular the Christological formula, where it was not wholly unknown, was, for the laity and for many of the clergy, simply a noumenon.97 This fact is further confirmed when we observe that Western theologians, as long as they were not directly involved in Eastern controversies, did not turn their attention to the principles contained in the above “law,” but to quite different questions. Augustine was not the first to write “expositions of the Symbol,” in which questions, wholly different from what his text would lead us to expect, 54were discussed. On the contrary, Western theologians from Cyprian show that they lived in a complex of ideas and

97

I have already discussed this briefly in Vol. III., p. 33 ff. Augustine (Confess. VII., 19) believed, up to the time of his conversion, that the doctrine of Christ held by the Catholic Church was almost identical with that of Photinus; his friend Alypius thought, on the contrary, that the Church denied Christ a human soul. We see from Hilary’s work, De trinitate, how many Christological conceptions circulated in the Western communities, among them even “quod in eo ex virgine creando efficax Dei sapientia et virtus exstiterit, et in nativitate ejus divinæ prudentiæ et potestatis opus intellegatur, sitque in eo efficientia potius quam natura sapientiæ.” Optatus (I., 8) had to blame Parmenian for calling the body of Christ sinful, and maintaining that it was purified by his baptism. Further, in spite of the doctrine of “two natures,” and the acceptance of Greek speculations, the thought of Hippolytus (Philos. X., 33): εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς θεόν σε ἠθέλησε ποιῆσαι, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ λόγου τὸ παράδειγµα, runs like a concealed thread through the Christological utterances of the West. We shall see that even in Ambrose and August 552 ine there is to be found a hidden, but intentionally retained, remnant of the old Adoptian conception. (How this is to be regarded, see above under 2). We may here pass over the influence of Manichæan Christology on many secondary minds in the Western Churches.

questions which had little to do with the problems treated by Antignostics and Alexandrians, or with dogma. 2. In connection with the development of penance on the basis of works and merits (in the sense of satisfactions), and in harmony with the legal spirit characteristic of Western theological speculation, Christ’s expiatory work came now to the front. It was not so much the Incarnation—that was the antecedent condition— as the death of Christ, which was regarded as the salient point (punctum saliens);98 and it was already treated from all conceivable points of view as a s 564 acrificial death, atonement, ransom, and vicarious consummation of the crucifixion. At the same time, Ambrose discussed its relationship (reconciliatio, redemptio, satisfactio, immolatio, meritum) to sin as guilt (reatus). In such circumstances the accent fell on the human nature of Christ; the offerer and offering was the mediator as man, who received his value through the divine nature, though quite as much so by his acceptance on the part of the Deity. Thus the West had a Christological system of its own, which, while the formula of the two natures formed its starting-point, was pursued in a new direction: the mediator was looked on as the man whose voluntary achievement possessed an infinite value in virtue of the special dispensation of God.99 (Optat I., 10: “the world [was] reconciled to God by means of the flesh of Christ”: mundus reconciliatus deo per carnem Christi.) From this we can understand how Augustine, in not a few of his argu ac8 ments, opposed, if in a veiled fashion, the doctrine of the divine nature of Christ, discussing the merits of the historical Christ as if that nature did not exist, but everything was given to Christ of grace.100 The same reason 55further explains why afterwards modified Adoptianism was constantly re-emerging in the West,101 it being from the stand-point of the consistent Greek Christology the worst of heresies because it dislocated the whole structure of the latter, and threw its purpose into confusion. Finally, the same fact also explains why, in later times, Western Christians, particularly such as had acquired the mystical monachist observance of intercourse with Christ, the chaste bridegroom, substantially reduced the Christological conception to

98

Pseudo-Cyprian, De duplici martyrio, 16: “Domini mors potentior erat quam vita.” For fuller details, see Vol. III., p. 310 ff. Ritschl, Lehre v.d., Rechtfertigung u. Versöhnung, 2nd. ed., I., p, 38, III:, p. 362. Gesch. des Pietism. III., p. 426 ff. ac3 100 See e.g., the remarkable expositions ad Laurentium, c. 36 sq. The divine nature is indeed regarded as resting in the background; but in Jesus Christ there comes to the front the “individual” man, who, without previous merit, was of grace received into the Deity. 101 See the evidence in Bach’s Dogmengesch. des Mittelalters, Vol. II. 99

“Ecce homo.” The vividness and thrilling power which this figure possessed for them, raising them above sorrow and suffering, cannot deceive us as to the fact that the Church Christology was no longer anything to them but a formula. But while the ancient Western form had become the basis of a view which left fancy and disposition to fix the significance of Christ’s Person, that must not be described as a necessary deduction from it. That form—in which Christ was the object of the Father’s grace, carried out what the Father entrusted him with, and by Him was exalted—rather corresponded to the clearest passages of the New Testament, and was the only protection against the superstitious conceptions of the Greeks which emptied the Gospel of all meaning. Of decisive value, however, are not the various mediæval attempts to appraise Christ’s work, but rather the whole tendency to understand Christianity as the religion of atonement; for in this tendency is expressed characteristically the fear of God as judge, which, in the East, disappeared behind mystic speculations.102 3. An ac 564 ute observer perceives that the soteriological question—How does man get rid, and remain rid, of his sins and attain eternal life?—had already, in the fourth century, actively engaged the earnest attention of thinkers in the Western Church, and, indeed, in such a way that, as distinguished from the East, the religious and moral sides of the problem are no longer found separate. But the question was not clearly put before the Pelagian conflict, since the controversies with Heraclius and Jovinian were not followed by a lasting movement. Opinions were still jumbled together in a motley fashion, sometimes in 56one and the same writer. If I see aright, five different conceptions can be distinguished for the period about 400 A.D. First we have the Manichæan which insinuated its way in the darkness, but was widely extended, even among the clergy; according to it evil was a real physical power, and was overcome in the individual by goodness, equally a physical force which was attached to natural potencies and Christ.103 Second ac8 ly, we have the Neoplatonic and Alexandrian view which taught that evil was not-being, that which had not yet become, the necessary foil of the good, the shadow of the light, the transitoriness cleaving to the “many” in opposition to the “one.” It held that redemption was the return to the one, the existent, to God; that it was identification with God in love; Christ was the strength and crutches for such a return; for

102

See Vol. III., p. 189. See on the extension of Manichæism in the West, Vol. III., p. 334 ff. It was always more Christian and therefore more dangerous there. On its importance to Augustine, see under. 103

“energies and crutches come from one hand.”104 Thirdly, there was the rationalistic Stoic conception; this held that virtue was the supreme good; sin was the separate evil act springing from free will; redemption was the concentration of the will and its energetic direction to the good. Here again the historical and Christological were really nothing but crutches.105 All these three conceptions lay the greatest stress on asceticism. Fourthly, there was the sacramental view, which may be characterised partly as morally lax, partly as “evangelical”; we find it, e.g., in Heraclius106 on the one hand, and in Jovinian107 on the other. According to it he who was baptised possessing genuine faith obtained the guarantee of felicity; sin could not harm him; no impeachment of sin (reatus peccati) could touch him. It is proved that really lax and “evangelical” views met: a man could always rely as a Christian on the grace of God; sin did not separate him from God, if he stood firm in the faith. Nay, from the second century, really from Paul, there existed in the 57Gentile Church movements which deliberately defended reliance on faith alone (the “sola fide”) and “the mos 564 t assured salvation through grace granted in baptism” (salus per gratiam in baptismo donatam certissima.)108 A fifth

104

See the conceptions of Ambrose, Victorinus, and Augustine. See the Western popular philosophies in the style of Cicero, but also Ambrose’s De officiis. 106 See above, p. 40 f. 107 Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and Siricius give us information regarding him. 108 I have demonstrated this in the Ztschr. f. Theol. u. Kirche I. (1891), pp. 82-178, and cannot repeat the proof here. From the I. Ep. of John onwards undercurrents can be traced in the Gentile Church which required to have the saying addressed to them: “Be not deceived, he who does righteousness is righteous.” My main references are to the erroneous views opposed in the Catholic Epistles; the lax Christians mentioned by Tertullian; the edict on penance of Calixtus, with its noteworthy evangelical basis (see also Rolffs in the Texten u. Unters, Vol. XI., part 3); Heraclius in Rome; the counterefforts of the lax against the monachism which was establishing itself in the West; Jovinian; and to the opponents assailed by Augustine in his very important writing, “De fide et operibus.” This writing is, along with Jovinian’s discussions, the most important source. There can be no doubt that in the majority of cases an unbridled and accommodating trust in the sacrament—accordingly a strained form of the popular Catholic feeling—was the leading idea, and that the reference to Gospel texts, which bore witness to the unlimited mercy of God, was only a drapery; that accordingly the “sola fide”—the catchword occurs—was not conceived evangelically, but really meant “solo sacramento”—i e., even if the life did not correspond to the Christian demand for holiness. But there were Christian teachers who had really grasped the evangelical thesis, and Jovinian is to be counted one of them, even if his opponents be right (and I am doubtful of this) in taking offence at his conduct; and even if it be certain that his 105

conception was closely related to, yet different from, the last. We can call it briefly the doctrine of grace and merit. We have pointed out strong traces of it in Victorinus, Optatus, and Ambrose. According to it, evil as the inherent sin of Adam was only to be eradicated by divine grace in Christ; this grace produced faith to which, however, redemption was only granted when it had advanced and become the habitual love from which those good works spring that establish merit in the sight of God. Evil is godlessness and the vice that springs from it; goodness is the 58energy of grace and the good works that flow from it. Here, accordingly, nature and grace, unbelief and faith, selfishness and

doctrine, in the circumstances of the time, could and did promote laxity. His main positions were as follows:—1. The n ac8 atural man is in the state of sin. Even the slightest sin separates from God and exposes to damnation. 2. The state of the Christian rests on baptism and faith; these produce regeneration. 3. Regeneration is the state in which Christ is in us, and we are in Christ; there are no degrees in it, for this personal relationship either does or does not exist. Where it does, there is righteousness. 4. It is a relation formed by love that is in question: Father and Son dwell in believers; but where there is such an indweller, the possessor can want for nothing. 5. Accordingly all blessings are bestowed with and in this relationship; nothing can be thought of as capable of being added. 6. Since all blessings issue from this relationship, there can be no special meritorious works; for at bottom there is only one good, and that we possess as the best beloved children of God, who now participate in the divine nature, and that good will be fully revealed in Heaven. 7. In him who occupies this relationship of faith and love there is nothing to be condemned; he can commit no sin which would separate him from God; the devil cannot make him fall, for he ever recovers himself as a child of God by faith and penitence. The relationship fixed in baptism through faith is something lasting and indissoluble. 8. But such an one must not only be baptised; he must have received baptism with perfect faith, and by faith evince baptismal grace. He must labour and wrestle earnestly—though not in monkish efforts, for they are valueless—not in order to deserve something further, but that he may not lose what he has received. To him, too, the truth applies that there are no small and great sins, but that the heart is either with God or the devil. 9. Those who are baptised in Christ, and cling to Him with confident faith, form the one, true Church. To her belong all the glorious promises: she is bride, sister, mother, and is never without her bridegroom. She lives in one faith, and is never violated or divided, but is a pure virgin. We may call Jovinian actually a “witness of antiquity to the truth,” and a “Protestant of his time,” though we must not mistake a point of difference: the indwelling of God and Christ in the baptised is more strongly emphasised than the power of faith. The Spaniard, Vigilantius, even surpassed Jovinian, both in range and intensity, in the energy with which he attacked the excrescences of monkery, relic-worship, virginity, etc.; but he does not belong to this section, for he was moved by the impression made upon him by the superstition and idolatry which he saw rising to supremacy in the Church. Jerom 562 e’s writing against him is miserable, but is surpassed in meanness by the same author’s books against Jovinian.

love of God are the antitheses, and the work of the historical Christ stands in the centre. Nevertheless, this view did not exclude asceticism, but required it, since only that faith was genuine and justified men which evinced ac8 itself in sanctification, i.e., in world-renouncing love. Thus a middle path was here sought between Jovinian on the one side and Manichæan and Priscillian asceticism on the other.109 These different conceptions met and were inextricably mingled. The future of Christianity was necessarily to be decided by the victory of one or other of them. 59

4. In the West, interest in the question of the relation of grace and means of grace to the Church was awakened by the Novatian, heretical baptism, and Donatist controversy. This interest was, however, still further strengthened by the fact that the Church detached itself more forcibly from the State than in the East. The fall of the West Roman Empire, opposition to the remains of a still powerful heathen party in Rome, and finally dislike to the new Arian German forms of government all contributed to this. One perhaps expects to find here by way of conclusion a characterisation of the different national Churches of the West; but little can be said from the standpoint of the history of dogma. The distinctive character of the North African Church was strongly marked. A darkness broods over the Churches of Spain, Gaul, and Britain, in which the only clear spot is the conflict of the priests with the monachism that was establishing itself. The conflict with Priscillianism in Spain, the attacks on Martin of Tours in Gaul, and, on the other hand, Vigilantius, come in here. It is not unimportant to notice that Southern Gaul was distinguished by its culture and taste for aesthetics and rhetoric about A.D. 360 (see Julian’s testimony) and A.D. 400 (see Sulp. Severus, Chron. init.). Rome only became a Christian city in the fifth century, but even in the time of Liberius and Damasus the Roman Bishop was the foremost Roman. What was wrested by Damasus, that unsaintly but sagacious man, from the State and the East, was never again

109

The puzzling phenomenon of Priscillianism has not been made much clearer by the discovery of Priscillian’s homilies. I believe we may pass them over, since, important as were the points touched on in the Priscillian controversy (even the question as to the claims of the “Apocrypha” compared with the Bible), they neither evoked a dogmatic controversy, nor obtained a more general significance. The meritorious work by Paret, Priscillianus, ein Reformator des 4 Jahrh. (Würzburg, 1891) is not convincing in its leading thoughts (see on the other side Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. Vol. 35, 1892, pp. 185).

abandoned by his energetic successors; they also tried vigorous intervention in the affairs of the provincial Churches. Holding faithfully to its confession, the Roman Church was, not only from its position, but also by its nature, the connecting link between East and West, between the monachist leanings of the former, and the tendency to ecc 545 lesiastical politics and sacramentarianism of the latter. It also united South and North in the West. Rome, again, from the time of Liberius pursued and explained that religious policy towards paganism, “by which the Catholic Church gained the means not only of winning but of satisfying the masses of the people who were, and, in spite of 60the confession, remained heathen” (Usener, Relig. Unters., I., p. 293): “it rendered heathenism harmless by giving its blessing to it, i.e., to all that belonged to the pagan cultus.” But that magnanimous way of opposing paganism, which has been rightly adduced, and which Usener (op. cit.) has begun to exhibit to us so learnedly and instructively, concealed within it the greatest dangers. In such circumstances it was of supreme value both for the contemporary and future fortunes of the Church that, just when the process of ethnicising was in full swing, Augustine, equally at home in North Africa, Rome, and Milan, appeared and reminded the Church what Christian faith was. 61

Chapter III. The Historical Position of Augustine as Reformer of Christian Piety.

CHAPTER III. THE HISTORICAL POSITION OF AUGUSTINE AS REFORMER OF CHRISTIAN PIETY. ae1 110

110

Of the immense literature about Augustine, the following works may be mentioned (with special regard to the Pelagian controversy): The critical investigations of the Benedictines in their editions of Aug.’s Opp., and the controversies over his doctrine of grace in the 16th to the 18th century; the works of Petavius, Noris (Hist. Pelag.), Tillemont, Gamier, Mansi, Hefele; Bindemaun, Der hl. Aug. 3 vols., 1844-69; Böhringer, Aur. Aug., 2 ed., 1877-78; Reuter, August. Studien, 1887 (the best of later works); A. Dorner, Aug., sein theol. System and seine relig.-philos. Anschauung, 1873; Loofs, “Augustinus in the 3 Ed. of the R.-Encykl. v. Hauck, Vol. II., pp. 257-285 (an excellent study, with an especially good discussion of the period to 395). Comprehensive expositions in Ritter, Baur, Nitzsch, Thomasius, Schwane, Huber (Philos. der KVV.), Jul. Müller (L. v. d. Sünde), Dorner (Entwicklgesch. d. L. v. d. Person Christi), Prantl (Gesch. d. Logik), Siebeck (Gesch. d. Psychologie), Zeller; see esp. Eucken, Die

Lebenanschauungen der grossen Denker (1890) p. 258 ff.—Naville, S’ Aug., Etude sur le devéloppement de sa pensée jusqu à 1’époque de son ordination (Geneva 1872). Bornemanu, Aug.’s Bekenntnisse, 1888; Harnack, Aug.’s Confessionen, 1888; Boissier, La conversion de S. Aug. in the Rev. de deux mondes, 1888 Jan.; Wörter, Die Geistesentw. d. h. Aug. bis zu seiner Taufe, 1892; Overbeck, Aug. u. Hieronymus in the Histor. Ztschr. N. F., Vol. VI.; Feuerlein, Ueb. d. Stellung Aug.’s in the Kirchen und Culturgesch. Histor. Ztschr., XXII., p. 270 ff. (see Reuter, l.c. p. 479 ff.); Ritschl, Ueber die Methode der ältesten D.-G. in the Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theol., 1871 (idem, Rechtfert. and Versöhn. Vol. I., Gesch. d. Pietismus Vol. I.); Kattenbusch, Studien z. Symbolik in the Stud. u. Krit. 1878; Reinkens, Geschichtsphilos. d. hl. Aug., 1866; Seyrich, Geschichts philosophie Aug.’s, 1891; Gangauf, Metaphys. Psychologie d. hl. Aug., 1852; Bestmann, Qua ratione Aug. notiones philosophiæ græca, etc., 1877; Lœsche, De Aug. Platonizante 1880; Ferraz, Psychologie de S. Aug., 1862; Nourissou, La philosophic de S. Aug., 2 Ed., 1866; Storz, Die Philosophie des hl. Aug., 1882; Scipio, Des Aurel. Aug. Metaphysik, etc., 1886; Melzer, Die august. Lehre vom Causalitätsverhältniss Gottes zur Welt, 1892 Melzer, Augustini et Cartesii placita de mentis humanæ sui cognitione, 1860; Siebeck, Die Anfänge der neueren Psychologie in the Ztschr. f. Philos., 1888, p. 161 ff.; Kahl, Der Primat des Willens bei Aug., 1886; Schütz, August. non esse ontologum, 1867; Heinzelmann, Aug.’s Ansichten vom Wesen der menschlichen Seele, 1894; van Endert, Gottesbewei 564 s in d. patrist. Zeit, 1869; Clauren, Aug. s. script. interpret., 1822; Gangauf, Des hl. Aug. Lehre von Gott dem Dreieinigen, 1865; Nitzsch, Aug.’s Lehre v. Wunder, 1865. Walch, De pelagianismo ante Pelagium, 1783; idem. hist. doctrinæ de peccato orig., 1783; Horn, Comm. de sentent. patrum . . . de pecc. originali, 180:; Dunker, Pecc. orig. et act., 1836; Krabinger, Der angebliche Pelagianismus d. voraugust. VV. Tüb Quartalschr., 1853; Kuhn, Der vorgebl. Pelagianismus d. voraugust. VV., in same journal; Walch, Ketzerhistorie, Vols. IV. and V.; Wiggers, Pragmat. Darstell. des Augustinismus u. Pelagianismus, 2 Vols., 1831-33 (the continuation on Semipelagianism in the Zeitschr. f. d. histor. Theol., 1854 ff.); Rottmanner, Der Augustinismus, 1892; Jacobi, Die Lehre des Pelagius, 1842; Leutzen, de Pelagianorum doctrinæ principiis, 1833; Jul. Muller, Der Pelagianismus in the deutsche Zeitschr f. christl. Wissensch., 1854, Nr. 40 f.; Wörter, Der Pelagianismus, 1866; Klasen, Die innere Entw. des Pelagianism., 1882; Geffcken, Histor. semipelag., 1826; Wiggers, de Joanne Cass., 182425; Wörter, Prosper v. Aquitanien über Gnade and Freiheit, 1867; Landerer, Das Verhältniss v. Gnade u. Freiheit in the Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theol., Vol. II., 1857; Luthardt, Die L. v. freien Willen u. s. Verh. z. Gnade, 1863; Kihn, Theodor. v. Mopsueste, 1880; Rits ac8 chl, Expos. doctr. S. Aug. de creat., peccato, gratia, 1843; Zeller, Die Lehre des Paulus u. Augustinus v. d. Sünde u. Gnade in ihrem Verhältniss z. protest. Kirchenlehre (Theol. Jahrbb., 1854, p. 295 ff.); Ehlers, Aug. de origine mali doctrina, 1857; Nirschl, Ursp. u. Wesen des Bösen nach Aug., 1854; Hamma, Die L. des hl. Aug. über die Concupiscenz in the Tüb. Quartalschr., 1873; Voigt, Comment. de theoria August., Pelag., Semipelag. et Synergist., 1829; Kühner, Aug.’s Anschauung v. d. Erlösungsbedeutung Christi, 1890; Dieckhoff, Aug.’s L. v. d. Gnade in the Mecklenb. Theol. Ztschr. I., 1860; Weber, Aug. de justificatione doctr.; Ernst, Die Werke der Ungläubigen nach Aug., 1871; Beck, Prädest.—Lehre in the Stud. u. Krit., 1847, II.;

“VIRTUES will so increase and be perfected as to conduct thee without any hesitation to the truly blessed life which only is eternal: where evils, which will not exist, are not discriminated from blessings by prudence, nor adversity is borne bravely, because there we shall find only what we love, not also what we tolerate, nor lust is bridled by temperance, where we shall not feel its 62incitements, nor the needy are aided justly, where we will have no need and nothing unworthy. There virtue will be one, and virtue and the reward of virtue will be that spoken of in sacred phrase by the man who loves it: “But to me to cling to God is a good thing.” This virtue will be there the full and eternal wisdom, and it will also truly be the life that is blessed. Surely this is 63to attain to the eternal and supreme blessing, to which to cling for ever is the end of our goodness. Let this (virtue) be called prudence, because it will cling to the good too eagerly for it to be lost, and fortitude, because it will cling to the good too firmly for it to be torn away, and temperance, because it will cling to the good too chastely to be corrupted, and justice, because it will cling to the good too justly to be inferior in any merit. Although even in this life the only virtue is to love what ought to be loved. But what should we choose chiefly to love except that than which we find nothing better? This is God, and if we prefer anything or esteem anything equal to love to him we fail to love ourselves. For it is the better for us, the more we enter into him, than whom there is nothing better. But we move not by walking, but by loving. We may not go (to him) afoot, but with our character. But our character is wont to be judged, not from what anyone knows, but from what he loves. Nothing makes character good or bad but good or bad affections. Therefore, by our corruption, we have been far from the righteousness of God. Whence we are corrected by loving the right, that being just we may be able to cling to the right.”111 561

Koch, Autorität Aug.’s in der Lehre v. der Gnade u. Prædest., in the Tüb. Quartalschr., 1891, p. 95 ff.; H. Schmidt, Origenes u. Aug. als Apologeten, in the Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theologie, Vol. VIII.; Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 1886.—On Aug.’s doctrine of Baptism see Reuter, Kliefoth (Liturg. Abhandl.), and Höfling. Wilden, Die L. d. hl. Aug. v. Opfer d. Eucharistie, 1864; Ginzel L. d. hl. Aug. v. d. Kirche, in the Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr., 1849; Köstlin, Die kathol Auffass. v. d. Kirche, etc., in the deutschen Zeitschrift f. christl. Wissensch., 1856, Nr. 14; H. Schmidt, Aug.’s L. v. d. Kirche, in the Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theol., 1861 (id. Die Kirche, 1884); Seeberg, Begriff d. christl. Kirche, Pt. I., 1885; Roux, Diss. de. Aug. adversario Donatistarum, 1838; Ribbeck, Donatus and Augustinus, 1858. 111 August. Ep. 155 c. 12. 13. “Virtutes ita crescent et perficientur, ut te ad vitam vere beatam, quæ nonnisi æterna est, sine ulla dubitatione perducant: ubi jam nec prudenter

64

Augustine reveals his soul in these words; they therefore also mark his importance in the history of dogma. If, as we have attempted in the preceding chapter, we pursue and let converge the different lines along which Western Christianity developed in the fourth and fifth centuries, we can construct a system which approximates to “Augustinianism”; indeed we can even deduce the latter, as a necessary product, from the internal and external conditions in which the Church and theology then found themselves. But we cannot, for all that, match the man who was behind the system and lent it vigour and life. Similarly we can attempt—and it is a remunerative task—to make Augustine’s Christian conception of the world intelligible from the course of his education, and to show how no stage in his career failed to influence him. His pagan father, and pious, Christian mother, Cicero’s Hortensius, Manichæism, Aristotelianism, Neoplatonism, with its mysticism and scepticism, the impression produced by Ambrose and monachism—all contributed their share.112 But even from this stand-point we cannot finally do complete justice to the distinctive character of this man. That is his secret and his greatness, and perhaps all or any analysis itself is an injury: he knew his heart to be his worst possession, and the living God to be his highest good; he lived in the love of God, and he possessed a

discernantur a bonis mala, quæ non erunt, nec fortiter tolerentur adversa, quia non ibi erit nisi quod amemus, non etiam quod toleremus, nec temperanter libido frenetur, ubi nulla ejus incitamenta sentiemus, nec juste subveniatur ope indigentibus, ubi inopem atque indignum non habebimus. Una ibi virtus erit, et idipsum erit virtus præmiumque virtutis, quod dicit in sanctis eloquiis homo qui hoc amat: Mihi autem adhærere deo bonum est. Hæc ibi erit plena et sempiterna sapientia eademque veraciter vita jam beata. Perventio quippe est ad æternum ac summum b 561 onum, cui adhærere est finis nostri boni. Dicatur hæc et prudentia quia prospectissime adhærebit bono quod non amittatur, et fortitudo, quia fermissime adhærebit bono unde non avellatur, et temperantia, quia castissime adhærebit bono, ubi non corrumpatur, et justitia, quia rectissime adhærebit bono, cui merito subjiciatur. Quamquam et in hac vita virtus non est nisi diligere quod diligendum est. Quid autem eligamus quod præcipue diligamus, nisi quo nihil melius invenimus? Hoc deus est, cui si diligendo aliquid vel præponimus vel æquamus, nos ipsos diligere nescimus. Tanto enim nobis melius est, quanto magis in illum imus, quo nihil melius est. Imus autem non ambulando, sed amando. Ad eum non pedibus ire licet, sed moribus. Mores autem nostri, non ex eo quod quisque novit, sed ex eo quod diligit, dijudicari solent. Nec faciunt bonos vel malos mores, nisi boni vel mali amores. Pravitate ergo nostra a rectitudine dei longe fuimus. Unde rectum amando corrigimur, ut recto recti adhærere possimus.” 112 ac5 Compare my lecture “Augustin’s Confessionen,” 1888. See also Essay by G. Boissier in the Rev. de deux mond., 1 Jan., 1888.

fascinating power of expressing his observations on the inner life. In doing this, he taught the world that the highest and sweetest enjoyment was to be sought in the feeling that springs from a soul that has triumphed over its pain, from the love of God as the fountain of good, and therefore from the certainty of grace. Theologians before him had taught that man must be changed in order to be blessed; he taught that man could be a new being if he let God find him, and if he found himself and God, from the midst of his distraction and dissipation. He destroyed the delusion of ancient popular psychology and morality; he gave the final blow to the intellectualism of antiquity; but he resuscitated it in the pious thought of the man who found true being and the supreme good in the living 65God. He was the first to separate nature and grace, two spheres which men had long attempted unsuccessfully to divide; but by this means he connected religion and morality, and gave a new meaning to the idea of the good. He was the first to mark off the scope and force of the heart and will, and to deduce from this what moralists and religious philosophers imagined they had understood, but never had understood; he set up a fixed goal for the aimless striving of asceticism: perfection in the love of God, suppression of selfish ambition, humility. He taught men to realise the horror of the depth of sin and guilt which he disclosed, at the same time with the blessed feeling of an ever-comforted misery, and a perennial grace. He first perfected Christian pessimism, whose upholders till then had really reserved for themselves an extremely optimistic view of human nature. But while showing that radical evil was the mainspring of all human action, he preached also the regeneration of the will, by which man adapted himself to the blessed life. He did not bridge for feeling and thought the gulf which Christian tradition disclosed between this world and the next; but he testified so thrillingly to the blessedness of the man who had found rest in God, that nothing was reserved for the future life but an indescribable “vision.” But above all and in all, he exhibited to every soul its glory and its responsibility: God and the soul, the soul and its 564 God. He took religion—a transfigured and moulded monachism, dominated by positive conceptions and trust in Christ—out of its congregational and ritualistic form, and set it in the hearts of individuals as a gift and a task. He preached the sincere humility which blossoms only on ruins—the ruins of selfrighteousness; but he recognised in this very humility the charter of the soul, and even where he assigned an imperious power to the authority of the Church, he only did so in the end in order to give the individual soul an assurance which it could not attain by any exertion, or any individual act of pardon. Therefore, he became not only a pedagogue and teacher, but a Father of the Church. He was

a tree, planted by the waters, whose leaves do not fade, and on whose branches the birds of the air dwell. His voice has pealed forth to the Church through 66the centuries, and he preached to Christendom the words “Blessed is the man whose strength Thou art; in whose heart are Thy ways.”

We do not require to prove that, for a man with such a personality, all that tradition offered him could only serve as material and means, that he only accepted it in order to work it into the shape that suited him. In this respect Augus ac8 tine was akin to the great Alexandrians, and plenty of evidence can be adduced in support of this affinity, which was conditioned on both sides by the same loftiness of soul, as well as by dependence on Neoplatonic philosophy. But in spite of all they possessed in common, the distinction between them was extremely significant. It did not consist merely in the fact that while the former lived about A.D. 200, Augustine was a member of the Theodosian imperial Church, nor that he had passed through Manichæism, but it was due in a much greater degree to his having, in spite of his Neoplatonism, a different conception of the nature of the Christian religion, and also other ideas about the nature and authority of the Church. I. He thought of sin, when he reflected on God and Christ, and he thought of the living God, who has created and redeemed us, when he reflected on evil: the steadfastness with which he referred these factors to each other was the novel feature which distinguished him above all his predecessors. But not less novel was the energy with which he combined the categories God, Christ, the word of God, the sacraments, and the Catholic Church for practical piety, compressing what was fullest of life and freest, the possession of God, into, as it were, an objective property, which was transferred to an institution, the Church. As he accordingly begot the feeling that Christian piety was grief of soul comforted, so, on the other hand, he created that inter-weaving, characteristic of Western Catholicism, of the freest, most personal surrender to the divine, with constant submission to the Church as an institution in possession of the means of grace. According to this he is, in the first place, to be estimated, even the history of dogma, not as a theologian, but as a reformer of Christian piety. The characteristic feature of the old Christian piety was its vacillation between hope and fear (Tertull., De uxor. II., 2: “Fear is the foundation of salvation, confidence is the barrier

67for

against fear”: timor fundamentum salutis est, præsumptio impedimentum timoris).113 It was known that Jesus accepted sinners; but in that case men were accepted through baptism. The action of God was, a ac8 s it were, exhausted.114 The whole Dogmatic (Trinity, Christology, etc.) had its practical culmination, and therewith its end, in the merely retrospective blessing received in baptism. What next? Men feared the judge, and hoped in an uncertain fashion for a still existent grace. The fear of the judge led to fasting, almsgiving, and prayer, and the uncertain hope groped after new means of grace. Men wavered between reliance on their own powers and hope in the inexhaustibility of Christ’s grace. But did they not possess faith? They did, and prized it as a lofty possession; but they valued it as a condition, as an indispensable card of admission. In order actually to enter, there were other and wholly different conditions to be fulfilled. Piety, when it concerned itself with the task of the present, did not live in faith. The psychological form of piety was unrest, i.e., fear and hope.115 Reliance was placed on free-will; but what was to be done if it led to one defeat after another? Repentance and amendment were required. No doubt was felt that repentance was sufficient wherever sins “against our neighbour” were in question, and where the injury could be made good. Repentance and compensation had the widest possible scope in relation to sin. Sin consisted in evil action; the good action united with repentance balanced it. One’s neighbour could forgive the offence committed against 68him, and the sin no longer existed; the Church could forgive what affected its constitution, and guilt was effaced. But he who was baptised sinned also “against God.” However widely the Church might extend the circle of sins in which she was the injured party, the judge, and the possessor of the right to pardon, there were sins against God, and there were transgressions which could not be made good. Who could cancel murder and adultery, or a misspent life on the part of the baptised? Perhaps even these sins were not in such evil case; perhaps God did not impute them to the baptised at all—though that would be an

113

In what follows the fundamental tendency is alone characterised. It is not to be denied that in some cases evangelical features were more marked. 114 After the exposition given in Vols. I.-IV., and the indications in Chap. II. of this vol., I need not adduce further evidence that for the ancient Church the grace of God in Christ was exhausted in the gifts received in baptism. All other grace, which was hoped for, was beset with uncertainty. 115 Read the striking avowals of II. Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, Tertullian, the confessions of monks, and of the great theologians of the fourth century who were prevented by circumstances from becoming monks.

Epicurean error; perhaps the power of the Church did not break on the rock of accomplished facts; perhap ac8 s there were other means of grace besides baptism. But who could know this? The Church created a kind of sacrament of penance in the third and fourth centuries; but it did not say clearly what was to be expected of this sacrament. Did it reconcile with the Church or with God; did it do away with sin, guilt, or punishment; was it effective through the penances of the penitent, or through the power of grace?116 Was it necessary? Was there in that case a sinful state, one that lasted, when the disposition had changed, when the will strove with all its powers after the good? Was there such a thing as guilt? Was not everything which man could do in accordance with his nature involved in the eternal alternation marked by good and evil actions, by knowledge, repentance, and striving? Knowledge and action decide. The man of to-day, who does the good, has no longer anything in common with the man of yesterday who did evil. But sins against God persisted in troubling them. Whence came fear, lasting fear? The Church threw its doors wider and wider; it forgave sin, all sin; but the earnest fled into the desert. There they tried to succeed by precisely the same means they had used in the world, and their mood remained the same—one of hope and fear. There was no consolation which was not confronted by a three-fold horror. 69

That was the temper of the ancient Christians from the day when we can first observe them in the wide framework of the Roman Empire until the epoch with whose dawn we are here concerned. The “evangelical” ideas which are sometimes formed of the nature of their piety are not at all appropriate. The two most restless elements which can agitate a human breast, hope and fear, ruled over those Christians. These elements shattered the world and built the Church. Men, indeed, had a faith, and created a dogmatic for themselves; but these were insufficient to satisfy them regarding their daily life, or any life. They gave wings to hope, but they did not eradicate fear. They did not tell what the sins were with which the Christian daily fights, and what Christ had done for these sins. They left those questions to the individual conscience, and the answers given in ecclesiastical practice were not answers to soothe the heart. The only sure issue of the whole system of dogmatics was in the benefits of baptism. He who rose

116

Rothe says very truly, Kirchengesch., II., p. 33: “Men secretly distrusted inevitably the presupposed purely supernatural and accordingly magical operation of God’s grace, and they therefore arranged their plans on the eventuality that in the end everything might still require to be done by man alone.”

from the font had ac8 henceforth to go his way alone. If he reflected earnestly he could not doubt that all the Church could afterwards give him was a set of crutches. “Against Thee only have I sinned.” “Thou, Lord, hast made us for Thyself, and our heart is restless, until it finds rest in Thee.” “Grant what Thou dost command, and command what Thou dost desire” (da quod jubes, et jube quod vis).117 “The just by faith will live.” “No one enjoys what he knows, unless he also loves it, nor does anyone abide in that which he perceives unless by love” (eo quod quisque novit, non fruitur, nisi et id diligit, neque quisquam in eo quod percipit permanet nisi dilectione).118 These are the new tones sounded by Augustine, that is the mighty chord which he produced from Holy Scripture, from the most profound observations of human nature, and speculations concerning the first and last things. Everything in the mind that was without God was absolutely sinful; the only good thing left to it was that it existed. Sin 70was the sphere and form of the inner life of every natural man. It had been maintained in all theological systems from Paul to Origen, and later, that a great revolt lay at the root of the present state of the human race. But Augustine was the first to base all religious feeling and all theological thought on this revolt as still existent and damning in every natural man. The Apologists regarded the revolt as an uncertain datum; Origen looked upon it as a premundane fatality. To Augustine it was the most vital fact of the present, one which, at work from the beginning, determined the life of the individual and of the whole race. Further, all sin was sin against God; for the created spirit had only one lasting relationship, that to God. Sin was self-will, the proud striving of the heart (superbia); therefore it took the form of desire and unrest. In this unrest, lust, never quieted, and fear revealed themselves. Fear was evil; but in this unre ac8 st there was also revealed the inalienable goodness of the spirit that has come from the hand of God: “We wish to be happy, and wish not to be unhappy, but neither can we will.”119 We cannot but strive after blessings, after happiness. But there is only one good, one happiness, and one rest. “It is a good thing that I should cling to God.” All is included in

117 537

De pecc. mer. et remiss., II., 5; De spiritu et lit., 22; see Confessions, X, 40, and De dono persever., 53. The substance is given already in Soliloq., I., 5: “Jube quæso atque impera quidquid vis, sed sana et aperi aures meas.” Enchir., 117, “Fides impetrat quod lex imperat.” 118 De fide et symb., 19. 119 De Trinit., XIII., 4: “Felices esse volumus et infelices esse nolumus, sed nec velle possumus.” De civit. dei, XI., 26: “Tam porro nemo est qui esse se nolit, quam nemo est qui non esse beatus velit. Quo modo enim potest beatus esse, si nihil sit?”

that. Only in God as its element does the soul live. “Oh! who will give me to repose in Thee? Oh! that Thou wouldest enter into my heart, and inebriate it, that I may forget my ills, and embrace Thee, my only good! What art Thou to me? Of Thy mercy teach me to declare it. What am I to Thee that Thou demandest my love, and if I give it not, art angry with me, and threatenest me with grievous miseries? . . . For Thy mercies’ sake tell me, O Lord my God, what Thou art to me. Say unto my soul: ‘I am thy salvation.’ Say it so, that I may hear. Behold, Lord, the ears of my heart are before Thee; open Thou them, and say to my soul: I am thy salvation. I will run after this voice, and take hold on Thee. Hide not Thy face from me; let me die seeing it— 71only let me see it. Narrow is the tenement of my soul; enlarge Thou it, that it may be able to receive Thee. It is ruinous; repair Thou it. Within, it has these things that must offend Thine eyes; I confess and know; but who will cleanse it? or to whom shall I cry save Thee?”120 The same God who created us has redeemed us through Jesus Christ. That simply means that he has restored us to communion with himself. This takes place through grace and love, and in turn through faith and love. Through grace which lays hold of us and makes the unwilling willing (ex nolentibus volentes), which gives us an incomprehensibly new nature by imparting a new birth; and through love, which strengthens the weak spirit, and inspires it with powers of goodness. Through faith which holds to the saying, “He who is just by faith will live,” “which was written and confirmed by the all-powerful authority of apostolic teaching” (quod scriptum est 564 et apostolicæ disciplinæ robustissima auctoritate firmatum); and through love, which humbly renounces all that is its own and longs for God and his law. Faith and love spring from God; for they are the means by which the living God enables us to appropriate him. The soul regards those possessions, in which it has obtained all that God requires of us, as an everlasting gift and a sacred mystery; for a heart equipped with faith and love fulfils the righteousness that is accepted by God. The

ad9 120Confess., I., 5: Quis mihi dabit acquiescere in te? Quis mihi dabit ut venias in cor meum et inebries illud, ut obliviscar mala mea et unum bonum amplectar te? Quid mihi es? Miserere, ut loquar. Quid tibi sum ipse, ut amari te jubeas a me, et nisi faciam irascaris mihi et mineris ingentes miserias? . . . Dic mihi per miserationes tuas, domine deus meus, quid sis mihi. Dic animæ meæ: Salus tua ego sum. Sic dic, ut audiam. Ecce aures cordis mei ante te, domine; aperi eas, et dic animæ meæ: Salus tua ego sum. Curram post vocem hanc et apprehendam te. Noli abscondere a me faciem tuam; moriar ne moriar, ut eam videam. Angusta est domus animæ meæ quo venias ad eam; dilatetur abs te. Ruinosa est; refice eam. Habet quæ offendant oculos tuos; fateor et scio; sed quis mundabit eam? aut cui alteri præter te clamabo?

peace of God is shed upon the soul which has the living God for its friend; it has risen from unrest to rest, from seeking to finding, from the false freedom to the free necessity, from fear to love; for perfect love casts out fear. It cannot for a moment forget that it is entangled in worldliness and sin, as long as it lives in this 72world; but it does not let its thoughts rest for a moment on sin, without remembering the living God who is its strength. The misery of sin overcome by faith, humility and love—that is Christian piety. In this temper the Christian was to live. He was constantly to feel the pain caused by sin, separation from God; but he was at the same time to console himself with the conviction that the grace of God had taken possession of him, that the Lord of heaven and earth had inst ac8 illed His love into his heart, and that this love worked as mightily after as in baptism.121 Thus Augustine dethroned the traditional feelings of the baptised, fear and hope, the elements of unrest, and substituted the elements of rest, faith, and love. For an uncertain and vacillating notion of sin he substituted the perception of its power and horror, for a still uncertain notion of grace he substituted the perception of its omnipotence. He did not abolish hope, he rather confirmed with all his power the old feeling that this life is not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed. But in realising and preaching the rest bestowed by faith and love, he transformed the stormy and fanatical power of hope into a gentle and sure conviction.122 I have here reproduced Augustine’s teaching, as we find it chiefly in his Confessions. This book has the advantage of giving us an account which is not influenced by any particular aims. Our exposition is by no means complete; we should require to add more than one caution, in order to be perfectly just.123 Further, the description has intentionally only considered the fundamental lines, and given expression to but one direction in which the epoch-making importance of Augustine comes to the front. But there can be no doubt that it is the most decisive. If we Western Christians are shut up to the conviction that religion moves between the poles of sin and grace—nature and grace; if we subordinate morality to faith, in so far as we reject 73the thought of an independent morality, one indifferent to religion; if we believe

121

Enchir., 64: “Excepto baptismatis munere ipsa etiam vita cetera, quantalibet præpolleat fœcunditate justitiæ, sine peccatorum remissione non agitur.” 122 We will afterwards discuss how far Augustine failed to surmount this uncertainty and unrest, owing to the reception of popular Catholic elements into his piety. 123 The most important caution—that Augustine fitted his new form of feeling and reflection into the old—will be discussed later on; it has been only mildly suggested in the above exposition.

that it is necessary to pay much greater heed to the essence of sin than to the forms in which it is manifested—fixing our attention on its roots, not on its degrees, or on sinful actions; if we are convinced that universal sinfulness is the presupposition of religion; if we expect nothing from our own powers; if we comprise 564 all means of salvation in the thought of God’s grace and of faith; if the preaching of faith and the love of God is substituted for that of fear, repentance, and hope;124 if, finally, we distinguish between law and gospel, gifts and tasks appointed by God—then we feel with the emotions, think in the thoughts, and speak with the words of Augustine.125 Who can deny that in this way religion disclosed deeper truths to feeling and thought, that the disease was recognised more surely, and the means of healing were demonstrated more reliably? Who can mistake the gain in laying bare the living heart, the need of the soul, the living God, the peace that exists in the disposition to trust and love? Even if he merely seeks to study these phenomena as a disinterested “historian of culture,” who can escape the impression that we hav 564 e here an advance, at least in psychological knowledge, that can never 74again be lost? In fact, history seems to teach that the gain can never perish within the Christian Church; nay, it attests more, it would appear, than this: it tells us that a limit has been reached, beyond which the pious mood cannot receive a further development. If we review all the men and women of the West since Augustine’s time, whom, for the disposition that possessed them, history has designated as

586 124

I need hardly guard against the misapprehension that I represent faith as not having been of fundamental importance to the Pre-Augustinian and Greek Church. The question here is as to the feeling and disposition of the Christian. The Pre-Augustinian Christian regarded faith as the self-evident presupposition of the righteousness which he had to gain by his own efforts. 125 It need not be objected that this is the doctrine of Scripture. In the first place, Scripture has no homogeneous doctrine; secondly, even Paul’s range of thought, to which Augustine’s here most closely approximates, does not perfectly coincide with it. But we must undoubtedly recognise that the Augustinian reformation was quite essentially a Pauline reaction against the prevailing piety. Augustine, to some extent, appears as a second Marcion, see Vol. I., p. 136, Reuter, August. Studien, p. 492 “We can perhaps say that Paulinism, which the grow 564 ing Catholic Church only half-learned to understand, which Marcion attempted to open up in an eccentric one-sidedness that the Church, in its opposition to him, had all but rejected, was exploited by our Church Father for the second time, in such a way, that much hitherto belonging to popular Catholicism was remodelled.” This is followed by a parallel between Augustine and Marcion. The triad “Faith, Love, and Hope,” is Pauline, and occurs in almost all Church Fathers; but Augustine first made it fruitful again (perhaps he learned here from Jovinian).

prominent Christians, we have always the same type; we find marked conviction of sin, complete renunciation of their own strength, and trust in grace, in the personal God who is apprehended as the Merciful One in the humility of Christ. The variations of this frame of mind are indeed numerous—we will speak of these later on; but the fundamental type is the same. And this frame of mind is taught in sermons and in instruction by truly pious Catholics and Evangelicals; to it youthful Christians are trained, and dogmatics are framed in harmony with it. It always produces so powerful an effect, even where it is only preached as the experience of others, that he who has once come in contact with it can never forget it; it accompanies him as a shadow by day and as a light in the dark; he who imagines that he has long shaken it off sees it rising u 564 p suddenly before him again. Since the days of Leibnitz, indeed, and the “Illumination,” a powerful opponent has grown up, an enemy that seemed to have mastered it during a whole century, that reduced the Christian religion, when it gave any countenance to it at all, once more to energetic action, and furnished it with the foil of a cheerful optimism, a mode of thought which removed the living God afar off, and subordinated the religious to the moral. But this opponent succumbed in our century, at least, within the Churches, before the power of the old frame of mind. Whether this triumph of Augustine is guaranteed to last, none but a prophet could tell. It is only certain that the constellation of circumstances in the fray has been favourable to the victor. On the part of the Church no doubt prevails that the Augustinian feeling and type of thought are alone legitimate in Christianity, that they are alone Christian; for the conception of redemption (by God himself), in the sense of regeneration, 75dominates everything. But we cannot fail to be puzzled when we consider that it cannot by any means be directly deduced from the surest words of Jesus, and that the ancient and Greek Church was ignorant of it. Further, we cannot but be doubtful when we weigh its consequences; fo 564 r their testimony is not all favourable. A quietistic, I might almost say a narcotic, element is contained in it, or is, at least, imperceptibly associated with it. There is something latent in it which seems to enervate the vital energies, to hinder the exertion of the will, and to substitute feelings for action. Is there no danger in substituting a general consciousness of sin for evident evil tendencies, heartless words and shameful deeds?126 Is it safe to

126

I say nothing of the arrogant habit of those who, because they agree with the Augustinian doctrine, not only openly credit themselves with possessing “positive” Christianity, but also denounce their opponents as “half-believers.” For this nonsense

rely on the uniform operation of Grace, when we are called to be perfect and holy like God? Are all the energies of the Will actually set free, where the soul lives constantly in the mood shown in the “Confessions”? Are fear and hope really phases, necessarily to be superseded by faith and love? Perhaps it is correct to answer all these questions in accordance with the type of thought here considered; but even then a doubt remains. Is it advisable—apart from the variety in men’s temperaments—to present this ideal as the aim at all stages of spiritual development? Here, at least, the answer cannot be doubtful. That w ac4 hich is the last stage reached by the advanced Christian who has passed through a rich experience is a refinement to him who is in process of development. But a refined piety or morality is always pernicious; for it no longer starts at the point of duty and conscience. It deceives regarding our need and its satisfaction. And since it is strong enough to fascinate, and can also be comprehended as a doctrine by an intelligence that is far from advanced, in order, once comprehended, never to pass away again, so it can become dangerous to morality, and therefore also to piety. For, after all, in both these spheres, 76that only has any value which heightens the power to be and do good; everything else is a poisonous fog. Perhaps, if we consider the matter fairly, no feeling or mood, and no theory of the factors in the religious process, are alone legitimate. As man requires sleep and wakefulness, so also he must, if he is to preserve his moral and religious life in health, alternate between the sense of his freedom and power and that of his bondage and helplessness, between the sense of full moral responsibility and the conviction that he is a favoured child of God. Or is there a way of so grasping Augustine’s type of feeling and thought, that it may fashion faith into the strongest lever of moral energy and action? Are not the difficulties that rise against his type of piety due perhaps just to his not having developed it forcibly and absolutely enough? This question will obtain its answer later on. Here we have to point out that the dissemination of the religious views, peculiar to Augustine, was not in every respect beneficial. They constituted his greatness; they conducted him to the wonderful path he trod; they led him to conceive redemption no longer as a solitary intervention, by means of baptism, in the course of human life, but as the element in which the soul lived—baptismal grace being

Augustine is not responsible, and it only made its appearance in the nineteenth century. It is only in our days that evangelical Christendom has permitted itself to be terrorised by people who bear the deeper “knowle 564 dge of sin” as a motto, and with this shield guard themselves against the counsel to be just and modest.

therefore a continuously operative force. “Personal characteristics” lie beyond the sphere of errors and truths; they may be erroneous, looked at from without, true from within. They may for that very reason be even hurtful as influences, for “when they introduce disproportionately what is foreign, the question arises, how these adventitious peculiarities harmonise with those that are native to the soul, and whether by the very act of mingling they do not produce a sickly condition.”127 Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that Augustine submitted the traditional religious feeling to as thorough-going a revision as is conceivable, and even he who is not in a position to praise it unreservedly will not seek to minimise its benefits.128 77

II. No one was further than Augustine from intending to correct the tradition of the Church. If he has done this so emphatically, he was himself merely actuated by the feeling that he was thus assimilating more and more thoroughly the faith of the Church. Having forced his way through scepticism to the truth of the Catholic Church, he regarded the latter as the rock on which his faith was founded. We should misunderstand him were we to blink this fact. He rather sets us reflecting how it was possible for the most vital piety to have a double ground of conviction, inner experience, and external, nay, extremely external, attestation. We can make a still stronger assertion. Augustine first transformed the authority of the Church into a factor in religion; ac8 he first expressed pious contemplation, the view of God and self, in such a way that the religious man always found the authority of the Church side by side with sin and grace.129 Paul and post-apostolic teachers, especially Tertullian, had, indeed, already introduced the Church into the religious relationship itself;130 but they were not thinking of its authority.

127

Compare Goethe in his wonderful reflections on Sterne, Werke (Hempel’s Ed.), Vol. XXIX., p. 749 f. 128 Augustine’s Exposition of the Church I neither count one of his greater achievements, nor can I hold it to be the central idea which determines what is essential to him. 129 Reu 55f ter says excellently (l.c., p. 494): “Many phases of the hitherto traditional and authoritative doctrine were transformed by him into really religious factors; he effected a revolution in the religious consciousness in those circles in and upon which he worked, yet without seeking to endanger its Catholicity.” Cf., also p. 102 (71-98): “Much, but very far from all, that belonged to popular Catholicism was revised by Augustine.” 130 See De bapt., 6: “Cum antem sub tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio salutis pignerentur, necessario adicitur ecclesiæ mentio, quoniam ubi tres, id est pater et filius et

When we fix our attention on Augustine’s distinctive type of Christian piety as the foundation of his significance for Church and dogmatic history, we must not only consider the decisive tendency of his doctrine of sin and grace, but we must also review his reception and characteristic revision of traditional elements. For from these his piety, i.e., his sense of God, and sin and grace, obtained the form which is familiar to us as specifically Catholic. In addition to (l) the above-mentioned element of the authority of the Church, there are, if my view is 78correct, other three; (2) the confusion of personal relationship to God with a sacramental communication of grace; (3) uncertainty as to the nature of faith and the forgiveness of sins; (4) uncertainty as to the significance of the present life. Even in the way he felt and wrote about these things he created new states of feeling; but they appear merely to be modifications of the old; or, rather, he first enabled the old moods fully to understand themselves, in other words, enriched them from the dead material which they brought with them. This exerted in turn a very strong influence on the fundamental feeling—the sense of sin and grace, and first gave it the form which enabled it to take possession of souls, without creating a revolution, or producing a violent breach with tradition. In the sequel we only discuss the fundamental features of these four elements.131

spiritus sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quæ trium corpus est.” De oral., 2: “Pater . . . filius . . . ne mater quidam ecclesia præteritur. Si quidem in filio et patre mater recognoscitur, de qua constat et patris et filii nomen.” De monog., 7: “Vivit enim unicus pater noster et mater ecclesia.” All this is based on the Symbol. acd 131We don’t need now to say for the first time that Augustine was as closely as possible united to the past of the Church in all else (Scripture, doctrinal confession, etc.). Besides this, he shared with his contemporaries in the conception of the Church’s science in its relation to faith, and had on many points as naïve ideas as they of the limits and scope of knowledge. If he possessed the faculty of psychological observation in a much higher degree than his predecessors, he retained the absolute type of thought, and, with all the sceptical reserve which he practised in single questions, he further developed that conglomerate of cosmology, ethics, mythology, and rationalism, which was then called science. So also he was implicated in all the prejudices of contemporary exegesis. It is to be added, finally, that, although less credulous than his contemporaries, he was, like Origen, involved in the prejudices, the mania for miracles, and the superstition of the age. His works, sober in comparison with many other elaborations of the epoch, are yet full of miracles. A slave learns to read in answer to prayer, in three days, and without human help; and we have divine judgments, miracle-working relics, etc. He certainly made the absurd indispensable to the Church. Since Augustine’s time there are wholly absurd Church doctrines, whose abandonment would not be without danger, because they have excited, or at least have supported, like the vine-pole, the virtues of conscientiousness,

1. Augustin 564 e introduced the authority of the Church as a religious factor for two reasons. Like the thought of redemption, the significance of the Church seems, on a superficial examination, to have received so sovereign and fixed an impress in the conception formed by the ancient Catholic and Greek Fathers, that any further accentuation of it is impossible. But, if we look more closely, redemption was presented as a solitary 79intervention, and the significance of the Church was exhausted in the fact that, while it was the presupposition of Christian life and the guarantee of Christian truth, it did not enter into the separate acts in which the religious and moral life ran its spiritual course. Here also Rothe’s saying is true that Christians tacitly “laid their plans to meet the chance that in the end everything might require to be done by men alone.” These “plans” were based since the days of the Apologists on the optimistic conception of the inalienable goodness of human nature, and the demonstrability (clearness and intelligibility) of the Christian religion. The course of a spontaneously moral life was ultimately modified, neither by the doctrine of redemption nor by that of the Church. In both these respects Augustine’s experience had led to wholly different co ac8 nclusions. His conflict with himself had convinced him of the badness of human nature, and Manichæism had left him in complete doubt as to the foundations and truth of the Christian faith.132 His confidence in the rationality of Christian truth had been shaken to the very depths, and it was never restored. In other words, as an individual thinker he never gained the subjective certitude that Christian truth and as such everything contained in the two Testaments had to be regarded, was clear, consistent, and demonstrable.133 When he threw himself into the

strictness in self-examination, and tenderness of soul (see, e.g., his doctrine of original sin). But like all absurdities, they have also excited blind fanaticism and fearful despair. 132 See Reuter, l.c. p. 490 f. 133 The few tendencies to this conception, which are also found in his works, are always combined with that neutralising ac8 of the historical displayed by the Apologists. We cannot here discuss more fully this undercurrent in his writings. But it is important to show clearly the main current, namely, that scholars were by no means confident of the rationality of the Catholic faith. The attacks made by heathens and Manichæans had shaken them. Some speak, partly with self-satisfaction, partly with pain, of “modern” doubts of the faith of the Church. But these doubts are so far from modern that the creation of the Augustinian and mediæval authority of the Church is their work. That ecclesiasticism is so powerful, nay, has become a dogmatic quantity, is due to the defective morality of Christians in the second and third centuries, and to their defective faith in the fourth and fifth. The distinction between Justin and Augustine is in this

arms of the Catholic Church, he was perfectly conscious that he needed its 80authority, not to sink in scepticism or nihilism.134 For example, nothing but the authority of the Church could remove the stumbling-blocks in the Old Testament. The thousand doubts excited by theology, and especially Christology, could only be allayed by the Church. As regards the former case, allegorical interpretation, of course, helped to get one over the difficulties; but it (as contrasted with the literal which solves everything) did not justify itself; the Church alone gave the right to apply it. The Church guaranteed the truth of the faith, where the individual could not perceive it; that is the new thought whose open declaration proves the thinker’s scepticism, as well as the man’s love of truth. He would not impose upon himself; he would not become the sophist of his faith. Openly he proclaimed it: I believe in many articles only on the Church’s authority; nay, I believe in the Gospel itself merely on the same ground.135 Thereby the Church had gained an enormous importance, an importance which it was henceforth to retain in Western Catho 564 licism; upon it, an entity above all incomprehensible—for what and where is the Church?—a great part of the responsibility was rolled, which had hitherto to be borne by the individual. Thus henceforth the Church had its part in every act of faith. By this, however, a vast revolution was brought about in the relation to the “faith which is believed” (fides quæ creditur). Acts of faith were, at the same time, acts of obedience. The difficulties were recognised which the Alexandrians overcame by distinguishing between exoteric and 81esoteric religion, but this distinction was itself rejected. In its place was now openly proclaimed what had long—especially in

respect much greater than that between Augustine and a Christian of the sixteenth or nineteenth centuries. 134 See the middle Books of the Confessions, e.g., VI., 11: “Scripturæ sanctæ, quas ecclesiæ catholicæ commendat auctoritas.” VI., 7: “Libris tuis, quos tanta in omnibus fere gentibus auctoritate fundasti. . . . Non audiendos esse, si qui forte mihi dicerent; unde scis illos libros unius veri et veracissimi dei spiritu esse humano generi ministratos? idipsum enim maxime credendum erat.” VI., 8: “Ideoque cum essemus infirmi ad inveniendam liquida ratione veritatem, et ob hoc nobis opus esset auctoritate sanctarum litterarum, jam credere cœperam nullo modo te fuisse tributurum tam excellentem scripturæ per omnes jam terras auctoritatem, nisi et per ipsam tibi credi et per ipsam te quæri voluisses. Jam enim absurditatem quæ me in illis litteris solebat offendere, cum multa ex eis probabiliter exposita audissem, ad sacramentorum altitudinem referebam.” See also the treatise De utilit. credendi, and, in general, the writings against Manichæism. 135 Contra Ep. Manichæi, 5: “Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae (ecclesiæ) commoveret auctoritas.” Innumerable parallels exist, especiall aa6 y in the writings against Manichæism, but also elsewhere.

the West (see ch. I., Scripture and Dogma as Law)—been secretly the expedient of thousands: partial renunciation of independent faith, and the substitution for it of obedience. It is obvious that thus a great body of dogmas, or of the contents of Scripture, was placed beyond the reach of the believing subject, that a wholly different relation to them was introduced, that, in a word, the doctrines of Scripture and the Church obtained a new meaning. Augustine was the father of the conception of implicit faith (fides implicita), by associating with the individu ac8 al believer the Church, with which he believes and which believes for him, in as far as it takes the place for him in many points of a psychological element of faith, namely, inner conviction. In openly proclaiming this conception, which, as has been said, already lurked in darkness, Augustine, on the one hand, disburdened individual faith, and directed it more energetically to those spheres in which it could rest without difficulties, but, on the other hand, introduced all the evil consequences which spring from faith in authority.136 However, this championship of faith in authority had an additional root, in the case of Augustine, besides scepticism. Tradition and grace are connected by secret ties. A genius, who was never a sceptic, and who was therefore never possessed by a mania for authority, has confessed: “The dew in which I bathe and find health is tradition, is grace.” Augustine was also led, both as a psychologist and a Christian of living faith, to tradition and therewith to the Church. In breaking with moralism, he broke too with the individualism and atomism of the ancient school. The “mass of perdition” (massa perditionis) was always confronted for him by grace (gratia) as a force working in history. I will not here yet go into his notion of the Church; it is certain that he possessed a lively sense that all great benefits, 82even communion with God himself, were attached to historical tradition, and it is manifest that religious individualism, as developed by him, was paralleled by and compatible with a conception, according to which the individual was supported by other persons, and by forces in the direction of goodness which he received through a visible medium. Augustine concentrated this correct historical conception in the idea of the Church. It was to him the organism and—for the individual—the womb of grace; it was further the communion of righteousness and love; and he felt this significance of the Church

136

Reuter, who by no means over-values the importance of the idea of the Church in Augustine, declares (p. 499): “By Augustine the idea of the Church was rendered the central power in the religious state of mind and ecclesiastical activity of the West in a fashion unknown to the East.” “Central power” is almost saying too much (see Theol. Lit.-Zeit., 1887, No. 15).

in his most personal piety much more acutely than any one before him. But the sceptic who needs the authority of the Church, and the Christian of quick feeling and sure observation, who perceives and prizes the value of Church communion, do not part company. There has never yet existed in the world a 564 strong religious faith, which has not appealed, at some decisive point or other, to an external authority. It is only in the colourless expositions of religious philosophers, or the polemical systems of Protestant theologians, that a faith is constructed which derives its certitude exclusively from its own inner impulses. These undoubtedly constitute the force by which it exists and is preserved. But are not conditions necessary, under which this force becomes operative? Jesus Christ appealed to the authority of the Old Testament, ancient Christians to the evidence of prophecy, Augustine to the Church, and Luther himself to the written Word of God. Only academic speculation thinks that it can eliminate external authority; life and history show that no faith is capable of convincing men or propagating itself, which does not include obedience to an external authority, or fails to be convinced of its absolute power. The only point is to determine the rightful authority, and to discover the just relationship between external and internal authority. Were it otherwise, we should not be weak, helpless beings. We cannot think too highly of the nobility of human talents; but they are not lofty enough to enable men so to appropriate the sum of all the ideal elements which compose the inner life, that these simply grow with t ac8 he growth of the soul, or become its product. Above all, the thought of God, the thought of the love of God, 83can never receive an irrefragable certainty, without being supported by an external authority. It is not a false view of religion that the restless quest of the soul only ceases when there has dawned upon it an authority whose validity is independent of the degree of strength with which its justification is felt within the breast.137

137

This argument has been very badly received by some critics, but I find nothing to change in it. Perhaps it will help to its being understood if I add that the spiritual man is directly conscious of the Divine Spirit as his Lord—who constrains him to obedience, even where he himself does not perceive the inner authority—but the non-spiritual require some sort of intervening authority, whether consisting in persons, or a book, or Church. But in both cases we are dealing with a controlling power, whose authority rises above one’s own individuality and knowledge. I hope that in disclosing this state of the case I am safe from being (wrongly) understood to draw a fixed line between the spiritual and non-spiritual. Throughout it is only a question of the proportion in which the apocalyptic and mediated elements appear and are connected in personal religion. Even

All this Augustine perceived and expressed. Therefore “the traditional, exclusively authoritative doctrine” of the Church was transformed by him into a conception, according to which the Church is a religious factor. By this, however, the distinctive character of piety itself received a new definition.138 2. The perception that religion is the possession of the living God, a personal relationship between the soul and God, is conspicuous in Augustine’s Confessions, but also in other writings by him. That nothing but God himself could give the soul rest and peace is the fundamental note of the Confessions: “Say unto my soul: I am thy salvation.” His great place in 84the history of piety is bound up with this perception, as we find it attached to Rom. VIII., 31-39. He is to be compared, in this also, to the great Alexandrians, especially Clement. But as Augustine did not merely reach this conclusion by means of a laborious speculation, so it assumed a much more forcible and purer form in his life and works than in theirs.139 But the sure application of what is simplest in dogma is ever the hardest thing. Augustine found himself confronted by a

the spiritual man who holds direct communion with God has, as history shows, extremely seldom, perhaps never entirely, freed himself from all intermediate authority; on the contrary, he has clung to it firmly, in spite of his intercourse with the Deity. This is not the place to explain this phenomenon; but personal religion is not shown to be valueless by its being proved that its authorities are not sound (against Baumann, Die Grundfrage der Religion, 1895, p. 22 f.). The important point is what the pious man has derived from his authorities. abd 138 It is only to a superficial observer that Eastern Christians seem to cling more strongly to the Church than Western. In the East the historical course of events welded ecclesiasticism and nationality into one, and the internal development made the cultus of the Church the chief matter. But what other rule does the Church play in personal piety than being the scene of Christian life, the teacher of doctrine, and the administrator of the mysteries? All these are, in fact, presupposed conditions; in the West, on the contrary, the Church has thrust itself into all relations and points of contact of the pious soul to God and Christ, as far as the Augustinian tradition is accepted. 139 Let anyone read attentively the Confessions B. VII. and VIII., as also the writings and epistles composed immediately after his conversion, and he will find that Augustine’s Neoplatonism had undoubtedly a share in giving him this perception. But he was brought to it in a much higher degree by his inner experience, and the reading of Paul and the Psalms. The Psalmists’ piety was revived in him (see esp. Confess., IX., 8-12). His style even was modelled on theirs. In Clement of Alex. and Origen, Neoplatonic speculation, on the contrary, prevailed. Even in the most glorious of their expositions, in which the power of feeling is clearly conspicuous, we cannot forget the speculative path by which they thought they had attained to the possession of God.

tradition which taught that men enjoyed intercourse with God thro 564 ugh laws and communications of grace; nay, the prevailing tradition was constantly in danger of reducing the latter to the former. In opposition to this, a great advance was at once made by insisting on the distinction between law and gospel, commands and grace. We now perceive that Augustine substantially limited himself to this in his polemical dogmatic writings. That is, he was not in a position to translate into his dogmatic theory the vital perception that God himself, as he appeared in Christ, was the possession of the soul. He substantially left standing the old scheme that God came to man’s assistance, like a benevolent judge with acts of pardon, or like a physician with medicines. In other words, he gave the force of absolute conviction to what had been uncertain, viz., that God operates continuously by a mysterious and omnipotent impartation of grace, i.e., by powers of grace.140 Thus grace (gratia per Christum) preserved even with him an objective character, and 85in his controversy with Do ac8 natists and Pelagians he completely developed this view of grace in connection with his doctrines of the Church and sacraments. He understood how to harmonise this, in his own feeling and selfcriticism, with the conviction that the question involved was the possession of the living God. But as teacher of piety he did not succeed in doing so; indeed, we can say that, just because he laid all emphasis on grace through Christ, while conceiving it to consist in portions or instalments of grace, he was the means of establishing, along with the perception of its importance as beginning, middle, and end, the delusion that grace had an objective character. His age could understand, though with a great effort, his exposition of grace, as something imparted by the sacraments or the Church. It could bring that down to its own level. The magical element which adhered to this conception, the external solidity which the notion of grace received. in the sacrament, the apparent clearness of the view, the possibility of instituting theological computations with sin and grace—all these phases in the Augustinian doctrine of grace were greedily seized. Thus, in making grace the foundation and centre of all Christian theological reflection, it was due to his way of thinking that the living God and the personality of Christ lost ground in the

140

The final ground of this view with Augustine consists naturally in the fact that he never wholly got rid of the old Catholic scheme that the ultimate concern of Christianity was to transform human nature physically and morally for eternal life. He took a great step forward; but he was not able to give clear expression to the Pauline thought that the whole question turned on forgiveness of sins and sonship to God, or to frame all dogmatics in harmony with it.

consciousness of the Church he influenced. The believer had to do with the inheritance left by Christ, with what he had gained, with his merit, but not with Christ himself. The love of God was instilled into the soul in portions; but Augustine did not perceive that dogmatic was imperfect, nay, formed a hindrance to religion, as long as the supreme place was withheld from the principle: “Our heart is restless, until it rests in Thee.” The violent agitation which he had himself experienced, the crisis in which the sole question was whether he should or should not find God to be his God, he has extremely imperfectly expressed in the dogmatic theory of his later period. He poured the new wine into old bottles, and was thus partly to blame for the rise of that Catholic doctrine of grace, which is perhaps the most dreadful part of Catholic dogmatics; for “the corruption of the best is the worst” (corruptio optimi pessima). When a Roman Catholic dogmatist very recently called the 86doctrine of grace “thorny ground,” this description alone must have sufficed to show every common-sense Christian that the whole treatment of this main article had stumbled on a false path since the days of Augustine. Could there be a sadder admission than this, that reflec 564 tion on what God grants the soul in Christ leads us among nothing but thorns? And could we conceive a greater contrast than that which exists between the sayings of Jesus and the Catholic doctrine of grace? But Protestantism, in its actual form, need not boast of having surmounted this pernicious Catholic doctrine. As it rests on the Augustinian doctrine of grace in the good sense of the term, and is distinguished thereby as Western Christianity from Eastern, it also bears the greatest part of the burden of this doctrine, and is therefore subject to the same dangers as Catholicism. It runs the risk of concealing the personal Christ by grace and the sacraments, of hedging in the living God through grace itself, and of setting up calculations about grace which make an account out of what is freest and holiest, and either dull the soul or leave it in unrest. But as Augustine knew, for his part, by what his soul lived, and was able to testify to it in words that lived, and, indeed, in some of his discussions also doctrinally, he exerted a powerful influence in this respect, too, on posterity. He became the father not only of the Catholic doctrine of grace, but also of that mysticism which was naturalised in the Catholic Church, down to the Council of Trent, indeed, till the Jansenist controversy. In more 564 than a hundred passages of his works, above all by his Christian personality, he incited men to gain a life with God, within which they apprehended the personal God in grace. We may here also recall his doctrine of predestination. One of its roots indisputably grew out of the thought of the supremacy of personal relationship to God. It was understood, too in this way, wherever it was the means

in after-times of obviating the pernicious consequences of the Church doctrine of grace and sacraments. But there can undoubtedly be no mistake, that wherever Augustine threw into the background his questionable doctrine of grace, he at once also incurred the danger of neutralising Christ’s general significance. According to him, Christ’s 87work referred to, and exhausted itself in the forgiveness of sins. But, as we shall see in what immediately follows, forgiveness did not bestow all that the Christian requires for salvation. Therefore the doctrine of grace was relatively independent of the historical Christ. This danger of conceiving positive grace without reference to Christ, or of connecting it with him only in the form of esthetic observations, continued to exert an influence. Luther, who started from Augustinianism, first overcame it, in as far as, in his relation to God, he only thought of God at all as he knew him 564 in Christ. Augustine was prevented from doing so by his religious philosophy, and also his Biblicism, both of which had established independent claims upon him. Thus it happened that he influenced the piety of Western Christians by a doctrine of grace which met their lower inclinations, as well as by a promulgation of the immediateness of the religious relationship which failed to do justice to Christ’s significance as mirror of God’s fatherly heart and as the eternal mediator. In the latter as the former case, he set his seal on and gave vitality to elements which existed in the traditional doctrine only as dead material or stunted germs. 3. Augustine shared with the whole of contemporary Christendom the thought, held to be all-important, that a time would come when at the judgment-seat of Christ “every one would receive in accordance with his actions”; and none will impugn the Christian character of this thought. But he went a step further, and also accepted the conception of merits current in the Church from the days of Tertullian and Cyprian. He did not get beyond the idea that in the final decision merits could alone be considered. He reconciled this principle, however, with his doctrine of grace, by teaching that God crowned his gifts (munera 564 ) in crowning our merits (merita).141 This seemed to correspond to both

141

See e.g., Confess. IX. 34: “Quisquis tibi enumerat vera merita sua, quid tibi enumerat nisi munera tua.” Ep. 194, n. 19: “cum deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronat quam munera sua.” De gratia et lib. arb., 15: “Dona sua coronat deus non merita tua . . . si ergo dei dona sunt bona merita tua, non deus coronat merita tua tamquam merita tua sed tamquam dona sua.” De gestis Pelag., 35: “Redditur quidem meritis tuis corona sua, sed dei dona sunt merita tua.” De trinit., XIII., 14: “Et ea quæ dicuntur merita nostra, dona sunt eius,” etc. XV. 21: “Quid animam faciet beatam, nisi meritum suum et præmium domini sui? Sed et meritum ejus gratia est illius, cujus, præmium erit beatitudo

considerations, and the certainty with which this conception established itself in the Church appeared 88to guarantee that the correct view had now been reached. But, first, the question arises whether the ambiguity of the reconciliation did not contribute to its being received; secondly, it cannot fail to surprise us that there is not a word about faith in the principle. We are once more at a point where Augustine, in reforming the prevailing piety, paid it a very considerable tribute. He certainly expressed the importance and power of faith in a striking and novel fashion. He who disregards the formulas, but looks to the spirit, will everywhere find in Augustine’s works a stream of Pauline faith. None before him but his teachers Victorinus and Ambrose, in some of their expositions, had used similar language. Numerous passages can be cited in which Augustine extolled faith as the element in which the soul lives, as beginning, middle, and end of piety. But in the s 564 phere of dogmatic reflection Augustine spoke of faith with extreme uncertainty, and, indeed, as a rule, not differently from his predecessors. Different points meet here. Firstly, it was simply the power of tradition which prevented him from perceiving more in faith than the act of initiation. Secondly, Scriptural texts led him to the assumption that something else than faith, namely, habitual goodness (righteousness), must finally fall to be considered at the divine tribunal. Thirdly and lastly, he limited the significance of the forgiveness of sins. The last point is in his case the most paradoxical, but here the most important. He for whom the supreme thing was the certainty of possessing a God, and who called to his whole period: “You have not yet considered of how great weight sin is” (nondum considerasti, quanti ponderis sit peccatum), never realised the strict relation that exists between faith and forgiveness, nor could explain clearly that the assurance of forgiveness is life and salvation. At this point the moral element suddenly entered with sovereign power into religious reflection. It is as if Augustine had here sought to escape 89the quietistic consequences of his doctrine (see above), and, in his inabili ac8 ty to deduce positive virtue from faith in forgiveness of sin, turned from faith to works. Or was he prevented by the remnants of religious philosophy and cosmology that still clung to his theory of religion from perceiving absolutely that religion is bound up in faith in forgiveness of sins?142 Or, again, is this perception itself

ejus.” De prædest. sanct., 10. For this very reason the fundamental principle holds good, that grace is not granted secundum merita nostra. aeb 142 In his 177th letter, e.g. (Ad Innocent., c. 4), he expressly declares that it is an error to say that gratia is liberum arbitrium or remissio peccatorum.

erroneous and untenable, one that paralyses the power of moral exertion? We do not intend to examine these questions here. The fact is that Augustine conceived faith to be a preliminary stage, because he regarded forgiveness of sins as preliminary. If we look closely, we find that in his dogmatic theory sin was not guilt, but loss and infirmity. The very man who strove for, and found, a lasting relationship with God, was not capable of reproducing and stating his experience correctly in the shape of doctrine. He came back to the customary moralistic view, in so far as in his doctrine of grace he thought not of enmity to God, but the disease of sin, not of divine sonship, but of the restoration of a state in which man was rendered capable of becoming good, i.e., sinless. Therefore faith was merely something preliminary, and it is this that makes it so difficult to define Augustine’s conception of the forgiveness of sins. It appears to have been really identical with the external and magical idea of his predecessors, with the exception that he had a firmer grasp of the forgiveness being an act of God, on which the baptised might constantly rely. But his reflection rarely took the form of regarding assurance of forgiveness as something whereby the soul receives energy and wings. He substantially never got beyond the impression that something was actually swept away by it, though that was indeed the gravest of facts, sin. The impossibility of carrying out this conception will always, however, leave a latent doubt. In spite of his new feeling, Augustine, for this reason, moved entirely in the lines of the old scheme when he sought to supplement and to build upon forgiveness of sin, and looked about him for a positive force which was required to take its place alongside of the negative effect. 90This he found in love. It was not in faith, but only in love, that he could recognise the force that really changed a man’s nature, that set him in a new relationship. But then, in spite of the empirical objections that confronted h ac8 im, he did not doubt that love could be infused like a medicine. Certain that God alone effects everything, he transferred to love the conception applicable to faith (trust)—that it ceases to be itself where it is felt to be other than an assimilative organ (ὄργανον ληπτικόν)—as if love could also be as simply regarded as a gift of God through Christ (munus dei per Christum). The result of these reflections is that Augustine held that the relation of the pious soul to God was most appropriately described as a gradually advancing process of sanctification. To this he believed he could reduce all legitimate considerations, the fundamental importance of faith, the conception of (sacramental) grace as beginning, middle, and end, the need of positive forces capable of changing man’s state, the view that only the just could be saved, and that no one was righteous whose works were not perfect, i.e., the necessity of merits, etc. He believed that he had

found a means of adjusting the claims of religion and morality, of grace and merits, of the doctrine of faith and eschatology. Omnipotent love became for him the principle that connected and supported everything. Faith, love, and merit were successive steps in the way to final salvation, and he has impressed this view on the Catholic Church of after times, and on its piety up to the present day. It is the ancient scheme of the process of sanctification leading to final salvation, but so transformed that grace acts upon all its stages. Excellent and—for many stages of development— appropriate as this conception appears, yet it cannot be mistaken that in it Augustine lagged behind his own experience, and that against his will he subordinated the religious sphere to moral goodness; for this subordination was by no means precluded by the equation “our merits, God’s gifts” (nostra merita, dei munera). Where merits play a part there is a failure to understand that there is a relationship to God which is maintained mid weakness and sin, as well as in misery and death.143 91

Of this even Augustine had a presentiment, and he therefore also imparted to the Church, to which he transmitted his doctrine of faith, love, and merit, germs of a conception which ac8 could not but be fatal to that doctrine. They are not only included in his doctrine of predestination, but at least as much so in every passage of his writings, where he gives voice to the confession, “To me to cling to God is a good thing.” In this avowal the religious possession and moral goodness coincide, and are referred to God, their source. But even apart from this, his idea of love: “in this life also virtue is nothing but loving what ought to be loved; good affections make a good character,”144 was so excellent and forcible that all criticism looks like impudent coxcombry. Nevertheless, we must criticise it from the standpoint of the gospel. We have already remarked above that Augustine’s doctrine of infused love is indifferent to the work of the historical Christ. Therefore he had a two-fold Christology: on the one hand, Christ is God, a member of the Trinity (unus ex trinitate); on the other hand, the chosen man, who was as much under grace as we are. All that leads us back ultimately to the fact that he under-estimated the significance of

143

But, besides, the final and supreme question as to assurance of salvation is not less misunderstood. 144 Et in hac vita virtus non est nisi diligere quod diligendum est; faciunt boni amores bonos mores.

the forgiveness of sins and of the publican’s faith: that his piety was not yet simple enough.145 4. Finally, it is to be pointed out that Augustine in his reformation of Christian piety did not disturb its character as a preparation for the next world. He could have changed nothing here without wounding the Christian religion itself; for the view of some Protestants, that Christianity can be transformed into a religion of this world, is an illusion. Augustine lived as much in the future world as Justin and Irenæus. His eschatological 92reflections are inexhaustible, and if, as will be shown afterwards, he set aside a few of the older ideas, yet that affords no standard of the whole trend of his piety. He only intensified the pessimistic view of this life, this mortal life and living death (vita mortalis, mors vitalis), by his doctrine of sin. “What flood of eloquence would ever suffice to portray the tribulations of this life, to describe this wretchedness, which is, as ac3 it were, a kind of hell in our present existence? Verily, the new-born infant comes to our mortal light, not laughing but weeping, and by its tears prophesies in some fashion, even without knowing it, to what great evils it has come forth. . . . A heavy yoke burdens all the children of Adam from the day of birth to that of burial, when they return to the common mother of all. . . . And the sorest thing of all is that we cannot but know how, just by the grievous sin committed in Paradise, this life has become a punishment to us.”146 Just as he has retained the pessimistic view of our present life, he has also described blessedness as the state of the perfect knowledge of God. He has done so in one of his earliest writings, De vita beata, and he substantially adhered to it. But the very perception, that misery was not a mere fatality, but was incurred by guilt, and the confidence that grace could make man free and happy even upon this earth, exerted a certain counterpoise. He undoubtedly does not call the present life of the Christian “joy of felicity,” “but comfort of misery,” and declares that to be an extremely false felicity which is devised by men who

145

It has seemed necessary to concede to Augustine’s conception of sanctification that it had the merit of correcting the quietistic phase that clung dangerously to his doctrine of grace. But, on a closer inspection, we find that love did not certainly mean to him the exemplification of morality in serving our neighbour, but sentiments, or such works of love, as owed their value to reflex action at least as strongly as to philanthropy. Here again, in very many expositions, he did not advance beyond the old Catholic Christians, or Cyprian and Ambrose; man attends best to his own interests by means of caritas, and pleases God in divesting himself of what is worldly. 146 See also the thrilling description, De civitat, XIX., 4.

seek here another happiness than that entertained by hope.147 But in not a few passages he yet speaks of the joy in God which creates blessedness even here. He seldom obeyed this feeling. For that very reason he found this 93life in itself objectless, and there are only a few indications, especially in the work, De civitate dei, in which he tried to show that a kingdom of Christ may be built up even in this world, and that the just, who live by faith, constitute it, and have a present task to perform (see also De trinit. I., 16 and 21). Speaking generally, he propagated the feeling shown in ancient Christian eschatology in every respect, and prepared the ground for monachism. If he seems to have instigated the development of the Catholic Church in its tendency to masterful rule over this world, yet external circumstances, and the interpretation they produced of his work “De civitate dei,” contributed much more to the result than any intentional impulses given by him. 569 148 Where, however, there has developed in Catholicism in after times a strong sense of the blessedness which the Christian can receive even in this state, it has always assumed a mystical and ecstatic character. This is a clear proof that in any case this life was disregarded; for the mystical feeling of blessedness, even as Augustine knew it, really exists, by means of an excess, already in the future state.

147 56d

In his Soliloquies, one of his earliest writings, he awards felicity to the soul that perceives God here below. But in his Retractations, I., 4, he says expressly, “Nec illud mihi placet, quod in ista vita deo intellecto jam beatam esse animam (in Soliloquiis) dixi, nisi forte spe.” In general, Augustine at a later date disavowed many arguments in his works written immediately after his conversion; nay, even in his Confessions, in which he is disposed to describe his conversion as instantaneous, he has admitted in one important sentence how imperfect his Christian thought was at that time: IX. 7, “Ibi (in Cassiciacum) quid egerim in litteris, jam quidem servientibus tibi, sed adhue superbiæ scholam tanquam in pausatione anhelantibus, testantur libri disputati cum præsentibus (libr. c. Academ.—de beata vita—de ordine) et cum ipso me solo (Soliloquia) coram te; quæ autem cum absente Nebridio, testantur epistolæ”). But our judgment must here be divided. What was written earlier was undoubtedly in many respects less complete, less churchly, more Neoplatonic; but on the other hand it was more direct, more personal and determined to a smaller degree by regard for the Catholicism of the Church. Yet he was already determined to have aaa nothing to do with a felicity of inquiry and seeking; but only saw it in its possession (Adv. Acad. lib., I.). 148 On Augustine’s pessimistic and eschatological tendency, his view of the secular and clerical life, as also the efforts to surmount the popular Catholic conception, see Reuter, l.c., Studie VI. We return briefly to these subjects further on.

In the preceding pages the attempt has been made to show how the piety was constituted in which Augustine lived, and which he transmitted to posterity. It is extraordinary difficult to understand it aright; for experience and tradition are interwoven in it in the most wonderful way. Yet we cannot understand 94him as teacher of the Church, until we have formed our estimate of him as reformer of piety; for, besides Scripture and tradition, his theories have their strongest roots in the piety that animated him. They are in part nothing but states of feeling interpreted theoretically. But in these abb states of feeling there gathered round the grand experience of conversion from bondage to freedom in God all the manifold religious experiences and moral reflections of the ancient world. The Psalms and Paul, Plato and the Neoplatonists, the Moralists, Tertullian and Ambrose, we find all again in Augustine, and, side by side with the new psychological view constructed by him as disciple of the Neoplatonists, we come once more upon all the childish reflections and absolute theories which these men had pursued. 95

Chapter IV. The Historical Position of Augustine as Teacher of the Church.

CHAPTER IV. THE HISTORICAL POSITION OF AUGUSTINE AS TEACHER OF THE CHURCH. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

THE ancient Church before Augustine only possessed a single great dogmatic scheme, the Christological. Augustine also knew it and made use of it; but in inserting it into a greater and more living group, he deprived it of its original meaning and object. It has been said of Socrates that he brought philosophy down from heaven; we may maintain of Augustine that he did the same for dogmatics, by separating it from speculations about the finite and infinite, God the Logos and the creature, mortal and immortal, and connecting it with questions as to moral good, freedom, sin, and blessedness. Goodness became for him the point on which turned the consideration of blessings; moral goodness (virtue) and the possession of salvation were not merely to occupy corresponding positions, but to coincide (ipsa virtus et præmium virtutis). If we may use a figure, we can say that Augustine formed into one the two centres of popular Catholic theology, the renewing power of redemption and the free effort to attain virtue; of the ellipse he

made a circle—God, whose grace delivers the will and endows it with power to do what is good. In this is comprehended his significance in the history of the Christian religion. He did not, however, vindicate the new portion consistently, but built the old into it. Indeed, in the new cathedral erected by him, the old building formed, as it were, the holy of holies, which is seldom entered. When we seek to determine what has been accomplished by an ancient Church theologian as teacher of the Church, we must examine his expositions of the Symbol. We possess several by Augustine. It is extremely instructive to compare the earliest (De fide et symbolo, ad5 A.D. 393) with one of the latest (De fide, 96spe et caritate, A.D. 421, or later). In the former Augustine is still substantially a theologian of the ancient Church. The questions discussed by him are the same as were then dealt with, in both halves of the Church, in the Symbol, and are suggested by its language. Even the manner in which he discusses them is but slightly distinguished from the customary one. Finally, the polemic is the one that was usual: Arians, Manichæans, Apollinarians, Pneumatomachoi occupy the foreground; the last named especially are very thoroughly refuted. On the other hand, Augustine’s characteristics declare themselves even in this early exposition.149 Thus we have, above all, his love of truth and frankness in the sections on the Holy Spirit, and his sceptical reserve and obedient submission to Church tradition. Further, in the Christology we find his characteristic scheme “Christ invested in man” (Christus

149

The foundation of Augustine’s religious characteristics can be best studied in the writings that are read least, namely in the tractates and letters written immediately after his conversion, and forming an extremely necessary supplement to his Confessions (see above, p. 92, note 2). In these writings he is not yet at all interested in Church dogmatics, but is wholly absorbed in the task of making clear to himself, while settling with Neoplatonism, the new stage of religious philosophical reflection and inner experience, in which he finally found rest (see De vita beata, Adv. Academ., Soliloquia, De ordine, and the Epistles to Nebridius). The state of feeling expressed by him in these work, never left him; but it was only in a later period that he gave it its dogmatic sub-structure. In consequence of this, as is proved even by the Confessions and also the Retractations, he himself lost the power of rightly estimating those writings and the inner state in which he had found himself in the first years after his conversion. But he never lost the underlying tone of those first fruits of his authorship: “Rest in the possession of God,” as distinguished from the unrest and unhappiness of a seeking and inquiry that never reach their aim, or the essentially Neoplatonic version of the loftiest problems (see e.g., De ordine II., 11 ff., “mala in ordinem redacta faciunt decorem universi”; the same view of evil is still given in De civit., XI., 18). Those writings cannot be more fully discussed in a history of dogma.

indutus in homine), as well as the strong emphasis laid on the humility of Christ contrasted with pride (superbia). Compare, besides, sentences like the following. Chapter V I.—“Since he is only-begotten he has no brothers; but since he is first-begotten, he has deigned to name all those his brothers who after and through his headship are born again into the grace of God through the adoption of sons.” Or (Chapter XI.): “Our Lord’s humility was lowly in his being born for us; to this it was added that he deigned to die for 97mortals.” Or (Chapter XIX.): “The writers of the Divine Scriptures declare that the Holy Spirit is God’s gift in order that we may believe that God does not bestow a gift inferior to himself.” Or (ibid.): “No one enjoys that which he knows, unless he also loves it . . . nor does anyone abide in that which he apprehends unless by love.”150 But if Augustine had died before the Donatist and Pelagian controversies, he would not have been the dogmatist who changed the whole scheme of doctrine; for it was the 564 se controversies that first compelled him to reflect on and review what he had long held, to vindicate it with all his power, and to introduce it also into the instruction of the Church. But since it had never entered his mind that the ancient doctrinal tradition, as attached to the Symbol, could be insufficient,151 since

582 150“Secundum id, quod unigenitus est, non habet fratres; secundum id autem quod primogenitus est, fratres vocare dignatus est omnes qui post ejus et per ejus primatum in dei gratiam renascuntur per adoptionem filiorum.” “Parva erat pro nobis domini nostri humilitas in nascendo; accessit etiam ut mori pro mortalibus dignaretur.” “Divinarum scripturarum tractatores spiritum sanctum donum dei esse prædicant, ut deum credamus non se ipso inferius donum dare.” “Eo quod quisque novit non fruitur, nisi et id diligat . . . neque quisquam in eo quod percipit permanet nisi dilectione.” 151 He undoubtedly noticed, and with his love of truth frankly said, that the Church writers gave throughout an insufficient statement of the grace of God; but he contented himself with the plea that the Church had always duly emphasised grace in its prayers and institutions. See prædest. san ac8 ct., 27: “Quid opus est, ut eorum scrutemur opuscula, qui prius quam ista hæresis (Pelagianorum) oriretur, non habuerunt necessitatem in hac difficili ad solvendum quæstione versari? quod procul dubio facerent, si respondere talibus cogerentur. Unde factum est, ut de gratia dei quid sentirent, breviter quibusdam scriptorum suorum locis et transeunter adtingerent, immorarentur vero in eis, quæ adversus inimicos ecclesiæ disputabant, et in exhortationibus ad quasque virtutes, quibus deo vivo et vero pro adipiscenda vita æterna et vera felicitate servitur. Frequentationibus autem orationum simpliciter apparebat dei gratia quid valeret; non enim poscerentur de deo quæ præcipit fieri, nisi ab illo donaretur ut fierent.” He himself had indeed learned from experience in his struggle with the Manichæans, that the defence of truth has to be regulated by the nature of the attack. When he was twitted by his opponents with what he had formerly written about freewill against the Manichæans, he appealed to the claims of advancing knowledge, as well as to the duty of offering

it had still less occurred to him to declare the Symbol itself to be inadequate, it was a matter of course to him that he should 98make everything which he had to present as religious doctrine hinge on that Confession. In this way arose the characteristic scheme of doctrine, which continued to influence the West in the Middle Ages; nay, on which the Reformed version is based—a combination of ancient Catholic theology and system with the new fundamental thought of the doctrine of grace, forced into the framework of the Symbol. It is evident that by this means a mixture of styles arose which was not conducive to the transparency and intelligibility of doctrine. But we have not only to complain of want of clearness, but also of a complexity of material which, in a ac8 still higher degree than was the case in the ancient Catholic Church, necessarily frustrated the demand for a closely reasoned and homogeneous version of religious doctrine. We are perhaps justified in maintaining that the Church never possessed in ancient times another teacher so anxious as Augustine to think out theological problems, and to secure unity for the system of doctrine. But the circumstances in which he was placed led to him above all others necessarily confusing that system of doctrine, and involving it in new inconsistencies.152 The following points fall to be considered. 1. As a Western theologian, he felt that he was bound by the Symbol; but no Western theologian before him had lived so much in Scripture, or taken so much from it as he. The old variance between Symbol and Scripture,153 which at that time indeed was not yet consciously felt, was accordingly intensified by him. The uncertainty as to the relation of Scripture and Symbol was increased by him in spite of the extraordinary services he had rendered in making the Church familiar with the former.154 The Biblicism of later times, which afterwards took up an aggressive attitude to the Church in the West, is to be traced back to Augustine; and the resolute deletion of Scriptural thoughts by 99an

resistance both to right and left. He thus saw in the earlier Church teachers the defenders of the truth of the Church against fatalism, Gnosticisim, and Manichæism, and from this standpoint explained their attitude. 152 It is self-evident that for this reason dogma, i.e., the old Catholic doctrine of the Trinity and Christology, necessarily became less impressive. Reuter’s objection (l.c. p. 495) rests on an incomprehensible misunderstanding. 153 See on this and on what follows, Vol. III., pp. 203 ff., 207 ff. 154 The attempts to define their relationship, e.g., in Book I. of the treatise De doctrina Christiana, are wholly vague, and indeed scarcely compreh 564 ensible. The “substance” of Scripture is to form the propositions of the Rule of Faith; but yet every sentence of Scripture is an article of faith.

appeal to the authority of the Church’s doctrine may equally refer to him.155 If we are asked for the historical justification of prereformers and reformers in the West, in taking their stand exclusively on Scripture, we must name Augustine; if we are asked by what right such theologians have been silenced, we may refer similarly to Augustine; but we can in this case undoubtedly go back to the authority ac8 of Tertullian (De præscr. hær.). 2. On the one hand, Augustine was convinced that everything in Scripture was valuable for faith, and that any thought was at once justified, ecclesiastically and theologically, by being proved to be Biblical—see his doctrine of predestination and other tenets, of which he was certain simply because they were found in the Bible. By this principle any unity of doctrine was nullified.156 But, on the other hand, Augustine knew very well that religion was a practical matter, that in it faith, hope, and love, or love alone, were all-important, and that only what promoted the latter had any value. Indeed he advanced a considerable step further, and approximated to the Alexandrian theologians: he ultimately regarded Scripture merely as a means, which was dispensed with when love had reached its highest point, and he even approached the conception that the very facts of Christ’s earthly revelation were stages beyond which the believer passed, whose heart was possessed wholly by love.157 This latter point—which is connected with his individualistic theology, but slightly 100influenced by the historical Christ—will be discussed below. It is enough here to formulate sharply the inconsistency of making Scripture, on the one hand, a source, and, on the other, a means.158 —a means

155

After his conversion Augustine was firmly of opinion that nothing stood in Scripture that contradicted the doctrine of the Church; he was not so certain that the interpretation of Scripture must follow the authority of tradition. Yet what a profusion of “dangerous” ideas would have been evolved from the Bible by his rich and acute genius if once he had freed his intellect from the fetters of obedience! The perception that no less than everything would have been doubtful, that a thousand contradictions would have taken the place of a unanimous doctrine, certainly helped in determining him not to shake the bars of his prison. He felt he would never be able to escape, but would be buried by the ruins of the collapsing edifice. Hence the principle declared in De nat. et grat. 22, that we must first submit to what stands in Scripture, and only then ask “quomodo id fieri p ac8 otuerit.” What a difference from Origen! 156 See Vol. II., 331, n. 3. 157 De doctr. Christ. I., 34: an extremely noteworthy exposition, which, so far as I know, has very few clear parallels in Augustine’s works, but forms the background of his development. 158 See the details in “De doctr. Christiana” copied in Vol. III., p. 203, n. 2, of this work.

indeed which is finally dispensed with like a crutch.159 The mystics and fanatics of the West have given their adhesion to the last principle, advancing the inner light and inner revelation against the written. Now Augustine, in his excellent preface to his work “De doctrina Christiana,” has undoubtedly, as with a flash of prophetic illumin ac8 ation, rejected all fanatical inspiration, which either fancied it had no need at all of Scripture, or, appealing to the Spirit, declared philological and historical interpretation to be useless. But yet he opened the door to fanaticism with his statement that there was a stage at which men had got beyond Scripture. Above all, however, he created the fatal situation, in which the system of doctrine and theology of the Western Church are still found at the present day, by the vagueness which he failed to dispel as to the importance of the letter of Scripture. The Church knows, on the one hand, that in the Bible, so far as meant for faith, the “matter” is alone of importance. But, on the other hand, it cannot rid itself of the prejudice that every single text contains a Divine and absolute direction, a “revelation.” Protestant Churches have in this respect not gone one step beyond Augustine; Luther himself, if we compare his “prefaces” to the New Testament, e.g., with his position in the controversy about the Lord’s Supper, was involved in the same inconsistency as burdened Augustine’s doctrinal structure. 3. Augustine brought the practical element to the front more than any previous Church Father. Religion was only given to produce faith, love, and hope, and blessedness itself was bound up in these virtues bestowed by God, or in love. But the act of reform, which found expression in the subordination of all materials to the above intention, was not carried out by him 101unalloyed. In retaining the old Catholic scheme, knowledge and eternal life (ἀφθαρσία) remained the supreme thoughts; in pursuing Neoplatonic mysticism, he did not cast off the acosmic view that regarded all phenomena as transient, and all that was transient as figurative, retaining finally only the majesty of the concealed Deity; in despising the present life, he necessarily also depreciated faith and all that belonged to the present. Thus, his theology was not decided, even in its final aims, by one thought, and he was therefore unable really to carry out his doctrine of grace and sin in a pure form. As the intellectualism of antiquity, of course in a sublimated form, was not wholly superseded by him, his 159

De doctr. Christ., 35-40, especially c. 39, “Therefore a man who depends on faith, hope, and love, and holds by them invincibly, only needs Scripture to instruct others.” Scripture even only offers patchwork; but a man may rise to such perfection even in this life as no longer to require the patchwork.

profoundest religious utterances were accompanied by, or entwined with, philosophical considerations. Often one and the same principle has a double root, a Neoplatonic and a Christian (Pauline), and accordingly a double meaning, a cosmological and a religious. Philosophy, saving faith, and Church tradition, disputed the leading place in his system of fai ac8 th, and since Biblicism was added to these three elements, the unity of his type of thought was everywhere disturbed. 4. But apart from the intention, the execution contains not only inconsistencies in detail, but opposite views. In his conflict with Manichæism and Donatism, Augustine sketched a doctrine of freedom, the Church, and the means of grace, which has little in common with his experience of sin and grace, and simply conflicts with the theological development of that experience—the doctrine of predestinating grace. We can positively sketch two Augustinian theologies, one ecclesiastical, the other a doctrine of grace, and state the whole system in either. 5. But even in his ecclesiastical system and his doctrine of grace, conflicting lines of thought meet; for in the former a hierarchical and sacramental fundamental element conflicts with a liberal, universalist view inherited from the Apologists; and in the doctrine of grace two different conceptions are manifestly combined, namely, the thought of grace through (per, propter) Christ, and that of grace emanating, independently of Christ, from the essential nature of God as the supreme good 102and supreme being (summum bonum, summum esse). The latter inconsistency was of greatest importance for Augustine’s own theology, and for the attitude of Western theology after him. The West, confessedly, never thoroughly appropriated the uncompromising Eastern scheme of Christology as a statement of saving faith. But by Augustine the relation of the doctrine of the two natures (or the Incarnation) to that of salvation was still further loosened. It will be shown that he really prepared the way much more strongly for the Franciscan feeling towards Christ than for Anselm’s satisfaction theory, and that, in general, as a Christologian—in the strict sense of the term—he bequeathed more gaps than positive material to posterity. But in addition to this antithesis of a grace through Christ and without Christ, we have, finally, in Augustine’s doctrine of sin a strong Manichæan and Gnostic element; for Augustine never wholly surmounted Manichæism. From our exposition up to this point—and only the most important facts have been mentioned—it follows that we cannot speak of Augustine having a system, nor did he compose any work which can be compared to Origen’s περὶ ἀρχῶν. Since he did not,

like the latter, boldly ac8 proclaim the right of an esoteric Christianity, but rather as Christian and churchman constantly delayed taking this liberating step,160 everything with him stands on one level, and therefore is involved in conflict.161 But it is “not what one knows and says that decides, but what one loves”; he loved God, and his Church, and he was true. This attitude is conspicuous in all his writings, whether it is the Neoplatonist, the earlier Manichæan, the Pauline Christian, the Catholic Bishop, or the Biblicist, that speaks, and it lends to all his expositions a unity, which, though it cannot be demonstrated in the doctrines, can be plainly felt. Therefore, also, the different movements that started or learned from him, were always conscious of the complete man, and drew strength from 103him. He would not have been the teacher of the future if he had not stood before it as a Christian personality who lent force and weight to every word, no matter in what direction it led. As preacher of faith, love, and the dispensation of grace, he has dominated Catholic piety up to the present day. By his fundamental sentiment: “Mihi adhærere deo bonum est,” as also by his distinction between law and gospel, letter and spirit, and his preaching that God creates faith and a good will in us, he called forth the evangelical Reformation.162 By his doctrine of the authority and means of grace of the Church, he carried forward the construction of Roman Catholicism; nay, he first created the hierarchical and sacramental institution. By his Biblicism he prepared the way for the so-called pre-reformation movements, and the criticism of all extra-Biblical ecclesiastical traditions. By the force of his speculation, the acuteness of his intellect, the subtlety of his observation and experience, he incited, nay, partly created, scholasticism in all its branches, including the Nominalistic, and therefore also the modern theory of kno 564 wledge and psychology. By his Neoplatonism and enthusiasm for predestination he evoked the mysticism as well as the anti-clerical opposition of the Middle Ages.163 By the form of his ideal of the Church and of felicity, he strengthened the popular Catholic, the

160

Tendencies in this direction are found everywhere; but they were never more than tendencies. 161 It is one of Reut 564 er’s chief merits that he has proved the impossibility of constructing a system from Augustine’s thought, and of removing the inconsistencies that occur in it. 162 See the testimonies to Augustine of the Reformers and their confessional writings; yet the difference that still existed was not unknown to them. 163 Even the Anti-Gregorian party in the Middle Ages frequently appealed to Augustine. It was possible to find in him welcome statements as to the meaning of the Empire, the possibility of correcting Councils, and, generally, anti-hierarchical passages.

monachist, state of feeling, domesticating it, moreover, in the Church, and thereby rousing and capacitating it to overcome and dominate the world as contrasted with the Church. Finally, by his unique power of portraying himself, of expressing the wealth of his genius, and giving every word an individual impress, by his gift of individualising and self-observation, he contributed to the rise of the Renaissance and the modern spirit. These are not capricious combinations, but historical facts:164 the connecting lines that lead back to him, can everywhere be ac8 104clearly demonstrated. But where, then, in the history of the West is there a man to be compared to him? Without taking much to do with affairs—Augustine was Bishop of a second-rate city, and possessed neither liking nor talent for the rôle of an ecclesiastical leader or practical reformer—by the force of his ideas he influenced men, and made his life permeate the centuries that followed.

It has been attempted to depict Augustine’s significance as Church teacher, by dividing absolutely the various directions in which his thought moved, and by giving separate accounts of the Neoplatonist, the Paulinist, the earlier Manichæan, and the Catholic Bishop.165 But it is to be feared that violence is done him by such an analysis. It is safer and more appropriate, within the limits of a history of dogma, to keep to the external unity which he has himself given to his conceptions. In that case his Enchiridion ad Laurentium, his matured exposition of the Symbol, presents itself as our best guide. This writing we mean to bring forward at the close of the present chapter, after preliminary questions have been discussed which were of supreme importance to Augustine, and the controversies have been reviewed in which his genius was matured. We shall, in this way, obtain the clearest view of what Augustine achieved for the Church of his time, and of the revolution he evoked. It is a very attractive task to centralise Augustinian theology, but it is safer to rest content with the modest result of becoming acquainted with it, in so far as it exerted its influence on the Church. One difficulty meets us at the very outset

ac8 164Compare Reuter, Studie VII. 165 It is unmistakable that there are three planes in Augustine’s theological thoughts, Neoplatonic mysticism (without means of grace, without the Church, nay, in a sense, even without Christ), Christological soteriology, and the plane of the authority and sacraments of the Church. Besides these, rationalistic and Manichæan elements have to be taken into account.

which can not be removed, and went on increasing in after times. What portion of Augustine’s countless expositions constituted dogma in his own eyes, or became dogma at a later period? While he extended dogma to an extraordinary extent, he at the same time 105sometimes relaxed, sometimes—as regards ancient tradition— specifically stiffened, the notion to be held of it. The question as to the extent of dogmas was neither answered, nor ever put precisely, in the West, after the Donatist and Pelagian controversies. In other words, no necessity was felt for setting up similarly express positive statements in addition to the express refutations of Pelagians, Donatists, etc ac8 . But the necessity was not felt, because Churchmen possessed neither self-confidence nor courage to take ecclesiastical action on a grand scale. They always felt they were Epigones of a past time which had created the professedly adequate tradition. This feeling, which was still further accentuated in the Middle Ages, was gradually overcome by the Popes, though solely by them. Apart from a few exceptions, it was not till the Council of Trent that dogmas were again formed. Till then the only dogmas were the doctrines contained in the Symbols. Next these stood the catalogues of heretics, from which dogmas could be indirectly deduced. This state of matters induces us to present the doctrine of Augustine as fully as possible, consistently with the design of a text-book. Many things must here be brought forward from his works which bore no fruit in his own time, but had a powerful influence on the course of doctrinal development in the following centuries, and came to light in the dogmas of Trent.166 In what follows we shall proceed (1) to describe Augustine’s fundamental view, his doctrines of the first and last things;167

166

Reuter also recognises (p. 495 f., note) that Augustine held the contents of the Symbol alone to be dogma. But we have here to remember that the most elaborate doctrine of the Trinity and Christology were evolved from the Symbol, and that its words “sancta ecclesia” and “remissio peccatorum” contained theories from which equally farreaching dogmas could be formed, or heretics be convicted. Even Cyprian refuted the Novatians from the Symbol, and Augustine used it against the Pelagians. A peculiar difficulty in the way of discussing Augustine in the history of dogma consists further in the fact that he created countless theological schemes, but no dogmatic formulas. He was too copious, too earnest, and too sincere to publish catch-words. 167 Augustine was the first dogmatist to feel the need of considering for himself the questions, which we are now accustomed to treat in the “prolegomena to dogmatics.” The Alexandrians undoubtedly attempted this also; but in their case formal and material, original and derived, were too much intertwined. Nor did they advance to the last problems of psychology and the theory of perception. Enchir., 4: “Quid primum, 564 quid ultimum, teneatur, quæ totius definitionis summa sit, quod certum propriumque fidei catholicæ fundamentum.” (Questions by Laurentius.)

106for

they were fixed when he became a Catholic Christian; (2) and (3) we then describe his controversies with Donatists and Pelagians, in which his conception of faith was deepened and unfolded; and (4) we expound his system of doctrine by the help of the Enchiridion ad Laurentium. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

1. Augustine’s Doctrines of the First and Last Things.168 It has been said of Fiesole that he prayed his pictures on to the walls. It can be maintained of Augustine that his most profound thoughts regarding the first and the last things arose out of prayers; for all these matters were contained for him in God. If the same can be said of innumerable mys ab4 tics down to the private communities of Madame de Guyon and Tersteegen, it is true of them because they were Augustine’s disciples. But more than anyone else he possessed the faculty of combining speculation about God with a contemplation of mind and soul which was not content with a few traditional categories, but analysed the states of feeling and the contents of consciousness. Every advance in this analysis became for him at the same time an advance in the knowledge of God, and vice versâ; concentration of his whole being in prayer led him to the most abstract observation, and this, in turn, changed to prayer. No philosopher before or after him has verified in so conspicuous a fashion the profound saying that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Godliness was the very atmosphere of his thought and life. “Piety is the wisdom of man” (Hominis sapientia pietas est, Enchir., 2; De civ. dei XIV., 28). Thus Augustine was the psychological, because he was the theological, genius of the Patristic period.169 Not unversed in the domains of objective secular knowledge, he yet discarded them more 107resolutely than his Neoplatonic teachers, to whom he owed much, but whom he far surpassed. “The contents of the inner life lay clearly before Augustine’s eyes as a realm of distinctive objects of perception, outside and independent of sense experience, and he was convinced by his own rich insight that in this sphere quite as genuine knowledge and information, based on inner experience, were to be gained, as by external observation in surrounding nature.” Augustine brought to an end the development

168

Augustine taught that it was only possible to obtain a firm grasp of the highest questions by earnest and unwearied independent labour. Herein above all did his greatness consist. 169 Compare with what follows, Siebeck, in the Ztschr. f. Philos. and philos. Kritik, 1888, p. 170 ff.

of ancient philosophy by completing the process which led from the naïve objective to the subjective objective.170 He found what had been long sought for: the making of the inner life the startingpoint of reflection on the world.171 578 And he did not give himself up to empty dreams, but investigated with a truly “physiological psychology” all conditions of the inner life, from its elementary processes up to the most sublime moods; he became, because he was the counterpart of Aristotle, the true Aristotle of a new science,172 which seems indeed to 108have forgotten that as a

170

See the Appendix on Neoplatonism, Vol. I., p. 336 ff. The method of the Neoplatonists was still very uncertain, and this is connected, among other things, with their polytheism. It is easy to show that Augustine went so much further in psychology because he was a monotheist. So far as I know we are still, unfortunately, without any investigation of the importance of monotheism for psychology. 172 See the excellent parallel between them in Siebeck, l.c. p. 188 f.: “Among the important personalities of Antiquity two could hardly be found with characters so different as Aristotle and Augustine. In the former we have the Greek, restful and clear, and yet moved by energetic warmth of thought, who gives its purest scientific expression to the Hellenic ideal of the life of the cultured, contentment with the even and constant advance of the life of the thinker, examining the depths and wants of the soul, only in so far as they appear on the surface, in the external nature and garb of the affections, and discussing this whole domain, not properly in order to know the heart, but only for rhetorical purposes. The internal world of the soul is here described and criticised only in so far as it evinces itself in reciprocal action with the external, and in the form it assumes as determined by the co-operation of the latter. For the comprehensive and final problem with Aristotle is the scientific construction and form of the external world in nature and social life. Augustine’s tendency and frame of mind are quite the opposite. The external owes all its importance and value in his eyes to the form it assumes as reflected in the internal. Everything is dominated not by problems of nature and the State and secular ethics, but by those of the deepest wants of mind and heart, of love and faith, hope and conscience. The proper objects and the moving forces of his speculation are not found in the relation of inward to outward, but of inner to innermost, to the sense and vision of God in the heart. Even the powers of the 564 intellect are looked at from a new point of view, owing to the influence exerted on them by the heart and will, and they lose, in consequence, their claim to sole supremacy in scientific thought. The cool analysis made by Aristotle of the external world, which also dissected and discriminated between the states of the soul, as if they were objects that existed externally, disappears in Augustine before the immediate experience and feeling of states and processes of the emotional life; but the fact that he presents them to us with the warmest personal interest in them, entirely prevents us from feeling the absence of the Aristotelian talent of acuteness in analytical dissection. While Aristotle avoids all personal and individual colouring in his views, and labours everywhere to let the matter in hand speak for itself, Augustine, even when bringing forward investigations of the most general purport, always speaks as if 171

only of himself, the individual, to whom his personal feelings and sensations are the main thing. He is a priori certain that they must have a farther reaching meaning, since feeling and wishing are found to be similar potencies in every human heart. Questions of ethics, which Aristotle handles from the standpoint of the relation of man to man, appear in Augustine in the light of the relations between his own heart and that of 564 this known and felt God. With the former the supreme decision is given by clear perception of the external by reason; with the latter, by the irresistible force of the internal, the conviction of feeling, which in his case—as is given in such perfection to few—is fused with the penetrating light of the intellect. . . . Aristotle knows the wants of the inner life only so far as they are capable of developing the life, supported by energetic effort and philosophic equanimity, in and with society. He seems to hold that clear thinking and restfully energetic activity prevent all suffering and misfortune to society or the individual. The deeper sources of dispeace, of pain of soul, of unfulfilled wants of the heart, remain dark in his investigation. Augustine’s significance begins just where the problem is to trace the unrest of the believing or seeking soul to its roots, and to make sure of the inner facts in which the heart can reach its rest. Even the old problems which he reviews and examines in their whole extent and meaning from the standpoint of his rich scientific culture, now appear in a new light. Therefore he can grasp, and, at the same time, deepen everything which has come to him from Hellenism. For Aristotle, everything that the intellect can see and analyse in the inner and outer world constitutes a problem; for Augustine, 564 that holds the chief place which the life of feeling and desire forces on him as a new fact added to his previous knowledge. In the one case it is the calm, theoretical mind; in the other, the conscience excited by the unrest caused by love of God and consciousness of sin, from which the questions spring. But along with this, scientific interest also turned to a wholly novel side of actual life. No wonder that the all-sufficiency of the dissecting and abstracting intellect had its despotism limited. The intellect was now no longer to create problems, but to receive them from the depths of the world of feeling, in order then to see what could be made of them. Nor was it to continue to feel supremacy over the will, but rather the influence to which it was subject from it. The main subject of its reflections was to consist, henceforth, not in the external world, nor in the internal discussed by means of analogy with, and the method of, the external, but in the kernel of personality, conscience in connection with emotion and will. Only from this point might it return, in order to learn to understand them anew, to previous views of the inner and outer life. Aristotle, the Greek, was only interested in the life of the soul, in so far as it turned outward and helped to fathom the world theoretically and practically; Augustine, the first modern man ac2 (the expression occurs also in Sell, Aus der Gesch. des Christenthums, 1888, p. 43; I had already used it years ago), only took it into consideration, in so far as reflection upon it enabled him to conceive the inner character of personal life as something really independent of the outer world.” Aristotle and Augustine are the two rivals who contended in the science and tendency of the following centuries. Both, as a rule, were indeed degraded, Aristotle to empty distinctions and categories, and a hidebound dogmatism, Augustine to a mysticism floating in all conceivable media, having lost the guidance of a sure observation of the inner nature. Even in the Pelagians Augustine energetically opposed Aristotelian rationalism, and his controversy with them

theory of perception, and as inner observation, it originated in the monotheistic faith and life of prayer. He disposed of all that we call the ancient classical temper, the classical conception of life and the world. With the last remains of its cheerfulness and naïve objectivity, he buried for a long time the old truth itself, and showed the way to a new truth of things. But this was born in him amid pains, and it has kept its feature of painfulness. Mohammed, the barbarian, smote into ruins, in the name of Allah, who had mastered him, the Hellenistic world which he did not know. Augustine, the disciple of the Hellenes, completed in the West the long prepared d ac3 issolution of this world, in the name of God, whom he had 109perceived to be the only reality;173 but he built up a new world in his own heart and mind.174 However, nothing really perished entirely, because everything was accomplished by a protracted transformation, and, besides, the old Hellenistic world continued in part to exist on the North-East coast of the Mediterranean. It was possible to travel back along the line which had been traced by a millennium down to Augustine, and the positive 110capital, which Neoplatonism and Augustine had received from the past and had changed into negative values, could also be re-established with a positive force. But something had undoubtedly been lost; we find it surviving in almost none but those who were ignorant of theology and philosophy; we do not find it among thinkers; and that is frank joy in the phenomenal world, in its obvious meaning, and in calm and energetic work.175 If it were possible to unite in science and in the disposition, the piety, spirituality, and introspection of Augustine, with the openness to the world, the restful and energetic activity, and unclouded cheerfulness of antiquity, we should have reached the

was repeated over and over again in after ages. In the history of religion it was a fight between a really irreligious, theologically, labelled morality and religion; for even in its classical form, Aristotelianism is a morality without religion. 173 All Christian Hellenistic thinkers before Augustine were still refined polytheists, or, more correctly, the polytheistic element was not wholly eradicated in their case, seeing that they preserved a part of nature-religion. This is most evident among Origen’s successors. 174 Weh! Weh! Du hast sie zerstört, Die schöne Welt, Mit mächtiger Faust; Sie stürzt, sie zerfällt! Ein Halbgott hat sie zerschlagen! Wir tragen Die Trümmer ins Nichts hinüber 55a Und klagen Ueber die verlorene Schöne. Prächtiger baue sie wieder, In deinem Busen baue sie auf! 175 Compare even the state of feeling of Petrarch and the other Humanists.

highest level! We are told that such a combination is a phantom, that it is an absurd idea. But do we not honour the great minds, who have been granted us since Luther, simply because they have endeavoured to realise the “fancy picture”? Did not Goethe declare this to be his ideal, and endeavour to present it in his own life, in his closing epoch? Is it not in the same ideal that the meaning of evangelical and reforming Christianity is contained, if it is really different from Catholicism? “I desire to know God and the soul. Nothing more? Nothing at all.”176 569 In these words Augustine has briefly formulated the aim of his spiritual life. That was the truth177 for which “the marrow of his soul sighed.” All truth was contained for him in the perception of God. After a brief period of sore doubting, he was firm as a rock in the conviction that there was a God, and that he was the supreme good (summum bonum);178179 but who he was, and how he was to be found, were to him the great questions. He was first snatched from the night of uncertainty by Neo ab7 platonism: the Manichæan notion of God had 111proved itself to be false, since its God was not absolute and omnipotent. Neoplatonism had shown him a way by which to escape the flux of phenomena, and the mysterious and harassing play of the transient, to reach the fixed resting-point he sought, and to discover this in the absolute and spiritual God (Confess. VI I., 26: “incorporea veritas”). Augustine traversed this ascending path from the corporeal world through ever higher and more permanent spheres, and he also experienced the ecstatic mood in the “excess” of feeling.180 But at the same

176

Soliloq., I. 7. Deum et animam scire cupio. Nihilne plus? Nihil omnino. In the knowledge of God was also included that of the Cosmus, see Scipio, Metaphysik, p. 14 ff. 177 Playing with husks and shells disgusted Augustine; he longed for facts, for the knowledge of actual forces. 178 Augustine became a Manichæan because he did not get past the idea that the Catholic doctrine held God to be the originator of sin. 179 Confess., VII. 16: “Audivi (verba Ego sum qui sum) sicut auditur in corde, et non erat prorsus unde dubitarem; faciliusque dubitarem vivere me, quam non esse veritatem (VI., 5). 180 Suggestions in Confess., VII. 13-16, 23. Here is described the intellectual “exercise” of the observation of the mutabilia leading to the incommutabile. “Et pervenit cogitatio ad id quod est, in ictu trepidantis aspectus. Tunc vero invisibilia tua, per ea quæ facta sunt, intellecta conspexi (this now becomes his dominant saying); sed aciem figere non valui: et repercussa infirmitate redditus solitis, non mecum ferebam nisi amantem memoriam et quasi olfacta desiderantem (quite as in Plotinus) quæ comedere nondum possem,” VIII. 1. But again in his famous dialogue (IX. 23-25), with his mother in Ostia, a regular Neoplatonic “exercise” is really described which ends with ecstasy (attigimus

time he turned more energetically to those observations for which the Neoplatonists had only been able to give him hints—to his spiritual experience, and psychological analysis. He was saved from scepticism by perceiving that even if the whole of external experience was subject to doubt, the facts of the inner life remained and demanded an explanation leading to certainty. There is no evil, but we are afraid, and this fear is certainly an evil.181 There is no visible object of faith, but we see faith in us.182 Thus— in his theory of perception—God and the soul entered into the closest union, and this union confirmed him in 112his belief in their metaphysical connection. Henceforth the investigation of the life of the soul was to him a theological necessity. No examination seemed to him to be indifferent; he sought to obtain divine knowledge from every quarter. The command to “know thyself” (Γνῶθι σεαυτόν) became for him the way to God. We cannot here discuss the wealth of psychological discoveries made by him.183 556 But he only entered his proper element when he was inquiring into the practical side of spiritual life. The popular conception, beyond which even philosophers had not advanced far, was that man was a rational being who was hampered by sensuousness, but possessed a free will capable at every moment of choosing the good—a very external, dualistic view. Augustine observed the actual man. He found that the typical characteristic of the life of the soul consisted

veritatem modice toto ictu cordis”). We afterwards meet extremely seldom with anything of the same kind in Augustine; on the other hand, the anti-Manichæan writings still show many echoes (“se rapere in deum,” “rapi in deum,” “volitare,” “amplexus dei”). Reuter says rightly (p. 472) 564 that these are unusual expressions, only occurring exceptionally. But he must have forgotten the passages in the Confessions when he adds that no instructions are given as to the method to be followed. 181 Confess., VII. 7: “Ubi ergo malum et unde et qua huc irrepsit? Quæ radix ejus et quo semen ejus? An omnino non est? Cur ergo timemus et cavemus quod non est? Aut si inaniter timemus, certe vel timor ipse malum est . . . et tanto gravius malum, quanto non est quod timeamus. Idcirco aut est malum quod timemus, aut hoc malum est quia timemus.” 182 De trinit., XIII. 3: “Cum propterea credere jubeamur, quia id quod credere jubemur, videre non possumus, ipsam tamen fidem, quando inest in nobis, v ac8 idemus in nobis.” 183 As regards memory, association of ideas, synthetic activity of spontaneous thought, ideality of the categories, a priori functions, “determinant” numbers, synthesis of reproduction in the imagination, etc. Of course all this is only touched on by him; we have, as it were, merely flashes of it in his works; see Siebeck, 1.c. p. 179. He has applied his observations on self-consciousness in his speculation on the Trinity.

in the effort to obtain pleasure184 (cupido, amor); from this type no one could depart. It was identical with the striving to get possessions, enjoyment. As the attempt to attain the pleasant it was desire (libido), cupiditas, and was perfected in joy; as resistance to the unpleasant, it was anger (ira), fear (timor), and was completed in sadness ( ae7 tristitia). All impulses were only evolutions of this typical characteristic; sometimes they partook more of the form of passive impression, sometimes they were more of an active nature, and they were quite as true of the spiritual as of the sensuous life.185 According to Augustine, the will is most closely connected with this life of impulse, so that impulses can indeed be conceived as contents of the will, yet it is to be distinguished from them. For the will is not bound to the nexus of nature; it is a force existing above sensuous nature.186 It is free, in so far as it 113possesses formally the capacity of following or resisting the various inclinations; but concretely it is never free; that never free choice (liberum arbitrium), but is always conditioned by the chain of existing inclinations, which form its motives and determine it. The theoretical freedom of choice therefore only becomes actual freedom when desire (cupiditas, amor) of good has become the ruling motive of the will; in other words, it is only true of a good will that it is free: freedom of will and moral goodness coincide. But it follows just from this that the will truly free possesses its liberty not in caprice, but in being bound to the motive which impels to goodness (“beata necessitas boni”). This bondage is freedom, because it delivers the will from the rule of the impulses (to lower forms of good), and realises the destiny and design of man to possess himself of true being and life. In bondage to goodness the higher appetite (appetitus), the genuine impulse of self-preservation, realises itself, while by satisfaction “in dissipation” it brings man “bit by bit to ruin.” It does not follow, however, from Augustine’s assertion of the incapacity for good of the individual spontaneous will, that the evil will, because it is not free, is also irresponsible; for since the will is credited with the power of yielding to the love of 55e good (amor boni), it is guilty of the neglect (the defect).

184

He meant by this the legitimate striving after self-assertion, after Being, which he attributed to all organic, nay, even to inorganic, things; see De civ. dei, XI., 28. 185 This is the most important advance in perception. 186 See Siebeck l.c. p. 181 f.; Hamma in the Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr., vol. 55, pp. 427 ff. 458; Kahl, Primat des Willens, p. 1 f. Augustine’s psychology of the will is undoubtedly rooted in indeterminism; but in his concrete observations he becomes a determinist.

From this point Augustine, combining the results of Neoplatonic cosmological speculation with the above analysis, now built up his metaphysic, or more correctly, his theology. But since in the epoch in which he pursued these observations, he turned to the asceticism of Catholic monachism, and also studied profoundly the Psalms (and the Pauline epistles), the simple grandeur of his living notion of God exerted a tremendous influence on his speculations, and condensed the different, and in part artificially obtained, elements of his doctrine of God,187 again and again into the supremely simple confession: “The 114Lord of heaven and earth is love; He is my salvation; of whom should I be afraid?” By the Neoplatonic speculation of the ascent [of the soul] Augustine reached the supreme unchangeable, permanent Being, ac7 1 the incorporeal truth, spiritual substance, incommutable and true eternity of truth, the light incommutable188 (incorporea veritas, spiritalis substantia, incommutabilis et vera veritatis æternitas, the lux incommutabilis). Starting with this, everything which was not God, including his own soul, was examined by Augustine from two points of view. On the one hand, it appeared as the absolutely transient, therefore as non-existent; for no true being exists, where there is also not-being; therefore God exists alone (God the only substance). On the other hand, as far as it possessed a relative existence, it seemed good, very good, as an evolution of the divine being (the many as the embodiment, emanating, and everreturning, of the one). Augustine never tires of realising the beauty (pulchrum) and fitness (aptum) of creation, of regarding the universe as an ordered work of art, in which the gradations are as

187

They have all besides a practical object, i.e., they correspond to a definite form of the pious contemplation of the divine, and a definite relation to it (a defin 564 ite selfcriticism). For details of the theology, see Dorner, Augustin, pp. 5-112. 188 In Confess. VII. 16, he could now put the triumphant question: “Numquid nihil est veritas, quoniam neque per finita, neque per infinita locorum spatia diffusa est.” 189 Not common light; “non hoc illa erat; sed aliud, aliud valde ab istis omnibus. Nec ita erat supra mentem meam sicut oleum super aquam, nec sicut coelum super terram, sed superior, quia ipsa fecit me, et ego inferior, quia factus sum ab ea. Qui novit veritatem novit eam, et qui novit eam, novit æternitatem. Caritas novit eam. O æterna veritas, et vera caritas, et cara æternitas! tu es deus meus; tibi suspiro die ac nocte.” (Confess. VII. I6.) Furth ab8 er the magnificently reproduced reflection, IX. 23-25, De Trin. IV. 1. By being, Augustine did not understand a vacuous existence, but being full of life, and he never doubted that being was better than not-being. De civit. dei, XI. 26: “Et sumus et nos esse novimus et id esse ac nosse diligimus.” The triad, “esse, scire, amare” was to him the supreme thing; he never thought of the possibility of glorifying not-being after the fashion of Buddhism or Schopenhauer.

admirable as the contrasts. The individual and evil are lost to view in the notion of beauty; nay, God himself is the eternal, the old and new, the only, beauty. Even hell, the damnation of sinners, is, as an act in the ordination of evils (ordinatio malorum), an indispensable part of the work of art.190 But, indeed, the whole work of art is after 115all—nothing; a likeness, but ah! only a likeness of the infinite fulness of the one which alone exists. How deeply in earnest Augustine was with this acosmic Pantheism, which threatened to degenerate into cosmic Monism, how he never wholly abandoned it, is shown even by the expression “pulchritudo” (beauty) for God,191 566 by his doctrine of predestination, which has one of its roots here, and, finally, by the aesthetic optimism of his view of the world which comes out here and there even in his latest writings,192 and by his uncertainty as to the notion of creation.193 But the very fact that, as a rule, Augustine was governed by a wholly different temper is a guarantee that the element here obtained was only a grounding to which he applied new colours. He would not have been the reformer of Christian piety if he had only celebrated, albeit in the most seductive

190

We cannot here discuss Augustine’s cosmology more fully (see the works by Gangauf and Scipio). His reflections on life and the gradation of organic and inorganic (“ordo, species, modus”) were highly important to later philosophy and theology, and especially continued to exert an influence in mediæval mysticism. So also the view that evil and good are necessary elements in the artistic composition of the world continued to make its presence actively felt in the same quarter. Yet—as in Augustine—the idea of the privative significance of evil always preponderated. 191 This expression is frequent in all his writings. Even utterances like “;vita vitæ meæ,” etc., have at first an acosmic meaning, but, of course, were given a deeper sense by Augustine. 192 Augustine never lost his optimistic joy in life in the sense of the true life, as is proved in his work, De civit. dei; but in contrasting the moods caused by contemplation of the world—æsthetic joy in the Cosmus, and sorrow over the world perverted by sin— the latter prevailed. Existence never became to Augustine a torment in itself, but that existence did which condemned itself to not-being, bringing about its own ruin. 574 193 Where Augustine put the question of creation in the form, “How is the unity of being related to plurality of manifestation?” the notion of creation is really always eliminated. But he never entirely gave up this way of putting the question; for, at bottom, things possess their independence only in their manifestation, while, in so far as they exist, they form the ground of knowledge for the existence of God. But besides this, Augustine still asserted vigorously the creatio ex nihilo (“omnes naturæ ex deo, non de deo,” De nat. bon. c. Manich., I.). See note 4, p. 120.

tones,194 acd that Neoplatonic notion of God, which, indeed, ultimately rested on a pious natural sentiment. The new elements resulted first from the psychological analysis briefly indicated above. He found in man, as the fundamental form of existence, the desire to reach happiness, 116goods, being, and he could harmonise this desire excellently with his Neoplatonic doctrine. He farther found the desire to obtain an ever higher happiness, and ever loftier forms of good, an inexhaustible and noble longing, and this discovery also agreed with the doctrine. Unrest, hunger and thirst for God, horror and disgust at the enjoyment of lower kinds of good, were not to be stifled; for the soul, so far as it exists, comes certainly from God, and belongs to Him (ex deo and ad deum). But now he discovered a dreadful fact: the will, as a matter of fact, would not what it would, or at least seemed to will. No, it was no seeming; it was the most dreadful of paradoxes; we will to come to God, and we cannot, i.e., we will not.195 Augustine felt this state along with the whole weight of

194

He discovered these, and inspired hundreds of mystics after him. We have no right to deny that this contemplative view of being, not-being, and the harmony of being evolving itself in the phenomenal, ac8 is also a sphere of piety. 195 We have the most profound description of this state in Confess. VIII, 17-26; Augustine calls it a “monstrum” (monstrous phenomenon). He solves the problem disclosed, in so far as it is capable of solution, not by an appeal to the enslaved will, accordingly not by the “non possumus,” but as an indeterminist by the reflection, “non ex toto volumus, non ergo ex toto [nobis] imperamus.” (21), “I was afraid that Thou mightest soon hear me, and heal me of the sickness of lust, whose satisfaction I wished more than its eradication. . . . And I was deluded, therefore I put off following Thee alone from day to day, because I had not yet seen any certain aim for my striving. And now the day was at hand, and the voice of my conscience exhorted me: ‘Didst thou not say thou wouldst not cast the vain burden from thee, only because the truth was still uncertain? Behold now thou art certain of the truth, but (thou wilt not).’ . . . The way to union with God, and the attainment of the goal, coincide with the will to reach this goal, though, indeed, only with the determined and pure will. . . . And thus during this inner fever and irresoluteness I was wont to make many movements with my body, which can only be performed when the will makes definite resolves, and become impossible if the corresponding limbs are wanting, or are fettered, worn out, asleep, or hindered in any way. If, e.g., I tore a hair out, beat my brow, or embraced my knee with folded hands, I did it because I willed it. But I might have willed and not done it, if the power of motion in my limbs had forsaken me. So many things, then, I did in a sphere, where to will was not the same as to be able. And yet I did not that which both I longed incomparably more to do, and which I could do whenever I really earnestly willed it; because, as soon as I had willed it, I had really already made it mine in willing. For in these things the ability was one with the will, and really to resolve was to do. And yet, in my case, it was not done; and more readily did my body obey the weakest willing of my soul, in moving its

responsibility; that responsibility was never lessened for him by the view that the will in not seeking God was seeking nothing, that it therefore by self-will was properly “annulling itself until it no longer existed.” Nor was it mitigated for him by the correlative consideration, that the individual will, ruled by its desire, was not free. Rather, from the dread sense of responsibility, God appeared as the good, 117and the self-seeking life of impulse, which determined the will and gave its motive, constituted evil. The “summum bonum” now first obtained its deeper meaning—it was no longer merely the permanent resting point for disturbed thinkers, or the exhilarating enjoyment of life for jaded mortals: it now meant that which ought to be,196 that which should be the fundamental motive ruling the will, should give the will its liberty, and therewith for the 564 first time its power over the sphere of the natural, freeing the inexhaustible longing of man for the good from the dire necessity of sinning (misera necessitas peccandi), and accordingly first making that innate longing effectual. In a word, it now meant the good. And thus the notion of the good itself was divested of all accretions from the intellect, and all eudaimonist husks and wrappings. In this contemplation that overpowered him, the sole object was the good will, the moral imperative vitalised, to renounce selfish pleasure. But at the same time he acquired the experience which he himself could not analyse, which no thinker

limbs at its nod, than the soul obeyed itself where it was called upon to realise its great desire by a simple effort of the will. How is such a prodigy possible, and what is its reason? The soul commands the body, and it obeys instantly; the soul command 547 s itself, and is resisted. The soul commands the hand to be moved, and it is done so promptly that command and performance can scarcely be distinguished; and yet the soul is spirit, but the hand is a member of the body. The soul commands the soul itself to an act of will; it is its own command, yet it does not carry it out. How is such a prodigy possible, and what is its reason? The soul commands an act of will, I say; its command consists simply in willing; and yet that command is not carried out. Sed non ex toto vult; non ergo ex toto imperat. Nam in tantum imperat, in quantum vult, et in tantum non fit quod imperat, in quantum non vult. Quoniam voluntas imperat ut sit voluntas, nec alia sed ipsa. Non itaque plena imperat ideo non est quod imperat. Nam si plena esset, nec imperaret ut esset, quia jam esset. Non igitur monstrum partim velle, partim nolle, sed ægritudo animi est, quia non totus assurgit, veritate sublevatus, consuetudine prægravatus. Et ideo sunt duæ voluntates, quia una earum tota non est, et hoc adest alteri quod deest alteri.” 196 “What ought to be? How cannot the inner nature exhibit itself by reflection, but can by action?” (Scipio, Metaphysik des Aug., p. 7.) Augustine was the first to put this question clearly. “Antiquity conceived the whole of life, we might say, in a naïve fashion from the standpoint of science: the spiritual appeared as natural, and virtue as a natural force.

will undertake to analyse, that this good laid hold of him as love, and snatched him from 118the misery of the monstrous inconsistency of existence.197 Thereby the notion of God received a wholly new content: the good which could do that was omnipotent. In the one act of liberation was given the identity of omnipotent being and the good, the sum 564 mum ὄν (supreme being) was holiness working on the will in the form of omnipotent love. This was what Augustine felt and described. A stream of divine conceptions was now set loose, partly given in the old language, but with a meaning felt for the first time, wonderfully combined with the statement of the philosophical knowledge of God, but regulating and transforming it. The Supreme Being (summum esse) is the Supreme Good; He is a person; the ontological defect of creaturely being becomes the moral defect of godlessness of will; evil is here as there negative;198 but in the former case it is the negation of substance (privatio substantiæ), in the latter that of good (privatio boni), meaning the defect arising from freedom. The good indeed still remains 119the divine being as fulness of life; but

197

Augustine indeed could further explain why the form, in which the good takes possession of and delivers the soul, must consist in the infusion of love. So long as the soul along with its will is confronted by duty (an ought), and commands itself to obey, it has not completely appropriated the good; “nam si plena esset, nec imperaret ut esset, quia jam esset” (Confess. VIII. 21). Accordingly, the fact that it admits the duty, does not yet create an effective will ex toto. It must accordingly so love what it ought, that it no longer needs command itself; nay, duty (the ought) must be its only love; only then is it plena in voluntate bona. The “abyssus corruptionis nostræ” is only exhausted when by love we “totum illud, quod volebamus nolumus et totum illud, quod deus vult, volumus (Confess. IX. 1). 198 Confess. VII. 18: “Malum si substantia esset, bonum esset. Aut enim esset incorruptibilis substantia, magnum utique bonum; aut substantia corruptibilis esset, quæ nisi bona esset, corrumpi non posset.” But since evil thus always exists in a good substance (more accurately: springs from the had will of the good substance), it is absolutely inexplicable; see e.g., De civitat. dei, XII. 7: “Nemo igitur quærat efficientem causam malæ voluntatis; non enim est efficiens sed deficiens (that is, the aspiration after nothing, after the annulling of life, constitutes the content of the bad will), quia nec illa effectio sed defectio. Deficere namque ab eo, quod summe est, ad id, quod minus est, hoc est incipere habere voluntatem malam. Causas porro defectionum istarum, cum efficientes non sint, ut dixi, sed deficientes, velle invenir 564 e tale est, ac si quisquam velit videre tenebras vel audire silentium, quod tamen utrumque nobis notum est, neque illud nisi per oculos, neque hoc nisi per aures, non sane in specie, sed in speciei privatione. Nemo ergo ex me scire quærat, quod me nescire scio, nisi forte, ut nescire discat, quod scire non posse sciendum est. Ea quippe quæ non in specie, sed in ejus privatione sciuntur, si dici aut intellegi potest quodammodo nesciendo sciuntur, ut sciendo nesciantur.”

for man it is summed up in the “common morality⍊564 which issues from the divine being and divine love. That is, he cannot appropriate it save in the will, which gladly forsakes its old nature, and loves that which dwells above all that is sensuous and selfish. Nothing is good except a good will: this principle was most closely combined by Augustine with the other: nothing is good but God; and love became for him the middle term. For the last and highest point reached in his knowledge was his combination of the thought that “all substance was from God” (omnis substantia a deo) with the other that “all good was” from God (omne bonum a deo). The conception of God as universal and sole worker, shaded into the other that God, just because he is God and source of all being, is also the only author and source of good in the form of selfimparting love.199 It belongs just as essentially to God to be grace (gratia) imparting itself in love, as to be the uncaused caus 564 e of causes (causa causatrix non causata). If we express this anthropologically: goodness does not make man independent of God—that was the old conception—but in goodness the constant natural dependence of all his creatures on God finds expression as a willed dependence securing the existence of the creaturely spirit. The latter only exists in yielding himself, only lives in dying, is only free when he suffers himself to be entirely ruled by God, is only good if his will is God’s will. These are the grand paradoxes with which he contrasted the “monstrous” paradoxes discussed above. But meanwhile there is no mistake that the metaphysical background everywhere shows in the ethical view; it is seen, first, in the ascetic trait which clings to 120the notion of the good in spite of its simple form (joy in God); secondly, in uncertainty as to the notion of love, into which an intellectual element still enters; thirdly, in the conception of grace (gratia), which appears not infrequently as the almost natural mode of the divine existence. The instruction how to hold communion with God displays still more clearly the interweaving of metaphysical and ethical views,

199

Augustine says of love (De civ. XI. 28), that we not only love its objects, but itself. “Amor amatur, et hinc probamus, quod in hominibus, qui rectius amantur, ipse magis amatur.” This observation led him to see God everywhere in love. As God is in all being, so is he also in love; nay, his existence in being is ultimately identical with his existence in love. Therefore love is beginning, middle, and end. It is the final object of theological thought, and the fundamental form of true spiritual life. “Caritas inchoata inchoata justitia est; caritas ac8 provecta provecta justitia est; caritas magna magna justitia est; caritas perfecta perfecta justitia est” (De nat. et grat. 84). But since in life in general voluntas = caritas (De trin. XV. 38): “quid est aliud caritas quam voluntas?”, we here find once more the profound connection between ethics and psychology.

that w 564 onderful oscillation, hesitancy, and wavering between the intellectual and that which lives and is experienced in the depths of the soul.200 On the one hand, it is required to enjoy God; nay, he is the only “thing” (res) which may be enjoyed, all else may only be used. But to enjoy means “to cling to anything by love for its own sake” (alicui rei amore inhærere propter se ipsam”).201 God is steadfastly to be enjoyed—the Neoplatonists are reproached with not reaching this.202 This enjoying is inseparably connected with the th 564 ought of God’s “beauty,” and in turn with the sense that he is all in all and indescribable.203 But, on the other hand,

200

Augustine’s ability to unite the Neoplatonic ontological speculation with the results of his examination of the practical spiritual life was due inter alia especially to his complete abstinence, in the former case, from accepting ritualistic elements, or from introducing into his speculation matter taken from the Cultus and the religion of the second order. If at first the stage of spiritual development which he occupied (when outside the Church), of itself protected him from admitting these deleterious elements, yet it was a conspicuous and hitherto unappreciated side of his greatness that he always kept clear of ritualistic mysticism. Thereby he rendered an invaluable service not only to his disciples in mysticism, but to the whole Western Church. 201 De doctr. christ., I., 3 sq. 202 See Confess., VII. 24: “et qæerebam viam comparandi roboris quod esset idoneum ad fruendum te, etc.,” 26: “certus quidem in istis eram, nimis taken infirmus ad fruendum te.” 203 Augustine has often repeated the old Platonic assertion of the impossibility of defining the nature of God, and that not alw 564 ays with a feeling of dissatisfaction, but as an expression of romantic satisfaction (“ineffabilis simplex natura”; “facilius dicimus quid non sit, quam quod sit”). He contributed much, besides, to the relative elucidation of negative definitions and of properties and accidents, and created scholastic terminology; see especially De trinit., XV. He is the father of Western theological dialectic: but also the inventor of the dialectic of the pious consciousness. From the anti-Manichæan controversy sprang the desire to conceive all God’s separate attributes as identical, i.e., the interest in the indivisibility of God—God is essence, not substance; for the latter cannot be thought of without accidents; see De trinit., VII., 10; and this interest went so far as to hold that even habere and esse coincided in God (De civ., X1. 10: “ideo simplex dicitur quoniam quod habet hoc est”). In order to guard God from corruptibilitas, compositeness of any sort was denied. But, at this point, Augustine had, nevertheless, to make a distinction in God, in order to discriminate the divine world-plan from him, and not to fall completely into Pantheism. (The latter is stamped on many passages in the work De trinit., see e.g., IV., 3, “Quia unum verbum dei est, per quod facta sunt omnia, quod est incommutabilis veritas, ibi principaliter atque i ac8 ncommutabiliter sunt omnia simul, et omnia vita sunt et omnia unum sunt.”) But since he always harked to the conviction that being, and wisdom, and goodness, are identical in God, he did not reach what he aimed at. This difficulty increased still further for him, where he combined speculation as to the nature of God with that regarding the Trinity. (Dorner, p. 22 ff.) It is

Augustine thrust 121aside the thought that God was a substance (res) in the interest of a living communion with him. God was a person, and in the phrase “to cleave by love” (“amore inhærere”) the emphasis falls in that case on the love (amor) which rests on faith 122(fides), and includes hope (spes). “God to be worshipped

seen most clearly in the doctrine of the divine world-plan. It always threatens to submerge the world in the Son as a unity, and to take away its difference (it is wrong, however—at least for the period after c., A.D. 400—to say conversely that the intelligible world is for Augustine identical with the Son, or is the Son). The vacillation is continued in the doctrine of creation. But Dorner (p. 40 f.) is wrong when he says: “Augustine had no conception as yet that the notion of causality, clearly conceived, is sufficient to establish the distinction between God and the world.” Augustine had undoubtedly no such conception, but this time it is not he, but Dorner, who shows his simplicity. The notion of causality, “clearly conceived,” can never establish a distinction, but only a transformation. If he had meant to give expression to the former, he required to introduce more into the cause than the effect; that is, it was necessary to furnish the cause with properties and powers which did not pass into the causatum (effect). But this already means that the scheme of cause and effect is inadequate to establish the difference. Augustine, certainly, had no clear conception of such a thing; but he felt that mere causality was useless. He adopted the expedient of calling in “nihil” (nothing) to his aid, the negation: God works in nothing. This “nothing” was the cause of the world not being a transformation or evolution of God, but of its appearing as an inferior or irridescent product, which, because it is a divina operatio, exists (yet not independently of God), and which, so far as independent, does not exist, since its independence resides in the nihil. The sentence “mundus de nihilo a deo factus”—the root principle of Augustinian cosmology—is ultimately to be taken dualistically; but the dualism is concealed by the second element consisting in negation, and therefore only revealing itself in the privative form (of mutability, transitoriness). But in the end the purely negative character of the second element cannot be absolutely retained (Augustine never, certainly, identified it with matter); it purported to be absolute impotence, but combined with the divine activity it became the resisting factor, and we know how it does resist in sin. Accordingly, the question most fatal to Augusti 563 ne would have been: Who created this nothing? As a matter of fact this question breaks down the whole construction. Absurd as it sounds, it is justified. Augustine cannot explain negation with its determinative power existing side by side with the divina operatio; for it is no explanation to say that it did not exist at all, since it merely had negative effects. Yet theory, sometimes acosmic, sometimes dualistic, in form, is everywhere corrected in Augustine, whether by the expression of a wise nescience, or by faith in God as Father. The criticism here used has been attacked by Loofs (R.-Encykl. 3, Vol. II., p. 271). We have to admit that it goes more deeply into the reason of his views than Augustine’s words require. But I do not believe that the statement given by Loofs is adequate: “God so created his creatures from nothing that some are less fair, less good than others, and, therefore, have less being (esse).” Could Augustine have actually contented himself with these facts without asking whence this “less”?

with faith, hope, and love (“Fide, spe, caritate colendum deum”).204 Augustine was s 564 o strongly possessed by the feeling, never, indeed, clearly formulated, that God is a person whom we must trust and love, that this conviction was even a latent standard in his Trinitarian speculations.205 Faith, hope, and love had, in that case, however, nothing further to do with “freedom” in the proper sense of the word. They were God’s gifts, and constituted a spiritual relation to Him, from which sprang good resolves (bonum velle) and righteousness (justitia). But, indeed, whenever Augustine looked from this life to eternal life, the possession of faith, love, and hope assumed a temporary aspect. “But when the mind has been imbued with the commencement of faith which works by love, it aspires by a good life to reach the manifestation in which holy and perfect hearts perceive the ineffable beauty whose complete vision is the highest felicity. This is surely what thou requirest, ‘what is to be esteemed the first and the last thing,’ to begin with faith, to be perfected in sig 52a ht” (Enchir. 5; see De doctr., II. 34 sq.).206 Certain as it is that the Neoplatonic tendency comes out in this, it is as certain that we have more than a mere “remnant of mystical natural religion”; for the feeling that “presses upward and forward” from the faith in what is not seen, to the 123seeing of what is believed, is not only the innate germ of religion, but its enduring stimulus.207 The idea of the world

204

ac9 Enchirid. 3. See Vol. IV., p. 129 ff. I do not enter further into the doctrine of the Trinity, but remark that the term “tres personæ” was very fatal to Augustine, and that all his original efforts in dealing with the Trinity lead away from cosmical and hypercosmical plurality to conceptions that make it express inner, spiritual self-movement in the one God. 206 Cum autem initio fidei quæ per dilectionem operatur imbuta mens fuerit, tendit bene vivendo etiam ad speciem pervenire, ubi est sanctis et perfectis cordibus nota ineffabilis pulchritudo, cujus plena visio est summa felicitas. Hoc est nimirum quod requiris, “quid primum, quid ultimum teneatur,” inchoari fide, perfici specie. 207 We may here touch briefly on the question several times recently discussed, as to the supremacy of the will in Augustine. Kahl has maintained it. But Siebeck (1.c. 183 f.) has with reason rejected it; (see also my notice of Kahl’s book in the ThLZ., 1886, No. 25); and Kahl has himself to admit “that at the last stage of knowledge Neoplatonic intellectualism, which explains volition away in view of thought, has frequently traversed the logical consequences of Augustine’s standpoint.” But it is just the last stage that decides. On the other hand, Kahl is quite right in appreciating so highly the importance of the will in Augustine. The kernel of our nature exists indisputably according to Augustine in our will; therefore, in order that the veritas, the scire deum et animam may be able to obtain supremacy, and become, as it were, the unique function of man, the will must be won on its behalf. This takes place through God’s grace, which leads the soul to will and love spiritual truth, i.e., God. Only now ac8 is it rendered possible for the intellect to 205

sketched from contemplation of the inner life and the sense of responsibility, which was combined with that of metaphysical cosmological speculation, led finally to a wholly different state of feeling from the latter. The optimism founded on aesthetics vanished before the “monstrum” of humanity which, infirm of will, b02 208 willed not and did not what at bottom it desired, and fell into the abyss of perdition. They are only a few who suffer themselves to be saved by grace. The mass is a massa perditionis, which death allures. “Woe is thee, thou torrent of human custom! Who shall stop thy course? How long will it be before thou art dried up? and whom wilt thou, O offspring of Eve, roll into the huge and hideous ocean, which even they 124scarcely overpass who have climbed the tree [the Church]?”209 The misery of the earth is unspeakable; whatever moves and cherishes an independent life upon it is its own punishment; for he who decreed sins (the ordinator peccatorum) has ordained that every sin judges itself, that every unregulated spirit is its own punishment.210

assume supremacy. Accordingly the freeing of the will is ultimately the substitution of the supremacy of the intellect for that of the will. (Compare, e.g., the passage Confess. IX. 24: “regio ubertatis indeficientis, ubi pascis Israel in æternum veritatis pabulo, et ubi vita sapientia est”; but for this life it holds true that “sapientia hominis pietas.”) Yet in so far as the supremacy of the intellect could not maintain itself without the amor essendi et sciendi, the will remains the co-efficient of the intellect even in the highest sphere. That is, briefly, Augustine’s view of the relation of the will and intellect. It explains why the return to Augustine in the Middle Ages brought about the complete subordination of the intellect to the will; for Augustine himself so presented the case that no inner state and no activity of thought existed apart front the will. But if that were so, Augustine’s opinion, that the vision (visio) of God was the supreme goal, could not but in the end pass away. It was necessary to demonstrate a goal which corresponded to the assured fact that man was will (see Duns Scotus). 208 See De civit. dei, XIV. 3 sq.; it is not the body (sensuousness) that is the ultimate cause of sin. 209 Confess. I. 25: Væ tibi flumen moris humani? quis resistet tibi? quamdiu non siccaberis? quosque volves Evæ, filius in mare magnum et formidolosum, quod vix transeunt qui lignum [ecclesiam] conscenderint? 210 There is a wonderful contrast in Augustine between the profound pessimistic view of the world, and the conception, strictly held in theory, that everything takes place under the uniform and unchangeable activity of God. What a difference between the statemen ac8 t of the problem and the result! And in order to remove this difference the metaphysician refers us to the—nothing. The course of the world is so confidently regarded as caused in whole and in detail by God, nay, is, as it were, taken up into the unchangeableness of God himself, that even miracles are only conceived to be events contrary to nature as known to us (Genes. ad lit. VI. 13; cf. De civ. X. 12; XXI. 1-8; nothing happens against nature; the world is itself the greatest, nay, the sole miracle; see

But from the beginning the historical Christian tradition penetrated with its influence the sequence of thoughts (on nature and grace), which the pious thinker had derived from his speculations on nature and his spiritual experience. Brought up from boyhood as a Catholic Christian, he has himself confessed that nothing ever satisfied him which did not bear the name of Christ.211 The description of the years when he wandered in doubt is traversed as with a scarlet cord by the bond that united him with Christ. Without many words, indeed with a modest reserve, he recalls in the Confessions the relation to Christ that had never died out in him, until in VII. 24 f., he can emphasise it strongly. We cannot doubt that even those expositions of his which are apparently indifferent to the Church traditions of Christianity—on the living personal God, the distinction betw 564 een God and the world, on God as Creator, on grace as the omnipotent principle— were already influenced by that tradition. And we must remember that his intense study of Paul and the Psalms began whenever, having broken 125with Manichæism, he had been convinced by Neoplatonism that God was a spiritual substance (spiritalis substantia). Even the expositions in the earliest writings which are apparently purely philosophical, were already dominated by the Christian conviction that God, the world, and the Ego were to be distinguished, and that room was to be made for the distinction in mystical speculation. Further, all attempts to break through the iron scheme of God’s unchangeableness (in his active presence in the world) are to be explained from the impression made by Christian history upon Augustine. However, we cannot here take in hand to show how Christ and the Church gradually obtained a fixed fundamental position in his mode of thought. His reply to Laurentius in the Enchiridion, that “Christ is the sure and peculiar foundation of the Catholic faith,” (certum propriumque fidei catholicæ fundamentum Christus est), would have been made in the same terms many years befor ac8 e, and, indeed, though his conceptions of Christ were then still uncertain, as early as about A.D. 387.212 Christ, the way, strength, and authority, explained for him the significance of Christ. It is very noteworthy that in the Confessions VII., 24 sq., and other passages where he brings the Christian religion into the question as

Nitzsch, Aug’s Lehre v. Wunder, 1865; Dorner, p. 71 f.), and yet everything shapes itself into a vast tragedy. In this nothing there still indeed lurks in Augustine a part of Manichæism; but in his vital view of the world it is not the “nothing” which plays a part, but the sin of wicked pleasure—self-will. 211 Confess. III. 8; V. 25; etc. 212 See the avowals in Confess. VII. 25.

to the first and last things, he does not produce general theories about revelation, but at once gives the central place to Christ and the Church.213 The 126two decisive principles on which he laid

213

Naturally, general investigations are not wanting of the nature of revelation as a whole, its relation to ratio, its stages (punishment of sin, law, prophecy), etc., but they have no secure connection with his dogmatics; they are dependant on the occasions that called them forth, and they are not clearly thought out. In any case, however, so many elements are found in them which connect them with Greek speculations, and in turn others which exerted a powerful influence at a later date (see Abelard), that one or two references are necessary (cf. Schmidt, Origenes and Aug. als Apolegeten in the Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theol. VIII.; Böhringer, p. 204 ff.; Reuter, p. 90 f., 350 ff., 400). Augustine occupies himself here, as always, with a problem whose factors ultimately do not admit of being reconciled. On the one hand, he never gave up the loft ac8 y appreciation of reason (ratio), of independent knowledge, in which being and life are embraced. Originally (in his first period, after A.D. 385), although he had already seen the importance of auctoritas, he set up as the goal of the ratio the overcoming of auctoritas, which required to precede it only for a time (De ord. II., 26, 27). “Ratio was to him the organ in which God reveals himself to man, and in which man perceives God.” In after times this thought was never given up; but it was limited by the distinction between subjective and objective reason, by the increasing perception of the extent of the influence exerted on human mason by the will, by the assumption that one consequence of original sin was ignorance, and, finally, by the view that while knowledge, due to faith, would always be uncertain here below, the soul longed after the real, i.e., the absolute and absolutely sure, knowledge. The latter alone superseded ratio as the organ by which God is known, as guide to the vita beata; the other limitations were limitations pure and simple. And the constancy with which, in spite of these, Augustine at all times valued ratio is proved by those striking expositions, which occur in his earliest and latest writings, of Christianity as the disclosure of the one true religion which had always existed. The whole work De civitate dei is, indeed, built upon this thought—the civitas dei not being first created by the appearance of Christ—which, indeed, has two other roots besides Rationalism, namely, the conception of the absolute immutability of God, and the intention to defend Christianity and its God against Neoplatonic and pagan attacks. (The first two roots, as can be easily shown, are reducible ultimately to one single conception. The apologetic idea is of quite a different kind. Christianity is held to be as old as the world, in order that the reproach of its late arrival may fall to the ground. Here the wholly incongruous idea is introduced that Christians before Christ had believed on his future appearance. Reuter has shown excellently (p. 90 ff.) how even the particularist doctrine of pre-destination has its share in the universalist and humanist conception; he also deserves the greatest gratitude for collecting the numerous passages in which that conception is elaborated.) Even before the appearance of Christ the civitas dei existed; to it belonged pagans and Jews. Christianity is as old as the world. It is the natural religion which has existed from the beginning under various forms and names. Through Christ it received the name of the Christian religion; “res ipsa quæ nunc Christiana religio nuncupatur, erat apud antiquos, nec defuit ab initio generis hu 564 mani, quousque ipse

Christus venit in carne, unde vera religio, quæ jam erat, cœpit appellari Christiana” (Retract. I., 12, 3); see especially Ep. 102 and De civit. XVIII., 47, where the incongruous thought is inserted that the unus mediator was revealed to the heathens who belonged to the heavenly Jerusalem in the earliest time. The latter idea is by no means inserted everywhere; there was rather up to the end of his life, in spite and because of his doctrine of particular predestinating grace, an undercurrent in Augustine’s thought: co-ordinating God and free knowledge, he recognised behind the system of the Church a free science, and in accordance therewith conceived also God and the world to be the abiding objects of knowledge. With this idea, however, as in the case of Origen, Christ at once disappears. The ultimate reason of this consists in the fact that Augustine, with all his progress in knowledge, never advanced to history. The great psychologist was still blind to the nature of historical development, to what personality achieved in history, and what history had accomplished fur mankind. He had only two methods of observation at his disposal—either the mythological contemplation of history, or a rationalistic neutralising. The man who felt so clearly and testified so convincingly that freedom lay in the change of will when ac8 it received a strength binding us to the good, was yet incapable as a thinker of drawing clearly the consequences of this experience. But those should not blame him who cannot free themselves from the illusion that an absolute knowledge of some sort must be possible to man; for the effort to obtain such a knowledge is the ultimate cause of the inability to understand history as history. He who is only happy with absolute knowledge is either blind to history, or it becomes a Medusa’s head to him. Yet rationalism is only the undercurrent, though here and there it does force its way to the surface. More surely and more constantly Augustine appeased with revelation his hunger for the absolute, which he was unable to distinguish from aiming at force and strength (God and goodness). His feelings were the same as Faust’s: “We long for revelation.” Now, it is very characteristic that in dealing with the notion of revelation, Augustine has expounded nothing more clearly than the thought that revelation is absolutely authoritative. We can leave out of account his other views on its necessity, nature, etc. The decisive fact for him is that revelation does not merely recommend itself by its intrinsic worth. Accordingly, the external attestation is the main point. Augustine discussed this (especially in his work De civit.) much more carefully and comprehensively than earlier Apologists, in order to establish the right to demand simple submission to the contents of revelation. Auctoritas and fides were inseparably connected; indeed, they occupied an almost exclusive relation to each other (see De util. cred., 25 sq.). We indeed find him explaining in his writings of all periods that authority is milk-food, and that, on the other hand, the demand in matters of religion for faith resting on authority is not exceptional, but that all the affairs of life of a deeper nature rest on such a faith. But these are simply sops to Cerberus. Man needs authority to discipline his mind, and to support a certainty not to be obtained elsewhere. Augustine was especially convinced of this as against heretics (Manichæans). Heathens he could refute to a certain extent from reason, heretics he could not. But even apart from this, since the power which hinds the will to God presented itself to him as the rock-fast conviction of the unseen, even the “strong” could not dispense with faith in authority. The gradual progress from faith to knowledge, which was well-known to him (“Every one who knows

stress were that the Catholic Church alone introduces us into communion with Christ, and that it is only through communion with Christ that we participate in God’s grace. That is, he is only 127certain of the speculative conception of the idea of the good, and its real activity as love when it is proclaimed authoritatively by the Church and supported by the conception of Christ. By the conception formed of Christ. Here a new element 128entered. Augustine supported, times without number, the old Western scheme of the twofold nature (utraque natura), the word and man one person (verbum et homo una persona)—(we may leave unnoticed the rare, inaccurate expressions “permixtio,” “mixtura,” e.g. Ep. 137, I11, 12), the form of God and form of a slave, and he contributed much to fortify this scheme in the West with its sharply defined division between what was done by the human, and what by the divine. But the unusual energy with which he rejected Apollinarianism—from his earliest to his latest writings—is enough to show that his deepest interest centred in the human soul of Jesus. The passages are extremely rare in which he

also believes, although not every one who believes knows,”) was still a progress constantly accompanied by faith. The saying, “fides præcedit rationem,” of which he has given so many variations (see e.g 564 ., Ep. 120, 2 sq.: “fides præcedit rationem,” or paradoxically: “rationabiliter visum est, ut fides præcedat rationem,”) did not signify a suspension of faith at the higher stages. Or, rather, and here the Sic et Non holds good, Augustine was never clear about the relation of faith and knowledge; he handed over this problem to the future. On the one hand he trusted ratio; but, on the other hand, he did not, relying only on God, and:is Genius ruling in experience. Faith’s authority was given for him in Scripture and the Church. But here, again, he only maintained and transmitted the disposition to obey, while his theoretical expositions are beset by sheer contradictions and ambiguities; for he has neither worked out the sufficiency, infallibility, and independence of Scripture, nor demonstrated the infallibility of the Church, nor defined the relation of Scripture and the Church. Sometimes Scripture is a court of appeal which owes its authority to the Church, sometimes the Church doctrine and all consuetudo are to be measured by Scripture (Scripture is the only source of doctrina Christiana), sometimes Church and Scripture are held to constitute one whole; in one place the Church seems to find in the Council its infallible mouthpiece, in the other, the perfectibility of Councils themselves is maintained. “The idea of the Church ac8 s infallibility belongs to Augustine’s popular Catholic presuppositions which grew out of his Catholic faith. It was never directly or expressly expounded by him, or dogmatically discussed. Therefore he cannot have felt the necessity of adjusting an exhaustive or precise doctrine regarding the legitimate form of the supreme representation of the Church by supposition infallible. This uncertainty and vagueness perhaps” (rather, indisputably) “spring from the vacillations of his thought regarding authority and reason, faith and knowledge” (see Reuter, pp. 345-358; Böhringer, pp. 217-256; Dorner, pp. 233244; further, above pp. 77-83, and Vol. III., p. 203 ff.).

adopts the same interpretation as Cyril of the confession: “the Word 564 became flesh,” and the doctrine of the deification of all human nature by the Incarnation is not represented, or, at any rate, only extremely doubtfully represented, by him. (Passages referring to it are not wholly awanting, but they arc extremely rare.) He rather explains the incarnation of the Word from another point of view, and accordingly, though he has points of contact with Origen, he describes it quite differently from the Greeks. Starting from the speculative consideration, to him a certainty, that it is always the whole Trinity that acts, and that its operation is absolutely invariable, the Incarnation was also a work of the whole Trinity. The Trinity produced the manifestation held to signify the Son (De trin. in many places). The Word (verbum) was not really more closely related than the 129whole Trinity to the Son. But since the Trinity could not act upon Jesus except as it always did, the uniqueness and power of the Person of Jesus Christ were to be derived from the receptiveness with which the man Jesus met the operatio divina; in other words, Augustine started from the human nature (soul) in his construction of the God-man. The human nature received the Word into its spirit; the human soul, because it ac8 acted as intermediary (medians), was also the centre of the God-man. Accordingly, the Word did not become flesh, if that be taken to mean that a transformation of any sort took place, but the divina operatio trinitatis could so work upon the human spirit of Jesus, that the Word was permanently attached to him, and was united with him to form one person.214 This receptiveness of Jesus was, as in all other cases, caused by the election of grace; it was a gift of God (munus dei), an incomprehensible act of divine grace; nay, it was the same divine grace that forgives us our sins which led the man Jesus to form one person with the Word and made him sinless. The Incarnation thus appeared simply to be parallel to the grace which makes us willing who were unwilling, and is independent of every historical fact.215

214

The figure often used by Augustine that the Word was united with the man Jesus as our souls are with our bodies is absolutely unsuitable. Augustine borrowed it from antiquity without realising that it really conflicted with his own conception. 215 Enchir., 36: “Hic omnino granditer et evidenter dei gratia commendatur. Quid enim natura humana in homine Christi meruit ut in unitatem personæ unici filii dei singulariter esset assumpta! Quæ bona voluntas, cujus boni propositi studium, quæ bona opera præcesserunt, quibus mereretur iste homo una fieri persona cum deo? Numquid antea fuit homo, et hoc ei singulare beneficium præstitum est, cum singulariter promereretur deum? Nempe ex quo homo esse cœpit, non aliud cœpit esse homo quam dei filius: et hoc unicus, et propter deum verbum, quod illo suscepto caro factum est, utique deus. . . . Unde naturæ humanæ tanta gloria, nullis præcedentibus meritis sine dubitatione gratuita,

130

But it was not so meant. While, indeed, it is here again evident, that the conception of the divine grace in Christ was, at bottom, subordinate to predestinating grace, and that the latter was independent of the former,216 yet Augustine by no means confined himself to dealing with the ultimate grounds of his conceptions. Rather the Incarnation benefited us; the salvation bestowed was dependent on it for us “who are his members” (qui sumus membra ejus).217 But how far? Where Augustine speaks as a Churchman, he thinks of the sacraments, the powers of faith, forgiveness and love, which were the inheritance left the Church by the God-man (see under). But where he expresses the living 549 Christian piety which actuated him, he had three wholly distinct conceptions by

nisi quia magna hic et sola dei gratia fideliter et sobrie considerantibus evidenter ostenditur, ut intellegant homines per eandem gratiam se justifcari a peccatis, per quam factum est ut homo Christus nullum habere posset peccatum.” 40: “Natus Christus insinuat nobis gratiam dei, qua homo nullis præcedentibus meritis in ipso exordio naturæ suæ quo esse cœpit, verbo deo copularetur in tantam personæ unitatem, ut idem ipse esset filius dei q 564 ui filius hominis, etc.” De dono persev., 67. Op. imperf., I., 138: “Qua gratia homo Jesus ab initio factus est bonus, eadem gratia homines qui sunt membra ejus ex malis fiunt boni.” De prædest. 30: “Est etiam præclarissimum lumen prædestinationis et gratiæ ipse salvator, ipse mediator dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus, qui ut hoc esset, quibus tandem suis vel operum vel fidei præcedentibus meritis natura humana quæ in illo est comparavit? . . . Singulariter nostra natura in Jesu nullis suis præcedentibus meritis accepit admiranda (scil. the union with deity). Respondeat hic homo deo, si audet, et dicat: Cur non et ego? Et si audierit: O homo, tu quis es qui respondeas deo, etc.” De corrept. et grat. 30: “Deus naturam nostram id est animam rationalem carnemque hominis Christi suscepit, susceptione singulariter mirabili vel mirabiliter singulari, ut nullis justitiæ suæ præcedentibus meritis filius dei sic esset ab initio quo esse homo cœpisset, ut ipse et verbum, quod sine initio est, una persona esset.” De pecc. mer. II. 27. Augustine says in Confess. VII. 25: “Ego autem aliquanto posterius didicisse me fateor, in eo quod verbum caro factum est, quomodo catholica veritas a Photini falsitate dirimatur.” Our account given above will have shown, however, that he never entirely learnt this. His Christology, a ac7 t all times, retained a strong trace of affinity with that of Paul of Samosata and Photinus (only all merit was excluded on the part of the man Jesus), because he knew that his faith could not dispense with the man Jesus, and he supplanted the pseudo-theological speculation as to the Word by the evangelical one that the Word had become the content of Christ’s soul. 216 Therefore, also, the uncertainty which we find already in Augustine as to whether the Incarnation was necessary. In De Trinit. XIII. 13, he answers the momentous question whether God might not have chosen another way, by leaving the possibility open, but describing the way selected as bonus, divinæ dignitati congruns and convenientior. By this he opened up a perilous perspective to the Middle Ages. 217 Op. imperf. l.c.

which he realised that Christ, the God-man, was the rock of his faith.218 The Incarnation was the great 131proof of God’s love towards us;219 the humility of God and Christ attested in it breaks down our pride and teaches us that “all goodness is made perfect in humility” (omne bonum in humilitate perficitur); the truth which was eternal is made comprehensible to us in Christ: lying in the dust we can apprehend God who redeems us by revealing himself in our lowliness. Throughout all this we are met by the living impression of Christ’s person, ae3 1 and it is humility, which Paul also regarded as so important, that stands out as its clearest and most weighty attributes.220 The type of humility exhibited in majesty—this it was

218

He definitely rejects the idea held by him before his conversion that Christ was only a teacher; see, e.g., Confess. VII. 25: “Tantum sentiebam de domino Christo meo, quantum de excellentis sapientiæ viro, cui nullus posset æquari; præsertim quia mirabiliter natus ex virgine ad exemplum contemnendorum temporalium pro adipiscenda immortalitate divina pro nobis cura tantam auctoritatem magisterii meruisse videbatur.” 219 De trin. XIII. 13: “Quid tam necessarium fuit ad erigendam spem nostram, quam ut demonstraretur nobis, quanti nos penderet deus quantumque diligeret?” That takes place through the Incarnation. 565 220 The “work” of Christ falls to be discussed afterwards; for we cannot include Augustine’s views concerning it among his fundamental conceptions. In part they alternate (between redemption from the devil, sacrifice, and removal of original sin by death), and in part they are dependant on his specific view of original sin. Where he indulges in expositions of practical piety, he has no theory at all regarding Christ’s work. 221 The clearest, and on account of the historical connection the most decisive, testimony is given in Confess. VII. 24-27, where, in telling what Christ had become to him, he at the same time explains why Neoplatonism was insufficient. He knew what the Neoplatonists perceived, but ac8 “quærebam viam comparandi roboris quod esset idoneum ad fruendum te, nec inveniebam donec amplecterer mediatorem dei et hominem, hominem Christum Jesum vocantem et dicentem: Ego sum via et veritas et vita, et cibum, cui capiendo invalidus eram, miscentem carni; quoniam verbum caro factum est, ut infantiæ nostræ lactesceret sapientia tua per quam creasti omnia. Non enim tenebam dominum meum Jesum, humilis humilem, nec cujus rei magistra esset ejus infirmitas noveram. Verbum enim tuum æterna veritas . . . subditos erigit ad se ipsam: in inferioribus autem ædificavit sihi humilem domum de limo nostro, per quam subdendos deprimeret a seipsis et ad se trajiceret, sanans tumorem et nutriens amorem, ne fiducia sui progrederentur longius, sed potius infirmarentur videntes ante pedes sues infirmam divinitatem ex participatione tunicæ pelliceæ nostræ, et lassi prosternerentur in eam, illa autem surgens lavaret eos.” He then explains in the sequel that the Neoplatonic writings led him to thoroughly understand the nature of God, but: “garriebam plane quasi peritus, et nisi in Christo salvatore nostro viam tuam quærerem, non peritus, sed periturus essem.” I sought to be wise, puffed up by knowledge. “Ubi enim erat illa ædificans caritas a fundamento humilitatis, quod est Christus Jesus?” This love rooted in humility those

that overpowered Augustine: pride was sin, and humility was the sphere and force of goodness. From this he learned and implanted in the Church the new disposition of reverence for 132humility. The new bias which he thus gave to Christology continued to exert its influence in the Middle Ages, and displayed itself in rays of varying brilliancy and strength; although, as a consequence of the Adoptian controversy, Greek Christology once more entered in force, from the ninth century, and hindered piety from expressing its knowledge clearly in dogma. We now understand also why Augustine attached such value to the human element (homo) in Christ. This was not merely due to a consequence of his theology (see above), but it was in a much higher degree the pious view of Christ that demanded this conception. He could not realise Christ’s humility with certainty in the Incarnation; for the latter sprang from the universal working of God, predestinating grace, and Jesus’ receptiveness; but humility was the constant “habit” of the divino-human personality. Thus the true nature of Jesus Christ was really known: “strength is made perfect in weakness” (robur in infirmitate perficitur). That lowliness, suffering, shame, misery, and death are means of sanctification; nay, that selfless and therefore ever suffering love is the only means of sanctification (“I

writings could not teach me. It was from the Bible I first learned: “quid interesset inter præsumptionem et confessionem, inter videntes quo eundun sit nec videntes qua, et viam ducentem ad beatificam patriam, non tantum cernendam, sed et habitandam.” Now I read Paul. “Et apparuit mihi una facies eloquiorum castorum. Et cœpi et inveni quidquid illac verum legeram, hac cum commendatione gratiæ tuæ dici, ut qui videt non sic glorietur quasi non acceperit, non solum id quod videt, sed etiam ut videat, et ut te non solum admoneatur ut videat, sed etiam sanetur ut teneat, et qui de longinquo videre non potest, viam tamen ambulet, qua veniat et videat et teneat.” For if a man delights in the law of God after the inner man, what does he do with the other law in his members? . . . What shall wretched man do? Who shall deliver him from the body of this death? Who but thy grace through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom the handwriting which was against us was abolished. “Hoc illæ litteræ non habent. Non habent illæ paginæ vultum pietatis hujus, lacrimas confessionis, sacrificium tuum, spiritum contribulatum. . . . Nemo ibi cantat: Nonne deo subdita erit anima mea. Ab ipso enim salutare meum. Nemo ibi audit vocantem: Venite ad me, omnes qui laboratis. 564 Dedignantur ab eo discere quoniam mitis est et humilis corde. Abscondisti enim hæc a sapientibus et prudentihus, et revelasti ea parvulis.” “For it is one thing from the mountain’s wooded top to see the land of peace and yet to find no way to it, and another to keep steadfastly on the way thither.” Compare with this the elaborate criticism of Platonism in De civit. dei, X., esp. ch. 24 and 32, where Christ is presented as “universalis animæ liberandæ via,” while his significance is for the rest explained much more in the popular Catholic fashion than in the Confessions. In ch. 1 ff. there is even an attempt to conceive the angels and saints as a heavenly hierarchy as the Greeks do.

sanctify myself for them”); that what is great and 133good always appears in a lowly state, and by the power of the contrast triumphs over pride; that humility alone has an eye wherewith to see the divine; that every feeling in the good is accompanied by the sense of being pardoned—that was the very core of Augustine’s Christology. He, for his part, did not drag it into the region of æsthetics, or direct the imagination to busy itself with separate visions of lowliness. No, with him it still existed wholly on the clear height of ethical thought, of modest reverence for the purport of Christ’s whole life, whose splendour had 564 been realised in humility. “Reverence for that which is beneath us is a final stage which mankind could and had to reach. But what was involved not only in despising the earth and claiming a higher birthplace, but in recognising lowliness and poverty, ridicule and contempt, shame and misery, suffering and death as divine, nay, in revering sin and transgression not as hindrances, but as furtherances of sanctification.” Augustine could have written these words; for no idea was more strongly marked in his view of Christ than that he had ennobled what we shrank from—shame, pain, sorrow, death— and had stripped of value what we desired—success, honour, enjoyment. “By abstinence he rendered contemptible all that we aimed at, and because of which we lived badly. By his suffering he disarmed what we fled from. No single sin can be committed if we do not desire what he despised, or shirk what he endured.” But Augustine did not succeed in reducing this conception of the person of Christ to dogmatic formulas. Can we confine the sun’s ray in a bucket? He held by the old formulas as forming an element of tradition and as expressing the uniqueness of Christ; but to him the true foundation of the Church was Christ, because he knew that the impression made by his character had broken down his own pri ac8 de, and had given him the power to find God in lowliness and to apprehend him in humility. Thus the living Christ had become to him the truth222 and the way to 134blessedness, and he who was preached by the Church his authority.223

222

Augustine accordingly testifies that in order that the truth which is perceived should also be loved and extolled, a person is necessary who should conduct us and that on the path of humility. This is the burden of his Confessions. The truth itself had been shown clearly to him by the Neoplatonists; but it had not become his ac8 spiritual possession. Augustine knew only one person capable of so impressing the truth as to make it loved and extolled, and he alone could do this, because he was the revelation of the verbum dei in humilitate. When Christendom has attained securely and clearly to this “Christology,” it will no longer demand to be freed from the yoke of Christology. 223 This is linked together by Augustine in a wonderful fashion. The scepticism of the thinker in genre and the doubts, never overcome in his own mind as to the Catholic

But what is the beatific fatherland, the blessed life, to which Christ is the way and the strength? We have already discussed it (p. 91 f.), and we need only here mention a few additional points. The blessed life is eternal peace, the constant contemplation of God in the other world.224 Knowledge remains man’s goal; even the notion of the enjoyment of God (fruitio dei), or that other of heavenly peace, does not certainly divert us from it.225 Knowledge, is, however, contrasted with action, and the future state is wholly different from the present. From this it follows that Augustine retained the popular Catholic feeling that directed men in this life wholly to hope, asceticism, and the contemplation [of God] in worship, for though that can never be attained in this world which the future will bring, yet life here must be regulated by the state which will be enjoyed afterwards. Hence Augustine championed monachism and opposed Jovinian so decidedly; hence he regarded the world in the same light as the ancient Catholic Fathers; hence he valued as highly as they did the distinction between precepts and counsels; hence he never looked even on the highest blessings (munera dei) which we can here enjoy as containing the reality, but only a 135pledge and similitude; for set in the spher ac8 e of the transitory they were themselves transitory; hence, finally, he did not think of the earthly Church when seeking to realise the first and last things, for God alone, constantly seen and enjoyed, was the supreme blessing; and even the divine kingdom, so far as it was earthly, was transitory. But even here much that was new emerged in the form of undercurrents, and the old was modified in many respects, a few details being almost set aside. It is therefore easy to point to numerous dissonances in Augustine’s idea of the goal; but he who does not criticise like an irresponsible critic or impartial logician will admit that he knows no more than Augustine, and that he also cannot do better than alternate between different points of view. Let us pick out the following points in detail.

doctrine in specie, demanded that Christ should be the indisputable authority of the Church. To this is added, in connection with gratia infusa, the Christ of the sacraments. I do not discuss this authoritative Christ more fully, because he coincides with the authority of the Church itself, and we have already dealt with the latter. 224 De civ. dei XIX. 13: “Pax cælestis civitatis ordinatissima et concordissima societas fruendi deo et invicem in deo.” Enchir. 29: “Contemplatio ejus artifices, qui vocat ea quæ non sunt tamquam ea quæ sunt, atque in mensura et numero et pondere cuncta disponit,” see 63. 225 Yet the conception of blessedness as peace undoubtedly involves a tendency to think primarily of the will.

1. Augustine put an end to the doubt whether virtue was not perhaps the supreme good; he reduced virtues to dependance on God—to grace; see Ep. 155, 12 sq.226 He, indeed, re-admitted the thought at a new and higher stage—merits called forth by grace, righteousness made perfect by love. But the mood at any rate is changed. 2. Augustine did not follow the lead of the Greek Church: he did not cultivate systematic mysticism with a view to the future state, or regard and treat the cultus as a means by which to anticipate deification. He set aside the elements of physical magic in religious doctrine, and by this means spiritualised the ideas of the other world. The ascetic life of the churchman was to be spiritual and moral. Statements, indeed, are not wholly wanting in his works to the effect that eternal life can be experienced in ecstatic visions in this world; but he is thinking then especially of Biblical characters (Paul), and in the course of his Christian development he thrust the whole conception more and more into the background. 3. Augustine’s profound knowledge of the will, and his perception of the extent to which the latter swayed even knowledge, led to his discovery of the principle, that goodness and 136blessing, accordingly also final salvation, coincided in the dependance of the ac8 will on God. By this means he broke through intellectualism, and a superlative blessing was shown to exist even in this world. “It is a good thing for me to cleave to God.” This “cleaving” is produced by the Holy Spirit, and he thereby imparts love and blessedness to the heart.227 In presence of the realisation of this blessedness, the antithesis of time and eternity, life and death, disappears.228

226

The whole of Book XIX. of De civit. dei—it is perhaps on the whole the most important—comes to be considered here. In Ch. IV., it is expressly denied that virtue is the 564 supreme good. 227 See De spiritu et lit. 5 (the passage follows afterwards). 228 That Augustine was able from this point of view to make the conscious feeling of blessedness a force entering into the affairs of this world, is shown by the passage De civit. dei XIX. 14, which, indeed, so far as I know, is almost unique. “Et quoniam (Christianus) quamdin est in isto mortali corpore, peregrinatur a domino, ambulat per fidem non per speciem; ac per hoc omnem pacem vel corporis vel animæ vel simul corporis et animæ refert ad illam pacem, quæ homini mortali est cum immortali deo, ut ei sit ordinata in fide sub æterna lege obœdientia. Jam vero quia duo præcipua præcepta, hoc est dilectionem dei et dilection ac8 em proximi, docet magister deus . . . consequens est, ut etiam proximo ad diligendum deum consulat, quem jubetur sicut se ipsum diligere (sic uxori, sic filiis, sic domesticis, sic ceteris quibus potuerit hominibus), et ad hoc sibi a

4. Starting from this, he arrived at a series of views which necessarily exerted a powerful influence on the popular frame of mind. (a) Of the three virtues, graces, by which man clings to God— faith, love, and hope—love continues to exist in eternity. Accordingly, love, unchanging and grateful, connects this world with the next. (b) Thereby, however, the quietism of knowledge is also modified. Seeing is to be nothing but loving; an element of adjustment of all discords in feeling and will is introduced into the notion of blessedness, and although “rational contemplation” 137(contemplatio rationalis) is always ranked above “rational action” (actio rationalis), a high value is always attached to practical and active love.229 (c) A higher meaning was now given, not indeed to the earthly world, but to the earthly Church and its peculiar privileges (within it) in this world. The idea of the city of God on earth, formulated long before by others, was yet, as we shall see in the next section, first raised by Augustine into the sphere of religious thought. In front of the Holy of Holies, the first and last things, he beheld, as it

proximo, si forte indiget, consuli velit; ac per hoc erit pacatus, quantum in ipso est, omni homini pace hominum, id est ordinata concordia cujus hic ordo est, prinmm ut nulli noceat, deinde ut etiam prosit cui potuerit. Primitus ergo inest ei suorum cura; ad eos quippe habet opportuniorem facilioremque aditum consulendi, vel naturæ ordine vel ipsius societatis humanæ. Unde apostolus dicit: ‘Quisquis autem suis et maxime domesticis non providet, fidem denegat et est infideli deterior.’ Hinc itaque etiam pax domestica oritur, id est ordinati imperandi obœdiendique concordia cohabitantium. Imperaut enim, qui consulunt: sicut vir uxori, parentes finis, domini servis. . . . Sed in domo justi viventes ex fide et adhuc ab illa cælesti civitate peregrinantis etiam qui imperant serviunt eis, quibus videntur imperare. Neque enim dominandi cupiditate imperant, sed officio consulendi, nec principandi superbia, sed providendi misericordia.” 229 The element of “pax” obtains a value higher than and independent of knowledge (see above). That is shown also in the fact that the definitive state of the unsaved (De civit. dei, XIX., 28) is not described as ignorance, but as constant war: “Quod bellum gravius et amarius cogitari potest, quam ubi voluntas sic adversa est passioni et passio voluntati, ut nullius earum victoria tales inimicitiæ finiantur, et ubi sic confligit cum ipsa natura corporis vis doloris, ut neutrum alteri cedat? Hic [in terra] enim quando contingit iste conflictus, aut dolor vincit et sensum mors adimit, aut natura vincit et dolorem sanitas tollit. Ibi autem et dolor permanet ut affligat, et natura perdurat ut sentiat; quia utrumque ideo non deficit, ne pœna deficiat.” Undoubtedly, as regards the sainted (see Book, XXII.), the conception comes again and again to the front that their felicity will consist in seeing God.

were, a sanctuary, the Church on earth, with the blessings granted it by God. He saw that it was a self-rewarding task, nay ac5 , a sacred duty, to cherish this sanctuary, to establish it in the world, to rank it higher than worldly ties, and to devote to it all earthly goods, in order again to receive them from it as legitimate possessions. He thus, following, indeed, the impulses given by the Western tradition, also created, if we may use so bold a phrase, a religion of the second order. But this second-order religion, was not, as in the case of the Greeks, the formless creation of a superstitious cultus. It was on the contrary a doctrine which dealt with the Church in its relation to the world as an active and moral power transforming and governing society, as an organism, in which Christ was actively present, of the sacraments, of goodness and righteousness. Ecclesiasticism and theology were meant to be thoroughly united, the former serving the latter, the one like Martha, the other like Mary.230 They ministered to 138the same object, and righteousness made perfect by love was the element in which both lived.231 (d) While the ascetic life remained the ideal for the individual, Augustine modified the popular tendency also in monachism by never forgetting, with all his appreciation of external works (poverty, virginity, etc.), that faith, hope, and charity were alone of decisive importance, and that therefore the worth of the man who possessed these virtues might no longer be determined by his outward performances. He knew, besides, better than anyone else, that external works might be accomplished with a godless heart— not only by heretical monks, where this was self-evident, but also by Catholics, Ep., 78, 79, and, uniting ascetics as closely as

230

Augustine has (De trin. I. 20) applied this comparison to the Churches of the future and present world; we may also adapt it to the relations of his doctrines of the Church and of God. 231 Ritschl published in his Treatise on the method of the earliest history of dogma (Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol., 1871) the grand conception that the Areopagite in the East, and Augustine in the West, were parallels; that the former founded a ritualistic ecclesiasticism, the latter an ecclesiasticism of moral tasks, in the service of a world-wide Christianity that both thus modified in the same direction, but with entirely different means, the old state of feeling (the bare hope of the future life). This conception is substantially correct If we keep firm hold of the fact that the traditional popular Catholic system was not modified by either to its utmost limit, and that both followed impulses which had been at work in their Churches even before their time. The doctrine regarding the Church was not Augustine ac8 s “central idea,” but he took what every Catholic was certain of, and made it a matter of clearer, in part for the first time of any clear, conviction; and moved by very varied causes, he finally produced an ecclesiasticism whose independent value he himself never thoroughly perceived.

possible to the Church, he urged them to engage in active work. Here, again, we see that he broke through the barren system which made blessedness consist in contemplatio rationalis and that alone. This is, in brief, Augustine’s doctrine of the first and last things, together with indications that point to that sphere which belongs though not directly yet indirectly to those things, viz. 567 , the equipment and tasks of the Church in our present state. “Doctrine” of the first and last things is really an incorrect expression; for, and this is the supreme thing to be said in closing the subject, it was not to him a matter of “doctrine,” but of the faithful reproduction of his experiences. The most thorough-going modification by Augustine of traditional dogmatic Christianity consisted in his perception “that Christianity is 139ultimately different from everything called ‘doctrine’” (Reuter, p. 494). The law is doctrine; the gospel is power. The law produces enlightenment; the gospel peace. This Augustine clearly perceived, and thereby set religion in the sphere of a vital, spiritual experience, while he disassociated it from knowledge and inference. He once more, indeed, placed his newly-discovered truth on the plane of the old; for he was a Catholic Christian; but the connection with the past which belongs to every effective reformer need not prevent us from exhibiting his originality. Anyone who seeks to give effect to the “whole” Augustine and the “whole” Luther is suspected of seeking to evade the “true” Augustine and the “true” Luther; for what man’s peculiarity and strength are fully expressed in the breadth of all he has said and done? One or two glorious passa a9f ges from Augustine should show, in conclusion, that he divested the Christian religion of what is called “doctrine” or “dogma.” “I possess nothing but will; I know nothing but that what is fleeting and transitory ought to be despised, and what is certain and eternal ought to be sought for. . . . If those who flee to thee find thee by faith, grant faith; if by virtue, grant virtue; if by knowledge, grant knowledge. Increase in me faith, hope, love.” “But we say that man’s will is divinely aided to do what is righteous, so that, besides his creation with free-will, and besides the doctrine by which he is taught how he should live, man receives the Holy Spirit in order that there may be created in his mind, even now when he still walks by faith, and not by appearance, the delight in and love of that supreme and unchangeable good which is God; in order that this pledge, as it were, having been given him of the free gift, a man may fervently long to cling to his Creator, and be inflamed with desire to enter into the participation of that true light, that he may receive good from him from whom he has his being. For if the way of truth be hidden, free-will is of no use except for sinning, and when that which ought to be done, or striven for, begins to reveal itself,

nothing is done, or undertaken, and the good life is not lived, unless it delights and is loved. But that it may be loved, the love of God is diffused in our hearts, not by free choice emanating from ourselves, but by the Holy 140Spirit given unto us.” “What the law of works commands by threatening, the law of faith effects by believing. This is the wisdom which is called piety, by which the father of lights is worshipped, by whom every excellence is given, and every gift made perfect. . . . By the law of works God says: Do what I command; by the law of faith we say to God: Grant what thou commandest. . . . We have not received the spirit of this world, says the most constant preacher of grace, but the spirit which is from God, that we may know what things have been granted us by God. But what is the spirit of this world but the spirit of pride? . . . Nor are they deceived by any other spirit, who, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, are not subject to God’s righteousness. Whence it seems to me that he is a son of faith who knows from whom he hopes to receive what he does not yet possess, rather than he who attributes to himself what he has. We conclude that a man is not justified by the letter, but by the spirit, not by the merits of his deeds, but by free grace.” af1 232

232

Solil. I. 5: “Nihil aliud habeo quam voluntatem; nihil aliud scio nisi fluxa et caduca spernenda esse, certa et æterna requirenda . . . si fide te inveniunt, qui ad te refugiunt, fidem da, si virtute, virtutem, si scientia, scientiam. Auge in me fidem, auge spem, auge caritatem.” De spiritu et lit., 5: “Nos autem dicimus humanam voluntatem sic divinitus adjuvari ad faciendam justitiam, ut præter quod creatus est homo cum libero arbitrio voluntatis, præterque doctrinam qua ei præcipitur quemadmodum vivere debeat, accipiat spiritum sanctum, quo fiat in animo ejus delectatio dilectioque summi illius atque incommutabilis boni quod deus est, etiam nunc cum adhuc per fidem ambulatur, nondum per speciem: ut hac sibi velut arra data gratuiti muneris inardescat inhærere creatori atque inflammetur accedere ad participationem illius veri luminis, ut ex illo ei bene sit, a quo habet ut sit. Nam neque liberum arbitrium quidquam nisi ad peccandum valet, si lateat veritatis via, et cum id quod agendum et quo nitendum est cœperit non latere, nisi etiam delectet et ametur, non agitur, non suscipitur, non bene vivitur. Ut autem diligatur, caritas dei diffunditur in cordibus nostris, non per arbitrium liberum quod surgit ex nobis, sed per spiritum sanctum qui datus est nobis.” L.c., 22: “Quod operum lex minando imperat, hoc fidei Iex credendo impetrat. Ipsa est illa sapientia quæ pietas vocatur, qua colitur pater luminum, a quo est omne datum optimum et omne donum perfectum. . . . Lege operum dicit deus: Fac quod jubeo; lege fidei dicitur deo: Da quod jubes. . . . Non spiritum hujus mundi accepimus, ait constantissimus gratiæ prædicator, sed spiritum qui ex deo est, ut sciamus quæ a deo donata sunt nobis. Quis est autem spiritus mundi hujus, nisi superbiæ spiritus? . . . Nec alio spiritu decipiuntur etiam illi qui ignorantes dei justitiam et suam justitiam volentes constituere, justitiæ dei non sunt subjecti. Unde mihi videtur magis esse fidei filius, qui novit a quo speret quod nondum habet, quam qui sibi

xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

2. The Donatist Controversy. The Work: De civitate Dei. Doctrine of the Church, and Means of Grace. Augustine was still occupied with the controversy with the Manichæans, in which he so sharply emphasised the authority 141of the Catholic Church,233 when his ecclesiastical position— Presbyter, A.D. 392, Bishop, A.D. 396, in Hippo—compelled him to take up the fight with the Donatists. In Hippo these formed the majority of the inhabitants, and so violent was their hatred that they even refused to make bread for the Catholics. Augustine fought with them from 393 to 411, and wrote against them a succession of works, some of these being very comprehensive.234 We must here take for granted a knowledge of the course of the controversy at Synods, and as influenced by the intrusion of the Civil power.235 It was carried on upon the ground prepared by Cyprian. His authority was accepted by the opponents. Accordingly, internal antitheses developed in the dispute which had remained latent in Cyprian’s theory. The new-fashioned Catholic theory had been already stated impressively by Optatus (see above, p. 42 ff.). It was reserved to Augustine to extend and complete it. But, as it usually happens in such questions, every newly-acquired position opened up new questions, and for one solution created any number of 142problems. And thus Augustine left more problems than he had solved. The controversy did not now deal directly with the hierarchical 564 constitution of the Church. Episcopacy was an accepted fact.

tribuit id quod habet. Colligimus non justificari homin 564 em littera, sed spiritu, non factorum meritis, sed gratuita gratia.” 233 The Manichæans professed, in the controversy of the day, to be the men of “free inquiry” (“docendi fontem aperire gloriantur” De utilit. 21). We cannot here discuss how far they were; Augustine did not conscientiously feel that his breach with them was a breach with free inquiry. Therefore the efforts from the outset to define the relations of ratio and auctoritas, and to save what was still possible of the former. 234 Psalmus c. partem Donati—C. Parmeniani epist. ad Tichonium b. III.—De bapt. c. Donatistas, b. VII.—C. litteras Petiliani, b. III.—Ep. ad Catholicos c. Donatistas—C. Cresconium, b. IV.—De unico bapt. c a9f . Petilianum—Breviculus Collationis c. Donatistis—Post collationem ad Donatistas. Further, at a later date Sermo ad Cæsareensis ecclesiæ plebem—De gestis cum Emerito—C. Gaudentium Donatistam episcopum, b. II. The Sermo de Rusticiano is a forgery by the notorious Hieronymus Viguerius. 235 Augustine supported, at least from A.D. 407, the suppression by force of the Donatists by the Christian state in the interest of “loving discipline.” The discussion of A.D. 411 was a tragi-comedy. Last traces of the Donatists are still found in the time of Gregory I., who anew invoked the aid of the Civil power against them.

The competency of the Church was questioned, and therewith its nature, significance, and extent. That ultimately the constitution of the Church should be dragged into the same peril was inevitable; for the hierarchy is, of course, the tenderest part in a constitution based upon it. The schism was in itself the greatest evil. But in order to get over it, it was necessary to go to its roots and show that it was utterly impossible to sever oneself from the Catholic Church, that the unity, as well as truth of the Church, was indestructible. The main thesis of the Donatists was to the effect that the empirical is only the true Church when those who propagate it, the priests, are “pure”; for no one can propagate what he does not himself possess.236 The true Church thus needs pure priests; it must therefore declare consecration by traditores to be invalid; and it cannot admit the efficacy of baptism administered by the aab impure—heretics, or those guilty of mortal sins; finally, it must exclude all that is manifestly stained and unworthy. This was followed by the breach with such Christian communions as did not strictly observe these rules, and by the practice of re-baptism.237 Separation was imperative, no matter how great or small the extent of the Church. This thesis was supplemented, during the period of the State persecutions, by a second, that the persecuted Church was the true one, and that the State had nothing to do with the Church. Augustine’s counter-argument, based on Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, and Optatus, but partly disavowing, though with due respect, the first-named, went far beyond a bare refutation of 143the separatists. He created the beginnings of a doctrine of the Church, and means of grace, of the Church as institute of salvation, the organism of the good, i.e., of divine powers in the world. Nor did the Donatist controversy furnish him with his only motive for developing this doctrine. The dispute with the Manichæans had already roused his interest in the authority of the Church, and led him to look more closely into it than his predecessors (see above, p. 79 ff.), who, indeed, were quite at one with him in their practical attitude to the Church. The Pelagian controversy, the state of the world, and the defence of Christianity against heathen

236

C. Litt. Petil I. 3: “Qui fidem a perfido sumpserit non fidem percipit, sed reatum.” I. 2: “Conscientia dantis adtenditur, qui abluat accipientis.” Other Donatistic theses ran (l.c.) “Omnes res origine et radice consistit, et si caput non habet aliquid, nihil est.” “Nec quidquam bene regenerat, nisi bono semine (boni sacerdotis) regeneretur.” “Quæ potest esse perversitas ut qui suis criminibus reus est, alium faciat innocentem?” 237 The Donatists, of course, did not regard it as re-baptism, l.c. “non repetimus quod jam erat, sed damus quod non erat.”

attacks, had an extremely important influence on conceptions of the Church. Thus Augustine created the Catholic doctrine of the Catholic Church on earth, and we attempt in what follows to give, as far as possible, a complete and connected account of it. Finally, the earthly Church was and remained absolutely nothing but a means for the eternal salvation of the individual, and therefore the doctrines of the Church was also meant to be nothing but a subsidiary doctrine. But if all dogmatic ran the risk, with its means and subsidiary conceptions, of obscuring the important point, the danger was imminent here. Does not the doctrine of salvation appear in Catholicism to be almost nullified by the “subsidiary doctrine,” the doctrine of the Church?238 581 Grace and Authority—these two powers had, according to Augustine’s self-criticism, effected his conversion. The authority was the Church. Every one knew what the Church was: the empirical, visible Church, which had triumphed ever since the days of Constantine. A “logical definition” of the Church was therefore unnecessary. The important point was to show that men needed an authority, and why it was the authority. The weak intellect needed revelation, which brings truth to the individual, before he himself is capable of finding it; this revelation is bound up in the Church. The fact that the 144Church was the authority for doctrine constituted for long Augustine’s only interest in it. He produced in support of this principle proofs of subjective necessity and of an objective nature; yet he never reached in his exposition the stringency and certainty which as a Catholic he simply felt; for who can demonstrate that an external authority must be authoritative? The most important point was that the Church proclaimed itself to be the authority in doctrine. One was certainly a member of the Church only in so far as he submitted to its authority. There was no other way of belonging to it. Conversely, its significance seemed, on superficial reflection, to be entirely limited to doctrinal aut aa7 hority. We occupy our true relation to God and Christ, we possess and expect heavenly blessings only when we follow the doctrinal instructions given by the Church. Augustine embraced this “superficial reflection” until his ecclesiastical office and the Donatist controversy led him to more comprehensive considerations. He had arrived at his doctrine of predestinating grace without any external instigation by independent meditation on the nature of conversion and piety. The

238

Doctrine is, strictly speaking, inaccurate; for Catholicism does not know of any “doctrines” here, but describes an actual state of matters brought about by God.

development of his doctrine regarding the Church, so far as it carried out popular Catholic ideas, was entirely dependent on the external circumstances in which he found himself placed. But he did not himself feel that he was stating a doctrine; he was only describing an actual position accepted all along by every Catholic, one which each had to interpret to himself, but without subtraction or addition. In addition to the importance of the Church as a doctrinal authority, he also felt its significance as a sacred institution which imparted grace. On its latter feature he especially reflected; but the Church appeared to him much more vividly after he had gained his doctrine of grace: it was the one communion of saints, the dwelling-place of the Spirit who created faith, love, and hope. We condense his most important statements. 1. The Catholic Church, held together by the Holy Spirit, who is also the bond of union in the Trinity, possesses its most important mark in its unity, and that a unity in faith, love, and hope, as well as in Catholicity. 145

2. This unity in the midst of the divisions existing among men is the greatest of miracles, the proof that the Church is not the work of men, but of the Holy Spirit. 3. This follows still more clearly when we consider that unity presupposes love. Love is, however, the proper sphere of the Spirit’s activity; or more correctly, all love finds its source in the Holy Spirit;239 for faith and hope can be acquired to a certain extent independently—therefore also outside of the Church—but love issues only from the Holy Spirit. The Church, accordingly, because it is a unity, is the alliance of love, in which alone sinners can be purified; for the Spirit only works in “love the bond of unity” ( 585 in unitatis vinculo caritate). If then the unity of the Church rests primarily on faith, yet it rests essentially on the sway of the spirit of love alone, which presupposes faith.240

239

Grace is love and love is grace: “caritas est gratia testamenti novi.” C. Crescon. I. 34: “Non autem existimo quemquam ita desipere, ut credat ad ecclesiæ pertinere unitatem eum qui non habet caritatem. Sicut ergo deus unus colitur ignoranter etiam extra ecclesiam nec ideo non est ipse, et fides una habetur sine caritate etiam extra ecclesiam, nec ideo non est ipse, ita et unus baptismus, etc.” God and faith also exist extra ecclesiam but not “pie.” The relevant passages are so numerous that it would give a false idea to quote singly. The conception given here constitutes the core of Augustine’s doctrine of the Church: The Holy Ghost, love, unity, and Church occupy an exclusive connection: “caritas christiana nisi in unitate ecclesiÍ ac3 non potest custodiri, etsi baptismum et fidem teneatis” (c. Pet. litt. II. 172). 240

4. The unity of the Church, represented in Holy Scripture by many symbols and figures, obtains its strongest guarantee from the fact that Christ has made the Church his bride and his body. This relationship is so close that we can absolutely call the Church “Christ”;241 for it constitutes a real unity with Christ. Those who are in the Church are thus “among the members of Christ” (in membris Christi); the means and bond of this union are in turn nothing but love, more precisely the love that resides in unity (caritas unit ab6 atis). 146

5. Heretics, i.e., those who follow a faith chosen by themselves, cannot be in the Church, because they would at once destroy its presupposition, the unity of faith; the Church, however, is not a society like the State, which tolerates all sorts of philosophers in its midst. Expelled heretics serve the good of the Church, just as everything must benefit those who love God, for they exercise them in patience (by means of persecutions), in wisdom (by false contentions), and in love to their enemies, which has to be evinced on the one hand in saving beneficence, and on the other in the terrors of discipline.242 6. But neither do the Schismatics, i.e., those who possessed the true faith, belong to the Church; for in abandoning its unity—being urged thereto by pride like the heretics—they show that they do not possess love, and accordingly are beyond the pale of the operations of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly the Catholic Church is the only Church. 7. From this it follows that salvation (salus) is not to be found outside the Church, for since love is confined to the visible Church, even heroic acts of faith, and faith itself, are destitute of the saving stamp, which exists through love alone.243 Means of sanctification, a sort of faith, and miraculous powers may accordingly exist outside of the Church (see afterwards), but they cannot produce the effect and afford the benefit they are meant to have.

241

De unit eccl. 7: “totus Christus caput et corpus est.” De civit. XXI. 25. De pecc. mer. I. 59: “Homines sancti et fideles fiunt cum homine Christo unus Christus, ut omnibus per ejus hanc gratiam societatemque adscendentibus ipse unus Christus adscendat in cælum, qui de cælo descendit.” Sermo 354, I: “Prædicat Christus Christum.” 242 De civit. dei, XVIII. 51, X. 243 Ep. 173, 6: “Foris ab ecclesia constitutus et separatus a compagine unitatis et vinculo caritatis æterno supplicio puniveris, etiam si pro Christi nomine vivus incenderis.”

8. The second mark of the Church is holiness. This consists in the fact that it is holy through its union with Christ and the activity of the Spirit, possesses the means—in the Word and sacraments— of sanctifying its individual members, i.e., of perfecting them in love, and has also actually attained this end. That it does not succeed in doing so in the case of all who are in its midst 576 1—for it will only be without spot or wrinkle in the world beyond—nay, that it cannot entirely destroy sin except 147in a very few, detracts nothing from its holiness. Even a preponderance of the wicked and hypocritical over the good and spiritual244 does not lessen it, for there would be no Church at all if the Donatist thesis were correct, that unholy members put an end to the Church’s existence. The Donatists required to limit their own contention in a quite capricious fashion, in order to avoid destroying the Church.245 9. Although the tares are not to be rooted out, since men are not omniscient, and this world is not the scene of the consummation, yet the Church exercise 558 s its discipline, and in certain circumstances even excommunicates; but it does not do so properly in order to preserve its holiness, but to educate its members or guard them against infection. But the Church can also tolerate. “They do not know the wicked in the Catholic unity, or they tolerate those they know for the sake of unity.”246 It can even suffer manifest and gross sinners, if in a particular case the infliction of punishment might result in greater harm.247 It is itself secured from contamination by the profane by never approving evil, and always retaining its control over the means of sanctification.248 570

244

The Biblical texts are here used that had been already quoted against Calixtus and the Anti-Novatians (Noah’s Ark, The Wheat and Tares, etc.). 245 Augustine seems to have thought that the bad were in the majority even in the Church. He at anyrate held that the majority of men would be lost (Enchir. 97). acd 246De bapt. II. 8: If the Donatists were right, there would have been no Church even in Cyprian’s time; their own origin would therefore have been unholy. Augustine often reproaches them with the number of gross sinners in their midst. Their grossest sin, it is true, was—schism (c. litt. Pet. II. 221). 247 C. Petil. I. 25: “Malos in unitate catholica vel non noverunt, vel pro unitate tolerant quos noverunt.” 248 Here and there in Augustine the thought occurs that the new covenant was throughout milder than the old. 249 C. litt. Pet. III. 4: “Licet a malis interim vita, moribus, corde ac voluntate separari atque discedere, quæ separatio semper oportet custodiatur. Corporalis autem separatio ad sæculi finem fidenter, patienter, fortiter exspectatur.”

10. But it is indeed an attribute of its holiness also to beget actually holy members. It can furnish evidence of this, since a few have attained perfection in it, since miracles and signs have constantly been wrought, and a general elevation and sanctification of morals been achieved by it, and since, finally, its whole membership will in the end be holy. 11. Its holiness is, however, shown more clearly in the fact 148that it is only within the Church that personal holiness can be attained (see above sub. 7).250 12. The unholy in the Church unquestionably belong to it; for being in its unity they are subject to the operation of the means of sanctification, and can still become good and spiritual. Yet they do not belong to the inner court of the Church, but form a wider circle in it. [They are “vessels to dishonour in the house of God” (vasa in contumeliam in domo dei); they are not themselves, like the ⍊aa6 vessels to honour” (vasa in honorem), the house of God, but are “in it”; they are “in the communion of the sacraments,” not in the proper society of the house, but “adjoined to the communion of the saints” (congregationi sanctorum admixti); they are in a sense not in the Church, because they are not the Church self; therefore the Church can also be described as a “mixed body” (corpus permixtum).]251 Nay, even the heretics and schismatics, in so far as they have appropriated the Church’s means of sanctification (see under), belong to the Catholic Church, since the latter makes them sons without requiring to impart a second baptism.252 The character of the Church’s holiness is not modified by these wider circles in the sphere to which it extends; for, as regards its foundation, means, and aim, it always remains the same, and a time will come 250

Sermo 4, 11: “Omnes quotquot fuerunt sancti, ad ipsam ecclesiam pertinent.” “Corpus permixtum” against the second rule of Tichonius, who had spoken of a bi ac1 partite body of the Lord, a term rejected by Augustine. Not a few of Augustine’s arguments here suggest the idea that an invisible Church present “in occulto” in the visible was the true Church (De bapt. V. 38). 252 De bapt. I. 13: The question of the Donatists was whether in the view of Catholics baptism begot “sons” in the Donatist Church. if the Catholics said it did, then it should follow that the Donatists had a Church, and since there was only one, the Church; but if the question was answered in the negative, then they drew the inference: “Cur ergo apud vos non renascuntur per baptismum, qui transeunt a nobis ad vos, cum apud nos fuerint baptizati, si nondum nati sunt?” To this Augustine replies: “Quasi vero ex hoc generet unde separata est, et non ex hoc unde conjuncta est. Separata est enim a vinculo caritatis et pacio, sed juncta est in uno baptismate. Itaque est una ecclesia, quæ sola Catholica nominatur; et quidquid suum habet in communionibus diversorum a sua unitate separatis, per hoc quod suum in eis habet, ipsa utique general, non illæ.” 251

when the holiness of all its members—for Augustine does not neglect this mark—will be an actual fact. 149

13. The third mark of the Church is Catholicity. It is that which, combined with unity, furnishes the most impressive external proof, and the surest criterion of its truth. That is, Catholicity—extension over the globe—was prophesied, and had been realised, although it must be described as a miracle, that an association which required such faith and obedience, and handed down such mysteries, should have obtained this extension. The obvious miracle is precisely the evidence of the truth. Donatists cannot be the Church, because they are virtually confined to Africa. The Church can only exist where it proves its Catholicity by union with Rome and the ancient Oriental Churches, with the communities of the whole globe. The objection that men’s sin hinders the extension is without weight; for that would have had to be prophesied. But it is the opposite that was prophesied and fulfilled. aea 1 The reminder, also, that many heresies were extended over the world is of no consequence; for, firstly, almost all heresies are national, secondly, even the most wide-spread heresy finds another existing at its side, and thereby reveals its falsehood. [This is the old sophism: on the one hand, disintegration is regarded as the essential characteristic of heresies; on the other, they are represented as forming a unity in order that the existence of others side by side with it may be urged against each in turn.] 14. The fourth mark of the Church is its apostolicity. It was displayed in the Catholic Church, (1) in the possession of apostolic writings,253 and doctrine, (2) in its ability to trace its existence up to the Apostolic communities and the Apostles, and to point to its unity (communicatio) with the churches founded by the latter.254 This proof was especially to be adduced in the 150succession of the Bishops, though their importance is for the rest not so strongly emphasised by Augustine as by Cyprian; indeed passages occur in

253

A Donatist, “historicus doctus,” indeed urged the telling objection (Ep. 93, 23) “Quantum ad totius mundi pertinet partes, modica pars est in compensatione totius mundi, in qua fides Christiana nominatur.” Augustine, naturally, was unable really to weaken the force of this objection. 254 We have already remarked that Augustine held these to have—at least in many respects—an independent authority; see Doctrina Christ. and Ep 54, 55. In not a few expositions it seems as if the appeal to the Church was solely to the Church that possessed Scripture. acf 255Besides the whole of the anti-Donatist writings, see, e.g., Ep. 43, 21; 44, 3; 49, 2, 3; 51, 5; 53, 3.

his works in which the universal priesthood, as maintained by Tertullian, is proclaimed.256 15. While among the apostolic communities those of the East are also very important, yet that of Rome, and in consequence its Bishop, hold the first place. Peter is the representative of the Apostles, of Christians in general (Ep. 53, 2: “totius ecclesiæ figuram gerens”), of weak Christians, and of Bishops, or the Episcopal ministry. Augustine maintained the theory of Cyprian and Optat ac8 us regarding Peter’s chair: it was occupied by the Roman Bishop and it was necessary to be in accord with it, because it was the apostolic seat par excellence, i.e., the bearer of the doctrinal authority and unity of the Church. His statements as to the infallibility of the Roman chair are as uncertain and contradictory as those dealing with the Councils and Episcopate. He had no doubt that a Council ranked above the Roman Bishop (Ep. 43, 19).257 16. Augustine was convinced of the infallibility of the Catholic Church; for it is a necessary consequence of its authority as based on Apostolicity. But he never had any occasion to think out this predicate, and to establish it in the representation and decisions of the Church. Therefore he made many admissions, partly without thought, partly when hard pressed, which, logically understood, destroyed the Church’s infallibility. 17. So also he holds the indispensableness of the Church, for it follows from the exclusive relation to Christ and the Holy Spirit revealed in its unity and holiness. This indispensableness is expressed in the term “Mother Church”258 (ecclesia mater or corpus Christi); on modifications, see later. 18. Finally, he was also convinced of the permanence of the and therewith also of its primeval character; for this follows from the exclusive relation to God; yet ideas entered into the conception of permanence and primevalness, which did not flow from any consideration of the empirical Church (“the

151Church,

256

De civit. dei, XX. 10: Distinction between sacerdotes and proprie sacerdotes. Augustine’s attitude to the Roman Bishop, i.e. to the infallible Roman tradition, is shown clearly in his criticism of Zosimus (Reuter p. 312 ff., 325 ff.) and in the extremely valuable 36 Epistle, which discusses the work of an anonymous Roman writer, who had glorified the Roman Church along with Peter (c. 21 “Petrus, apostolorum caput, cœli janitor, ecclesiæ fundamentum”), and had declared statutory institutions of the Roman Church to be universally binding. 258 C. litt. Pet. III. 10: “deum patrem et ejus ecclesiam matrem habere.” 257

heavenly Church” on the one hand, the “city of God” on the other; on this see under). 19. The empirical Catholic Church is also the “Kingdom of God” (regnum dei, civitas dei). As a matter of fact the 564 se terms are primarily employed in a view which is indifferent to the empirical Church (see under); but since to Augustine there was ultimately only one Church, everything that was true of it was also applicable to the empirical Church. At all times he referred to the Catholic Church the old term which had long been applied to the Church, “the kingdom (city) of God,” of course having in mind not that the Church was the mixed, but the true body (corpus permixtum, verum).259 20. But Augustine gave a much stronger hold than his predecessors to the conception that the Church is the kingdom of God, and by the manner in which in his “Divine Comedy,” the “De civitate dei,” he contrasted the Church with the State, far more than his own expressed view, he roused the conviction that the empirical Catholic Church sans phrase was the kingdom of God, and the independent State that of the devil. That is, although primarily the earthly State (civitas terrena) con a62 sisted for Augustine in the society of the profane and reprobate, inclusive of demons, while the city of God (civitas dei) was the 152heavenly communion of all saints of all times, comprising the angels, yet he held that the former found their earthly historical form of expression and manifestation in the secular State, the latter in the empirical Church; for there were by no means two cities, kingdoms, temples, or houses of God. Accordingly the kingdom of God is the Church. And, carried away by the Church’s authority and triumph in the world, as also profoundly moved by the fall of

259

Perhaps the most cogent evidence of this is Ep. 36, 17. The anonymous Roman Christian had appealed to the verse “Non est regnum dei esca et potus,” and simply identified “regnum dei” with “ecclesia,” to prove that the Roman command to fast on the Sabbath was apostolic. Augustine does not reject this identification, but only the inference drawn from it by the anonymous writer. Here, however, ecclesia is manifestly the Catholic Church. In D aa3 e trinit. I. 16, 20, 21, Augustine has no doubt that the regnum, which Christ will hand over to the Father, “omnes justi sunt, in quibus nunc regnat mediator,” or the “credentes et viventes ex fide; fideles quippe ejus quos redemit sanguine suo dicti sunt regnum ejus.” That is the Church; but at the same time it is selfevident that its “wrinkles” are ignored, yet not so its organisation; see on Ps. CXXVI. 3: “Quæ autem domus dei et ipsa civitas? Domus enim dei populus dei, quia domus dei templum dei . . . omnes fideles, quæ est domus dei, cum angelis faciunt unam civitatem. Habet custodes. Christus custodiebat, custos erat. Et episcopi hoc faciunt. Nam ideo altior locus positus est episcopis, ut ipsi superintendant et tamquam custodiant populum.”

the Roman world-empire, whose internal and external power manifestly no longer existed save in the Church, Augustine saw in the present epoch, i.e., in the Church’s History, the millennial kingdom that had been announced by John (De civit. XX.). By this means he revised, without completely abolishing, the ancient Chiliasm of the Latin Church.260 But if it were once determined that the millennial kingdom was now, since Christ’s appearance, in existence, the Church was elevated to the throne of supremacy over the world; for while this kingdom consists in Christ’s reign, he only reigns in the present through the Church. Augustine neither followed out nor clearly perceived the hierarchical tendency of his position; yet he reasoned out the present reign of Christ which he had to demonstrate (XX. 9-13) by reflecting that only the “saints” (sancti) reign with Christ, and not, say, the “tares”; that thus only those reign in the kingdom who themselves constitute the kingdom; and that they reign because they aim at what is above, fight the fight of sanctification, and practise patience in suffering, etc. But he himself prepared the way directly for the sacerdotal interpretation of his thought, or positively expressed it, in two of his arguments. The one was drawn from him by exegesis,261 the other is a result of a manifest view of his own. In the first place, viz., he had to show that 5c6 Rev. XX. 4 153(“those sitting on thrones judge”) was even now being fulfilled. He found this fulfilment in the heads of the Church, who controlled the keys of binding and loosing, accordingly in the clergy (XX. 9). Secondly, he prepared the way for the supremacy of the Church over the State262 in his explicit arguments both against and in favour of the latter (XIX., and even before this in V.). The earthly State (civitas terrena) and accordingly secular kingdoms are sprung from sin, the virtue of the ambitious, and simply because they strive for earthly possessions—summed up in the pax terrena, carried out in all earthly affairs—they are sinful, and must finally perish, even if

260

How far he went in this is shown by observing that in B. XX. he has connected with the present, as already fulfilled, not a few passages which plainly refer to Christ’s Second Advent; see c. 5: “Multa præterea quæ de ultimo judicio ita dici videntur, ut diligenter considerata reperiantur ambigua vel magis ad aliud pertinentia, sive scilicet ad eum salva oris adventum, quo per totum hoc tempus in ecclesia sua venit, hoc est in membris suis, particulatim atque paulatim, quoniam tota corpus est ejus, sive ad excidium terrenæ Hierusalem, quia et de illo cum loquitur, plerumque sic loquitur tamquam de fine sæculi atque illo die judicii novissimo et magno loquatur.” Yet he has left standing much of the dramatic eschatology. 261 See Reuter, Studie III. 262 Augustine had already written in Ep. 35 (A.D. 396, c. 3): “Dominus jugo suo in gremio ecclesiæ toto orbe diffuso omnia terrena regna subjecit.”

they be legitimate and salutary on earth. The secular kingdom is finally, indeed, a vast robbery (IV. 4): “righteousness being abolished, what are kingdoms but great robberies?”) acc 1 which ends in hell in everlasting war; the Roman Republic never possessed peace (XIX. 21). From this point of view the Divine State is the only legitimate association. But Augustine had yet another version to give of the matter. The establishment of earthly peace (pax terrena)—see its manifold forms in XIX. 13—is necessary upon earth. Even those who treasure heavenly peace as the highest good are bound to care on earth by love for earthly peace. (Already the Jewish State was legitimate in this sense; see the description IV. 34, and the general principle XV. 2: “We therefore find two forms in the earthly State, one demonstrating its present existence, the other serving to signify the heavenly State by its presence”;263 here the Divine State is also to be understood by the earthly, in so far as the former is copied on earth.) The Roman kingdom has become Christian, and Augustine rejoices in the fact.264 But it is only by the help of justitia that rests on love that the State can secure earthly peace, and lose the 154character of being a robbery (latrocinium). But righteousness and love only exist where the worship of the true God is found, in the Church, God’s State.265 Accordingly the State must be dependent on the kingdom of God; in other words, those who, as rulers, administer the earthly peace of society, are legitimate and “blessed” (felices), when they make “their power subservient to the divine majesty for the extension as widely as possible of the worship of God, if they love that kingdom more 54b , where they do not fear having colleagues.”266 Rulers, therefore, must not only be Christians, but must serve the Church in order to attain their own object (pax terrena); for outside the Divine State—of love and righteousness—there are no virtues, but only the semblance of virtues, i.e., splendid vices (XIX. 25). However much Augustine

263

“Remota justitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia”? “Invenimus ergo in terrena civitate dual formas, unam suam præsentiam demonstrantem, alteram cælesti civitati signifcandæ sua præsentia servientem.” 265 It is not, accordingly, involved under all circumstances in the notion of the earthly State that it is the organism of sin. Passages on the Christian State, Christian ages, and Catholic emperors, are given in Reuter, p. 141. 266 Augustine, indeed, also holds that there is an earthly justitia, which is a great good contrasted with flagitia and facinora; he can even appreciate the value of relative blessings (Reuter, p. 135 ff.), but this righteousness finally is dissipated, because, not having itself issued from “the Good,” it cannot permanently institute anything good. 267 V. 24: If they “suam potestatem ad dei cultum maxime dilatandum majestati ejus famulam faciunt, si plus amant illud regnum, ubi non timent habere consortes.” 264

may have recognised, here and elsewhere, the relative independence and title of the State,268 the proposition stands, that since the Church is the kingdom of God it is the duty of the State to serve it, because the State becomes more legitimate by being, as it were, embodied in it.269 It is especially the duty of the State, however, to aid the Church by forcible measures against idolatry, heretics, and schismatics; for compulsion is suitable in such cases to prevent the good from being seduced, to instruct the wavering and ignorant, and to punish the wicked. But it by no means follows from this that in Augustine’s view the State was to pursue anything that might be called an independent ecclesiastical or religious policy. It rather in matters of religion constantly supports the cause of the Church, and this at once implies that it is to receive its 155instructions from the Church. And this was actually Augustine’s procedure. His conception of the “Christian State” did not include any imperial papistical title on the part of the civil power; such a title was rather absolutely precluded. Even if the Church begged for clemency to heretics, against whom it had itself invoked the arm of the State, this did not establish the independent right of the latter to inflict punishment: it served the Church in punishing, and it gratified it in practising clemency.270 II. 21. Augustine was compelled by the Donatist practice of rebaptism and re-ordination to examine more closely, following Optatus, the significance and efficacy of the functions of the Church. It was inevitable that in doing so he should give a more prominent place to the notion of the Church as the communion of the Sacraments, and at the same time have instituted extremely sophistical discussions on the Sacraments—which, however, he

268

What holds true of the State applies equally, of course, to all particular blessings marriage, family, property, etc. 269 Augustine, therefore, hold; a different view from Optatus (see above, p. 48); at least, a second consideration is frequent, in which the Church does not exist in the Roman empire, but that empire is attached to the Church. In matters of terrena felicitas the Church, according to Augustine, was bound to obey the State. 6e0 270On the relation of Church and State, see Dorner, pp. 295-312, and the modifications considered necessary by Reuter in Studien, 3 and 6. Augustine did not at first approve the theory of inquisition and compulsion (c. Ep. Man. c. 1-3), but he was convinced of its necessity in the Donatist controversy (“coge intrare”). He now held all means of compulsion legitimate except the death penalty; Optatus approved of the latter also. If it is not difficult to demonstrate that Augustine always recognised an independent right of the State to be obeyed, yet that proves little. It may, indeed, be the case that Augustine valued the State relatively more highly than the ancient Christians, who were still more strongly influenced by eschatological views. But we may not forget that he advanced not only the cælestis societas, but the catholica, in opposition to the State.

did not yet carry out to their conclusion—in order to prove their objectivity, and make them independent of men, yet without completely externalising them, while vindicating them as the Church’s exclusive property. 22. To begin with, it was an immense advance, only possible to so spiritual a man as Augustine, to rank the Word along with the Sacraments. It is to him we owe the phrase “the Word and Sacraments.” If he did not duly appreciate and carry out the import of the “Word,” yet he perceived that as gospel it lay at the root of every saving rite of the Church.271 156

23. Exhaustively as he dealt with the Sacraments, he was far from outlining a doctrine regarding them; he contented himself rather with empirical reflections on ecclesiastical procedure and its defence. He did not evolve a harmonious theory either of the number or notion of the Sacraments.272 Every material sign with which a salvation-conferring word was connected was to him a Sacrament. “The word is added to the element, and a Sacrament is

271

Ep. 21, 3: “sacramentum et verbum dei populo ministrare.” Very frequently verbum = evangelium = Christ and the first cause of regeneration. C. litt. Pet. I. 8: “Semen quo regeneror verbum dei est.” The objective efficacy of the Word is sharply emphasised, but—outside of the Church it d 564 oes not succeed in infusing love. C. Pet. III. 67: “minister verbi et sacramenti evangelici, si bonus est, consocius fit evangelii, si autem malus est, non ideo dispensator non est evangelii.” II. 11: “Nascitur credens non ex ministri sterilitate, sed ex veritatis fœcunditate.” Still, Luther was right when he included even Augustine among the new-fashioned theologians who talk much about the Sacraments and little about the Word. 272 “Aliud videtur aliud intelligitur” (Sermo 272) is Augustine’s main thought, which Ratramnus afterwards enforced so energetically. Hahn (L. v. d. Sacram., p. 11 ff.) has detailed Augustine’s various statements on the notion of the Sacrament. We learn, e.g., from Ep. 36 and 54, the strange point of view from which at times he regarded the conception of the Sacrament: see 54, 1: “Dominus noster, sicut ipse in evangelio loquitur, leni jugo suo nos subdidit et sarcinæ levi; unde sacramentis numero paucissimis, observatione facillimis, significatione præstantissimis societatem novi ac8 populi colligavit.” Baptism and the Lord’s Supper follow “et si quid aliud in scripturis canonicis commendatur. . . . Illa autem quæ non scripta, sed tradita custodimus, quæ quidem toto terrarum orbe servantur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis apostolis, vel plenariis conciliis, quorum est in ecclesia saluberrima auctoritas, commendata atque statuta retineri, sicut quod domini passio et resurrectio et ascensio in cælum et adventus de cælo spiritus sancti anniversaria sollemnitate celebrantur, et si quid aliud tale occurrit quod servatur ab universa, quacumque se diffundit, ecclesia.”

constituted, itself being, as it were, a visible word.”273 The emphasis rests so strongly on the Word and faith (on John XXV. 12: “believe and thou hast eaten”) that the sign is simply desc ac8 ribed in many places, and indeed, as a rule, as a figure. But this view is modified by the fact that in almost as many passages the Word, with its saving power, is also conceived as a sign of an accompanying invisible entity,274 and all are admonished to take whatever is here presented to the senses as a guarantee of the reality. But everything beyond this is involved in obscurity, since we do not know to what signs Augustine would have us apply his ideas about the Sacrament; 157in De doctr. Christ. he speaks as if Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were almost alone in question, but in other passages his language is different.275 24. He himself had no occasion to pursue his reflections further in this direction. On the other hand, the Donatist thesis that the efficacy of the Sacrament depended on the celebrant, and the Donatist practice of re-baptism, forced him to set up two selfcontradictory positions. First, the Sacraments are only efficacious in the Church, but they are also efficacious in circles outside the Church. If he abandoned the former principle, he denied the indispensableness of the Church; if he sacrificed the second, he would have required to approve of re-baptism. Secondly, the Sacraments are independent of any human disposition, and they are inseparably attached to the Catholic Church and faith. To give up the one thesis meant that the Donatist was right; to doubt the other was to make the Sacrament a magical performance indifferent to Christianity and faith. In order to remove these contradictions, it was necessary to look for distinctions. These he found, not, say, by discriminating between the offer and bestowal of grace, but by assuming a twofold efficacy of the Sacraments. These were (1) an indelible marking of every recipient, which took place wherever the Sacrament was administered, no matter by whom,276 and (2) an

273

On John T. 80, 3: “Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum, etiam ipsum tamquam visibile verbum. 274 De catech. rud. 50: “Signacula quidem rerum divinarum esse visibilia, sed res ipsas invisibiles in eis honorari.” 275 Hahn (p. 12) gives the following definition as Augustinian: “The Sacrament is a corporeal sign, instituted by God, of a holy object, which, from its nature, it is adapted by a certain resemblance to represent, and by means of it God, under certain conditions, imparts his grace to those who make use of it.” 276 Ep. 173, 3: “Vos oves Christi estis, characterem dominicum portatis in Sacramento.” De bapt. c. Donat. IV. 16: “Manifestum est, fieri posse, ut in eis qui sunt ex parte diaboli sanctum sit sacramentum Christi, non ad salutem, sed ad judicium eorum

administration of grace, in wh 564 ich the believer participated only in the union of the Catholic Church. According to this he could teach that: the Sacraments belong exclusively to the Catholic Church, and only in it bestow grace on faith; but they can be purloined from that Church, since, “being holy in themselves,” they primarily produce an effect which depends solely on the Word and sign (the impression of an indelible “stamp”), 158and not on a human factor.277 Heretics have stolen it, and administer it validly in their associations. Therefore the Church does not again baptise repentant heretics (schismatics), being certain that at the moment of faithful submission to the Catholic communion of love, the Sacrament is “efficacious for salvation” (ad salutem valet) to him who had been baptised outside its pale.278 ac8 25. This theory could not but leave the nature of the “stamp” impressed and its relation to the communication of grace obscure.279 The legal claim of schismatics and heretics to belong to the Catholic Church appears to be the most important, and, indeed, the sole effect of the “objectivity” of the Sacraments outside the

. . . signa nostri 55d imperatoris in eis cognoscimus . . . desertores sunt.” VI. 1: “Oves dominicum characterem a fallacibus deprædatoribus foris adeptæ.” 277 De bapt. IV. 16: “Per se ipsum considerandus est baptismus verbis evangelicis, non adjuncta neque permixta ulla perversitate atque malitia sive accipientium sive tradentium . . . non cogitandum, quis det sed quid det.” C. litt. Pet. I . 8: “(Against various Donatist theses, e.g., ‘conscientia dantis adtenditur, qui abluat accipientis’) Sæpe mihi ignota est humana conscientia, sed certus sum de Christi misericordia . . . non est perfidus Christus, a quo fidem percipio, non reatum . . . origo mea Christus est, radix mea Christus est . . . semen quo regeneror, verbum dei est . . . etiam si ille, per quem audio, quæ mihi dicit ipse non facit . . . me innocentem non facit nisi qui mortuus est propter delicta nostra et resurrexit propter justificationem nostram. Non enim in ministrum, per quem baptizor, credo, sed in eum, qui justificat impium.” 278 We have to emphasise the distinction between “habere” and “utiliter habere” often drawn in the writings against the Donatists; c. Cresc. I. 34: “Vobis (Donatistis) pacem nos annuntiamus, non ut, cum ad nos veneritis, alterum baptismum accipiatis, sed ut eum qui jam apud vos erat utiliter habeatis,” or “una catholica ecclesia non in qua sola unus baptismus habetur, sed in qua sola unus baptismus salubriter habetur.” De bapt. c. Donat. IV. 24: “Qui in invidia intus et malevolentia sine caritate vivunt, verum baptisma possunt et accipere et tradere. (Sed) salus, inquit Cyprianus, extra ecclesiam non est. Quis negat? Et ideo quæcumque ipsius ecclesiæ habentur, extra ecclesiam non valent ad salutem. Sed aliud est non habere, aliud non utiliter habere.” 279 In the Catholic Church the seal and salvation coincide where faith is present. Augustine’s primary concern was that the believer should receive in the Sacrament a firm conviction of the mercy of Christ.

Church.280 But the theory was only worked out by Augustine in baptism and ordination, though even here he did not succeed in settling all the problems that arose, or in actually demonstrating the “objectivity.” But in his treatment of the Lord’s Supper, e.g., it cannot be demonstrated at all. For 159since, according to him, the reality of the Sacrament (res sacramenti) was invisible incorporation in the body of Christ (Augustine deals with the elements symbolically), and the eucharistic sacrifice was the sacrifice of love or peace, the co-operation of the Catholic Church is always taken to be essential to the Lord’s Supper. Accordingly there is here no “stamp” independent of the Church.281 But in the

280

Augustine did not really lay any stress on legal relation; but he did, as a matter of fact, a great deal to set matters in this light. 281 Sermo 57, 7: “Eucharistia panis noster quotidianus est; sed sic accipiamus illum, ut non solum ventre sed et mente reficiamur. Virtus enim ipsa, quæ ibi intelligitur, unitas est, ut redacti in corpus ejus, effecti membra ejus, simus quod accipimus.” 272: “panis est corpus Christi . . . co ac8 rpus Christi si vis intelligere, apostolum audi: vos estis corpus Christi.” Augustine maintains the traditional conception that, in speaking of the “body of Christ,” we may think of all the ideas connected with the word (the body is πνευµατικόν, is itself spirit, is the Church), but he prefers the latter, and, like the ancient Church, suffers the reference to forgiveness of sins to fall into the background. Unitas and vita (De pecc. mer. I. 34) occupy the foreground. Therefore in this case also, nay, more than in that of any other signum, the sign is wholly irrelevant. This “sacramentum unitatis” assures believers and gives them what they are, on condition of their possessing faith. (On John XXVI. 1: “credere in eum, hoc est manducare panem vivum”; De civit. XX I. 25.) No one has more strongly resisted the realistic interpretation of the Lord’s Supper, and pointed out that what “visibiliter celebratur, oportet invisibiliter intelligi” (On Ps. XCVIII. 9 fin.). “The flesh profits nothing,” and Christ is not on earth “secundum corporis præsentiam.” Now it is possible that, like the Greeks, Augustine might here or there have entertained the thought that the sacramental body of the Lord must also be identified with the real. But I have found no passage which clearly supports this (see also Dorner, p. 267 ff.). All we can say is that not a few passages at a first glance can be, and soon were, understood in this way. Augustine, the spiritual thinker, has in general greatly weakened the dogmatic significance of the Sacrament. He indeed describes it, like Baptism, as necessary to salvation; but since he hardly ever cites the argument that it is connected with the resurrection and eternal life, the necessity is reduced to the unity and love which find one expression along with others in the Lord’s Supper. The holy food is rather, in general, a declaration and assurance, or the avowal of an existing state, than a gift. In this Augustine agrees undoubtedly with the so-called pre-Reformers and Zwingli. This leads us to the import of the rite as a sacrifice (“sacrificium corporis Christi”). Here there are four possible views. The Church presents itself as a sacrifice in Christ’s body; Christ’s sacrificial death is symbolically repeated by the priest in memory of him; Christ’s body is really offered anew by the priest; and Christ, as priest, continually and everywhere presents himself as a sacrifice to the Father. Of these views, 1, 2, and 4 can

case of Baptism, he could assume that 160it could establish, even outside of the Church, an inalienable relation to the triune God, whose place could not be supplied by anything else, which in certain circumstances created a kind of faith, but which only bestowed salvation within the pale of the Church.282 161And in the

certainly be instanced in Augustine, but not the third. He strictly maintains the prerogative of the priest; but there is as little mention of a “conficere corpus Christi” as of Transubstantiatio ac8 n; for the passage (Sermo 234, 2) to which Catholics delight to appeal: “non omnis panis sed accipiens benedictionem fit corpus Christi,” only means that, as in all Sacraments, the res is now added to the panis, and makes it the signum rei invisibilis; by consecration the bread becomes something different from what it was before. The res invisibilis is not, however, the real body, but incorporation into Christ’s body, which is the Church. According to Augustine, the unworthy also obtain the valid Sacrament, but what they do receive is indeed wholly obscure. I could not say with Dorner (p. 274): “Augustine does not know of any participation in the real (?) body and blood on the part of unbelievers.” 282 It is now the proper administration of baptism (rite) that is emphasised. The Sacrament belongs to God; therefore it cannot be rendered invalid by sin or heresy. The indispensableness of baptism rests of sheer necessity on the “stamp,” and that is the most fatal turn it could take, because in that case faith is by no means certainly implied. The “Punici” are praised in De pecc. mer. I. 34, because they simply call baptism “salus”; but yet the indispensableness of the rite is not held to consist in its power of conferring salvation, but in the stamp. This indispensableness is only infringed by the baptism of blood, or by the wish to receive baptism where circumstances render that impossible. In the corresponding line of thought baptism rightly administered among heretics appears, because possessed unlawfully, to be actually inefficacious, nay, it brings a judgment. The Euphrates, which flows in Paradise and in profane countries, only brings forth fruit in the former. Therefore the controversy between Dorner and Schmidt, whether Augustine did or did not hold the Sacrament to be dependent on the Catholic Church, is idle. It is independent of it, in so far as it is necessary; dependent, if it is to bestow salvation. Yet Dorner (l.c. p. 252 f., and elsewhere) seems to me to be advancing not an Augustinian conception, but at most a deduction from one, when he maintains that Augustine does not contradict the idea that the Church is rendered holy by its membership, by emphasising the Sacraments, but by laying stress on the sanctity of the whole, namely the Church. He repeatedly makes the suggestion, however, in order to remove the difficulties in Aug ac8 ustine’s notion of the Sacraments, that he must have distinguished between the offer and bestowal of grace; even the former securing their objective validity. But this is extremely questionable, and would fall short of Augustine; for his correct religious view is that grace operates and does not merely make an offer. Augustine, besides, has wavered to such an extent in marking off the place of the stamp, and of saving efficacy in baptism, that he has even supposed a momentary forgiveness of sin in the case of heretics (De bapt. I. 19; III. 18: “rursus debita redeunt per hæresis aut schismatis obstinationem et ideo necessarium habent hujusmodi homines venire ad Catholicam pacem;” for, on John XXVII. 6: “pax ecclesiæ dimittit peccata et ab ecclesiæ pace alienatio tenet peccata; petra

case of Ordination he could teach that, properly bestowed, it conveyed the inalienable power to administer the Sacraments, although the recipient, if he stood outside the Church, only officiated to his 564 own perdition.283 In both cases his 162view

tenet, petra dimittit; columba tenet, columba dimittit; unitas tenet, unitas dimittit”). The most questionable feature of Augustine’s doctrine of baptism (within the Church) is that he not only did not get rid of the magical idea, but strengthened it by his interest in infant baptism. While he intended that baptism and faith should be connected, infant baptism made a cleavage between them. He deduced the indispensableness of infant baptism from original sin, but by no means also from the tendency to make the salvation of all men dependent on the Church (see Dorner, p. 257). In order to conserve faith in baptism, Augustine assumed a kind of vicarious faith on the part of god-parents, but, as it would appear, he laid no stress on it, since his true opinion was that baptism took the place of faith for children. However, the whole doctrine of baptism is ultimately for Augustine merely preliminary. Baptism is indispensable, but it is, after all, nothing more. The main thing is the active presence of the Holy Spirit in the soul; so that, from this point of view, baptism is of no real importance for salvation. But Augustine was far from drawing this inference. 283 Little reflection had hitherto been given in the Church to ordination. The Donatists furnished a motive for thinking about it, and it was once more Augustine who bestowed on the Church a series of sacerdotal ideas, without himself being interested in their sacerdotal tendency. The practice had indeed for long been sacerdotal; but it was only by its fateful combination with baptism, and the principle that ordination d ac8 id not require (as against Cyprian) a moral disposition to render it valid, that the new sacrament became perfect. It now conferred an inalienable stamp, and was, therefore, if it had been properly administered, even though outside the Church, not repeated, and as it communicated an objective holiness, it gave the power also to propagate holiness. From Book I. c. 1 of De bapt. c. Donat. onwards, the sacramentum baptismi and the sacramentum baptismi dandi are treated in common (§ 2: “sicut baptizatus, si ab unitate recesserit, sacramentum baptismi non amittit, sic etiam ordinatus, si ab unitate recesserit, sacramentum dandi baptismi non amittit.” C. ep. Parm. II. 28: “utrumque in Catholica non licet iterari.” The clearest passage is De bono conjug. 32: “Quemadmodum si fiat ordinatio cleri ad plebem congregandam, etiamsi plebis congregatio non subsequatur, manet tamen in illis ordinatis sacramentum ordinationis, et si aliqua culpa quisquam ab officio removeatur, sacramento domini semel imposito non carebit, quamvis ad judicium permanente”). The priests are alone appointed to administer the sacraments (in c. ep. Parm. II. 29 we have the remarkably tortuous explanation of lay-baptism; Augustine holds that it is a veniale delictum, even when the necessity is urgent; he, at least, believes it possible that it is so. But baptism, even when unnecessarily usurped by laymen, is valid, although illicite datum; for the “stamp” is there. Yet Augustine warns urgently against encroaching on the office of the priest.) None but the priest can celebrate the Lord’s Supper. That was ancient tradition. The judicial functions of priests fall into the background in Augustine (as compared with Cyprian). We do not find in him, in a technical form, a sacrament of penance. Yet it actually existed, and he was the first to give it a substructure by his

was determined by the following considerations. First, he sought to defend the Church, and to put the Donatists in the wrong. Secondly, he desired to indicate the mark of the Church’s holiness, which could not, with certainty, be established in any other way, in the objective holiness of the Sacraments. And, thirdly, he wished to give expression to the thought that there must exist somewhere, in the action of the Church, an element to which faith can cling, which is not supported by men, but which sustains faith itself, and corresponds to the assurance which the believer rests on grace. Augustine’s doctrine of grace has a very great share in his doctrine of the sacraments, or, more accurately, of the sacrament of baptism. On the other hand, he had by no means any sacerdotal interest in this conception. But it could not fail afterwards to develop in an essentially sacerdotal sense. But, at the same time, men were impelled in quite a different direction by the distinction between the outward rite and accompanying effect, by the v ac8 alue given to the “Word” and the desire to maintain the objectivity of the Sacrament. The above distinction could not but lead in later times to a spiritualising which refined away the Sacraments, or, on the other hand, centred them in the “Word,” where stress was laid on a given and certain authority, and therewith on the supremacy of the Word. Both these cases occurred. Not only does the Mediæval Catholic doctrine of the Sacraments go back to Augustine, but so do the spiritualists of the Middle Ages, and, in turn, Luther and Calvin are indebted to him for suggestions.284

conception that the gratia Christi was not exhausted in the retrospective effect of baptismal grace. In that period, baptism and penance were named together as if they were the two chief Sacraments, without the latter being expressly called a Sacrament; see Pelagius’ confession of faith (Hahn, § 133): “Hominem, si post baptismum lapsus fuerit, per pænitentiam credimus posse salvari;” which is almost identical with that of Julian of Eclanum (l.c. § 535): “Eum, qui post baptismum peccaverit, per pænitentiam credimus posse salvari;” and Augustine’s (Enchir. 46): “Peccata, quæ male agendo postea committuntur, possunt et pænitendo sanari, sicut etiam post baptismum fieri videmus;” (c. 65): “Neque de ipsis criminibus quamlibet magnis remittendis in sancta ecclesia dei misericordia desperanda est agentibus pænitentiam se 564 cundum modum sui cujusque peccati.” He is not speaking of baptism, but of the Church’s treatment of its members after baptism, when he says (l.c. c. 83): “Qui vero in ecclesia remitti peccata non credens contemnit tantam divini muneris largitatem et in hac obstinatione mentis diem claudit extremum, reus est illo irremissibili peccato in spiritum sanctum.” 284 A passage in Augustine’s letter to Januarius (Ep. 55, c. 2) on the nature of the sacrament became very important for after ages: “Primum oportet noveris diem natalem domini non in sacramento celebrari, sed tantum in memoriam revocari quod natus sit, ac per hoc nihil opus erat, nisi revolutum anni diem, quo ipsa res acta est, festa devotione signari. Sacramentum est autem in aliqua celebratione, cum rei gestæ commemoratio ita

163

Augustine’s conception, above described, of the visible Church and means of grace is full of self-contradictions. His identification of the Church with the visible Catholic Church was not a success. He meant that there should be only one Church, and that none but believers should belong to it; but the wicked and hypocrites were also in it, without being it; nay, even heretics were in a sense in it, since they participated in the Sacraments. But in that case is the Church still visible? It is—in the Sacraments. But the Church which is visible in the Sacraments is certainly not the bride and body of Christ, the indispensable institution of salvation; that is alone the Church which is possessed by the spirit of love; and yet it is masked by the presence of the wicked and hypocritical. And the Sacrament cannot be relied upon; for while it is certainly not efficacious for salvation outside the Catholic Church, it is by no means certainly efficacious within it. The one Church is the true body of Christ, a mixed body, and the outward society of the Sacraments; in each instance we have a different circle; but it is as essential and important that it should be the one as the other. What is the meaning, then, “of being in the Church” (in ecclesia esse)? Every speculation on the notions of things is fated to stumble on contradictions; everything can be something else, anything is everything, and everything is nothing. The speculation surprises us with a hundred points of view—that is its strength—to end in none of them being really authoritative. But all Augustine’s deliverances on this subject are seen to be merely conditional in their value, not only from t 544 heir selfcontradictions, but from the fact that the theologian is not, or is only to a very limited extent, expressing his religious conviction. He felt and wrote as he did because he was the defender of the practice of the Church, whose authority he needed for his faith. But this faith took quite other directions. Even those inconsistencies, 164which indeed were partly traditional, show that his conception of the Church was penetrated by an element which resisted the idea that it was visible. This element, however, was itself by no means congruous throughout, but again cornprehended various though intertwined features.

fit, ut aliquid etiam signfcari intelligatur, quod sancte accipiendum est. Eo itaque modo egimus pascha ut non solum in memoriam quod gestum est, revocemus, id est, quod mortuus est Christus et resurrexit, sed etiam cetera, quæ ac8 circa ea adtestantur ad sacramenti significationem non omittamus.”

1. The Church is heavenly; as bride and body of Christ it is quite essentially a heavenly society (cælestis societas). This ancient traditional idea stood in the foreground of Augustine’s practical faith. What the Church is, it cannot at all be on earth; it possesses its truth, its seat, in heaven. There alone is to be found the true sphere of its members; a small fragment wander as pilgrims here upon earth for a time. It may indeed be said that upon earth we have only the copy of the heavenly Church for in so far as the earthly fragment is a “ 584 civitas terrena” (an earthly state) it is not yet what it will be. It is united with the heavenly Church by hope. It is folly to regard the present Church as the Kingdom of Heaven. “What is left them but to assert that the kingdom of heaven itself belongs to the temporal life in which we now exist? For why should not blind presumption advance to such a pitch of madness? And what is wilder than that assertion? For although the Church even as it now exists is sometimes called the kingdom of heaven, it is surely so named because of its future and eternal existence?”285 2. The Church is primeval, and its members are therefore not all included in the visible institution of the Catholic Church. We now meet with the conception expounded by Augustine in his great work “De civitate dei,” at which he wrought for almost fifteen years. The civitas dei, i.e., the society in which there rules “the love of God to the contempt of self” (amor dei 535 usque ad contemptum sui, XIV. 28), and which therefore aspires to “heavenly peace” (pax cælestis), began in the angelic world. With this the above conception (see sub. 1) is combined: the 165city of God is the heavenly Jerusalem. But it embraces all believers of the past, present, and future; it mingled with the earthly State (civitas terrena) before the Deluge,286 ran through a history on earth in six periods (the Deluge, Abraham, David, the Exile, Christ, and Christ’s second Advent), and continues intermingled with the secular State to the end. With the transcendental conception of the City of God is thus combined, here and elsewhere,287 the universalist belief applied to the present world: 593 288

285

De virgin. 24: “Quid aliud istis restat nisi ut ipsum regnum cælorum ad hanc temporalem vitam, in qua nunc sumus, asserant pertinere? Cur enim non et in hanc insaniam progrediatur cæca præsumptio? Et quid hac assertione furiosius? Nam etsi regnum cælorum aliquando ecclesia etiam quæ hoc tempore est appellatur ad hoc utique sic appellatur, quia futuræ vitæ sempiternæque colligitur.” It is needless to quote more passages, they are so numerous. 286 See on this above, p. 151. 287 E.g., Ep. 102, quæst 2, esp. § 12. 288 See above, p. 152, n. 2.

Christianity, old as the world, has everywhere and in all ages had its confessors who “without doubt” have received salvation; for the “Word” was ever the same, and has always been at work under the most varied forms (“prius occultius, postea manifestius”)289 down to the Incarnation. He who believed on this Word, that is Christ, received eternal salvation.290 3. The Church is the communion of those who believe in the crucified Christ, and are subject to the influences of his death, and who are therefore holy and spiritual (san ac5 cti et spiritales). To this view we are conducted by the conclusion from the previous one, the humanist and universalist element being stript away. If we ask: Where is the Church? Augustine answers in innumerable passages, wherever the communion of these holy and spiritual persons is found. They are Christ’s body, the house, temple, or city of God. Grace on the one hand, faith, love, and hope on the other, constitute accordingly the notion of the Church. Or briefly: “the Church which is on earth exists by the remission of sins,” or still more certainly “the Church exists in love.”291 In any number of expositions Augustine ignores every idea of the Church except this, which leads him to think of a spiritual communion alone, and he is as 166indifferent to the conception of the Church being an outward communion of the Sacraments as to the last one now to be mentioned.292 4. The Church is the number of the elect. The final consequence of Augustine’s doctrine of grace (see next section) teaches that salvation depends on God’s inscrutable predestination (election of grace) and on that alone. Therefore the Church cannot be anything but the number of the elect. This is not, however, absolutely comprehended in the external communion of the Catholic Church—for some have been elect, who were never Catholics, and others are elect who are not yet Catholics. Nor is it simply identical with the communion of the saints (that is of those who submit themselves in faith to the operation of the means of grace); for these may include for the time such as will yet relapse, and may not include others who will ultimately be saved. Thus the

289

Formerly more hiddenly, afterwards more manifestly. In this line of thought the historical Christ takes a very secondary place; but it is quite differe 542 nt in others; see Sermo 116, 6: “Per Christum factus est alter mundus.” 291 “Per remissionem peccatorum stat ecclesia quæ est in terris.” “In caritate stat ecclesia.” 292 We see here that the assumption that the Church was a corpus permixtum or an externa communio sacramentorum was only a make-shift conception; see the splendid exposition De baptis. V. 38, which, however, passes into the doctrine of predestination. 290

thought of predestination shatters every notion of the Church—that mentioned under 2 can alone to some extent hold its ground—and renders valueless all divine ordinances, the institution and means of salvation. The number of the elect is no Church. The elect of God are to be found inside and outside the Church, under the operation and remote from the operation of sacramental grace; God has his subjects among the enemy, and his enemies among those who for the time being are “good.” 529 293 Augustine, the Catholic, did not, however, venture to draw the inexorable consequences of this conception; if he was ever led to see them he contented himself with bringing more closely together the notions of the external communion, communion of saints, Christ’s body, city of God, kingdom of heaven, and number of elect, and with thus making 167it appear as if they were identified. He stated his conviction that the number of the elect was substantially confined to the empirical Catholic Church, and that we must therefore use diligently all its benefits. But on the other hand, the faith that actuated his own life was too personal to let him bind grace, the source of faith, love, and hope, indissolubly to mechanical means and external institutions, and he was too strongly dominated by the thought of God’s majesty and self-sufficiency to bring himself to examine God narrowly as to the why and how of his actions. He never did maintain that predestination was realised by means of the Church and its communication of grace. b06 294 Augustine’s different conceptions of the Church are only united in the person of their originator, whose rich inner life was ruled by varied tendencies. The attempts to harmonise them which occur in his writings are, besides being few in number, quite worthless. But the scholastic endeavour to combine or pack together the different notions by new and flimsy distinctions leads to theological chatter. Even Augustine’s opponents apparently felt only a small part of the inconsistencies. Men at that time were far from seeking in religious conceptions that kind of consistency which is even at the present day felt as a want by only a small minority, and in any case is no necessary condition of a sincere piety. Perhaps the most important consequence of Augustine’s doctrine of the Church and Sacraments consists in the fact that a

293

De bapt. V. 38: “Numerus ille justorum, qui secundum propositum vocati sunt, ipse est (ecclesia). . . . Sunt etiam quidam ex eo numero qui adhuc nequiter vivant aut etiam in hæresibus vel in gentilium superstitionibus jaceant, et tamen etiam illic novit dominus qui sunt ejus. Namque in illa ineffabili præscientia dei multi qui foris videntur, intus sunt, et multi, qui intus videntur, foris sunt.” We return to this in dealing with Augustine’s doctrine of predestination. 294 Here Reuter is entirely right as against Dorner.

complex of magical ceremonies and ideas, which was originally designed to counter-balance a moralistic mode of thought based on the doctrine of free-will, now held its ground alongside of a religious frame of mind. The Sacrament had a deteriorating effect on the latter; but, on the other hand, it was only by this combination that it was itself rendered capable of being reformed. It is impossible to mistake, even in the case of Augustine himself, that the notion of the Church in which his own life centred was swayed by the thought of the certainty of grace and earnestness of faith and love, and that, similarly, his supreme intention, in his doctrine of the means of grace, was to establish the comfort derived from the sure grace of God in Christ, which was 168independent of human agency. Augustine subordinated the notions of the Church and Sacraments to the spiritual doctrine of God, Christ, the gospel, faith and love, as far as that was at all possible about A.D. 400. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

3. The Pelagian Controversy. The Doctrine of Grace and Sin. Augustine’s doctrine of grace and sin was constructed independently of the Pelagian controversy. It was substantially complete when he entered the conflict; but he was by no means clear as to its application in separate questions in the year of his conversion. At the time of his fight with Manichæism (see the Tres libri de libero arbitrio) he had rather emphasised, following the t 564 radition of the Church teachers, the independence of human freedom, and had spoken of original sin merely as inherited evil. It was his clerical office, a renewed study of Romans, and the criticism of his spiritual development, as instituted in the Confessions, that first led him to the Neoplatonic Christian conviction that all good, and therefore faith, came from God, and that man was only good and free in dependence on God. Thus he gained a point of view which he confessed at the close of his life he had not always possessed, and which he opposed to the earlier, erroneous conceptions295 that friends and enemies frequently reminded him of It can be said that his doctrine of grace, in so far as it was a doctrine of God, was complete as early as A.D. 387; but it was not, in its application to Bible history, or to the problem of conversion and sanctification (in the Church), before the beginning of the fifth century. It can also be shown that he was at all times slightly influenced by the popular Catholic view, and this all the more as he was not capable of draw ac8 ing the whole

295

De praed. 7; De dono persev. 55; c. Jul. VI. 39; also the Retract.

consequences of his system, which, if he had done so, would have led to determinism. This system did not evoke Pelagianism. Pelagius had taken offence, indeed, before the outbreak of the controversy, at Augustine’s famous sentence: “Grant what thou commandest, 169and command what thou dost desire,” and he had opposed it at Rome;296 but by that date his doctrine was substantially settled. The two great types of thought, involving the question whether virtue or grace, morality or religion, the original and inalienable constitution of man, or the power of Jesus Christ was supreme, did not evolve themselves in the controversy. They gained in clearness and precision during its course,297 but both arose, independently of each other, from the internal conditions of the Church. We can observe here, if anywhere, the “logic” of history. There has never, perhaps, been another crisis of equal importance in Church history in which the opponents have expressed the principles at issue so clearly and abstractly. The Arian dispute before the Nicene Council can alone be compared with it; but in this case the controversy moved in a narrow sphere of formulas already marked off by tradition. On the other hand, in spite of the exegetical and pseudo-historical materials that encumbered the problems in this instance also, there is a freshness about the Pelagian controversy and disputants that is wanting in the Greek contentions.298 The essentially literary character of the dispute, the absence of great central incidents, did not prejudice it any way; the main issue was all the freer of irrelevant matter. But it is its most 170memorable

296

De dono persev. 53: “Cum libros Confessionum ediderim ante quam Pelagiana hæresis exstitisset, in eis certe dixi deo nostro et sæpe dixi: Da quod jubes et jube quod vis. Quæ mea verba Pelagius Romæ, cum a quodam fratre et episcopo meo fuissent eo præsente commemorata, ferre non potuit et contradicens aliquanto commotius pæne cum eo qui commemoraverat litigavit. 297 De doctr. Christ. III. 46: “Hæresis Pelagiana multum nos, ut gratiam dei quæ per dominum nostrum Jesum Christum est, adversus eam defenderemus, exercuit.” 298 556 Pelagius and his friends were always convinced that the disputed questions, while extremely important, were not dogmatic. We can once more, therefore, study very clearly what at that time was held to be dogma; (see De gestis Pelag. 16: Pelagius denied at the Synod at Diospolis that statements of high dogmatic import were his; when it was proposed that he should anathematise those who taught them, he replied: “Anathematizo quasi stultos, non quasi hæreticos, si quidem non est dogma.” Cælestius says of Original sin (De pecc. orig. 3): “licet quæstionis res sit ista, non hæresis.” He also declared in the Libellus fidei (26) submitted at Rome: “si quæ vero præter fidem quæstiones natæ sunt . . . non ego quasi auctor alicujus dogmatis definita hæc auctoritate statui.” Hahn, § 134. This was also the view at first of Pope Zosimus (Ep. 3, 7). Julian (Op. imp. III. 106) saw dogmas in the doctrine of the Trinity and Resurrection, “multisque aliis similibus.”

feature that the Western Church so speedily and definitely rejected Pelagianism, while the latter, in its formulas, still seemed to maintain that Church’s ancient teaching. In the crucial question, whether grace is to be reduce 564 d to nature, or the new life to grace, in the difficulty how the polar antitheses of “creaturely freedom and grace” are to be united,299 the Church placed itself resolutely on the side of religion. In doing so it was as far from seeking to recognise all the consequences that followed from this position as it had been a hundred years earlier at Nicæa; indeed it did not even examine them. But it never recalled—perhaps it was no longer possible to recall—the step taken as soon as rationalistic moralism clearly revealed its character. Not only is the inner logic of events proved by the simultaneous and independent emergence of Augustinianism and Pelagianism, but the how strikes us by its consistency. On the one side we have a hot-blooded man who had wrestled, while striving for truth, to attain strength and salvation, to whom the sublimest thoughts of the Neoplatonists, the Psalms, and Paul had solved the problems of his inner life, and who had been over-powered by his experience of the living God. On the other, we have a monk and 558 a eunuch,300 both without traces of any inner struggles, both enthusiasts for virtue, and possessed by the idea of summoning a morally listless Christendom to exert its will, and of leading it to rnonachist perfection; equally familiar with the Fathers, desirous of establishing relations with the East, and well versed in Antiochene exegesis;301 but, above all, following that 171Stoic and Aristotelian

299

Augustinianism and Pelagianism were akin in form, and opposed to the previous mode of thought, in that both conceptions were based on the desire for unity. They sought to get at the root of religion and morality, and had ceased to be satisfied with recognising freedom and grace as independent and equivalent original data, as if religion with its blessings were at the same time superior and subordinate to moral goodness. The “either—or” asserted itself strongly. 300 Pelagius, a monk leading a free life—Cælestius, “naturæ vitio eunuchus matris utero editus,” both laymen, Cælestius auditorialis scholasticus. Pelagius was a Briton (an Irishman? called Morgan?), but in view of the intercourse between different countries at the time, the birthplace is somewhat indifferent. Cælestius was won over by Pelagius in Rome, and then gave up his worldly career. 301 It is uncertain whether Pelagius had been in the East before he appeared in Rome. Cælestius had heard Rufinus in Rome, and stated that the latter would have nothing to do with the “tradux peccati” (De pecc. orig. 3). Marius Mercator has even sought to deduce Pelagianism from Theodore of Mopsuestia’s teaching, and supposed that Rufinus “the Syrian” (identical (?) with Rufinus of Aquileia) brought it to Rome. Others have repeated this. While the direct points of contact at the beginning are problematical, it is certain (1) that Pelagianism and Theodore’s teaching approximate very closely (see Gurjew,

popular philosophy—theory of knowledge, psychology, ethics and dialectics—which numbered so many adherents among cultured Christians of the West. The third member of the league, Julian of Eclanum, the early widowed Bishop, was more active and aggressive than the reserved and prudent Pelagius,302 570 more circumspect than Cælestius, the agitator, and more cultured than either. Overbearing in manner, he had a talent for dialectics, and, more stubborn than earnest, was endowed with an insatiable delight in disputing, and a boyish eagerness to define conceptions and construct syllogisms. He was no monk, but a child of the world, and jovial by nature. He was, indeed, the first, and up to the sixteenth century, the unsurpassed, unabashed representative of a self-satisfied Christianity. Pelagius and Cælestius required the aid of Julian, if the moralistic mode of thought was not to be represented from one side alone—the religious view needed only one representative. Certainly no dramatist could have better invented types of these two contrasted conceptions of life than those furnished by Augustine on the one hand, and the two earnest monks, 172Pelagius and Clestius, and the daring, worldly bishop Julian on the other.303

Theodor v. Mopsu. 1890 [in Russian] p. 44 ff.); (2) that Theodore took up sides in the controversy against the teaching of Augustine and Jerome: he wrote a work “against those who maintain that men sin by nature, and not at their own discretion;” (see Photius cod. 177); (3) that the Pelagians looked to him as a protector and Julian of Eclanum fled to him; (4) that the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians were convinced that they could count on the East (and even on the Church of Constantinople) for support, and that some of them studi 545 ed in Constantinople. Theodore’s distinctive doctrine of Grace is not found in Pelagian writings; for this reason he could not ally himself thoroughly with Julian (see Kihn, Theodor v. Mopsu. p. 42 ff.). But their affinity was unquestionable. It is therefore no mere inference that leads Cassian (c. Nestor. I. 3 sq.) to combine the Nestorians with the Pelagians (“cognata hæresis”). The interests and methods of both were the same. The comparison with Eunomius and Aetius is also pertinent. 302 De pecc. orig. 13: “Quid inter Pelagium et Cælestium in hac quæstione distabit, nisi quod ille apertior, iste occultior fuit; ille pertinacior, iste mendacior, vel certe ille liberior, hic astutior.” “Cælestius incredibili loquacitate.” Many adherents of the new teaching preferred to be called “Cælestiani.” 583 303 The earnestness and “holiness” of Pelagius are often attested, especially by Augustine himself and Paulinus of Nola. His untruthfulness, indeed, throws a dark shadow on his character: but we have not the material to enable us to decide confidently how far he was entrapped into it, or how far he reserved his opinion in the legitimate endeavour to prevent a good cause being stifled by theology. Augustine, the truthful, is here also disposed to treat charitably the falsehoods of his opponent. But we must, above all, reflect that at that time priests and theologians lied shamelessly in self-defence, in speeches, protocols, and writings. Public opinion was much less sensitive, especially

We have thus already indicated the ac8 origin of Pelagianism. It is the consistent outcome of the Christian rationalism that had long been wide spread in the West, especially among the more cultured, that had been nourished by the popular philosophy influenced by Stoicism and Aristotelianism,304 and had by means of Julian received a bias to (Stoic) naturalism.305 (We may not 173overlook the fact that it originally fell back upon monachism, still in its early stages in the West, and that the two phenomena at first sought a mutual support in each other.)306 Nature, free-will, virtue and law, these—strictly defined and made independent of the notion of God—were the catch-words of Pelagianism: selfacquired virtue is the supreme good which is followed by reward.

when accused theologians were exculpating themselves, as can be seen from Jerome’s writings, though not from them alone. The people who got so angry over Pelagius’ lies were no small hypocrites. Augustine was entitled to be wroth; but his work De gestis Pelagii shows how considerate and tolerant he remained in spite of everything. Pelagius and Cælestius must have belonged to those lucky people who, cold by nature and temperate by training, never notice any appreciable difference between what they ought to do and what they actually do. Julian wa 564 s an emotional character, a young man full of self-confidence (c. Julian II. 30: “itane tandem, juvenis confidentissime, consolari te debes, quia talibus displices, an lugere?”), who, in his youth, had had dealings with the Roman Bishop Innocent (c. Julian I. 13) and Augustine, “vir acer ingenio, in divinis scripturis doctus, Græca et Latina lingua scholasticus; prius quam impietatem Pelagii in se aperiret, clarus in doctoribus ecclesiæ fuit” (Gennad. script. eccl. 46). In particular, he was unusually learned in the history of philosophy. Early author and bishop, he seems, like so many precocious geniuses, never to have got beyond the stage reached by the clever youth. Fancy and passionate energy checked his growth, and made him the fanatical exponent of the moralistic theory. In any case he is not to be taken lightly. The ancient Church produced few geniuses so hold and heedless. His criticism is often excellent, and always acute. But even if we admitted that his whole criticism was correct, we would find ourselves in the end in possession of nothing but chaff. We also miss in his case that earnest sense of duty which we do not look for in vain in Pelagius. For this very reason, the delightful impression produced by a serene spirit, who appeared to avenge despised reason and authoritative morality, is always spoiled by the disagree ac8 able effect caused by the creaking sound of a critical chopping-machine. An excellent monograph on Julian by Bruckner will appear immediately in the “Texten and Unters.” 304 Cicero’s words: “virtutem nemo unquam acceptam deo retulit,” could be inscribed as a motto over Pelagianism. 305 Pelagianism and Augustinianism are also akin in form, in that in both the old dramatic eschatological element, which had hitherto played so great a rôle in the West, and had balanced moralism, wholly disappears. But Julian was the first to secularise the type of thought. 306 The Antiochene theologians also were notoriously zealous defenders of monachism.

Religion and morality lie in the sphere of the free spirit;307 they are won at any moment by man’s own effort. The extent to which this mode of thought was diffused is revealed, not only by the uncertain utterances of theologians, who in many of their expositions show that they know better,308 but above all by the Institutes of Lactantius.309 In what follows we have first to describe briefly the external course of the controversy, then to state the Pelagian line of thought, and finally to expound Augustine’s do 522 ctrine.310 I. We first meet with Pelagius in Rome. In every century there have appeared preachers in Italy who have had the power of thrilling for the moment the vivacious and emotional Italians. Pelagius was one of the first (De pecc. orig. 24: “He lived for 174a very long time in Rome”). Roused to anger by an inert Christendom, that excused itself by pleading the frailty of the flesh and the impossibility of fulfilling the grievous commandments of God, he preached that God commanded nothing impossible, that man possessed the power of doing the good if only he willed, and that the weakness of the flesh was merely a pretext. “In dealing with ethics and the principles of a holy life, I first demonstrate the power to decide and act inherent in human nature, and show what it can achieve, lest the mind be careless and sluggish in pursuit of virtue in proportion to its want of belief in its power, and in its ignorance of its attributes think that it does not possess them.” b0a 311 In opposition to Jovinian, whose teaching can only have

307

Here we have a third point (see p. 170, n. 1) in which Pelagianism and Augustinianism are akin in form. Neither is interested in the mysticism of the cultus; their authors rather strive to direct spiritual things in spiritual channels, though Augustine, indeed, did not entirely succeed in doing so. 308 See the remarks on Ambrose, p. 50. Perhaps the three rules of Tichonius best show the confusion that prevailed (Aug. de doctr. Christ. III. 46: “oper 564 a a deo dari merito fidei, ipsam vero fidem sic esse a nobis ut nobis non sit a deo.” Yet Augustine sought (c. Julian. L. I.) to give traditional evidence for his doctrine. 309 One passage (IV. 24 sq.) became famous in the controversy: “oportet magistrum doctoremque virtutis homini simillimum fieri, ut vincendo peccatum doceat hominem vincere posse peccatum . . . ut desideriis carnis edomitis doceret, non necessitatis esse peccare, sed propositi ac voluntatis.” 310 Our sources are the writings of Pelagius, Cælestius, and Julian (chiefly in Jerome and Augustine) Augustine’s works (T. X. and c. 20, letters among which Epp. 186, 194 are the most important), Jerome, Orosius, Marius Mercator, and the re 564 levant Papal letters. Mansi T. IV:, Hefele, Vol. II. For other literature see above, p. 61. Marius was the most active opponent of the Pelagians towards the close of the controversy, and obtained their condemnation in the East (see Migne, T. 48, and the Art. in the Dict. of Chr. Biog). 311 Pelag. Ep. ad Demetr.: “ne tanto remissior sit ad virtutem animus ac tardior, quanto minus se posse credat et dum quod inesse sibi ignorat id se existimet non habere.”

encouraged laxity, he proclaimed and urged on Christians the demands of monachism; for with nothing less was this preacher concerned.312 Of unquestioned orthodoxy,313 prominent also as exegete and theologian in the capital of Christendom,314 so barren in literary work, he was so energetic in his labour that news of his success penetrated to North Africa.315 He took to do with the practical alone. Apparently he avoided theological polemics; but when Augustine’s Confessions began to produce their narcotic effects, he opposed 175them. Yet positive teaching, the emphasising of the freedom of the will, always remained to him the chief thing. On the other hand, his disciple and friend Cælestius316 seems to have attacked original sin (tradux peccati) from the first. His converts proclaimed as their watchword that the forgiveness of sin was not the object of infant baptism.317 When Alaric stormed Rome, the two preachers retreated by Sicily to North Africa. They intended 564 to visit Augustine; but Pelagius and he did not meet either in Hippo or Carthage.318 Probably the former left suddenly when he saw that he would not attain his ends in Africa, but would only cause theological strife. On the other hand, Cælestius remained, and became candidate for the post of Presbyter in Carthage. But as early as A.D. 412 (411) he was accused by Paulinus, Deacon in Milan (afterwards Ambrose’s biographer), at a Synod held in Carthage before Bishop

312

He was, perhaps, not the first; we do not know whom Augustine meant in De pecc. orig. 25 (“Pelagius et Cælestius hujus perversitatis auctores vel perhibentur vel etiam probantur, vel certe si auctores non sunt, sed hoc ab aliis didicerunt, assertor 564 es tamen atque doctores”), and De gest Pelag. 61 (“post veteres hæreses inventa etiam modo hæresis est non ab episcopis seu presbyteris vel quibuscumque clericis, sed a quibusdam veluti monachis”). Pelagius and Cælestius may themselves be understood in the second passage. 313 The Confession of Faith, afterwards tendered (Hahn, § 133), is clear and confident in its dogmatic parts. The unity of the Godhead is not so strongly pronounced in the doctrine of the Trinity as with Augustine; Pelagius resembled the Greeks more strongly in this respect also. 314 At Rome Pelagius wrote the Ep. to Paulinus of Nola, the three books De fide trinitatis, his Eulogia and Commentaries on Paul’s Epistles, to which A 563 ugustine afterwards referred. The latter have been preserved for us among Jerome’s works; but their genuineness is suspected. Augustine mentions, besides, an Ep. ad Constantium episc. (De grat. 39); it is not known when it was written. 315 De gestis Pelag. 46: “Pelagii nomen cum magna ejus laude cognovi.” 316 By him are three works de monasterio. “Cælesti opuscula,” De gratia, 32. 317 565 So Augustine heard when in Carthage; see De pecc. mer. III. 12. 318 De gestis Pelag. 46.

Aurelius.319 The points of the complaint, reduced to writing, were as follows:—He taught “that Adam was made mortal and would have died whether he had or had not sinned—that Adam’s sin injured himself alone, and not the human race—infants at birth are in that state in which Adam was before his falsehood—that the whole human race neither dies on accou 564 nt of Adam’s death or falsehood, nor will rise again in virtue of Christ’s resurrection—the law admits men to the kingdom of heaven as well as the gospel— even before the advent of our Lord there were impeccable men, i.e., men without sin—that man can be without sin and can keep the divine commands easily if he will.”320 Cælestius declared at the conference that 176infants needed baptism and had to be baptised; that since he maintained this his orthodoxy was proved; that original sin (tradux peccati) was at any rate an open question, “because I have heard many members of the Catholic Church deny it, and also others assent to it.”321 He was, nevertheless, excommunicated. In the Libellus Brevissimus, which h 564 e wrote in his own defence, he admitted the necessity of baptism if children were to be saved; but he held that there was a kingdom of heaven distinct from eternal life. He would not hear of forgiveness of sin in connection with infant baptism.322 He was indisputably condemned because he undid the fixed connection between baptism and forgiveness, thus, as it were, setting up two baptisms, and offending against the Symbol. He now went to Ephesus,323

319

Marius Merc. Common. and Aug., De pecc. orig., 2 sq. It is worthy of note that the complaint came from a disciple of Ambrose. This establishes the continuity of the Antipelagian teaching. 320 “Adam mortalem factum, qui sive peccaret sive non peccaret moriturus fuisset— peccatum Adæ ipsum solum l ac8 æsit, non genus humanum—parvuli qui nascuntur in eo statu sunt, in quo fuit Adam ante prævaricationem—neque per mortem vel prævaricationem Adæ omne genus hominum moritur, nec per resurrectionem Christi omne genus hominum resurget—lex sic mittit ad regnum cœlorum quomodo et evangelium—et ante adventum domini fuerunt homines impeccabiles, i.e., sine peccato— hominem posse esse sine peccato et mandata dei facile custodire, si velit.” On the transmission of these propositions, see Klasen, Pelagianismus, p. 48 f. 321 “Quia intra Catholicam constitutos plures audivi destruere nec non et alios adstruere.” 322 De pecc. mer. I. 58, 62. 323 He is said to have stayed before this in Sicily, but that is merely a guess on Augustine’s part, an inference from the spread of Cwlestian heresies there. See Augustine’s interesting letters, Epp. 156, 157, 22, 23 sq. From these we learn that Cælestius actually taught: “divitem manentem in divitiis suis regnum dei non posse ingredi, nisi omnia sua vendiderit; nec prodesse eidem posse, si forte ex ipsis divitiis mandata fecerit.” In the “definitiones Cælestii” a document which came to Augustine

there became Presbyter, and afterwards betook himself to Constantinople. 177

Pelagius had gone to Palestine. He followed different tactics from his friend, who hoped to serve the cause by his maxim of “shocking deeply” (fortiter scandalizare). Pelagius desired peace; he wrote a flattering letter to Augustine, w 544 ho sent him a friendly but reserved answer.324 He sought to attach himself to Jerome, and to give no public offence. He plainly felt hampered by Cælestius with his agitation for the sinlessness of children, and against original sin. He wished to work for something positive. How could anyone thrust a negative point to the front, and check the movement for reform by precipitancy and theological

from Sicily, and whose origin is indeed uncertain, the Stoic method of forming definitions is noteworthy. In it there also occurs the famous definition of sin—“that which can be let alone”—(Gœthe gives the converse description: “What, then, do you call sin? With everyone I call it what can not be let alone.”) The whole argument serves to prove that since peccatum vitari potest, man can be sinless (De perfect. just. 1 sq.). In the passage just cited, and again at Diospolis (De gestis Pelag. 29-63) a work by Cælestius is mentioned, whose title is unknown. Not a 564 few sentences have been preserved (l.c.): “Plus facimus quam in lege et evangelis jussum est—gratiam dei et adjutorium non ad singulos actus dari, sed in libero arbitrio esse, vel in lege ac doctrina— dei gratiam secundum merita nostra dari, quia si peccatoribus illam dat, videtur esse iniquus—si gratia dei est, quando vincimus peccata, ergo ipse est in culpa, quando a peccato vincimur, quia omnino custodire nos aut non potuit aut noluit—unumquemque hominem omnes virtutes posse habere et gratias—filios dei non posse vocari nisi omni modo absque peccato fuerint effecti—oblivionem et ignorantiam non subjacere peccato, quoniam non secundum voluntatem eveniunt, sed secundum necessitatem—non esse liberum arbitrium, si dei indigeat auxilio, quoniam in propria voluntate habet unusquisque aut facere aliquid aut non facere—victoriam nostram non ex dei esse adjutorio, sed ex libero arbitrio—si anima non potest esse sine peccato, ergo et deus subjacet peccato, cujus pars, hoc est anima, peccato obnoxia est—pænitentibus venia non datur secundum gratiam et misericordiam dei, sed secundum merita at laborem eorum, qui per pænitentiam digni fuerint misericordia.” We readily see, what indeed has not hitherto been clearly perceived, that this writing of Cælestius must have been the real cause of offence. It could not but 564 open the eyes even of the waverers. We return to it in the text. 324 De gestis Pelag. 51, 52. The interpretation added by Augustine to a few conventional phrases used in the letter seems to us superfluous and laboured. He, besides, spared Pelagius in Carthage itself; for in his first great work against Pelagianism, De pecc. mer. et remiss. et de bapt. parvulorum ad Marcellinum (412), the name of Pelagius is not yet mentioned. Before this, Augustine had sought to influence the Church only by sermons and discourses. Even the Tractate De spiritu et litera, which followed immediately, is not directed against Pelagius.

bitterness? He actually found good friends.325 But his friendly relations with John, Bishop of Jerusalem, could not please Jerome. Besides, reports of Pelagius’ questionable doctrines came from the East, where, in Palestine, there always were numerous natives of the West. Jerome, who at the time was on good terms with Augustine, broke with Pelagius, 584 1 and wrote against him the Ep. ad Ctesiphontem 178(Ep. 133), and the Dialogi c. Pelag., writings which constitute a model of irrational polemics. He put in the foreground the question, “whether man can be without sin,” and at the same time did all he could to connect Pelagius with the “heretic” Origen and other false teachers. But still greater harm was done to Pelagius326 by the appearance, at this precise moment, of the work already known to us, in which Cælestius played so regardlessly the rôle of the enfant terrible of the party (see above).327 Augustine’s disciple, ac8 the Spanish priest Orosius, who had come to Jerome in order to call his attention to the dangers of Pelagianism, ultimately succeeded in getting John of Jerusalem to cite Pelagius, and to receive a formal report on his case in presence of his presbyters (A.D. 415). But the inquiry ended with the

325

I am disposed to regard as a forgery the letter of condolence to the widow Livania (Fragment ac8 s in Aug. De gestis Pel. 16, 19, Hieron. and Marius; partly reported in the indictment at Diospolis). Yet we cannot decide with certainty. We must allow the possibility of Pelagius having so expressed himself in a flattering letter, not meant to be published, to a sanctimonious widow. Indeed, words like the following sound like mockery: “Ille ad deum digne elevat manus, ille orationem bona conscientia effundit qui potest dicere, tu nosti, domine, quam sanctæ et innocentes et mundæ sunt ab omni molestia et iniquitate et rapina quas ad te extendo manus, quemadmodum justa et munda labia et ab omni mendacio libera, quibus offero tibi deprecationem, ut mihi miserearis.” Pharisee and Publican in one! 326 The latter afterwards complained (c. Jul. II. 36), “quod Hieronymus ei tamquam æmulo inviderit.” That is very credible. 327 From motives of prudence he did not answer Jerome publicly; for he wished to avoid all controversy. Jerome was, for the rest, much more akin to him really than Augustine. The former maintained, e.g., in a later controversial work, that it was orthodox to teach that the beginning of good resolves and faith is due to ourselves. 328 Pelagius himself wrote to the nun Demetrias (A.D. 413 or 414) a letter still preserved, and forming the clearest memorial of his doctrine, and shortly before the Synod of Diospolis he composed his book De natura, in which there is much that he abjured at the Synod. It is extremely probable that this book also was not meant for the public, but only for his friends (against the charges of Jerome). Augustine, as soon as he got it, refuted it in his tractate De natura et gratia (415). Pelagius had essayed to give a dialectical proof of his anthropology in the book. Augustine’s wo 560 rk, De perfectione justitiæ, composed also in A.D. 415, was aimed at Cælestius.

triumph of the accused. Orosius referred to the authority of his celebrated teacher, and to that of Jerome and the Synod of Carthage, but without success, and when Pelagius was charged with teaching that man could be sinless and needed no divine help, the latter declared that he taught that it was not possible for man to become sinless without divine grace. With this John entirely agreed. Now since Orosius for his part would not maintain that man’s nature was created evil by God, the Orientals did not see what the dispute was all about. The conference, irregular and hampered by Orosius’ inability to speak Greek, was broken off: it was said that the quarrel might be decided in the West, or more precisely in Rome.329 Pelagius had repelled the first attack. But his opponents did not rest. 179They succeeded, in December, 415, in getting him brought before a Palestinian Synod, presided over by Eulogius of Cæsarea, at Diospolis, where, however, he was not confronted by his accusers.330 He was at once able to appeal to the favourable testimonies of many Bishops, who had warmly recognised his efforts to promote morality. He did not disown the propositions ascribed to him regarding nature and grace, but he succeeded in explaining them so satisfactorily, that his judges found him to be of blameless orthodoxy. The extravagant sentences taken from the letter to Livania he in part set right, and in part disowned, and when the Synod required him expressly to condemn them, he declared: “I anathematise them as foolish, not as heretical, seeing it is no case of dogma.”331 Hereupon the Synod decided: “Now since with ac8 his own voice Pelagius has anathematised the groundless nonsense, answering rightly that a man can be without sin with the divine help and grace, let him also reply to the other counts.”332 There were now laid before him the statements of Cælestius as to Adam, Adam’s sin, death, new-born children, the perdition of the rich, sinlessness of God’s children, the unessential character of divine assistance—in short, all those propositions which had either been already condemned at Carthage, or were afterwards advanced by Cælestius in a much

329

See Orosii Apolog. The indictment was composed by two Gallic Bishops, Heros and Lazarus, who had been forced to fly from their own country. It was very comprehensive; but no strict line was drawn between what Pelagius had himself said, and what belonged to Cælestius. The two Bishops were, for the rest, afterwards treated as under suspicion at the conferences in Rome. 331 “Anathematizo quasi stultos, non quasi hæreticos, si quidem non est dogma.” 332 “Nunc quoniam propria voce anathematizavit Pelagius incertum stultiloquium, recte respondens, hominem cum adjutorio dei et gratia posse esse sine peccato, respondeat et ad alia capitula.” 330

worse form. Pelagius was in an awkward position. He hated all theological strife; he knew that Christian morality could only lose by it; he wished to leave the region of dogma alone.333 Cælestius had only said, 180indeed, what he himself had described as correct when among his intimate friends; but the former had spoken publicly and regardlessly, and—“the tone makes the music.” Thus Pelagius considered himself justified in disowning almost all those statements: “but the rest even according to their own testimony was not said by me, and for it I am not called upon to give satisfaction.” But he added: “I anathematise those who hold or have held these views.” With these words he pronounced judgment on himself; they were false. The Synod rehabilitated him completely: “Now since we have been satisfied by our examination in our presence of Pelagius the monk, and he assents to godly doctrines, while condemning those things contrary to the faith of the Church, we acknowledge him to belong to our ecclesiastical and Catholic Communion.”334 No one can blame the Synod:335 Pelagius had, in fact, given expression to its own ac8 ideas; Augustinianism was neither known nor understood; and the “heresy of Cælestius”336 was condemned.337

333

The above quoted phrase, “non est dogma,” is extremely characteristic. It shows how painfully anxious Pelagius was not to extend the sphere of dogma. In this he quite shared the feeling always entertained even to the present day by the Greeks. A Greek priest once said to the author that the great freedom of the Greek Church, compared with the Western, consisted in the possibility of holding very different views of sin, grace, justification, etc., if only the dogmas were adhered to. Pelagius accordingly opposed the introduction of a great new tract being included in the dogmatic sphere. He saw merely the inevitable evils of such an advance. We must judge his whole attitude up to his death from this point of view. Seeberg (Dogmengesch. I., p. 282 f.) holds that the phrase, “non est dogma,” was merely meant to provide a means of defence; but if we consider Pelagius’ whole attitude, we have no ground for taking any such view. 334 De gestis Pelag. 44: “Reliqua vero et secundum ipsorum testimonium a me dicta non sunt, pro quibus ego satisfacere non debeo.” “Anathematizo illos qui sic tenent aut aliquando tenuerunt.” “Nunc quoniam satisfactum est nobis prosecutionibus præsentis Pelagii monachi, qui quidem piis doctrinis consentit, contraria vero ecclesiæ fidei anathematizat, communionis ecclesiasticæ eum esse et catholicæ confitemur.” 335 “Synodus miserabilis,” Jerome, Ep. 143, 2. 336 Jerome, Ep. 143, 1. 337 In his work, De gestis Pelagii, Augustine, following a written account, criticises the proceedings of the Synod, and shows that Pelagius uttered the falsehood. The latter, always anxious to keep peace, addressed a report of his own after the Synod to Augustine (l.c. 57 sq.), in order to influence him in his favour. But Augustine rightly gave the p ac8 reference to the other account, since Pelagius had omitted from his the “anathematizo.”

But Pelagius now found it necessary to defend himself to his 181own adherents. While on the one hand he was zealous in promoting in the West the effect of the impression produced by the decision in his favour, he wrote to a friendly priest,338 that his statement, “that a man can be without sin and keep the commands of God easily339 if he will,” had been recognised as orthodox. His work, De natura, made its appearance at the same time, and he further published four books, De libero arbitrio,340 which, while written with all caution, disclosed his standpoint more clearly than his earlier ones.341 But North Africa342 did not acquiesce in what had taken place. The prestige of the West and orthodoxy were endangered. Synods were held in A.D. 416 at Carthage and ac8 Mileve, Augustine being also present at the latter. Both turned to Innocent of Rome, to whom Cælestius had appealed long before. Soon after the epistles of the two Synods (Aug. epp. 175, 176,) the Pope received a third from five African Bishops, of whom Augustine was one (Ep. 177).343 It was evidently feared that Pelagius might have influential friends in Rome.344 The letters referred to the condemnation, five

Again in the work De pecc. orig., Augustine shows, from the writings of Pelagius with which he was acquainted, that the latter had got off by evasions at Diospolis, and that he really held the same opinions as Cælestius.—We can only excuse the man by repeating that he wished to do practical work, and felt himself put out by dogmatic questions as to original sin, etc. 338 De gestis, 54 sq. 339 There was no word of “easily” at Diospolis. 340 Augustine’s tractates, De gratia Christi et De peccato originali, are directed against this book. 341 De pecc. orig. 20: “Denique quomodo respondeat advertite et videte latebras ambiguitatis falsitati præparare refugia, offundendo caliginem veritati, ita ut etiam nos cum primum ea legimus, recta vel correcta propemodum gauderemus. Sed latiores disputationes ejus in libris, ubi se quantumlibet operiat, plerumque aperire compellitur, fecerunt nobis et ipsa suspecta, ut adtentius intuentes inveniremus ambigua.” 342 Orosius had carried there information of the e 564 vents. 343 The letter was accompanied by Pelagius’ work De natura and Augustine’s reply. 344 Ep. 177, 2.—To about this date belong, according to Caspari’s investigations, the Pelagian letters and tractates published by him A.D. 1890 (Briefe, Abhandlungen and Predigten, etc. pp. 3-167, 223-389, Christiania), and ascribed on good grounds to Agricola, of Britain. The fragments were written, however, in Italy. They add nothing new to our knowledge of Pelagianism. But they confirm the fact that the earliest Pelagianism—before Julian—was associated with the most stringent monastic demands, and was extremely rigorous. In particular, Agricola flatly forbids the possession of wealth. He also regards ignora 564 nce of the divine will as no excuse for the sinner, but as an aggravation.

years before, of Cælestius; they pointed out that the Biblical doctrine of grace and the doctrine of baptism were in danger, and demanded that, no 182matter how Pelagius might express himself, those should be excommunicated who taught that man could overcome sin and keep God’s commands by virtue of his own nature, or that baptism did not deliver children from a state of sin. It was necessary to defeat the enemies of God’s grace. It was not a question of expelling Pelagius and Cælestius, but of opposing a dangerous heresy.345 The Pope had, perhaps, never yet received petitions from North African Synods which laid such stress on the importance of the Roman Chair. Innocent sought to forge the iron while it was hot. In his four replies (Aug. Epp. 181-184 = Innoc. Epp. 30-33) he first congratulated the Africans on having acted on the ancient rule, “that no matter might be finally decided, even in the most remote provinces, until the Roman Chair had been informed of it, in order that every just decision might be confirmed by its authority;” for truth issued from Rome, and thence was communicated in tiny streams to the other Churches. The Pope then praised their zeal against heretics, declared it impious to deny the necessity of divine grace, or to promise eternal life to children without baptism; he who thought otherwise was to be expelled from the Church, unless he performed due penan ac8 ce. “Therefore (Ep. 31, 6) we declare in virtue of our Apostolic authority that Pelagius and Cælestius are excluded from the communion of the Church until they deliver themselves from the snares of the devil;” if they did so, they were not to be refused readmission. Any adherents of Pelagius who might be in Rome would not venture to take his part after this condemnation; besides, the acquittal of the man in the East was not certain; nothing indubitably authentic had been laid before him, the Pope, and it appeared even from the proceedings, if they were genuine, that Pelagius had got off by evasions; if he felt himself to be innocent, he would have 183hastened to Rome that he might be acquitted by us; he would not summon him, however; those among whom he resided might try him once more; if he recanted, they could not condemn him; there lurked much that was blasphemous, but still more that was superfluous, in the book, De Natura; “what orthodox believer might not argue most copiously about the

345

Epp. 177, 3: “Non agitur de uno Pelagio, qui jam forte correctus est.” The consideration for him is very remarkable; it is explained by his prestige and his justification at Diospolis. The letter of the five Bishops composed by Augustine and sent afterwards was obviously meant thoroughly to instruct the Pope, who was held to be insufficiently informed as to the importance of the question. Yet we have at the close, (c. 19): “Non rivulum nostrum tuo largo fonti augendo refundimus.”

potentiality of nature, free-will, the whole grace of God and daily grace?”346 He who can read between the lines will readily observe that the Pope left more than one back-door open, and had no real interest in the controversy.347 Pelagius now sent his remarkably well-composed confession of faith348 to Rome, along with an elaborate vindication of himself.349 The accusation that he refused baptism to children, or promised them admission to heaven without it, and that he taught that men could easily fulfil the divine commands, he declared to abd be a calumny invented by his enemies. As already at Diospolis, so now he guarded himself against the worst charges, though they were not indeed unwarranted, partly by mental reservations, and partly by modifications; but we cannot say that he was unfaithful to his main conception. He declared that all men had received the power to will aright from God, but that the divine aid (adjutorium) only operated in the case of Christians. It was blasphemous to maintain that God had given impossible commands to men. He took his stand between Augustine and Jovinian. This letter did not reach Innocent, he having died. It was thus received by his successor Zosimus. Cælestius, who had come to Rome and submitted a Libellus fidei that left nothing to be desired in 184point of submission to the Pope, vindicated himself to the latter. Cælestius, on the whole, seems now, when matters had become critical, to have sounded the retreat;350 he at least modified his statements, and took care not to come into conflict with the theory, deducible from the Church’s practice, that infant baptism did away with sin.351

346

Ep. 183, 2-5: “Nam de naturæ possibilitate, de libero arbitrio, et de omni dei gratia et quotidiana gratia cui non sit recte sentienti uberr 539 imum disputare?” 347 This is not the view that has hitherto been taken of the letters; Zosimus has rather been simply contrasted with Innocent. Seeberg (p. 283) sees in the letter a monument of the Pope’s helplessness in dogma: he was so ignorant as to admit that the Africans were right, and yet to make them talk like Pelagians. That seems to me an exaggeration. 348 Hahn. 133. In it we have the words “liberum sic confitemur arbitrium, ut dicamus nos indigere dei semper auxilio” (but in what does the auxilium consist?), and “baptismum unum tenemus quod iisdem sacramenti verbis in infantibus, quibus etiam in majoribus, asserimus esse celebrandum.” 349 Fragments in Aug., De Gratia Christi et de pecc. orig. 350 Fragments of the Libellus in Aug., De pecc. orig. 5 sq. 351 L.c.: “Infantes debere baptizari in remissionem peccatorum secundum regulam universalis ecclesiæ et secundum evangelii sententiam confitemur, quia dominus statuit, regnum cœlorum non nisi baptizatis posse conferri; quod, quia vires naturæ non habent, conferri necesse est per gratiæ libertatem. In remissionem pe 55e ccatorum baptizandos infantes non idcirco diximus, ut peccatum ex traduce firmare videamur (he thus clung to this point), quod longe a catholico sensu alienum est, quia peccatum non cum homine

After these similar declarations of the two friends, Zosimus did not see that the dogma or Church practice of baptism was endangered in any respect. At a Roman Synod (417), Cælestius, who was ready to condemn everything banned by the Pope, was rehabilitated;352 and Pelagius, for whom Orientals interceded, was likewise declared to have cleared himself. The complainants were described as worthless beings, and the Africans were blamed for deciding too hastily; they were called upon to prove their charges within two months. This result was communicated in two letters353 to the African Bishops.354 They were told that Pelagius had never been separated from the Church, and that if there had been great joy over the return of the lost son, how much greater should be the joy of believing that those about whom false reports had been circulated were neither dead nor lost (Ep. 4, 8)! The Carthaginians were indignant, but not discouraged. A (417) determined to adhere to the condemnation until it was ascertained that both heretics saw in grace not merely an enlightenment of the intellect, but the only power for good (righteousness), without which we can have absolutely no true religion in thought, speech, and action.355 This resolution was conveyed to Zosimus. Paulinus of Milan declared at the same time in a letter to the Pope that he would not come to Rome to prosecute Cælestius, for the case had been already decided.356 This energetic opposition made the Pope cautious. In his reply,357 he glorified Peter and his office in eloquent language, but changed his whole procedure, declaring now that the Africans were under a mistake if they believed that he had trusted Cælestius358 in everything, and had already come to a decision. The case had not yet been 185Synod

nascitur, quod postmodum exercetur ab homine, quia non naturæ delictum, sed voluntatis esse demonstrator. Et illud ergo confiteri congruum, ne diversa baptismatis genera facere videamur, et hoc præmunire necessarium est, ne per mysterii occasionem ad creatoris injuriam malum, antequam fiat ab homine, tradi dicatur homini per naturam.” 352 He wisely refused to discuss the separate points of complaint. 353 Zosim., Epp. 3, 4. 54d 354The Bishops are arrogantly rebuked. For the rest, the whole question in dispute is regarded as due to an epidemic of curiosity, as superfluous and pernicious: one ought to abide by Scripture. No wonder that Rome hesitated to declare a question important in which the disputants were agreed as regards Holy Scripture, dogma, and Church practice. The Church only took hesitatingly the momentous step involved in acknowledging anything outside of these to be of equal importance to “dogmas.” 355 Prosper, c. collat. 5. 356 Zosim., Ep. 10. 357 Zosim., Ep. 15. 358 It was with Cælestius that he was chiefly concerned.

prejudiced, and was in the same position as before (March 549 , 418). Immediately after the arrival of this letter in Africa, a great Council was held there—more than 200 Bishops being present— and Pelagianism was condemned, without consulting the Pope, in 8 (9) unequivocal Canons;359 indeed, such was the indignation felt against Zosimus—and on different grounds—that the Council, in its 17 Canon, threatened with excommunication any appeal to Rome.360 But it had first assured itself of the Emperor’s support, who had published on the 30th April, 418, an edict to the Prefect of the Prætorium, banishing the new heretics with their followers from Rome, permitting their prosecution, and threatening the guilty with stringent penalties.361 186

Zosimus, whose action had been hitherto influenced by the strength of Pelagius’ party in Rome, now laid down his arms. In his Ep. tractatoria to all the Churches,362 he informed them of the excommunication of Cælestius and Pelagius, was now convinced that the doctrines of the absolute importance of justifying grace, and of original sin, belonged to the faith (de fide), and required all Bishops to signify their assent by their signatures. But eighteen Bishops refused;363 they appealed to a General Council, and recalled with reason the fact that the Pope had himself formerly considered a thorough conference to be necessary. In their name Julian of Eclanum wrote two bold letters to the Pope,364 while also rejecting the propositions once set up by Cælestius.365 From now onwards the stage was occupied by this “most confident young

359

Let him be condemned: who derives death from natural necessity; who denies the presence of original sin in children and rebels against Paul (Rom. V. 12); who assigns any form of salvation to unbaptised children; who refers God’s justifying grace in C 558 hrist merely to past sins; who applies grace to knowledge alone, while not perceiving in it the power necessary to us; who sees in grace merely a means of rendering the good easier, but not its indispensable condition; or who derives the confessions of sin by the pious from humility alone, and interprets their prayer for pardon of guilt as applying solely to the guilt of others. 360 The proceedings in Mansi III., p. 810 sq. 361 The edict in Aug. Opp. X. app., p. io5. It is certainly doubtful whether the Africans effected this; perhaps it was instigated from Milan or by Italian Anti-Pelagians. The attempt has been made to prove that Zosimus’ change of front was independent of the edict. 362 Aug. Opp. X. app., p. 108. 363 C. duas epp. Pel. I. 3. 364 See Op. imperf. I. 18. Fragments in Marius. 365 544 The confession of faith contained in one of the letters (Hahn, § 135) shows also that Julian wished to stand by Pelagius.

man,” for whom Augustine, a friend of his family, possessed so much natural sympathy, and whom, in spite of his rudeness, he always treated, as long as the case lasted, affectionately and gently.366 At the instigation of the new Pope, Boniface, Augustine refuted one of the letters sent to Rome and circulated in Italy, as well as another by Julian (addressed to Rufus of Thessalonica) in his work c. duas epp. Pelagianorum (420). Julian, who had resigned or been deposed from his bishop ac7 ric, now took up his sharp and 187restless pen. No one else pressed Augustine so hard as he; he compelled him to work out the consequences of his line of thought; he displayed inexorably the contradictions in his works, and showed how untenable was the great man’s doctrine when it was fully developed; he pointed out the traces of a Manichæan type of thinking in Augustine, traces of which the latter tried in vain to get rid. He could indeed explain that he did not mean them, but could not show that they were not there. Julian’s charge that Augustine’s teaching desecrated marriage had made an impression on the powerful Comes Valerius in Rome. Augustine sought to weaken the force of the charge in his writing, De nuptiis et concupiscentia, Lib. I.; but Julian now wrote a work in four volumes against the treatise. Augustine based a reply on extracts from the latter (De nupt. et concup., 1. II.), and when he received the work itself, he substituted, for this preliminary answer, a new work: Libri sex c. Julianum hæresis Pelagianæ defensorem. Julian replied to the “Preliminary pamphlet” with a work in eight volumes (written already in Cilicia). Augustine was engaged with the answer to this work, Opus imperf. c. Julianum (l. sex), up to his death. Since he follows Julian almost sentence by sentence, we possess the most accurate information as to the latter’s positions.367 In his latest years, Augustine composed other four writings which are not aimed directly at the Pelagians, but discuss objections

366

We must remember in excuse of Julian’s violent and unmeasured polemics that he was defending an already hopeless case. He himself knew this—Op. imp. I. 1, 2: “magnis impedimentis angoribus, quos intuenti mihi hac tempestate ecclesiarum statum partim indignatio ingerit partim miseratio”—“labentis mundi odia promeremur”—“rebus in pejorem partem properantibus, quod mundi fini suo incumbentis indicium est” (l.c. I. 12). His violence is in any case not explained from secret uncertainty, for there certainly have been few theologians so thoroughly convinced as he of being on the right path. Religious pioneers, besides, have as a rule surpassed their opponents in strength of conviction. They also possess it more readily; for the certainty of religion and morality, as they understand it, is involved for them in personal assurance. 367 When we realise the exceptional qualities of two such outstanding opponents, we wish that nature had rolled them into one. What a man that would have been!

raised against his own doctrine by Catholics or Semi-Pelagians368 (De gratia et libero arbitrio; De correptione et gratia: to the monks of Hadrumetum; De prædestinatione sanctorum and De dono perseverantiæ: to Prosper and Hilary as against the Gallic monks). In these works the doctrine of predestinating grace is worked out in its strictest form. The Pelagians nowhere came to form a sect or schismatical party.369 ac6 They were suppressed in the years after A.D. 418, without it being necessary to apply any special force. The Emperor 188once more published a sharp edict. Cælestius, who had hitherto escaped punishment, was still chiefly dealt with. He was forbidden to reside in Italy, and sentence of exile was pronounced on anyone who should harbour him. Pelagius is said to have been condemned by a Synod in Antioch. But this information, given by Marius, is uncertain. He disappears from history.370 Julian and other Pelagians took refuge with Theodore in Cilicia. There they were at first left in peace; for either the controversy was not understood, or the attitude to Augustinianism was hostile. The indefatigable Cælestius was able in A.D. 424 to demand once more an inquiry in Rome from Bishop Cælestine, but then betook himself, without having obtained his object, to Constantinople, where, since Julian and other friends were also assembled, the party now pitched their headquarters.371 The Patriarch Nestorius joined hands with them, a proceeding fatal to both sides; for Nestorius thereby incurred the displeasure of the Pope, and the Pelagians fell into the ranks of the enemies of the dominant party in the East (Cyril’s). Marius Mercator agitated successfully against them at the Court, and in the comedy at Ephesus Cyril obliged the Roman legates by getting the Council to condemn the doctrine of Cælestius, Rome having concurred in his condemnation of Nestorius.372 Thus Pelagianism had brought upon itself a kind of universal anathema, while in the East there were perhaps not even a dozen Christians who really

368

This name appears first in the Middle Ages. In ancient times men spoke of the “reliquiæ Pelagianorum.” 369 They still hoped for their rehabilitation up to A.D. 430, and urged it in Rome on every new Pope. 370 It is noteworthy that Julian speaks in his works as if he now alone represented the destituta veritas, a claim that Augustine tells him shows extreme arrogance (see c. Jul. II. 36). 371 I do not here discuss more minutely the history of Julian, who once more paid a passing visit to Rome; see art. in the Encycl. of Christ. Biogr. 372 Julian’s name was expressly mentioned; perhaps he was in Ephesus with Nestorius. It is maintained by Marius that he ha 564 d been already condemned in his absence (with Theodore’s concurrence) at a Cilician Synod.

disapproved of it,373 aba and the West, in turn, was by no means clear as to the consequences to which it would necessarily be led by the condemnation of the Pelagians. II. As regards the history of dogma, the “system” of Pelagianism, i.e. of Julian of Eclanum, is tolerably indifferent; 189for it was only produced after the whole question was already decided, and its author was a theologian, who, by renouncing his ecclesiastical office, had himself thrown away much of his claim to be considered. From the standpoint of the history of dogma, the controversy closed simply with rejection of the doctrines, (1) that God’s grace (in Christ) was not absolutely necessary—before and after baptism—for the salvation of every man, and (2) that the baptism of infants was not in the fullest sense a baptism for remission of sins (in remissionem peccatorum). The contrary doctrines were the new “dogmas.” But, since those two doctrines and the main theses of Pelagianism involved a multitude of consequences, and since some of these consequences were even then apparent, while others afterwards occupied the Church up till and beyond the Reformation, it is advisable to point out the fundamental features of the Pelagian system, and the contrary teaching of Augustinianism.374 In doing so we have to remember that Pelagius would have nothing to do with a system. To him “De fide” (of the faith) meant simply the orthodox dogma and the ability of man to do the good. All else were open questions which might be answered in the affirmative or negative, among the rest original sin, which he denied. He laid sole stress on preaching practical Christianity, i.e., the monastic life, to a corrupt and worldly Christendom, and on depriving it of the pretext that it was impossible to fulfil the divine commands. Cælestius, at one with his teacher in this respect, attacked original sin more energetically, and fought by the aid of definitions and syllogisms theological doctrines which he held to be pernicious. But Julian was the first to develop their mode of thought systematically, and to elevate it into a Stoic Christian system.375 ad9 Yet he really added nothing essential to what occurs scattered through the writings of Pelagius and Cælestius. He only gave it all a naturalistic tendency, i.e., he did away with the monastic intention of the type of thought. But even in Pelagius, arguments occur which completely contradict

373

Bishop Atticus of Constantinople was undoubtedly a decided enemy of the Pelagians; but we do not know his motives. 374 This is also necessary because the mode of thought at the root of Pelagianism never reappeared—up to the time of Socinianism—in so pure a form as in Julian. 375 Augustine says ac8 very gracefully (c. Jul. VI. 36): “Quæ tu si non didicisses, Pelagiani dogmatis machina sine architecto necessario remansisset.”

190the

ascetic monastic conception. In his letter to Demetrius he shows that fasting, abstinence and prayer are not of such great importance; they should not be carried to excess, as is often done by beginners; moderation should be observed in all things, therefore even in good works. The main thing is to change one’s morals and to practise every kind of virtue. And thus no one is to think that the vow of chastity can let him dispense with the practice of spiritual virtues and the fight with anger, vanity, and pride, etc. It was the actual development of the character in goodness on which he laid stress. The monastic idea appears subordinate to this thought, which in some passages is expressed eloquently. The ancient call to wise moderation has not a naturalistic impress in Pelagius. In treating the thought of these three men as a whole we have to remember this distinction, as also the fact that Pelagius and Cælestius for the most part paid due heed to Church practice, and besides avoided almost entirely any appeal to the ancient philosophers.376 They were all actuated by a courageous

376

As regards form (Klasen, pp. 81-116), i.e. in their teaching as to Scripture, tradition, and authority, no innovations occur in Pelagius and Cælestius. Pelagianism, indeed, implicitly involves the rejection of every doctrine, quæ ratione defendi non potest, and he interpreted Scripture accordingly (see examples of exegesis in Klasen l.c.). In his treatise, De natura, he quotes the Fathers in support of his form of doctrine, as Augustine did for his (Chrysostom was especially often quoted, but so also were Jerome, Ambrose, and Lactantius). Julian, on the contrary, expressly gave the first place to ratio: “Quod ratio arguit, non potest auctoritas vindicare” (Op. imp. II. t6). With Origen—in sharp contrast to Augustine—he observes the rule not that a thing is good, because God wills it and it stands in Scripture, but that reason establishes what is good: “Hæreat hoc maxime prudentis animo lectoris, omnibus scripturis sacris solum illud, quod in honorem dei catholici sapiunt, contineri, sicut frequentium sententiarum luce illustratur, et sicubi durior elocutio moverit quæstionem, certum quidem esse, non ibi id quod injustum est loci illius auctorum sapuisse; secundum id autem debere intelligi, quod et ratio perspicua et aliorum locorum, in quibus non est ambiguitas, splendor apparuerit” (l.c. II. 22; cf. I. 4). “Sanctas quidem apostoli esse paginas confitemur, non ob aliud, nisi quia rationi, pietati, fidei congruentes erudiunt nos” (II. 144). Julian declares time and again that “wrong” and right must be the standard to be applied to all traditions regarding God. Now if the interpretations of Scripture given by Pelagius and Cælestius are “shallow,” Julian’s are sometimes quite profane. Our first parents clothed themselves after the Fall, because they were cold, and had learned for the first time the art of making clothes (c. Jul. IV. 79 sq.). But the rationalist standpoint of historical criticism appears most clearly in Julian’s attitude to tradition. He is the author of the famous saying that we ought to weigh and not count opinions (c. Julian, II. 35: “non numerandas, sed ponderandas esse sententias; ad aliquid inveniendum multitudinem nihil prodesse cæcorum”). He says boldly that 564 in dogmatic questions we must set aside the strepitus turbarum de omni ordine conversationis hominum, all de plebeia fæce sellularii, milites, scholastici auditoriales,

tabernarii, cetarii, coqui, lanii, adolescentes ex monachis dissoluti, and further the turba qualiumcumque clericorum; “honorandam esse paucitatem, quam ratio, eruditio, libertasque sublimat.” Compare Op. imperf. I. 41, where Julian says “et si philosophorum ego senatum advocavero, tu continuo sellularios, opifices omneque in nos vulgus accendas,” and II. 14 “Traduciani pro se sursum deorsum plebecularum aut ruralium aut theatralium scita commendant.” He justifies the setting aside of laymen and the uneducated clergy; he says: “quia non possunt secundum categorias Aristotelis de dogmatibus judicare.” Here (c. Julian. II. 36, 37) Julian’s chief interest becomes clearly evident. Without Aristotle, no theology; everything else is clod-hoppers’ theology; but we have the cultured on our side (l.c. V. 1., Augustine suggests that is a contention of all heretics, already soiled and worn by frequent use). Julian adhered to Aristotle and Zeno; he knew their ethics thoroughly and reflected on their differences (c. Jul. II. 34; VI. 36; VI. 64: “de scholis Peripateticorum sive Stoicorum;” Op. impf. I, 35, 36). In contents and method his teaching was closely ac8 related to that of these philosophers—Augustine alludes very often to this. Besides, he quotes (c. Jul. IV .75) Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Xenophanes, Parmenides, Leucippus, Democritus, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Melissus, Plato, and Pythagoras (“quis non ipso nominum sectarumque conglobatarum strepitu terretur?” remarks Augustine). Of these philosophers—along with whom Sallust and Cicero are quoted—Julian says (l.c.), while granting they were idolaters (“licet in scholis aliud disserentes”), that they had enjoyed, in the midst of many errors, “de naturalibus aliquas veritatis partes,” and that these were rightly to be preferred to the dogma of original sin. Augustine justly speaks of “nebulæ de Aristotelicis categoriis;” but the Stoic element prevails in Julian. The whole conception of ratio and Nominalism is Stoic. The mania for definitions is also Stoic and Ciceronian. Without definition no knowledge (Op. imp. II. 30, said against Augustine: “Ad quid ergo persuadendum aut scripturas releges aut conscios nominabis, qui adhuc quod sentis non potes definire”). But these definitions never rise out of the actual and thoroughly observed case—and that was indeed also usual in the Stoa—but glide over it. Julian by no means despised altogether the appeal to the Fathers. Here also he proved himself reasonable. It was only their formal authority that he would have nothing to do with. His standpoint is most clearly expressed in c. Jul. I. 29: “Cum igitur liquido clareat hanc sanam et veram esse sententiam, quam primo loco ratio, deinde scripturarum munivit auctoritas et quam sanctorum virorum semper celebravit eruditio, qui tamen veritati auctoritatem non suo tribuere consensu, sed testimonium et gloriam de ejus suscepere consortio, nullum prudentem conturbet conspiratio perditorum.” Here we perceive the descending series of authorities, which is yet only authoritative, in so far as the witnesses are rational. The “Fathers” he really regarded as nothing, and well he knew how to make use of the admissions wrung from Augustine regarding their authority (Op. imp. IV. 112): “Sed bene quod nos onere talium personarum prior levasti. Nam in libro ad Timasium cum s. Pelagius venerabilium virorum tam Ambrosii quam Cypriani recordatus fuisset, qui liberum arbitrium in libris suis commendaverant, respondisti nulla te gravari auctoritate talium, ita ut diceres eos processu vitæ melioris, si quid male senserant, expiasse.” “Numquid”—exclaims Julian (l.c. IV. 110)—“legi dei aut operi dei scripta disputatorum præjudicant!” Julian felt most acutely his having to call to its senses the

confidence 191in man’s capacity for goodness, along with the need for clearness of thought on religious and moral questions. 1. God’s highest attributes are his goodness and justice, and, in fact, righteousness is the quality without which God cannot 192be thought of at all; indeed, it can even be said that there is a God, because there is righteousness.377 “Justice, as it is wont to be defined by the learned (s. Aristotle) and as we can understand, is (if the Stoics will allow us to prefer one to the other) the greatest of all virtues, discharging diligently the duty of restoring his own to each, without fraud, without 564 favour.”378 Its genus is God; its species are the promulgation and administration of the laws; its difference consists in its being regulated by circumstances; its modus in its not requiring from anyone more than his powers permit, and in not excluding mercy; its quality in sweetness to pious souls. This notion of righteousness is so sure that it appears also to be ideally superior to Holy Scripture (see Op. imperf. II. 17): “Nothing can be proved by the sacred writings which righteousness cannot support.”379 2. It follows, from the goodness and righteousness of God, that everything created by him is good—and that not only at the beginning—but what he now creates is likewise g ac8 ood.380 Accordingly, 193the creature is good, and so also are marriage, the law, free will, and the saints.381

West, in bonda 564 ge to “stupid and godless” dogma; in the East alone did he now see salvation. The rock on which he stood was reason; his winged organ was the word. He knew that God would honour him for having alone to lead the cause of righteousness. He confronted, as the most resolute “Aufklärer” of the ancient Church, its greatest religious personality. 377 Cælestius in Aug., De perf. just. 15; Julian in the Op. imp. I. 27-38 and often. The thought of goodness—characteristically enough—is dropped, or accompanies it, as it were, incidentally. The idea of righteousness as legislative, distributive, and social, governs the whole system. “Lex dei fons ac magistra justitiæ,” Op. imp. I. 4. 378 Op. imp. I. 35: ab1 “Justitia est, ut ab eruditis definiri solet (s. Aristoteles), et ut nos intelligere possumus, virtus (si per Stoicos liceat alteri alteram præferre), virtutum omnium maxima fungens diligenter officio ad restituendum sua unicuique, sine fraude, sine gratia.” By this is gained for religion and morality the supreme principle by which man confronts God as judge in complete independence. 379 “Nihil potest per sanctas scripturas probari, quod justitia non possit tueri.” 380 Op. imp. VI. 16. 381 Aug. c. duas epp. Pelag. III. 24: “Hae sunt nebulæ Pelagianorum de laude creaturæ, laude nuptiarum, laude legis, laude liberi arbitrii, laude sanctorum, IV. 1, 2.

3. Nature, which was created good, is not convertible, “because the things of nature persist from the beginning of existence (substance) to its end.”382 “Natural properties are not converted by accident.”383 Accordingly, there can be no “natural sins” (peccata naturalia); for they could only have arisen if nature had become evil. 4. Human nature is thus indestructibly good, and can only be modified accidentally. To its constitution belongs—and that was very good—the will as free choice; for “willing is nothing but a movement of the mind without any compulsion.”384 This free choice, with which reason is implied,385 is the highest good in man’s constitution, “he who upholds grace praises human nature.”386 We know that Pelagius always began ac8 in his sermons by praising man’s glorious constitution, his nature which shows itself in free will387 and reason, and he never wearied of extolling our “condition of willing” (conditio 194voluntatis), as contrasted with the “condition of necessity” (conditio necessitatis) of irrational creatures. “Nature was created so good that it needs no help.”388 With reason as guide (duce ratione) man can and should

382

“Quia naturalia ab initio substantiæ usque ad terminum illius perseverant.” (Op. imp. II. 76). 383 Naturalia per accidens non convertuntur.” “Quod innascitur usque ad finem ejus, cui adhæserit, perseverat.” L.c. I. 61. 57a 384 “Voluntas est nihil aliud quam motus animi cogente nullo” (Op. imp. 1. V. ). More precisely (I. 78-82): “Libertas arbritii, qua a deo emancipatus homo est, in admittendi peccati et abstinendi a peccato possibilitate consistit . . . Posse bonum facere aula virtutis est, posse malum facere testimonium libertatis est. Per hoc igitur suppetit homini habere proprium bonum, per quod ei subest posse facere malum. Tota ergo divini plenitudo judicii tam junctum habet negotium cum hac libertate hominum, ut harum qui unam agnoverit ambas noverit. . . . Sic igitur et libertas humani custodiatur arbitrii, quemadmodum divina æquitas custoditur . . . Libertas igitur arbitrii possibilitas est vel admittendi vel vitandi peccati, expers cogentis necessitatis, quæ in suo utpote jure habet, utrum surgentium partem sequatur, i.e., vel ardua asperaque virtutum vel demersa etpa lustria voluptatum.” 385 aa2 The Pelagians were very silent as to the relation of ratio and liberum arbitrium. They did not even notice that it involved a main difficulty. All that they found it necessary to say consisted in quite childish arguments. Even the above definition of the will is absolutely untenable. After all, reason impels to what is bad as well as good; the wicked man does not act, at least, without reason. But what does justitia mean, if the separate acts of will always pass into vacancy? The original equilibrium, forsooth, remains fixed. 386 Op. imp. III. 188: “Qui gratiam confirmat, hominum laudat naturam.” 387 “Libertas utriusque partis.” 388 Ep. ad Demetr.

do the good, i.e., righteousness (jus humanæ societatis).389 God desires a voluntary performer of righteousness (voluntarius executor justitiæ); it is his will that we be capable of both, and that we do one. According to Pelagius freedom of will is freedom to choose the good; according to Julian it is simply freedom of choice. The possibility of good as a natural faculty is from God,390 willing and action are our business;391 the possibility of both (possibilitas utriusque) is as a psychological faculty inevitable (a necessario); for this very reason a continual change is possible in it.392 5. Evil, sin, is willing to do that which righteousness forbids, and from which we are free to abstain,393 accordingly what we can avoid.394 It is no element or body, no nature—in that case God would be its author; nor is it a perverted nature (natura conversa), but it is always a momentary self-determination of the will, which can never pass into nature so as to give the to an evil nature.395 But if this cannot happen, so much the less can evil be inherited; for t a9c hat would do away with the goodness 195and righteousness of God, the notion of sin (as that which can be avoided), and the notion of redemption; a “natural” guilt could never be got rid of.396

389

Op. imp. I. 79. Here the humanist notion of the good is clear. To this Julian adhered, in so far as he followed out the thought at all. 390 De grat. Christi 5; de nat. et gratia, passim. (Expositions by Pelagius). ac7 391 The notion of freedom taught by the Pelagians lies in the possibilitas, and that according to Julian, the possibilitas utriusque, not merely boni. In Pelagius the possibilitas boni, and therewith responsibility, are more prominent. He does not merely say that man has freedom of choice, but also (ep. ad Demetr.) that “in animi nostris naturalis quædam sanctitas est.” 392 Klasen (pp. 229-237) distinguishes a threefold possibilitas in the Pelagians’ teaching, i.e., so many distinctions are, in fact, required, if we would escape the contradictions covered by the notion. 393 Op. imp. I. 44; V. 28, 43; VI. 17 and often. 394 Cælest. in Aug. de perfect. 1. 395 Besides the indefiniteness of the relation of reason to freedom, the wrong definition of the will, the obscurity as to the notion of ratio, and the contradictions in the notion of possibilitas, especially characteristic are the inability to give a concrete definition of evil, and the mythological fashion in which nature and will are distinguished. Why should will and nature be so completely divided, if the possibilitas belongs to nature? What is nature in general over and above will, since it is by no means held to be merely the flesh? aea 396To this point the Pelagians applied their greatest acuteness, and made just objections, see under. Pelag. in Aug. de pecc. orig. 14: “Omne bonum ac malum, quo vel laudabiles vel vituperabiles sumus, non nobiscum oritur, sed agitur a nobis: capaces enim

6. Pelagius deduced the actual existence of sin from the snares of the devil and sensuous lusts (gula and libido), and condemned concupiscence accordingly. It was necessary to overcome it by virginity and continence. It sprang not from the substance of the flesh (de substantia carnis), but from its works (ex operibus carnis), otherwise God would be its author. Pelagius took a serious view of this whole matter; but he was certain, on the other hand, that the body was subject to the soul, and that thus the relationship willed by God could be restored.397 But Julian felt that this was a vexed point. Whence came the evil desires of the flesh (desideria carnis mala) if the substance was good, and if it was yet manifest that they frequently did not spring from the will? The case of marriage, which is unthinkable without sexual desire, showed Julian that libido was permitted by God, and he attacked inexorably the artificial distinctions which Augustine sought and was compelled to make between nuptiæ and concupiscentia.398 Julian taught that concupiscence was in itself indifferent and innocent; for the actual creation was of all conceivable kinds the best; but this creation embraced sexual and all other desires. af1 399 Libido was guilty non in genere suo, non in specie, non in modo, but only in excessu; genus and species were from God, the modus depended on an honest decision (arbitrium honestatis), excess 196followed from a fault of will (vitium voluntatis).400 If it were otherwise, then baptism would necessarily eradicate, and not merely regulate, concupiscence.401 Accordingly the latter, within limits (intra modum), was good;402 he who used it moderately, used a blessing rightly; he who indulged in it immoderately, used a blessing badly; but he who from love to virginity despised even moderate indulgence, did not thereby use a good thing better.403 The shame alluded to by Augustine, which is felt even at the lawful enjoyment

utriusque rei, non pleni nascimur, et ut sine virtute ita et sine vitio procreamur atque ante actionem propriæ voluntatis id solum in homine est, quod deus condidit.” 397 See the Ep. ad Demetr.; De nat. et grat. 60-71. A grave experience is revealed in the confession (Ep. ad Demetr. 26) that the devil may often fill even those who are separated from the world with such foul and impious thoughts, that they imagine they are as wicked as when they loved the res sæculi. 398 With his distinction of marriage as good and had, Augustine resembles the charlatan who would exhibit a beast that devours itself; Jul. III. 47. 399 See especially Op. imp. Book V., and c. Julian, Book V. Augustine calls him “laudator concupiscentia;” c. Jul. III. 44. 400 C. Jul. IV. 7; III. 27. aae 401 L.c. IV. 8. 402 L.c. IV. 52. 403 Asceticism is thus declared to be superfluous, l.c. III. 42.

of desire, was explained by Julian, following the Cynics, as mere convention and custom.404 acb Christ himself possessed concupiscence.405 7. It follows from this teaching that there can always have been sinless men:406 Pelagius, indeed, argued further that since every man could resist sin (easily), he who sinned passed into hell at the Judgment;407 for every sin was really mortal, the sinner having acted against his ability to do better. Julian, moreover, taught that every excess was a mortal sin, since it was done absolutely without compulsion.408 In the end, it is said, God punishes the wicked and rewards the virtuous. But it remains wholly obscure how there can exist virtue (righteousness) and sin at all if, in practising them, a character can never be gained, if we are only concerned with fragmentary actions from which no deposit is left or sum-total formed. In the foregoing the fundamental conceptions of the Pelagians are described. But they were also, of course, Catholic Christians; 197they were accordingly compelled to harmonise these doctrines of theirs with Holy Scripture and its historical contents, with Christ and the teaching of the Church. How they did so we have still briefly to discuss in what follows. It is apparent that the difficulties in showing this agreement were extraordinarily great, and, indeed, not only for them, but for everyone who would harmonise a coherent rational doctrine with Gen. I.-III., and with hundreds of passages in Scripture. 8. Adam was created with free will—according to Pelagiusalso with ac8 what is called natural holiness” (naturalis quæ dicitur sanctitas), which consisted just in free will and reason. Julian considered this state to be morally very high and intellectually

404

Op. imp. IV. 37-43. There undoubtedly occur other passages in Julian in which the “blessing” of libido appears small, and virginity is admired. 405 L.c. IV. 45-64, and elsewhere. 406 We must here, indeed, remember the twofold meaning of posse. 407 De gest. Pelag. 11. 408 On this Pelagius laid great stress (see Op. imp. V.), expressly denying (against Augustine) that man sins because he was created ex nihilo. By referring evil to the will, every possibility of explaining its origin comes to an end; for any such explanation means proving its necessity. V. 41: “Quæritis necessitatem rei quæ esse non potest si patitur necessitatem. Huic motui animi libero, sine coactu originis inquieto, si causa ipso motu detur antiquior, non gignitur omnino sed tollitur.” V. 57-60: “ideo habuit voluntatem malam, quia voluit.”

low.409 All are, however, agreed that Adam’s endowments were the peculiar and inalienable gift of divine grace (gratia). 9. Adam sinned through free will (Julian esteemed this sin of slight account);410 but by this sin his nature was not corrupted. Nor was natural death a consequence of it, for it is natural; but spiritual death, the condemnation of the soul on account of sin, was the result of sin.411 10. Natural death was accordingly not inherited from Adam; moreover, spiritual death was only in so far as his descendants likewise sinned. If all men died through Adam’s death, then all would necessarily rise again through the resurrection of Christ.412 11. Still much less was Adam’s sin or guilt transmitted. The doctrine of transmitted and original sin (tradux peccati and peccatum originis) is Manichæan and blasphemous; it is equally absurd whether viewed in relation to God, or man, or the notion of sin, or 198Christ, or Holy Scripture. In relation to God, for his righteousness is annulled by imputing the sins of others, and regarding as sinful a nature that has not yet sinned, just as much as it would be by ushering into the world, laden with sin, human beings born after Adam’s fall. In relation to a96 man, for a vitiated nature is then equivalent to a bad nature; if a nature possesses evil, it is bad; but in that case the guilt falls upon God, for he is responsible for our nature; further, sin could only propagate itself, if we assumed a procreation of souls; but this assumption is absurd; finally, if sin is propagated through marriage, so that desire in marriage is and transmits sin, marriage is thereby condemned. In relation to the notion of sin, for sin is absolutely embraced by the will, so that it does not exist at all, where there is no free-will; further, even if it could propagate itself, it could not be transmitted by baptised parents; lastly, Augustine’s contention that sin is itself

409

Op. imp. VI. 14-23. Op. Imp. VI. 23; VI. 14, he lets it appear plainly enough that the Fall was an advantage for aaa Adam: “porro ignorantia quam profunda quamque patiendi ejus dura conditio, ut liberari ab ea nisi prævaricatione non posset, scientiam quippe boni malique absque ansa condemnabili nequaquam capessiturus.” 411 Thus first Cælestius (Karthago, s. Diospolis; de pecc. mer. 2). So also Julian, op. imp. II. 66. Common death is natural. Yet here Julian has tried to compromise. He will not deny that natural death has a connection with sin; i.e., it had really to be annulled by merits; but his explanations in Book II. are very tortuous. Without sin death would have been “levissima”; but God cannot do away with it entirely even for saints, for (VI. 30): “non est tanti unius meritum, ut universa quæ naturaliter sunt instituta perturbet.” 412 Thus already Cælestius. 410

used by God as a punishment of sin, that there is a divine law of sin, etc., is absurd and immoral. In relation to Christ, for were nature bad, it could not be redeemed, or, were there an inherited sin which became natural to man, Christ also must have possessed it. In relation to Holy Scripture, as countless passages show that sin is a matter of the will, and that God punishes each for his own sins alone. Rom. V. 12, merely asserts that all die because they themselves sin like Adam, or something similar; in any case it contains nothing to support inherited sin.413 12. Thus all men created by God are in the position in which Adam was before the fall.414 An unessential difference exists only in so far as Adam possessed at once the use of reason, while children do not; that Adam was still untaught, while children are born into a society in which the custom of evil prevails. Pelagius at least teaches this.415 The mere capacity 199city of either (mera capacitas utriusque) is the original innocence. 58a 416 13. The habit of sinning, working by example, according to Pelagius, weakens the will (?). Yet nothing can be said as to how it really works; for otherwise the indifference of the will417 is destroyed. Probably the meaning was that the possibility of good remained wholly intact, but the habit of sinning darkened reason.418

413

It is superfluous to quote passages; see the detailed account in Klasen, pp. 116-182. Julian’s explanation of Rom. V. 12 occurs in c. Jul. VI. 75-81. Besides charging him with Manichæism, Julian also accused Augustine of Traducianism, though he was no Traducian. The heretical name of “Traduciani” was originated by Julian (Op. imp. I. 6). 414 De pecc. orig. 34. 415 Ep. ad Demetr. The reign of sin in the world is also elsewhere strongly emphasised by Pelagius. 416 This talk of primitive innocence is already in Julian a case of accommodation; for innocence of course always remains really the same. C. Jul. III. 36: “homo igitur innocentia quidem plenus, sed virtutis capax nascitur, aut laudem aut reprehensionem ex proposito accedente meriturus . . . nec justos nasci parvulos nec injustos, quod futuri sunt actibus suis, sed tantummodo infantiam innocentiæ dote locupletem.” But the same chapter shows what is after all meant by this “innocence”: Perfecta ignorantia (in scripturis justitia nominatur). 417 Op. imp. I. 91: ⍊ac8 liberum arbitrium et post peccata tam plenum est quam fuit ante peccata.” 418 Here, as in Stoicism, there is a gap in the system. Why is rational man irrational and bad? How can he possess ratio and an evil will at the same time? And how is the sinful habit explained?—Julian also says, besides (Op. imp. I. 16) “consuetudo peccati amorem delicti facit et exstinguit pudorem;” but he means in the teaching of Augustine.

14. It is when we come to discuss grace that it is hardest to reproduce the view of the Pelagians; for it was here that they found it most necessary to accommodate their opinions. Very strong assertions occur in Pelagius and Julian—Cælestius was more reserved ac5 419—as to the necessity of divine grace (adjutorium) for every good work.420 We also find statements to the effect 421 200that grace facilitated goodness. Finally, others occur which teach that grace is superfluous, nay, strictly speaking, in itself

419

“The will is not free, if it needs God’s help” (De gestis 42). “Si per gratiam (De gestis 30) omnia facimus, quando vincimur a peccato, non nos vincimur, sed dei gratia, quæ voluit nos adjuvare omni modo et non potuit.” 420 We can, indeed, exemplify almost all the principles of Augustinianism from the utterances of Pelagius and Julian. The number of passages in their works which sound like good Church doctrine is very great. We should require to quote these also in order to give an idea of the figure presented by the two men to the world; but this would carry us beyond our present limits. We do not, however, do injustice to their thought by omitting them; for they are only characteristic of their mode of expression. Pelagius never denied publicly that man always needed the divine grace, that he could only adjuvante gratia esse sine peccato (see De gestis 16, 22, 31; De gratia 2: “anathemo qui vel sentit vel dicit, gratiam dei, qua Christus venit in hunc mundum peccatores salvos facere, non solum per singulas horas aut per singula momenta, sed etiam per singulos actus nostros non esse necessariam, et qui hanc conantur auferre, pœnas sortiantur æternas”; see also his Confession to the Pope). Julian used, if possible, still stronger expressions; but both very often said exactly the o 564 pposite of what is here given. But they never did say that the grace of God through Christ established freedom from sin and salvation. 421 These are the usual ones: free will exists in all men, but it is only supported by grace in the case of Christians (De gratia, 34); the rest only possess the “nudum et inerme conditionis bonum.” Similarly Julian, but still more strongly (Op. imp. I. 40): “quos fecit quia voluit nec condemnat nisi spretus; si cum non spernitur, faciat consecratione meliores, nec detrimentum justitiæ patitur et munificentia miserationis ornatur.” I. 111: “malæ voluntati veniam pro inæstimabili liberalitate largitur et innocentiam, quam creat bonam, facit innovando adoptandoque meliorem” (but can anything be better than good?). III. 106: “Quod ais, ad colendum recte deum sine ipsius adjutorio dici a nobis sufficere unicuique libertatem arbitrii, omnino mentiris. Cum igitur cultus dei multis intelligatur modis, et in custodia mandatorum et in execratione vitiorum et in simplicitate conversationi aae s et in ordine mysteriorum et in profunditate dogmatum . . . qui fieri potest, ut nos in confuso dicamus, sine adjutorio dei liberum arbitrium sufficiens ad ejus esse culturam . . . cunt utique ista omnia, tam quæ dogmatibus quam quæ mysteriis continentur, libertas arbitrii per se non potuerit invenire, etc.” There we see clearly how we are to understand the “adjutorium”; it consists solely in the law of dogmas and mysteries given by God and not discovered by man, but not in a power. Therefore, because God had invented so many institutions, Julian can proceed: “hominem innumeris divinæ gratiæ speciebus juvari . . . præcipiendo, benedicendo, sanctificando, coercendo, provocando, illuminando.”

impossible.422 It is no injustice to the Pelagians to take the two latter positions, which, to a certain extent can be combined, as giving their true opinion; for it was assuredly the chief intention of Pelagius to deprive Christians of their indolent reliance on grace, and Julian’s main object was to show that the human constitution bore merit and salvation in its own lap. The proposition “homo libero arbitrio emancipatus a deo” really contains the protest against any grace.423 15. By grace we have throughout to understand in the first place the grace of creation;424 it is so glorious that 201there have been perfect men even among heathens and Jews.425 16. In the second place, it denotes the law (lex) of God; indeed, all grace, in so far as it is not nature, can at bottom have no other character than that of illumination and instruction (doctrina). This facilitates the doing of the good.426 17. Thirdly, grace means the grace of God through Christ. This also is at bottom illuminatio et doctrina;427 Christ works by his

422

Impossible as a power, since the will cannot actually be determined. On this point Cælestius has alone expressed himself clearly, but Julian holds the same view, as he is never tired saying: “cunctarum origo virtutum in rationabili animo sita est.” 423 This proposition of Julian’s is properly the key to the whole mode of thought: man created free is with his whole sphere independent of God. He has no longer to do with God, but with himself alone. God only re-enters at the end (at the judgment). 424 The statements of the Pelagians as to grace are very often rendered intentionally (e.g., De gestis Pel. 22) ambiguous, by their understanding it to mean the grace of creation, and accordingly nature. Yet this is not the rule. Pelagius and Julian distinguish three states: ex natura, sub lege, sub gratia (Christi); see C. duas epp., I. 39. 57e 425“Perfecta justitia” also in the old covenant (l.c.) and among “antiqui homines.” Julian often cites the perfect heathens, and sneers at Augustine’s “splendida vitia.” If the virtues of the heathens are not virtues, their eyes are not eyes (c. Jul. IV. 26-30). Pelagius has made wholly contradictory statements on this point; Julian afterwards became more prudent; but, finally, he always held the opinion that there was no difference between a good Christian and a good heathen. 426 The law was the first augmentum beneficiorum dei; but it was at the same time the fundamental form of all that God could further do after creation. Pelagius has expressed himself very plainly (De gestis 30): “gratiam dei et adjutorium non ad singulos actus dari (in other places he says the opposite) sed in libero arbitrio esse vel in lege ac doctrina.” That accordingly is all. A ac8 ugustine therefore says very rightly that Pelagius only admitted the grace “qua demonstrat et revelat deus quid agere debeamus, non qua donat atque adjuvat ut agamus.” 427 See preceding note and Cælestius’ statement: “lex sic mittit ad regnum cælorum quomodo et evangelium.”

example.428 Pelagius and Julian admit that the habit of sinning was so great that Christ’s appearance was necessary.429 Julian’s conception of this appearance was that Christ owed what he became to his free will.430 But it was necessary, over and above instruction (doctrina), to assume, in conformity with Church teaching and practice, an effective action through Christ 202on the part of God. The Pelagians did not deny that this was represented in baptism and the remissions granted by God; they taught the forgiveness of sins through baptism. But they could not show wherein this forgiveness consisted without coming into conflict with freedom. As regards infant baptism, they dared no longer dispute its necessity; indeed, they dared no longer flatly declare that it was not given for the remission of sins. They derived a certain consecration and sanctification from it, but they disputed the doctrine that children dying unbaptised were lost; these would only fail to enter the kingdom of heaven, the highest grade of felicity.431 18. Finally, the Pelagians taught that this grace through Christ was compatible with the righteousness (justitia) of God, because the latter did not preclude an increase of benefits,432 but that grace was given secundum merita (according to the merits of the rational

428

Example and imitation, see Op. imp. II. 146 sq. C. Jul. V. 58: “tolle exempli causam, tolle et pretii, quod pro nobis factus est.” Julian also ultimately reduced the death of Christ to a type, Op. imp. II. 223. 429 Op. imp. II. 217-222. 430 It is very instructive that to Julian (as to Augustine) it is the man that forms the personality in Jesus. He is distinguished from Augustine by saying that the man Jesus was chosen by God and united with Christ secundum merita. The profectus is also more plainly marked: Jesus was gradually adopted by the Word of God; the filius hominis gradually became the filius dei through the achievement of his will. Accordingly, unless Augustine has greatly exaggerated, this still might be taught with impunity at that time in the West (see Op. imp. IV. 84). 431 The evasions in the ca 556 se of baptism are so numerous that it is not worth while mentioning separate instances. The notion of forgiveness was in itself very irksome to the Pelagians; it could be at most a kind of indulgence, with difficulty compatible with justice. They also touched on the question whether baptism extirpates sin or removes guilt; but for them the question was senseless. As regards infant baptism, all their statements are to be derived from the fact that they would neither abolish it, nor admit baptisms of different value. The distinction between regnum cælorum and vita æterna was an eschatological rudiment, in this case welcome. 432 Op. imp. I. 72, III. 163: “augmenta beneficiorum divinorum utilia esse et necessaria omnibus in commune ætatibus dicimus, ita tamen ut nec virtus nec peccatum sine propria cuiquam voluntate tribuatur.”

spirit) because in any other case God would have been unjust. 56b 1 The contention, however, that it was absolutely necessary was never seriously advocated by them, and was frequently denied, and in the thesis that the operation of the gospel is not different from that of the law, the former is in point of fact completely reduced to the level of the latter. But the law is itself nothing but a crutch not necessary to everyone. Man is to be sinless: this state we can attain by our will; but sinlessness (impeccantia) is rendered easy to the Christian; for by looking to Christ he can easily turn, and in baptism, the 203mysteries, dogmas, and the commandments, he from the first possesses nothing but means to promote virtue. All that Christ did and the Church does is considered not as action but as teaching. The Pelagians deserve respect for their purity of motive, their horror of the Manichæan leaven and the opus operatum, their insistence on clearness, and their intention to defend the Deity. aca 1 But we cannot but decide that their doctrine fails to recognise the misery of sin and evil, that in its deepest roots it is godless, that it knows, and seeks to know, nothing of redemption, and that it is dominated by an empty formalism (a notional mythology) which does justice at no single point to actual quantities, and on a closer examination consists of sheer contradictions. In the form in which this doctrine was expressed by Pelagius—and in part also by Julian—i.e., with all the accommodations to which he condescended, it was not a novelty.433 But in its fundamental thought it was; or, rather, it was an innovation because it abandoned, in spite of all accommodations in expression, the pole of the mystical doctrine of redemption, which the Church had steadfastly maintained side by side with the doctrine of freedom.434

aad 433

De gestis 30: “De gratiam secundum merita nostra dari, quia si peccatoribus illam det, videtur esse iniquus.” This destroys the notion of grace; for it is only as gratuitous that it is grace. Here it takes the form of a means of rewarding the good. But if grace is neither gratis nor a power, it is nothing but an empty word. 434 That Augustinianism is identical with Manichæism runs through Julian’s polemic like a red line. “Sub laude baptismatis eructat Augustinus Manichæorum sordes ac naturale peccatum, ut ecclesiæ catholicæ pura hactenus sacramenta contaminet” (Op. imp. I. 9). 435 His condemnation was, therefore—from a legal standpoint—not above question; the rejection of his energetic appeal to freedom in Church instruction not in every respect salutary. 436 But from this point of view it could not be thoroughly opposed. Augustinianism could alone overcome it. Augustine’s criticism of this system will be best given through an exposition of his own.

III. The fundamental notion of Pelagianism is nature embracing free will (liberum arbitrium); the fundamental notion of Augustinianism is grace, and in the Pelagian controversy the grace of God through Christ.437 In Pelagianism the doctrine of grace amounts to an “appendix” badly connected with the main subject; in Augustinianism the doctrine of nature is beset 204with contradictions, because it is impossible to give a rational account of nature and history from the standpoint of the grace of experience. For it is absolutely impossible to develop as a rational doctrine the conviction of the transforming grace of God who is also the creator; it must begin and end with the confession: “How incomprehensible are God’s judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” Augustine, sneered at as “Aristoteles Pœnorum” as “philosophaster Pœnorum” (O ac8 p. imperf. III. 198, V. 11), knew this also. But living in an age when it was held to be culpable ignorance and unbelief not to answer all possible questions, and penetrated by the vulgar conviction that Holy Scripture solved all problems, he, too, made the highest facts and the feelings of the inner life which he had gained in the gospel the starting-point of a description of “primitive history” and the history of mankind that could not but end in contradictions. At the same time, the pathological experiences of the course of his life are mirrored in this description. The stream of living water still bears in its depths traces of the gloomy banks past which it once had flowed, and into which it had almost sunk.438 1. Mankind is, as experience shows, a “mass of sin” [massa peccati (perditionis)], waited on by death, and incapable of raising itself to the good; for having revolted from God, it could no more return to him than an empty vessel could refill itself. But in Christ the Redeemer—and in him alone—the grace of God manifested itself and entered on the work of man’s deliverance. Christ by his death removed the gulf between God and mankind—breaking the rule of the devil—so that the grace of God, which for that reason is gratia per (propter) Christum, could pursue its work.439 This free

437

Therefore the Pelagians attacked Augustine’s doctrine of nature, and he their doctrine of grace. Everything that Augustine has to say to the Pelagians springs properly from the proof that they were ignorant of the nature of grace, and therefore also of that of sin. 438 Since Augustine’s fundamental theological conceptions have been already discussed above (see p. 94 ff. ), we have here only to examine the doctrine of grace, and that of sin and the primitive state. This order is self-evident, while Pelagianism started at the doctrine of an indestructible nature. 439 Expositions of the death of Christ as the ground of salvation are frequent in Augustine. But they refer mostly to the reign of the devil, which was legally abrogated by

grace (gratia gratis 205data)440 working in the Church, is beginning, middle, and end. Its aim is the rescue from the massa perditionis, that as guilty falls justly a prey to eternal death, of a fixed number of elect (certus nume ac8 rus electorum), who enter eternal life. They are saved because God, in virtue of his eternal decree of salvation, has predestinated, chosen, called, justified, sanctified, and preserved them.441 This is done through grace,

Christ’s death; on the other hand, they are much rarer when Augustine speaks of positive redemption. This deliverance from the devil’s power was the common conception of Christ’s death; it was the pretium paid for us to the devil, which he could not, however, retain. But it plays a sub ab2 ordinate part in Augustine’s whole system; even the thought that God must be propitiated, of which we have echoes in Augustine, is not strictly carried out. The grace of God to him means, as a rule, the annulling of the state of sin. It is involved, however, in the nature of the case, that the reference is uncertain; for it is hard to demonstrate how a “state” is changed effectively by the death of Christ. But the looseness of connection was also a result of Augustine’s conception of God; for grace, at bottom, emanated from the inscrutable decree of God, or the bonum esse. Augustine rarely connects gratia infusa in his thought with Christ, but with caritas, which is the essence of the Good. Here we have once more to remember that Christ himself, as a historical manifestation, was an instance in Augustine’s view of predestinating grace (see above, p. 129). “Therefore the activity of Christ, who, as living eternally, works directly in us, is loosely connected with the historical process of propitiation” (Dorner, p. 182). That is, this “ever living Christ” is himself nothing but grace. In Enchir. 108, Augustine has summed up all he had to say on the import of Christ’s work; but it will be found that, although the reconciliatio cum deo—only, indeed, as restoration to God—is not wanting, what is called “objective redemption” is left pretty much in the background. Augustine accordingly conceived the import of Christ spiritually: “Neque per ipsum liberaremur unum mediatorem dei et hominum hominem Jesum Christum, nisi esset et deus. Sed cum factus est Adam homo, scil. rectus, mediatore non opus erat. Cum vero genus humanum peccata longe separaverunt a deo, per mediatorem, qui solus sine peccato natus est, vixit, occisus est, reconciliari nos oportebat deo usque ad carnis resurrectionem in vitam æternam, ut humana superbia per humililatem dei argueretur (that is the main thought, see above, p. 131 f.) ac sanaretur et demonstraretur homini quam longe a deo recesserat (to-day this conception of Christ’s work would be called rationalistic), cum per incarnatum deum revocaretur et exemplum obedientiæ per hominem-deum (this expression, “homo-deus” was not used, so far as I know, before Augustine) contumaci homini præberetur, et unigenito suscipiente formam servi, quæ nihil ante meruerat, fons gratiæ panderetur et carnis etiam resurrectio redemptis promissa in ipso redemptore præmonstraretur, et per eandem naturam quam se decepisse lætabatur, diabolus vinceretur, nec tamen homo gloriaretur, ne iterum superbia nasceretur, etc.” 56c 440 Enchir. 107: “Gratia vero nisi gratis est, gratia non est.” 441 See the writings De corrept. et gratia, De dono perseverantiæ, De prædest. sanctorum, as well as expositions in all the works of Augustine’s last years; for they

which thus is (1) prevenient;442 206for it must first create the good will (faith).443 (This prevenient grace can be combined with “the call” (vocatio);444 but we must even here remember that the call comes to some who are not “called according to the purpose.”445 In the strict sense the whole transactions of grace apply only to those who are predestinated;446 in the wider sense, grace operates as far as sanctification in a much greater circle, who, however, finally perish, because they have not received its last work.)447 Augustine has inserted his whole religious experience in the confession of free and prevenient grace. He nowhere speaks with greater conviction, more simply and grandly, than where he praises the grace tha ac8 t snatches man from his sinful condition. But grace (2) works co-operatively.448 This work evolves itself in a series of stages, since naturally it is only possible slowly and gradually to reach the goal whose attainment is desired, viz., the perseverance

never fail to prove that he more and more recognised the doctrine of predestinating grace to be the main one. Predestination does not rest on the foreknowledge that those particular men would follow grace, but it effects this result. The scriptural proof is Rom. IX. (see De prædest. 34). 442 Enchir. 32: “Nolentem prævenit ut velit, volentem subsequitur, ne frustra velit.” De gratia et lib. arb. 33: “præparat voluntatem et cooperando perficit, quod operando inficit. Quoniam ipse ut velimus operatur incipiens.” There are countless other passages. 443 De spir et litt. 34: “Non credere potest quodlibet libero arbitrio, si nulla sit suasio vel vocatio cui credat; profecto et ipsum velle credere deus operatur in homine et in omnibus misericordia ejus prævenit nos: consentire autem vocationi dei vel ab ea dissentire propriæ voluntatis est.” Augustine’s favourite text was, “Quid habes, quod non accepisti.” 444 See preceding note. 445 See Augustine’s last writings, e.g., De corr. 39; De præd. 32. The means of grace are uncertain; the universal vocatio should be successful, but it is not. 446 Here it is true that “deus ita suadet ut persuadeat.” De prædest. 34: “Electi sunt ante mundi constitutionem ea prædestinatione, in qua deus sua futura facta præscivit; electi sunt autem de mundo ea vocatione, qua deus id, quod prædestinavit, implevit. Quos enim prædestinavit, ipsos et vocavit, illa scilicet vocatione secundum propositum, non ergo alios sed quos prædestinavit ipsos et vocavit, nec alios, sed quos prædestinavit, vocavit justificavit, ipsos et glorificavit, illo utique fine, qui non habet finem.” 568 447 Therefore it was possible for Augustine to conceive the means of grace as acting in the case of heretics, because he felt their efficacy in general to be in the end uncertain. 448 See above, note 1. The commonest term is “adjutorium,” which the Pelagians also used, but with a quite different meaning. They thought of a crutch, Augustine of a necessary power.

and complete and actual regeneration of man449—re-creation 207into good men—accordingly his being rendered capable of doing good works of piety and possessing merit. The calling (vocatio) first results in faith as God’s gift. This faith is itself subject to growth, i.e., it begins as unquestioning acceptance based on the authority of the Church and Scripture; it presents itself further as obedience, then trust (fiducia) believing God, belief about God, belief on God (credere deum, credere de deo, credere in deum) and as such passes into love.450 Parallel with this goes the effective (visible) action of grace in the Church,451 which begins with the remission of sins.452 This is administered in baptism, and since the latter removes the guilt of original sin,453 and blots out sins previously committed, it is the “ba 564 th of regeneration.” But it is so only as an initiatory act; for the actual justification, which corresponds to co-operating grace, is not yet gained, where sin is no longer imputed, but only where the irreligious man has become just, where accordingly an actual renovation has taken place. This is effected through the infusion of love into the heart by

449

That is, this regeneration, su ac8 rpassing forgiveness of sin and faith, is always considered the goal. That is the moral phase of the religious movement. Renovatio = justificatio = sanctificatio = sanctitas. Thus even regeneration is only perfect at the close. Enchir. 31: “We become free when God fashions us into good men.” 450 On faith as an advancing process of faith see Dorner, pp. 183-195. Originally, faith is contrasted with knowledge; it is the acceptance on authority of things we cannot know, nay, of what is contrary to reason; but it grows into assensus, fiducia, and spiritual perception, and thus passes into love, or, according to Paul and James, into the faith that works in love. 451 Yet, as follows from the above exposition, the whole process of grace is completely subjective, although the parallel of the rites of the Church is maintained. 452 Augustine was the first to make baptism a real act of initiation (Ench. 64: “a baptismate incipit renovatio”). The forgiveness of sins has an independent value only for the baptised child if it dies; otherwise it is an initiation. Here, and for this reason, we have Luther’s divergence in the notion of faith. De grat. et lib. arb. 27: “neque scientia divinæ legis, neque natura neque sola remissio peccatorum est illa gratia per Christum, sed ipsa facit, ut lex impleatur.” 453 For Augustine’s system it is a grave defect, sufficiently animadverted on also by the Pelagians, tha 564 t baptism only removes the guilt of inherited sin; for with him removal of guilt is really a slight matter, in any case not the chief concern. But in the formulas the “non imputare,” as well as fides, undoubtedly appears as the chief thing. In reality, while the removal of guilt is the object of fides historica, sin is blotted out by gratia infusa. Where Augustine seeks to retain guilt as the supreme conception, he always turns to its punishment. Man is emptied by sin. Thus sin bears its punishment in itself. Man despoiled, however, is much too dependent, too much of a cipher, to be able to possess guilt.

the Holy Spirit, and this love substitutes 208good for evil desire (concupiscence). That is, the man now not only makes the joyful confession: “To me to cleave to God is a good thing,” and delights in God as the summum bonum, instead of in perishable possessions (the humility of faith, love and hope in place of pride of heart), but gains also the power to do good works. This new frame of mind and capacity, which grace begets through the gift of the Holy Spirit, is the experience of justification by faith (justificatio ex fide).454 Justification is an act th 564 at takes place once for all, and is completed sub specie æternitatis, and with reference to the fact that everything can be comprised in faith. As an empirical experience, however, it is a process never completed in this world, because the being replenished with faith, which through love labours to effect the complete transformation of man, is itself subject to limitation in our present life.455 This operation 209of the spirit of love has its parallel in the effective (visible) dealings of

454

The formula justificatio ex fide is very frequent in Augustine. De spiritu et litt. 45: “cum dicat gratis justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis, nihil aliud volens intelligi in eo, quod dicit gratis, nisi quia justificationem opera non præcedunt. . . Quid est aliud justificati quam justi facti ab illo scilicet qui justificat impium ut ex impio fiat justus.” 15: “non quod sine voluntate nost ac8 ra justificatio fiat, sed voluntas nostra ostenditur infirma per legem, ut sanet gratia voluntatem et sanata voluntas impleat legem.” C. Jul. II. 23: “justificatio in hac vita nobis secundum tria ista confertur: prius lavacro regenerationis, quo remittuntur cuncta peccata, deinde congressione cum vitiis, a quorum reatu absoluti sumus, tertio dum nostra exaudiatur oratio, qua dicimus, Dimitte nobis debita nostra.” The whole process up to the meritis and vita æterna in De gratia et lib. arb. 20. Love alone decides salvation, because it alone replenishes the man despoiled by sin. Man receives his final salvation by being restored through the spirit of love to goodness, being, and God, and by being united with him mystically yet really. The depreciation of faith follows necessarily from the notions of God, the creature and sin, all three of which have the mark of the acosmic. Since there is no independence beside God, the act of faith on the part of a subject in the presence of God only obtains any value when it is transformed into union with God—the “being filled” by God. This union, however, is a product of the freed will and gratia (cooperans). 455 This is argued very often by Augustine. The bona concupiscentia can, as experience shows, never wholly supplant on earth the mala. (De spiritu 6: “adjuvat spiritus sanctus inspirans pro concupiscentia mala concupiscentiam bonam, hoc est caritatem diffundens in cordibus nostris.”) For this very reason diffusio caritatis (gratia infusa, inspiratio dilectio—Augustine has many synonyms for this power of justification) is never perfected. Thus justification, which is identical with sanctification, is never completed because “opera” also are essential to it. Augustine appealed expressly to James. Gratia, however, is never imparted secundum merita bonaæ voluntatis, let alone bonorum operum; it first calls them forth.

grace in the Church, and that in the Lord’s Supper (the incorporation into the love and unity of Christ’s body) as well as in the Eucharistic sacrifice, penance, and Church works, so far as these are capable of blotting out sin.456 These works, however, possess still anot 564 her value. Renunciation of worldly pleasure is only completed in asceticism, and since at the Judgment God will deal with us in accordance with our works, the completion of justification can only consist in the sanctification, in virtue of which particular possessions—marriage, property, etc.—are wholly abandoned. It is not, indeed, absolutely necessary for everyone to fulfil the counsels of the gospel (consilia evangelica); we can live in faith, hope, and love without them. God’s grace does not make everyone a saint,457 to be worshipped, and to be implored to intercede for us. But everybody who is to be crowned must ultimately possess merits in some degree; for, at the Judgment, merits will alone be crowned, these ever being, indeed, like all good, God’s gifts.458 But the perseverance of the elect in love through t ab8 he whole course of their life until the Judgment is (3) the highest and last gift of grace, which now appears as irresistible. Perseverance to the end is the good, without which all that went before is nothing. Therefore, in a sense, it alone is grace; for only those are finally saved who have obtained this irresistible grace. The called who do not possess it are lost. But why only a few 210obtain this gift, though it is bestowed secundum merita, is God’s secret.459 Eternal life and eternal damnation are decreed by one and the same justice.460

456

See above, p. 155. We have to notice here also the juxtaposition of the two processes, the outer and inner. 564 For the rest, the whole account of the process of salvation is not yet reduced to a strict plan. Augustine still confuses the stages, and, fortunately, has no fixed terminology. Scholasticism first changed all this. 457 No one can wholly avoid sin; but the saints can refrain from crimes (Enchir. 64). 458 The work “De fide et operibus” is especially important at this point. Augustine expressly denies, c. 40, that faith and knowledge of God suffice for final blessedness. He holds by the saying: “Hereby we know him, if we keep his commandments.” Against reformers like Jovinian, and not only against them, he defended the consilia, monachism, the higher morality, and the saints. De gratia et lib. arb. 1: abe “per gratiam dei bona merita comparamus quibus ad vitam perveniamus æternam.” By these merita, works thoroughly ascetic are to be understood; see also the writings, De sancta virgin., and De bono viduit., in which, for the rest, Augustine is still more favourable to marriage than at a later date. His writings are at all times marked by a lofty appreciation of almsgiving. 459 That grace is gratis data only appears certain to Augustine from the contention that it is irresistibilis, and embraces the donum perseverantiæ. The doctrine that the election of grace is unconditioned thus appears most plainly at the close of the whole line of thought; see De corrept et grat. 34, and the writings De dono persev. and De prædest.

2. The doctrine of sin, the Fall, and the primitive state is sketched from the standpoint of free and prevenient grace. It follows from the doctrine of grace that sin characterises mankind as they now exist. Sin presents itself essentially as being without God (carentia dei), the voluntary diminution of strength of being.461 The failure to possess God (privatio boni), the non inhærere deo, constitutes sin, and, indeed, the two thoughts—the one metaphysical, that sin is defect of being, the other ethical, that it is defect of goodness—coincide as we reflect on them,462 just as in the examination of grace the metaphysical (the finding of being from not-being) and the ethico-religious elements always accord. This sin is a state: the wretched necessity of being unable to refrain from sinning (misera necessitas non posse non peccandi). Freedom in the sense of free choice is not destroyed; 574 463 but the freedom still existing always leads to sin; and this state is all the more dreadful, as there exists a certain knowledge of the good, nay, even a powerless desire for it, which invariably succumbs.464 Positively, however, the sinful state presents itself as the rule of the devil over men, 211as pride465 and concupiscence.466 From that rule it follows that ma aae n must be redeemed from without before he can be helped.467 Pride in relation to God and concupiscence show that man is sinful in soul and body. Yet the emphasis falls on

sanct. But, according to Augustine, no one can be certain that he possesses this grace. Therefore with all his horror of sin, Augustine had not experienced the horror of uncertainty of salvation. For this reason Christ can take so secondary a place in the working out of the process of grace. Christ is for him the Redeemer, and is actively present in the Sacraments; but he is not the pledge of the inner assurance of salvation. 460 But Augustine assumes different degrees also in definitive salvation and perdition. That is characteristic for his moral theory. 461 Dorner, p. 124 ff. 462 See above, p. 114 f. 55c 463This was constantly admitted by Augustine. 464 We find in Augustine the two positions, that sinful man does not will goodness, and that he yet, under a blind impulse, pursues blessings, nay, even the good, but without ever attaining them. 465 The inclination to nothing (not-being) is always at the same time a striving for independence, which is false, and ends in being resultless. ada 466Pride is the sin of the soul, concupiscence essentially that of the body which masters the soul. The inner evolution of sin from privatio (defectus) boni to ignorantia, concupiscentia, error, dolor, metus, delectatio morbida, see Enchir. 23. What Augustine always regarded most in sin was the infirmity, the wound. 467 The work of the historical Christ is essentially redemption from the power of the devil.

concupiscence;468 it is the lower desire, sensuous lust, which shows itself above all in the lust of the flesh. The motus genitalium, independent even of the will, teaches us that nature is corrupt; it has not become vice (vitium), but it is vitiated (natura vitiata).469 It

468

Here enters the popular Catholic element, still further accentuated, however, by Augustine. Enchir. 117: “Regnat carnalis cupiditas, ubi non est dei caritas.” 469 The extremely disgusting disquisitions on marriage and lust in the polemical writings against Julian (also De civ. dei XIV.) are, as the latter rightly perceived, hardly independent of Augustine’s Manichæism: (Julian, indeed, traces Traducianism to Manichæism; see Op. imperf. III. 172). (Manichæism, besides, already appears, in the treatment of the “ex nihilo,” as if it were an evil substance; Neoplatonism alone does not, in my opinion, explain this conception; yet the above dependence cannot be strictly proved—see Loofs, D.-Gesch., 3 Ed., p. 215.) And the disquisitions are by no means a mere outwork in Augustine’s system; they belong to its very centre. The most remarkable feature in the sexual sphere was, in his view, the involuntariness of the impulse. But instead of inferring that it could not therefore be sinful—and this should have been the inference in keeping with the principle “omne peccatum e 564 x voluntate”—he rather concludes that there is a sin which belongs to nature, namely, to natura vitiata, and not to the sphere of the will. He accordingly perceives a sin rooted in natura, of course in the form which it has assumed, a sin that propagates itself with our nature. It would be easy now to prove that in thinking of inherited sin, he always has chiefly in view this very sin, the lust of procreation; but it is impracticable to quote his material here. It is clear that inherited sin is the basis of all wickedness, and that it is in quite a different position front actual sins, because in it nature, having become evil, infects the whole being. But it is obvious that this was an unheard of novelty in the Church, and must be explained by reference to Manichæism. Of course Augustine did not intend to be a Manichæan. He distinguishes sharply between vitium and natura vitiate (De nupt. 36; Op. imp. III. 188, etc., etc.,); he strives to introduce the “voluntarium” even into inherited sin (Retract. I. 13, 5); but dualism is not surmounted simply by supposing nature to have become “mala,” and yet to propagate itself as evil, and the voluntarium is a mere assertion. The dualism lies in the proposition that children possess original sin, because their parents have procreated them in lust—and by this proposition stands or falls t abe he doctrine of original sin (De nupt. II. 15). So also Christ has sinlessness attributed to him, because he was not born of marriage (Ench. 41, 34), and Augustine imagined paradisaical marriages in which children were begotten without lust, or, as Julian says jestingly, were to be shaken from trees. All that he here maintains had been long ago held by Marcion and the Gnostics. One would have, in fact, to be a very rough being not to be able, and that without Manichæism, to sympathise with his feeling. But to yield to it so far as Augustine did, without rejecting marriage in consequence, could only happen at a time when doctrines were as confused as in the fifth century. Those, indeed, have increased the confusion still further, who have believed that they could retain Augustine’s doctrine of inherited sin while rejecting his teaching as to concupiscence. But the history of dogma is the history of ever increasing confusions, and of a growing indifference not only to the absurd, but also to contradictions, because the Church was only with difficulty capable of

212therefore

propagates sin. That it does so is attested by the evidence of the senses, the sensuous, and therefore sinful pleasure in the act of procreation, and by Holy Scripture (Rom. V. 12 f.). Thus mankind is a massa perditionis also in the sense that it procreates sin in itself from a corrupt nature. But since the soul in all probability is not procreated at the same time, it is in each case created by God,470 so the body, begotten in the lust of the flesh, is quite essentially the bearer of sin.471 That the latter thus descends is decreed by God; for sin is not always merely sin, but also, or often only, the punishment of sin ( 57e peccatum and malum combine in the sense of evil).472 The sin which descends in the massa perditionis (peccatum originis, tradux peccati) is at once sin and sin’s punishment. This has been ordained by him who decreed sins (the “ordinator peccatorum).” Every desire involves infatuation. It is the penalty of sin that we do the evil we would not. Every sin carries with it dissolution, the death of the sinner. It rends and 213dismembers him, it empties him and exhausts him, until he no longer exists. Thus death reigns in its various forms, till it reaches eternal death, in the massa perditionis. This humanity which is subject to the dreary necessity of not being able to refrain from sin (non posse non peccare) is therefore also and at the same time subject to the dreadful necessity of not bein 564 g able to escape death (non posse non mori).473 No power of its own can rescue it. Its best deeds are all stained from the roots; therefore they are nothing but splendid vices. Its youngest offspring, even if they have done nothing sinful, must necessarily be lost; for since they possess original sin, i.e., are destitute of God, and are burdened with concupiscence, they pass justly into damnation.474 This is

giving up anything found in tradition. It cannot also be said that Augustine by his theory simply gave expression to the monastic tendency (Jerome, indeed, has gone just as far in his rejection of marriage—see lib. adv. Jovin.); for this was a tendency and not a theory. The legitimate point in Augustine’s doctrine lies in the judgment passed by the child of God on himself, viz., that without God he is wretched, and that this wretchedness is guilt. But this paradox of the verdict of faith is no key to the understanding of history. 470 See the correspondence with Jerome on this point which was never settled by Augustine. 471 This destroys the beautiful proposition (pride and humility) out of which, of course, no historical theories could be constructed. 472 56e On sin and sin’s punishment (inherited sin is both), see Op. imp. I. 41-47, but even in the Confessions often, and De pecc. mer. II. 36. 473 Even inherited sin is quite enough for damnation, as Augustine has very often maintained—and rightly, if there is such a thing. 474 “Mitissima pœna” (Enchir. 103)—thus the man permits himself to soften the inscrutable righteousness of God which he teaches elsewhere. He answered the question

attested also by the Church when it baptises newly-born children.475 How did this state arise—a state which could not have been d ab8 ue to God the creator? Scripture and the Church answer: through Adam’s Fall. The magnitude of this Fall had already been depicted in the Church; but from his standpoint Augustine had rightly to say that Adam’s sin, and therewith sin in general, had not yet been duly perceived—yet the Church, as its institutions prove, had, it was alleged, appreciated it truly; writers, however, had fallen short of this estimate. Adam’s Fall was 214inconceivably great.476 When, in the hope of becoming like God, he transgressed God’s command not to eat the apple, all conceivable sins were compressed into his sin: the revolt to the devil, pride of heart, envy, sensuous lust—all in all: self-love in place of love of God.477 And it was all the more dreadful, as it was easy for Adam to refrain from sin.478 Therefore also came the unspeakable misery, viz., the punishment of sin, with and in sin, working itself out in death. Adam lost the possession of God.479 This was followed by complete deprivation (defectio boni), which is represented as the death of the soul; for the latter without God is dead (spiritual

why then should God continue to create men if they must almost all be lost, by referring to baptism, and the peculiar power of Divine Omnipotence to make good out of evil. Had God not be 533 en omnipotent, then he could not have permitted evil (Enchir. 11); “melius judicavit, de malis bene facere, quam mala nulla esse permittere” (c. 27, 100). But he himself was shaken by the problem presented by the death, unbaptised, of Christian children (De corr. et gr. 18), All who are lost are juste prædestinati ad pœnam (mortem)—see Enchir. 100; De civ. XXII. 24. Whether God damns all, or pardons some—nulla est iniquitas; for all have deserved death (Enchir. 27). “Tenebatur justa damnatione genus humanum et omnes erant iræ filii” (c. 33). Here in the later writings arises the doctrine of God’s twofold will (judicium), the secret and the manifest. God does not will that all be blessed (Enchir. 203). 475 It was very incorrect to derive Augustine’s whole conception of original sin from the practice of infant baptism. It was, of course, very important to him as a means of proof. af4 476The description of the magnitude of Adam’s Fall is in most of the anti-Pelagian writings, but also elsewhere. 477 In the case of Adam’s Fall Augustine gives the greatest prominence to the sin of the soul: “in paradiso ab animo cœpit elatio” (c. Jul. V. 17). We have “amor sui” as chief and radical sin in the Confessions; Enchir. 45 gives a precise enumeration of all the sins committed in one act by Adam. 478 That is, he was not only created good, but grace stood by him also as adjutorium: see under. 479 The grace supporting him (adjutorium).

death).480 The dead soul is now drawn downwards; it seeks its blessings in the mutable and perishable, and is no longer capable of commanding the body. The latter then asserted itself with all its wanton impulses, and thus corrupted the whole human nature. 574 1 The corruption is manifest in sexual lust, whose sinfulness is evidenced by compulsion and shame, and it must be inherited since the central seat of nature is disordered.481 It indeed still 215continues to be capable of redemption—it does not become an evil substance—but it is so corrupt that even grace can only blot out the guilt (reatus) of original sin; it cannot completely extirpate concupiscence itself in the elect, as is proved by the survival of the evil sexual lust. This inheriting of sin and of Adam’s death is, however, not merely a fact, but it is just, because Scripture says that we have all sinned in Adam,482 beca ac8 use all owe their life to sinful lust,483 and because—God is just.

480

Augustine always thinks first of this death. That the Pelagians accepted for their own purposes, since they held natural death to be natural. Augustine never maintained that formal freedom had been lost by Adam’s sin, nay, in C. duas epp. Pelag. I. 5 he distinctly disputed this: “libertas periit, sed illa, quæ in paradiso fuit, non liberum arbitrium.” But Augustine has represented the latter to be hopelessly hampered. See also the writing De gratia et lib. arb. In it he says (c. 45): “deus induravit per justum judicium, et ipse Pharao per liberum arbitrium. But (Enchir. 105): “Multo liberius erit arbitrium, quod omnino non poterit servire peccato.” ac9 481 Thus sensuousness appears as the main detriment. 482 Enchir. 26: “Hinc post peccatum exul effectus stirpem quoque suam, quam peccando in se tamquam in radice vitiaverat, pœna mortis et damnationis obstrinxit, ut quidquid prolis ex illo et simul damnata per quam peccaverat conjuge per carnalem concupiscentiam, in qua inobedientiæ pœna similis [so far as the flesh here is not obedient to the will, but acts of itself] retributa est, nasceretur, traheret originale peccatum, quo treheretur per errores doloresque diversos ad illud extremum supplicium.” 483 Augustine’s exposition of the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ in De pecc. mer. I. 11; c. Jul. VI. 75 sq.; Op. imp. II. 48-55 (against mere imitation). The translation “in quo” was received by Augustine from tradition, and in general his doctrine of original sin is at this point closest to tradition. If he had contented himself with the mystical, i.e., the postulated, conception that all are sinners, because they somehow were all in Adam, his theory would have been no novelty. But this “in quo” does not include, but excludes, original sin in the strict sense; all are sinners personally, because they were all in Adam, or were Adam. The conception that Adam’s sin passed to all as actual sip, and affected them through contagion (by means of the parents who infect their children, Enchir. 46; doubts as to the extent of descent by inheritance, 47), is the complete antithesis of that mystical conception. 484 See above, p. 210 f.

Adam’s Fall presupposes that his previous constitution had been good. This is taught, too, by Scripture, and it follows likewise from the assurance that God is the creator, and the good creator, of all things.485 If Adam was created good, then he possessed not only everything that a rational creature needs (body and soul and their due relationship as servant and master, reason and free will), but, above all, grace ever supporting and preserving him, the adjutorium, that is the bond of union with the living God; for the virtuous man is not independent of God; he is only independent when completely dependent on God. Adam, accordingly, not only had a free will, but this will was influenced in the direction of God.486 For this very reason he was free (in God); but he was also free (able) to will evil; for evil springs from freedom. If Adam had not possessed a free will, he would have been unable to sin; but in that case he would not have been a rational creature. So he possessed the 216power not to sin, or die, or forsake the good (posse non peccare, —mori,—deserere bonum), but this through the adjutorium (auxiliary grace) went so far in the direction of inability to sin (non posse peccare) that it would have been easy for Adam to attain it.487 Had he attained it by means of free will

485

On the doctrine of the primitive state, see Dorner, p. 114 ff. Both formal freedom and the true freedom which established Adam’s obedience as the mater omnium virtutum are very strongly emphasised by Augustine as belonging to the primitive state; De civ. XIV. 12; De bono conjug. 32. On the primitive state, l.c. XI.X1V.; De corrept. 28-33. 487 This “ease” is strongly emphasised in De civ. XIV. 12-15. The whole doctrine of the primitive state, like all teaching on this subject, is full of contradictions; for we have here a grace that is meant to be actual, and is yet merely a condition, i.e., it by no means makes a man good, but only leaves scope to the will. Thereby the whole doctrine of grace is upset; for if there is a grace at all which only produces the posse non peccare, is not this the sole significance of all grace? and if that is correct, were not the Pelagians right? They, of course, maintained that grace was only a condition. Augustine’s doctrine of grace in the primitive state (the adjutorium) is Pelagian, and contradicts his doctrine of grace elsewhere. We have here the clearest proof that it is impossible to construct a history from the standpoint of predestinating grace. Augustine falls back on the assumption that God wished to bestow on man a higher good than that he had received at first. Enchir. 25, 105: “Sic enim oportebat prius hominem fieri, ut et bene velle posset et male, nec gratis si bene, nec impune, si male; postea vero sic erit, ut male velle non possit, nec ideo libero carebit arbitrio . . . ordo prætermittendus non fuit, in quo deus ostendere voluit, quam bonum sit animal rationale q 558 uod etiam non peccare possit, quamvis sit melius quod peccare non possit.” But how does that accord with irresistible grace? Therefore the question rightly arises (De corrept. et gratia): “Quomodo Adam non perseverando peccavit, qui perseverantiam non accepit?” Is not the whole doctrine of grace upset if we have to read (Enchir. 106): “Minorem immortalitatem (i.e., posse non 486

(liberum arbitriu 564 m), he would have received perfect blessedness in return for the merit involved in his perseverance, he would have remained, and escaped death, in Paradise, and would have begotten children without sinful lust. We see that the primitive state was meant to be portrayed in accordance with the state of grace of the present; but an important difference prevailed, since in the former case, the adjutorium was only the condition, under which Adam could use his free will lastingly in being and doing 217good, while in the latter, it is the power, that, being irresistible, brings fallen man to perfection.

Contemporary criticism on this system may here be briefly summed up. Augustine contradicted himself in maintaining that all ability to attain goodness had been lost, and in yet admitting that freedom of choice—the decisive thing—remained. His notion of freedom was self-destructive, since he defined freedom as lasting dependence on God. His conception of original sin was selfcontradictory, because he himself admitted that sin always springs from the will. He was compelled to teach Traducianism, which, however, is a heresy. And his Scriptural exegesis was arbit 564 rary. In particular, God provokes sins, if he punishes sin with sin, and decrees the reign of sin; he is unjust if he imputes to men the sins of others, while forgiving them their own, and, further, if he accepts some, and not others, just as he pleases. This contention leads to despair. Above all, however, the doctrine of original sin leads to Manichæan dualism, which Augustine never surmounted, and is accordingly an impious and foolish dogma. For, turn as he will, Augustine affirms an evil nature, and therewith a diabolic creator of the world. His doctrine of concupiscence conduces to the same view. Besides, he depreciates the glorious gift of human freedom, nay, even divine grace in Christ, since he holds that original sin is never entirely removed. Finally, his doctrines of the

mori) natura humana perdidit per liberum arbitrium, majorem (i.e., non posse mori) est acceptura per gratiam, quam fuerat, si non peccasset, acceptura per meritum, quamvis sine gratia nec tunc ullum meritum esse potuisset?” Accordingly, at the beginning and end (the primitive state and the Judgment) the moral view is set above the religious. The whole doctrine of predestinating irresistible grace is set in a frame incompatible with it. Thus Augustine is himself responsible if his Church in after times, arguing from the primitive state and the Judgment (secundum merita), has eliminated practically his doctrine of gratia gratis data. He, indeed, said himself (107): “ipsa vita æterna merces est operum bonorum,” That would have been the case with Adam, and it is also ours. The infralapsarian doctrine of predestination, as understood by Augustine, is very different from Calvin’s.

exclusive efficacy of grace and predestination put an end not only to asceticism and the meritoriousness of good works, but also to all human doings. It is useless to exhort, intercede for, or blame sinners, etc. In the end, even the connection with the Church, which Augustine insisted on so energetically in the Donatist controversy, seemed to be superseded. Truth and error exist side by side in these observations. Perhaps the following considerations will be more pertinent. (1) The impossibility of determ 548 ining the fate of the whole body of mankind and of every separate individual from the stand-point of gratia gratis data, is shown in the thesis of the damnation 218of children who die unbaptised. Here Augustine impugns the thought of God’s righteousness. But this thought must become worthless altogether if everything is overruled by predestinating and irresistible grace. Thereby a grave injury is inflicted on piety. (2) The carrying out of the conception of predestinating grace, which should be no more than a sentiment, confined to himself, of the redeemed, leads to a determinism that conflicts with the gospel and imperils the vigour of our sense of freedom. Besides, the assumption of irresistible grace rests above all experience, even above that of the believer, and the doctrine of God’s twofold will (see de grat. et lib. arb. 45) makes everything affecting faith uncertain. (3) Augustine did not by any means hold so certainly that grace was grace through Christ, as that it proceeded from the secret operation of God. The acosmic Neoplatonic element in the doctrine of predestination imperilled not only the efficacy of the Word and Sacrament (vocatio and 580 justificatio), but also redemption through Christ in general. (4) The religious tendency in the system, the belief that the decisive point was cleaving or not cleaving to God, received in the sequel a new version, and the moral attitude became rather the crucial question—the will, of course when freed, was an efficient cause of righteousness. For this reason the meaning of forgiveness, of the new fundamental relation to God, and of the assurance of faith, was misunderstood. The former became an act of initiation, the relation became temporary, and the assurance of faith, which even according to the doctrine of predestination need not arise, was lost in the conception of a process of sanctification never or almost never completed in this world, a process to which various grades of salvation, just as there were various degrees of damnation, corresponded in the world beyond. What a proof of moralism!488 Between the thesis of the

ad4

488

Enchir. 93: “Tanto quisque tolerabiliorem ibi habebit damnationem, quanto hic minorem habuit iniquitatem!” Also 111.

ancient (Greek) Church: “Where the knowledge of God is, come also life and salvation,” and Luther’s principle: “Where we have forgiveness of sins, we have aa8 also life and salvation,” we find Augustine’s: “Where love is there also follows a salvation corresponding to the measure of love.” 219Augustine examined the equation remission of sins = grace through Christ, and expressly rejected it. This turn he gave his doctrine also explains the contention that God, in the end, crowns our merits, a view that conflicts with predestinating grace, and opens the door to a refined form of righteousness by works.489 (5) The Neoplatonic notion of God and the monastic tendency demand that all love should at the same time present itself in the form of asceticism. Thereby love drifts still further apart from faith (as fiducia), threatens the sovereignty of the latter, and gives free scope for all sorts of popular Catholic conceptions. (6) The conception—necessary in the system—of Adam’s Fall and original sin contains—apart from the mythology which here takes the place of history—a bundle of inconsistencies and extremely questionable ideas. The latter Augustine also perceived, and he tried, but without success, to guard against them. Absolutely Manichæan is the view that man sins because he was created from nothing, “nothing” being here treated as an evil principle. (The Neoplatonic doctrine also sees in this “nothing” the ground of sin; but to it sin is merely finitude. Augustine took a more profound view of sin, but he had also to conceive the nilhil as “more evil” in proportion, i.e., to convert it into the evil substance of Manichism.) Manichæan also is the opinion that sexual desire is sinful, and that inherited sin is explained simply from procreation as the propagation of a vitiated nature (natura vitiata).490 Absolutely contradictory are 220the

489

Augustine attempted, in opposition to Pelagianism, to exhibit the difference between the law and faith: “fides impetrat quod lex imperat.” He also succeeded as far as the difference can he evolved from the notion of grace as the exclusive operation of God. But since he had not obtained an insight into the strict and exclusive cohesion of grace and faith, he did not succeed in thinking out and holding fast the distinction between law and faith to the end. He had no assured experience that the law prepared the way for wrath and despair. At this point Luther intervened. 490 It is perhaps the worst, it is at any rate the most odious, consequence of Augustinianism, that the Christian religion in Catholicism is brought into particularly close relations to the sphere of sex. The combination of grace and sin (in which the latter takes above all the form of original sin identified with the sexual impulse and its excesses) became the justification of that gruesome and disgusting raking up of human filth, which, as is proved by the moral books of Catholicism, is a chief business of the priest, the celibate priest and monk, in the confessional. The dogmatic treatises of mediæval and modern times give, under the heading “sin,” a wholly colourless idea of

positions that all sin springs from freedom (the will), and that children just born are in a state of sin. It is extremely suspicious to find that, when sin is more minutely dealt with, concupiscence is practically ranked above alienation from God ( 57f deo non adhærere), this also, indeed, resulting from uncertainty as to Traducianism. It again raises our doubts when we see original sin treated as if it were more serious than actual sin; for while the former can only be washed out by baptism, the latter can be atoned for by penance. The whole doctrinal conception at this point shows that the conviction of the redeemed, that without God he is lost and unfit to do any good work, is a verdict of the believer on himself, a verdict that marks a limit, but can never become a principle by which to consider the history of mankind. At this point, just because the contradictions were so enormous, the development of dogmatic with Augustine was on the verge of casting off the immense material in which it had been entangled, and of withdrawing from the interpretation of the world and history; but as Augustine would not abandon that material, so men will not, even at the present day, let it go, because they suppose that the Bible protects it, and because they will not learn the humility of faith, that shows itself in renunciation of the attempt to decide on God’s government of the world in history.491 221(7) But apart from

what is really considered “sin,” of that which incessantly occupies the imagination of common Christians, priests, and, unfortunately, also many “saints.” We have to study the mirrors of the confessional, the moral books and legends of the saints, and to surprise the secret life, to perceive to what point in Catholicism religious consolation is especially applied. Truly, the renowned educational wisdom of th ac8 is Church makes a sad shipwreck on this rock! It seeks here also to oppose sin; but instead of quieting the imagination, which is especially interested in it, it goes on exciting it to its depths, drags the most secret things shamelessly to the light in its dogmas of the virgin, etc., and permits itself to speak openly of matters of which no one else ventures to talk. Ancient naturalism is less dangerous, at any rate for thousands less infectious, than this seraphic contemplation of virginity, and this continual attention to the sphere of sex. Here Augustine transmitted the theory, and Jerome the music. But how far the beginnings reach back! Tertullian had already written the momentous words (De pudic. 17): “Quid intelligimus carnis sensum et carnis vitam nisi quodcunque pudet pronuntiare?” Later writers were nevertheless not ashamed to utter broadly what the far from prudish African only suggested. 491 We have at the same time to notice that no Church Father was so keenly conscious as he of the limitations of knowledge. In almost all his writings—a bequest of the Academy and a result of his thought being directed to the main matter—he exhorts his hearers to refrain from over-curiousness, a pretence of knowledge that runs to seed. He set aside as insoluble very many problems that had been and were afterwards often

original sin, Augustine’s notion of sin raises doubts, because it is constructed at least as much on the thought of God as the supreme and true being (summum and verum esse) as on that of his goodness (bonum esse). Although the stamp of guilt is not wholly misunderstood, yet it is the thought of the misery produced by sin with its destructiveness and hideousness that comes to the front. Hence we understand why Augustine, passing over justifying faith, perceived the highest good in “infused love” (caritas infusa). (8) Finally the doctrine of the primitive state is beset by inconsistency, because Augustine could not avoid giving grace another meaning in that state from that it possessed in the process by which the redeemed is justified. With him grace is ultimately identical with irresistible grace—anything else is a semblance of it; but though Adam possessed grace, it was not irresistible. But all these grave objections cannot obscure the greatness of the perception that God works in us “to will and to accomplish,” that we have nothing that we have not received, and that dependence on God is good, and is our possession. It is easy to show that in every single objectionable theory formulated by Augustine, there lurks a true phase of Christian self-criticism, which is only defective because it projects into history, or is made the foundation on which to construct a “history.” Is not the doctrine of predestination an expression of the confession: “He who would boast, let him boast in the Lord”? Is not the doctrine of original sin based on the thought that behind all separate sins there resides sin as want of love, joy, and divine peace? Does it not express the just view that we feel ourselves guilty of all evil, even where we are shown that we have no guilt? 222

xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

4. Augustine’s Interpretation of the Symbol (Enchiridion ad Laurentium). The New System of Religion. After the exposition given above p. 106 f., we shall best conclude our account of Augustine’s rôle in the history of dogma, by reviewing the expositions given in the Enchiridion of the contents of the Catholic religion. Everything is combined in this book to instruc 564 t us as to the nature of the revision (and on the other hand of the confirmation) by Augustine of the popular Catholic dogmatic doctrine that gave a new impress to the Western Church. We shall proceed first to give a minute analysis of the

discussed, and he prepared the way for the concentration of the doctrinal system on its own material.

book, and then to set down systematically what was new and at the same time lasting. Augustine begins by saying that the wisdom of man is piety (“hominis sapientia pietas est” or more accurately “θεοσέβεια”) (2). The answer to the question how God is to be worshipped, is— by faith, hope, and love. We have accordingly to determine what is meant by each of these three virtues (3). In them is comprised the whole doctrine of religion. They cannot, however, be established by reason or perception, but must be derived from Holy Scripture, and be implicitly believed in on the testimony of the sacred writers (4). When the soul has attained this faith, it will, if faith works in love, strive to reach that vision by which holy and perfected souls perceive the ineffable beauty, the complete contemplation of which is supreme blessedness. “The beginning in faith, the completion in sight, the foundation Christ.” But Christ is the foundation ac8 only of the Catholic faith, although heretics also call themselves by his name. The evidence for this exclusive relationship between Christ and the Catholic Church would carry us too far here (5). We do not intend to enter into controversy, but to expound (6). The Symbol and the Lord’s Prayer constitute the contents of faith (symbol), and of hope and love (prayer); but faith also prays (7). Faith applies also to things which we do not hope for, but fear; and further to our own affairs and those of others. So far as it—like hope—refers to invisible, future blessings, it is itself hope. But without love it profits nothing, 223because the devils also believe. Thus everything is comprehended in faith, which works by love and possesses hope (8) Augustine now passes to the Symbol (the ancient Apostolic creed), in order to state the contents of faith. In § 9-32, he deals with the first article. The knowledge of nature and physics does not belong to faith—besides, scholars conjecture rather than know in this matter (opinantes quam scientes). It is enough for the Christian to believe that the goodness of the creator is simply the first cause of all things, so that there is no nature unless either it is he himself, or is of him. Further, that this creator is the “Trinity, supremely and equally, and unchangeably good” (trinitas summe et æquabiliter et immutabiliter bona), and that while created things do not Possess this quality, they are good; nay, everything collectively is very good, and produces a wonderful beauty, in which evil, set in its right place, only throws the good into relief (9, 10). Augustine at once passes to the doctrine of evil. God permits it only because he is so powerful that he can make good out of evil, i.e., he can restore the defect of the good (privatio boni), evil being represented as such defect (morbus [disease] vulnus [wound]). In the notion of that which is not supremely good (non summum

bonum esse) we have the capacity for deterioration; but the good, which is involved in the existence of any substance, cannot be annihilated, unless the substance itself be destroyed. But in that case corruption itself also ceases, since it can never exist save in what is good: evil can only exist in what is good (in a bonum). T 564 his is expounded at length (11-15). The causes of good and evil must be known, in order to escape the errors and infirmities (ærumnæ) of this life. On the other hand, the causes of great movements in nature—Augustine returns to § 9—need not be known; we do not even know the conditions of our health, which yet lie nearest us (16)! But is not every error an evil, and what are we to think of deception, lying? These questions are minutely discussed in §§ 1722. Every case of ignorance is not an error, but only supposed knowledge is, and every error is not hurtful; there is even a good error, one that is of use. But since it is unseemly (deforme atque indecens) for the mind to hold the truth to be 224false, and the uncertain certain, our life is for that very reason wretched, because at times we need error that we may not lose our life. Such will not be that existence, “where truth itself will be the life of our soul” (ubi ipsa veritas vita animæ nostræ erit). But the lie is worst, so bad that even liars themselves hate being lied to. But yet falsehood offers a difficult problem. (The question of lying in an emergency, whether it ac8 can become a duty for a righteous man, is elaborately discussed.) Here again the most important point is to determine wherein one errs: “it is far more tolerable to lie in those things that are unconnected with religion than to be deceived in those without belief in, or knowledge of, which God cannot be worshipped” (18).492 Looked at accurately, every error is an evil, though often, certainly, a small one. It is possible to doubt whether every error is also sinful—e.g., a confusion about twins, or holding sweet to be bitter, etc.; at all events, in such cases the sin is exceedingly small and trivial (minimum et levissimum peccatum), since it has nothing to do with the way that leads to God, i.e. with the faith that works in love. Error is, indeed, rather an evil than a sin, a sign of the misery of this life. In any case, however, we may not, in order to avoid all error, seek to hold nothing to be true— like the Academicians; for it is our duty to believe. Besides the standpoint of absolute nescience is impracticable; for even he who knows not must deduce his existence from this consciousness of

492

“Longe tolerabilius est in his quæ a religione sunt sejuncta mentiri, quam in iis, sine quorum fide vel notitia deus coli non potest, falli.” E.g., to tell anyone falsely that a dead man is still alive is a much less evil than to believe erroneously that Christ will die once more.

nescience (20). We must, on the contrary, avoid the lie; for even when we err in our thought, we must always say what we think.493 Even the lie which benefits another is sinful, although men who have lied for the general advantage have contributed a great deal to prosperity (22). Augustine returns to § 16: we must know the causes of good and evil. The sole first cause of the good is the goodness of God; the cause of evil is the revolt of the will from the unchangeable God 225on the part of a being, good but changeable, first, an angel, then man (23). From this revolt follow all the other infirmities of the soul [ignorance, concupiscence, etc.] (24). But the craving for blessedness (appetitus beatitudinis) was not lost. We now have an exposition of Adam’s endowment, the Fall, original sin, the sentence of death, the massa damnata, which suffers alo 564 ng with the doomed angels, etc. God’s goodness is shown, however, in his grant of continued existence to the wicked angels, for whom there is no conversion besides, and in his preservation of men. Although it would have been only justice to give them also over to eternal punishment, he resolved to bring good out of evil (25-27). It was his merciful intention, i.e., to supplement from mankind the number of the angels who persevered in goodness, rendered incomplete by the fall of some, in order that the heavenly Jerusalem might retain its full complement, nay, should be increased by the “sons of our Holy Mother” [filii sanctæ matris] (28-29). But the men chosen owe this not to the merits of their own works (to free will); for in themselves they are dead like the rest (suicides), and are only free to commit sin. Before they are made free, accordingly, they are slaves; they can only be redeemed by grace and faith. Even faith is God’s gift, and works will not fail to follow it. Thus they only become free, when God fashions them anew (into the nova creatura), producing the act of will as well as its accomplishment (“quamvis non possit credere, sperare, diligere homo rationalis, 564 nisi velit”—although rational man cannot believe, hope, or love, unless he will).494 That is, God makes the will itself good (misericordia præveniens) and constantly assists it [miseric. subsequens] (30-32). The exposition of the second article follows in §§ 33-55. Since all men are by nature children of wrath, and are burdened by original sin and their own sins, a mediator (reconciliator) was

493

C. 22. “Et utiqu ac8 e verba propterea sunt instituta, non per quæ se homines invicem fallunt, sed per quæ in alterius quisque notitiam cogitationes suas perferat.” (Compare Talleyrand). 494 C. 32: “Ex utroque fit, id est, ex voluntate hominis et misericordia dei.”

necessary, who should appease this wrath (justa vindicta) by presenting a unique sacrifice. That this was done, and we from being enemies became children, constitutes the grace of God through Jesus Christ (33). We know that this mediator is the “Word” that became flesh. The Word was not transformed, 226but assumed our complete human nature from the virgin, being conceived not by the libido 564 matris, but by faith—and therefore sinlessly.495 The mother remained a virgin in giving birth (in partu) (34). We have now a short discussion on Christ as “God and man in unity of person, equal to God, and as man less than God” (35). Christ, the man who was deemed worthy to be assumed by God to form one person with him, is the most splendid example of grace given gratis, and not according to merits. The same grace that fell to the man Christ and made him sinless falls to us in justification from sins. It also revealed itself in Christ’s miraculous birth, in connection with which, besides, the Holy Ghost did not act like a natural father. It was rather the whole Trinity that created the offspring of the virgin: the man Jesus, like the world, is the creation of the Trinity. But why precisely the Holy Ghost is named, it is hard to say. In any case, the man Jesus was not the son of the Spirit, but the latter is probably named in order to point to the grace that, existing without an ac8 y preceding merits, had become in the man Jesus an attribute which in some way was natural (quodammodo naturalis); for the Holy Spirit is “so far God that he may be called the gift of God” [sic deus, ut dicatur etiam 495

Augustine’s whole conception of the sinfulness mingled with all procreation, and his view that sexual desire is due not to nature as originally cleated, but to sin, have admittedly their roots in the earliest period. But they were expressed with Augustine’s thoroughness only by the Gnostics, Marcion and—the author of the fragment De resurrectione ascribed to Justin. The parallel offered by the latter (c. 3) is extremely striking. There is not yet, naturally, any question of sin being propagated through sexual union; that union is held simply to be sinful; µήτρας ἐστὶν ἐνέργεια τὸ κυΐσκειν καὶ µορίου ἀνδρικοῦ τὸ σπερµαίνειν· ὥσπερ δέ, εἰ ταῦτα µέλλει ἐνεργεῖν ταύτας τὰς ἐνεργείας, οὕτως οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον αὐτοῖς ἐστιν τὸ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐνεργεῖν (ὁρῶµεν γοῦν πολλὰς γυναῖκας µὴ κυϊσκούσας, ὡς τὰς στείρας, καὶ µήτρας ἔχουσας), οὕτως οὐκ εὐθέως καὶ τὸ µήτραν ἔχειν καὶ κυΐσκειν ἀναγκάζει· ἀλλὰ καὶ µὴ στεῖραι µὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, παρθενεύουσαι δέ, κατήργησαν καὶ τὴν συνουσίαν, ἕτεραι δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ χρόνου· καὶ τοὺς ἄρσενας δὲ τοὺς µὲν ἀπ᾽ἀρχῆς παρθενεύοντας ὁρῶµεν, τοὺς δὲ ἀπὸ χρόνου, ὥστε δι᾽ αὐτῶν καταλύεσθαι τὸν δι᾽ ἐπιθυµίας ἄνοµον γάµον· There are also beasts that refrain from having connection, ὥστε καὶ δι ἀνθρώπων καὶ δ aa6 ἰ ἀλόγων καταργουµένην συνουσίαν πρὶν τοῦ µέλλοντος αἰῶνος ὁρᾶσθαι· καὶ ὁ κύριος δὲ ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς οὐ δι᾽ ἄλλο τι ἐκ παρθένου ἐγεννήθη, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα καταργήσῃ γέννησιν ἐπιθυµίας ἀνόµου καὶ δείξῃ τῷ ἄρχοντι καὶ δίχα συνουσίας ἀνθρωπίνης δινατὴν εἶναι τῷ θεῷ τὴν ἀνθρώπου πλάσιν·

dei donum] (36-40). This is followed again by a long section (41 to 52) on sin and the relation of Christ to it. Christ 227was free from original and actual sin, but was himself—on account of similarity to sinful flesh—absolutely called sin. That is, he became a sacrifice for sin, representing our sin in the flesh in which he was crucified, “that in some way he might die to sin, in dying to the flesh,”496 and from the Resurrection might seal our new life (41). That is bestowed on us in baptism. Everyone dies to sin in baptism—even the children, who die to original sin—and in this respect sin is to be understood collectively; for even in Adam’s sin many forms of sin were contained. But children are obviously infected not only by Adam’s sin, but also by those of their parents. For their birth is corrupt, because by Adam’s sin nature was perverted; moreover the actual sins of parents “although they cannot thus change nature, impose guilt on the children” (etsi non ita possunt mutare naturam, reatu tamen obligant filios). But Augustine refrains from deciding how far the sins of ancestors project their influence in the chain of descent. It is all expiated by the mediator, the man Jesus Christ, who was alone equipped with such grace as not to need regeneration; for he only accepted baptism by John in order to give a grand example of humility, just as he also submitted to death, not from compulsion, but in order to let the devil receive his rights (42-49). Christ is thus Adam’s anti-type; but the latter only introduced one sin into the world, while Christ took away all that had since been committed. All were condemned in Adam; none escapes the condemnation without Christ. Baptism is to be solemnised as “the grand mystery in the cross of Christ” (mysterium grande in cruce Christi); for according to Paul baptism is “nothing but the similitude of Christ’s death; but the death of Christ crucified is nothing but the similitude of the remission of sin, that as in him a true death took plac 564 e, so in us a true remission of sins.”497 This is elaborated in accordance with Rom. VI; we are dead to sin through baptism (50-52). The clauses of the Symbol are now enumerated down to the “sitting at the right hand” 228with the observation: “It was so carried out that in these matters the Christian life which is borne here should be typified not only mystically by words but also by deeds.”498 That is established in connection with each separate article. Thus the “sitting at the right

496

“Ut quodammodo peccato moreretur, dum moritur carni.” “Nihil aliud nisi similitudo mortis Christi; nihil autem aliud mortem Christi crucifixi nisi remissionis peccati similitudinem, ut quemadmodum in illo vera mors facta est, sic in nobis vera remissio peccatorum.” 498 “Ita gestum est, ut his rebus non mystice tantum dictis sed etiam gestis configuraretur vita Christiana quæ hic geritur.” 497

hand” means: “set your affections on those things that are above” (quæ sursum sunt sapite). On the other hand, the Return of Christ has no reference to our earthly l ac8 ife. It belongs entirely to the future. The judgment of the living and dead may also suggest to us the just and unjust (53-55). To the third article §§ 56-113 are devoted; it is accordingly most elaborately elucidated. §§ 56-63 treat of the Holy Ghost, who completes the Trinity, and so is no part of creation, and also of the Holy Church. This is the temple and city of the Trinity. But it is here regarded as a whole. That is, it includes the section which exists in heaven and has never experienced a fall—the angels who aid the pilgrim part (pars peregrinans) being already united with it by love (56). The Church in heaven is void of evil and unchangeable. Augustine admits that he does not know whether there are degrees of rank among the angels, whether the stars belong to them, or what the truth is as to their bodily form (57-59). It is more important to determine when Satan invests himself in the form of an angel of light (60). We shall only know the state of the heavenly Church when we belong to it ourselves. The Church of this world, for which Christ died, we do know; for the angels he did not die; yet the result of his work also extends to them, in so far as enmity to them is at an end, and their number is once more complete. Thus by the one sacrifice the earthly host is again united with the heavenly, and the peace is restored that transcends all thought—not that of angels, but of men; but even angels, and men who have entered the state of felicity, will never comprehend the peace of God as God himself does (61-63). Augustine now passes to the “remission of sins” (64-83): “by this stands the Church on earth” (per hanc stat ecclesia qua in terris est). So far as our sins are forgiven, “the angels 229are even now in harmony with us” (concordant nobiscum angeli etiam nunc). In addition to the “great indulgence,” there is a continuous remission of sins, which even the most advanced of the righteous need, for they often descend to their own level and sin. Certainly the life of the saints may be free from transgressions, but not from sin (64). But even for grave offences there is forgiveness in the Church after due penance; and the important point is not the time of penance,but the anguish of the penitent. But since this emotion is concealed from our fellow-men, and cannot be inspected, the bishops have rightly instituted penitential seasons “that the Church may also be satisfied,” the Church beyond whose pale 537 there is no forgiveness; for it alone has received the pledge of the Holy Ghost (65). Evils remain in this world in spite of the salutaria sacramenta, that we may see that the future state is their goal. There are punitive evils; for sins last on, and are punished in this

life or the next (66). We must certainly not fancy that faith by itself protects from future judgment (ὡς διὰ πυρός), it is rather only the faith that works in love (faith and works). By “wood and stubble” we are not to understand sins, but desires after earthly things lawful in themselves (67, 68). It is credible that a purifying fire exists for believers even after death (69)—sinners can only be saved by a corresponding penance combined with almsgiving. Almsgiving is now discussed in detail (69-77). At the Last Judgment the decision turns on it (Mat. XXV. 34 ff.). Of course we are at the same time to amend our lives; “God is to be propitiated for past sins by alms, not by any means to be bribed that we may always be allowed to commit sins with impunity.” 591 499 God blots out sins “if due satisfaction is not neglected” (si satisfactio congrua non negligatur), without giving permission to sin (70). Daily prayer furnishes satisfaction for small and light daily sins (71).500 The forgiveness, also, that we bestow on others is a kind of alms. Speaking generally, everything good we give to others, 230advice, comfort, discipline, etc., is alms. By this we besides help to gain forgiveness of our own sins (72). But the highest stages of almsgiving are forgiveness of sins and love of our enemies (73).501 Those virtues everyone must practise, that he himself may be forgiv ab6 en (74). But all these alms fail to benefit us unless we amend ourselves; that is, the alms we give to ourselves are the most important. Of him alone who has mercy on himself is the saying true: “Give alms and all is right (pure) with you.” We must love ourselves with the love that God has bestowed on us; this the Pharisees, who only gave outward alms, did not do, for they were the enemies of their own souls (75-77). The divine judgment, however, can alone determine what sins are light or grave. Many things permitted by the apostles—e.g., matrimonial intercourse prompted by desire—are yet sinful; many sins which we consider wholly trifling (e.g., reviling), are grave; and many—e.g., unchastity—which custom has brought us to look on lightly, are dreadful, even though Church discipline itself has become lax in dealing with them (78-80). All sin springs either from ignorance or weakness. The latter is the more serious; but divine grace alone aids us to overcome either (81). Unfortunately, from false

499

“Per eleemosynas de peccatis præteritis est propitiandus deus, non ad hoc emendus quodam modo, ut peccata semper liceat impune committere.” Accordingly some Catholics must even then have looked on alms as conferring a license. 585 500 “Delet omnino hæc oratio minima et quotidiana peccata.” 501 Augustine here says with great truth that love of our enemies is possible only to a small minority (the perfect). But even those who do not attain it are heard if they utter the fifth petition in faith.

weakness and shame, public penance is frequently withheld. Therefore God’s mercy is not only necessary in the case of penitence, but also that men may resolve to show penitence. But he who disbelieves in and despises the forgiveness of sin in the Church commits the sin against the Holy Ghost (82, 83). The resurrection of the body is dealt with in §§ 84-113. First, the resurrection of abortions and monstrosities is discussed (8587); then the relation of the new body to its old material—every particle of which need not pass into the former; and further, the corporeal difference, the stainlessness and spirituality of bodies in the future state (88-91). We must not concern ourselves with the constitution of the bodies of the lost who also rise again, although we are here confronted by the 231great paradox that a corruptible body does not die nor an incorruptible feel pain).502 (92). Those will have the mildest punishment who have only original, but not actual, sin. Damnation in general will be marked by degrees, depending in each case on the measure of sin (93). Augustine now comes to speak of predestination in detail (94-108): “no one is saved except by undeserved mercy, and no one is condemned except by a deserved judgment.” ad6 1 That is the theme. It will become manifest in eternal life why of two children the one is accepted out of mercy, and the other rejected in accordance with justice. God’s refusal of salvation is not unjust, though all might have been saved if he had willed; for nothing happens without his will or permission (95). Even in permitting evil his action is good, or the first article of the Symbol would no longer hold true (96). But if God’s will cannot be frustrated by any choice of his creatures, how does the fact that all are not saved agree with the assurance that “he wills that all should be saved” (1 Tim. II. 4)? The usual answer, that men will not, is obviously false; for they cannot hinder God’s will, as he can certainly turn even the bad into a good will. Accordingly, God does not will that all be saved, but he justly sentences sinners to death (Rom. IX.), that he who receives salvation may boast in the Lord. God is free in his election to grace; he would not have been to be blamed if he had redeemed no one after Adam’s Fall; so neither is he to be blamed if in his mercy he redeems only a few, that none may boast of his own merits, but in the Lord. God’s will is expressed in the case of the lost as much as in that of the saved (“in the very deed by which they opposed his will, his will regarding them was done”).503 So

502

In hell “mors ipsa non moritur.” “Nisi per indebitam misericordiam nemo liberatur et nisi per debitum judicium nemo damnatur.” 504 “Hoc ipso quod contra voluntatem fecerunt ejus, de ipsis facta est voluntas ejus.” 503

great are the works of the Lord that nothing that takes place against his will happens outside (præter) of it. A good son wishes his father to live, but God, whose will is good, decides that he should die. Again, a bad son wishes his father to die, and God 232also wills this. The former wills what God does not; the latter what he does. Yet the former stands nearer God; for in the case of men it is the final intention that counts, while God accomplishes his good will even through the bad will of men. He is always just and always omnipotent (97-102). Therefore 1 Tim. II. 4 a91 can only mean that God wills all classes of men to be saved, or that all those whom he resolves to save will be saved. In any case it is not to be imagined that he desires to save all, but is prevented (103). Had God foreknown that Adam, in keeping with his constitution, would have retained forever the will to avoid sin, he would have preserved him in his original state of salvation. But he knew the opposite, and therefore shaped his own will to effect good through him who did evil. For man must have been so created originally as to be able to do good and evil. Afterwards he will be changed, and will no longer be able to will evil; “nor will he therefore be without free choice” (nec ideo libero carebit arbitrio); for free will still exists, even if a time comes when we cannot will evil, just as it even now exists, although we can never will our own damnation. Only the order of things had to be observed, first the “posse non,” then the “non posse.” But grace is always necessary, and would have been even if man had not sinned; for he could only have attained the “non posse” by the cooperation of grace. (Men can indeed starve voluntarily, but mere appetite will not keep them alive; they require food.) But since sin entered, grace is much greater, because the will had itself to be freed in order that it might co-operate with grace (104-106.) Eternal life, though a reward of good works, is also a gift of grace, because our merits are God’s gifts. God has made one vessel to honour and another to dishonour, that none should boast. The mediator who redeemed us required also to be God, “that the pride of man might be censured by the humility of God” (ut superbia humana per humilitatem dei argueretur), and that man might be shown how far he had departed from God, etc. (107, 108). After this long excursus, Augustine returns to § 93, and deals (log) with the intermediate state (in abditis receptaculis), and the mitigation obtained by departed souls through the Mass, 233and the alms of survivors in the Church; for there are many souls not good enough to be able to dispense with this provision, and not bad enough not to be benefited by it. “Wherefore here (on the earth) all merit is acquired by which anyone can be relieved or burdened after this

life.” b03 505 What the Church does for the dead (pro defunctis commendandis) is not inconsistent with Rom. XIV. 10; II. Cor. V. 10. For those who are wholly good it is a thanksgiving, for those not altogether bad an atonement, for those entirely wicked it is resultless, but gives comfort to the survivors; nay, while it makes remission complete (plena), it renders damnation more tolerable (110). After the Judgment there are only two states, though there are different grades in them. We must believe in the eternal duration of the pains of hell, although we may perhaps suppose that from time to time God lightens the punishment of the lost, or permits some sort of mitigation. “Death will continue without end, just as the collective eternal life of all saints will continue” (111113).506 Following his programme, Augustine ought now to have discussed in detail hope and love (prayer); but he omits doing so, because he has really touched on everything already. He therefore confines himself to affirming that hope applies solely to what we pray for in the Lord’s Prayer, that three petitions refer to eternal, four to temporal, benefits, and that Matthew and Luke do not really differ in their versions of the Prayer (114-116). As regards love, he points out that it is the greatest of all. It, and not faith and hope, decides the measure of goodness possessed by a man. Faith and hope can exist without love, but they are useless. The faith that works in love, i.e., the Holy Spirit by whom love is infused into our hearts, is all-important; for where love is wanting, fleshly lust reigns (117). There are four human conditions: life among the deepest shades of ignorance (altissimis ignorantiæ tenebris), under the law (which produces knowledge and conscious sin), under grace or good hope, and under peace (in the world beyond). Such 234has als 564 o been the history of God’s people; but God has shown his grace even at the first and second stages (118), and thus even now man is laid hold of sometimes at the first, sometimes at the second, stage, all his sins being forgiven in his regeneration (119), so that death itself no longer harms him (120). All divine commands aim at love, and no good, if done from fear of punishment or any other motive than love, is done as it ought. All precepts (mandata) and counsels (consilia) given by God are comprised in the command to love God and our neighbour, and they are only rightly performed when they spring, at present in faith, in the future in immediate knowledge, from love. In the world of sight each will know what he should love in the other.

505

Quocirca hic (in terra) omne meritum comparatur, quo possit post hanc vitam relevari quispiam vel gravari. 506 Manebit sine fine mors, sicut manebit communiter omnium vita æterna sanctorum.

Even now desire abates as love increases, until it reaches the love that leads a man to give his life for another. But how great will love be in the future state, when there no longer exists any desire to be overcome!

No one can mistake the popular Catholic features of this system of religion. It is based on the ancient Symbol. The doctrines of the Trinity and the Two Natures are faithfully avowed. The importance of the Catholic Chu ac8 rch is strictly guarded, and its relation to the heavenly Church, which is the proper object of faith, is left as indefinite as the current view required. Baptism is set in the foreground as the “grand mystery of renovation,” and is derived from Christ’s death, in which the devil has obtained his due. Faith is only regarded as a preliminary condition; eternal life is only imparted to merits which are products of grace and freedom. They consist of works of love, which are summed up in almsgiving. Almsgiving is freely treated; it constitutes penance. Within the Church forgiveness is to be had for all sins after baptism, if only a fitting satisfaction is furnished (satisfacere ecclesiæ; satisfactio congrua). There is a scale of sins, from crimes to quite trivial daily offences. For this reason, wicked and good men are graded; but even the best (sancti, perfecti) can only be sinless in the sense that they commit none but the lightest sins. The 235saints are the perfect ascetics; asceticism is the culmination of love; but all do not need to practise it; we must distinguish between commands and counsels. In the future state both felicity and perdition will also be graded. Departed souls, if at death they have only left trivial sins unatoned for by penance, will be benefited by the masses, alms, and prayers of survivors. They are placed in a purgatory that cleanses them in the form of a decreed punishment.507 If here popular Catholic elements are already strengthened, and the way prepared for their future elaboration, that is equally true of the doctrines of the intermediate state, the temporary mitigation of the punishment of the lost, the help afforded by holy angels to the Church of the present world, the completion—by means of redeemed mortals —of the heavenly Church reduced in number through the Fall of the wicked angels, the virginity of Mary even in partu,508 and the grace of Christ as

507

The Enchiridion is not the only work in which Augustine has spoken of this ignis purgatarius. 508 The growing Marian dogma (see Vol. IV., p. 314) was thus strengthened rather than weakened by Augustine. He agreed entirely with Ambrose and Jerome (against Jovinian). By a woman came death, by a woman came life; Mary’s faith conceived the

being greater than Adam’s sin. This also applies to the opinion that the ignorant adherence to a false religion is wor 564 se than the knowing utterance of a lie, and to many other doctrines developed by Augustine in other writings. Finally, the conception of salvation that holds it to 236consist in “vision” and “fruition” is at the root of and runs through everything. Yet the most spiritual fact, the process of sanctification, is attached to mysteriously operating forces. But on the other hand, this system of religion is new. The old Symbol—the Apostles interpreted by the Nicene—was supplemented by new material which could only be very loosely combined with it, and which at the same time modified the original elements. In all three articles the treatment of sin, forgiveness, and perfecting in love is the main matter (10-15; 25-33; 41-52; 64-83). Everything is presented as a spiritual process, to which the briefly discussed old dogmatic material appears subordinated. Therefore, also, the third article comes into the foreground; a half of the whole book is devoted to the few words contained in it. Even in the outline, novelty is shown: religion is so much a matter of the inner life that faith, hope, and love are all-important (3-8). No cosmology is given in the first article; indeed, physical teaching is expressly denied to form part of dogmatics (9, 16 f.). Therefor 53e e any Logos doctrine is also wanting. The Trinity, taught by tradition as dogma, is apprehended in the strictest unity; it is the creator. It is really one person; the “persons,” as Augustine teaches us in other writings, are inner phases (moments) in the one God; they have no cosmological import. Thus the whole Trinity also created the man Christ in Mary’s womb; the Holy Ghost is only named because

Saviour. Julian’s remarkable objection to the doctrine of original sin, that it made Mary to be subject to the devil (nascendi conditione), Augustine met by saying (Op. imp. IV. 122): “ipsa conditio nascendi solvitur gratia renascendi.” We may not maintain it to be certain (see Schwane II., p. 691 f.) that Augustine thus implicitly taught Mary’s im ac8 maculate conception. On the other hand, he undoubtedly held her to be without active sin; see De nat. et gr. 36: “Excepta itaque s. virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem domini nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo quæstionem; unde enim scimus, quid ei plus gratiæ collatum fuerit ad vincendum omni ex parte peccatum, quæ concipere et parere meruit, quem constat nullum habuisse peccatum? hac ergo virgine excepta si omnes illos sanctos et sanctas, cum hic viverent, congregare possimus et interrogare, utrum essent sine peccato, quid fuisse responsuros putamus, utrum hoc quod ista dicit an quod Johannes apostolus?” Gen. ad litt. X. 18-21. Augustine helped to give Mary a special position between Christ and Christians, simply because he first emphasised strongly the sinfulness of all men, even the saints, and then excepted Mary. Mary’s passive receptivity in relation to grace is emphasised with the same words as that of the man Jesus.

“spiritus” is also a term for “God’s gift” (donum dei). Everything in religion relates to God as only source of all good, and to sin; the latter is distinguished from error. Hereby a breach is made with ancient intellectualism, though a trace of it remains in the contention that errors are very small sins. Wherever sin is thought of, so is free, predestinating grace (gratia gratis data). The latter is contrasted with the sin inherited from Adam; it first gives freedom to the enslaved will. The exposition of the first article closes with the reference to prevenient and subsequent mercy. How different would have been the wording of this article if Augustine had been able to give an independent version! 58a The case is not different with the second article. The actual contents of the Symbol are only briefly touched on—the 237Second Advent is merely mentioned without a single Chiliastic observation. On the other hand, the following points of view come to the front. On the one side we have the unity of Christ’s personality as the man (homo) with whose soul the Word united itself, the predestinating grace, that introduced this man into personal unity with the Deity, although he possessed no merits (hence the parallel with our regeneration); the close connection of Christ’s death with redemption from the devil, atonement, and baptism (forgiveness of sins). But on the other side we find the view of Christ’s appearance and history as loftiness in humility, and as the pattern of the Christian life. Christ’s significance as redeemer509 is quite as strongly expressed for Augustine in this humility in splendour, and in his example of a Christian life (see S. Bernard and S. Francis), as in his death. He fluctuates bet ac8 ween these two points of view. The Incarnation wholly recedes, or is set in a light entirely unfamiliar to the Greeks. Thus the second article has been completely changed. The chief and novel point in the third article consists in the freedom and assurance with which Augustine teaches that the forgiveness of sins in the Church is inexhaustible. When we consider the attitude of the ancient Church, Augustine, and Luther, to the sins of baptised Christians, an external criticism might lead us to say that men grow more and more lax, and that the increasing prominence given to grace (the religious factor) was merely a means of evading the strict demands made by the gospel on morality—the Christian life. And this view is also correct, if we

509

Sin and original sin are again discussed in §§ 41.52, but they are now looked at from the standpoint of their removal through the baptism that emanates from Christ’s death.

look at the great mass of those who followed those guides. But in their own case their new ideas were produced by a profounder consciousness of sin, and an absorption in the magnitude of divine grace as taught by Paul. Augustine stands midway between the ancient Church and Luther. The question of personal assurance of salvation had not yet come home to him; but the question: “How shall I get rid of my sins, and be filled with divine energy?” took the 238first place with him. Following the popular Catholic view, he looked to good works (alms, prayer, asceticism); but he conceived them to be the product of grace and the will subject to grace; further, he warned Christians against all external doing. As he set aside all ritualistic mysticism, so he was thoroughly aware that nothing was to be purchased by almsgiving pure and simple, but that the issue depended on an inner transformation, a pure heart, and a new spirit. At the same time he was sure that even after baptism the way of forgiveness was ever open to the penitent, and that he committed the sin against the Holy Ghost who did not believe in this remission of sins in the Church. That is an entirely new interpretation of the Gospel saying. The concluding section of the Symbol (resurrectio carnis) is explained even more thoroughly than the forgiveness of sins in its third treatment in the third article. But after a short discussion of the subject proper—the doctrine of predestination510and a view which as doctrine is likewise virtually new, and takes the place of Origen’s theory of Apokatastasis—the main theme is the suppos 564 ition of an intermediate state, and of a cleansing of souls in it, to which the offerings and prayers of survivors can contribute.

510

The doctrine of predestination—before Augustine almost unheard of in the Catholic Church—constituted the power of his religious life, as Chiliasm did that of the post-apostolic, and mysticism that of the Greek Church. In Augustine, in addition to its Biblical and Neoplatonic supports, the doctrine had indeed a strong religious root—free grace (gratia gratis data). But the latter by itself does not explain the importance which the doctrine had gained in his case. As everything that lives and works in nature is attached to something else, and is never found in an independent state, so, too, there is no distilled piety, On the contrary, so long as we men are men, precisely the most vital piety will be least isolated and free. None but the dogmatist can construct such a religion. But history teaches that all great religious personalities have connected their saving faith inextricably with convictions which to the ref 564 lecting mind appear to be irrelevant additions. In the history of Christianity there are the three named—Chiliasm, mysticism, and the doctrine of predestination. It is in the bark formed by these that faith has grown, just as it is not in the middle of the stem, but at its circumference, where stem and bark meet, that the sap of the plant flows. Strip the tree, and it will wither! Therefore it is wellmeant, but foolish, to suppose that Augustine would have done better to have given forth his teaching without the doctrine of predestination.

Piety: faith and love instead of fear and hope. Theory of 239religion: something higher than aught we call doctrine, a new life in the power of love. The doctrine of Scripture: the substance—the gospel, faith, love and hope—God. The Trinity: the one living God. Christology: the one mediator, the man Jesus into union with whose soul the Deity entered, without that soul having deserved it. Redemption: death for the benefit of enemies and humility in greatness. The Sacraments: the Word side by side with the Symbols. Salvation (felicity): the beata necessitas of the good. The good: blessedness in dependence on God. History: God works everything in accordance with His good pleasure. With that compare the dogmatics of the Greeks!511 The extent and position ac8 of dogma were also modified by this revolution. The old dogmas of the undivided Church, simply because they passed into the background, and were no longer expressive of piety itself, became more rigid; they more and more received the character of a legal system. The new dogmas, on the contrary, the doctrines of sin and grace in which piety lived, did not yet receive in their positive form the position and value of the old, nor were they definitely stated in rounded formulas.512 Thus, through the instrumentality of Augustine, the extent and importance, in the history of dogma, of the doctrine of the Church became more uncertain. On the one hand, that doctrine was referred back to the gospel itself; on the other, it was much less sharply marked off than before from theology, since the new thoughts were not enclosed in fixed formulas. There was formed round the old dogma, which held its ground as an inflexible authority, a vast indefinite circle of doctrines, in 240which the most important religious conceptions lived, and which yet no one was capable of examining and weaving into a fixed connection. That is the state of dogma in the Middle Ages. Side by side with the

511

An excellent comparison between Origen and Augustine occurs in Bigg, The Christian Platonists, pp. 284-290. He has sharply emphasised the inconsistencies in Augustine’s doctrine of the primitive state, original sin, and grace, but he has not overlooked the advance made by Augustine on Origen. If we evolve Augustine’s doctrine from predestination, then Bigg is right when he says: “Augustine’s system is in truth that of the Gnostics, the ancestors of the Manichees. For it makes ac8 no real difference whether our doom is stamped upon the nature given to us by our Creator, or fixed by an arbitrary decree.” 512 The resistance of the Pelagians and their associates was also a resistance to the formation of new dogmas in general. Exactly like the Eusebians in the Arian conflict, they also fought against the new construction of dogmas by the North African Church on formal grounds.

growing inflexibility, the process of internal dissolution had already begun. During the storms of the tribal migrations, just before the power of barbarianism broke in, God bestowed on the Church a man who judged spiritual things spiritually, and taught Christendom what constituted Christian piety. So far as we can judge, the young Germano-Roman peoples, like the Slays, would have remained wholly incapable of ever appropriating independently and thoroughly the contemporary Christian religion, the Church system transmitted to them as law and cultus in fixed formulas, they would never have pierced through the husk to the kernel, if along with that system they had not also received Augustine. It was from him, or rather from the Gospel and Paulinism under his guidance, that they derived the courage to reform the Church and the strength to reform themselves. 241

Chapter V. History of Dogma in the West Down to the Beginning of the Middle Ages (A.D. 430-604)

CHAPTER V. HISTORY OF DOGMA IN THE WEST DOWN TO THE BEGINNING OF THE MIDDLE AGES (A.D. 430-604). 564 xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

WE have already described in Vol. III. of our present work, as far as it bore on the history of dogma, the part taken by the West during this period in the Christological controversies of the East, the great impetus given to the papacy by the successors of Damasus, and further by Leo I. and his successors. We have shown how the papal power was in the sixth century embroiled, and (under Justinian) almost perished, in the East Gothic and Byzantine turmoils; how the fifth Council produced a schism in the West, and shook the position of the papacy, and how on the other hand the latter regained and strengthened its importance through the instrumentality of Gregory I.513514 We also 242reviewed the

513

Gregory, certainly, had almost to abandon the fifth Council.

important work, in w ac8 hich Vincentius of Lerinum standing on Augustine’s shoulders, described the antiquitas catholicæ fidei, i.e., the Catholic conception of tradition.515 The whole West was agitated in our period by the storms of the tribal migrations. The ancient world received its final blow, and the Church itself, so far as it was composed of Romans, seemed to run wild under the horror and pressure of the times.516 The young peoples which

514

The papal power received its greatest accession of authority from the days of Damasus to the end of the fifth century: it was then settled that the primacy was to be a permanent institution of the Catholic Church. This accession of strength was partly due to the fact that in that century the Chair of St. Peter was occupied by a number of peculiarly capable, clever, and energetic Bishops. But the advance was caused to a still greater extent by external conditions. The most important may be mentioned here. (1) The dogmatic complications in the East gave the Popes an opportunity of acting as umpires, or of exhibiting in full light the doctrinal correctness “characteristic of the Chair of St. Peter.” (2) The Western Roman Empire leant ultimately for support, in its decline, on the Roman Bishop (see the Ep. Valent. III. to Leo. I.); when it perished the latter was its natural heir, since the central political power in the West was gone, and the Byzantine Emperor had not the power, the leader of the German hosts not the prestige, necessary to restore it. (3) The storms of the tribal migration drove the Catholics of Western countries, which were seized by Arians, into the arms of Rome; even where this did not happen at once, the opposition ceased which had been previous 564 ly offered to the claims of the Roman Bishop by the provinces, especially North Africa. (4) The patriarchal constitution never got established in the West, and the Metropolitan only succeeded in part; thus the development into the papal constitution was ensured for the future. (5) The transactions with the political power of Eastern Rome and the Imperial Bishop there now compelled the Roman Bishops, that they might not be at a disadvantage in dealing with Constantinople, to deduce their peculiar position, which they owed to the capital of the world, entirely from their spiritual (their apostolic or Petrine) dignity. But this exclusive basing of the Roman Chair on Peter afforded the firmest foundation at a time when all political force tottered or collapsed, but the religious was respected. Even the thought of political sovereignty, so far as such a thought could arise in the Roman Empire at all, seems to have dawned on Leo’s successors. In any case, the position of the papacy was so secure at the close of the fifth century, that even the frightful storms of the sixth century were unable to uproot it. That in the West—outside of Rome—the theory of the Roman Bishop (following Matt. XVI.) came but slowly to be recognised, and that the attempt was made to retain independence as far as the exigencies of the case permitted, ought to be expres ac8 sly noticed. Theologians only admitted that the Roman Bishop represented ecclesiastical unity, and did not assent to the papistical inference that it was the prerogative of Rome to govern the Churches. 515 Vol. III., p. 230 ff. 516 Salvian. de gubern. I II. 44: “Ipsa ecclesia, quæ in omnibus esse debet placatrix dei, quid est aliud quam exacerbatrix dei? aut præter paucissimos quosdam, qui mala fugiunt, quid est aliud pœne omnis cœtus Christianorum quam sentina vitiorum?”

streamed in were Christian, but Arian. In the kingdom of the Franks alone there arose a Catholic, German nation, which began slowly to be fused with the ancient Roman population; but the Church, with its cultus, law, and language, remained Latin: victus victori legem dat. The Franks were at the outset in the Latin Church, as at the present day the Mongolian tribes of Finland are in the Greek Church of Russia. This Latin Church, which, however, had parted in Franconia with the Roman Bishop, or was only connected with him by respect for him, preserved its old interests in Gaul and Spain, and continued its former life until the end of the sixth century.517 Even up till that time the old civilisation had not wholly perished in it, but it was almost stifled by the barbarianism, 243which resulted from fusion with the invading populace. In North Africa, in spite of dreadful sufferings, Catholic Latin ecclesiasticism held its ground till on into the seventh century. But the Church, once so independent in its relations with Rome, found itself compelled more than once in this period to turn for succour to Rome for its self-preservation. The position of Italy, i.e., of the Roman Bishop, was wholly peculiar, for the Church of Middle and Lower Italy never played any part in Church history. So far as a Catholic Church still existed in the West in the German Empire, it represented the remnant of the shattered 564 Western Roman Empire, and therefore lay in the sphere of power of the Roman Bishop, even if this relationship might not take any definite shape for the moment. But this Roman Bishop was himself fettered to the East, and political and ecclesiastical ties compelled him to look more to the East than the West. The fact that he nevertheless did not lose his connection with the latter, he, in the sixth century, owed more to his past, and his impregnable position in Rome, than to a deliberate policy.518 Under the Catholic Bishops who had survived in Gaul and North Africa as representatives of the Roman Empire, a not altogether unimportant part of the history of dogma was enacted in our period, viz., the fight for and against complete Augustinianism. The Roman Bishop, though much more concerned with the Christological and political questions of the East, intervened also in this matter. At the close of our period, when absolute darkness had settled on the West, the great monachist Pope and “father of superstitions” introduced the ecclesiastical world to the Middl ac2 e Ages in the form required by uncivilised peoples. In doing so, he

517

See Hatch, “The Organisation of the Early Christian Churches,” Lecture viii., and “The Growth of Church Institutions,” p. 1 f. 518 The recognition in Rome of the fifth Council had almost alienated Italy and North Africa from the Pope.

had not to do violence to his own convictions; for the civilisation that was passing away inclined to barbarianism.519 244

We have only therefore to consider, in what follows, the conflict waged round Augustinianism, and the position of Gregory the Great in the history of dogma.520

519

Yet classical culture was never quite extinct in Italy (Rome). Its representatives in the sixth century were Cassiodorus, the pious churchman, on the one hand, and Boethius, the latitudinarian, on the other. The former laboured earnestly on behalf of the Church and monachism of his time (compare also the exertions of Junilius); the latter was the instructor of a later age (s 564 ee above, p. 34). 520 On the history of the Apostolic Symbol in our period see my article in Herzog’s R. E. 3 Ed.; Caspari, Quellen I.-IV. Vols.; v. Zerschwitz, System der Katechetik II. 1. Of the additions made to the ancient Roman Symbol, and afterwards universally accepted, the only one important dogmatically is the phrase “communio sanctorum.” It can be proved from the second homily of Faustus of Rhegium (Caspari, Kirchenhist. Anekdota, p. 338), and his Tractat de symbolo, which he certainly did not edit himself (Caspari, Quellen IV., p. 250 ff.), that South Gallican Churches had the words “communio sanctorum” in the Apostolicum in the second half of the fifth century. It is debatable whether they already stood in the Symbol of Nicetas, whom I identify with Nicetas of Romatiana—the friend of Paulinus of Nola; they may also have merely belonged to the exposition, which was strongly influenced by Cyril’s Catechisms (see Kattenbusch, Apost. Symbolum, 1894, Vol. I). If it were certain that they were merely meant ac8 in the Gallican Symbol to stand in exegetical apposition to “sancta ecclesia,” then we would have to suppose that that Symbol had been influenced by the countless passages in which Augustine describes the Church as communio sanctorum, i.e., of the angels and all the elect, inclusive of the simple justi (or with synonymous terms). But, firstly, one does not conceive how a mere exegetical apposition should have got into the Symbol, and why that should have happened particularly in Gaul; secondly, the explanation of the words by Faustus points in another direction. We read in his second homily: “Credamus et sanctorum communionem, sed sanctos non tam pro dei parte, quam pro dei honore veneremur. Non sunt sancti pars illius, sed ipse probatur pars esse sanctorum. Quare? quia, quod sunt, de illuminatione et de similitudine ejus accipiunt; in sanctis autem non res dei, sed pars dei est. Quicquid enim de deo participant, divinæ est gratiæ, non naturæ. Colamus in sanctis timorem et amorem dei, non divinitatem dei, colamus merita, non quæ de proprio habent, sed quæ accipere pro devotione meruerunt. Digne itaque venerandi sunt, dum nobis dei cultum et futuræ vitæ desiderium contemptu mortis insinuant.” And still more clearly in the Tractate (p. 273 f.): “. . . transeamus ad sanctorum communionem. Illos hic sententia ista confundit, qui sanctorum et amicorum dei cineres non in honore debere esse blasphemant, qui beatorum martyrum gloriosam memoriam sacrorum reverentia monumentorum colendam esse non credunt. In symbolum prævaricati sunt, et Christo in fonte mentiti sunt.” Faustus accordingly understands by the “sancti” not all the justi, but—as Augustine not infrequently does—the specifically “holy,” and he contends that the words aimed at the followers of Vigilantius who rejected the worship of the saints. In

245

xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

1. The Conflict between Semi-Pelagianism and Augustinianism. Augustine and the North-African Church had succeeded in getting Pelagianism condemned; but this did not by any means involve the acceptance of Augustinianism in the Church. Augustine’s authority, indeed, was very great everywhere, and in many circles he was enthusiastically venerated;521 but his doctrine of gratia irresistibilis (absolute predestination) met with opposition, both because it was new and unheard of,522 and because it ran counter, not only to prevalent conceptions, but also to clear passages of Holy Scripture. The fight against it was not only a fight waged by the old conception of the Church against a new one—for Semi-Pelagianism was the ancient doctrine of Tertullian, Ambrose, and Jerome—but the old gospel was also defended against novel teaching; for Semi-Pelagianism was also an evangelical protest, which grew up on Augustinian piety, against a conception of the same Augustine that was intolerable as doctrine. 56a 1 Accordingly, it is not strange that “SemiPelagianism” raised its head in spite of the overthrow of Pelagianism; rather it is strange that it was ultimately compelled to submit to Augustinianism. This submission was never indeed perfectly honest. On the other hand, there lurked an element of “Semi-Pelagianism” in Augustinianism itself; viz., in the doctrines

that case “communio sanctorum” means communion of or with the specifically “holy.” It is still matter of dispute whether this is really the idea to which the Apostolicum owes its questionable acquisition, or whether the latter is only a very early artificial explanation. On the “filioque” in the Constantinopolitan Creed, see Vol. IV., p. 126 f. 521 See the Ep. Prosperi ad Aug. [225]. Here Augustine is called “ineffabiliter mirabilis, incomparabiliter honorandus, præstantissimus patronus, columna veritatis ubique gentium 564 conspicua, specialis fidei patronus.” 522 See Vincentius’ Commonitorium. 523 Semi-Pelagianism also rests undoubtedly on Augustinian conceptions. Loof’s designation of it as “popular Anti-Pelagian Catholicism” is perfectly just (see Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1895, Col. 568, against Krüger, l.c. Col. 368). “Semi-Pelagianism” is a malicious heretical term. The literary leaders of this doctrine were in no respect influenced, so far as I see, by Pelagius, nor did they learn anything from him; on the contrary, they take their stand—the later the more plainly (but not more Augustinian)—on doctrines of Augustine, and it is impossible to understand them apart from his teaching. “Semi-Pelagianism” is popul aa2 ar Catholicism made more definite and profound by Augustine’s doctrines. The Semi-Pelagians are accordingly the Eusebians of the doctrine of grace. See also Sublet, Le Semi-Pélagianisme des Origines. Namur, 1897.

of the primitive state, of righteousness—as the product of grace 246and the will—and of merits. When Augustinianism triumphed, these points necessarily came to the front. But a situation was thus created that was wholly insecure, capable of various interpretations, and untrue in itself. Augustine himself found by experience that his doctrine of grace produced internal disturbances among the monks at Hadrumetum. Free-will was done with; men could fold their hands; good works were superfluous; even at the Last Judgment they were not taken into account. Augustine sought to appease them by his treatise, De gratia et lib. arbitrio, and he followed this with his work, De correptione et gratia, when he heard that doubts had risen whether the e ab1 rring and sinful should still be reprimanded, or if their case was sufficiently met by intercession. Augustine strove in these writings to remove the misunderstandings of the monks, but he formulated his doctrine of grace more sharply than ever, trying, however, to retain free choice and the popular Catholic view. A year or two afterwards (428-9) he was informed by his devoted friends, Prosper, Tyro,524 and Hilary525 (Epp. 225, 226,), that at Marseilles and other places in France there was an unwillingness to admit the strict doctrine of predestination, and the view that the will was completely impotent,526 because they paralysed Christian preaching. Augustine replied, confirming his friends, but giving new offence to his opponents by his two writings, De prædestinatione sanctorum and De dono perseverantiæ. He died soon afterwards, bequeathing his mantle to disciples whose fidelity and steadfastness had to atone for their want of independence. The Gallican monks (“servi dei”) now advanced to open opposition.527 It is quite intelligible that monks, and Greek-trained monks, should have first entered the lists. Among them the most prominent were Johannes Cassianus, 247father of South Gallican monachism528 and disciple of Chrysostom and Vincentius of Lerinum.529 adf The

524

On him see Wörter’s Progr., Freiburg, 1867, and Hauck in the R. E. Not to be confounded with Hilary of Arles, the Semi-Pelagian. 526 The opposition was at first cautious. 527 An accurate description of the controversy has been given by Wiggers in the 2nd vol. of his “Pragmatische Darstellung des Augustinismus and Pelagianismus (1833); see also Luthardt, Die L. v. fr. Willen (1863). The later development from Gregory I. to Gottschalk is described by Wiggers in the Ztsch. f. d. hist. Theol., 1854-55-57-59. 528 See De cœnobiorum institutis 1. XII. Cf. Hoch, L.d. Johannes Cass. v. Natur u. Gnade, 1895 (besides Krüger, Theol. Lit.-Ztg. 1895, Col. 368 ff.). aee 529 The Commonitorium is directed exclusively against Augustine. The fact that it has reached us only in a mutilated form is explained, indeed, by its opposition to him. Apart from it, Prosper has preserved for us Vincentius’ objections to Augustine. 525

former has especially formulated his standpoint in the 13th Conference of his “collationes patrum,” which bears the title “De protectione dei.”530 He takes objection above all to absolute predestination, the particularism of grace, and the complete bondage of the will. His teaching as to grace and liberty is as follows. God’s grace is the foundation of our salvation; every beginning is to be traced to it, in so far as it brings the chance of salvation and the possibility of being saved. But that is external grace; inner grace is that which lays hold of a man, enlightens, chastens, and sanctifies him, and penetrates his will as well as his intelligence. Human virtue can neither grow nor be perfected without this grace—therefore the virtues of the heathens are very small.531 But the beginnings of the good resolve, good thoughts, and faith— understood as the preparation for grace—can be due to ourselves. Hence grace is absolutely necessary in order to reach final salvation (perfection), but not so much so in order to make a start. It accompanies us at all stages of our inner growth, and our exertions are of no avail without it (libero arbitrio semper cooperatur); but it only supports and accompanies him who really strives, “who reaches forward to the mark.” Yet at times God anticipates the decision of men, and first renders them willing— e.g., at the call of Matthew and Paul; but even this—rare—action of grace is not irresistible. Free-will is never destroyed by God— that we must hold, even if we admit the incomprehensibleness of divine grace. Similarly, we must hold firmly to the conviction that God wills earnestly the salvation of all, and that therefore Christ’s redemption applies not only to the small number of elect, but to all men. 248The contrary doctrine involved “a huge blasphemy” (ingens sacrilegium). Predestination can therefore be only grounded on p ac6 rescience—and the proposition that it was foreknown what anything would have been, if it had been at all, had at that time arisen in connection with the question of those dying in infancy.532 But Cassian has hardly given an opinion on the relation of prescience and predestination. Regarding the primitive state, he taught that it was one of immortality, wisdom, and perfect freedom. Adam and Eve’s Fall had entailed corruption and inevitable sinfulness on the whole race. But with a free, though a

530

He speaks still more frankly and therefore “more like a Pelagian” in the Institutions. 531 Here Cassian has learned thoroughly Augustine’s teaching, and we see that he not only accommodated himself to it, but had been convinced by it. 532 Some maintained, namely, that the fate of these children was decided by how they would have acted if they had lived; for that was known to God.

weakened, will, there also remained a certain ability to turn to the good.533 249

It is usual to condemn “Semi-Pelagianism.” But absolute condemnation is unjust. If a universal theory is to be set up, in the form of a doctrine, of the relation of God to mankind (as object of his will to save), then it can only be stated in terms of “SemiPelagianism” or Cassianism. Cassian did not pledge himself to explain everything; he knew very well that “God’s judgments are incomprehensible and his ways inscrutable.” Therefore he rightly declined to enter into the question of predestination. In refusing, however, to probe the mystery to the bottom, he demanded that so far as we affirmed anything on the subject, we should not prejudice

533

Statements by Cassian. (Coll. XIII. 3): “non solum actuum, verum etiam cogitationum bonarum ex deo esse principium, qui nobis et initia sanctæ voluntatis inspirat et virtutem atque opportunitatem eorum quæ recte cupimus tribuit peragendi . . . deus incipit quæ bona sunt et exsequitur et consummat in nobis, nostrum vero est, tit cotidie adtrahentem nos gratiam dei humiliter subsequamur.” 5: “gentiles veræ castitatis (and that is the virtue κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν) virtutem non agnoverunt.” 6: “semper auxilio dei homines indigere nec aliquid humanam fragilitatem quod ad salutem pertinet per se solam i. aa9 e., sine adiutorio dei posse perficere.” 7: “propositum dei, quo non ob hoc hominem fecerat, tit periret, sed ut in perpetuum viveret, manet immobile, cuius benignitas cum bonæ voluntatis in nobis quantulamcunque scintillam emicuisse perspexerit vel quam ipse tamquam de dura silice nostri cordis excuderit, confovet eam et exsuscitat et confortat . . . qui enim ut pereat unus ex pusillis non habet voluntatem, quomodo sine ingenti sacrilegio putandus est non universaliter omnes, sed quosdam salvos fieri velle pro omnibus? ergo quicumque pereunt, contra illius pereunt voluntatem . . . deus mortem non fecit.” 8: “tanta est erga creaturam suam pietas creatoris, ut non solum comitetur eam, sed etiam præcedit iugiter providentia, qui cum in nobis ortum quendam bonæ voluntatis inspexerit, inluminat eam confestim atque confortat et incitat ad salutem, incrementum tribuens ei quam vel ipse plantavit vel nostro conatu viderit emersisse.” 9: “non facile humana ratione discernitur quemadmodum dominus petentibus tribuat, a quærentibus inveniatur et rursus inveniatur a non quærentibus se et palam adpareat inter illos, qui eum non interrogabant.” 10: “libertatem scriptura divina nostri confirmat arbitrii sed et infirntitatem.” 11: “ita sunt hæc quodammodo indiscrete permixta atque confusa, ut quid ex quo pendeat inter multos magna quæstione volvatur, i.e., utrum quia initium bonæ voluntatis præbuerimus misereatur nostri deus, an quia deus misereatur consequamur bonæ voluntatis initium (in the former case Zacchæus, in the latter Paul and Matthew are named as examples).” 12: “non enim talum deus hominem fecisse credendus est qui nec velit umquam nec possit bonum . . . cavendum nobis est, ne ita ad dominium omnia sanctorum merita referamus, ut nihil nisi id quod malum atque perversum est humanæ adscribamus naturæ . . . dubitari non potest, inesse quidem omni animæ naturaliter virtutum semina beneficio creatoris inserta, sed nisi hæc opitulatione dei fuerint excitata, ad incrementum perfectionis non potuerunt pervenire.”

the universality of grace and the accountability of man, i.e., his free-will. That was an evangelical and correct conception. But as Augustine erred in elevating the necessary self-criticism of the advanced Christian into a doctrine, which should form the sole standard by which to judge the whole sphere of God’s dealings with men, so Cassian erred in not separating his legitimate theory from the rule by which the individual Christian ought to regard his own religious state. He thus opened the door to self-righteousness, because from fear of fatalism he would not bluntly say to himself and those whose spiritual guide he was, that the faith which does not know that it is produced by God is still entangled in the life of self.534 566 Prosper, himself an ascetic and a frequenter of the famous cloisters of Provence, had already attacked his friends as Troubadour of Augustinianism during the lifetime of Augustine (Carmen de ingratis, see also the Ep. ad Rufinum). Now, after 430, he wrote several works in which he defended Augustine, and also himself, against charges that had been brought against Augustinianism.535 He did not succeed in convincing the monks; 250for his admission that Augustine spoke too harshly (“durius”) when he said that God did not will that all men should be saved,536 did not satisfy, and their scruples were not even removed by his contention that there was only one predesti ac8 nation (to salvation), that we must distinguish between this and prescience (as regards the reprobati), and in doing so be certain that God’s action was not determined by caprice, but by justice and holiness.537 He did, however, succeed in getting Pope Celestine to

534

Semi-Pelagianism is no “half truth.” It is wholly correct as a theory, if any theory is to be set up, but it is wholly false if taken to express our self-judgment in the presence of God. ad9 535Pro Augustino responsiones ad capitula objectionum Gallorum calumniantium (against the Gallican monks); Responsiones pro Augustino ad excerpta quæ de Genuensi civitate sunt missa (against Semi-Pelagian priests who desired aufklärung); Responsiones pro Augustino ad capitula objectionum Vincentiarium (here we have the most acute attacks by opponents). The “Galli” adhered to Cassian, though he hardly mentions original sin, while they taught it, and he does not speak so definitely as they about predestination. 536 Sentent. sup. VIII. on the respons. ad capp. Gallorum. 537 Even Augustine, in addition to expressing himself in a way that suggests the twofold doctrine of predestination, said (De dono persev. 14): “Hæc est prædestinatio sanctorum nihil aliud: præscientia scil. præparatio beneficiorum dei quibus certissime liberantur, quicunque liberantur.” Prosper takes his stand on this language (see resp. ad excerpt. Genuens. VIII.): “We confess with pious faith that God has foreknown absolutely to whom he should grant faith, or what men he should give to his Son, that he

send a letter to the Gallican monks, supporting Augustine and blaming the opposition for presumption. The Pope was, however, very reserved in dealing with the matter in question, although he stated strongly the activity of grace as prevenient.538 Prosper now wrote (432) his chief work against the 13th Collatio of Cassian, in which he showed more controversial skill, convicted his opponent of inconsistencies, and stated his own standpoint in a more cautious form, but without any concession in substance. He left Gaul, and took no further part in the dispute, but showed in his “Sentences” and “Epigrams” that as a theologian he continued to depend on Augustine alone.539 Another Augustinian, unknown to us, author of the work, De vocatione omnium gentium,540 sought to do justice to the 251opposition by undertaking to combine the doctrine of the exclusive efficacy of divine grace with the other that God willed that all men should be saved. His intention proves that even among Augustine’s admirers offence was taken at his principle of the particularism of God’s purpose to save. But the laudable endeavour to combine the truth of Augustinianism with a universalist doctrine could not but fail. For all the author’s distinctions between universal grace (creation and history) and special (Christ), and between the sensual, animal, and spiri aa4 tual will (voluntas sensualis, animalis, spiritalis), as well as his assertions that grace, while preparing the will, does not supersede it, and that God desires the salvation of all, could not remove the real causes of offence (the damnation of children who died unbaptised, and reprobation in general) since Augustinianism was to be strictly upheld.541 The work was at all events written with the honourable intention of removing doubts and establishing peace. On the other

might lose none of them; we confess that, foreknowing this, he also foresaw the favours by which he vouchsafes to free us, and that predestination consists in the foreknowledge and preparation of the divine grace by which men are most certainly redeemed.” The reprobate accordingly are not embraced by predestination, but they are damned, because God has foreseen their sins. In this, accordingly, prescience is alone at work, as also in the case of the regenerate, who fall away again. But prescience compels no one to sin. ace 538 Cælest. ep. 21. The appendix was added later, but it perhaps was by Prosper. 539 Gennadius relates (De script. eccl. 85) that Prosper dictated the famous letters of Leo I. against Eutyches. But he gives this as a mere rumour. 540 Included among the works of Prosper and Leo I. 541 A minute analysis of the work is given by Wiggers, II. p. 218 ff. and Thomasius. I. pp. 563-570. It is to be admitted that the work marks an advance by its desire to admit the universality of God’s purpose of salvation. But the doctrine of the universitas specialis is only a play on words, if universitas does not here mean more than with Augustine and Prosper, namely, that men of all nations and periods will be saved.

hand, attempts had been made on the Semi-Pelagian side from the first to make Augustinianism impossible, by an unsparing exposure of its real and supposed consequences, and these efforts culminated (about 450?) in the notorious “Prædestinatus” first discovered in A.D. 1643. The mystery that overhangs this work has not yet been fully solved; but it is probable that the writing of a predestinationist, introduced into Book II., and refuted, from the standpoint of Semi-Pelagianism, in Book III., is a forgery. For Augustine’s teaching is unfolded in it entirely in paradoxical, pernicious, and almost blasphemous propositions, such as no Augustinian ever produced.542 (We have both kinds of predestination strictly carried out: “those whom God has once predestined will, even if they neglect, sin, or refuse, be brought unwillingly to life, while those whom he has predestined to death labour in 252vain, even if they run or hasten).”543 And the contention that the “sect of the predestinationists”544 covers itself with Augustine’s name, like the wolf in sheep’s clothing, is a bold, controversial trick of fence. aec Of the effects produced by this venomous writing nothing is known; on the other hand, we do know that Semi-Pelagianism continued to exist undisturbed in Southern Gaul,545 and, indeed, found its most distinguished defender in Faustus of Rhegium (died shortly before 500), formerly Abbot at Lerinum.546 This amiable and charitable Bishop, highly respected in spite of many peculiar theories, took an active part in all the controversies and literary labours of his time. He was the forerunner of Gregory I. in establishing, from the Episcopal Chair, monastic Christianity in the

542

See Wiggers, II., pp. 329-350. “Quos deus semel prædestinavit ad vitam, etiamsi negligant, etiamsi peccent, etiamsi nolint, ad vitam perducentur inviti, quos autem prædestinavit ad mortem, etiamsi currant, etiamsi festinent, sine causa laborant.” 544 Of any such sect absolutely nothing is known. There is no original authority to show that there actually existed “libertines of grace,” i.e., Augustinians who, under cover of the doctrine of predestination, gave themselves up to unbridled sin. The SemiPelagians would not have suffered such “Augustinians” to escape them in their polemics. There may have arisen isolated ultra-Augustinians like Lucidus, but they were not libertines. 545 North Africa was removed from theological disputes by the dreadful invasion of the Vandals. The majority there were certainly Augustinians, yet doubts and opposition were not wanting; see Aug. Ep. 217 ad Vitalem. abd 546 See Tillemont, Vol. XVI., and Wiggers, II. 224-329; Koch, Der h. Faustus von Riez, 1895 (further, Loofs, Theol. Lit.-Ztg. 1895, Col. 567 ff.). 543

Gallican communities. He had entered the lists against Pelagius (“pestifer”), and he now fought as decidedly against the tenet of the extinction of free-will and the doctrine of predestination, which he declared to be erroneous, blasphemous, heathen, fatalistic, and conducive to immorality. The occasion was furnished by Lucidus, a Presbyter of Augustinian views, who made an uncompromising statement of the doctrine of predestination. He recanted formally after the “error prædestinationis” had been condemned at a Synod at Arles (475), with the assistance, if not on the instigation, of Faustus.547 After this Synod, and a second at Lyons, Faustus 253composed his work, De gratia dei et humane mentis libero arbitrio, lib. II., meant to explain the dogmatic attitude of the Synods—against Pelagius and predestination.548 Grace and freedom are parallel; it is certain that man, since Adam’s Fall, is externally and internally corrupt, that original sin and death as the result of sin reign over him, and that he is thus incapable of attaining salvation by 564 his own strength; but it is as certain that man can still obey or resist grace. God wills the salvation of all; all need grace; but grace reckons on the will which remains, though weakened; it always co-operates with the latter; otherwise the effort of human obedience (labor humanæ obedientiæ)549 would be in vain. Original sin and free-will, in its infirm, weakened state (infirmatum, attenuatum), are not mutually exclusive. But those who ascribe everything to grace fall into heathen and blasphemous follies.550 Our being saved is God’s gift; it does not rest, however, on an absolute predestination, but God’s predetermination depends on the use man makes of the liberty still left him, and in virtue of which he can amend himself (prescience). Faustus no longer shows hims 564 elf to be so strongly influenced by Augustine’s thoughts as Cassian,551 although, as a theologian, he owes more to him than

547

See Mansi VII., where we have also (p. 1010) Lucidus’ recantation in a Libellus ad episcopos. Even before the Synod Faustus had an interview with his friend, and he wrote a doctrinal letter to him (VII. 1007 sq.) which, however, was equally unsuccessful. 548 Further, the Professio fidei (to Leontius) contra eos, qui dum per solam dei voluntatem alios dicunt ad vitam attrahi, alios in mortem deprimi, hinc fatum cum gentilibus asserunt, inde liberum arbitrium cum Manichæis negant. 549 “Obedientia” plays the chief part with Faustus next to castitas. In this the mediæval monk announces himself. 550 Faustus took good care not to contend against Augustine; he only opposed Augustinianism. This is true of the Catholic Church at the present day. 551 Yet he expressed himself very strongly as to original sin, and even taught Traducianism. As with Augustine, pro-creation is the means of transmitting original sin, which rises “per incentivum maledictæ generationis ardorem et per inlecebrorum utriusque parentis amplexum.” Since Christ was alone free from this heritable infection,

the latter does. He is “more of a monk.” Faith also is a work and a 552 254human achievement; ascetic performances are in general brought still more to the front by him, and the possibility of grace preceding the movement of the will towards good is understood to mean that salvation is first offered to a man from without by means of preaching, law, and reproof. (In this sense Faustus is even of opinion that the beginning is always the work of grace.) The most questionable (Pelagian) feature, however, consists in Faustus giving a very subordinate place to internal grace—the adjutorium essentially means for him external aid in the form of law and do 540 ctrine—and that he clearly returns to the Pelagian conception of nature as the original (universal) grace [gratia prima (universalis)]. It is manifest, on the other hand, that he sought to lead precisely ascetics to humility; even where they increase their own merits they are to remember that “whatever we are is of God,” (dei est omne quod sumus), i.e., that perfect virtue is impossible without grace.553 We see when we look closely that Faustus already distinctly preached implicitly the later doctrine of meritum de congruo et de condigno.554 In faith as knowledge, and in the exertions of the will to amend ourselves, we have a merit supported by the first grace ( aec gratia prima); to it is imparted redeeming grace, and the latter now co-operates with the will in producing perfect merits. In his own time Faustus hardly met with an opponent, not to speak of one his equal.555 But in Rome Augustine was held in

because he was not born of sexual intercourse, we must acknowledge the pleasure of intercourse and vice of sensuality to be the origin of the malum originale. We readily see that everything in Augustinianism met with applause that depreciated marriage. And these monks crossed themselves at the thought of Manichæism! 552 Faustus even supposes that fides remained as the knowledge of God after the Fall. 553 See lib. II. 4. On the other hand, Abel, Enoch, etc., were saved by the first grace, the law of nature, II. 6, 7. Since Enoch preceded the rest, in that so early age, by the merit of faith (fidei merito), he showed that faith had been transmitted to him with the law of nature; see also II. 8 (“et ex gentibus fuisse salvatos,” 7). 554 Wiggers calls attention (p. 328) to Faustus’ principle, important for the sake of later considerations in the Church: “Christus plus dedit quam totus mundus valebat” (De grat. et lib. arb. 16). 555 The most distinguished writers of the age held s ac8 imilar views, e.g., Arnobius the younger, Gennadius of Marseilles, Ennodius of Ticinum. Augustine’s own authority was already wavering; for Gennadius permitted himself to write of him (De script. eccl. 39): “unde ex multa eloquentia accidit, quod dixit per Salomonem spiritus sanctus: ex multiloquio non effugies peccatum” and “error tamen illius sermone multo, ut dixi, contractus, lucta hostium exaggeratus necdum hæresis quæstionem absolvit.” Many MSS. have suppressed these passages! We find it said of Prosper (c. 85) that in his work against

255high

honour, without anyone, certainly, saying how far he was prepared to go with him, and doctrines which directly contradicted him were not tolerated. If we may ascribe the decree, De libris recipiendis et non recipiendis, to Gelasius, then that Pope, who is also proved by other facts to have been a strong opponent of Pelagianism, declared Augustine and Prosper’s writings to be in harmony with the Church, but those of Cassian and Faustus “apocryphal.” But the course of affairs in Rome at the beginning of the sixth century makes the ascription of this decree to Gelasius— in its present form—improbable. That is, as Pelagianism had formerly amalgamated with Nestorianism, to which it gravitated, and had thus sealed its doom, so Semi-Pelagianism did not escape the fate of being dragged into the Christological controversy, and of being assailed by the dislike which orthodoxy influenced by Monophysitism cherished against all “that was human.” Those Scythian monks in Constantinople, who wished to force Theopaschitism on the Church,556 handed to the Legate of Pope Hormisdas a Confession of faith, in which they opposed the remains of Nestorianism as well as the doctrine that grace did not effect the act of will and its accomplishment (519).557 Dismissed by the Legate, they brought their view in person before the Pope, and sent a report to the banished North African Bishops, who were residing in Sardinia, and among whom the most important was Fulgentius of Ruspe, a practised disputant against Arianism, and a faithful adherent of Augustine. The report of the Scythians, which discussed Christology as well aaa as the doctrine of grace, and quoted in support of the latter—in its Augustinian form—Eastern and Western authorities, closes with the words: “We hold it necessary 256to add this; not as if you did not know it, but we have considered it useful to insert it in our short paper, in order to refute the folly of those who reject it as containing tenets novel and entirely unheard of in the churches. Instructed in the teaching of all these holy Fathers, we condemn Pelagius, Cælestius, Julian, and those of a similar type of thought, especially the books of Faustus of the cloister of Lerinum, which there is no doubt were written

Cassian he “quæ ecclesia dei salutaria probat, infamat nociva.” Cassian and Faustus are highly praised.—As sources for Semi-Pelagianism there fall further to be considered the homilies, only in part by Faustus, which are printed in the Max. Bibl. Lugd. T. VI., pp. 619-686; see on them Caspari, Briefe, Abhandlungen u. Predigten (1890) p. 418 ff. 556 See Vol. IV., p. 231. 557 These “Scythians” were well versed in Western thought, their leader, Maxentius, who wrote in Latin, belonged himself to the West. In the Confession of faith they treat of grace, “non qua creamur, sed qua recreamur et renovamur.” Pelagius, Cælestius, and Theodore of Mopsuestia are grouped together.

against the doctrine of predestination. In these he attacks the tradition not only of these holy Fathers, but also of the Apostle himself, annexing the support of grace to human effort, and, while doing away with the whole grace of Christ, avowing impiously that the ancient saints were not saved, as the most holy Apostle Peter teaches, by the same grace as we are, but by natural capacity.” The North Africans assented to this, and Fulgentius in reply wrote his work, De incarnatione et gratia, in which, as in earlier writings, he defended the Augustinian standpoint, and especially derived original sin from the lust of sexual intercourse. Free-will in the state of sin was wickedly free (male liberum), and Christ’s grace was to be sharply distinguished from grace in creation (gratia creans) [c. 12]; the act of willing is not ours, and assistance God’s, business, but “it is the part of God’s grace to aid, that it may be mine to will, believe” (c. 16: gratis dei est adjuvare, ut sit meum velle credere). Rom. II. 14, is to be applied to the Gentiles justified by faith (c. 25); and the particularism of grace is also maintained.558 The Scythians left Rome, leaving behind them an anathema on Nestorians, Pelagian,, and all akin to them. The celebrated name of Faustus appeared in a bad light, and Possessor, an exiled African Bishop who lived in Constantinople, hastened to recommend himself to the Pope by the submissive query, What view was now to be taken of Faustus? assuring him at the same time that distinguished State officials equally desired enlightenment. 582 1 Hormisdas gave a reserved answer (Aug. 520). The Scythian monks were branded as vile disturbers of orthodoxy; Faustus 257was described as a man whose private views need disquiet nobody, as the Church had not raised him to the post of a teacher; the doctrine of the Roman Church as regards sin and grace could be seen from Augustine’s writings, especially those to Prosper and Hilary. The Scythians sent a vigorous reply, sparing the Pope in so far as they questioned the authenticity of his letter. If Augustine’s teaching was that of the Catholic Church, then Faustus was a heretic; that is what the Pope would have necessarily said. The heresy was perfectly clear; for Faustus only understood by prevenient grace, external grace—the preaching of the gospel. At the same time, the monks instigated Fulgentius now to write directly against Faustus, which he did in the Seven Books c. Faustum (lost) and—on his return to Africa A.D. 523—in his work, De veritate prædestinationis et gratin dei (l. III.) In this work Fulgentius expounds out and out Augustinianism (particularism of

558

See Wiggers II., pp. 369-4 9. According to Fulgentius, even Mary’s conception was stained, and therefore not free from original sin, see c. 6. 559 All these transactions in Mansi V 564 III.

the will to save), but rejects the idea ab1 of a predestination to sin (nevertheless to punishment).560 The Bishops remaining in Sardinia concurred fully with their colleague in the Ep. Synodica addressed to the Scythian monks: grace is the light, the will the eye; the eye needs light in order to be able to see the light. Faustus’ theses are “inventions, contrary to the truth, entirely hostile to the Catholic faith” (commenta, veritati contraria, catholicæ fidei penitus inimica). These conflicts could not be without consequence for Southern Gaul. Still greater effect was produced by the reading of Augustine’s writings, especially his sermons. In an age that thought solely in contrasts, the dilemma whether Augustine was a holy doctor or a heretic could only be decided ultimately in favour of the incomparable teacher. Cæsarius of Arles, the most meritorious and famous Bishop at the beginning of the sixth century, had, though trained in Lerinum and never wholly belying his training, so steeped himself in Augustine’s works, that he would not abandon him, and his theology and sermons became a mirror of the master’s important thoughts and forms of expression (though not of all or the most characteristic of 258them).561 He fought against (+ 542) the writings and authority of Faustus.562 In Southern Gaul he at first met with much opposition, but still more indifference—for how many Bishops were there at the beginning of the sixth century capable of understanding Augustinianism? In Rome, on the contrary, he found approval.563 This approval was not without effect in Gaul. 57b 1 A mixed Synod at Orange564 in

560

On the derivation of original sin, see I. 4: “proinde de immunditia nuptiarum mundus homo non nascitur, quia interveniente libidine seminatur.” 561 See Arnold’s interesting monograph, Cæsarius von Arelate and die gallische Kirche s. Zeit, 1894. An edition of the Opp. Cæsarii is forthcoming. 562 Avitus of Vienne is usually named along with him; but after Arnold’s authoritativ ac8 e account of the former (p. 202 ff.), he must be disregarded. On the other hand, Mamertus Claudianus is to be named as an opponent of Faustus (Arnold, p. 325); he is an Augustinian and Neoplatonist, and thus an enemy of Semi-Pelagianism as a metaphysician. 563 Cæsarius’ work, however, De gratia et libero arbitrio, and its approval by Felix IV. belong to the realm of fiction (Arnold, p. 499). On the other hand, we have to notice some indirect manifestations on the part of Rome about A.D. 500 in favour of Augustinianism and against Faustus. Yet Rome never took the trouble really to comprehend Augustinianism. 564 We only know of the Synod of Valencia, at which Cæsarius was not present, owing to illness, but where he was represented by a friendly Bishop, from the Vita Cæsarii by his disciple Cyprian (Mansi VIII., p. 723). Hefele has shown (Conciliengesch., II.2 p. 738 ff.), that it is to be dated before the Synod of Orange. It seems necessary to infer from the

A.D. 529 under the presidency of Csarius approved of twenty-five Canons, i.e., headings extracted by Pope Felix IV. from Augustine and Prosper’s writings, and sent by him to the South Gallicans as the doctrine of the “ancient Fathers,” in order to support Cæsarius in his fight against Semi-Pelagianism.566 These Canons567 are strongly anti-Semi-Pelagian 564 :—3: “The grace of God is not granted in response to prayer, but itself causes the prayer to be offered for it.” 4: “That we may be 259cleansed from sin, God does not wait upon, but prepares, our will.” 5: “The beginning of faith is not due to us, but to the grace of God—that state of believing by which we believe in him who justifies the impious, and attain the regeneration of holy Baptism, is brought about through the gift of grace, i.e., the inspiration of the Holy Spirit correcting our will from unbelief to faith, and is not ours naturally.” 6: “It is the work of grace that we believe, will, desire, attempt, knock, etc., and not vice-versâ.” 7: “We cannot without grace think or choose, by our natural powers, anything good that pertains to salvation.” 8: “It is untrue that some attain baptismal faith by mercy, others by free-will.” 9: “As often as we do good, God works in and with us, that we may work.” 10: “Even the regenerate and holy always need the divine aid.” 11: “We can only vow to God what we ourselves have received from him.” 12: “God loves us as we shall be by his gift, not as we are by our merit.” 13: “Choice of will, weakened in the first man, cannot be repaired except by the grace of Baptism.” 16: “Let no one boast of what he seems to ha 558 ve as if he did not receive it, or think that he has received, because the letter appeared or was sounded outwardly that it might be read or heard.” 17: “On the love of God diffused in hearts by the Holy Spirit.” 18: “Undeserved grace precedes meritorious works.” 19: “Even if it had remained in the sound state in which it was created, human nature would by no means preserve itself without the aid of its creator.” 21: “The law does not justify, and grace is not nature; therefore Christ died not

short account that the Bishops met to oppose Cæsarius, and published a decree condemning, or at least disapproving his teaching (see also Arnold, p. 346 ff.). At Orange Cæsarius justified himself, or triumphantly defended his doctrine from “Apostolic tradition,” and Pope Boniface agreed with him, and not with his Valencian opponents. 565 See Arnold p. 350 ff. 566 We cannot now decide whether the 25 Canons are absolutely identical with those transmitt 560 ed heads, or whether the Synod (perhaps even the Pope?) proposed trifling modifications; see Chap. XIX. of the Treves Codex in Mansi VIII., p. 722. However, it is very improbable that the Bishops made important changes in these heads (yet see Arnold, p. 352) since according to them they expounded their own view in the Epilogue. 567 See Hahn, § 103; Hefele, p. 726 f.

gratuitously, but that the law might be fulfilled, and that nature, ruined by Adam, might be repaired by him.” 22: “No one has anything of his own but falsehood and sin,” and “The virtue of heathens is produced only by worldly desire, that of Christians springs not from free will, but from the gift of the Holy Ghost.”568 23: “In (doing) evil men carry out their own will, but when they do what they resolve in order to serve the divine will, although their actions are willed by them, yet it is his will by which their act of will is both prepared and commanded.” 24: “The twig ac1 260does not benefit the stem, but the stem the twig; so also those who have Christ in them and abide in him do not benefit Christ, but themselves.” 25: “To love God is the gift of God.” The definition given by the Bishops, after drawing up these heads, is likewise strongly anti-Semi-Pelagian.569 But no mention is made of predestination,570 nor is the inner process of grace, on which Augustine laid the chief stress, properly appreciated. The former fact would have been no blemish in itself; but at that time, when the question was whether the whole Augustine was authoritative or not, silence was dangerous. Those who were disposed to Semi-Pelagianism could appeal to the fact that Augustine’s doctrine of predestination was not approved, and might then introduce into this unsanctioned tenet a great deal that belonged to the doctrine of grace. This actually took place. Accordingly the controversy only came apparently to an end here. But the continued vitality of Semi-Pelagian ideas, under cover of Augustinian formulas, was further promoted by that external conception of grace as the sacrament of Baptism, which lay at the root of the decree. “Love,” it is true, was also discussed; but we see easily that the idea of the sacrament was all-predominant. “Even Augustine’s adherents,” it has been truly remarked, “lost sight of the distinction between Augustinianism and Semi-Pelagianism in relation to all who were baptised.” It was Augustine himself, who,

568

This Canon caused the greatest distress to the Catholic Church in the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries (see Hefele, p. 733 f.). a91 569 Yet Augustine would not have written the sentence: “hoc etiam credimus, quod accepta per baptismum gratia omnes baptizati Christo auxiliante et co-operante, quæ ad salutem animæ pertinent, possint et debeant, si fideliter laborare voluerint, adimplere.” Besides, the words “que ad salutem pertinent adimplere” and “fideliter laborare” are ambiguous. 570 The word only occurs in the epilogue, and there merely to reject prædestinatio ad malum: “aliquos vero ad malum divina potestate prædestinatos esse non solum non credimus, sed etiam, si sunt qui tantum malum credere velint, cum omni detestatione illis anathema dicimus.” The decree is also silent as to gratia irresistibilis, and the particularism of God’s will to bestow grace.

because he had not comprehended the notion of faith, was to blame for the fact that, at the close of the dispute, a conception was evolved as his doctrine which, while explaining grace to be beginning and end, really held to the magical miracle of Baptism, and to “faithful working with the aid of Christ” (fideliter laborare auxiliante Christo). 261

The new Pope, Boniface II., approved of these decrees in a letter to Cæsarius; 577 1 they have retained a great esteem in the Catholic Church, and were very thoroughly considered by the Council of Trent.571 Henceforth, the doctrine of prevenient grace, on which the Pope also laid particular stress, is to be regarded as Western dogma; the Semi-Pelagians have to be acknowledged heretics. But the controversy could begin anew at any moment, as soon, namely, as any one appeared, who, for the sake of prevenient grace, also required the recognition of particular election to grace. If we consider which of Augustine’s doctrines met with acceptance, and which were passed over, if further we recollect why the former were approved, we are compelled to say that, next to anxiety to secure to the Sacrament of Baptism its irreplaceable importance, it was the monastic view of the impurity of marriage that especially operated here. All are sinful, and grace must come before our own efforts, because all are born from the sinful lust of sexual intercourse. The Catholic system of 564 doctrine has risen from a compromise between two equally monastic conceptions: the meritoriousness of works and the impurity of marriage. Both thoughts were Augustinian in themselves and in their working out; but the moving soul of Augustinianism was starved. It is a fact that has not yet been sufficiently appreciated that Catholic doctrine did not adhere to Semi-Pelagianism, because the former declared sexual desire to be sinful.572

571

Mansi VIII., p. 735 sq. The resolutions were also subscribed by laymen, a thing almost unheard of in the dogmatic history of the ancient Church, but not so in Gaul in the sixth century; see Hatch, “The Growth of Church Institutions” chap. VIII. 572 The Roman Bishops evidently felt their attitude in the Semi-Pelagian controversy prejudiced by the decisions of their predecessors against Pelagius. We look in vain for an independent word coming from internal conviction (Gelasius is perhaps an exception), and yet it is quite essentially “thanks” to them that the Semi-Pelagian dispute ended with the recognition of the Augustinian doctrine of prevenient grace and with silence as to predestination. 59f 573Seeberg (Dogmengesch. I., p. 326), has disputed this, because the representatives of Semi-Pelagianism made the strongest assertions on this point (see especially Faustus), and because the opposition between them and the Augustinians actually depended on quite different issues. Both objections are quite correct, but they do

262

xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

2. Gregory the Great. The doctrine of grace taught by Pope Gregory the Great (590 to 604) shows how little Augustinianism was understood in Rome, and how confused theological thought had become in the course of the sixth century. A more motley farrago of Augustinian formulas and crude work-religion (ergismus) could hardly be conceived. Gregory has nowhere uttered an original thought; he has rather at all points preserved, while emasculating, the trad ac8 itional system of doctrine, reduced the spiritual to the level of a coarsely material intelligence, changed dogmatic, so far as it suited, into technical directions for the clergy, and associated it with popular religion of the second rank. All his institutions were wise and well considered, and yet they sprang from an almost naif monastic soul, which laboured with faithful anxiety at the education of uncivilised peoples, and the training of his clergy, ever adopting what was calculated by turns to disquiet and soothe, and thus to rule the lay world with the mechanism of religion.574 Because Gregory, living in an age when the old was passing away and the new presented itself in a form still rude and disjointed, looked only to what was necessary and attainable, he sanctioned as religion an external legality, as suited to train young nations, as it was adapted to the Epigones of ancient civilisation, who had lost fineness of feeling and thought, were sunk in superstition and magic, and did homage to the stupid ideals of asceticism.575 It is the accent that changes the melody, and the tone makes the music. Gregory created the vulgar type of mediæval Catholicism by the way he accented the various traditional doctrines and Church usages,576 and the tone to

not meet the above statement; the Semi-Pelagian doctrine of grace could not but react upon and modify Augustine’s doctrine of original sin, and therefore also the view of the evil of sin as necessarily propagated by sexual intercourse, involving damnation, and destructive of all goodness. As regards this it is quite indifferent how individual SemiPelagian monks looked at sexual desire and marriage, as also whether this point came at once to light in the controversy. 574 After reading Gregory’s abundant correspondence, w ac4 e gain a high respect for the wisdom, charity, tolerance, and energy of the Pope. 575 Yet side by side with this external legality there are not wanting traits of Gospel liberty; see the letters to Augustine. 576 So Lau. Gregor d. Grosse, p. 326: “Without perceiving, perhaps, the significance of what he did, he prepared the way for the development of later Catholicism by imperceptibly altering the conception of the tradition received from a preceding age.”

which he tuned Christian 263souls is the key we hear echoed by Catholicism down to the present day.577 The voice is the voice of Gregory, and also of Jerome, but the hands are Augustine’s. Only in one respect he was not Augustine’s disciple. Akin to Cyprian and Leo I. and well versed in jurisprudence, he laid stress on the legal element in addition to the ritual and sacramental. Through him the amalgamation of doctrine and Church government made a fur aa5 ther advance in the West.578 A few lines are sufficient to depict the emasculated Augustinianism represented by Gregory. Reason, science, and philosophy, are more strongly depreciated by him than by Augustine (Evang. II. hom. 26);579 miracle is the distinguishing mark of the religious. Reason can, indeed, establish the existence of God, but it is only “by faith that the way is opened to the vision of God” (per aditum fidei aperitur aditus visionis dei; Ezech. II. hom. 5, following Augustine). The doctrine of angels and the devil comes to the front, because it suited popular and monastic piety. We can call Gregory the “Doctor angelorum et diaboli.” As regards the angels, he took particular delight (see Evang. II. hom. 34) in working out their ranks (under the influence of Greek mysticism), in glorifying Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael—the hero of miracle, the great messenger and warrior against the spirits of the air, and the medicine-man—in the exact division of angelic tasks and the idea of guardian spirits; he held that angels watched over men, as the latter did over cattle. He who thought so little of Græco-Roman culture sanctioned its most inferior parts in his 264doctrine of the angels. His monkish fancy dealt still more actively in conceptions about the devil and demons, and he gave new life to ideas about Antichrist, who stood already at the door, because the world was near its end. As the Logos had assumed human nature, so the devil would be incarnate at the end of the world (Moral. 31, 24; 13, 10). Before Christ appeared, the devil possessed all men of right, and he still possesses unbelievers. He raged through the latter; but as regarded believers he was a

577

Gregory was most read of the Western Church Fathers, as the literature of the Middle Ages and our libraries show. Even in the seventh century he was extolled by tasteless and uncritical writers as wiser than Augustine, more eloquent than Cyprian, more pious than Anthony (“nihil illi simile demonstrat antiquitas” Ildefond. de script. I). 578 Lau gives a detailed account of Gregory’s teaching; l.c. pp. 329-556. We see here the extent of Gregory’s dependence on Augustine. He especially lays as great stress on Holy Scripture being the rule of life and doctrine. The most profound of Augustine’s thoughts are touched on, but they are all rendered superficial. 579 “Fides non habet meritum, cui humana ratio præbet experimentum” (§ 1). Tertullian, certainly, had already said that (Apolog. 21) once.

powerless and cheated devil. The doctrines of redemption, justification, grace, and sin show an Augustinianism modified in the interests of miracle, sacred rites and monachism. The Godman—whose mother remained a virgin at and after the birth—was sinless, because he did not come into the world through fleshly lust. He is our redeemer ( aeb redemptor) and mediator—these titles being preferred—and he especially propitiated the devil by purchasing men from him with his death,580 and he abolished the disunion between angels and men. It is also remarked incidentally that Christ bore our punishments and propitiated God’s wrath. But, besides redemption from the devil, the chief thing is deliverance from sin itself. It was effected by Christ putting an end to the punishment of original sin, and also destroying sin itself, by giving us an example.581 This amounts to saying that Christ’s work was incomplete, i.e., that it must be supplemented by our penances, for it transformed the eternal punishment of original sin into temporary penalties, which must be atoned for, and it acts mainly by way of example.582 In fact, in 265Gregory’s teaching, Christ’s

580

The deception theory is thus given by Gregory in its most revolting form. The devil is the fish snapping at Christ’s flesh, and swallowing the hidden hook, his divinity; see Moral. 33, 7, 9. 581 Moral. I. 13: “Incarnatus dominus in semetipso omne quod nobis inspiravit ostendit, ut quod præcepto diceret, exemplo suaderet.” II. 24: “Venit inter homines mediator dei et hominum, homo Christus Jesus, ad præbendum exemplum vitæ hominibus simplex, ad non parcendum malignis spiritibus rectus ad debellandum superbiam timens deum, ad d ac8 etergendam vero in electis suis immunditiam recedens a malo.” 582 Lau. p. 434: “The chief stress is placed on instruction and example; reconciliation with God, certainty of which is absolutely necessary to man’s peace of mind, is almost entirely passed over; and deliverance from punishment is inadequately conceived, as referring merely to original sin, or is regarded purely externally. . . . All that Gregory can do to give man peace is to direct him to penance and his good works.” He speaks of even the holiest remaining in constant uncertainty as to their reconciliation. He can make nothing of the thesis that our sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake. God rather punishes every sin not atoned for by penance, even if he pardons it; see Moral. IX. 34: “Bene dicit Hiob (IX. 28): Sciens quod non parceris delinquenti, quia delicta nostra sive per nos sive per semetipsum resecat, etiam cum relaxat. Ab electis enim suis iniquitatum maculas studet temporali afflictione tergere, quas in eis in perpetuum non vult videre,” In his commentary on 1 Kings (1. IV. 4, 57), which was hardly transcribed indeed in its present form by Gregory himself, we even read: “Non omnia nostra Christus explevit, per crucem quidem suam omnes redemit, sed remansit, ut qui redimi et regnare cum eo nititur, crucifigatur. Hoc profecto residuum viderat, qui dicebat: si compatimur et conregnabimus. Quasi dicat: Quod explevit Christus, non valet nisi ei, qui id quod remansit adimplet.”

death and penance appear side by side, as two factors of equal value.583 We must remember this, or we may assign too high a value to another line of thought. Gregory regards Christ’s death as an offering (oblatio) for our purification: Christ presents it constantly for us, ever showing God his (crucified) body.584 But this apparently high pitched view after all means very little. It has risen from the observance of the Lord’s Supper. What was constantly done by the priest has been transferred to Christ himself. But both oblations, related as they ac8 are to our “purification,” possess their sole value in the mitigation of sin’s penalties. Still another consideration was at work in this case, one that, though relying on Biblical statements, sprang in reality from wholly different sources. It is the conception of Christ’s continual intercession. But this intercession must be combined with the whole apparatus of intercessions (of angels, saints, alms and masses for the dead, which were conceived as personified forces), to see that we are here dealing with a heathen conception, which, though it had indeed long been established in the practice of the Church, was only now elevated into a theory—that of “aids in need.” Gregory’s candid avowal that 266the death of Christ was not absolutely necessary, showed how indefinite was his view of the part it played in this mediation. As God created us from nothing, he could also have delivered us from misery without Christ’s death. But he willed to show us the greatness of his compassion by taking upon himself that from which he desired to deliver us; he willed to give us an example, that we should not dread the misfortune and miseries of the world, but should avoid its happiness; and he sought to teach us to remember death.585 Nor has Gregory yet sketched a theory of Christ’s merit—after the analogy of the merits which we can gain. That was reserved for the Middle Ages; but he has examined Christ’s work from the point of view of masses for the dead and the intercession of saints.

583

Therefore we find over and over in the Moral. in reference to the expiation of sins: “sive per nos, sive per deum.” 584 Moral. i. 24: “Sine intermissione pro nobis holocaustum redemptor immolat, qui sine cessatione patri suam pro nobis incarnation 564 em demonstrat; ipsa quippe ejus incarnatio nostræ emundationis oblatio est; cumque se hominem ostendit, delicta hominis interveniens diluit. Et humanitatis suæ mysterio perenne sacrificium immolat, quia et hæc sunt æterna, quæ mundat.” 585 Moral. 20, 36; 2, 37. Ezek. 1. II. hom. 1, 2. Here occur fine ideas: “Nos minus amasset, nisi et vulnera nostra susciperet” (M. 20, 36).

In the doctrines of the primitive state, original sin, sin, faith and grace, the Augustinian formulas are repeated—after the Canons of Orange, without irresistible grace and particular election.586 But a very real significance was attributed to free-will, which Augustine had abstractly admitted. Here we have the fully developed doctrines of free and prevenient grace, of the primitive state and original sin; (the carnal lust of parents is the cause of our life, therefore the latter is sinful; the “disobedience” or “disorderliness” of the genital organs is the proof of original sin; intercourse in marriage is never innocent). And s 564 ide by side with all this, we have a calm statement of the doctrine of the will, which is merely weakened, and of free choice (liberum arbitrium) which must follow grace, if the latter is to become operative,587—and yet grace is first to determine the will to will. From the first two powers cooperate in all good, since free-will must accept what grace offers. It can therefore be said “that we redeem ourselves because we assent to the Lord redeeming us.”588 Predestination is simply reduced in the 267case of sinners and elect to prescience, while at the same time it is maintained in other passages that it rests on God’s free power and grace. The latter assumption was necessary, because Gregory also adhered to “a fixed and definite number of the elect”—to supply the place of angels; but ul ac8 timately all belong to that number whose perseverance in faith and good works God knew beforehand. After all, everything spiritual is reduced to the rites of the Church. As in the East, these come to the front; but they are regarded in a different way. In the East more scope is given to religious sentiment, which exalts itself and luxuriates in the whole of the Cultus as a divino-human drama; in the West, as befitted the Roman character, everything is more prosaic and calculating. Man accomplishes and receives; submissive obedience is the chief virtue; merits are rewarded, but on the humble a merit not his own

586

See the proof of positive points of agreement between Gregory and the Canons of Oranges in Arnold, Cæsarius, p. 369 f. Yet Gregory never himself appealed to those resolutions. ac6 587How could a bishop, who felt himself to be the pastor of all Christendom, have then made pure Augustinianism the standard of all his counsels? 588 Moral. 24, 10; gee also 33, 21; “Bonum quod agimus et dei est et nostrum, dei per prævenientem gratiam, nostrum per obsequentem liberam voluntatem. . . . Si nostrum non est, unde nobis retribui præmia speramus? Quia ergo non immerito gratias agimus, scimus, quod ejus munere prævenimur; et rursum quia non immerito retributionem quærimus, scimus, quod obsequente libero arbitrio bona eligimus, quæ ageremus.” See Ep. III. 29: Christ will comfort us richly at the judgment, when he observes that we have punished our faults by ourselves.

is also bestowed: that is grace. Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and penance are the central points in the legal process of grace. We are baptised: thereby inherited guilt is expiated, and all sins committed before baptism are blotted out; but original sin is not obliterated, and the guilt of later sins remains.589 It must be cancelled or atoned for. For this there are numerous means, which are as necessary as they are uncertain. A man must make himself righteous; for righteousness is the supreme virtue (radix virtutum). He is instructed to pray, give alms, and mourn over life. But he is further told: “Those who trust in no work of their own run to the protection of the holy martyrs, and throng to their sacred 268bodies with tears, entreat that they may merit pardon at the intercession of the saints.”590 This practice of resorting to saints and relics had existed for a long time, but Gregory has the merit of systematising it, at the same time providing it with abundant material by means of his “Dialogues,” as well as his other writings.591 A cloud of “mediators” came between God and the soul: angels, saints, and Christ; and men began already to compute cunningly what each could do for them, what each was good for. Uncertainty about God, pervers ac8 e, monkish humility, and the dread entertained by the poor unreconciled heart of sin’s penalties, threw Christians into the arms of pagan superstition, and introduced the “mediators” into dogmatics. But in terrifying with its principle: “sin is in no case absolved without punishment” (nullatenus peccatum sine vindicta

589

Moral. IX. 34: “Salutis unda a culpa primi parentis absolvimur, sed tamen reatum ejusdem culpæ diluentes absoluti quoque adhuc carnaliter obimus.” The casuistical treatment of sins is by no means puritanical in Gregory. He displays in this matter a lofty wisdom united with charity, and gives directions which were certainly the best for the circumstances of the time. He says once (Ep. XI. 64): “It is characteristic of pious souls to imagine that they are guilty of faults when there is absolutely none.” 590 Moral. XVI. 51: “Hi qui de nullo suo opere confidunt, ad sanctorum martyrum protectionem currunt atque ad sacra eorum corpora fletibus insistunt, promereri se veniam iis intercedentibus deprecantur.” 566 591Similar things to those recorded by Gregory were often narrated at an earlier date; but no Western writer before him had developed these superstitions to such an extent—and he was the most influential bishop. Miracles wrought by relics were to him every-day events; the miraculous power of some was so great that everyone who touched them died. Everything that came in contact with them was magnetised. What powerful intercessors and advocates must then the saints be, when even their bodies did such deeds! Gregory therefore sought to preserve the attachment of influential people by sending relics and—slaves. On pictures, see Ep. IX. 52; IX. 105; XI. 13.

laxatur),592 the Church not only referred men to intercessors, alms, and the other forms of satisfaction, to “masses for the dead,” which obtained an ever-increasing importance, but it even modified hell, placing purgatory in front of heaven; it thereby confused conscience and lessened the gravity of sin, turning men’s interest to sin’s punishment. Gregory sanctioned and developed broadly the doctrine of purgatory,593 already suggested by Augustine.594 The power of the Church, of prayers, 269and intercessors extended, however, to this purgatory of his.595 The whole life even of the baptised being still stained at least by small sins, their constant attitude must be one of penitence, i.e., they must practise penance, which culminates in satisfactions and invocations to “Aids in need.” Gregory systematised the doctrine of penance in the exact form in which it passed over into the Middle Ages.596 Penance included four points, perception of sin and dread of God’s judgments, regret (contritio), con aaa fession of sin, and satisfaction (satisfactio). The two first could also be conceived as one (conversio mentis).597 The chief emphasis was still held to fall on “conversion,” even penance was not yet attached to the institution of the Church and the priest; but “satisfaction” was necessarily felt to be the main thing. The last word was not indeed yet said; but already the order of penance was

592

Moral, IX. 34, or: “delinquenti dominus nequaquam parcit, quia delictum sine ultione non deserit. Aut enim ipse homo in se pænitens punit, aut hoc deus cum homine vindicans percutit.” 593 See Dial. IV. (25) and 39. After God has changed eternal punishments into temporary, the justified must expiate these temporary penalties for sin in purgatory. This is inferred indirectly from Matth. XII. 31, directly from 1 Cor. III. 12 f. There are perfect men, however, who do not need purgatory. 594 See above, p. 232. 595 Dial. IV. 57: “Credo, quia hoc tam aperte cum viventibus ac nescientibus agitur, ut cunctis hæc agentibus ac nescientibus ostendatur, quia si insolubiles culpæ non fuerint, ad absolutionem prodesse etiam mortuis victima sacræ oblationis possit. Sed sciendum est, quia illis sacræ victimæ mortuis prosint, qui hic vivendo obtinuerunt, ut eos etiam post mortem bona adjuvent, quæ hic pro ipsis ab aliis fiunt.” 596 On the older Western order of penance, see Preuschen, Tertullian’s Schriften de pænit. and de pudicit. 1890; Rolff’s Das Indulgenzedict des röm. Bischofs Kallist 1893 (Texte and Unters. Vol. Part 3); Götz, Die Busslehre Cyprian’s 1895; Karl Muller, Die Bussinstitution in Karthago unter Cyprian (Zeitschr. f. K.-Gesch., Vol. 16 [1895-96] p. 1 ff., p. 187 ff.). 597 564 1 Reg. 1. VI. 2, 33: “tria in unoquoque consideranda sunt veraciter pænitente, videlicet conversio mentis, confessio oris et vindicta peccati.” Moral 13, 39: “convertuntur fide, veniunt opere, convertuntur deserendo mala, veniunt bona faciendo.” Voluntarily assumed pains constitute satisfactio.

taking the place due to faith; nay, it was called the “baptism of tears.”598 And the Lord’s Supper was also ultimately drawn into the mechanism of penance. In this case, again, Gregory had only to accentuate what had long been in use. The main point in the Lord’s Supper was that it was a sacrifice, which benefited living and dead as a means of mitigation (laxatio). As a sacrifice it was a repetition of Christ’s—hence Gregory’s development of the 270ceremonial ritual—and it is self-evident that this was conceived altogether realistically. In this rite (eucharistia, missa, sacrificium, oblatio, hostia, sacramentum passionis, communio), the passion of Christ;599 who “is entire in the single portions” (in singulis portionibus totus est), was repeated for our atonement. Yet even here the last word was not yet uttered, transubstantiation was not yet evolved. Indeed, we find, accompanying the above, a view of the Lord’s Supper, which lays stress on our presenting ourselves to God as the victim (the host), in yielding ourselves to him, practising love, rendering daily the sacrifice of tears, despising the world, and—daily offering the host of the body and blood of Christ. ae6 1 What has been left here of Augustinianism? All the popular Catholic elements which Augustine thrust aside and in part remodelled have returned with doubled strength! The moral and legal view has triumphed over the religious. What we see aimed at in Cyprian’s work, De opere et eleemosynis, now dominates the whole religious conception, and the uncertainty left by Augustine as to the notion of God, because his ideas regarding God in Christ were only vague, has here become a source of injury traversing the whole system of religion. For what does Gregory know of God? That, being omnipotent, he has an inscrutable will;600 being the

598

Evang. 1. I. hom. 10: “Peccata nostra præterita in baptismatis perceptione laxata sunt, et tamen post baptisma multa commisimus, sed laxari iterum baptismatis aqua non possumus. Quia ergo et post baptisma inquinavimus vitam, baptizemus lacrimis conscientiam.” 599 Evang. 1. II. hom. 37, 7: “Singulariter ad absolutionem nostram oblata cum lacrimis et benignitate mentis sacri altaris hostia suffraga 561 tur, quia is, qui in se resurgens a mortuis jam non moritur, adhuc per hanc in suo mysterio pro nobis iterum patitur. Nam quoties ei hostiam suæ passionis offerimus, toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram passionem illius reparamus.” 600 See Dial. IV. 58, 59. Gregory already laid great stress on the frequency of masses. He also approved of their use to avert temporal sufferings. He tells with approval of a woman having delivered her husband from prison by their means, and he sees in them generally the remedy against all torments in this world and in purgatory. Only to eternal blessedness the mass does not apply. 601 That is the impression that was preserved of Augustine’s doctrine of predestination.

requiter, he leaves no sin unpunished; and that because he is beneficent, he has created an immense multitude of institutions for conveying grace, whose use enables the free will to escape sin’s penalties, and to exhibit merits to God the rewarder. That is Gregory’s notion of God, and it is 271the specific conception held by the Roman Catholic Church: Christ as a person is forgotten. He is a great name in dogmatics, i.e., at the relative place; but the fundamental questions of salvation are not answered by reference to him, and in life the baptised has to depend on “means” which exist partly alongside, partly independently of him, or merely bear his badge. From this standpoint is explained the whole structure of Gregory’s theory of religion, which once more sets up fear602 and hope instead of faith and love, and for the grace of God in Christ substitutes not an improved, but merely a more complicated doctrine of merit. And yet Augustine could not have complained of this displacement of his ideas; for he had left standing, nay, had himself admitted into his system, all the main lines of this theory of religion. Even the manifest and grave externalisation of sin, the direction that we must be ever bathed in tears, while at the same time zealous and watchful to escape the penalties of sin, the perversion of the notion of God and sin, as if God⍊ac8 s sole concern was to be satisfied, since he was the requiter—all these thoughts have their points of contact in the range of Augustine’s conceptions.603 The darkest spot in mediæval piety, the fact that it commanded constant contrition, while at the same time it incited the penitent to make calculations which deadened the moral nerve and changed regret for sin into dread of punishment—this source of evil, which makes religious morality worse than non-religious, was from this time perpetuated in the Catholic Church of the West.604

567

602

“Deus terrores incutit”—often. The term “tutius,” and the via tutior already play a great part in Gregory’s writings; see e.g., Dial. IV. 58: “Pensandum est, quod tutior sit via, ut bonum quod quisque post mortem suam sperat agi per alios, agit ipse dum vivit per se.” Accordingly that is only tutius, and not a self-evident duty. 604 Gregory also expressly forbids anyone ab5 to be certain of his salvation; for this he could, indeed, appeal to Augustine. His letter to the Empress Gregoria’s lady of the bedchamber is most instructive (V. 25). This poor woman wished to have assurance of her salvation, and had written the Pope that she would ply him with letters until he should write that he knew by a special revelation that her sins were forgiven. What an evangelical impulse in A.D. 596! The Pope replied, first, that he was unworthy of a special revelation; secondly, that she should not be certain of forgiveness until, the last day of her life having come, she should no longer be in a position to deplore her sins. Till 603

272

But in the case of Gregory himself this system of religion is traversed by many other ideas gained from the Gospel and Augustine. He could speak eloquently of the impression made by the person of Christ, and describe the inner change produced by the Divine Word605 in such a way as to make us feel that he is not reproducing a lesson he has learnt from others, but is speaking from his own experience. “Through the sacred oracles we are quickened by the gift of the Spirit, that we may reject works that bring death; the Spirit enters, when God touches the mind of the reader in different ways and orders.”606 The Spirit of God works on the inner nature through the Word. Thus, many of Augustine’s best thoughts are reproduced in Gregory’s writings.607 Again, in his Dogmatics he was not a sacerdotalist. If, as is undeniable, he gave an impetus to the further identification of the empir 564 ical Church with the Church, if all his teaching as to the imputed merit of saints, oblations, masses, penance, purgatory, etc., could not but benefit the sacerdotal Church, and favour the complete subjection of poor souls to its power, if, finally, his ecclesiastical policy was adapted to raise the Church, with the Pope at its head, to a supremacy that limited and gave its blessing and sanction to every other power, yet his dogmatic was by no means mere ecclesiasticism. We wonder, rather, that he has nowhere drawn the last, and apparently so obvious consequences,608 in other 273words,

then she must continue to fear; for certainty is the parent of indolence; she must not strive to obtain it lest she go to sleep. “Let thy soul tremble for a little while just now, that it may afterwards enjoy unending delight.” 605 Divinus sermo. The phrase “verbum fidei” is also very common. 606 Ezech. I., h. 7. “Per sacra eloquia dono spiritus vivificamur, ut mortifera a nobis opera repellamus; spiritus vadit, cum legentis animum diversis modis et ordinibus tangit deus.” 607 Gregory’s veracity, indeed, is not altogether above suspicion. His miraculous tales are often not ingenuous, but calculated; read e.g., Ep. IV. 30. His propaganda for the Church did not shrink from doubtful means. The Jews on papal properties were to be influenced to accept Christianity by the remission of taxes. Even if their own conversion was not sincere, their children would be good Catholics (Ep. V. 8). Yet Gregory has expressed himself very distinctly against forcible conversions (Ep. I. 47). adb 608Besides, he by no means sought to introduce the usages of the Roman Church by tyrannical force, but rather directed Augustine, the missionary, to adopt what good he found in other national Churches; see Ep. XI. 64. On the other hand, the bewildering identification of Peter and the Pope made a further advance in the hands of Gregory. He means the Pope when he says: “s. ecclesia in apostolorum principis soliditate firmata est.” And he declares (Ep. IX. 12): “de Constantinopolitana ecclesia quod dicunt, quis eam dubitet sedi apostolica; esse subjectam;” see also the fine passage Ep. IX. 59: “Si

that he did not rigidly concentrate the whole immense apparatus in the hand of the priest, and give the latter the guidance of every single soul. Already this had been frequently done in practice; but the thought still predominated that every baptised person was alone responsible for himself, and had to go his own way in the sight of God and within the Church, by aid of penance and forgiveness. It was reserved for the mediæval development first to set up dogmatically the d eb0 emand that the penitent, i.e., every Christian from baptism to death, should depend wholly on the guidance of the priest.609 274

Chapter VI. History of Dogma in the Period of the Carlovingian Renaissance.

CHAPTER VI. HISTORY OF DOGMA IN THE PERIOD OF THE CARLOVINGIAN RENAISSANCE. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

AMONG the young uncivilised peoples, all ecclesiastical institutions occupied a still more prominent place than had been given them even by the development of the Church in the Roman Empire. The philosophical and theological capital of antiquity, already handed down in part in compendia, was propagated in new abridgements (Isidore of Seville, Bede, Rabanus, etc.). John Scotus the unique excepted,610 no one was now able to probe that

qua culpa in episcopis invenitur, nescic quis Petri successori subjectus non sit; cum vero culpa non exigit, omnes secundum rationem humilitatis æquales sunt.” 609 Gregory’s extensive correspondence shows how far even at this time strictly theological questions had come to be eclipsed by practical ones as to pastoral supervision and education by means of the cultus and church order. On Gregory’s importance in connection with the cultus, see Duchesne’s excellent work, Orig. du culte chrétien (1888), esp. p. 153 sq. 610 Johannes Scotus Erigena’s system (chief work: De divisione nature, see Migne CXXII.; Christlieb 1860, Huber 1861, see Ritter and Baur), does not belong to the history of dogma in the West, for it is an entirely free, independent reproduction of the Neoplatonic (pantheistic) type of thought, as represented by the Areopagite and especially “the divine philosopher Maximus Confessor,” whom Scotus had read. Augustine also undoubtedly influenced him; but he has not brought his speculation any nearer Christianity. The most learned and perhaps also the wisest man of his age, he maintained the complete identity of religio vera and philosophia vera, and thus restored to

intellectual world to its ultimate ideas and perceptions, 275and make it part of their own spiritual experience.611 To the historian of civilisation everything in the epoch is interesting; in the Carlovingian age, the foundations were laid for the developments of the Middle Ages; but to the historian of dogma, if we are to consider not the appropriation of familiar material, but the advance of evolution, that period does not offer much. The Carlovingian epoch was a great, and in many respects an unsuccessful, essay at a renaissance of antiquity. It was not the product of the slow natural evolution of the Germano-Roman peoples, but Charlemagne and his circle sought to gain by storm a higher culture for the Frankish Empire, by a frequently forced return to antiquity, or by the establishment in their midst of Byzantine culture. Antiquity was still a living thing in Constantinople. Springer has shown, in dealing with the history of art, that the Carlovingian school is to be regarded as the afterbloom of ancient, and not as the beginning of mediæval, art; and this applies also to theological and philosophical efforts. The Carlovingian period marks the epoch-making beginnings in the history of institutions;612 in the history of spiritual 1ife it is an appendix to that of the ancient world. Therefore the history of dogma in the Middle Ages begins, strictly speaking, with the age of Clugny.613 It is also useless to discus 17c s, in connection with

its central place the fundamental thou ac8 ght of ancient philosophy. But to him, only nominally conceding a place to authority beside reason, the philosophia vera was that monism of view in which the knowledge of nature and that of God coincide, thought and being in that case also coinciding. (Everything is nature, and finally indeed, “nature which does not create and is not created,” and the notion of being existing in the human mind is the substance of being itself: “intellectus rerum veraciter ipsæ res sunt.”) Acosmic idealism is carried by Scotus (as by Stephan bar Sudaili) to the point at which even deity disappears in the intellect of man. All agreements with Church doctrines rest with Scotus on accommodation; they do not spring, however, from perplexity, but from the clear insight that wrappings must exist. In reality, even the living movement of nature itself is only an appearance. Without influence, indeed regarded with suspicion in his own time, he did not afterwards become the instructor of the West, though Western mystics have learnt much from him. He was too much of a Greek. In love and power of systematic construction he was phenomenal, and speculative philosophers rightly revere him as a master. 611 It is, on the other hand, wonderful with what strength of memory and intellect men like Alcuin and Paulinus of Aquileia familiarised themselves with the separate lines of Augustine’s thought. Alcuin also lived a life of Augustinian piety. 612 See Hatch: An introductory lecture on the study of ecclesiastical history, 1885. 613 On the history of dogma in the Carlovingian age, see Schwane, Dogmengesch. der mittleren Zeit. 1882; Bach, Dogmengesch. des Mittelalters I. Th. 1873, Thomasius-

this branch of study, the so-called popular forms of German Christianity found in poetical and prose fragments. For, firstly, their popular character is very limited; secondly, popular Christianity has hardly exercised any influence 276at all on institutions, not to speak of dogma. He who wished to reach a higher theological c abc ulture, read Augustine and Gregory, Gregory and Augustine, and he felt himself to be merely a disciple in relation to these and the other Latin Fathers, having still to learn the lessons delivered to him.614 At that time many of the clergy were undoubtedly keenly desirous of culture; to see this we have only to look at the manuscripts preserved from the eighth and ninth centuries.615 Nor must we overlook the fact that a small number of scholars went further than those belonging to the period A.D. 450-650, that they advanced beyond Isidore and Gregory to Augustine himself, saw through the emasculation of religion and its perversion into a ceremonial service and belief in miracle, and returned to the spiritual teaching of Augustine.616 But the lofty figure of the

Seeberg, Dogmengesch. II. 1, 1888: Reuter, Gesch. der relig. Aufklä ac8 rung im Mittelalter, 1875, I. pp. 1-64. The last book discusses the efforts to promote culture. Cf. also Göbl, Gesch. der Katechese im Abendland 1880, and Spiess, Gesch. des Unterrichtswesens in Deutschland von den ältesten Zeiten bis zur Mitte des 13 Jahrhunderts, 1885. Further the histories of the German Church by Rettberg and Hauck. On “popular theology” among Anglo-Saxons, Saxons, and Franks, see Bach, l.c. I., p. 81 ff. 614 John Scotus forms an exception, and so also does, in some sense, Fredegis of Tours, so far as the latter took an independent view of the ominous “nihil” presented by Augustinian metaphysics. Ahner has, however, shown in his Dissertation on Fredegis and his letter “De nihilo et tenebris” (1878) that this work has been over-estimated by earlier scholars. 615 Our gratitude is due to Schrörs for having given in his monograph on Hinkmar (1884), pp. 166-174, an account of the ancient works read or quoted by the great Bishop. What an amount of learning and reading is evident from this comparison, and yet Hinkmar was by no means the greatest scholar. It is also interesting to notice that Hinkmar held strictly to the edict of Gelasius. 616 A greater interest in Dialectics was also shown by many teachers of the Carlovingian period than by earlier theologians. Compare Alcuin’s work, De fide trinitatis, which also displays a valiant effort to reach systematic unity in theological thought. Fredegis, Alcuin’s discipulus dulcissimus, was also reproved by Agobard as a “philosopher” for his preference for dialectics, the syllogism, and vexed questions. (“Invenietis nobilitatem divini eloquii non secundum vestram assertionem more philosophorum in tumore et pompa esse verborum” Agobardi lib. c. ob 564 ject. Fredegisi abb.) Yet his teaching as to auctoritas and ratio was not different from Augustine’s; but distrust was caused by the earnest attempt, on the basis of authority, to

African Bishop set bounds to any further advance. The best looked up to him, but none saw past him, not even Alcuin and Agobard, though the latter has also studied Tertullian.617 It is very attractive to study, in connection with Church history, the energetic efforts of the Carlovingian Augustinians, 277to observe their attempts, following but surpassing the great Emperor, to purify the traditional form of religion, and to narrow the range of a stupid awe of the mysteries and of a half-heathen superstition. But it would merely lead to confusion in the history of dogma if we were to try to examine these attempts.618 570 The transactions and determining events important to the history of dogma in our epoch divide into the following groups. 1. Controversies as to Byzantine and Roman Christology contrasted

use reason in dealing with dogma. In the dispute between Agobard and Fredegis many controversial questions emerged which would have become important if the opponents had really developed them. 617 On Alcuin, see Werner’s monograph (1881). Radbert had also read Tertullian. 618 The conditions which heralded the Carlovingian Renaissance consisted in the political position of the Frankish Empire, the flourishing of theological studies among the Anglo-Saxons (Bede), the ecclesiastical activity of Boniface on the Continent, and the pa 564 rtly new, partly revived, relations of the Empire to Rome and Constantinople. The fact that elements of culture from England, Rome, Lombardy, and finally also the East converged at Charlemagne’s Court, and found so energetic a Mæcenas in the king, made possible the renaissance, which then continued to exist under Louis the Pious, and at the Court of Charles the Bald. We cannot over-estimate the contribution made by Constantinople. We need only recall the works of the Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus, and John of Damascus, which at that time had reached the Frankish Kingdom. Not only John Scotus, but e.g., Hinkmar, read or quoted the Pseudo-Dionysius. Some knowledge of Greek was possessed by a few Anglo-Saxons from the days of Archbishop Theodore of Tarsus in Canterbury; but they were to a much greater extent teachers of Augustinianism; yet not in the Christological question (see under). It was in Augustine along with the Areopagite that the mediæval mysticism of the West—and also Scotus—found its source; for it is very one-sided to make the latter alone responsible for mysticism. The Franks’ love of culture received its greatest strength from the acquisition of the Crown of Imperial Rome, A.D. 800. What had formerly been a voluntary aspiration now assumed the appearance of a duty and obligation; for the king-emperor of the Franks and Roman 564 s was the successor of Augustine and Constantine. But how rapidly all this blossom withered! Walafrid writes truly in the prologue to Einhard’s Life of Kaiser Karl: “When King Karl assembled wise men, he filled with light, kindled by God, the mist-shrouded, and so to speak almost entirely dark, expanse of the kingdom entrusted to him by God, by the new radiance of all science such as till then had been in part wholly unknown to these barbarians. But now, since these studies once more relapse into their opposite, the light of wisdom, which finds few who love it, becomes ever rarer.”

with that of Augustine and the West, and between the Gregorian system of doctrine and Augustine’s theory of predestination.619 2. Disputes shared in by Rome against the East regarding the filioque, and against Rome and the East about 278images.620 3. The development of the practice and theory of the Mass and of penance.621 564 xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

I. (a.) The Adoptian Controversy.622 After the Western Christological formula of the two natures had been forced on the East at the fourth Council, the latter had at the fifth Council given the formula a Cyrillian interpretation, which it confirmed by condemning the Three Chapters. Since the Roman Bishop had to accede to the new definition, which was regarded in the West as a revolt from that of Chalcedon, a schism took place in Upper Italy, which was only got over with difficulty, extending into the seventh century, and damaging the Pope’s prestige in the West. The Monothelite controversies brought the schism to an end,623 and the sixth Council restored the formula of Chalcedon in the new version .af the problem—the qu 564 estion as to the will in Christ. But men were far from drawing the consequences of the formula in the East, or in Rome itself. Mysticism, which taught the complete and inseparable union of the divine and human, and celebrated its triumph in all the ritual institutions of the Church, had long overgrown the intractable dogmatic formula and stifled its influence. But the case was different with many Western Bishops, so long as they had not yet been reached by Greek mysticism, and still were under the influence of the ancient Western tradition, especially Augustine. They held the Christological theory that the Holy Trinity had

619

In these conflicts the controversy as to Augustine is represented. See also the dispute as to the Lord’s Supper. 620 aba These controversies are of universal interest in Church history. 621 In this development the dogmatic interest of the Carlovingians was alone really acute, leading to new definitions, if not at once expressed in strictly dogmatic forms. To this subject also belongs the doctrine of the saints (Mary), relics, and indulgences. 622 See Bach, l.c. Walch, Ketzerhistorie, Vol. IX.; Hefele, Concil. Gesch. III.,2 p. 642 ff. (628 ff.); Helfferrich, D. westgothische Arianismus u. die spanische Ketzergeschichte 1860; Gams, Kirchengesch. Spaniens, Vol. II.; Dorner, Entwickel. Gesch. Vol. II.; Hauck, K.-Gesch. Deutschlands, Vol. II., p. 256; Opp. Alcuini ed. Froben; Mansi, T. XII., XIII.; Migne, T. XCVI.-CI. 623 Yet not yet everywhere.

effected the Incarnation by the second Person of the Godhead, the Son, selecting a man (homo) in virtue of eternal election—without antecedent 279merits on the part of the man—by uniting with him to form a personal unity, and by thus adopting him to perfect sonship.624 This scheme is distinguished toto coelo from the Greek one (received in Rom 55b e) of the fifth Council, even if—as happened—the whole of human nature was also understood by the homo. For, according to the prevailing Greek conception, the GodLogos; in the moment of the Incarnation, so assumed human nature and received it into the unity of his being (ἰδιοποιεῖν), that it participated completely in the dignity, and accordingly in the sonship, of the Son, the incarnate Logos thus being in every respect as much the one real Son of God as the pre-existent. To hold Jesus Christ as Son of Man to be merely the adopted Son of God destroyed, according to Greek ideas, the whole mystery of the Incarnation, and took the Church back to the abyss of Nestorianism. Conversely, it was possible for one who took his stand on Augustinian Christology to feel that the contention that the Son of Man was as essentially Son of God as the Logos, was a relapse into Docetism or even Pantheism—the fusion of divine and human. The great claim of Cyril’s conception consisted in its maintenance of the perfect unity of the Redeemer’s personality, 55d 1 the justification of the other in its adherence to Christ’s real humanity. This humanity was to the opposite party in truth only a theorem, whose avowal permitted them to deify in concreto everything human in Christ,625 while the Adoptians were only able to postulate the unity of the Son of God and Son of Man.626

624

See Augustine’s Christology above, p. 127 ff. The idea of the adoptio of the man Jesus, or human nature, also occurs in Tertullian, Novatian, Marius Victorinus, and Hilary. 625 So far as the retention of this is the condition of understanding Jesus Christ, the Greek conception is superior to the Adoptian. 572 626 The defenders of the anti-Adoptian Christology (Alcuin’s) have not latered their tactics at the present day. Thus Bach says (l.c. I., p. 109 ff.): “The Adoptians had no presentiment of that which the (Greek) Fathers call the pneumatic quality of Christ’s flesh. Christ’s body is to them that of common human nature in every respect. In this kenotic (!!) we have the basis of Adoptian dualism. . . . Felix, like Elipandus, does not understand the pneumatic human nature in Christ.” If these words suggest any meaning at all, they show that the modern historian of dogma is as honest a Docetic as the orthodox after Justinian’s heart. 627 The case is precisely the same as in Christological conflicts generally from the days of Apollinaris. There is right and wrong on bot aa3 h sides, but after all on neither, because the conception of a divine nature in Christ leads either to Docetism or the double

280

It is the old antagonism of Monophysitism and Nestorianism, toned down, indeed, in phraseology, but not lessened in substance—how could it be lessened? It is not wonderful that it broke out once more after the sixth Council, and that in connection with the term “ ad7 adoptio.” It is only surprising that it arose at the outskirts of Christendom; and that the controversy occasioned by it in the Church was so rapidly and thoroughly quieted. If we reflect that Augustine had unhesitatingly taught that Christ, on his human side, was the adopted Son of God and the supreme example of prevenient free grace (gratia gratis data præveniens), that he was read everywhere, that many passages in the Western Fathers gave evidence of Adoptianism,628 and that even Isidore of Seville had written without being questioned: “he is called sole-begotten from the excellence of his divinity, because he is without brothers, firstbegotten on account of the assumption of a man, in which act he has deigned to have brothers by the adoption of grace, with regard to whom he should be the first-begotten,”629 we are seized with astonishment at the secret, energetic counter-action of the Christological mysticism of Cyril and the Areopagite. It captivated thoughtful and superstitious Christians in Rome, and thence in England, Upper Italy, and France. It succeeded in doing so, because it was allied both with the philosophical speculation of the time and the superstitious craving for mysteries. Plato and Aristotle, as they were understood, were its evangelists, and, again, every celebration of the Lord’s Supper, yea, every relic, was a silent missionary for it. In this men experienced the identity of the heavenly and earthly; accordingly, that identity had to be recognised above all in Christ himself. Thus the Western and Augustinian Christology, 281with its last, and yet so significant, remnant of a historical view of Christ—his subjection to divine grace—was effaced, not by a conflict, but much more certainly by a silent revolution.630

personality. All speculations that seek to escape these consequences can display at most their good intentions. 628 This was bluntly asserted by Marius Victorinus (adv. Arium I.) to whom is entirely due the Augustinian view of Christology sub specie prædestinationis. 629 Migne, CI., p. 1322 sq.: “Unigenitus vocatur secundum divinitatis excellentiam, quia sine fratribus, primogenitus secundum susceptionem hominis, in qua per adoptionem gratiæ fratres habere dignatus est, de quibus esset primogenitus.” 630 Western Augustinian Christology, like Nestorianism, deserved its fall; for since it taught that the God-Logos existed behind the man Jesus who was supported by divine grace, the relation of the work of redemption to that homo was extremely uncertain. The result was a duplicity of view which could only produce confusion, and which had to

But Augustinian Christology was advocated in Arabian Spain about 565 A.D. 780 by Elipandus, Metropolitan of Toledo, and soon afterwards in Frankish Spain by Felix, Bishop of Urgel; it being also supported by the Mozarabian liturgy.631 They strongly emphasised the view that Christ was adopted as man, and the redeemed were accordingly, in the fullest sense, brothers of the man Jesus. There has been a good deal of argument as to how the two bishops, who, for the rest, had the approval of the majority of their colleagues in Spain, were influenced thus to emphasise the adoptio. After what we have observed above we ought rather to ask why the other Western Bishops did not do the same. In any case, the hypothesis that this Adoptianism is to be explained from Ancient West Gothic Arianism632 is still less tenable than its derivatio abc n from Arab influences.633 Nor do we obtain much enlightenment from the reference to the controversy which Elipandus had previously waged with a heretic named Migetius,634 since the doctrines ascribed to him do not seem to have been the reverse of Adoptianism, while the whole figure is obscure.635 All that is clear is that at that date the 282Spanish Church possessed no connection with Rome, that it rejected the alliance sought by Hadrian I., and, while relatively uninfluenced by the Roman and Byzantine Church tradition,636 was in a state of great confusion

come to an end, until the conception of faith should be thoroughly accepted, unhampered by pernicious speculations as to the two natures, that God himself was in the man Jesus. 631 See the seven, though not equally valuable passages in Hefele, l.c., p. 650 f.: “adoptivi hominis passio”—“adoptivi hominis non horruisti vestimentum”—“salvator per adoptionem carnis sedem repetiit deitatis,” etc. 632 So Helfferich, l.c.; also Hauck, R.-Encyklop I3., p. 185, leaves it open. 633 Gfrörer, K.-Gesch. III., p. 644 ff. Graf. Baudissin, Eulogius und Alvar 1872, p. 61 f. The traces cited of a connection between Elipandus and Felix with the Saracens are very slight; besides, the objections felt by the latter to the doctrine of the Trinity are not lessened by Adoptianism. Elipandus defended the doctrine with peculiar emphasis. 634 Hefele, O ac8 p. cit., p. 628 ff. 635 Besides his enthusiasm for Rome, Migetius’ main heresy seems to have been that he conceived God strictly as a single person, and maintained that he had revealed himself in three persons, namely, David (Father?), Jesus, and Paul (the Holy Ghost?). Besides this “Sabellianism,” one might be tempted to discover “Priscillian” errors in him. But the slight information we possess (see Hadrian and Elipandus’ letters) do not warrant a confident decision. 636 This explains the uninterrupted prestige of Augustinian theology. Isidore of Seville, e.g., felt it so strongly, that he even taught twofold predestination (Sentent. II. 6): “gemina predestinatio . . . sive reproborum ad mortem.”

internally.637 It is further evident that Elipandus gladly seized the

637

The comparatively slight influence exerted by the great main current of Church development is also shown by the fact that the opposition of the Spaniard Vigilantius to saints and relics continued to influence Spain, as is evidenced, e.g., by the attack made upon him by Faustus of Rhegium (see above, p. 244, note 1). Paradoxical as it sounds, the veneration of these objects lay in the van of Church evolution, in so far as it was most closely connected with the development of Christology. Those who resisted this worship soon ceased to do so on evangelical grounds, but because ecclesiastically they were “laggards.” The dislike to relics and pictures, however, is as closely connected with the Adoptian theory, as their worship and the materialistic dogma of the Lord’s Supper are with the Christology of Cyril, Justinian, and Alcuin (see under). But even after Reccared passed over to Catholicism, the Spanish Church showed its disorderly state, not only in the persistent mingling of Pagan and Christian morals, and (in 564 some circles) the continuance of certain Arian leanings, but still more in numerous heretical intrigues. To this class belong Priscillianism, degenerated into dualism, Migetius, that Marcus who rejuvenated Basilidianism, and above all the sect of Bonosians that held its ground in Spain—phenomena that were profoundly opposed to Catholicism, and prove how hard it was for the rising Roman Catholic Church in Spain to adopt the sentiments of Roman Catholicism. No other Western Church had at this date still to strive so keenly with powerful heresies as the Spanish. Hence is explained the growth in this Church, especially after contact with Islam, of the cold, determined fanaticism of its orthodoxy and persecution of heretics. Wherever it arises, this is a sign that men have forced themselves after severe sacrifices to submit to the sacred cause, and that they now seek to compensate themselves by making others do the same. As regards the sect of Bonosians in particular, their founder, Bonosus, Bishop of Sardica, advanced from a denial of Mary’s perpetual virginity to the doctrine of Photinus (see the Synod of Capua, A.D. 391; Ambrose’s letters, Siricius, and Innocent I., and Marius Mercator). Strange to say, he found adherents in South Gaul, and especially in Spain, up till into the eighth century; in Spain, as it appears, they were numerous; ac8 see the 2 Synod of Arles (443?) c. 17, Synod of Clichy (626) c. 5, Synod of Orleans (538) c. 31, Gennad. de vir. inl. 4, Avitus Vienn., Isidore de script. eccl. 20, de hær. 53. In the sixth century Justinian of Valentia opposed them in Spain, and in the seventh the Synod of Toledo (675), referred in the Symbol to the doctrine of the Bonosians that Christ had only existed after Mary bore him, and was merely a filius adoptivus, by confessing: “hic etiam filius dei natura est filius, non adoptione.” Naturally Elipandus and Felix were conjoined by their opponents with the Bonosians, but with the greatest injustice; they were rather their most implacable enemies, since they never denied that Christ as Son of God was filius dei naturalis. They even tried to hurl back the charge of Bonosianism at their enemies (Beatus and Eterius), an attempt, indeed, that could not succeed. It was at any rate prejudicial, seeing that men cling to catchwords, to place in the Toledan Symbol of 675 the words “non filius adoptione,” although by them the Photinian error, which Elipandus himself “condemned to hell,” was exclusively meant. We may, indeed, say of Bonosianism, but not of Elipandus’ teaching, that its circulation in Spain is explained by the Arian leanings of the

opportunity to extend the sphere of his metropolitan power to Asturia under the sure protection of the unbelievers. A dogmatic Spanish formula was 283welcome to him as a means of doing this. It is probable, finally, that Latin translations of Nestorian writings (i.e., of Theodore of Mopsuestia) were read in Spain. This cannot, indeed, be proved; but there can be no doubt that Felix of Urgel gave a Nestorian (Theodorian) development to Augustine’s Christology, and thus went beyond Augustine, and it is on the other hand certain that from the sixth century Latin translations of works by Nestorian (and Syrian) writers were current in the West.638 56c Elipandus was a loyal adherent to the Augustinian and Chalcedonian Christology; this is attested by his epistles; see also the two books written against him by Beatus and Eterius of Asturia, as well as Alcuin’s writings. He meant to maintain the unity of person throughout; but this unity did not, in his view, do away with the strict distinction of natures. The human nature remained human, being thence raised to the dignity of divinity, and for this reason he held the term “adoptio” to be peculiarly fitting: “the son adoptive in his humanity but not in 284his divinity” (filius adoptivus humanitate nequaquam divinitate). Everyone in the West (even Alcuin) still spoke at that time of the assumtio hominis, and not merely of the assumtio humanæ naturæ (assumption of a man not of human nature). It was a correct inference that assumtio hominis = adoptio hominis. If the word “ acc adoptio” was not exactly common in the more ancient literature,639 the matter designated by it was correctly expressed in Augustine’s sense.640

Western Goths; for not only in the Arianism of scholarly theologians, but still more in its popular form, there lurked an element of the doctrine of Paul of Samosata and Photinus. 638 Since the Three Chapter controversy. We have to remember, further, that Theodore’s commentary on Paul’s Epistles still exists in a Latin translation, and that the work of Junilius comes from a Syrian copy; see Neander’s Dogmengesch. II., p, 25 f., and Jacobi’s note there, p. 26 f. Möller (Art. Adoptianism in Herzog’s R.-E., 2nd Ed.) has stated, on the basis of Gam’s discoveries, a conjecture that is worth noting: “Perhaps we ought to regard the orthodox brethren in Cordova extolled by Elipandus (Er). ad Felic. in Alcuin’s letters, ep. 123), who provided him with scholarly material, and to whom Alcuin (ep. ad Leidrad. 141) supposes the evil originally to have been due, as Eastern Christians of Nestorian culture who had come in the train of the Arabs, and who, if they did not produce, supported the Adoptian tendency.” It is further important that Elipandus has not mentioned Nestorianism among the ancient h 545 eresies rejected by him. 639 Alcuin says too much when he exclaims (adv. Elip. IV. 2): “Ubi latuit, ubi dormivit hoc nomen adoptionis vel nuncupationis de Christo?” or Ep. 110: “Novitas vocum in adoptione, nuncupatione, omnino fidelibus omnibus detestanda est.” 640 Compare how also Facundus of Hermiane (pro defens. trium capp. p. 708, ed. Paris, 1616, II.) acknowledges that Christ accepted the “Sacrament of Adoption.”

The sonship of Christ was therefore twofold; as God he was son by race and nature (genere et natura), as man by adoption and grace. Elipandus quoted texts in support of this, and inferred quite correctly that he who disputed the Redeemer’s adoptio had to deny the reality of his human nature, and consequently to suppose that Christ derived his humanity, which would be unlike ours, from the substance of the Father. Elipandus therefore designates his opponents Docetics or Eutychians. If we find that even he was interested really in Christ’s complete humanity for his work’s sake, the same fact shows much more clearly in the important case of Felix (see the writings directed against him by Paulinus and Alcuin). He has also left the God-Logos resting in the background; but his theory of religion deals with the second Adam in a way that had not been heard of in the Church since the days of Theodore. Since the Son of Man was actually a man, the whole stages of his humiliation were not voluntarily undertaken, but were necessary. It was only the resolve of the Son of God to adopt a man that was freely made. After this resolve was realised the Son of Man had to be a servant, had to be subject to the Father in everything, had to fulfil his will and not his own. Like all men he was only good so far as, and because, he was subject to the Father’s grace; he was not omniscient and omnipotent, but his wisdom and power were bounded by the limits imposed on humanity. He derived his life from the Father, and to him he also prayed for 285himself.641 Felix’s final interest consisted in 564 the fact that only thus can we be certain of our adoption. He insisted very strongly on raising to the central place in the conception of redemption the thought that the adoption of believers is only certain if Christ adopted a man like other men, or humanity: we are only redeemed if Christ is our oldest brother. The assurance of the redemption of humanity rests, as with Augustine, on the sole-begotten (in the divine sphere) having united with himself the first-begotten (in the human) [“adoptivi cum adoptivo, servi cum servo, Christi cum Christo, deus inter deos” ]. Christ, who as man was sacrificed for sakes, was the head of humanity, not by his divinity, but by his humanity. For this very reason the members are only certain of their adoption if the head is adopted.642 If we are not dealing in Christ’s case with an adoption as in our own, the then Incarnation was enacted outside of our sphere, and is of no benefit to us. But Felix went a step farther. He did not, like Augustine, satisfy himself with stopping at the simple contention ac8 that the man (homo) Christ was adopted in virtue of the

641 642

See passages cited by Bach, Opp. cit., p. 110 ff. The clearest passages—Felix’s own words—occur in Agobard, lib. adv. Fel. 27-37.

prevenient grace of predestination, and with combining, by a mere assertion, this contention with the thesis of personal unity. On the contrary he rigidly separated the natures, and sought to form a clear idea of the way in which the adoption was accomplished (see the Antiochenes.) As regards the first point, he applied the phrase “true and peculiar son” (verus et proprius filius) to the God-Logos alone, and did not shrink from the proposition “the son is believed one in two forms” (duobus modis unus creditur filius); he distinguished between “the one” and “the other” (alter and alter), “this one” and “that” (ille and ille), nay, he called the Son of Man “God by adoption” (nuncupativus deus: meaning that he became God). He speaks, like the Antiochenes, of a “dwelling” of God in man, of the man who is united (conjunctus; applicatus) with deity, or bears deity. He has, indeed, compared the union of the two natures in Christ with the relation of soul and body; but the figure is still more inapt from his standpoint than 286from Augustine’s; for the community of attributes is to him not real, but nominal, and “we must by no means believe that the omnipotent divine Father, who is a spirit, begets the body from himself” (nullo modo credendum est, ut omnipotens deus pater, qui spiritus est, de semetipso carnem generet). The man Christ has two fathers, one natural (David), and the other by his adoption. With reference to the second point, Felix taught that the Son of Man underwent two births: he was born of the virgin—that was his natural birth, and of grace or adoption in baptism—his spiritual birth. Christ, accordingly, like all Christians, experienced a twofold birth. His spiritual birth, as indispensable for him as for the rest, was accomplished, as in every other case, in baptism; but in this instance also baptism was only the beginning. It was not completed till the Resurrection 564 .643 As the Son of Man, therefore, was subject to the different stages of divine grace arising from his election, he was also originally, though sinless,644 the “old man” (vetus homo), and passed through the process of regeneration until he reached complete adoption—undergoing everything that and as

643

Alcuin adv. Felic. II. 16 (Felix says): “Christus qui est secundus Adam, accepit has geminas generationes, primam vid. quæ secundum carnem est, secundam vero spiritualem, quæ per adoptionem fit, idem redemptor noster secundum hominem complexus in semetipso continet: primam vid. quam suscepit ex virgine nascendo, secundam vero quam initiavit in lavacro a mortuis resurgendo.” 644 Alcuin indeed does not believe that Felix was sincere in professing to hold the sinlessness of Christ, for, if he had been, he would not have spoken of a regeneration of Christ (l.c., c. 18).

we do. But we follow the Head, and it is only because he experienced this that he can be our redeemer and intercessor. For the rest, it is besides to be held that the Son of God also accepted human birth for himself, as in that case he is further to be conceived as sharing in all the acts of the Son of Man.645 Elipandus had given currency to his teaching in letters. His opponents were the Abbot Beatus and the youthful Bishop Eterius. Their opposition inflamed the anger of the ageing Metropolitan, jealous of his orthodoxy. All who refused to see in the two natures more than one filius proprius he called “servants of Antichrist” (A.D. 785). Those he attacked, however, did not keep silent, but exposed the heretical character of Adoptianism in an elaborate document; they also noted the fact that the controversy had already excited the Bishops of all Spain, and had extended into France.646 Hadrian I. entered into the dispute at this time. He could not but welcome the chance of proving to the Spanish Metropolitan, whose independence rendered him obnoxious, that he had fallen into the heresy of Nestorius, and that the Spanish Bishops were therefore bound to adhere to the teaching of Rome and the Fathers.647

287first

Soon afterwards Felix of Urgel energetically championed the thesis laid down by Elipandus. Thereby the question at issue became important for the kingdom of the Franks. The Synod of Regensburg (792), whose transactions are unfortunately lost, was convened to deal with Adoptianism. Felix himself required to

645

Felix’s words in Agobard 33: “Propter singularitatem personæ, in qua divinitas filii dei cum hurnanitate sua communes habeat actiones, qua ex causa aliquando ea quæ divina sunt referuntur ad humana, et ea quæ humana fiunt interdum adscribuntur ad divina, et hoc ordine aliquando dei filius in hominis filio filius hominis appellari dignatur et hominis filius in dei filio filius dei nuncupatur.” The Nestorians, too, maintained such a double personality. 560 646 See the analysis of this writing in Bach, p. 116 ff. It follows Cyril. The old charge formerly made against the Nestorians is also urged against the Adoptians, that by making the Son of Man independent they expanded the Trinity into a Quaternity. A few western reminiscences are, however, not wanting, although the human nature is substantially conceived to be the impersonal caro; see e.g., II. 68, where the filius secundum carnem is named as mediator (“reconciliati sumus per solum filium secundum carnem, sed non soli filio secundum divinitatem”); also II. 40: “dominus ac redemptor noster cum sancta ecclesia, quam redemit secundum carnem, una substantia est.” 647 Ep. 97 in the Cod. Carol. in Migne, T. CII., see analysis in Hefele III., p. 661 ff., which is also to be compared with what follows.

appear. He defended himself before Charlemagne,648 but is 288said to have ultimately recanted, since all the Bishops declared his teaching to be erroneous. The recantation is, indeed, supported by several witnesses, but is not placed beyond doubt, for we hear that Felix was sent to Rome, and was kept in prison by the Pope until he yielded to swear to an orthodox confession. He now returned to Spain (to his bishopric?) but soon renounced his forced recantation, and withdrew to Toledo in ac8 Saracen territory, in order to escape the censorship of the Franks. Alcuin’s attempt to recover for the Church its highly prized bishop by means of a very friendly letter that breathed Augustine’s spirit (A.D. 793) perhaps crossed the effort made by the heads of the Adoptianists to maintain their teaching in the Church by an encyclical to the Bishops of the Frankish kingdom. and a letter to Charlemagne, which took the form of a remonstrance, and contained a petition for a new investigation. Elipandus always regarded the “sleek” Beatus as the chief enemy, who had instilled his poison into the Church and seduced the Bishops. He adjures the King to judge justly; to reinstate Felix, and be warned by Constantine’s revolt to Arianism. The heresy that through Beatus now threatened the whole Church was nothing less than the denial that Christ received his body from the Virgin. At the brilliant Synod of Frankfurt, Charlemagne, after reporting to the Pope, set on foot a new investigation (794). Learned bishops and theologians were summoned from all quarters. The assembly rejected Adoptianism in two Synodal deeds—the Italian Bishops under Paulinus of Aquileia voted separately. The same course was followed by a Synod assembled contemporaneously at Rome. All these resolutions were transmitted, along with a letter of his own, by Charlemagne to Elipandus. We are not interested in following the controversy further, for new phases did not appear. But we have the impression that Adoptianism made advances in Saracen Spain and the

ad1 648In the controversy the King proved that he felt fully his responsibility as a Christian ruler, and was at the same time thoroughly anxious to be just. He was really convinced by the propositions of his theologians. They extolled him highly as protector of the faith, as a David and a Solomon. Alcuin says of the King (adv. Elipand. I. 16): “Catholicus in fide, rex in potestate, pontifex in prædicatione, judex in æquitate, philosophus in liberalibus studiis, inclytus in moribus (?) et omni honestate præcipuus.” Ep. 100 ad dominum regem: “hoc mirabile et speciale in te pietatis dei donum prædicamus, quod tanta devotione ecclesias Christi a perfidorum doctrinis intrinsecus purgare tuerique niteris, quanta forinsecus a vastatione paganorum defendere vel propagare conaris. His duabus gladiis vestram venerandam excellentiam dextra lævaque divina armavit potestas.”

neighbouring province until about A.D. 799. Even the personal influence of famous doctors (Benedict of Aniane, Leidrad of Lyons) met at first with little success. But Frankish Spain could not resist the influence of the whole empire, and Felix himself was ultimately induced once more to recant at the 289Synod of Aachen (799). At this date, besides Paulinus,649 Alcuin was indefatigable in producing works, some of them extensive, against the heresy (Libell. adv. Felic. hair., IV. lib. adv. Elipandum, VII. lib. adv. Felic.). It is interesting to notice how this Anglo-Saxon, the disciple of Bede, was entirely dependent in his Christology on the Greeks, and had abandoned the Augustinian tradition. Augustine as well as Græco-Roman speculative theology had become dom ac8 esticated in England through the Romanising of that country. But in those questions on which the Greeks had pronounced their views, they were ever regarded as the more honourable, reliable, and learned. They were the representatives of the sublime theology of the mystery of the Incarnation.650 The Latins were only after all to be considered in so far as they agreed with the Greeks. How great is the imposing prestige and power of an ancient culture, and how cogent is every “advance” that it experiences, even if that advance passes imperceptibly into a refinement which produces a new barbarianism! Alcuin’s arguments might have occurred just as well in the works of Cyril, Leontius, or John of Damascus, and they are sometimes actually to be found there word for word:— Christ is the personal God-Logos who assumed impersonal human nature, and fused it into the complete unity of his being. Accordingly, even apart from sin, Christ’s humanity was by no means like ours in all points, but was very different. Since it acquired all the attributes of deity, all human limitations shown in the life of Jesus were voluntarily accepted, in other words were due to accommodation, were pedagogic or illusory. Alcuin dissipates the records of the gospels as thoroughly as the Monophysite and Crypto-Monophysite Greeks. This form of piety had ceased to regard Christ in any sense as a human person; nay, it felt itself gravely hurt if it was told that it ought to suppose a really human consciousness in Christ. Not only was the dismemberment of the one Christ disowned as blasphemous, but still more the application to him of categories that were held to describe believers.651 In

649

See on his polemics, Bach, p. 121 ff. This is true above all of Cyril. 651 See the analysis of Alcuin’s Christology in Bach, p. 128 ff. Alcuin seeks to show (1) that all the statements of Scripture and the Fathers regarding Christ have for their subject the concrete person in two natures; (2) that the notion of adoption occurs neither in Scripture nor the Fathers, and is thus novel and false; and (3) that the Adoptianist 650

290fact,

we are correct in saying that faith in Christ as Redeemer had no interest in expounding broadly wherein Christ is like us.652 But the Adoptians had, consistently with this likeness, which they asserted, characterised him as head of the community, and demonstrated a way in which t ac8 he man Christ could be apprehended as redeemer and intercessor.653 But then, as now,

theory is inconsistent, and upsets the basis of faith. He tries to show that adoptio, if taken to mean anything different from assumptio, leads to heresy. Assumption is held to express the natural re 564 lation in which humanity is connected with deity by the Incarnation, and which is annulled by the adoptio that designates a relation due to grace. Alcuin indeed also speaks (following Augustine) of grace having been in Christ, for it does not, like adoptio, exclude the natural relation of sonship. But his strongest argument consists in his explanation that passive adoption was impossible, because the Son of Man did not exist at all before he was actual Son of God. Neither he nor Paulinus supposes that the man Christ was a person before the God-man. He certainly possessed his personality from the first in the Son of God. Accordingly, if we think abstractly, we may not conceive of a man (homo) Christ who existed before the Incarnation, but of human nature, which only became personal by its assumption, and was at once made an essential constituent of the person of the God-man. Therefore this nature, even apart from sin, was infinitely superior to and unlike ours. Therefore the doctrine of the Agnoetes, who had besides been already strongly assailed by Gregory I. in his letters, was to be condemned; and the servile form of the Son of God was in every respect worthy of adoration, because it was not necessary to his nature, but was at every point freely undertaken. Accordingly Christ required neither baptism nor adoption, and even as man was no ord ac6 inary creature, but always the God-man. “In spite of the assumption of human nature, the Godman retained sole property in the person of the Son.” Humanity was merely added like something impersonal to this unity of person of the Son of God, “and there remained the same property in two natures in the name of the Son that formerly existed in one substance.” But Alcuin adds very inaptly (c. Felic. II. 12): “in adsumtione carnis a deo persona petit hominis, non natura;” for he certainly did not assume that a “persona hominis” had existed previously. We can only explain this lapse by supposing that Alcuin had not yet let Cyril’s Christology expunge from his mind every reminiscence of Augustine’s. Bach rightly remarks (p. 136 f.: against Donner) “that no opponent of the Adoptians imagined that personality was essential to the completeness of the human nature; (like Bach himself) they taught exactly the opposite.” Bach’s own explanation of the above passage, which is only intelligible as a lapse, is, for the rest, wholly incorrect. By persona he would understand “the person of man as such, of humanitas, and not of the man Christ.” 652 Epist. ad Carol. M.: “Quid enim prodest ecclesiæ dei Christum appellare adoptivum filium vel deum nuncupativum? 653 The explanations given by Felix as to the man Christ as sacerdos, sacrificium, caput ecclesiæ are Augustinian, and in part more precise than they occur in Augustine. The part played in the controversy by the thought of Christ as head of the Church is worthy of note. We are not prepared for it, if we start from the more ancient tradition.

291no

one who had once been initiated into the mysteries was influenced by this. He who has once but sipped the intoxicating cup of that mysticism, which promises to transform every worthless stone into gold, sees everywhere the mystery of deification, and then it is not easy for the watchman to recall the dreamer to life.654 For this is the last motive of this speculation: from the transformation of the impersonal human substance into the divine (in the case of Christ) to derive the divino-human means of ea joyment in this world. Even in the instance of Beatus, the realistic conception of the Lord’s Supper turns out to be a decisive motive against Adoptianism,655 and this motive can also be demonstrated in Alcuin’s works.656 Thus the Christological controversy is closely connected with the magical conceptions of the Lord’s Supper as the centre of Church doctrine and practice. It is all the more instructive that, as we shall see, images were not yet thought of, while the East had long had them in view, as well as the Lord’s Supper, in connection with its Crypto-Monophysite Christology. In this matter the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish Church still “lagged” behind its guide. 292

Felix secluded himself with Leidrad in Lyons. The reconversion of the Frankish Adoptians now made great strides, and Felix himself had to exhort his congregation to abandon the error which he had formerly taught them. But he was by no means

The greater emphasis laid on Christ as priest and sacrifice was already determined by the all-prevailing reference to the Mass. 654 566 Adoptianism, like Nestorianism, necessarily remained a half thing, because it did not correct this pseudo-Christian motive. This is the ultimate cause of its speedy death. Adoptianism and the Eucharistic Christ do not suit each other. 655 See Bach, p. 119 f. Beatus has pointed out, like Cyril, that the concrete unity of Christ’s person is shown most clearly in the fact that in the Lord’s Supper the whole Christ is adored, and that his flesh is the principle of eternal life. Bach (p. 120) has eloquently evolved as his own view the cause for which the opponents of the Adoptians ultimately contended. “Beatus and Eterius, in opposition to the externality of Elipandus, pointed with a profoundly realistic glance to the central significance of Christ in the collective ethical and sacramental constitution of Christianity, and the morally free life of humanity. The organic and physical relation of Christ to humanity, and the physiology of grace in its inner relation to human freedom, which has its living roots in the co ac8 ncrete God-man, are hereby indicated. A divided Christ cannot be a new physical ethical ferment of life to mankind.” This materialistic ghost unfortunately also announces its presence in Protestant Christianity. 656 With him and Paulinus, only indeed in unimportant hints, wherefore Each calls Paulinus “less profound and thorough” than Beatus. How the speculation reached the latter is not known.

thoroughly convinced at heart, as is shown by papers found, after the death of the unfortunate Bishop, by Leidrad’ ac8 s successor, Agobard. Agobard held it necessary to refute the dead Felix. If aggressive Adoptianism soon expired in the Frankish kingdom, it was revived by the daring dialectic of the eleventh and twelfth centuries as a doctrine of the schools,657 and it afterwards continued during all centuries of the Middle Ages, though without rousing more than a theological dispute. Little is known of how the “heresy” gradually died out in Saracen Spain. Even in the time of Elipandus it did not escape censure. It still had power to attract about A.D. 850;658 but then there came times when it was necessarily worth more to Christian Spaniards to feel that they were in agreement with the whole Church than to defend the legitimacy of a distinctive position. The decisive result of the whole controversy was that the West set aside its own earlier Christological system, and—for the sake of the Lord’s Supper and the imposing tradition of the Greeks— thought like the latter within the sphere of dogma. Christ’s unity was maintained; but this unity absorbed his humanity, and removed far off the dread incarnate Son of God (dei filius incarnatus tremendus). Strict dogmatic only permitted him to be approached in the Lord’s Supper. But that did not prevent the vision of the lowly Man of Sorrows continuing, still secretly at first, to make its way side by side with dogmatic theory, that vision that had dawned upon Augustine, and was in ever-increasing vividness to form the strength of piety in the future. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

I. (b). The Controversy as to Predestination.659

657

See Bach, II., p. 390 ff. See the letters of Alvar, Bandissin, 1.c. Bach I., p. 146 ff. 659 Sources, collected by the Jansenist Maugin, Veterum auct. qui IX. sæc. de prædest. et gratia scripserunt, Paris 1650; see the works of Carlovingian theologians in the time of Charles the Bald, Mansi, T. XIV. and XV.; Gfrörer, Gesch. der Karol. Vol. I., and K.Gesch., Vol. III. 2; Dümmlei, Gesch. des ostfränk. Reichs, Vol. I.; Hauck, K.-Gesch. Deutschlands, Vol. II.: Wiggers in the Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol. 1859; Weizsäcker in the Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theol. 1859; Hefele, Concil,-Gesch. IV2., p. 130 ff.; Bach, Op. cit. I., p. 219 ff; Reuter l.c. I., p. 43 ff; Borrasch, Der Mönch Gottschalk, 1868; Monographs on Hinkmar by v. Noorden and Schrörs; Freystedt, Der wissensch. Kampf im Prädest.-Streit des 9 Jahrh.; also, Der synodale Kampf im Prädest.-Streit des 9 Jahrh. (Ztschr. f. wissensch. Theol. Vol. 36, pp. 315-368; New Series, Vol. I., pp. 447-478), and Studien zu Gottschalk (Ztschr. f. K. Gesch., Vol XVIII., 564 p. 1 ff.). 658

The revival of theological science in the ninth century led 293to a thorough study of Augustine. But the 54c theology of Gregory I. had already accustomed men to combine the formulas of Augustinianism with the Pelagianism required by the system of the cultus. Hence a renewal of the controversy would hardly have taken place had not the monk Gottschalk of Orbais asserted the doctrine of predestination with as much energy as Augustine had done in his latest writings, and had he not been opposed by Hinkmar, whom his jealous colleagues would gladly have charged with heresy. It was not his use of Augustinian formulas that lifted Gottschalk out of the mass of theologians, and gave a startling effect to his confession. It was the fact that the doctrine of predestination had become the strength and support of his being after a misspent life. Here again it is palpable that words are not everything, that they remain a tinkling cymbal as long as they are not the expression of experience. Many joined and followed Gottschalk in speaking as he did at the time; but he alone was persecuted as a heretical teacher, because the opposition felt that he alone was dangerous to their Church system. Gottschalk’s teaching regarding predestination was not different, either in matter or form, from that of Augustine, Fulgentius, and Isidore; ad8 1 but it must also be said that he taught nothing but predestination. With the devotion, at first of resignation, and afterwards of fanaticism, he committed himself to the hands of God who does all things according to his good pleasure, and does nothing without having determined it irrevocably from the beginning. Predestination is the content of 294the Gospel, is the object of faith. It is the truth—that twofold predestination to life and death, according to which eternal life is decreed for the good, and death for the sinner, in which, therefore, some are appointed to life, and the rest to death. Nothing is to be set aside that the Church elsewhere teaches, or that it does; but it is a revolt from the Gospel to obscure in the hearts of men the certainty of this eternal unchangeable dispensation of divine grace—for justice and punishment are also good. Until his death Gottschalk defended inflexibly this faith of his, in the living and original language of the convinced advocate.660

660

Gottschalk is especially dependent on Fulgentius. On Isidore’s doctrine of predestination, see Wiggers, Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol. 1855; on Bede’s, l.c. 1857. 661 On Gottschalk’s life till the outbreak of the dispute, see Hefele, 1.c. The Augustinian spirit, and Augustine’s language in the Confessio prolixior (Migne, CXXI., p. 349): “Tui profecto sic semper indigent omnes electi tui, quo videlicet tibi de te solo semper valeant placere. Quemadmodum palmites indigent vite, quo fructum queant ferre, vel aër aut oculi luce, quo vel ille lucidus esse vel illi possint videre. . . . te igitur supplex

But what did the historical Christ, or the Christ of the sacramentally ordered Church, mean here? If the hidden God with his hidden will was a comfort to Gottschalk, then that comfort consisted in the assurance that this God had also predestinated some to life, and the assurance flowed from the economy which culminated in Christ. For from what other source was it known that eternal predestination also embraced the pardon of a section of mankind? The assurance of the individual gained nothing by this; but among the opposition also no one would have anything to do with certainty of salvation; the individual did not count for much to himself or others. Individualism was not yet developed. Christ accordingly was not in question. Even the resolute defender of predestination looked to him when he thought of election to life. But the system of the Sacraments, legal demands and works, which constituted the Church itself, tottered, as it must always totter, wherever religion is recalled from externality to the inner life. This recall was accomplished in a much more abstract way in the present instance than by Augustine. The most profound of the African’s expositions on liberating grace and the blessed necessity of goodness ( ad0 beata necessitas boni), which form the 295background of the doctrine of predestination, do not tell strongly upon Gottschalk. Nor had the Frankish monk been able to appropriate the Neoplatonic speculation, that had been toned down or transferred to a wholly different sphere of ideas by Augustine’s teaching. And, again, he did not know the dialectic of the notion of time, which is inseparable from Augustine’s conception. Yet he was not unfamiliar with dialectics; indeed, if we may trust the accounts given us, he at first took pleasure in the problem on dialectical grounds; but the fire he played with afterwards mastered him. The subject matter itself became precious to him. It corresponded to his own mood, ever growing gloomier, and he championed it with the zeal of the missionary. It was not original sin, or sin that he regarded as the chief subject, but the unchangeableness and wisdom of God. He was a theologian in the narrowest sense of the term. Gottschalk was first opposed by Rabanus in his letters to Noting and Eberard—shortly before A.D. 848.662 He was accused of teaching that right faith and good works were of no avail to him who was not appointed to salvation, and that God forced men to

invoco . . . ut largiaris indigentissimo mihi per gratuitae gratiæ tuæ invictiss ac8 imam virtutem, etc.” 662 See Opp. Raban. in Migne, CXII., p. 1530 sq., Kunstmann, Rabanus Magnentius Maurus 1841.

sin and perdition (invitum hominem facit peccare).663 Other opponents soon arose, and it was declared that he taught a predestination to sin. At the Council of Mainz (848) Rabanus got him condemned,664 and handed over, by command of King Lewis, to Hinkmar to whose province as monk he belonged.665 In his letter to Hinkmar, Rabanus declares 561 a predestination as regards wickedness to be simply erroneous, and he is able to tell already of people, who, seduced by Gottschalk, gave up pious practices 666 296because, forsooth, they were wholly useless. Hinkmar got the judgment against the “miserable monk” repeated at an imperial synodal diet at Chiersey (849). He was deposed from his office, scourged, and rendered harmless in prison.667 Neither Rabanus nor Hinkmar seems at first to have formed as yet any idea of the difficulty of the whole question—caused by the authority of Augustine and other Fathers. Hinkmar contented himself with referring God’s prescience to good or evil, but predestination to goodness alone.668 But the position of the case soon changed. Gottschalk composed two confessions, in which he stated his teaching, supporting it from Scripture and the Fathers,669 and he

663

The view of Rabanus himself, that great, pure, truly pious and unpolitical prince of the Church, was Semi-Pelagian. 664 Fragment of a confession of Gottschalk laid before the Synod in Hinkmar, De prædest. 5, Migne, CXXV., p. 89 sq. (Hefele, p. 138): “gemina prædestinatio . . . similiter omnino omnes reprobos, qui damnabuntur propter ipsorum mala merita, incommutabilis deus per justum judicium suum incommutabiliter prædestinavit ad mortem merito sempiternam.” 665 Migne, CXII., p. 1574. 666 Op. cit. 667 Hincm. De prædest. 2; Migne, CXXV., p. 85; cf. Migne, CXXI, p. 1027. ac8 668Hinkmar’s large works on the question in dispute were not written till several years later; (yet see the writing Ad reclusos et simplices, A.D. 849-50; Gundlach in the Ztschr. für K.-Gesch., Vol. X., p. 258 ff.; Freystedt, l.c. p. 320 ff., 358 ff.). The first in three books (856 and 857) was so extensive, that it was not transcribed, and so has perished (see Schrörs, p. 136 f. ). The second, De prædestinatione dei et libero arbitrio, was also prolix enough and very meaningless (written 859 to 860, Schrörs, p. 141 ff.). In the introduction to this work, the history of the sect of predestinationists, which is said to have risen even in St. Augustine’s lifetime, is described in a very unhistorical fashion. The sect has now revived, and its newer members adhere to Fulgentius, who never enjoyed a lofty prestige in the Church (c. 3, 8, 13). Hinkmar’s main proposition is that predestination to punishment embraces compulsion to commit sin. “Præscivit deus hominem ad pœnam.” Accordingly there is only a predestination of, not to, punishment. 669 Migne, CXXI., pp. 347-349: “Confiteor, deum omnipotentem et incommutabilem præscisse et prædestinasse angelos sanctos et homines electos ad vitam gratis æternam, et ipsum diabolum . . . cum ipsis quoque hominibus reprobis . . . propter præscita certissime

also wrote essays in which he emphasised the particularism of Christ’s saving work,670 subordinating the latter strictly to the premundane decree of God. He also, in a letter to Amolo, gave 297expression to the particularly objectionable principle “that baptism and the other sacraments were given in vain to those who perished after receiving them;” for “those of the number of the faithful who perish were never incorporated in Christ and the Church.”671 56e But it was perceived in the more cultured South, apart from Mainz and Rheims, that it was not Gottschalk but his opponents who diverged from Augustine’s teaching. The best theologians ranged themselves on the side of the Confessor e.g., Prudentius of Troyes, Ratramnus of Corbie, then also the learned and acute Lupus of Ferrières,672 the priest Servatus Lupus and Remigius of Lyons, for the most part disciples of Alcuin.673 There now began a lively theological controversy (849-50), which was not, however, violent enough to involve the rest of the Church and the Pope, and which was unspeakably unsatisfactory, because staunch Augustinians neither could nor would abandon the ruling ecclesiastical system, and had therefore to seek for c 54c ompromises where Gottschalk’s results endangered it, and because the Frankish Semi-Pelagians soon saw that they would have to approximate their phraseology to Augustinianism. Among the writings in defence of Gottschalk there were accordingly many

ipsorum propria futura mala rnerita prædestinasse pariter per justissimum judicium suum in mortem merito sempiternam.” “Credo siquidem atque confiteor præscisse teante sæcula quæcunque erant futura, sive bona sive mala, prædestinasse vero tantummodo bona. Bona autem a te prædestinata bifariam sunt tuis a fidelibus indagata . . . i.e. in gratiæ beneficia et justitiæ simul judicia . . . Frustra electis prædestinasses vitam, nisi et illos prædestinasses ad ipsum. Sic etiam . . . omnibus quoque reprobis hominibus perennem merito prædestinasti pœnam, et eosdem similiter prædestinasti ad eam, quia nimirum sine causa et ipsis prædestinasses mortis perpetuæ pœnam, nisi et ipsos prædestinasses ad eam: non enim irent, nisi destinati, neque profecto destinarentur, nisi essent prædestin 542 ati.” From Gottschalk’s standpoint both confessions are conciliatory. 670 Gottschalk frequently maintained that Christ did not die for the reprobi, though he taught a certain general redemption of all the baptised; see Hincm. De præd. 29, 34, 35; Migne, CXXV., p. 289 sq., 349 sq., 369 sq. 671 Hefele, p. 169: “baptistum et alia sacramenta frustatorie eis dari, qui post eorum perceptionem pereunt;” for “qui ex numero fidelium pereunt, Christo et ecclesiæ nunquam fuerunt incorporati.” aea 672 See Freystedt, i.e., p. 329 ff. 673 Bach (I., p. 232 ff.) has analysed and discussed the various writings of these men.

shades of opinion, but so were there also on the other side.674 Florus Magister, e.g., advocated the twofold (gemina) predestination, but yet opposed Gottschalk, since he rejected the thought of the irresistibleness of grace.675 Amolo of Lyons treated him in a friendly spirit; but no one else showed so emphatically that Gottschalk’s teaching did away with the historical redemption, the fruits of Christ’s death, and sacramental 298grace. 57c 1 The only one who took up a consistent standpoint, and from it opposed the monk, was John Scotus. His teaching did not rest on Augustine’s doctrine of predestination but on the Neoplatonic and Augustinian ontology, which he developed boldly. According to this, evil and death were nothing. Unchangeable being had only one unchangeable will, namely itself, and it evolved itself alone. Everything else consisted in negation, was nothing actual, and bore this very not-being in itself as a punishment. Applying this to the question of predestination, it followed that those were right who would only admit one predestination.676 But friend and foe felt, without seeing through the pantheism of Scotus, that this was a case of casting out the devil by the aid of Beelzebub (“commentum diaboli”). There was only one way out of the difficulty besides that given by Scotus. This was to give up altogether putting the questio ac3 n in the form of the predestination problem, to hold to the historical Christ, and to do justice to Augustine’s doctrine of grace by reducing the Church system to the experience of the new birth and faith. But no one discovered this expedient,677 and so the whole controversy necessarily became a maze of insincerity, partly objective, partly conscious. Augustine’s authority, however, was so powerful that the result, if we may speak of such a thing, came nearer Gottschalk’s teaching in words than to the original utterances of Rabanus and his comrades (of whom Pardulus also was one). The latter sought to carry their distinction between prescience and predestination (as regards evil and punishment), and would therefore have nothing said of persons being predestined to punishment. When God foresaw evil, he predestined punishment for those who should not deserve to be redeemed by

674

Men at that time disputed about predestination, just as “positive” theologians today quarrel among themselves about the right of historical criticism. Some defend this right, others would restrict or abolish it; but even the former don’t really believe in it, since they take care not to carry out its conclusions. 675 Bach, I., p. 240. 676 Bach, I., p. 241 ff. 677 De divina prædest. Migne, CXXII., p. 355 sq. The Synods at Valencia and Langres (859) condemned the work, after Prudentius and Florus Magister had written against it. 678 Amolo came n 564 earest it.

grace; room, accordingly, is left indirectly to free-will, although, so far as words go, the saved are saved solely in virtue of election. The artificial distinction here made (predestination 299of life and of the good, prescience of the wicked, predestination of punishment) is apparently defensible, even on an Augustinian basis, since Hinkmar now spoke of a complete loss of freedom through Adam’s Fall. But the distinction was in truth meant to open a door for the entrance of Semi-Pelagianism. This doctrine was adopted at a new Synod of Chiersey (853) under Hinkmar’s leadership.679 But what took place here was not authoritative in the Archbishopric of Sens680 and the Empire of Lothar. Remigius of Lyons sharply attacked the four chapters of Chiersey as running counter to Scripture and the Fathers.681 At the great Synod held at Valencia of the provinces of Lyons, Vienne and Arles (855), canons were adopted which adhered much more closely to Augustine, and contained the teaching of Remigius. Dislike to the powerful Hinkmar also played a part in their composition. The Synod rejected the four chapters: they had been 300entered on with

679

The four chapters of Chiersey yielded more to Augustinianism than was consistent with truthfulness: I. “Deus hominem sine peccato rectum cum libero arbitrio condidit et in paradiso posuit, quem in sanctitate justitiæ permanere voluit. Homo libero arbitrio male utens peccavit et cecidit, et factus est massa perditionis totius humani generis. Deus autem bonus et justus elegit ex eadem massa perditionis secundum præscientiam suam, quos per gratiam prædestinavit ad vitam, et vitam illis prædestinavit æternam. Ceteros autem, quos justitiæ judicio in massa perditionis reliquit, perituros præscivit, sed non ut perirent prædestinavit, pœnam autem illis, quia justus est, prædestinavit æternam. Ac per hoc unam dei prædestinationem tantummodo dicimus, quæ aut ad donum pertinet gratiæ, aut ad retributionem justitiæ.” II. “Libertatem arbitrii in primo homine perdidimus, quam per Christum dominum nostrum recepimus. Et habemus liberum arbitrium ad bonum, præventum et adjutum gratia. Et habe 548 mus liberum arbitrium ad malum, desertum gratia. Liberum autem habemus arbitrium quia gratia liberatum et gratia, de corrupto sanatum.” III. “Deus omnes homines sine exceptione vult salvos fieri, licet non omnes salventur. Quod autem quidem salvantur, salvantis est donum; quod autem quidem pereunt, pereuntium est meritum.” The fourth chapter says that Christ adopted the nature of each man, and accordingly died for each, though all are not redeemed. The cause of this fact is that those not redeemed are infideles or are deficient in the faith that works by love; “poculum humanæ salutis, quod confectum est infirmitate nostra et virtute divina, habet quidem in se, ut omnibus prosit, sed si non bibitur non medetur.” Mansi, XIV., p. 919. 680 See on Prudentius and the Synod of Sens, Hefele, p. 188 f. The four chapters of this Synod, which teach the gemina prædestinatio, are by Prudentius: see Migne, CXXV., p. 64. 572 681Migne, CXXI., p. 1083: “Libellus de tenenda immobiliter scripturæ veritate” as an official paper of the Church of Lyons.

too little prudence (“minus prospecte suscepta.”) It taught the double predestination, applied the latter to persons also, and maintained that Christ shed his blood for believers. The question whether God willed to save all men was carefully evaded. If the Synod disowned a predestination to sin, it did not thereby abandon strictly Augustinian ground. On the contrary, the contention that condemnation was based on prescience, and that in the Church’s Sacraments “nothing was futile or delusive” (nihil sit cassum, nihil ludificatorium) shows the anxiety felt not to give up what was held valid by the Church.682 If we compare the resolutions of the two Synods word for word, the differences are extremely subtle, and yet the little addition (plus) of the alien co-efficient attached to Augustinianism in the Chiersey decrees is highly significant. Rabanus, Hinkmar, and Charles’s Synod take their stand on ecclesiastical empiricism, and try, because they must, to come to terms with Augustinianism, therein yielding more than can have been agreeable to them. Remigius, Prudentius, and Lothar’s Synod take their stand on Augustinianism, and yet would not give up this ecclesiastical empiricism. But in neither case did anyone permit the suggestion of a doubt as to whether this empiricism and Augustinianism were compatible. Political affairs prevented the threatened breach from being consummated. The matter was taken up again in the reign of King Charles, Lothar’s son. A few slight modifications of the chapters of Valencia were decided on at Langres (859) in order to enable Charles the Bald, who had subscribed those of Chiersey, to approve of them.683 ac9 The great Synod of Savonieres (859), at which there were present bishops from three kingdoms, as well as the sovereigns themselves, Charles the Bald, Charles of Provence, and Lothar of Lothringen, adopted the modified chapters of Valencia, and also, as it appears, those passed at Chiersey; the members did not condemn one another on account of disbelief or belief in twofold predestination (gemina predestinatio), and this meant the greatest advance towards 301peace.684 Hinkmar, indeed, did not doubt that there had been and was a predestinationist heresy, which it was necessary to oppose, and whose adherents appealed unjustifiably to Augustine. He composed at the time his prolix work, De prædestinatione (against Remigius and others), under the auspices of his theological king. But the kings’ need of peace was stronger than the zeal of bishops fighting in the dark. At

682

It is superfluous to give the canons here—they are very prolix; see Mansi, XV., p. 3; Hefele, IV., p. 193 ff.; Schrörs, p. 133 ff. 683 Mansi, XV., p. 537; Hefele, p. 205. 572 684 Mansi, XV., p. 529; Hefele, p. 206.

the great Synod of the three realms at Toucy (860), the case postponed at Savonières was brought to an end in a comprehensive synodal edict, which dealt indefinitely with the real kernel of the question, and was destitute of meaning and badly arranged. Controversial points were left alone, and those were confessed on which all were agreed. Hinkmar composed this document. Besides predestination to life, which was set forth in good Augustinian language, it was declared that God willed to save all, that Christ died for all, and that while free-will required to be redeemed and healed after the Fall, it had never been wholly lost.685 If the worth of a confession depends on its really expressing the existing belief, then the triumph of Hinkmar’s formula was really more valuable than would have been that of the contrary doctrine. The avowal of twofold predestination, in itself even more the expression of a theological speculation than of Christian faith in God the Father, would have meant less than nothing coupled with the retention of ecclesiastical empiricism. Of course the formula of Hinkmar, which no artifice could reconcile with that of Orange, did not mean much either; for, in spite of words, Augustine remained deposed. Gregory I.’s system of doctrine ac8 held the field. Men thought of the sacramental Christ, as they rejected, along with Adoptianism, the Augustinian Christology, and it was still this Christ and the good works of believers to which they looked, when, along with twofold predestination, they in fact set aside Augustine’s doctrine of grace. Gottschalk died in prison, irreconcilable and unreconciled (869), clinging to the prædestinatio ad mortem, which he understood in 302so “erroneous a sense” that he did not abandon it as Remigius seems to have done. He had prophesied in vain the unmasking and fall of his mortal enemy Hinkmar as Antichrist, that great exemplar of predestination to death.686

685

The prolix Ep. synodalis in Mansi, XV., p. 563; Hefele, p. 217 ff. Prædestinatio ad mortem is not mentioned. 686 The ill-usage he had suffered seems to have rendered Gottschalk at times irresponsible for his actions in the last years of his life. His dispute with Hinkmar about the phrase “trina deitas” is noteworthy. The latter would not permit it on the ground that it was Arian; Gottschalk and Ratramnus defended it by accusing Hinkmar of Sabellianism. Both phrases “una deitas” and “trina deitas” can be defended from the Augustini ac8 an standpoint; see Hinkmar’s writing, De una et non trina deitate (Migne, CXXV., p. 473; Schrörs, Hinkmar, p. 150 ff.), in which Boethius’ notion of personality (“rationabilis naturæ individua subsistentia”) plays a part. The number of theological problems discussed at the date of this renaissance of theology was very great; see Schrörs, Hinkmar, p. 88 ff. But the questions were almost all exceedingly minute and

xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

2. The Controversy regarding the Filioque and Pictures. By the position it had taken up in the Adoptianist as well as in the predestination controversy, the Church of the Frankish kingdom identified itself, abandoning tendencies to higher characteristics of its own,687 with the popular Church ideas as represented by Constantinople and Rome. The theology it had inherited from Augustine was transformed into an ecclesiastical system such as had long prevailed in those chief Churches. But the West at that time still held tenaciously to its own characteristic position as compared with the East in two doctrines; it supported the filioque and rejected images. Both these subjects have been already discussed in Vol. IV., pp. 133, 317, therefore only a little falls to be added. Even if we had not known it already, we see very clearly in the controversy regarding the filioque clause that the doctrine of the Trinity and Christology constituted dogma and the legal basis of the Church κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, even for the West—see 564 the 688 303Athanasian Creed. The filioque, which originated in subtle, like those suggested by clever children. Nor was the culture of the period possessed of the scholastic technique required for their treatment. 687 Of course only tendencies—the confusion that still prevailed at the close of the eighth century as regards Augustinianism is best shown by the fact that the Symbol admitted into the Libri Carolini (symbolum Hieronymi, sermo Augustini) was Pelagius’ Confession of Faith ad Innocentium. But it was also, as late as A.D. 1521, produced by the Sorbonne against Luther as Augustine’s confession. 688 I have dealt with the origin and authority of the Athanasian Symbol in Vol. IV., p. 134. Since then Loofs (R. Encykl., Vol. II.3, pp. 177-194) has published an investigation regarding it, distinguished by a comprehensive knowledge of sources and literature. We are agreed as to the following points. (1) The Symbol, whether we may think it to have risen out of two originally independent documents or not, belongs to Roman Southern Gaul. (2) Its first, longer, Trinitarian half, as well as the second, shorter, Christological portion belongs to the period c. 450—(at latest) 600. In the pre-Carlovingian age the Symbol had only a partial authority—the Canon of Autun proves that it was accepted there c. 670. Not till the Carlovingian period was the way prepared for its universal acceptance. Thus only two important points are in dispute. (1) Did the Symbol originate in a sermo de symbolo, or was it directly conceived as a formulary of the faith? (2) Does it consist of two portions originally independent, or was it framed from the first in its present extent? I may here leave the first que ac8 stion alone. As regards the second, I had supported the original independence of the Trinitarian first half, and supposed that the Christological section was only added a considerable time later, perhaps not till the Carlovingian epoch. Loofs (p. 185 ff.) has convinced me, by his evidence as to the Cod. Paris, 3836, that this date has been put too late. But I never based my opinion of an

Augustinian theology, came to the Frankish kingdom from Spain, but we know nothing more precisely as to how it did. It was held to be certain that it belonged to the Symbol, and this conviction 689 304was already expressed at the Synod of Gentilly (767). Charles’s learned theologians confirmed it, as is proved by Alcuin’s work De processione spiritus sancti, and the Libri Carolini.690 Official action was provoked by Western monks having had to submit ac8 to grave injustice in Jerusalem, because in the Liturgy they added, “sicut erat in principio” to the “Gloria patri,” and “tu solus altissimus” to the “Gloria in excelsis,” and in the Symbol “filioque” to “a patre.” They complained to the Pope, who turned to the Emperor. The latter commissioned Theodulf of

original independence of the two parts on this external testimony invalidated by Loofs, but on the internal matter of the Symbol. The latter Loofs has practically left alone. The following facts fall to be considered. (1) In the opening of the Symbol, §§ 1-3, the doctrine of the Trinity is alone announced as “catholica fides” (compare the edict of Theodosius I. of A.D. 380); there is nothing to suggest that the author means also to deal with Christology. (2) In § 26 we find, consistently with this, the solemn conclusion reverting to the beginning; “Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de trinitate sentiat.” This whole first half is accordingly a rule of faith complete in itself and entire, elaborated by the aid of Augustine and Vincentius, and anti-Arian. Nothing essential is to be found in it which could not have been written by Augustine, if of course the sentences may have been only gradually polished afterwards. (3) The following section, not hitherto introduced, is, indeed, bracketed with the preceding one by §§ 27 and 48; but these brackets testify plainly enough that an original organic unity is not to be supposed. For (a) § 40 is a replica of § 26, yet (b) the language is somewhat different (in the second section we have “fideliter credere,” “fides recta, ut credamus et confiteamur,” “fideliter et firmiterque credere”; in the first section: “catholicam fidem tenere,” or “integram inviolatamque fidem servare”). (4) Looking to the contents, the Christological section, §§ 28-39, shows, first, the Antinestorian (32) and Antimonophysite attitude (34, 35) completely balanced; secondly, the Gallican rescension of the Apostle’s Creed (“passus,” “descendit ad inferos,” “sedet ad dexteram dei patris omnipotentis—these could only be attributed to Spain); thirdly, the influence of the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed (“passus est pro nostra salute,”), so that we can hardly ascend beyond the beginning of the sixth century for this part. (5) Weight is to be given to the fact that the author, who has adhered strictly in §§ 36, 37 to the curt form of the Symbol, has considered it necessary in §§ 38, 39 to make a wordy addition, that at Christ’s coming all men “reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem, et qui bona egeru 540 nt ibunt in vitam æternam, qui vero mala in ignem æternum.” Is this addition not to be understood as in the interests of Semi-Pelagianism? The two portions may have been combined as early as the sixth century. If we could date the Sermo Trevir. we would know more accurately about this. 689 See Hefele, III., p. 432. 690 Hefele, III., p. 704; see Libr. Carol. III. 3 (Migne, Vol. 98), where Tarasius is blamed for teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds ex patre per filium instead of ex filio.

Orleans to compose a work, “De spiritu sancto,” and got it decreed at the Synod of Aachen (809) that the filioque belonged to the Symbol.691 The Pope, however, who had to approve of this decision, still took the East into consideration, and did not permit the admission of the word, though he assented to the doctrine. Even the remonstrance of the Franks that the filioque was necessary to salvation did not move him.692 The matter continued thus till the great controversy under Photius, until the filioque became the Symbolic watchword in the whole of the West.693 The most worthless formula of 305Augustinianism, once recommended by its opposition to Arianism, was thus preserved in the West. If in this controversy between the West and East the former at first received only a lukewarm support from Rome, which was still half Byzantine, the Pope ranged himself entirely on the side of the pious Eastern theologians in the Oriental controversy about images, and therewith his relations became strained with Frankish theology or the efforts made by Charles I. to promote civilisation. The attitud ac3 e of that theology in the great conflict is extremely characteristic of the transition time in which it found itself. The spiritual (inner) element introduced into it by Augustine no longer reacted in Christology, and in the conception of the Mass, against mystical superstition and magic sacramentalism. It had been swallowed up by the more powerful Byzantine Roman current. But the Franks could not yet force themselves to adopt the Oriental worship of images.694 A halt was made at the Host. A spiritual,

acd 691

Hefele, III., 750-755. See Mansi, XIV., p. 18 sq. It is very important that the Pope objected to the lastmentioned argument of the Franks, saying that other things were also necessary for salvation, and were yet not received into the Symbol, since it could admit of no change at all. This meant (as opposed to the Eastern view) that the Symbol did not embrace everything that belonged to salvation. The Pope says (p. 20): “Verumtamen, quæso, responde mihi: num universa hujusmodi fidei mystica sacramenta, quæ symbolo non continentur, sine quibus quisque, qui ad hoc pertingere potest, catholicus esse non potest, symbolis inserenda et propter compendium minus intellegentium, ut cuique libuerit, addenda sunt?” The Pope, besides, asserted, in a very remarkable way, in the interview with the Frankish missi, he thought that all stages of culture could not take up the same attitude to dogma, hat accordingly what was important to some was not to others. 693 The papal legates in Constantinople (A.D. 88o) still subscribed the Symbol without filiogue. On John VIII., see Hefele IV., p. 482. The Frankish kingdom took the liveliest interest in the controversy in that period; but the grounds on which it rested its own view were always the same. It is not known how and when the “filioque” was admitted in Rome into the Symbol; and we know just as little about how and when Rome accepted the Gallican Apostles’ Creed and the Athanasian. 694 This is true of the cultured, and at that time governing, portion of the clergy. 692

Augustinian element reacted against image-worship, but, paradoxical as it sounds, the lower state of dogmatic culture had also its effect here. It would indeed seem, on a superficial view, that he who rejects the veneration of images is always the more cultured. But that only holds in circumstances that did not then exist. Where men had once entered, as was the case in the Frankish kingdom, the magic circle of the Byzantine mysticism that enveloped Christ and the cultus, it was simply the sign of a religious faith not yet fully developed on this basis to halt at the Host, and to disdain the riches offered by images to theological thought and pious fancy. The East and Rome made their Christology living for themselves in pictures, and so saw the past mystery in the abiding present. How could a faith dispense with them that already aimed at the sensuous enjoyment of heavenly things and revelled in the worship of relics? But dogmatic culture was still backward in the West, the theosophy of images had not yet 306been learnt, and—what was most important—but few pictures were possessed. It has been maintained,695 but it is not absolutely certain, that the Synod of Gentilly (767) emitted a declaration as to imageworship satisfactory to the Pope. The Synod of Frankfort (794) unanimously condemned the decision of the seventh Œcumenical Council, which required “service and adoration” (servitium, adoratio) to be rendered to images. The decisions of the Council were undoubtedly extant only in a very bad translation. acd 1 “Certain chapters” had been previously sent to Rome against the worship of images, these being an extract (85 ch.) from the Libri Carolini, which Alcuin had composed shortly before, at the Emperor’s command, in conjunction with other theological Court officials; they were written against the Oriental Councils of 754 and 787.696 In these iconoclasm, but still more strongly imageworship, are forbidden as foolish and mischievous. It was right to have pictures for decoration and recollection, but not to adore them (Gregory I., Ep. VII. III: “therefore the picture is used in Churches that those who are ignorant of letters may at least read by seeing upon the walls what they cannot read in books,” and, further, Libri Carol. præf.: “having images in the ornaments of our churches and in memory of past events, and worshipping God alone, and exhibiting fit veneration to his saints, we are neither iconoclasts with the one party nor worshippers with the other”). Imageworship is then refuted at greater length, and the addition of the

561 695Hefele, III., p. 433; Hauck, K.-Gesch. II., p. 278 f. 696 Mansi, XIII., p. 909. 697 Migne, CII., p. 999 sq.

seventh to the six Œcumenical Councils is condemned; the two Synods (of 754 and 787) are “infamous” and “most foolish” (infames, ineptissimæ). Some would see in these books a proof of the Carlovingian “illumination”;698 but the enlightenment, which is unmistakable in other respects, only went the length of ignorance of the theosophy of images, failure to understand the subtle distinctions between λατρεία (worship) and προσκύνησις (veneration), and the king’s effort to advance civilisation. What the books really show is the self-reliance and sense of power of the 307Frankish Church, which break out with youthful audacity, convicting with mischievous glee the older and wiser sister of error, and actually summoning, and requiring the Pope formally to prosecute, the Byzantine Emperor and aa8 the Empress-Regent. These books already show that the Roman West and the East could no longer go together, because the former sought to take command. They also reveal a trace of Augustinian spiritual teaching, but knowing what we do of the sort of thing held sacred at that time in the Frankish kingdom, they cannot be taken as proving that men were more enlightened in the Western than in the Eastern Church.699 Pope Hadrian refuted the chapters,700 but took care not to exaggerate the difference. Under Louis the Pious, a Synod convoked at Paris on account of an embassy from Michael the Stammerer (825) pronounced itself decidedly against the image-worshipping Pope, and held strictly to the line laid down in the Libri Carolini: pictures might be set up “in memory of pious love” (pro amoris pii memoria), as ornaments, and, above all, for the sake of the uneducated; but they were not to be adored, and their erection might therefore be dispensed with.701 Louis adopted more stringent measures against image-worship than Charles.702 Pope Eugene II. wrapped himself in silence; nay, even in A.D. 863 a Lateran Synod, while it recognised image-worship in guarded language, said nothing about the seventh Œcumenical Council.703 698

Reuter, l.c. I., p. 10 f. The most vigorous defenders of Augustinian spiritual teaching were Claudius of Turin and Agobard; see Reuter, I., p. 16 ff. We are reasonably astonished that Claudius did not fare worse than he did. The study of Augustine had opened his as well as Agobard’s eyes to the contrast between the external, superstitious Christianity of their time and the ideal type of Catholicism that had taken shape to itself in the work of the great African. 700 Mansi, XIII., p. 759. 701 Mansi, XIV., p. 415 sq. Hefele, IV., 38 ff. 702 See Claudius’ mission in Upper Italy, where iconoclasm broke out, and the worship was described as idolatry. 703 Mansi, XV., p. 178, 244; XIV., p. 106. Hefele, IV., p. 272. 699

Image-worship and the seventh Synod of 787 were gradually accepted only after the time of the eighth general Synod (869). ae8 704 308Yet the Carlovingian theologians were still hostile to imageworship at the close of the period. Hinkmar, who wrote a work, no longer preserved, “on the worship of pictures of the Redeemer and the Saints,”705 would only admit them as means of instruction (or for ornament); and Agobard,706 Jonas of Orleans,707 Walafrid Strabo,708 and Æneas of Paris709 held the same view. Hinkmar also calls the Council of 787 a Pseudo-Synod, and all Frankish authorities known to us, of the ninth century, reckon only six Councils. Even the (eighth) Council of 869 was at first not recognised by Hinkmar. It was only when the Frankish German Church again came to the light after the dark ages that it also saw the seventh and eighth Councils. Yet the difference with the Pope regarding the pictures hardly did any harm to his prestige in the ninth century. His authority, that is, had not been carried so high or become so sensitive that such shocks could bring about its fall.710 Image-worship was never able to domesticate itself thoroughly where antiquit ac8 y was not the ruling spirit. Even at the present day Italy is still the classic land of image-worship in the West. While, however, in the East that worship expresses the religious faith and the philosophy of religion themselves, because it is evolved from the Christology, in the West pictures form part of the system of intercessors and helpers in need. In practice, indeed, the difference is pretty well obliterated. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

3. The Development of the Practice and Theory of the Mass (the Dogma of the Lord’s Supper) and of Penance.

704

But the dispute between Rome and Byzantium had already become acute, the gap impassable, so that the west was unable to take part i 53d n the great renaissance of the sciences experienced by Byzantium from the time of Photius until the beginning of the tenth century. 705 See Schrörs, l.c., p. 163. 706 Contra eorum superstitionem, qui picturis et imaginibus sanctorum adorationis obsequium deferendum putant. Migne, CIV., p. 199. 707 De cultu imaginum, 1. III. Migne, CVI., p. 305. 708 De eccles. rerum exordiis. Migne, CXIV., p. 927. 709 Lib. adv. Græc. Migne, CXXI., p. 685 sq. 710 On the authority of Peter’s Chair itself in Hinkmar’s view, see Schrörs, l.c., p. 165 f. But when men spoke of the Pope, they did not always think of the primacy (which, besides, included no administrative power in other dioceses), but also of the Roman Church. She is the “nurse and teacher” of all churches (Hinkmar).

Three factors co-operated to promote a development of the theory of the Lord’s Supper in the West in the Carlovingian 309age. Firstly, the influence of Byzantium, where the controversy about images had led their worshippers to disconnect the symbolical conception from the consecrated elements, in order to avoid the necessity of identifying the Sacrament with the images, and of thus robbing the great mystery of its unique character.711 Secondly, the practice of the Western Church. The divine service of the Mass was the central point of all Christianity, to which everything referred, and from which every saving influence flowed for the baptized Christian. But if the ordinary life of the Christian was connected with miraculous powers and mysteries, if miracles were in the present, and still more in the accounts of the past, every-day events,712 then the sacred act effected in the Lord’s Supper had to be developed into the wonder of wonders, lest its significance should be impaired by comparison with hundreds of miracles of a common stamp.713 Thirdly, theology and Christology come before us in this connection. The greater the prominence given in the notion of God to the idea that God, because omnipotent, was a mysterious arbitrary power, and the more vague became aa9 the perception of God in Christ and the knowledge measured by moral holiness, the more firmly did men cling to the institutions of the Church as the alone manifest, and seek in them, i.e., in mystery and miracle, to apprehend the hidden God. Further, 310the more the historical Christ was lost in light which no man can approach, and the more resolutely religious speculation, in order to be truly pious, only saw in him the God, who had added human nature to his

711

On the development of the mysteries and Lord’s Supper in the Greek Church, see Vol. IV. p. 268. John of Damascus (De fide orth. IV. 13), declared expressly: οὔκ ἐστι τύπος ὁ ἄρτος τοῦ σώµατος ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ σῶµα τοῦ κυρίου τεθεωµένον. After the Synod of 754 (Mansi, XIII., p. 261 sq.), had called the consecrated elements types and images, the second Nicene Synod of 787 (l.c. p. 265) expressly declared that they were not that, since neither the Apostles nor Fathers had so named them; by consecration they rather became αὐτὸ σῶµα καὶ αὐτὸ αἶµα. Yet Transubstantiation, taken strictly in the Western sense, was admittedly never taught by the Greeks. 712 See Reuter, I., pp. 24 ff. 41 ff. 713 In order to perceive that the Lord’s Supper needed a special prominence to be given to it, notice the view taken by Hinkmar of ordeals, on which Augustine, indeed, had already laid great stress (Schrörs, p. 190 ff.); he regarded them, namely, as sacraments instituted in Scripture, and placed them on a level with the baptismal ceremonies. Hinkmar was not alone in the value he attached to the oath of purgation and divine judgments (see Rozière, Recueil général des formules, Paris, 1859, n. DLXXXI.DCXXV.; on p. 70, the ceremony is described as christianæ religionis officium), but Agobard, who opposed them, stood almost alone; see Reuter, I., p. 32 ff.

fulness (see the Adoptian controversy), the more clearly did men feel themselves constrained to seek Christ not in the historical picture or the Word, but where the mystery of his Incarnation and death was present and palpable.714

714

The controversies de partu virginis (Bach, I., p. 152 ff.; see Ratramnus, Liber de eo, quod Christus ex virgine natus est; Radbertus, Opusculum de partu virginis, d’Achery, Spicil. I. p. 52, 44), show still better than the Adoptian controversy, the kind of Christology that was honoured by the religion of the community and monks. Ratramnus described as the poison of the old serpent the fact that some Germans denied that Christ had issued from Mary’s womb in the natural way, for thus the reality of Christ’s birth was destroyed, although he also acknowledged Mary’s perpetual virginity and taught the partus clauso utero: “clausa patuit dominanti.” Radbert on the other hand, without answering Ratramnus, consoled some nuns, who had been unsettled by the alleged denial of Mary’s virginity, by saying that the Church held firmly to the “clauso utero”; for if Christ had come to the light in the natural way, he would have been like an ordinary man; everything connected with the incarnation, however, was miraculous. He who did not admit Christ to have been born clauso utero, set him under the common law of nature, i.e. sinful nature, and in that case Christ was not free of sin. The difference between the two scholars thus consisted solely in the fact that while Ratramnus maintained the natural process of birth to have taken place miraculously clauso utero, Radbert taught that the birth was a supernatural process, and that Christ had left his mother in a different way from other children. Radbert here also is the more consistent; Ratramnus seeks to unite natural and supernatural. Radbert, at least, in imparting his curious instruction to the virgins of the cloister, does not display the pruriency of Jerome, who is the father of these gynæcological fancies, and the nuns may have taken this question very seriously, as seriously as Marcion and Augustine, because they recognised all that was sexual to be the hearth of sin. To later scholasticism is clue the credit of having explained the partus clause utero scientifically from the ubiquity of Christ’s body. Such miraculous conceptions having been diffused as to the body of the historical Christ, it being held, in a word, to be already pneumatic in itself, it was by that very reason sacramental (mysterious). But, in that case, it was impossible not to take the next step, and finally and completely identify the real with that sacramental (mysterious) body that was offered in the Lord’s Supper. The lines drawn from the incarnation dogma and the Lord’s Supper necessarily converged in the end. That this did not happen earlier was due, apart from the material hind 564 rance presented by Augustine with his sober conceptions of the historical Christ as a real homo, to formal difficulties caused by the traditional idiom (the sacramental body is figura corporis Christi). These had to be removed. Bach remarks very justly (I. p. 156): “The cause of present day misunderstandings of the ancient controversies regarding the Lord’s Supper, consists in mistaking the law that governs the formation of language, and that also applies to theological idiom. We refer here to the gradual change of meaning of theological words, even when they have become, as regards their outward verbal form, fixed categories, i.e. termini technici.” The admission here frankly made by the Catholic historian of dogma is, we know, not always granted by Lutheran theologians. We have indeed had to listen, in the controversy of our own days,

311

The active influence of these combined factors undoubtedly received an extremely significant check in the case of Bede, and in the first decades of the Carlovingian age, from the rise of the study of Augustine, whose teaching on the Lord’s Supper had been predominantly spiritual. Charles’s theologians, or Charles himself, frequently used quite Augustinian language, in speaking of the Lord’s Supper. But even in their case variations occur,715 and towards the end of the period of Louis the Pious, Paschasius Radbertus was able to assert as doctrine, what had long been felt by the majority, that the real (historical) body of Christ was sacrificed in the Mass, and partaken of in the Lord’s Supper.716

to the wonderful cry that we ought to restore to words their original meaning. As if any one still possessed the old die! 715 Bede’s teach ac8 ing was thoroughly Augustinian. (“In redemptionis memoriam,” “corporis sanguinisque sacramentum,” “ad corpus Christi mystice refertur,” “spiritualiter intellegite,” “non hoc corpus, quod videtis—Christus inquit—manducaturi estis, sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos,” “lavat nos a peccatis nostris quotidie in sanguine suo, cum beatæ passionis ad altare memoria replicatur, cum panis et vini creatura in sacramentum carnis et sanguinis ejus ineffabili spiritus sanctificatione transfertur”); passages in Münter (D.-Gesch. II., 1 [1834] p. 223 f.). But we then see how the conception changed step by step until the middle of the ninth century. Alcuin repeats his teacher’s principles; but both his opposition to the Council of A.D. 754 (De impio imag. cultu IV. 14: “non sanguinis et corporis dominici mysterium imago jam nunc dicendum est, sed veritas, non umbra, sed corpus”), and in part his study of Greek Christology and adoption of sentiments expressed in the Church practice led him to make statements like the following (Ep. 36): “profer nomen amici tui eo tempore opportuno, quo panem et vinum in substantiam corporis et sanguinis Christi consecraveris.” Münter justly remarks (l.c.) that this is not yet synonymous with “in substantiam corporis convertere;” but it approaches it. The general notion of the Sacrament is completely identical in the cases of Isidore, Rabanus Maurus, Ratramnus, and Paschasius Radbertus, and so entirely follows Augustine in its construction that we are not prepared by it for the strictly realistic version in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. 716 See Radberti Lib. de corp. et sang. domini (831), new edition, with an Ep. ad Carolum, thirteen years later (Migne, CXX., p. 1267). Steitz in the R.-Encykl. XII., p. 474. Rückert in Hilgenfeld’s Ztschr. 1858. Bach. I., p. 156 ff. Reuter, I., p. 41 ff. Choisy, Paschase Radbert, Genève, 1888. Hausher, Der hl. Paschasius, 1862. Ernst, Die Lehre d. h. P. Radbert v. d. Eucharistie, 1896. Geschichte der Abendmahlsfeier by Dieckhoff, p. 13 ff., Ebrard, Kahnis, etc. Ebert, Gesch. d. Lit. des Mittelalters, II. Mabillon, in the second and third parts of the Benedictine Annals. Ratramnus’ work (De corpore et sanguine domini ad Carolum) in Migne CXXI., p. 125. Köhler, Rabanus’ Streit mit Paschasius, in Hilg 564 enfeld’s Zeitschr. 1879, p. 116 ff. A detailed account of the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper from Paschasius to Berengar is given by Schnitzer, Berengar von Tours (1890), pp. 127-245.

312

Paschasius Radbertus was perhaps the most learned and able theologian, after Alcuin, as well versed in Greek theology as he was familiar with Augustinianism, a coinprehensive genius, who felt the liveliest desire to harmonise theory and practice, and at the same time to give due weight to everything that had been taught till then by Church tradition regarding the Lord’s Supper. 583 717 His great work on the Lord’s Supper was the first Church monograph on the subject.718 It is a one-sided description of its contents to sum them up in the phrase: “Paschasius taught transubstantiation.”719 The importance of the book lies rather in the fact that the Lord’s Supper is exhaustively discussed from all possible points of view, and that a certain unity is nevertheless attained. Paschasius did for this dogma what Origen did for the whole of dogmatics; he is the Origen of the Catholic doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, which was placed by him as a theory in the central position that it had long held in practice. We can only appreciate Paschasi ac8 us’ teaching if we keep it in mind that Greek Christological mysticism, Augustinian spiritualism, and—unconsciously to the author himself—the practice of the Frankish Church, had an equal share in it. But we must also remember that the notion of God as inscrutable omnipotence, i.e., arbitrary power, was dominant. Without this conception of deity the doctrine of transubstantiation would never have been reached.720

717

Radbert’s work, De fide, spe et caritate is also important, because it shows greater power to grasp religious doctrine as a whole than we expect at this date. 718 So far as I know, no inquiry has yet been undertaken as to the homily, De corpore et sanguine Christi, which is found in Jerome’s works (Migne, T. XXX., Col. 271 ff.), being ascribed by tradition to Eusebius of Emesa, and of which a copy is also given among the works of Faustus of Riez. In it occurs the sentence: “Visibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in ab6 substantiam corporis et sanguinis sui verbo suo secreta potestate convertit.” The homily belongs to a whole group, on which consult Caspari, Briefe, Abhandlungen and Predigten (1890), p. 418 ff. (see above, p. 254). 719 Choisy seeks to show that Paschasius was the father of the Catholic dogma even to the manducatio infidelium, and that the spiritual form of the dogma of the Lord’s Supper is in his case only apparent, since ultimately everything is dominated by crass realism. 720 Compare Radbert’s extremely characteristic introduction to his treatise: he discusses the almighty will of God as ground of all natural events. God’s arbitrary power is the ultimate cause; therefore his actions can be described as contrary to nature as well as natural (the latter, because even the regular course of things is subject to divine absolutism). The new dogma is explicitly based on this conception of God. Notoriously everything can be deduced from it, predestination, accommodation, transubstantiation, etc. Radbert holds the Lord’s Supper to be the miracle of miracles, towards which all others point; see 1, 5.

313

To begin with, Paschasius has given most vigorous expression to Augustinian doctrine not as something foreign to him, but as if he had thoroughly assimilated it.721 The sacrament is a spiritual food for faith; to eat Christ’s flesh means to be and remain in Christ. The rite is given to faith, and faith is to be roused by it. Faith, however, is always related to the invisible; and thus the sacrament in its deepest sense can only be received by the faith that has withdrawn into the invisible world. Christ, the soul, faith, heaven, and the sacrament are most intimately connected—the bodily eye must always look beyond the sensuous to the heavenly behind it. Therefore the meal is a meal for the holy, the elect. Only he who belongs to Christ and is a member in his body enjoys the food worthily, nay, he alone enjoys the food of faith actually. Unbelievers receive the sacrament, but not its virtue (virtus sacramenti). But even Augustine had so distinguished between these two notions that virtus sacramenti sometimes describes its saving efficacy alone, sometimes the miraculous nature of the holy food itself, so that in the former case the sacrament itself signifies the totality of the rite without its corresponding effect, and in the latter merely something objective incapable of further definition. Radbert, like Augustine, prefers the latter version. The believer alone receives the virtus sacramenti as food of faith and incorporation into Christ’s body—there was no eating on the part of unbelievers (manducatio infidelium); Christ’s flesh as contained in th 53b e sacrament did not exist apart from faith. The unbeliever, indeed, receives the sacrament—what that is is indefinable—but he does 314so to his condemnation; for without the virtus sacramenti the sacrament exists ad judicium damnationis.722

721

Radbert expressly attacks the Capernaite coarse conception of participation in the Lord’s Supper; he declines to adopt the crudely sensuous ideas diffused in the widest circles (Bach, I. 167 ff.); see De corp. et sang. 8, 2. Expos. in Mat. 1. XII., 26. Reality in its common sense is “natura” in Radbert’s view; but he never says that the elements are naturaliter transformed. Therefore also Christ’s body is not digested. 574 722 See esp. ch. VIII., but also 5-7, 14, 21. This spiritual conception, on which Steitz (1.c.) has rightly laid great stress, runs through the whole book. But when Radbert positively calls the body present in the Lord’s Supper a corpus spiritale, he does not mean this in contrast with the natural, but the lower bodily nature (caro humana) confined to space. C. 21, 5: “Non nisi electorum cibus est.” 6, 2: “Quid est, quod manducant homines? Ecce omnes indifferenter quam sæpe sacramenta altaris percipiunt. Percipiunt plane, sed alius carnem Christi spiritaliter manducat et sanguinem bibit, alius vero non, quamvis buccellam de manu sacerdotis videatur percipere. Et quid accipit, cum una sit

In addition to this Augustinianism, a Greek element is very strongly marked in the description of the effects of the holy food; for besides incorporation in Christ and forgiveness of venial sins, the chief emphasis is laid on our soul and body being nourished by this food for immortality. The combination contained in the statement that this is effected by baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Holy Scripture (c. 1, 4), is Western; but the intention to which prominence is given in connection with the Lord’s Supper alone, viz. “that even our flesh may be renewed by it to immortality and incorruption,” af1 723 is Greek. Indeed Radbert even says conversely: “the flesh of Christ spiritually digested is transformed into our flesh.”724 But he now went still further with the Greeks— Cyril and John of Damascus. He had learned from them that although the rite existed for faith only, yet the reality of Christ’s body was present.725 This assumption was rendered easy, nay imperative, to the Greeks by their view that Christ’s historical body was itself pneumatic from the moment of the Incarnation. Although they then (John of Damascus) completed the identification, and assumed a real presence of Christ’s body in the Sacrament, they still hesitated secretly, because they did not get over the difficulty caused by the fact that the body once received into heaven did not return. 315Therefore they assigned the form of the miracle (sacramental transformation and assumption) to the “mystery.” Radbert took up the matter here, at the same time influenced by the popular conception and his certainty that the practice of the Church was justified. For the first time in the Church he declares without hesitancy that the sacramental body is that which had been born of Mary, and that this is due to a transformation which only leaves the sensuous appearance unchanged. This is a miracle against nature (or quasi contra naturam: for nature always depends on the will of God); but it is to be believed for that very reason, for we only think worthily of God, who can do anything, when we acknowledge him to be the power that works miracles. What he does here is a miraculous creative act, effected, as always, through the word, in this case the word of

consecratio, si corpus et sang. Chr. non accipit? Vere, quia reus indigne accipit, judicium sibi manducat.” 723 “Ut etiam caro nostra per hoc ad immortalitatem et incorruptionem reparetur.” 724 “Carni nostræ caro Christi spiritaliter conviscerata transformatur.” See c. 11 and 19, 1: “Non sicut quidam volunt anima sola hoc mysterio pascitur, quia non sola redimitur morte Christi et salvatur, verum etiam et caro nostra, etc. etc.; “nos per hoc in incorruptionem transformamur” (therefore as in Justin); the same thought already in I. 4, 6. 725 “Spiritale” and “verum” are thus not mutually exclusive.

institution, and this is spoken not by the priest, but on each occasion by God through the eternal Word (Christ), so that the priest only issues the appeal to God. This constantly repeated creation by God is exactly parallel to the Incarnation—Christ’s word corresponds to the Hol 564 y Spirit, the elements to the virgin’s womb; the effect is the same. The sacramental is the historical body, of course also historically transfigured; for from Cyril’s standpoint the transfiguration of the body in the Resurrection is only the manifestation of the properties which it always possessed.726 In order to 316explain the startling fact that the results of the transformation were not capable of being perceived by the senses, Radbert had a number of reasons ready: it was unnecessary and repulsive,727 and besides it would happen often.728 The most important of these was that—it was necessary 564 the rite should remain a mystery given to faith alone. We are as far as possible from being prepared for this idea, and yet it was very important to Radbert. The Lord’s Supper always presupposes faith and is meant to rouse faith, where it exists, to advance to the undisguised Christ who is not daily sacrificed. Hence the sacrament cannot be a manifest, but is always a disguised, miracle.

726

C. 1, 2: “Nullus moveatur de hoc corpore Christi et sanguine, quod in mysterio vera sit caro et verus sit sanguis, dum sic voluit ille qui creavit: omnia enim quæcumque voluit fecit in cælo et in terra, et quia voluit, licet in figura panis et vini, hæc sic esse, omnino nihil aliud quam caro Christi et sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt. Unde ipsa veritas ad discipulos: Hæc, inquit, caro mea est pro mundi vita, et ut mirabilius loquar, non alia plane quam quæ nata est de Maria et passa in cruce et resurrexit de sepulcro.” Further 7, 2: “corpus quod natum est de Maria virgine . . . resurrexit a mortuis, penetravit cœlos et nunc pontifex factus in æternum quotidie interpellat pro nobis.” 12, I: “ubi catholica fide hoc mysterium celebratur, nihil a bono majus nihilque a malo minus percipi sacerdote, nihilque aliud quam caro Christi et sanguis dum catholice consecratur, quia non in merito consecrantis sed in verbo efficitur creatoris et virtute spiritus s., ut caro Chr. et sanguis, non alia quam quæ de spiritu s. creata est, vera fide credatur et spiritali intellegentia degustetur . . . Christi est qui per s. s. hanc suam efficit carnem.” Cf. 15, 1: “non æstimandum est, quod alterius verbis, quod ullius alterius meritis, quod pote 54b state alicujus ista fiunt, sed verbo creatoris, quo cuncta creata sunt.” 8, 2: “substantia panis et vini in Christi carnem et sanguinem efficaciter interius commutatur.” 2, 2: “sensibilis res intellegibiliter virtute dei per verbum Christi in carnem ipsius divinitus transfertur.” 727 See c. 10 and 13, and esp. 4, 1: “quia Christum vorari fas dentibus non est, voluit in mysterio hunc panem et vinum vere carnem suam et sanguinem consecratione spiritus s. potentialiter (i.e. efficaciter) creari, creando vero quotidie pro mundi vita mystice immolari.” 728 See c. 14; besides Bach I., p. 168 ff. A lamb, or real blood, or the Christ-child appeared.

Hence, moreover, the elements, in so far as they are not perceptibly transformed (colour, taste, and smell remaining), must be regarded as symbols of Christ’s body, from which faith penetrates to the mysterious but really created source of salvation. The sensuous appearance of the consecrated elements is the symbol of Christ’s body, their essence is the true historical body itself.729 We readily perceive that in this phase the bridge to the Augustinian conception has been recovered. Paschasius intended to unite and did unite two positions in his doctrine of 317the Lord’s Supper: the Augustinian, that the sacraments are given to faith a 564 nd everything in them is spiritually handled, and the Greek, which also seemed to him commended by the letter of Scripture, the Fathers, and a few miracles, that we are confronted by a reality existent prior to all faith, since only the true body and the blood actually shed can redeem us, and since we need the corporeal indwelling of Christ. Both considerations seemed to be served by the view, that in the elements we are dealing with a miraculous creation of Christ’s body, which is, however, effected in such a way that faith alone can rise from the still existent semblance of the mere bodily figure (figura corporis) to the apprehension of the heavenly reality. The voluminous books, afterwards written by Catholics and Lutherans on the Lord’s Supper, prove that Radbert’s theory opened up a perspective to hundreds of questions, which he did not solve, and, indeed, did not even put. His treatment of the part played by the priest at the sacrament seemed unsatisfactory. His brief expositions as to the creation of the body failed to make certain the identity of the heavenly and the sacramental Christ.

729

On this point Radbert speaks like Ratramnus; see 1, 5: “visu corporeo et gustu propterea non demutantur, quatenus fides exerceatur ad justitiam.” 13, 1, 2, “quod colorem aut saporem carnis minime præbet, virtus tamen fidei et intellegentiæ, quæ nihil de Christo dubitat, totum illud spiritaliter sapit et degustat . . . Sic debuit hoc mysterium temperari, ut et arcana secretorum celarentur infidis et meritum cresceret de virtute fidei et nihil deesset interius vere credentibus promissæ veritatis.” Nay the disguise incites to loftier aspiration (as with the Greeks): “insuper et quod majus est per hæc secretius præstita ad illam tenderent speciem satietatis ubi jam non pro peccatis nostris quotidie Christus immolabitur, sed satietate manifestationis ejus sine ulla corruptione omnes sine fine fruemur.” (One imagines that he is listening to Origen or Gregory of Nyssa.) On figura and veritas, see 4, 1: “. . . ut sicut de virgine per spiritum vera caro sine coitu creatur, ita per eundem ex substantia panis ac vini mystice idem Christi corpus et sanguis consecretur . . . figura videtur esse cum frangitur, dum in specie visibili aliud intelligitur quam quod visu carnis et gustu sentitur. Veritas appellatur, dum corpus Christi et sanguis virtute spiritus in verbo ipsius ex panis vinique substantia efficitur.”

There was still no definition of the relation of the unconverted to the converted object of sense-perception. W 564 hen men began to attempt this definition, nothing short of the whole of philosophy necessarily passed before the mind of the cultured theologian. The claim of the symbolical view had to be determined, and thereby the sacrament, symbol, virtue, reality (res) and, again, the graded and yet identical bodies of Christ (the historical on earth, the transfigured in heaven, the sacramental on earth, the body as Church in heaven and on earth) had to be defined, as it were geologically, as intersecting boulders. “One deep called to the others”; and the fact that in after times the most intelligent men leant an ear to this clamour, and yet remained sane in other respects, proved that the most absurd speculations in the sphere of religion do not necessarily make the whole reason sick.730 318

But the most remarkable feature in Radbert’s fundamental theory is that he did not refer primarily to the Mass, or indeed to Christ’s death on the Cross; in other words, he did not draw all the consequences whic 564 h resulted from it. Radbert is not the theologian of the Catholic Mass. The Incarnation and Lord’s Supper were for him more intimately connected, as it seems, than Christ’s sacrificial death and the dogma of the Lord’s Supper. From this we see that Radbert was a disciple of the Greeks, that he was really a theologian, and his interest did not centre primarily on the Church institution of penance, and the divine service of the Mass connected with it.731 Rabanus732 and Ratramnus alone opposed him. The opposition is as obscure, logically, as in the controversy about the virgin birth. As Ratramnus had then taught that the natural had come to pass by a miracle, while Radbert held that the event was contrary to nature; so here again Rabanus and, above all, Ratramnus taught that, while the external mi ac7 racle (contra naturam)—the communication in the Lord’s Supper of the body that was born, that died and rose again—did not take place, the true body was potentialiter

730

The doctrine of the real conversion of the elements in the West is to be regarded as an importation from the East, and is closely connected with the anti-Adoptian version of Cliristology. But it was first in the West that the legal mind and dialectics cast themselves on this subject, and produced a complicated and never to be completed doctrine of endless extent. 731 Not primarily; for undoubtedly he 523 more than once in his work thinks of the Mass, and draws the inference of the daily sacrifice of Christ’s body pro peccatis; see 13, 2; 4, 1, etc. 732 Ep. ad Eigil. Migne, CXII., p. 1510.

(effectively) created, yet in mysterio, by the consecration of the Holy Spirit.733 Ratramnus examines elaborately the problem that the king had set him, whether that which is received into his mouth by the believer, is in mystery or reality Christ’s body. From the king’s question he himself formulates other two: whether participation, in the cultus, in the body of Christ was an act in mysterio or in veritate, and whether the sacramental body was identical with the historical which now sits at the right hand of the Father.734 To the second question he replies that that which lies consecrated 319on the altar is by no means the historical body, but only the mystery of the body, as also the mystery of the Church. As regards the historical body the consecrated elements are thus only a figure (figura), means of reminiscence for our present earthly life, since we cannot yet see what we believe.735 But nevertheless

733

Ratramnus and Rabanus are nearer each other than is currently supposed; but Bach (I. p. 191 ff.) is wrong, when, after the precedent of other Catholics, he tries by an interpretation of Ratramnus’ use of language to make him a genuine Catholic. Ratramnus also holds that a miracle takes place, but not the miracle that magically produces the body worn by Christ as a person. b09 734See the opening of the work. 735 Following on a reference to Ambrose, he writes (c. 75 sq.): “De carne Christi quæ crucifixa et sepulta est, ait, ‘Vera utique caro Christi est.’ At de illo quod sumitur in sacramento dicit, ‘Veræ carnis illius sacramentum est,’ distinguens sacramentum carnis a veritate carnis. Veritas carnis quam sumpsit de virgine; quod vero nunc agitur in ecclesia mysterium, veræ illius carnis . . . sacramentum . . . non est specie caro, sed sacramentum, siquidem in specie panis est, in sacramento vero verum Christi corpus . . . (elementa) secundum quod spiritualiter vitæ substantiam subministrant corpus et sanguis Christi sunt. Illud vero corpus, in quo semel passus est Christus, non aliam speciem præferebat quam in qua consistebat; hoc enim erat vere quod esse videbatur; . . . at nunc sanguis Christi quem credentes ebibunt et corpus quod comedunt, aliud sunt in specie et aliud in significatione, aliud quod pascunt corpus esca corporea et aliud quod saginant mentes æternæ vita substantia . . . aliud igitur est, quod exterius geritur, aliud item quod per fidem capitur; ad sensum corporis quod pertinet, corruptibile (Radbert also said this) est, quod fides vero capit incorruptible. Exterius igitur quod apparet non est res sed imago rei, mente vero quod sentitur et intelligitur, veritas rei.” Even to the last sentence a Radbertian meaning can be given; but this ceases to be possible where Ratramnus—as often happens—designates the whole rite (and it is the rite with which he is generally concerned) as “figura,” in “figuram sive memoriam dominicæ mortis,” “repræsentatio memoriæ dominicæ passionis,” and, further, as “pignus” (see c. 10, 11, 16: “figurate facta”; c. 88: “corpus et sanguis quod in ecclesia geritur, differt ab illo corpore et sanguine quod in Christi corpore jam glorificatum cognoscitur; et hoc corpus pignus est et species, illud vero ipsa veritas. Hoc enim geretur, donec ad illud perveniatur; ubi vero ad illud perventum fuerit hoc removebitur.” Reconciliation with Radbert is absolutely impossible where Ratramnus strictly disowns the “permutatio corporalis,” and reduces

believers receive Christ’s body and blood in this rite; for faith does not receive what it sees, but what it believes, Accordingly in the Lord’s Supper Christ’s body exists in an invisbile 320reality for faith as real food of the soul.736 The extremely obscure and at least seemingly contradictory statements of Ratramnus make it hard to hit on his meaning correctly. In any case he taught no mere figurative conception. We shall perhaps be most certain to do him justice if we observe what above all he did, and what he did not, intend. He meant above all to emphasise and verify the absolute necessity of faith throughout the rite; the sacrament belonged to faith, existed for it alone, etc.737 In this he coincides entirely with Radbert, who shared the same interest equally strongly. But in what he would not allow he is distinguished to his advantage from Radbert; since everything is given to faith he would not recognise the common reality, because in view of the latter faith and disbelief are indifferent. To Ratramnus reality (veritas) is concrete being as it presents itself to the senses; for this very reason “sub figura” and “in veritate” he looks on as mu 564 tually exclusive opposites. Faith has its own realities, which are real, but only disclose themselves to faith; Ratramnus designates them—mistakenly—as “sub figura,” because they are copied by sensuous realities, or, better, rest behind the latter. Radbert, on the other hand, believed himself compelled, precisely as an Augustinian, to conceive veritas as reality in general; hence to him “sub figura” and in veritate are

everything 564 to a memorial meal; c. 12: “et quomodo jam Christi corpus dicitur, in quo nulla permutatio facta cognoscitur?” c. 15: “dicant, secundum quod permutata sunt; corporaliter namque nihil in eis cernitur esse permutatum.” Catholics excuse him here by saying that he meant to deny “conversion” into a crassly realistic body, “Fatebuntur igitur necesse est aut mutata esse secundum aliud quam secundum corpus, ac per hoc non esse hoc quod in veritate videntur, sed aliud quod non esse secundum propriam essentiam cernuntur. Aut si hoc profiteri noluerint, negare corpus esse sanguinem Christi, quod nefas est non solum dicere verum etiam cogitare.” c. 100: “iste panis et sanguis qui super altare ponuntur, in figuram sive memoriam dominicæ mortis ponuntur, et quod gestum est in præterito, præsenti revocet (dominus) memoriæ, ut illius passionis memores effecti, per eam efficiamur divini muneris consortes.” 736 C. 101: “Fides non quod oculus videt sed quod credit accipit, quoniam spiritualis est esca et spiritualis pot 562 us, spiritualiter animam pascens et æternæ satietatis vitam tribuens, sicut ipse salvator mysterium hoc commendans loquitur: spiritus est qui vivificat.” C. 49: “Christ’s true body is distributed in the Lord’s Supper according to its invisibilis substantia, and that because the invisibilis substantia is like the potentia divini verbi. Many similar passages elsewhere.” 737 C. 11: “Nam si secundum quosdam figurate hic nihil accipitur, sed totum in veritate conspicitur, nihil hic fides operatur, quoniam nihil spiritale geritur . . . nec jam mysterium erit, in quo nihil secreti, nihil abditi continebitur.”

not opposites, since heavenly realities when they appeared as earthly had in his view to manifest themselves sub figura. But Ratramnus was superior to Radbert as a Christian, in that he did not conceive the presence of the heavenly in the earthly to be a miracle against nature, i.e., he followed a different notion of God from the latter.738 The mysteries of faith ar 564 e not brought to pass by a continual interruption of the 321natural order, but they rest as a world administered by the Holy Spirit behind the phenomenal world, and what takes place in the Lord’s Supper is not a departure, by means of a special miracle, from operations such as are carried out, e.g., in Baptism (c. 17, 25, 26.) In a word, Ratramnus would have the mystery of the Lord’s Supper recognised as in harmony with the method by which God bestows salvation through Baptism and the Word, because as an Augustinian and Christian he shrank from the brutal miracle (the idea of God is here involved), and because he was afraid that otherwise nothing would be left to faith. It is in this that the importance of Ratramnus consists. But it is questionable whether the learned king for whom he wrote was any the wiser for his book; for not only is Ratramnus confused in his terminology, but also in his matter,739 because he would not give up the idea that the efficacy of the sacrament was objective, whence it always follows that the ac8 miraculous efficacy depends not on the recipients, but on the means. Hence we find numerous expositions in which he talks like Radbert: by the ministry of the priest the bread becomes Christ’s body, nay, it is transformed.740 He does not venture to pursue consistently the parallel he seeks to establish with baptismal water; for the words “body and blood of Christ” are too strong for him. It is sinful to deny that the consecrated elements are Christ’s body.741 Thus the difference between Radbert and Ratramnus can be reduced to the following formula. The former openly and deliberately transferred the spiritual teaching of Augustinianism into the realistic conception, and gave clear expression to the belief of the Church. The latter attempted to maintain complete spiritualism in the interests of a loftier notion of God and of faith, but he was not in a position to

738

Ratramnus always thinks of the God who excites and nourishes faith. The difference between Paschasius and Ratramnus is really very subtle if we confine our attention to the question of the reality of Christ’s body (and the transformation); but it is not quite so subtle as is represented by Schnitzer (l.c., 167-194). It was, besides, long before Ratramnus’ work was held to be heretical. 740 C. 16, a commutatio is taught, “sed non corporaliter sed spiritualiter facta est . . . spiritualiter sub velamento corporei panis . . . corpus et sanguis Christi existunt.” 56d 741 See C. 15. 739

carry this out absolutely, because he himself was far too much under the influence of the formula. Therefore he only speaks clearly 322where he is disowning the miracle.742 The future belonged to Radbert;743 nay, Ratramnus’ book, it would seem, did not even excite attention, but afterwards met with the most curious history down to the present day.744 The doctrine expressed by Radbert, a Pandora’s casket of problems to future scholars, was extremely intelligible to the simple. Nothing can guarantee the success of a dogma more fully than the possession of 52b these two qualities. It received its application, above all, in the Mass. The thought of the repeated sacrificial death of Christ, long since conceived, was now as firmly established as that of the repeated assumption of the flesh. What could now approach the Mass? There was no need to alter the ancient wording of missal prayers, which still, when they dealt with the sacrifice, emphasised the sacrifice of praise; for who attended to words? The Mass as a sacrificial rite, in which the holiest thing conceivable was presented to God, had, however, ceased long ago to end in participation, but found its climax in the act that expiated sin and removed evil. It was received into the great institution that conferred atonement. On this a few further remarks are necessary, although no dogmatic conflicts arose. The frequent repetition of the Mass (in one and the same Church), and its simple celebration (without communion), show that this rite was not intended so much for the congregation as for God: God was to be appeased. The ancient element of commemoration on the part of the celebrants had, especially since the days of Gregory I., been made an independent service, and the communion had been, as it were, changed into a second celebration. b01 745 The practice, according to which the laity looked on while the priests partook, the laity taking merely a passive part—the rite being consummated on their behalf—while the priests performed 323the ceremony, corresponded to the prevailing view, especially among German peoples, that laymen were second-class Christians, and that partaking in the Lord’s

742

Ratramnus has the elements of Zwingli and Calvin’s doctrines. Besides, in relation to the invisible substance, he assumes the identity of the eucharistic and historical body, or, at any rate, will not give it up. 743 In connection with Matt. XXVI. 26, he defended himself skilfully against Ratramnus, whom, for the rest, he does not name. 744 57a Bach, I., p. 191 ff. 745 Walafried Strabo was the first to justify expressly the celebration of the Lord’s Supper without communicants, and therefore Masses (Migne, T. 114, col. 943 ff).

Supper was for them associated with grave dangers. The holy rite belonged to the laity, so far as it represented a form of the Church’s intercession peculiarly effective for the mitigation of sin’s penalties. The Mass was thereby included in the Church’s atoning institute; but for laymen the Church had long been essentially a baptismal institution, and an establishment for the reconciliation necessary after baptism. In order to understand this, and the immense extent and value acquired by the practice of Confession in the West, we have to observe the following points. 1. The prevailing notion of God was that of omnipotent absolutism, requital and remission. It was in these conceptions that God was a present and really living God, and they directed the thought and practice of trained theologians and laymen. The hidden God was manifest in the fact that he suffered no sin to be unatoned; but he was merciful because he granted remissions (through the mediation of heavenly persons and the Church) a fact which, indeed, did not contravene the general rule that everything must be expiated or punished. This notion of God was already complete when the Church entered into the national life of Germany. It is accordingly not to be regarded as a German modification, but as a conception in harmony with and rising from the unrefined religious consciousness, and especially the Latin spirit. Cyprian and Gregory I. attest this. But as this conception of God could easily combine with German ideas of justice, it was also well adapted to train uncivilised peoples. It had long been settled on purely Latin soil that no sin committed after Baptism could be simply forgiven, but that due penitence (pænitentia legitima), or fitting satisfaction (satisfactio congrua) formed the necessary condition of remission. In keeping with the strict regard for law and sense of duty, which distinguished the Latin Church more than the Greek, ecclesiastical 54b methods paid more heed to the sins of Church members in general. And in accordance with the conviction that sins represented breaches of contract or outrages, of greater or less gravity, the Church had been working at the codification 324of pænitentia legitima, or the definition of the measure of satisfaction, since the second half of the third century. All this took place without German influence. 2. This system had originally been elaborated with a view to public penance, in presence of the congregation, for the sake of reconciliation, and thus referred to open and gross sins, for which as a rule only a single act of penance was possible. It therefore suffered a severe blow when all society became Christian, and magistrates, being themselves Christians, punished these gross

offences of different kinds, even such as the State had not formerly dealt with. The whole ancient institution of penance collapsed in the East. It came almost entirely to an end in the West also in its old form, in so far as the list of public sins, punished by the Church alone, was always growing smaller. 57d 1 But in the German kingdoms, where the Church had not sunk to the level of an institution for worship in the State, and had not entirely abandoned higher religion to the monks, where, on the contrary, it long went hand in hand with the State as a Latin institution with its old Roman law, and trained the nations as a universal power, it did not renounce its penance regulations, which besides suited the German spirit. But a change was necessary in this case also, a change in which German dislike to public humiliations had perhaps as great a share as fear of purgatory and the tendency of the Church to establish throughout the regulations of its monkish castes, in other words, to monachise the secular clergy, and finally also the laity. From this there sprang a deepening of the notion of sin, since new sins, namely, the “roots of sin” themselves were put in the place of the old mortal sins,746 but there also resulted an externalising of the notion, as “satisfactions,” which ac8 are more tolerable in the case of great overt offences, were now also applied to these “roots” (intemperance, fornication, greed, anger, ill-temper, secret fear and dislike, presumption and pride). But, above all, this was followed by the intrusion of the into all affairs of private life. What had been the rule in primitive times, namely, the subjection of the private life of the individual to the control of the Church, returned in an entirely new form. But then it was a congregation of brethren which lived together like a family, and in which each was the conscience of the other; now one institution and one class ruled the irresponsible community; and while the latter was restrained, indeed, from extremes, yet, since no one was really capable of properly controlling the life of the individual, consciences were sophisticated by incentives and sedatives, by a frequently overrefined morality (legislation as to fasting and marriage), and by extremely external directions as to satisfaction. The transition to the new practice resulted in the laity themselves demanding the intercession of the Church, the reading of the Mass, invocations of the saints, etc., to an increasing extent, since preachers had always been telling them that they were a sinful people, incapable of

325Church

746

When the State punished, e.g., in cases of murder and theft, the ecclesiastical consequences followed without further trial. 747 aca This was also effected in the Greek Church through the action of the monks.

coming near God,748 that the priests held the keys, and that the Church’s intercession was the most effective. But the gradual settlement of monachist practice in the world-Church alone explains the facts that actual confession of all sins to the priest, and the imposition of all sorts of satisfactions,749 for the hundred and one offences in life and conduct, in a word, that private penance in the presence of the priest, became the rule. This state of matters began in the Iro-Scottish Church, which was in an eminent degree monachist. There penitential regulations—meaning private penance—were, so far as we know, first drawn up for the laity, who were directed to confess their sins to the priest, as the monks had long been enjoined to do in their cloisters. From Ireland, books dealing with penance came to the Anglo-Saxons (Theodore of 564 Canterbury), to the Franks and Rome; they did not establish this footing without opposition, and after they had become a settled institution, they very soon gave offence again, since their directions became more and more 326external and questionable. To the practice of private penance which thus arose is to be ascribed the new conception of sin, and the new attitude to it, which now became the ruling one in the West, namely, the facile and deadening readiness with which every one confessed himself to be a mortal sinner. What was more tolerable in the ranks of the monks, nay, was in many cases the expression of a really sensitive conscience—I mean the readiness at once to confess oneself a sinner, and to make a less and less distinction between sins and sins—threatened when transferred to the masses to become a worthless practice, because one that blunted the moral sense. Men sinned, and coolly confessed wholesale to a host of sins, lest they might miss the miraculous help of the Church, for some one or other actually committed. If the men of those days had not been so simple, this system would even then have made them thorough hypocrites. But as it was, it worked more like an external system of law—a police institution, which punished wantonness and barbarianism, outbreaks of wild energy and passion. This was n ac8 ot the intention, but it was its actual import, so far as a certain salutary effect cannot be denied it. 3. The institution was already certain in its operations, and made great strides especially in the later Carlovingian period, since the complete separation of the clergy and laity, which had been

748

See the view taken of the laity in the forged fragments of the pseudo-Isidorian decretals. 749 Among these, pilgrimages of a year’s duration played a great part, a fact that shows the monks’ contempt of family life and civic occupations; for these were severely affected by pilgrimages.

obliterated in the Merovingian age, was only then made once more complete, and measures began at the same time to be taken to make monks of the former. Nevertheless the dogmatic theory was still entirely awanting. It was not settled that the priest alone could forgive sins—it was still conceded that trifling sins could be expiated without the priest, by means of prayer and alms. Nor were the value and result of priestly forgiveness fixed: was it declaratory or deprecatory? Nor had it been stated to be absolutely necessary to confess all sins to the priest.750 And finally no fixed definitions had 327been deduced from the matter itself of mortal and venial sins, or of the treatment of public and private offences. It was only long afterwards that all these points were decided. We see clearly here that ecclesiastical practice does not wait for dogmatic, indeed, that it does not really need it, as long as it goes with the great stream. The Church possessed a sacrament of penance with all its subtleties for many centuries, during which dogmatic knew of no such thing, but span a finer thread. 4. This is not the place to give the interesting history of the growth of satisfactions. Let us, however, notice four points. (1) The old, more or less arbitrary, definitions dealing with the selection (prayers, alms, lamentations, temporary exclusion), and duration of compensatory punishments were supplemented to an increasing extent by new ones (pilgrimages), as well as by definitions taken from the Old Testament law and German legal ordinances. Charlemagne took a great stride in advance with reference to dependence on the Old Testament. But this led to the computation of compensatory penalties being itself looked at in the light of a divine dispensation, and definitions not taken from the Old Testament were also regarded from the same standpoint. (2) The performance of penance was a means of compensation, so far as—if no sin had preceded it—it would have established merit in the sight of God, or would have bestowed som 564 ething upon him. (It was accordingly not merely a substitution for punishment,

750

I adhere to these statements, in spite of Karl Müller’s arguments in his treatise “Der Umschwung in der Lehre von der Busse während des 12 Jahrh.” (Abhandl. für Weizäcker, 1892, p. 287 ff.) If I am not mistaken, Müller has been misled by Morinus, and has looked at the state of penance and confession, at the close of ancient and the beginning of mediæval Church history, too much from the standpoint of the modern Roman conception; he has at least presupposed too great a uniformity of theoretical ideas—if one may speak of such. I cannot accept the blunt assertion on p. 292, that down to the twelfth century the priest’s absolution was always regarded as simply identical with divine forgiveness, and therefore as indispensable. There was no doctrine proper on this question for centuries, but almost only a practice. As soon as the doctrine is again introduced, doubts also arise, to be once more gradually allayed.

but also a positive property in the sight of God, and therefore a compensation for injury.) Accordingly the whole institution was included under the conception of merit, from of old connected with works and alms (operibus et eleemosynis). But if the performance of penance was after all the presentation of something valuable (sacrifice) to God, something which gave him pleasure, and that for its own sake, it became more effective if as many and as good 328persons as possible took part in it. If a saint helped by his intercession, then God could not really resist; for there was nothing to be made good by the saint, and therefore his offering was a pure present to God. This dreadful idea that the mighty Judge in Heaven could demand nothing more of the saints, while they were able to bestow much upon him, makes it evident that the system of intercessions necessarily played the most important rôle in the system of penance. The conception of Christ taken by faith, that he represents men in the Father’s presence, was perverted in the saddest way, and he was dragged into this system; and since nothing was too lofty or precious to be included as investments in ac8 this petty calculation, the repeated sacrificial death of Christ was itself the most important instalment. Masses were the surest protection against sins’ penalties in purgatory, because in them Christ himself was presented to the Father, and the infinite value751 of his Passion was anew brought before him, in other words, the merit of that Passion was multiplied. Hence the accumulation of a treasury of masses was the best “palliative” against the fire, or the most reliable means of abridging it. (3) Since performances of penance752—the penitent disposition was always presupposed in theory—had an objective value to God, and were at the same time in part equivalents, they could be bartered. Not only, however, could like be bartered for like, but a less valuable act could be taken as full payment, if circumstances rendered a complete discharge difficult, or if it was supplemented by the intercession of others, or if the slighter performance sufficiently displayed the penitent mood. It had been the custom in earlier times to shorten the duration and diminish the number of penances imposed by the Church after the penitent had proved his sincerity. This was appropriate enough, for the purpose was to effect reconciliation with the community; but it was now applied to the penitent’s relation to 329God. It was at the same time

751

In the fourth ch. of the Synod of Chiersey, 853, it is called “pretii copiositas mysterii passionis;” that is also 564 an anticipation of Anselm’s theory of satisfaction. 752 The peregrinationes also belong to them. That indulgences rest quite essentially on the custom of pilgrimages and their commutation is shown by Götz, Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch., vol. XV., p. 329 ff.

remembered that the strict Judge was also merciful, i.e., indulgent. Thus arose the system of remissions, i.e., of commutations and redemptions, or of substitutions. The latter originated in German conceptions, but they had a latent root even in ancient times. Commutations and redemptions are first met with in any number in the eighth and ninth centuries. “Weregeld” or blood-money is found sanctioned then; but they already follow from the ancient system, and had certainly been practised in the cloisters long before the Carlovingian age. Therewith, however, indulgences were created, as soon, namely, as the possibility of commutation was admitted and legally fixed, independently of the special circumstances of the individual case. These commutations, which 564 were only established against opposition, completely externalised the whole system. Above all, they interested the Church financially, and made it, already the great landed proprietor, into a banking establishment. How poor was the Greek Church, with its scanty trade in relics, pictures, and lights, compared with her rich sister, who drew bills on every soul! (4) The whole system of merits and satisfactions had really no reference to sins, but only to their punishment. But since everything ultimately served this system, men were trained to evade sins’ penalties as well, securely, and cheaply as possible. The element which seemingly mitigated the dangers of this whole view—namely, that sin itself was left out of sight, since it must be forgiven by God who excites penitence and faith—necessarily resulted in the case of the multitude in their paying little or no attention to sin, and in their thinking only of punishment. Even if they finally entered the cloister, or gave their goods to the poor, they did so, not because they loved God, but because they wished to escape his punishments. Punishment ruled the world and the consciences for whose possession good and evil angels contend. It would not have been necessary to discuss this practice within the a9f limits of the history of dogma if it had not had a very active influence on dogma in the succeeding period. It had wound itself round Augustinianism from the beginning, and had prevented it from obtaining complete sway in the Church; it 330influenced Christology even in the time of Gregory I., and then in the classic period of the Middle Ages it acted decisively upon and remodelled all the dogmas that had come down from antiquity.753

753

On the history of penance, see Steitz, Das römische Busssacrament, 1854; Wasserschleben, Bussordnungen d. Abendl. Kirche, 1851; v. Zerschwitz Beichte, in Herzog’s R.-E. II., p. 220 ff., System der Katechetik I., p. 483 ff., II. 1, p. 208. ff.; Göbl, Gesch. der Katachese in Abendland, 1880. Further, on the history of the ordinances of

penance, Wasserschleben, Die irische Kanonensammlung, 2 ed., 18 ac8 55; and Schmitz, Die Bussbücher and die Bussdisciplin der Kirche, 1883. On the latter’s attempt to refer the regulations of penance to Rome, see Theol. Lit.-Ztg., 1883, col. 614 ff. On the development of the separation of clergy and laity in the 9th century, and the beginning of the monachising of the clergy, see Hatch, “Growth of Christian Institutions,” Chap. IX. On divine service and discipline in the Carlovingian age, see Gieseler II., 1 (1846) pp. 152-170; on the constitution of German law-courts, feuds, and penance, outlawry and death of the victim, see Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgesch. I., pp. 143 ff., 156 ff., 166 ff.; on the principle of personality and the amount of blood-money and penances, l.c., p. 261 ff.; on the personal rights of the clergy, p. 269 f.; and on the rise of written law, p. 282 ff. If we review the state of the development of German law in the age of the Merovingians, and compare it with the ecclesiastical discipline of penance, as it was independently evolved on Latin ground until Gregory I., we are astonished at the ease with which these systems could be and actually were dovetailed into each other. The Roman law received by the Church underwent great modifications within its pale caused by the conceptions of the Communio of the Church militant with the saints, of satisfactions, merits, and the claim of the Church to remit sins. Above all, the Church’s right to punish, which had originally accepted the Roman thought of the public character of crimes, and had treated them accordingly, became more and more a private right. That is, transgressions against God were regarded as injuries done to God—not the violation of public order and the holy, inviolable divine law; and accordingly the idea arose, and got more and more scope, that they were to be treated, as it were, like private complaints. In such cases the alternative, either punishment or satisfaction (compensation), was appropriate. But as regards satisfactions, all the liberties were necessarily introduced that are inherent in that conception, namely, that the injured party himself, or the Church as his representative, could indulgently lessen their amount, or could commute or transfer them, etc. It is obvious how easily this view could fuse with the German one. One or two examples are sufficient. German law held the principle: either outlawry or penance. This corresponds to the Church principle: either excommunication or the performance of satisfactory acts of penance. According to German law, vengeance did not require to be e 6c1 xecuted on the evil-doer himself, but might he on a member of his clan; nay, it was held in Norway to be a more severe vengeance to strike the best man of the clan instead of the murderer. The Church looked on Christians as forming a “clan” with the saints in heaven, and the performance of penance could to a certain extent, or entirely, be passed on to the latter; Christ had, above all, borne beforehand by his death God’s vengeance on the ill-doing race of his brethren. German law held, similarly, that the compensation, the payment of the fine, could be divided. According to the practice of the Church, the saints interceded if prayed to, and presented their merits to God, taking from the sinner a part of the penance imposed upon him. Afterwards the Church positively adopted the German institution, and let earthly friends, comrades, members of the family, and bondmen share in the performance of penance in order to lighten the task. In one respect, however, the action of the Church had a softening and beneficial effect. It restricted to an extraordinary extent the capital punishments closely connected with outlawry. They were objectionable in themselves, and doubly so where they were regarded, on the ground of a primitive

331

Indexes Index of Scripture References Genesis 1:1-3:24 Deuteronomy 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Psalms 98:9 126:3 Ezekiel 1 Matthew 1 6:25-34 7:7-11 9:2 10:28-33 11:25-30 12:31 16:128 25:34 26:26 John 25:12 26:1 58d 27:6 Romans 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 6:1-23 8:31-39 9:1-33 9:1-33 14:10 1 Corinthians 3:12 2 Corinthians 5:10 Galatians 3 22 Ephesians 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 aae 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 10 10 10 12 14 15 17 19 21 21 23 31

priestly law of punishment, as a human sacrifice offered to the gods (Brunner, pp. 173177). Even in the Roman period the Church in Gaul exerted itself to soften the Roman administration of justice where the latter admitted capital punishment. It continued its efforts with success in the Merovingian age, so that arrangements were more and more frequently made in substitution for the death penalty. The chief argument urged by the Church was doubtless that God 0 did not will the death of the sinner, and that Christ died an atoning and sacrificial death for all. Thus Christ’s death obtained an extraordinary importance. It became the grand achievement, whose value even softened the earthly right of punishment.

35 36 36 36 43 43 53 54 55 55 58 64 68 75 93 97 100 102 102 110 120 133 57b 137 143 143 155 155 173 173 177 177 183 194 217 Philippians 2 4 9 13 Colossians 271 368 368 567 568 1 Timothy 2:4 2:4 ac3 Revelation 2:3 20:4

Index of Greek Words and Phrases • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

νοῦς ἀφθαρσία ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἰδιοποιεῖν ὁ ὤν ὁ µή ὤ ὁµοούσιοι ὄν ὄντα ὄργανον ληπτικόν ὡς διὰ πυρός ὥστε καὶ δι ἀνθρώπων καὶ δἰ ἀλόγων καταργουµένην συνουσίαν πρὶν τοῦ µέλλοντος αἰῶνος ὁρᾶσθαι· καὶ ὁ κύριος δὲ ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς οὐ δι᾽ ἄλλο τι ἐκ παρθένου ἐγεννήθη, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα καταργήσῃ γέννησιν ἐπιθυµίας ἀνόµου καὶ δείξῃ τῷ ἄρχοντι καὶ δίχα συνουσίας ἀνθρωπίνης δινατὴν εἶναι τῷ θεῷ τὴν ἀνθρώπου πλάσιν· Γνῶθι σεαυτόν α αὐτὸ σῶµα καὶ αὐτὸ αἶµα β 56c γ δ εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς θεόν σε ἠθέλησε ποιῆσαι, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ λόγου τὸ παράδειγµα θεοσέβεια κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν κατεξοχήν λατρεία µὴ εἶναι µήτρας ἐστὶν ἐνέργεια τὸ κυΐσκειν καὶ µορίου ἀνδρικοῦ τὸ σπερµαίνειν· ὥσπερ δέ, εἰ ταῦτα µέλλει ἐνεργεῖν ταύτας τὰς ἐνεργείας, οὕτως οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον αὐτοῖς ἐστιν τὸ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐνεργεῖν (ὁρῶµεν γοῦν πολλὰς γυναῖκ ab1 ας µὴ κυϊσκούσας, ὡς τὰς στείρας, καὶ µήτρας ἔχουσας), οὕτως οὐκ εὐθέως καὶ τὸ µήτραν ἔχειν καὶ κυΐσκειν ἀναγκάζει· ἀλλὰ καὶ µὴ στεῖραι µὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, παρθενεύουσαι δέ, κατήργησαν καὶ τὴν συνουσίαν, ἕτεραι δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ χρόνου· καὶ τοὺς

• • • •

ἄρσενας δὲ τοὺς µὲν ἀπ᾽ἀρχῆς παρθενεύοντας ὁρῶµεν, τοὺς δὲ ἀπὸ χρόνου, ὥστε δι᾽ αὐτῶν καταλύεσθαι τὸν δι᾽ ἐπιθυµίας ἄνοµον γάµον· οὔκ ἐστι τύπος ὁ ἄρτος τοῦ σώµατος ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ σῶµα τοῦ κυρίου τεθεωµένον περὶ ἀρχῶν πνευµατικόν προσκύνησις

Index of Latin Words and Phrases • • •

•

•

• • • •

•

• •

anima ærumnæ ‘non meam justitiam’ tunc enim mea est vel nostra, cum moribus nostris justitiam dei mereri nos putamus perfectam per mores. At non, inquit, hanc habens justitiam, sed quam? Illam ex fide. Non illam quæ ex lege; væ in operibus est et carnali disciplina, sed hanc quæ ex deo procedit ‘justitia ex fide;’ . . . transeamus ad sanctorum communionem. Illos hic sententia ista confundit, qui sanctorum et amicorum dei cineres non in honore debere esse blasphemant, qui beatorum martyrum gloriosam memoriam sacrorum reverentia monumentorum colendam esse non credunt. In symbolum prævaricati sunt, et Christo in fonte mentiti sunt. . . . ut sicut de virgine per spiritum vera caro sine coitu creatur, ita per eundem ex substantia panis ac vini mystice idem Christi corpus et sanguis consecretur . . . figura ;vita vitæ meæ 57b Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum, etiam ipsum tamquam visibile verbum Ad gratiam dei pertinet qui credit, non ille, pro cujus voluntate, ut dicitis, sanctitas vestra succedit. Ad quid ergo persuadendum aut scripturas releges aut conscios nominabis, qui adhuc quod sentis non potes definire Adam mortalem factum, qui sive peccaret sive non peccaret moriturus fuisset—peccatum Adæ ipsum solum læsit, non genus humanum—parvuli qui nascuntur in eo statu sunt, in quo fuit Adam ante prævaricationem—neque per mortem vel prævaricationem Adæ omne genus hominum moritur, nec per resurrectionem Christi omne genus hominum resurget—lex sic mittit ad regnum cœlorum quomodo et evangelium—et ante adventum domini fuerunt homines impeccabiles, i.e. Admissus ad dominica præcepta ex ipsis statim eruditur, id peccato deputandum, a quo deus arceat. Aliter quidem quod ipse est, aliter quæ ab ipso. Quod ipse est unum est totumque est quidquid ipse est; quod vero ab ipso est, innumerum est. Et hæc sunt quibus refletur omne quod uno toto clauditur et ambitur. Ver ac8 um quod varia sunt quæ ab ipso sunt, qui a se est et

• • • • • • •

•

• • •

• •

• •

unum est, variis cum convenit dominare. Et ut omnipotens apparet, contrariorum etiam origo ipse debuit inveniri. Aliud videtur aliud intelligitur Amor amatur, et hinc probamus, quod in hominibus, qui rectius amantur, ipse magis amatur. Anathematizo illos qui sic tenent aut aliquando tenuerunt. Anathematizo quasi stultos, non quasi hæreticos, si quidem non est dogma Anathematizo quasi stultos, non quasi hæreticos, si quidem non est dogma. Auctoritas Audi excellentem dei dispensatorem, quem veneror ut patrem; in Christo Jesu enim per evangelium me genuit et eo Christi ministro lavacrum regenerationis accepi. Beatum loquor Ambrosium cujus pro Catholica fide gratiam, constantiam, labores, pericula sive operibus sive sermonibus et ipse sum expertus et mecum non dubitat orbis prædicare Romanus. Audivi (verba Ego sum qui sum) sicut auditur in corde, et non erat prorsus unde dubitarem; faciliusque dubitarem vivere me, quam non esse veritatem Baptizatum hominem sive justum sive peccatorem loco sancti Beatus Ambrosius episcopus, in cujus præcipue libris Romana Bene dicit Hiob (IX. 28): Sciens quod non parceris delinquenti, quia delicta nostra sive per nos sive per semetipsum resecat, etiam cum relaxat Bono unitatis Bonorum quorundam intolerabilis magnitudo est, ut ad capienda et præstanda ea sola gratia divinæ inspirationis operetur. Nam quod maxime bonum, id maxime penes deum, nec alius id, quam qui possidet, dispensat, ut cuique dignatur. Bonorum unus est titulus salus hominis criminum pristinorum abolitione præmissa. Bonum quod agimus et dei est et nostrum, dei per prævenientem gratiam, nostrum per obsequentem liberam voluntatem. . . . Si nostrum non est, unde nobis retribui præmia speramus? Quia ergo non immerito gratias agimus, scimus, quod ejus munere prævenimur; et rursum quia non immerito retributionem quærimus, scimus, quod 55c obsequente libero arbitrio bona eligimus, quæ ageremus

• • •

• • • •

•

• • • • • • •

• • •

• •

•

•

Cælestius auditorialis scholasticus Cælestius incredibili loquacitate. Caritas inchoata inchoata justitia est; caritas provecta provecta justitia est; caritas magna magna justitia est; caritas perfecta perfecta justitia est Carni nostræ caro Christi spiritaliter conviscerata transformatur. Cathedra Cypriani Cathedra Petri Catholicam (scil. ecclesiam) facit simplex et verus intellectus in lege (scil. duobus testamentis) singulare ac verissimum sacramentum et unitas animorum. Catholicus in fide, rex in potestate, pontifex in prædicatione, judex in æquitate, philosophus in liberalibus studiis, inclytus in moribus (?) et omni honestate præcipuus. Christianus mihi nomen est, catholicus cognomen. Christus erat voluntas et potestas patris. acf Christus in certamine agonis nostri et coronat pariter et coronatur. Christus in pace negavit Christus indutus in homine Christus non vicem passionis sitit Christus qui est secundus Adam, accepit has geminas generationes, primam vid. quæ secundum carnem est, secundam vero spiritualem, quæ per adoptionem fit, idem redemptor noster secundum hominem complexus in semetipso continet: primam vid. quam suscepit ex virgine nascendo, secundam vero quam initiavit Commendare Communio Confiteor, deum omnipotentem et incommutabilem præscisse et prædestinasse angelos sanctos et homines electos ad vitam gratis æternam, et ipsum diabolum . . . cum ipsis quoque hominibus reprobis . . . propter præscita certissime ipsorum propria futura mala rnerita prædestinasse pariter Conscientia dantis adtenditur, qui abluat accipientis. Contemplatio ejus artifices, qui vocat ea quæ non sunt tamquam ea quæ sunt, atque in mensura et numero et pondere cuncta disponit Contra eorum superstitionem, qui picturis et imaginibus sanctorum adorationis obsequium deferendum putant. Corpus permixtum

•

•

•

Credamus et sanctorum communionem, sed sanctos non tam pro dei parte, quam pro dei honore veneremur. Non sunt sancti pars illius, sed ipse probatur pars esse sanctorum. Quare? quia, quod sunt, de illuminatione et de similitudine ejus accipiunt; in sanctis autem non res dei, sed pars dei est. Quicquid enim de deo participant, divinæ est gratiæ, non naturæ. Colamus in sanctis timorem et amorem dei, non divinitatem dei, colamus merita, non quæ de proprio habent, sed quæ accipere pro devotione meruerunt. Digne itaque venerandi sunt, dum nobis dei cultum et futuræ vitæ desiderium contemptu mortis insinuant. Credo siquidem atque confiteor præscisse teante sæcula quæcunque erant futura, sive bona sive mala, prædestinasse vero tantummodo bona. Bona autem a te prædestinata bifariam sunt tuis a fidelibus indagata . . . i.e Cultus 55d

•

•

• •

•

•

•

Cum antem sub tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio salutis pignerentur, necessario adicitur ecclesiæ mentio, quoniam ubi tres, id est pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quæ trium corpus est. Cum autem initio fidei quæ per dilectionem operatur imbuta mens fuerit, tendit bene vivendo etiam ad speciem Cum igitur liquido clareat hanc sanam et veram esse sententiam, quam primo loco ratio Cum libros Confessionum ediderim ante quam Pelagiana hæresis exstitisset, in eis certe dixi deo nostro et sæpe dixi: Da quod jubes et jube quod vis. Quæ mea verba Pelagius Romæ, cum a quodam fratre et episcopo meo fuissent eo præsente commemorata, ferre non potuit et contradicens aliquanto commotius pæne cum eo qui commemoraverat litigavit. Cum propterea credere jubeamur, quia id quod credere jubemur, videre non possumus, ipsam tamen fidem, quando inest in nobis, videmus in nobis. Cur ergo apud vos non renascuntur per baptismum, qui transeunt a nobis ad vos, cum apud nos fuerint baptizati, si nondum nati sunt? ad0 De Afris quod propria lege sua utuntur, ut rebaptizent, placuit, ut si ad ecclesiam aliquis de hæresi venerit, interrogent eum symbolum; et si perviderint

•

• • •

• •

• •

eum in patre et filio et spiritu sancto esse baptizatum, manus ei tantum imponatur ut accipiat spiritum sanctum. Quod si interrogatus non responderit hanc trinitatem, baptizetur. De carne Christi quæ crucifixa et sepulta est, ait, ‘Vera utique caro Christi est.’ At de illo quod sumitur in sacramento dicit, ‘Veræ carnis illius sacramentum est,’ distinguens sacramentum carnis a veritate carnis. Veritas carnis quam sumpsit de virgine; quod vero nunc agitur in ecclesia mysterium, veræ illius carnis . . . sacramentum . . . non est specie caro, sed sacramentum, siquidem in specie panis est, in sacramento vero verum Christi corpus . . . (elementa) secundum quod spiritualiter vitæ substantiam subministrant corpus et sanguis Christi sunt. Illud vero corpus, in quo semel passus est Christus De fide De gratiam secundum merita nostra dari, quia si peccatoribus illam det, videtur esse iniquus. De his, qui scripturas s. tradidisse dicuntur vel vasa dominica vel nomina patrum suorum, placuit nobis, ut quicumque eorum ex actis publicis fuerit detectus, non verbis nudis, ab ordine cleri amoveatur. Nam si iidem aliquos ordinasse fuerint deprehensi et hi quos ordinaverunt rationales (able? capable?) subsistunt, non illis obsit ordinatio De libris recipiendis et non recipiendis De sancta trimitate, Utrum pater et filius et spiritus s. de divinitate substantialiter prædicentur, Quomodo substantiæ in eo quod sint bonæ sint, cum non sint substantialia bona, De fide Catholica and Contra Eutychen et Nestorium. Deum et animam scire cupio. Nihilne plus? Nihil omnino. Deus hominem sine peccato rectum cum libero arbitrio condidit et in paradiso posuit, quem in sanctitate justitiæ permanere voluit. Homo libero arbitrio male utens peccavit et cecidit, et factus est massa perditionis totius humani generis. Deus autem bonus et justus elegit ex eadem massa perditionis secundum præscientiam suam, quos per gratiam prædestinavit ad vitam, et vitam illis prædestinavit æternam. Ceteros autem, quos justitiæ judicio in massa perditionis reliquit, perituros præscivit, sed non ut perirent prædestinavit 560 , pœnam autem illis, quia justus est, prædestinavit æternam. Ac per hoc unam

•

•

•

• • • • • • • • •

•

•

•

Deus naturam nostram id est animam rationalem carnemque hominis Christi suscepit, susceptione singulariter mirabili vel mirabiliter singulari, ut nullis justitiæ suæ præcedentibus meritis filius dei sic esset ab initio quo esse homo cœpisset, ut ipse et verbum, quod sine initio est, una persona esset. Deus omnes homines sine exceptione vult salvos fieri, licet non omnes salventur. Quod autem quidem salvantur, salvantis est donum; quod autem quidem pereunt, pereuntium est meritum. Deus ostendens quid magis velit, minorem voluntatem majore delevit. Quantoque notitiæ tuæ utrumque proposuit, tanto definiit, id te sectari debere quod declaravit se magis velle. Ergo si ideo declaravit, ut id secteris quod magis vult, sine dubio, nisi ita facis, contra voluntatem ejus sapis, sapiendo contra potiorem ejus voluntatem, magisque offendis quam promereris, quod vult quidem faciendo et quod mavult respuendo. Ex parte delinquis; ex parte, si non delinquis, non tamen promereris. Non porro et promereri nolle delinquere est? Secundum igitur matrimonium, si est ex illa dei voluntate quæ indulgentia vocatur acc Deus solus docere potuit, quomodo se vellet orari. Deus terrores incutit Dilectio summum fidei sacramentum, Christiani nominis thesaurus. Dilectus meus, inquit sponsa, candidus et rubicundus. In hoc nobis et candet veritas et rubet caritas. Doctor angelorum et diaboli Domini mors potentior erat quam vita .. . Lex Christianorum crux est sancta Christi. Domini mors potentior erat quam vita. Dominus jugo suo in gremio ecclesiæ toto orbe diffuso omnia terrena regna subjecit. Dominus noster, sicut ipse in evangelio loquitur, leni jugo suo nos subdidit et sarcinæ levi; unde sacramentis numero paucissimis, observatione facillimis, significatione præstantissimis societatem novi populi colligavit. Dona sua coronat deus non merita tua . . . si ergo dei dona sunt bona merita tua, non deus coronat merita tua tamquam merita tua sed tamquam dona sua. Dum Christus finis est legis, qui sine lege sunt sine Christo sunt; igitur populus sine lege populus sine Christo est. Ecce homo.

• •

• •

•

•

•

•

• • • •

Ecclesiam tu, frater Parmeniane, apud vos solos esse dixisti; nisi forte quia vobis specialem sanctitatem Ego autem aliquanto posterius didicisse me fateor, in eo quod verbum caro factum est, quomodo catholica veritas a Photini falsitate dirimatur. Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae (ecclesiæ) commoveret auctoritas. Electi sunt ante mundi constitutionem ea prædestinatione, in qua deus sua futura facta præscivit; electi sunt autem de mundo ea vocatione, qua deus id, quod prædestinavit, implevit. Quos enim prædestinavit, ipsos et vocavit, illa scilicet vocatione secundum propositum, non ergo alios sed quos prædestinavit ipsos et vocavit Eo quod quisque novit non fruitur, nisi et id diligat . . . neque quisquam in eo quod percipit permanet nisi dilectione. Est Chri ac8 stiani hominis, quod bonum est velle et in eo quod bene voluerit, currere; sed homini non est datum perficere, ut post spatia, quæ debet homo implere, restet aliquid deo, ubi deficienti succurrat, quia ipse solus est perfectio et perfectus solus dei filius Christus, cæteri omnes semi-perfecti Est etiam præclarissimum lumen prædestinationis et gratiæ ipse salvator, ipse mediator dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus, qui ut hoc esset, quibus tandem suis vel operum vel fidei præcedentibus meritis natura humana quæ in illo est comparavit? . . . Singulariter nostra natura in Jesu nullis suis præcedentibus meritis accepit admiranda (scil Et apparuit mihi una facies eloquiorum castorum. Et cœpi et inveni quidquid illac verum legeram, hac cum commendatione gratiæ tuæ dici Et ea quæ dicuntur merita nostra, dona sunt eius Et in hac vita virtus non est nisi diligere quod diligendum est; faciunt boni amores bonos mores. Et pervenit cogitatio ad id quod est, in ictu trepidantis aspectus Et quoniam (Christianus) quamdin est in isto mortali corpore, peregrinatur a domino, ambulat per fidem non per speciem; ac per hoc omnem pacem vel corporis vel animæ vel simul corporis et animæ refert ad illam pacem, quæ homini mortali est cum immortali deo, ut ei sit ordinata in fide sub æterna lege obœdientia. Jam vero quia duo præcipua præcepta, hoc est dilectionem dei et dilectionem proximi, docet magister deus . . .

• • •

•

• • • •

consequens est, ut etiam proximo ad diligendum deum consulat, quem jubetur sicut se ipsum diligere (sic uxori, sic filiis, sic domesticis, sic ceteris quibus potuerit hominibus), et ad hoc sibi a proximo, si forte indiget, consuli velit; ac per hoc erit pacatus, quantum in ipso est, omni homini pace hominum, id est ordinata concordia cujus hic ordo est, prinmm ut nulli noceat, deinde ut etiam prosit cui potuerit. Primitus ergo inest ei suorum cura; ad eos quippe habet opportuniorem facilioremque aditum consulendi, vel naturæ ordine vel ipsius societatis humanæ. Unde apostolus dicit: ‘Quisquis autem suis et maxime domesticis non providet, fidem denegat et est infideli deterior.’ Hinc itaque etiam pax domestica oritur, id est ordinati imperandi obœdiendique concordia cohabitantium. Imperaut enim, qui consulunt: sicut vir uxori, parentes finis, domini servis. . . . Sed in domo justi viventes ex fide et adhuc ab illa cælesti civitate peregrinantis etiam qui imperan 564 t serviunt eis, quibus videntur imperare. Neque enim dominandi cupiditate imperant, sed officio consulendi, nec principandi superbia, sed providendi misericordia. Et sumus et nos esse novimus et id esse ac nosse diligimus. Et ut ostenderet filius dei, se vacasse, fidem tantummodo operatam esse Et utique verba propterea sunt instituta, non per quæ se homines invicem fallunt, sed per quæ in alterius quisque notitiam cogitationes suas perferat. Eucharistia panis noster quotidianus est; sed sic accipiamus illum, ut non solum ventre sed et mente reficiamur. Virtus enim ipsa, quæ ibi intelligitur, unitas est, ut redacti in corpus ejus, effecti membra ejus, simus quod accipimus. Eum, qui post baptismum peccaverit, per pænitentiam credimus posse salvari Ex persona beatissimi Petri forma unitatis retinendæ vel faciendæ descripta recitatur Ex utroque fit, id est, ex voluntate hominis et misericordia dei. Excepta itaque s. ac8 virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem domini nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo quæstionem; unde enim scimus, quid ei plus gratiæ collatum fuerit ad vincendum omni ex parte peccatum, quæ concipere et parere meruit, quem constat nullum habuisse peccatum? hac ergo virgine

•

• • • • •

•

• • • • • •

•

•

excepta si omnes illos sanctos et sanctas, cum hic viverent, congregare possimus et interrogare, utrum essent sine peccato, quid fuisse responsuros putamus, utrum hoc quod ista dicit an quod Johannes apostolus? Fatebuntur igitur necesse est aut mutata esse secundum aliud quam secundum corpus, ac per hoc non esse hoc quod in veritate videntur, sed aliud quod non esse secundum propriam essentiam cernuntur. Aut si hoc profiteri noluerint, negare corpus esse sanguinem Christi, quod nefas est non solum dicere verum etiam cogitare. Felices esse volumus et infelices esse nolumus, sed nec velle possumus. Fide, spe, caritate colendum deum Fides impetrat quod lex imperat. Fides non habet meritum, cui humana ratio præbet experimentum Fides non quod oculus videt sed quod credit accipit, quoniam spiritualis est esca et spiritualis potus, spiritualiter animam pascens et æternæ satietatis vitam tribuens, sicut ipse salvator mysterium hoc commendans loquitur: spiritus est qui vivificat. Foris ab ecclesia constitutus et separatus a compagine unitatis et vinculo caritatis æterno supplicio puniveris, etiam si pro Christi nomine vivus incenderis. Fuit Adam, et in illo fuimus omnes; periit Adam, et in illo omnes perierunt. Gloria in excelsis Gloria patri Gratia Gratia vero nisi gratis est, gratia non est. Hæc est prædestinatio sanctorum nihil aliud: præscientia scil. præparatio beneficiorum dei quibus certissime liberantur, quicunque liberantur. Hæc omnia Paulus viderat in apostolis ceteris, qui bono unitas per caritatem noluerunt a communione Petri recedere, ejus scil. qui negaverat Christum. Quod si major esset amor innocentiæ quam utilitas pacis unitatis, dicere 564 nt se non debere communicare Petro, qui negaverat magistrum. Hæreat hoc maxime prudentis animo lectoris, omnibus scripturis sacris solum illud, quod in honorem dei catholici sapiunt, contineri, sicut frequentium sententiarum luce illustratur, et sicubi durior elocutio moverit quæstionem, certum quidem esse, non ibi id quod injustum est loci illius auctorum sapuisse;

•

•

•

•

•

•

secundum id autem debere intelligi, quod et ratio perspicua Hæresis Pelagiana multum nos, ut gratiam dei quæ per dominum nostrum Jesum Christum est, adversus eam defenderemus, exercuit. Hae sunt nebulæ Pelagianorum de laude creaturæ, laude nuptiarum, laude legis, laude liberi arbitrii, laude sanctorum Hi qui de nullo suo opere confidunt, ad sanctorum martyrum protectionem currunt atque ad sacra eorum corpora fletibus insistunt, promereri se veniam iis intercedentibus deprecantur. Hic omnino granditer et evidenter dei gratia commendatur. Quid enim natura humana in homine Christi meruit ut in unitatem personæ unici filii dei singulariter esset assumpta! Quæ bona voluntas, cujus boni propositi studium, quæ bona ac8 opera præcesserunt, quibus mereretur iste homo una fieri persona cum deo? Numquid antea fuit homo, et hoc ei singulare beneficium præstitum est, cum singulariter promereretur deum? Nempe ex quo homo esse cœpit, non aliud cœpit esse homo quam dei filius: et hoc unicus, et propter deum verbum, quod illo suscepto caro factum est, utique deus. . . . Unde naturæ humanæ tanta gloria, nullis præcedentibus meritis sine dubitatione gratuita, nisi quia magna hic et sola dei gratia fideliter et sobrie considerantibus evidenter ostenditur, ut intellegant homines per eandem gratiam se justifcari a peccatis, per quam factum est ut homo Christus nullum habere posset peccatum. Hinc post peccatum exul effectus stirpem quoque suam, quam peccando in se tamquam in radice vitiaverat, pœna mortis et damnationis obstrinxit, ut quidquid prolis ex illo et simul damnata per quam peccaverat conjuge per carnalem concupiscentiam, in qua inobedientiæ pœna similis [so far as the flesh here is not obedient to the will, but acts of itself] retributa est, nasceretur, traheret originale peccatum, quo treheretur per errores doloresque diversos ad illud extremum supplicium. Hoc illæ litteræ non habent. Non habent illæ paginæ vultum pietatis hujus, lacrimas confessionis, sacrificium tuum, spiritum contribulatum. . . . Nemo ibi cantat: Nonne deo subdita erit anima mea. Ab ipso enim salutare meum

• • •

• •

•

•

• • • •

•

•

Hoc ipso quod contra voluntatem fecerunt ejus, de ipsis facta est voluntas ejus. Hominem, si post baptismum lapsus fuerit, per pænitentiam credimus posse salvari Homines sancti et fideles fiunt cum homine Christo unus Christus, ut omnibus per ejus hanc gratiam societatemque adscendentibus ipse unus Christus adscendat in cælum, qui de cælo descendit. Hominis sapientia pietas est Ibi (in Cassiciacum) quid egerim in litteris, jam quidem servientibus tibi, sed adhue superbiæ scholam tanquam in pausatione anhelantibus Ideoque cum essemus infirmi ad inveniendam liquida ratione veritatem, et ob hoc nobis opus esset auctoritate sanctarum litterarum, jam credere cœperam nullo modo te fuisse tributurum tam excellentem scripturæ per omnes jam terras auctoritatem, nisi et per ipsam tibi credi et per ipsam te quæri voluisses. Jam enim absurditatem quæ me in illis litteris solebat offendere, cum mul 564 ta ex eis probabiliter exposita audissem, ad sacramentorum altitudinem referebam. Ille ad deum digne elevat manus, ille orationem bona conscientia effundit qui potest dicere, tu nosti, domine, quam sanctæ et innocentes et mundæ sunt ab omni molestia et iniquitate et rapina quas ad te extendo manus, quemadmodum justa et munda labia et ab omni mendacio libera, quibus offero tibi deprecationem, ut mihi miserearis. In caritate stat ecclesia. In isto sine intellectu temporis, tempore . . . est alteritas nata, cito in identitatem revenit In redemptionis memoriam Incarnatus dominus in semetipso omne quod nobis inspiravit ostendit, ut quod præcepto diceret, exemplo suaderet. Infantes debere baptizari in remissionem peccatorum secundum regulam universalis ecclesiæ et secundum evangelii sententiam confitemur, quia dominus statuit, regnum cœlorum non nisi baptizatis posse conferri; quod, quia vires naturæ non habent Intret in animam tuam Christus, inhabitet in mentibus tuis Je ac8 sus. . . . Quid mihi prodest tantorum conscio peccatorum, si dominus veniat, nisi veniat in meam animam, redeat in meam mentem, nisi vivat in me Christus.

•

•

•

• •

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

•

•

Invenietis nobilitatem divini eloquii non secundum vestram assertionem more philosophorum in tumore et pompa esse verborum Invenimus ergo in terrena civitate dual formas, unam suam præsentiam demonstrantem, alteram cælesti civitati signifcandæ sua præsentia servientem. Ipsa ecclesia, quæ in omnibus esse debet placatrix dei, quid est aliud quam exacerbatrix dei? aut præter paucissimos quosdam, qui mala fugiunt, quid est aliud pœne omnis cœtus Christianorum quam sentina vitiorum? Ipse quod est esse, subsistit tripliciter. Ita gestum est, ut his rebus non mystice tantum dictis sed etiam gestis configuraretur vita Christiana quæ hic geritur. Ita qui per delictorum pænitentiam instituerat dominus satisfacere Jube quæso atque impera quidquid vis, sed sana et aperi aures meas. Justitia est, ut ab eruditis definiri solet (s. Aristoteles), et ut nos intelligere possumus, virtus (si per Stoicos liceat alteri alteram præferre), virtutum omnium maxima fungens diligenter officio ad restituendum sua unicuique, sine fraude, sine gratia. Justitia opus est, ut promereri quis possit deum judicem. Lex Christianorum crux est sancta Christi filii dei vivi. Lex dei fons ac magistra justitiæ Libellus Brevissimus Libellus de tenenda immobiliter scripturæ veritate Libellus fidei Libertas arbritii, qua a deo emancipatus homo est Libertas utriusque partis. Libertatem arbitrii in primo homine perdidimus Libido Libris tuis, quos tanta in omnibus fere gentibus auctoritate fundasti. . . . Non audiendos esse, si qui forte mihi 564 dicerent; unde scis illos libros unius veri et veracissimi dei spiritu esse humano generi ministratos? idipsum enim maxime credendum erat Licet a malis interim vita, moribus, corde ac voluntate separari atque discedere, quæ separatio semper oportet custodiatur. Corporalis autem separatio ad sæculi finem fidenter, patienter, fortiter exspectatur. Longe minor in novo quam in veteri testamento.

•

• • •

•

•

• • • •

• •

• •

• •

Longe tolerabilius est in his quæ a religione sunt sejuncta mentiri, quam in iis, sine quorum fide vel notitia deus coli non potest, falli. Malos in unitate catholica vel non noverunt, vel pro unitate tolerant quos noverunt. Malum est contra interdictum aliquid facere; sed pejus est, unitatem non habere, cum possis . . . Malum si substantia esset, bonum esset. Aut enim esset incorruptibilis substantia, magnum utique bonum; aut substantia corruptibilis esset, quæ nisi bona esset, corrumpi non posset. Manifestum est, fieri posse, ut in eis qui sunt ex parte diaboli sanctum sit sa ac8 cramentum Christi, non ad salutem, sed ad judicium eorum . . . signa nostri imperatoris in eis cognoscimus . . . desertores sunt. Manifestum itaque est, in Adam omnes peccasse quasi in massa; ipse enim per peccatum corruptus, quos genuit, omnes, nati sunt sub peccato. Ex eo igitur cuncti peccatores, quia ex eo ipso sumus omnes. Mihi adhærere deo bonum est Minorem immortalitatem (i.e. Mitissima pœna Multa præterea quæ de ultimo judicio ita dici videntur, ut diligenter considerata reperiantur ambigua vel magis ad aliud pertinentia, sive scilicet ad eum salva oris adventum, quo per totum hoc tempus in ecclesia sua venit, hoc est in membris suis, particulatim atque paulatim, quoniam tota corpus est ejus Multo liberius erit arbitrium, quod omnino non poterit servire peccato. Nam de naturæ possibilitate, de libero arbitrio, et de omni dei gratia et quotidiana gratia cui non sit recte sentienti uberrimum disputare? Nam in illa (catholica) ecclesia quis spiritus esse potest, nisi qui pariat filios gehennæ? Nam si secundum quosdam figurate hic nihil accipitur, sed totum in veritate conspicitur, nihil hic fides operatur, quoniam nihil spiritale geritur . . . nec jam mysterium erit, in quo nihil secreti, nihil abditi continebitur Nascitur credens non ex ministri sterilitate, sed ex veritatis fœcunditate. Naturalia per accidens non convertuntur.” “Quod innascitur usque ad finem ejus, cui adhæserit, perseverat.

•

•

•

• • •

•

•

•

Natus Christus insinuat nobis gratiam dei, qua homo nullis præcedentibus meritis in ipso exordio naturæ suæ quo esse cœpit, verbo deo copularetur in tantam personæ unitatem, ut idem ipse esset filius dei qui filius hominis, etc. Ne quis putaret, in solis apostolis aut episcopis spem suam esse ponendam, sic Paulus ait: ‘Quid est enim Paulus vel quid Apollo? Utique ministri ejus, in quem credidistis. Est ergo in universis servientibus non dominium sed ministerium. Nec illud mihi placet, quod in ista vita deo intelle 564 cto jam beatam esse animam (in Soliloquiis) dixi, nisi forte spe Nec mulier petiit, nec Christus promisit, sed fides tantum quantum præsumpsit, exegit. Nec quidquam bene regenerat, nisi bono semine (boni sacerdotis) regeneretur. Nemo igitur quærat efficientem causam malæ voluntatis; non enim est efficiens sed deficiens (that is, the aspiration after nothing, after the annulling of life, constitutes the content of the bad will), quia nec illa effectio sed defectio. Deficere namque ab eo, quod summe est, ad id, quod minus est, hoc est incipere habere voluntatem malam. Causas porro defectionum istarum, cum efficientes non sint, ut dixi, sed deficientes, velle invenire tale est, ac si quisquam velit videre tenebras vel audire silentium, quod tamen utrumque nobis notum est, neque illud nisi per oculos, neque hoc nisi per aures, non sane in specie, sed in speciei privatione. Nemo ergo ex me scire quærat, quod me nescire scio, nisi forte, ut nescire discat, quod scire non posse sciendum est. Ea quippe quæ non in specie, sed in ejus privatione sciuntur, si dici aut intellegi potest quodammodo nesciendo sciuntur, ut sciendo nesciantur. Nemo si ac8 bi arroget, nemo de meritis, nemo de potestate se jactet, sed omnes speremus per dominum Jesum misericordiam invenire—quæ enim spes alia peccatoribus? Neque de ipsis criminibus quamlibet magnis remittendis in sancta ecclesia dei misericordia desperanda est agentibus pænitentiam secundum modum sui cujusque peccati. Neque per ipsum liberaremur unum mediatorem dei et hominum hominem Jesum Christum, nisi esset et deus. Sed cum factus est Adam homo, scil. rectus, mediatore

•

•

• • • • •

•

• • •

• • •

•

non opus erat. Cum vero genus humanum peccata longe separaverunt a deo, Nihil aliud habeo quam voluntatem; nihil aliud scio nisi fluxa et caduca spernenda esse, certa et æterna requirenda . . . si fide te inveniunt, qui ad te refugiunt, fidem da, si virtute, virtutem, si scientia, scientiam. Auge in me fidem, auge spem, auge caritatem. Nihil aliud nisi similitudo mortis Christi; nihil autem aliud mortem Christi crucifixi nisi remissionis peccati similitudinem, ut quemadmodum in illo vera mors facta est, sic in nobis vera remissio peccatorum. Nihil potest per sanctas scripturas probari, quod justitia non possit tueri. Nisi per indebitam misericordiam nemo liberatur et nisi per debitum judicium nemo damnatur. Nomen trinitatis est, quod sanctificat, non opus (operantis). Non agitur de uno Pelagio, qui jam forte correctus est. Non autem existimo quemquam ita desipere, ut credat ad ecclesiæ pertinere unitatem eum qui non habet caritatem. Sicut ergo deus unus colitur ignoranter etiam extra ecclesiam nec ideo non est ipse, et fides una habetur sine caritate etiam extra ecclesiam, nec ideo non est ipse, ita et unus baptismus, etc. Non credere potest quodlibet libero arbitrio, si nulla sit suasio vel vocatio cui credat; profecto et ipsum velle credere deus operatur in homine et in omnibus misericordia ejus prævenit nos: consentire autem vocationi dei vel ab ea dissentire propriæ voluntatis est. Non est regnum dei esca et potus Non nisi electorum cibus est. Non omnia nostra Christus explevit, per crucem quidem suam omnes 564 redemit, sed remansit, ut qui redimi et regnare cum eo nititur, crucifigatur. Hoc profecto residuum viderat, qui dicebat: si compatimur et conregnabimus. Quasi dicat: Quod explevit Christus, non valet nisi ei, qui id quod remansit adimplet Non respublica est in ecclesia, sed ecclesia in republica est, id est in imperio Romano. Non rivulum nostrum tuo largo fonti augendo refundimus. Non sicut quidam volunt anima sola hoc mysterio pascitur, quia non sola redimitur morte Christi et salvatur, verum etiam et caro nostra, etc. etc. Nos autem dicimus humanam voluntatem sic divinitus adjuvari ad faciendam justitiam, ut præter quod

• •

• • •

• • •

•

creatus est homo cum libero arbitrio voluntatis, præterque doctrinam qua ei præcipitur quemadmodum vivere debeat, accipiat spiritum sanctum, quo fiat in animo ejus delectatio dilectioque summi illius atque incommutabilis boni quod deus est, etiam nunc cum adhuc per fidem ambulatur, nondum per speciem: ut hac sibi velut arra data gratuiti muneris inardescat inhærere creatori atque inflammetur accedere ad participationem illius veri luminis, ut ex illo ei bene sit, a quo habet ut sit. Nam neque liberum arbitrium qui aae dquam nisi ad peccandum valet, si lateat veritatis via, et cum id quod agendum et quo nitendum est cœperit non latere, nisi etiam delectet et ametur, non agitur, non suscipitur, non bene vivitur. Ut autem diligatur, caritas dei diffunditur in cordibus nostris, non per arbitrium liberum quod surgit ex nobis, sed per spiritum sanctum qui datus est nobis. Nos minus amasset, nisi et vulnera nostra susciperet Nos pro nostris angustiis unum inculcamus, bonum atque optimum esse quod deus præcipit. Audaciam existimo de bono divini præcepti disputare. Neque enim quia bonum est, idcirco auscultare debemus, sed quia deus præcepit. Ad exhibitionem obsequii prior est majestas divinæ potestatis, prior est auctoritas imperantis quam utilitas servientis. Novitas vocum in adoptione, nuncupatione, omnino fidelibus omnibus detestanda est. Nullus moveatur de hoc corpore Christi et sanguine, quod in mysterio vera sit caro et verus Numerus ille justorum, qui secundum propositum vocati sunt, ipse est (ecclesia). . . . Sunt etiam quidam ex eo numero qui adhuc nequiter vivant aut etiam in hæresibus vel in gentilium superstitionibus jaceant, et tamen etiam illic novit dominus qui sunt ejus. Namque in illa ineffabili præscientia dei multi qui foris videntur, intus sunt, et multi, qui intus videntur, foris sunt. Numquid Numquid nihil est veritas, quoniam neque per finita, neque per infinita locorum spatia diffusa est. Nunc quoniam propria voce anathematizavit Pelagius incertum stultiloquium, recte respondens, hominem cum adjutorio dei et gratia posse esse sine peccato, respondeat et ad alia capitula. Nunc quoniam satisfactum est nobis prosecutionibus præsentis Pelagii monachi, qui quidem piis doctrinis consentit, contraria vero ecclesiæ fidei anathematizat,

• • •

• • • •

•

• •

•

• •

• • •

• •

•

communionis ecclesiasticæ eum esse et catholicæ confitemur. Obedientia Obsequii ratio in similitudine animorum constituta est. Omne bonum ac malum, quo vel laudabiles vel vituperabiles sumus, non nobiscum oritur, sed agitur a nobis: capaces enim utriusque rei, non pleni 568 Omnes quotquot fuerunt sancti, ad ipsam ecclesiam pertinent. Omnes res origine et radice consistit, et si caput non habet aliquid, nihil est. Oves dominicum characterem a fallacibus deprædatoribus foris adeptæ. Parva erat pro nobis domini nostri humilitas in nascendo; accessit etiam ut mori pro mortalibus dignaretur. Pater . . . filius . . . ne mater quidam ecclesia præteritur. Si quidem in filio et patre mater recognoscitur, de qua constat et patris et filii nomen. Pax cælestis civitatis ordinatissima et concordissima societas fruendi deo et invicem in deo. Peccata nostra præterita in baptismatis perceptione laxata sunt, et tamen post baptisma multa commisimus, sed laxari iterum baptismatis aqua non possumus. Quia ergo et post baptisma inquinavimus vitam, baptizemus lacrimis conscientiam. Peccata, quæ male agendo postea committuntur, possunt et pænitendo sanari, sicut etiam post baptismum fieri videmus ade Pelagii nomen cum magna ejus laude cognovi. Pelagius et Cælestius hujus perversitatis auctores vel perhibentur vel etiam probantur, vel certe si auctores non sunt, sed hoc ab aliis didicerunt, assertores tamen atque doctores Pensandum est, quod tutior Per Christum factus est alter mundus. Per eleemosynas de peccatis præteritis est propitiandus deus, non ad hoc emendus quodam modo, ut peccata semper liceat impune committere. Per remissionem peccatorum stat ecclesia quæ est in terris. Per sacra eloquia dono spiritus vivificamur, ut mortifera a nobis opera repellamus; spiritus vadit, cum legentis animum diversis modis et ordinibus tangit deus. Per se ipsum considerandus est baptismus verbis evangelicis, non adjuncta neque permixta ulla

• • • •

• • • •

•

•

•

perversitate atque malitia sive accipientium sive tradentium . . . non cogitandum, quis det sed quid det. Perfecta ignorantia (in scripturis justitia nominatur) Perfecta justitia Petrus, apostolorum caput, cœli janitor, ecclesiæ fundamentum Plus facimus quam in lege et evangelis jussum est— gratiam dei et adjutorium non ad singulos actus dari, sed in libero arbitrio esse, vel in lege ac doctrina—dei gratiam secundum merita nostra dari, quia si peccatoribus illam dat, videtur esse iniquus—si gratia dei est, quando vincimus peccata, ergo ipse est in culpa, quando a peccato vincimur, quia omnino custodire nos aut non potuit aut noluit—unumquemque hominem omnes virtutes posse habere et gratias—filios dei non posse vocari nisi omni modo absque peccato fuerint effecti—oblivionem et ignorantiam non subjacere peccato, quoniam non secundum voluntatem eveniunt, sed secundum necessitatem—non esse liberum arbitrium, si dei indigeat auxilio, quoniam in propria voluntate habet unusquisque aut facere aliquid aut non facere—victoriam nostram non ex dei esse adjutorio, sed ex libero arbitrio—si anima non potest esse sine peccato, ergo et deus subjacet peccato, cujus pars, hoc est anima Prædestinatio ad mortem Prædicat Christus 564 Christum. Præscivit deus hominem ad pœnam. Primum oportet noveris diem natalem domini non in sacramento celebrari, sed tantum in memoriam revocari quod natus sit, ac per hoc nihil opus erat, nisi revolutum anni diem, quo ipsa res acta est, festa devotione signari. Sacramentum est autem in aliqua celebratione, cum rei gestæ commemoratio ita fit, ut aliquid etiam signfcari intelligatur, quod sancte accipiendum est Pro Augustino responsiones ad capitula objectionum Gallorum calumniantium (against the Gallican monks); Responsiones pro Augustino ad excerpta quæ de Genuensi civitate sunt missa Professio fidei (to Leontius) contra eos, qui dum per solam dei voluntatem alios dicunt ad vitam attrahi, alios in mortem deprimi, hinc fatum cum gentilibus asserunt, inde liberum arbitrium cum Manichæis negant. Propter singularitatem personæ, in qua divinitas filii dei cum hurnanitate sua communes habeat actiones,

• •

• • •

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

qua ex causa aliquando ea quæ divina sunt referuntur ad humana, et ea quæ humana fiunt interdum adscribuntur ad divina, et hoc ordine aliquando dei filius in hominis filio fili ac8 us hominis appellari dignatur et hominis filius in dei filio filius dei nuncupatur Punici Quæ autem domus dei et ipsa civitas? Domus enim dei populus dei, quia domus dei templum dei . . . omnes fideles, quæ est domus dei, cum angelis faciunt unam civitatem. Habet custodes. Christus custodiebat, custos erat. Et episcopi hoc faciunt Quæ potest esse perversitas ut qui suis criminibus reus est, alium faciat innocentem? Quæ tu si non didicisses, Pelagiani dogmatis machina sine architecto necessario remansisset. Quæritis necessitatem rei quæ esse non potest si patitur necessitatem. Huic motui animi libero, sine coactu originis inquieto, si causa ipso motu detur antiquior, non gignitur omnino sed tollitur. Qua gratia homo Jesus ab initio factus est bonus, eadem gratia homines qui sunt membra ejus ex malis fiunt boni. Quam porro ineptum, quam pænitentiam non adimplere, ei veniam delictorum sustinere? Hoc est pretium non exhibere, ad mercem manum emittere Quantum ad totius mundi pertinet partes, modica pars est in compensatione totius mundi, in qua fides Christiana nominatur. Quasi vero ex hoc generet unde separata est, et non ex hoc unde conjuncta est. Separata est enim a vinculo caritatis et pacio, sed juncta est in uno baptismate. Itaque est una ecclesia, quæ sola Catholica nominatur Quem vero judicem poteris Ambrosio reperire meliorem? De quo magister tuus Pelagius ait, quod ejus fidem et purissimum in scripturis sensum ne inimicus quidem ausus est reprehendere. Quemadmodum si fiat ordinatio cleri ad plebem congregandam, etiamsi plebis congregatio non subsequatur, manet tamen in illis ordinatis sacramentum ordinationis, et si aliqua culpa quisquam ab officio removeatur, sacramento domini semel imposito non carebit, quamvis ad judicium permanente Qui fidem a perfido sumpserit non fidem percipit, sed reatum. Qui gratiam confirmat, hominum laudat naturam.

•

•

• •

• • •

• •

•

• • •

• •

Qui in invidia intus et malevolentia sine caritate vivunt, verum b 564 aptisma possunt et accipere et tradere. (Sed) salus, inquit Cyprianus, extra ecclesiam non est. Quis negat? Et ideo quæcumque ipsius ecclesiæ habentur, extra ecclesiam non valent ad salutem. Sed aliud est non habere, aliud non utiliter habere Qui vero in ecclesia remitti peccata non credens contemnit tantam divini muneris largitatem et in hac obstinatione mentis diem claudit extremum, reus est illo irremissibili peccato in spiritum sanctum. Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de trinitate sentiat. Quia corpus ille catholicum ad omnem hominem habuit, omne quod passus est catholicum fecit; id est ut omnis caro in ipso crucifixa sit Quia intra Catholicam constitutos plures audivi destruere nec non et alios adstruere. Quia naturalia ab initio substantiæ usque ad terminum illius perseverant. Quia unum verbum dei est, per quod facta sunt omnia, quod est incommutabilis veritas, ibi principaliter atque incommutabiliter sunt omnia simul, et omnia vita sunt et omnia unum sunt. Quic ac5 unque natus est sub peccato, quem ipsa nosciæ conditionis hæreditas adstrinxit ad culpam. Quid aliud istis restat nisi ut ipsum regnum cælorum ad hanc temporalem vitam, in qua nunc sumus, asserant pertinere? Cur enim non et in hanc insaniam progrediatur cæca præsumptio? Et quid hac assertione furiosius? Nam etsi regnum cælorum aliquando ecclesia etiam quæ hoc tempore est appellatur ad hoc utique sic appellatur, quia futuræ vitæ sempiternæque colligitur. Quid animam faciet beatam, nisi meritum suum et præmium domini sui? Sed et meritum ejus gratia est illius, cujus, præmium erit beatitudo ejus. Quid enim prodest ecclesiæ dei Christum appellare adoptivum filium vel deum nuncupativum? Quid est gratia? peccati remissio, i.e. Quid est, quod manducant homines? Ecce omnes indifferenter quam sæpe sacramenta altaris percipiunt. Percipiunt plane, sed alius carnem Christi spiritaliter manducat et sanguinem bibit, alius vero non, quamvis buccellam de manu sacerdotis videatur percipere. Et quid accipit, cum una sit consecratio Quid habes, quod non accepisti. Quid intelligimus carnis sensum et carnis vitam nisi quodcunque pudet pronuntiare?

•

•

•

•

• • •

•

Quid inter Pelagium et Cælestium in hac quæstione distabit, nisi quod ille apertior, iste occultior fuit; ille pertinacior, iste mendacior, vel certe ille liberior, hic astutior. Quid opus est, ut eorum scrutemur opuscula, qui prius quam ista hæresis (Pelagianorum) oriretur, non habuerunt necessitatem in hac difficili ad solvendum quæstione versari? quod procul dubio facerent, si respondere talibus cogerentur. Unde factum est, ut de gratia dei quid sentirent, breviter quibusdam scriptorum suorum locis et transeunter adtingerent, immorarentur vero in eis, quæ adversus inimicos ecclesiæ disputabant, et in exhortationibus ad quasque virtutes, quibus deo vivo et vero pro adipiscenda vita æterna et vera felicitate servitur. Frequentationibus autem orationum simpliciter apparebat dei gratia quid valeret; non enim poscerentur de deo quæ præcipit fieri, nisi ab illo donaretur ut fierent. Quid primum, quid ultimum, teneatur, quæ totius definitionis summa sit, quod certum propriumque fidei catholicæ fundamentum. 567 Quid tam necessarium fuit ad erigendam spem nostram, quam ut demonstraretur nobis, quanti nos penderet deus quantumque diligeret Quis alienam mortem sua solvit nisi solus dei filius. Quisquis tibi enumerat vera merita sua, quid tibi enumerat nisi munera tua. Quod ais, ad colendum recte deum sine ipsius adjutorio dici a nobis sufficere unicuique libertatem arbitrii, omnino mentiris. Cum igitur cultus dei multis intelligatur modis, et in custodia mandatorum et in execratione vitiorum et in simplicitate conversationis et in ordine mysteriorum et in profunditate dogmatum . . . qui fieri potest, ut nos in confuso dicamus, sine adjutorio dei liberum arbitrium sufficiens ad ejus esse culturam . . . cunt utique ista omnia, tam quæ dogmatibus quam quæ mysteriis continentur, libertas arbitrii per se non potuerit invenire Quod bellum gravius et amarius cogitari potest, quam ubi voluntas sic adversa est passioni et passio voluntati, ut nullius earum victoria tales inimicitiæ finiantur, et ubi sic confligit cum ipsa natura corporis vis doloris, ut neutrum alteri cedat? Hic [in terra] enim quan ac8 do contingit iste conflictus, aut dolor vincit et sensum mors adimit, aut natura vincit et dolorem sanitas tollit. Ibi autem et dolor permanet ut affligat, et natura perdurat

• •

• • •

•

• • • • • • • • • •

ut sentiat; quia utrumque ideo non deficit, ne pœna deficiat. Quod homini proficit, deo servit. Quod operum lex minando imperat, hoc fidei Iex credendo impetrat. Ipsa est illa sapientia quæ pietas vocatur, qua colitur pater luminum, a quo est omne datum optimum et omne donum perfectum. . . . Lege operum dicit deus: Fac quod jubeo; lege fidei dicitur deo: Da quod jubes. . . . Non spiritum hujus mundi accepimus, ait constantissimus gratiæ prædicator, sed spiritum qui ex deo est, ut sciamus quæ a deo donata sunt nobis. Quis est autem spiritus mundi hujus, nisi superbiæ spiritus? . . . Nec alio spiritu decipiuntur etiam illi qui ignorantes dei justitiam et suam justitiam volentes constituere, justitiæ dei non sunt subjecti. Unde mihi videtur magis esse fidei filius, qui novit a quo speret quod nondum habet, quam qui sibi tribuit id quod habet. Colligimus non justificari hominem littera, sed spiritu, non factorum meritis, sed gratuita gratia. Quod ratio arguit, non potest auctoritas vindicare Quomodo Adam non perseverando peccavit, qui perseverantiam non accepit? Quos deus semel prædestinavit ad vitam, etiamsi negligant, etiamsi peccent, etiamsi nolint, ad vitam perducentur inviti, quos autem prædestinavit ad mortem, etiamsi currant, etiamsi festinent, sine causa laborant. Rape occasionem inopinatæ felicitatis, ut ille tu, nihil quondam penes deum nisi stilla situlæ et areæ pulvus et vasculum figuli, arbor exinde fias ills quæ penes aquas seritur, etc. Ratio Redditur quidem meritis tuis corona sua, sed dei dona sunt merita tua. Regnat carnalis cupiditas, ubi non est dei caritas. Reliqua vero et secundum ipsorum testimonium a me dicta non sunt, pro quibus ego satisfacere non debeo. Remota justitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia Renovatio = justificatio = sanctificatio = sanctitas Res dei ratio, qu 564 ia deus nihil non ratione providit, nihil non ratione tractari intellegique voluit. Responsiones pro Augustino ad capitula objectionum Vincentiarium Restat jam de credentis merito Sæpe mihi ignota est humana conscientia, sed certus sum de Christi misericordia . . . non est perfidus

•

• • •

•

• • • •

•

•

•

Christus, a quo fidem percipio, non reatum . . . origo mea Christus est, radix mea Christus est . . . semen quo regeneror, verbum dei est . . . etiam si ille, per quem audio, quæ mihi dicit ipse non facit . . . me innocentem non facit nisi qui mortuus est propter delicta nostra et resurrexit propter justificationem nostram. Non enim in ministrum, per quem baptizor, credo, sed in eum, qui justificat impium. Salutis unda a culpa primi parentis absolvimur, sed tamen reatum ejusdem culpæ diluentes absoluti quoque adhuc carnaliter obimus. Sanctas quidem apostoli esse paginas confitemur, non ob aliud, nisi quia rationi Scripturæ sanctæ, quas ecclesiæ catholicæ commendat auctoritas. Sec ac8 undum id, quod unigenitus est, non habet fratres; secundum id autem quod primogenitus est, fratres vocare dignatus est omnes qui post ejus et per ejus primatum in dei gratiam renascuntur per adoptionem filiorum. Sed bene quod nos onere talium personarum prior levasti. Nam in libro ad Timasium cum s. Pelagius venerabilium virorum tam Ambrosii quam Cypriani recordatus fuisset, qui liberum arbitrium in libris suis commendaverant, respondisti nulla te gravari auctoritate talium, ita ut diceres eos processu vitæ melioris, si quid male senserant, expiasse. Sed non ex toto vult; non ergo ex toto imperat Semen quo regeneror verbum dei est. Si Italiæ adjaces habes Romam, unde nobis auctoritas quoque praesto est. Si per gratiam (De gestis 30) omnia facimus, quando vincimur a peccato, non nos vincimur, sed dei gratia, quæ voluit nos adjuvare omni modo et non potuit. Si qua culpa in episcopis invenitur, nescic quis Petri successori subjectus non sit; cum vero culpa non exigit, omnes secundum rationem humilitatis æquales sunt. Sic enim oportebat prius hominem fieri, ut et bene velle posset et male, nec gratis si bene, nec impune, si male; postea vero sic erit, ut male velle non possit, nec ideo libero carebit arbitrio . . . ordo prætermittendus non fuit, in quo deus ostendere voluit, quam bonum sit animal rationale quod etiam non peccare possit, quamvis sit melius quod peccare non possit. Sic et Non

• •

• • •

•

• •

• • •

• •

Signacula quidem rerum divinarum esse visibilia, sed res ipsas invisibiles in eis honorari. Singulariter ad absolutionem nostram oblata cum lacrimis et benignitate mentis sacri altaris hostia suffragatur, quia is, qui in se resurgens a mortuis jam non moritur, adhuc per hanc in suo mysterio pro nobis iterum patitur. Nam quoties ei hostiam suæ passionis offerimus, toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram passionem illius reparamus. Spiritale Spiritus dei, qui cum a confitentibus non discedit neque dividitur, ipse in nobis loquitur et coronatur. Sub laude baptismatis eructat Augustinus Manichæorum sorde 564 s ac naturale peccatum, ut ecclesiæ catholicæ pura hactenus sacramenta contaminet Tam porro nemo est qui esse se nolit, quam nemo est qui non esse beatus velit. Quo modo enim potest beatus esse, si nihil sit? Tanto quisque tolerabiliorem Tantum sentiebam de domino Christo meo, quantum de excellentis sapientiæ viro, cui nullus posset æquari; præsertim quia mirabiliter natus ex virgine ad exemplum contemnendorum temporalium pro adipiscenda immortalitate divina pro nobis cura tantam auctoritatem magisterii meruisse videbatur. Tenebatur justa damnatione genus humanum et omnes erant iræ filii Traduciani pro se sursum deorsum plebecularum aut ruralium aut theatralium scita commendant. Tui profecto sic semper indigent omnes electi tui, quo videlicet tibi de te solo semper valeant placere. Quemadmodum palmites indigent vite, quo fructum queant ferre, vel aër aut oculi luce, quo vel ille lucidus esse vel illi possint videre. . . . te igitur supplex invoco . . . ut largiaris indigentissimo mihi per gratuitae gratiæ tuæ ac8 invictissimam virtutem, etc Ubi enim erat illa ædificans caritas a fundamento humilitatis, quod est Christus Jesus? Ubi ergo malum et unde et qua huc irrepsit? Quæ radix ejus et quo semen ejus? An omnino non est? Cur ergo timemus et cavemus quod non est? Aut si inaniter timemus, certe vel timor ipse malum est . . . et tanto gravius malum, quanto non est quod timeamus. Idcirco aut est malum quod timemus, aut hoc malum est quia timemus

• •

• • • •

• •

•

•

• • •

Ubi latuit, ubi dormivit hoc nomen adoptionis vel nuncupationis de Christo? Unigenitus vocatur secundum divinitatis excellentiam, quia sine fratribus, primogenitus secundum susceptionem hominis, in qua per adoptionem gratiæ fratres habere dignatus est, de quibus esset primogenitus. Unitas Ut etiam caro nostra per hoc ad immortalitatem et incorruptionem reparetur. Ut quodammodo peccato moreretur, dum moritur carni. Væ tibi flumen moris humani? quis resistet tibi? quamdiu non siccaberis? quosque volves Evæ, filius in mare magnum et formidolosum, quod vix transeunt qui lignum [ecclesiam] conscenderint? Venerabilis memoriæ Milevitanus episcopus catholicæ communionis Optatus. Venit inter homines mediator dei et hominum, homo Christus Jesus, ad præbendum exemplum vitæ hominibus simplex, ad non parcendum malignis spiritibus rectus ad debellandum superbiam timens deum, ad detergendam vero in electis suis immunditiam recedens a malo. Verumtamen, quæso, responde mihi: num universa hujusmodi fidei mystica sacramenta, quæ symbolo non continentur, sine quibus quisque, qui ad hoc pertingere potest, catholicus esse non potest, symbolis inserenda et propter compendium minus intellegentium, ut cuique libuerit, addenda sunt? Vides non dubitasse Mariam, sed credidisse et ideo fructum fidei consecutam. . . . Sed et vos beati, qui audistis et credidistis; quæcunque enim crediderit anima et concipit et generat dei verbum et opera ejus agnoscit. Sit in singulis Mariæ anima, ut magnificet dominum; sit in singulis spiritus Mariæ, ut exultet in deo. Si secundum carnem una mater est Christi, secundum fidem tamen omnium fructus es 539 t Christus Virginibus nec maritus dominus, dominus vester ac caput Christus est ad instar et vicem masculi. Virginitas et prompta fides Christum bibit alvo cordis et intactis condit paritura latebris. Virtutes ita crescent et perficientur, ut te ad vitam vere beatam, quæ nonnisi æterna est, sine ulla dubitatione perducant: ubi jam nec prudenter

•

• •

• • •

Visibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis et sanguinis sui verbo suo secreta potestate convertit. Vivit enim unicus pater noster et mater ecclesia. Vobis (Donatistis) pacem nos annuntiamus, non ut, cum ad nos veneritis, alterum baptismum accipiatis, sed ut eum qui jam apud vos erat utiliter habeatis Voluntas est nihil aliud quam motus animi cogente nullo Voluntas facti origo est; Vos oves Christi estis, characterem dominicum portatis in Sacramento.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

aed a baptismate incipit renovatio a commutatio a deo a necessario a patre abyssus corruptionis nostræ actio rationalis ad Innocentium ad corpus Christi mystice refertur ad deum ad discendum necessarie dupliciter ducimur, auctoritate atque ratione ad judicium damnationis ad salutem valet adjutorium adjuvante gratia esse adjuvat spiritus sanctus inspirans pro concupiscentia mala concupiscentiam bonam, hoc est caritatem diffundens in cordibus nostris. adoptio adoptivi cum adoptivo, servi cum servo, Christi cum Christo, deus inter deos adoptivi hominis non horruisti vestimentum adoptivi hominis passio alicui rei amore inhærere propter se ipsam aliquos vero ad malum divina potestate prædestinatos esse non solum non credimus, sed etiam, si sunt qui tantum malum credere velint, cum omni detestatione illis anathema dicimus. alter alteritas nata altissimis ignorantiæ tenebris amor amor boni amor dei usque ad contemptum sui amor essendi et sciendi amor sui amore inhærere amplexus dei 56a amplius nobis profuit culpa quam nocuit anathematizo anathemo qui vel sentit vel dicit, gratiam dei, qua Christus venit in hunc mundum peccatores salvos facere, non solum per singulas horas aut per singula momenta, sed etiam per singulos actus nostros non esse

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

necessariam, et qui hanc conantur auferre, pœnas sortiantur æternas angeli et deinde corporalia omnia subministrata angelus animae medicina distribuitur in auctoritatem atque rationem ante unum quod est in numero, plane simplex. antiqui homines antiquitas catholicæ fidei appetitus appetitus beatitudinis aptum arbitrium honestatis artificium promerendi obseq ac8 uium est, obsequii vero disciplina morigera subjectio est. assensus, fiducia assumptio assumtio hominis assumtio hominis = adoptio hominis assumtio humanæ naturæ attigimus veritatem modice toto ictu cordis auctoritas augmenta beneficiorum divinorum utilia esse et necessaria omnibus in commune ætatibus dicimus, ita tamen ut nec virtus nec peccatum sine propria cuiquam voluntate tribuatur. augmentum beneficiorum dei auxilium baptismum unum tenemus quod iisdem sacramenti verbis in infantibus, quibus etiam in majoribus, asserimus esse celebrandum. beata necessitas beata necessitas boni bona concupiscentia boni bonorum operum bonum bonum esse bonum velle bonus, divinæ dignitati congruns cælestis societas carentia dei caritas caritas christiana nisi in unitate ecclesiæ non potest custodiri, etsi baptismum et fidem teneatis caritas est gratia testamenti novi.

• • • • • •

caritas infusa caritas unitatis caro caro humana castigatio castigationem victus atque cultus offenso domino præstare 545

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

castitas catechumenus mereri cupit baptismum, timet adhuc delinquere, ne non mereretur accipere. cathedra catholica catholica fides catholicam fidem tenere causa causatrix non causata causatum certum propriumque fidei catholicæ fundamentum Christus est certus numerus electorum certus quidem in istis eram, nimis taken infirmus ad fruendum te. cessatio delicti character indelebilis christianæ religionis officium civitas dei civitas terrena 575 clausa patuit dominanti clauso utero coge intrare cognata hæresis collationes patrum commendat pænitentiam deo et temporali afflictatione æterna supplicia non dicam frustratur sed expungit commendatior commenta, veritati contraria, catholicæ fidei penitus inimica commentum diaboli communicatio communio sanctorum concordant nobiscum angeli etiam nunc concupiscentia conditio necessitatis conditio voluntatis

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

• • • • • • • •

confertur a trinitate confessio 572 conficere corpus Christi congregationi sanctorum admixti conjunctus; applicatus conlatio divinitatis meritorum remunerandorum fuit ratio conscientia dantis adtenditur, qui abluat accipientis conscientia et voluntas, ubi et culpa sapit et gratia consilia consilia dominica consilia evangelica consuetudo consuetudo peccati amorem delicti facit et exstinguit pudorem contemplatio rationalis contra naturam contritio convenientior conversio mentis conv 564 ertuntur fide, veniunt opere, convertuntur deserendo mala, veniunt bona faciendo. cooperans copula corporis sanguinisque sacramentum corpus Christi corpus et sanguis quod in ecclesia geritur, differt ab illo corpore et sanguine quod in Christi corpore jam glorificatum cognoscitur; et hoc corpus pignus est et species, illud vero ipsa veritas. Hoc enim geretur, donec ad illud perveniatur; ubi vero ad illud perventum fuerit hoc removebitur. corpus permixtum corpus permixtum, verum corpus quod natum est de Maria virgine . . . resurrexit a mortuis, penetravit cœlos et nunc pontifex factus in æternum quotidie interpellat pro nobis corpus spiritale corruptibilitas corruptio optimi pessima creat 55b io ex nihilo credentes et viventes ex fide; fideles quippe ejus quos redemit sanguine suo dicti sunt regnum ejus. credere deum, credere de deo, credere in deum credere in eum, hoc est manducare panem vivum credo remissionem peccatorum per sanctam ecclesiam

• • • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

credo remissionem peccatorum per sanctam ecclesiam. cui concurrit fides credentium et professio cultus cum deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronat quam munera sua. cum dicat gratis justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis, nihil aliud volens intelligi in eo, quod dicit gratis cum solum sit in nobis velle, et in hoc probatur nostra erga deum mens, an ea velimus quæ cum voluntate ipsius faciunt, alte et impresse recogitandum esse dico dei voluntatem, quid etiam in occulto velit. Quæ enim in manifesto scimus omnes. 545 cunctarum origo virtutum in rationabili animo sita est. cupiditas, amor cupido, amor da quod jubes, et jube quod vis data datum de Constantinopolitana ecclesia quod dicunt, quis eam dubitet sedi apostolica; esse subjectam de fide de monasterio de naturalibus aliquas veritatis partes de partu virginis de plebeia fæce sellularii, milites, scholastici auditoriales, tabernarii, cetarii, coqui, lanii, adolescentes ex monachis dissoluti de substantia carnis debita debitum in scripturis delicti figura est. 58c definitiones Cælestii deflere, metus dei deforme atque indecens dei est omne quod sumus dei filius incarnatus tremendus delictum delinquenti dominus nequaquam parcit, quia delictum sine ultione non deserit. Aut enim ipse homo in se pænitens punit, aut hoc deus cum homine vindicans percutit. deo non adhærere descendit ad inferos desideria carnis mala destituta veritas

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

deum iratum, indignatum mitigare, placare, reconciliare. deum non novit nisi naturali jure, non etiam familiari deum patrem et ejus ecclesiam matrem habere. deus de ac8 us induravit per justum judicium, et ipse Pharao per liberum arbitrium. deus ipse deus ita suadet ut persuadeat. deus justus est ad remuneranda deus offenses deus quæ vult præcipit et accepto deus, Jesus, spiritus dicant, secundum quod permutata sunt; corporaliter namque nihil in eis cernitur esse permutatum. diffusio caritatis disciplinæ satisfacere disciplina discipulus dulcissimus divina operatio divina operatio trinitatis divitem manentem in divitiis suis regnum dei non posse ingredi, nisi omnia sua vendiderit; nec prodesse eidem posse, si forte ex ipsis divitiis mandata fecerit. docendi fontem aperire gloriantur docere, flectere, movere doctor ecclesiæ Romanæ doctrina doctrina Christiana domini dominus ac redemptor noster cum sancta ecclesia, quam redemit secundum carnem, una substantia est. donum dei donum perseverantiæ dotes duobus modis unus creditur filius durius ecclesia ecclesia mater ecclesiastica una conversatio effensus deus ego . . . te (scil. deum) quæsivi, te desideravi, tibi credidi; de hom 564 ine nihil speravi . . . ego verbis antistitis fidem dedi, quæ a te data dicuntur, quæque te inspirant, te loquuntur, de te promittunt; huic de se

• •

• • • • • • • •

•

• •

• • • • • • • • • •

nihil credidi nec gestis ejus, sed fidei quæ ex te est, me copulavi. elementum, receptaculum, habitaculum, habitator, locus naturæ. eo quod quisque novit, non fruitur, nisi et id diligit, neque quisquam in eo quod percipit permanet nisi dilectione ergismus error prædestinationis esse esse, scire, amare et ex gentibus fuisse salvatos et qæerebam viam comparandi roboris quod esset idoneum ad fruendum te, etc., et quomodo jam Christi corpus dicitur, in quo nulla permutatio facta cognoscitur? et si philosophorum ego senatum advocavero, tu continuo sellularios, opifices omneque in nos vulgus accendas et si 564 quid aliud in scripturis canonicis commendatur. . . . Illa autem quæ non scripta, sed tradita custodimus, quæ quidem toto terrarum orbe servantur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis apostolis, vel plenariis conciliis, quorum est in ecclesia saluberrima auctoritas, commendata atque statuta retineri, sicut quod domini passio et resurrectio et ascensio in cælum et adventus de cælo spiritus sancti anniversaria sollemnitate celebrantur, et si quid aliud tale occurrit quod servatur ab universa, quacumque se diffundit, ecclesia. etsi non ita possunt mutare naturam, reatu tamen obligant filios etsi venia est pænitentiæ fructus, hanc quoque consistere non licet sine cessatione delicti. Ita cessatio delicti radix est veniæ ut venia sit pænitentiæ fructus eucharistia, missa, sacrificium, oblatio, hostia, sacramentum passionis, communio ex deo ex filio ex natura, sub lege, sub gratia (Christi) ex nihilo ex nolentibus vole 564 ntes ex operibus carnis ex patre per filium ex toto exempto reatu

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

exercitium externa communio sacramentorum extra ecclesiam facilius dicimus quid non sit, quam quod sit felices fidei merito fideliter credere fideliter et firmiterque credere fideliter laborare fideliter laborare auxiliante Christo fides fides credentis fides historica fides impetrat quod lex imp abc erat. fides implicita fides præcedit rationem fides prævenit rationem fides quæ creditur fides recta, ut credamus et confiteamur fiducia figura figura corporis figura corporis Christi figuram sive memoriam dominicæ mortis figurate facta filii sanctæ matris filiogue filioque filius adoptivus filius adoptivus humanitate nequaquam divinitate filius dei filius dei naturalis filius festinat in actionem filius hominis filius proprius filius secundum carnem fons fortiter scandalizare fratri satisfacere fruitio dei garriebam plane quasi peritus gemina gemina prædestinatio gemina predestinatio gemina predestinatio . . . sive reproborum ad mortem. genere et natura

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• • • •

•

• •

gentiles veræ castitatis (and that is the virtue κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν genus gratia ad3 gratia Christi gratia creans gratia gratis gratia gratis data gratia gratis data præveniens gratia infusa gratia infusa, inspiratio dilectio gratia irresistibilis gratia per gratia per Christum gratia prima gratia prima (universalis) gratiam dei et adjutorium non ad singulos actus dari (in other places he says the opposite) sed in libero arbitrio esse vel in lege ac doctrina gratis gratis data gula hæreditarium vinculum habere hic etiam filius dei natura est filius, non adoptione. hic jam carnis interitum in officium pænitentiæ interpretantur, quod videatur jejuniis et sordibus et incuria omni et dedita opera malæ tractationis carnem exterminando satis deo facere hinc deus irasci exorsus, unde offendere homo inductus. historicus doctus hoc etiam credimus, quod accepta per baptismum gratia omnes baptizati hoc mirabile et speciale in te pietatis dei donum prædicamus, quod tanta devotione ecclesias Christi a perfidorum doctrinis intrinsecus purgare tuerique niteris, quanta forinsecus a vastatione paganorum defendere vel propagare conaris. His duabus gladiis hominem innumeris divinæ gratiæ speciebus juvari . . . præcipiendo, benedicendo, sanctificando, coercendo, provocando, illuminando. hominis sapientia pietas est homo ac9

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

homo igitur innocentia quidem plenus, sed virtutis capax nascitur, aut laudem aut reprehensionem ex proposito accedente meriturus . . . nec justos nasci parvulos nec injustos, quod futuri sunt actibus suis, sed tantummodo infantiam innocentiæ dote locupletem. homo libero arbitrio emancipatus a deo honorandam esse paucitatem humanitas ideo habuit voluntatem malam, quia voluit. ideo simplex dicitur quoniam quod habet hoc est ignis purgatarius ignorantia, concupiscentia, error, dolor, metus, delectatio morbida ille illicite datum illuminatio et doctrina impeccantia imperium imputare in abditis receptaculis in adsumtione carnis a deo persona petit hominis, non natura in animi nostris naturalis quædam sanctitas est. in concreto in ecclesia esse in excessu in membris Christi in mysterio in occulto in paradiso ab animo cœpit elatio in partu in quo in remissionem peccatorum in singulis portionibus totus est in substantiam corporis convertere in unitatis vinculo caritate in uno et altero ecclesia ac8 est, ecclesia vero Christus in veritate incommutabile incorporea veritas incorporea veritas, spiritalis substantia, incommutabilis et vera veritatis æternitas indebita bonitas indulgentia indulgere ineffabilis simplex natura

•

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • •

ineffabiliter mirabilis, incomparabiliter honorandus, præstantissimus patronus, columna veritatis ubique gentium conspicua, specialis fidei patronus. infames, ineptissimæ infideles infirmatum, attenuatum ingens sacrilegium insubstantiata sunt omnia ὄντα insuper et quod majus est per hæc secretius præstita ad illam tenderent speciem satietatis ubi jam non pro peccatis nostris quotidie Christus immolabitur integram inviolatamque fidem servare intellectus rerum veraciter ipsæ res sunt. inter alia intolerandum scilicet pudori, domino offenso satisfacere intra modum invisibilis substantia invitum hominem facit peccare ipsa conditio nascendi solvitur gratia renascendi. ipsa virtus et præmium virtutis ipsa vita æterna merces est operum bonorum ipse se ipsum conterminavit ira iste panis et sanguis qui super altare ponuntur, in figuram sive memoriam dominicæ mortis ponuntur, et quod gestum est in præterito, præsenti revocet (dominus) memoriæ, ut ab9 illius passionis memores effecti, per eam efficiamur divini muneris consortes. ita sunt hæc quodammodo indiscrete permixta atque confusa, ut quid ex quo pendeat inter multos magna quæstione volvatur, i.e. itane tandem, juvenis confidentissime, consolari te debes, quia talibus displices, an lugere? jejunium iratum deum homini reconciliat judicium jus humanæ societatis justa vindicta juste prædestinati ad pœnam (mortem) justi justificatio justificatio ex fide justificatio in hac vita nobis secundum tria ista confertur: prius lavacro regenerationis, quo remittuntur cuncta peccata, deinde congressione cum vitiis, a quorum reatu absoluti sumus, tertio dum nostra

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • • • • •

exaudiatur oratio, qua dicimus, Dimitte nobis debita nostra. justitia labentis mundi odia promeremur labor humanæ obedientiæ latrocinium laudator concupiscentia lavat nos a peccatis nostris quotidie in sanguine suo, cum beatæ passionis ad altare memoria replicatur, cum panis et vini creatura in sacramentum carnis et sanguinis ejus ineffabili spiritus sanctificatione transfertur laxatio legi dei aut operi dei scripta disputatorum præjudicant! levissima lex lex sic mittit ad regnum cælorum quomodo et evangelium. liberalitas libero arbitrio semper co-operatur libertas periit, sed illa, quæ in paradiso fuit, non liberum arbitrium. ad7 libertatem scriptura divina nostri confirmat arbitrii sed et infirntitatem. liberum arbitrium liberum arbitrium et post peccata tam plenum est quam fuit ante peccata. liberum sic confitemur arbitrium, ut dicamus nos indigere dei semper auxilio libido libido matris licet in scholis aliud disserentes licet quæstionis res sit ista, non hæresis. lux incommutabilis magnis impedimentis angoribus, quos intuenti mihi hac tempestate ecclesiarum statum partim indignatio ingerit partim miseratio malæ voluntati veniam pro inæstimabili liberalitate largitur et innocentiam, quam creat bonam, facit innovando adoptandoque meliorem mala mala in ordinem redacta faciunt decorem universi male liberum malum malum originale mandata

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

manducatio infidelium massa damnata massa peccati (perditionis) massa perditionis mater omnium virtutum melius judicavit, de malis bene facere, quam mala nulla esse permittere mera capacitas utriusque merita merita cujusque merita pænitentiæ meritis meritum de congruo et de condigno meritum fidei meritum, præmium 551 metus est instrumentum pænitentiæ militia Christi minimum et levissimum peccatum minister verbi et sacramenti evangelici, si bonus est, consocius fit evangelii, si autem malus est, non ideo dispensator non est evangelii. minus prospecte suscepta misera necessitas non posse non peccandi misera necessitas peccandi miseric. subsequens misericordia præveniens missi mixtura modus monstrum morbus mors cum ipso genere traducto mors ipsa non moritur. adb motus motus genitalium moveri ipsum quo est esse multisque aliis similibus. mundus de nihilo a deo factus mundus reconciliatus deo per carnem Christi munera munera dei munus dei munus dei per Christum mutabilia mutatio mysterium grande in cruce Christi

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

•

• • • •

• •

•

nam si plena esset, nec imperaret ut esset, quia jam esset nascendi conditione naturæ vitio eunuchus matris utero editus natura natura conversa natura vitiata natura vitiate natura-gratia naturalis quæ dicitur sanctitas naturaliter ne tanto remissior sit ad virtutem animus ac tardior, quanto minus se posse credat et dum quod inesse sibi ignorat id se existimet non habere. nebulæ de Aristotelicis categoriis nec ideo libero carebit arbitrio nemo indulgentia dei utendo promeretur, sed voluntati obsequendo neque scientia divinæ legis, neque natura neque sola remissio peccatorum nihil nihil illi simile demonstrat antiquitas nihil sit cassum, nihil ludificatorium nilhil non æst 564 imandum est, quod alterius verbis, quod ullius alterius meritis, quod potestate alicujus ista fiunt, sed verbo creatoris non est bonæ et solidæ fidei sic omnia ad voluntatem dei referre et ita adulari unum quemque dicendo nihil fieri sine nutu ejus, ut non intellegamus, esse aliquid in nobis ipsis non est dogma non est tanti unius meritum, ut universa quæ naturaliter sunt instituta perturbet. non ex toto volumus, non ergo ex toto [nobis] imperamus. non facile humana ratione discernitur quemadmodum dominus petentibus tribuat, a quærentibus inveniatur et rursus inveniatur a non quærentibus se et palam adpareat inter illos, qui eum non interrogabant. non filius adoptione non hoc corpus, quod videtis—Christus inquit— manducaturi estis, sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos non hoc illa erat; sed aliud, aliud valde ab istis omnibus. Nec ita erat supra mentem meam sicut oleum ac6 super

• • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • •

• •

aquam, nec sicut coelum super terram, sed superior, quia ipsa fecit me, et ego inferior, quia factus sum ab ea. Qui novit veritatem novit eam, et qui novit eam, novit æternitatem. Caritas novit eam. O æterna veritas, et vera caritas, et cara æternitas! tu es deus meus; tibi suspiro die ac nocte. non imputare non in genere suo, non in specie, non in modo non inhærere deo non nostri laboris est, quod sæpe moneo, ut nos salvemus; sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est . . . nostrum pene jam nihil est nisi solum credere qui superavit omnia. Hoc est enim plena salvatio, Christum hæc vicisse. Fidem in Christo habere, plenam fidem, nullus labor est, nulla difficultas, animi tantum voluntas est . . . justitia non tantum valet quantum fides non numerandas, sed ponderandas esse sententias; ad aliquid inveniendum multitudinem nihil prodesse cæcorum non omnia restaurantur sed quæ in Christo sunt non omnis panis sed accipiens benedictionem fit corpus Christi non posse non posse non mori non posse peccare non possumus non qua creamur, sed qua recreamur et renovamur. non quod sine voluntate nostra justificatio fiat, sed voluntas nostra ostenditur infirma per legem, ut sanet non repetimus quod jam erat, sed damus quod non erat. non sanguinis et corporis dominici mysterium imago non solum actuum, verum etiam cogitationum bonarum ex deo esse principium, qui nobis et initia sanctæ voluntatis inspirat et virtutem atque opportunitatem eorum quæ recte cupimus tribuit peragendi . . . deus incipit quæ bona sunt et exsequitur et consummat in nobis, nostrum vero est, tit cotidie adtrahentem nos gratiam dei humiliter subsequamur. non summum bonum esse nondum considerasti, quanti ponderis sit peccatum 543

• • •

nos angelorum, si meruimus, candidati nos per hoc in incorruptionem transformamur nostra merita, dei munera

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

nova creatura nudum et inerme conditionis bonum. nulla est iniquitas nullatenus peccatum sine vindicta laxatur nulli compensatio nullo modo credendum est, ut omnipotens deus pater, qui spiritus est, de semetipso carnem generet nuncupativus deus nuptiæ oblatio offendere deum offendere, satisfacere, promereri, acceptare offendisti, sed reconciliari adhuc potes; habes cui satisfacias et quidem volentem. aeb omne bonum a deo omne bonum in humilitate perficitur omne delictum aut venia dispungit aut poena, venia ex castigatione, poena ex damnatione omne peccatum ex voluntate omnes in alternis exsistentes et semper simul ὁµοούσιοι omnes justi sunt, in quibus nunc regnat mediator omnes naturæ ex deo, non de deo omnes salutis inpromerendo deo omnis substantia a deo opera opera a deo dari merito fidei, ipsam vero fidem sic esse a nobis ut nobis non sit a deo. operarii vel ministri baptismi operatio divina operibus et eleemosynis opinantes quam scientes oportet magistrum doctoremque virtutis homini simillimum fieri, ut vincendo peccatum doceat hominem vincere posse peccatum . . . ut desideriis carnis edomitis doceret, non necessitatis esse peccare, sed propositi ac voluntatis. opus operatum ordinatio malorum ordinator peccatorum ordo, species, modus pænitentia demonstratur acceptabilis deo pænitentia legitima pænitentiam deo immolare . . . magis merebitur fructum pænitentiæ qui nondum ea usus est quam qui jam et abusus est.

• • • • •

panis panis est corpus Christi . . . corpus Christi si vis intelligere, apostolum audi: vos estis corpus Christi. pars peregrinans partus clause utero partus clauso utero 562

• • •

• • •

• • • • • • • • •

passus passus est pro nostra salute patientia corporis [penances] precationes commendat, deprecationes affirmat; hæc aures Christi aperit, clementiam elicit. pax pax cælestis pax ecclesiæ dimittit peccata et ab ecclesiæ pace alienatio tenet peccata; petra tenet, petra dimittit; columba tenet, columba dimittit; unitas tenet, unitas dimittit pax terrena peccando promeremur peccata naturalia peccator patri satisfacit peccatrix successio peccatum peccatum originis peccatum originis, tradux peccati peccatum vitari potest aaf

• • • • • • • • • • •

per aditum fidei aperitur aditus visionis dei per carnem per continentiam negotiaberis magnam substantiam sanctitatis per gratiam dei bona merita comparamus quibus ad vitam perveniamus æternam. per hanc stat ecclesia qua in terris est per incentivum maledictæ generationis ardorem et per inlecebror per, propter peregrinationes permixtio permutatio corporalis persona

• • • • • • • • •

•

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

persona hominis pestifer philosophia vera pie pignus plena plena in voluntate bona plus poculum humanæ salutis, quod confectum est infirmitate nostra et virtute divina, habet quidem in se, ut omnibus prosit, sed si non bibitur non medetur. porro ignorantia quam profunda quamque patiendi ejus dura conditio, ut liberari ab ea nisi prævaricatione non posset, scientiam quippe boni malique absque ansa condemnabili nequaquam capessiturus. posse posse non posse non peccare posse non peccare, —mori,—deserere bonum possibilitas possibilitas boni possibilitas utriusque post veteres hæreses inventa etiam modo hæresis est non ab episcopis seu presbyteris vel quibuscumque clericis, sed a quibusdam veluti monachis ae3 potentia actuosa potentia divini verbi potentialiter præcepta prædestinatio ad malum prædestinatio ad mortem præter pretii copiositas mysterii passionis pretium primordiale delictum expiare prius occultius, postea manifestius privatio privatio boni privatio substantiæ pro amoris pii memoria pro defunctis commendandis pro peccatis profectus profer nomen amici tui eo tempore opportuno, quo panem et vinum in substantiam corporis et sanguinis Christi consecraveris.

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

proinde de immunditia nuptiarum mundus homo non nascitur, quia interveniente libidine seminatur. promereri deum propositum dei, quo non ob hoc hominem fecerat, tit periret, sed ut in perpetuum viveret, manet immobile, cuius benignitas cum bonæ voluntatis in nobis quantulamcunque scintillam emicuisse perspexerit vel quam ipse tamquam de dura silice nostri cordis excuderit, confovet eam et exsuscitat et confortat . . . qui enim ut pereat unus ex pusillis non habet voluntatem, quomodo sine ingenti sacrilegio putandus est non universaliter omnes, sed quosdam salvos fieri velle pro omnibus? ergo quicumque pereunt, contra illius pereunt voluntatem . . . deus mortem non fecit. proprie sacerdotes pulchritudo pulchrum punctum saliens quæ a deo quæ ecclesi ac8 a dei salutaria probat, infamat nociva. quæ ratione defendi non potest quæ salvari possent quæ sursum sunt sapite quædam enim sunt divinæ liberalitatis, quædam nostræ operationis. quærebam viam qua demonstrat et revelat deus quid agere debeamus, non qua donat atque adjuvat ut agamus. quamvis non possit credere, sperare, diligere homo rationalis, nisi velit quasi quasi contra naturam quasi ecclesia quasi necessariam que ad salutem pertinent adimplere qui sumus membra ejus quia Christum vorari fas dentibus non est, voluit in mysterio hunc panem et vinum vere carnem suam et sanguinem consecratione spiritus s. potentialiter (i.e. quia ipsum velle a deo nobis operatur, fit ut ex deo et operationem et voluntatem habeamus. quia non possunt secundum categorias Aristotelis de dogmatibus judicare. quid est aliud caritas quam voluntas? quid est altare, nisi sedes et corporis et sanguinis Christi, cujus illic per certa momenta

•

• • • •

•

• • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

quid interesset inter præsumptionem et confessionem, inter videntes quo eundun sit nec videntes qua, et viam ducentem ad beatificam patriam, non tantum cernendam, sed et habitandam quidquid nobis optamus, in illum auguramur, et illi deputamus, quod ab illo exspectamus. quis non ipso nominum sectarumque conglobatarum strepitu terretur? quod Hieronymus ei tamquam æmulo inviderit. quod colorem aut saporem carnis minime præbet, virtus tamen fidei et intellegentiæ, quæ nihil de Christo dubitat, totum illud spiritaliter sapit et de aa3 gustat . . . Sic debuit hoc mysterium temperari, ut et arcana secretorum celarentur infidis et meritum quod in eo ex virgine creando efficax Dei sapientia et virtus exstiterit, et in nativitate ejus divinæ prudentiæ et potestatis opus intellegatur, sitque in eo efficientia potius quam natura sapientiæ. quod scriptum est et apostolicæ disciplinæ robustissima auctoritate firmatum quodammodo naturalis quomodo id fieri potuerit quomodo multæ mansiones apud patrem, si non pro varietate meritorum . . . porro et si fidei propterea congruebat sublimitati et claritatis aliqua prolatio, tale quid esse opportuerat illud emolumenti quos fecit quia voluit nec condemnat nisi spretus; si cum non spernitur, faciat consecratione meliores, nec detrimentum justitiæ patitur et munificentia miserationis ornatur. radix virtutum rapi in deum ratio ratio intelligentia ratio promerendi deum ratio salutis certam formam rationabilis naturæ individua subsistentia rationabiliter visum est, ut fides præcedat rationem re non tempore posterior reatus reatus peccati rebus in pejorem partem properantibus, quod mundi fini suo incumbentis indicium est reconciliati sumus per solum filium secundum carnem, sed non soli filio secundum divinitatem reconciliatio cum deo

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

reconciliatio, redemptio, satisfactio, immolatio, meritum reconciliator reddituri sunt de factis propriis redemptor 589 regio ubertatis indeficientis, ubi pascis Israel in æternum veritatis pabulo, et ubi vita sapientia est regnum cælorum regnum dei regnum dei, civitas dei religio vera reliquiæ Pelagianorum remissio peccatorum rependamus rependere repræsentatio memoriæ dominicæ passionis reprobati reprobi reputare res res invisibilis res ipsa quæ nunc Christiana religio nuncupatur, erat apud antiquos, nec defuit ab initio generis humani, quousque ipse Christus venit in carne, unde vera religio, quæ jam erat, cœpit appellari Christi 53e ana res sæculi res sacramenti restituere restitutio peccatoris resurrectio carnis robur in infirmitate perficitur rursus debita redeunt per hæresis aut schismatis obstinationem et ideo necessarium habent hujusmodi homines venire ad Catholicam pacem s. ecclesia in apostolorum principis soliditate firmata est. sacerdos, sacrificium, caput ecclesiæ sacerdotes sacerdotium sacramenta per se esse sancta, non per homines sacramentum sacramentum baptismi sacramentum baptismi dandi 579 sacramentum et verbum dei populo ministrare. sacramentum unitatis sacrificium corporis Christi salus

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• •

salus per gratiam in baptismo donatam certissima. salutaria sacramenta salvator per adoptionem carnis sedem repetiit deitatis sancta ecclesia sancta membra ac viscera ecclesia sancti sancti et spiritales sancti, perfecti sapientia hominis pietas satisfacere satisfacere deo satisfacere ecclesiæ; satisfactio congrua satisfacimus deo domino nostro 573 satisfactio satisfactio congrua satisfactio, pœna scire deum et animam se rapere in deum secundum corporis præsentiam secundum merita secundum merita bonaæ secundum merita nostra sed non corporaliter sed spiritualiter facta est . . . spiritualiter sub velamento corporei panis . . . corpus et sanguis Christi existunt. sedet ad dexteram dei patris omnipotentis semper auxilio dei homines indigere nec aliquid humanam fragilitatem quod ad salutem pertinet per se solam i.e. semper generans generatio sensibilis res intellegibiliter virtute dei per verbum Christi in carnem ipsius divinitus transfertur. 566

• • • •

• • •

sermo de symbolo servi dei servitium, adoratio si quæ vero præter fidem quæstiones natæ sunt . . . non ego quasi auctor alicujus dogmatis definita hæc auctoritate statui. si satisfactio congrua non negligatur sic deus, ut dicatur etiam dei donum sicut baptizatus, si ab unitate recesserit, sacramentum baptismi non amittit, sic etiam ordinatus, si ab unitate recesserit, sacramentum dandi baptismi non amittit.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

sicut erat in principio sigillum signum signum rei invisibilis sive per nos, sive per deum sola fide solo sacramento species ac8 spes spiritalis substantia spiritualiter intellegite spiritus splendida vitia sponsa Christi, unius cubiculi sanctitatem casto pudore custodit. status strepitus turbarum de omni ordine conversationis hominum studium suam potestatem ad dei cultum maxime dilatandum majestati ejus famulam faciunt, si plus amant illud regnum, ubi non timent habere consortes. sub figura sub specie æternitatis sub specie prædestinationis substantia panis et vini in Christi carnem et sanguinem efficaciter interius commutatur substantia, persona summa est voluntatis dei salus eorum, quos adoptavit. summum summum summum bonum summum bonum, summum esse summum esse superbia superbia animi symbolum apostolicum tanta est erga creaturam suam pietas creatoris, ut non solum comitetur eam, sed etiam præcedit iugiter providentia, qui cum in nobis ortum quendam bonæ voluntatis inspexerit, inluminat eam confestim atque confortat et incitat ad salutem, incrementum tribuens ei quam vel ipse plantavit vel nostro conatu viderit emersisse. tantum relevat confessio termini technici

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

terrena felicitas timor ti 563 mor fundamentum salutis est, præsumptio impedimentum timoris tolle exempli causam, tolle et pretii, quod pro nobis factus est. totius ecclesiæ figuram gerens toto coelo totum illud, quod volebamus nolumus et totum illud, quod deus vult, volumus totus Christus caput et corpus est. traditores tradux peccati tres personæ tria in unoquoque consideranda sunt veraciter pænitente, videlicet conversio mentis, confessio oris et vindicta peccati. trina deitas trinitas summe et æquabiliter et immutabiliter bona tristitia tu solus altissimus turba qualiumcumque clericorum ac6

• •

• • • •

• •

• •

tutius ubi catholica fide hoc mysterium celebratur, nihil a bono majus nihilque a malo minus percipi sacerdote, nihilque aliud quam caro Christi et sanguis dum catholice consecratur, quia non in merito consecrantis sed in verbo efficitur creatoris et virtute spiritus s. ubi ipsa veritas vita animæ nostræ erit ujus igitur pænitentiæ secundæ et unius quanto in arte negotium est, tanto operosior probatio ultro officium facere deo. una catholica ecclesia non in qua sola unus baptismus habetur, sed in qua sola unus baptismus salubriter habetur una deitas unde ex multa eloquentia accidit, quod dixit per Salomonem spiritus sanctus: ex multiloquio non effugies peccatum” and “error tamen illius sermone multo, ut dixi, contractus, lucta hostium exaggeratus necdum hæresis quæstionem absolvit. unitas universalis animæ liberandæ via

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

universalis caro, universalis anima; in isto omnia universalia erant universitas universitas specialis universos sed qui sequerentur universum unum totum unus ex trinitate unus mediator ut superbia humana per humilitatem dei argueretur utiliter habere utraque natura utrumque in Catholica non licet iterari. varia vasa in contumeliam in domo dei vasa in honorem velle, concupiscere, perficere venia 566 veniale delictum vera poenitentia verbum verbum = evangelium verbum dei in humilitate verbum et homo una persona verbum fidei veritas verum verum esse verus et proprius filius vetuit lapsos peccata dolere vetus homo via tutior victus victori legem dat vir acer ingenio, in divinis scripturis doctus, Græca et Latina lingua scholasticus; prius quam impietatem Pelagii in se aperiret, clarus in doctoribus ecclesiæ fuit virtus 54d virtus sacramenti virtutem nemo unquam acceptam deo retulit visibiliter celebratur, oportet invisibiliter intelligi visio visu corporeo et gustu propterea non demutantur, quatenus fides exerceatur ad justitiam. vita vita æterna vita beata

• • • • • • • • • • • •

vita mortalis, mors vitalis vitium vitium originis vitium voluntatis vocatio volitare voluntarium voluntarius executor justitiæ voluntas = caritas 557 voluntas humana voluntas sensualis, animalis, spiritalis vulnus

Index of Pages of the Print Edition i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi 1 2 3 4 ae1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 abb 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 acc 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 579 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 ab3 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 55b 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 abb 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 588 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331

i

HISTORY OF DOGMA BY

DR. ADOLPH HARNACK ORDINARY PROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, BERLIN

TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION

BY

NEIL BUCHANAN VOLUME VI vi vii

TRANSLATOR’S NOTE. As at several places in this volume Latin quotations are largely introduced, so as to form portions of the text, these have in many cases been simply reproduced in English. Where the meaning is less obvious, and the reader might desire to be made acquainted with the original, the Latin has been inserted within brackets. viii ix

ix

CONTENTS. PART II. DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL DOGMA. BOOK II., Continued. Expansion and Remodelling of Dogma into a Doctrine of Sin, Grace, and Means of Grace on the basis of the Church.

Page 1

CHAPTER I . — History of Dogma in the Period of Clugny, Anselm, and Bernard Introduction 1. Fresh rise of piety Clugny. Renunciation of the world and rule over it. Monastic training of the clergy The Crusades and their consequences for piety The piety of St. Bernard Objectionable elements in his Mysticism 2. Development of Ecclesiastical Law Development of the papacy into an autocracy. The Papal Decretals The new ecclesiastical law more definitely framed. Union of law and Dogma Jurisprudence as a dominant force 3. Revival of science Essence ab7 of Scholasticism Scholasticism and Mysticism xPreparation in history for mediæval science. Its relation to Greek science. The inherited capital The Carlovingian Era The period of transition The Eleventh Century. The prevailing influence of Realism. The question of the Universals. The Dialecticians “Aristotelianism”

1

The two chapters which make up this volume answer to Chapters VII. and VIII. of Part II., Book II., in the Original German Edition.

1-83 1 3-1 564 5 3 8 10 12 16-23 16 19 21 23-44 23 25 28 30 30 32 36

The negative and positive significance of the science of Abelard Disciples and opponents of Abelard. Reconciliation of Dogma with Aristotle 4. Elaboration of Dogma Introduction a. The Berengarian Controversy Doctrine of Transubstantiation as framed after the Controversy The importance of the Fourth Lateran Council for the doctrines of the Eucharist, Baptism, and Repentance b. Anselm’s doctrine of Satisfaction Criticism of this doctrine Its limited measure of influence Doctrine of the Merit of Christ. Abelard’s doctrine of Reconciliation Peter Lombard ad5 CHAPTER II.--History of Dogma in the Period of the Mendicant Monks, till the beginning of the Sixteenth Century Introduction 1. On the history of piety St. Francis, the Apostolic life, the Franciscan piety (the Waldensians, and the “Poor” of Lombardy) St. Francis and the Church The doctrine of poverty, the different tendencies, the Fraticelli and the Spirituales Conservative influence of the religious awakening upon Dogma Mysticism and the Mendicant Orders xiMysticism as Catholic piety Description of Mysticism, Pantheism, the rise of Individualism Thomist and Scotist Mysticism Quickened activity in practical life The awakening of the laity, free associations, and preachers of repentance The stages in the development of piety Piety in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; its opposition to the Church Piety, Dogma (unassailed), and the Church; glance forward to the Reformation Gothic architecture as the style of building corresponding with mediæval piety 2. On the history of Ecclesiastical Law. The doctrine of the Church

37 42 45-83 45 46 51 53 54 67 78 79 81 84-317 84 85-117 85 91 94 96 97 97 101 105 108 110 111 113 116 117 118-

149acc The supremacy of the papal system; jurisprudence as a commanding influence The leading thoughts in the papal system with regard to the Church The doctrine of the Pope; the new forgeries; infallibility The Concordats; national churches The slight share of theology in fixing the hierarchical conception of the Church The negotiations with the Greeks; Thomas’s conception of the Church The opposition to the hierarchical and papal conception of the Church is to be traced to Augustinianism The conception of the Church held by the opposing parties has a common root with the hierarchical, and differs only in its conclusions Hence the ineffectiveness of its criticism The opposition of the Waldensians, Apocalyptists, Franciscans, Imperialists, and Episcopalists The conception of the Church held by Wyclif and Huss, and their opposition to the hierarchy Criticism of this movement; Dogma, as strictly understood, remains unassailed xiiPositive significance of the Wyclifite and hierarchical conceptions of the Church 3. 3. On the history of ecclesiastical science The causes of the revival of science at the beginning of the thirteenth century (Arabs, Jews) The victory of Aristotle and of the Mendicant Orders. “Qualified” Realism Scholasticism at its zenit 553 h, its nature, and relation to the Church and to reason The science of St. Thomas The “Summa” of St. Thomas Transition to Duns Scotus New stress laid upon reason and authority, Nominalism Probabilism, Casuistry, and fides implicita Elimination of Augustinianism Augustinian reaction in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Bradwardine, Wyclif, Huss, Wesel, Wessel Decline of Nominalism, the re-discovered Plato, the Renaissance 4. The Moulding of Dogma in Scholasticism571 The pre-suppositions of the thirteenth century Scholasticism

118 119 121 126 127 130 132 134 136 138 141 146 147 149-173 150 151 153 157 157 160 161 162 166 169 170 174-317 174

The finis theologiæ (the idea of salvation) and its main elements The old articuli fidei and the doctrine of transubstantiation The threefold task which Scholasticism carried out with regard to Dogma; strained relation with piety a. Revision of the traditional articuli fidei (1) The doctrine of God (2) The doctrine of the Trinity (3) The doctrines of creation, preservation, and government 568 (4) The doctrine of the person of Christ (of the Holy Ghost) The doctrine of the work of Christ (satisfaction and merit) The doctrine of Thomas Of Duns Scotus Disintegration and reaction b. The Scholastic doctrine of the Sacraments Significance and principle xiiiNumber of the Sacraments Definition (Hugo and the Lombard) Their nature, relation of grace to Sacrament Questions in detail The Thomist doctrine of the Sacraments (The Sacraments in their operation, their character Definition, materia, forma, etc. Necessity Effect Cause) The administrator of the Sacrament (minister sacramenti) Conditions of saving reception, disposition Attritio Peculiarities of the Scotist doctrine of the Sacraments The Sacraments singly. Baptism Confirmation The Eucharist Sacrament of Penance (Sorrow Confession Absolution Satisfaction

174 176 176 178 178 182 184 187 190 191 196 198 200 200 201 204 206 554 209 201 210 212 213 214 217 217 220 225 226 22755f 230 232 243 248 251 255 257

Indulgence Opposition to indulgences; Wyclif, Huss, Wesel, Wessel) Extreme unction Ordination to the priesthood Sacrament of Marriage Transition to the doctrine of grace 578 Revision of Augustinianism in the direction of the doctrine of merit c. The Lombard on grace, freedom, and merit Thomas. Elements of principle in the Scholastic doctrine of grace, the conception of God, grace as participation in the divine nature, merit Thomas’s doctrine of grace (lumen superadditum naturæ, gratia operans et cooperans, præveniens et subsequens), essence of grace, disposition for grace, its effects, forgiveness of sins, love, merits de condigno et de congruo xivHistoric estimate of the Thomist doctrine of grace, connection with Augustine (doctrine of predestination) and Aristotle Thomas on the primitive state, original righteousness (justitia originalis), the Fall, Sin Evangelical counsels (consilia evangelica) The Thomist doctrine of sin and grace faces in two directions The later Scotistic Scholasticism: its doctrines of sin and grace Its doctrines of justification and merit (Bradwardine’s reaction) Supplement: The doctrines of the immaculate conception of Mary, and of her co-operation in the work of redemption

259 267 269 270 272 275 275 276 279

281

295 297 565 298 300 301 308 312

1

CHAPTER I. HISTORY OF DOGMA IN THE PERIOD OF CLUGNY, ANSELM, AND BERNARD, TILL THE CLOSE OF THE TWELFTH CENTURY. A TENACIOUSLY maintained tradition relates that in the closing years of the tenth century the Christians of the 564 West looked forward with fear and trembling to the destruction of the world in the year 1000, and that a kind of reformation, expressing itself in the keenest activity in all branches of religion, was the consequence of this expectation. This representation has long since been proved a legend;2 but there lies at the basis of it, as is the case with so many legends, an accurate historic observation. From the end of the tenth century3 we really discern the beginnings of a powerful rise of religious and ecclesiastical life. This revival grew in strength, suffering from no reaction of any consequence, till the beginning of the thirteenth century. During this period it released, and took command of all the forces of mediæval manhood. All institutions of the past, and all the new elements of culture that had been added were subjected to its influence, and even the most hostile power 564 s were ultimately 2made to yield it service and support. In the thirteenth century the supremacy of the Church and the system of the mediæval view of the world appear in perfected form.4 This perfecting is the conclusion, not only of Mediæval Church history, but also of that historical development of Christianity, the beginnings of which lie as far back as the history of the primitive Church. Certainly, if Christianity is regarded only as doctrine, the Middle Ages appear almost as a supplement to the history of the ancient Church; but if it is regarded as life, our judgment must be that it was only in the Western Church of the Middle Ages that the Christianity of the early Church came to its completion. In ancient

2

The eschatological ideas were always strong and vigorous in the Middle Ages, but for a time they certainly asserted themselves with special intensity; see Wadstein, Die Eschat. Ideengruppe (Antichrist, world-Sabbath, world-end and world-judgment) in den Hauptmomenten ihrer christlich-mittelalterlichen Gesammtentwickelung, 1896. But Wadstein again thinks that the year moo was contemplated with special suspense (p. 16 f.). 3 On the tenth century, see Reuter, l.c. I., p. 67 ff. 4 See v. Eicken, Gesch. und System der mittelalterlichen Weltanschauung, 1887.

times the Church was confronted with restrictions in the motives, standards, and ideas of ancient life. These restrictions it was never able to break through, and so it continued to be with the Church of the Eastern Empire: Monachism stood alongside the Church; the Church of the world was the old world itself with Ch 564 ristian manners. It was otherwise in the West. Here the Church was able to apply much more effectively its peculiar standards of monastic asceticism and domination of this world by the world beyond,5 because it had not to subdue an ancient civilisation, but met with its restrictions simply in the most elementary forces of human life, in the desire to live, hunger, love and cupidity. It was thus able to propagate here through all circles, from the highest to the lowest, a view of the world which would inevitably have driven all into the cloisters, had not these elementary forces been stronger than even the fear of hell. It is not the task of the History of Dogma to show how the mediæval view of the world was fully constructed and applied from the end of the tenth (for here the beginnings lie) till the thirteenth century. Substantially not much that is new would be discovered, for it is still the old well-known body of thought; what is new is merely the application of the material to all provinces of life, the comprehensive control in the hands of the Pope, and the 54f gradual progressive development in its prior 3stages of religious individualism. But before we describe the changes, partly really, and partly apparently slight, which dogma underwent down to the time of the Mendicant Orders, it is necessary to indicate in a few lines the conditions under which these changes came about. We must direct our attention to the fresh rise of piety, to the development of ecclesiastical law, and to the beginnings of mediæval science. 1. The Fresh Rise of Piety. The Monastery of Clugny, founded in the tenth century, became the centre of the great reform which the Church in the West passed through in the eleventh century.6 Instituted by monks,

5 57c

From this there resulted a new kind of dominion over the world, which certainly became very like the old, for there is only one way of exercising dominion. 6 The following partly corresponds with my Lecture on Monachism (3rd ed. 1886, p. 43 ff.). Two sources appear in the tenth century from which the religious awakening proceeded, the Monastery of Clugny, and the Saxon dynasty. We cannot attach too much importance to the influence of Matilda (cf. in general the Essay by Lamprecht, Das deutsche Geistesleben unter den Ottonen in the deutsche Zeitschrift f. Geschichtswissensch. Vol. VII., part 1, p. i. ff.). It extended to Henry II., and even,

it was at first supported against the secularised monachism, priesthood (Episcopate),7 and papacy by pious and prudent princes and bishops, above all, by the Emperor, the representative of God on earth, until the great Hildebrand laid hold of it, and, as Cardinal and successor of Peter, set it in 4opposition to the princes, the secularised clergy, and the Emperor. What the West obtained in it was a monastic reform of the Church, that rested on the idea of a view of the world that made everything alike, and that consequently favoured the universal supremacy of Rome over the Church. What were the aims of this new movement which took hold of the entire Church in the second half of the eleventh century? In the first instance, and chiefly, the restoration in the monasteries themselves of the “old” discipline, of the true abnegation of the world, and piety; but then, also, first, the monastic training of the whole secular clergy, second, the supremacy of the monastically trained clergy over the lay world, over princes and nations; third, the reduction of national churches, with their pride and secularity, in favour of the uniform supremacy of Rome.8

indeed, to the third Henry; v. Nitzsch, Gesch. des deutschen Volkes I., p. 318 f. For the history of the world the ecclesiastical sympathies of the dynasty, and the spirit of ascetic piety that emanated from the saintly devotee in the Quedlinburg Convent were of as great importance as the reformed monachism of Clugny. The h ac8 istory of mediæval Germanic piety may be said to have begun with Matilda. Charlemagne is still in many respects a Christian of the type of Constantius and Theodosius. 7 From Hauck (K.-Gesch. Deutschlands III., p. 342 ff.) and the work of Sackur, Die Cluniacenser in ihrer Kirchl. und allgemeingesch. Wirksamkeit bis zur Mitte des 11. Jahrh. (2 vols., 1892-1894) we learn that the reform of Clugny had for centuries to contend with the same difficulties against the secularised Church and the secularised, but also more independent monachism (see also Hauck, “Zur Erklärung von Ekkeh. Cas. s. Galli “ c. 87 in the Festschrift f. Luthardt, p. 107 ff.) as had the old monachism formerly on its introduction about 400 into Gaul and Spain (and as had the Minorites at a later time). It is instructive to notice the attitude of the laity in connection with these three great reforms of the Church. Towards the first they were substantially indifferent, in the second they took a share from the outset (against the secularised clergy), the third (the Minorite) was simply carried out by them. 8 Sackur (II., p. 464 f.) characterises this French monastic reform thus: “The movement of Clugny did not start with announcing a programme: it was the product of a view of the world. It had no other aim than to oppose the coarse materialism of those days by reviving those institutions that admitted of an existence in sympathy with evangelical injunctions, even in the midst of a barbarised society. It was a formation of autonomous associations, such as usually arise in disorganised States under a weak central government, and serve to supplement by self-help the great social unions of, e.g., State and Church. From this there resulted the design of influencing from these

5

The attempt to control the life of the whole clergy by monastic rules had already begun in the Carlovingian period; but in part it had failed, in part the Chapters had only become thoroughly secularised. Now, however, it was undertaken anew and with greater efficiency. In the Cluniacensian reform Western monachism raised for the first time the decided claim to apply, and find recognition for, itself as the Christian order of life for all Christians of full age — the priests. This Western monachism could not withdraw from the. task of serving the Church and urging itself upon it, i.e., upon the clergy of the day, as Christianity. The Christian freedom which it strove for was for it, with all wavering, not only a freedom from the world, but the freedom of Christendom for unrestricted preparation for the life beyond, and for the service of God in this world. But no man can serve two masters. Herewith there was given also its relation to the laity, with the position of the latter. If the mature confessors of Christianity must be trained according to monastic rules, then the immature — and

institutions those around, and winning them for religion. The restored monasteries increased in number, the task became always greater; but it became in no way different. The winning of souls was, and continued to be, the real end. Connections became extended; we have seen how ready the princes were to support the efforts 564 of the monks. Very soon every family of mark had its family monastery. . . . Monachism found its way to the courts . . . by means of a conspicuous social activity monachism gained hold of the masses. . . . Not a few bishops, especially in the South, were carried away by the current, friends of the movement came to occupy the Episcopal Sees. What followed was a spiritual transformation (but no transformation of any consequence of a literary and scientific kind. See what Sackur has stated, II., p. 327 ff.), giving pain to those who had previously built their house out of the ruins of the Carlovingian order of society, giving annoyance especially to a part of the Episcopate. . . . With this the opposition also was given. The ascetic Romanic movement issuing from the South mastered in the end the French North, captured the new Capetian dynasty, and here found itself confronted with an Episcopate which defended itself, in some cases, with desperation, against the assaults of a monachism that set out from the idea of a view of the world that made all things alike, from the thought of the universal Romanism, and that had no understanding for the independent pride of national churches. . . . The strict organisation of the German Imperial Church, its close union with the monarchy, the morality of the clergy (of a higher character as co ac8 mpared with the West-Frankian Church), still kept back the movement (at first) from the borders of Germany. It was only the process of ecclesiastical and civil dissolution, which began tinder Henry IV., that opened the breaches through which the monastic Romanic spirit could penetrate into the organism of the German State.” — On Clugny and Rome, see Sackur II., p. 441 ff.

these are the laity — must leave an entirely free course to the former, and must at eb0 least pay respect to their majesty, that it may be possible to stand approved in the coming judgment. If Clugny and its great Popes required the strict observance of celibacy, the estrangement of the priests from secular life, and especially the extirpation of all “simony,” then this last demand of itself involved, under the then existing distribution of power and property, the subjection of the laity, inclusive of the civil power, to the Church. But what was the Church’s dominion over the world to mean, side by side with the renunciation of the world exacted of all priests? How does that power over the earth harmonise with exclusive concern for the soul’s salvation in the world beyond? How can the same man who exclaims to his brother who thinks of leaving him all the patrimonial property, “What an unjust division, — for thee, heaven, and for me, the earth,” and who then himself enters a monastery — how 6can this same man bring himself to contend from within the monastery for dominion over the world? Now in a certain sense this dominion is something substitutionary, so long as and because the true, universal Christianising has not been carried out. As long as all are not genuine Christians, the obstinate world and the half-developed Christendom must be governed and educated, for otherwise the gospel would be captured by the powers hostile to it, and would not be in the position to fulfil its mission. But the dominion is certainly not merely something substitutionary. Christianity is asceticism and the City of God. All earthly relations must be moulded by the transcendent and universal idea of God’s kingdom, and all national political forms of life must be brought under control in accordance therewith. But the kingdom of God has its existence on this side of things in the Church. The States, therefore, must become subject to the divine ends of the Church; they must merge themselves in the kingdom of righteousness and of the victorious Christ, which is a truly heavenly kingdom, because it has its source in heaven, and is ruled by Christ’s representative. Thus out of the programme of renunciation of the world and out of the supra-mundane world that was to permeate this world, out of the Augustinian idea of the city of God and out of the idea of the one Roman world-empire, an idea that had never disappeared, but that had reached its glorification in the papal supremacy, there developed itself the claim to worlddominion, though the ruin of many an individual monk might be involved in making it. With sullied consciences and broken courage many monks, whose only desire was to seek after God, yielded to the plans of the great monastic Popes, and became subservient to their aims. And those whom they summoned from the retirement of the cloisters were just those who wished to think least of the world. They knew very well that it was only the monk

who fled from the world, and would be rid of it, that could give help in subduing the world. Abandonment of the world in the service of the world-ruling Church, dominion over the world in the service of renunciation of the world, — this was the problem, and the ideal of the Middle Ages! What an innocent simplicity, what a wealth of illusions, was involved in 7believing that this ideal could be realised, and in working for it! What a childlike reverence for the Church was necessary for developing that paradoxical flight from the world,” which at one and the same moment could join the fight and pray, utter cursing and blessing, exercise dominion and do penance! What a spirit of romance filled those souls, which at 6dc a single view could see in nature and all sensuous life an enchantment of the devil, and could behold in it at the same time, as illumined by the Church, the reflection of the world beyond What kind of men were they, who abandoned the world and gladsome life, and then took back from the hand of the Church the good things of earth, love-making, combat and victory, speculating and money-making, feasting, and the joys of sense! Of course, with a slight turn of the kaleidoscope, all these things were in ruins; there must be fasting and repentance; but again a slight turn, and everything was back again which the world could afford — but glorified with the light of the Church and of the world beyond. At the close of this period (about 1200) the Church was victorious. If ever ideals were carried out in the world and gained dominion over souls it happened then. “It was as if the world had cast aside its old garment and clothed itself in the white robe of the Church.”9 Negation of the world and rule of the world by the Church appeared to men identical. That age bore in its culture “the pained look of world-renunciation on the one hand, and the look of strong character suggesting world-conquest on the other.”10 eae But in the period we are reviewing the development, which had to cancel itself when it seemed to have come near its completion, was still in process. Much was still to be done in the way of excavating secularised Christendom 8from its rough surroundings. And the

9

The Cluniacensian monk, Rudolph Glaber, Hist. lib. III., 4. v. Eicken, l.c., p. 155 f. If the early Church had had this latter characteristic expressed in its piety, it would inevitably have developed into Islam, or rather would have been crushed by the Roman world-empire. But the Mediæval Church from its origin (period of the migration of the nations) had absorbed into itself the Roman world-empire as an idea and as a force, and stood face to face with uncivilised nations; hence its aggressive character, which, moreover, it only developed after Charlemagne had shown it how the vicarius Christi on earth must rule. Nicolas I. learned from Charles I., the Gregorian popes from Otto I., Henry II., and Henry III., how the rector ecclesiæ must administer his office. 10

masses were really changed in temper and set on fire — set on fire to contend against the secularised clergy and against simonistic princes in the whole of Europe. A new enthusiasm of a religious kind stirred the nations of the West, especially the Romanic. The ardour of the Crusades was the direct fruit of the monastic papal reform movement of the eleventh century. In them most vividly the religious revival which had passed over the West revealed itself in its specific character. The supremacy of the Church must be given effect to on earth. It was the ideas of the world-ruling monk of Clugny that guided the Crusaders on their path. The Holy Land and Jerusalem were parts of heaven on earth. They must be conquered. The dreadful and affecting scenes at the taking of the sacred city illustrate the spirit of mediæval piety. Christianity is ascetism and the City of God — but the Church, which really fired souls for these ideas, lit also thereby the flame of religious individualism; it awakened the power which was ultimately strong enough to burst through the strict bonds of system and sever the chain. But it was long before things went so far as this. The Cluniacensian reform, if I see aright, produced as yet no religious individualism at all, in the sense of manifold expressions of piety. The enthusiastic religious spirit of the eleventh century was quite of the same kind in individual cases. Among the numerous founders of orders during this period, there still prevailed the greatest uniformity: spiritual need, flight from the world, contemplation — all of them are expressed in similar forms and by the same means.11 An appeal must not be made to the Sectaries, already numerous in this century; they stood in scarcely any connection with the ecclesiastical revival, and had as yet no influence upon it.12 9

Through the Crusades this became changed. The primitive Christian intuitions were restored. The sacred places stirred the imagination, and led it to the Christ of the Gospels. Piety was

11

See Neander, K.-Gesch. V., 1, pp. 449-564. Their doctrines were imported from the East — from Bulgaria; that old remnants of sects survived in the West itself (Priscillians) is not impossible. But sponta 564 neous developments also must be recognised, such as have arisen in all ages of the Church’s history, from reading Scripture and the Fathers, and from old reminiscences. In the twelfth century, heresy became an organised power, frightfully dangerous to the Church, in some regions — indeed, superior to it; see Reuter I., p. 153 f., and Döllinger’s work, Beiträge zur Sectengesch. des Mittelalters, 2 Thl., München 1890, in which the Paulicians, Bogomili, Apostolic Brethren and Catharists are described. 12

quickened by the most vivid view of the suffering and dying Redeemer; He must be followed through all the stages of His path of sorrow! Negative asceticism thus obtained a positive form, and a new and more certain aim. The notes of the Christ-Mysticism, which Augustine had struck only singly and with uncertainty,13 became a ravishing melody. Beside the sacramental Christ the image of the historical took its place 11aa 1 — majesty in humility, innocence in penal suffering, life in death. That dialectic of piety without dialectic, that combined spectacle of suffering and of glory, that living picture of the true communicatio idiomatum (communication of attributes) developed itself, before which mankind stood worshipping, adoring with equal reverence the sublimity and the abasement. The sensuous and the spiritual, the earthly and the heavenly, shame and honour, renunciation and fulness of life were no longer tumultuously intermingled: they were united in serene majesty in the “Ecce homo.” And so this piety broke forth into the solemn hymn: “Salve caput cruentatum” (“O Lamb of God once wounded”). We cannot measure the effects which this newly-tempered piety produced, nor can we calculate the manifold types it assumed, and the multitude of images it drew within its range. We need only recall the picture — new, and certainly only derived from the cross — of the mother and child, the God in the cradle, omnipotence in weakness. Where this piety appears without dogmatic formule, without fancifulness, without subtlety, or studied calculation, it is the simple expression, now brought back again, of the Christian religion itself; for in reverence for the suffering Christ, and in the power which proceeds from His image, all the forces of religion are embraced. But even where it does not appear in its purity, where there is intermingled with it the trivial — down even to the heart-of-Jesus-worship15 — the 10overrefined and studied, it can still be salutary and worthy of honour, more salutary and worthy of honour, at least, than the strivings of a

13

See Vol. V., p. 124 f. Bernh., Sermo LXII. 7, in cant. cantic: “quid enim tam efficax ad curanda conscientise vulnera nec non ad purgandam mentis aciem quam Christi vulnerum sedula meditatio?” 15 This certainly is also very old, and that, too, in had forms; it is not otherwise with the limb-worship of Mary. In the Vitt. Fratrum of Gerard de Frachet (about 1260), published in the Monum. Ord. Fratr. Prædic. Hist. I. (Louvain, 1896) the following is related of a brother: “Consueverat venerari beatam virginem, cor ejus, quo in Christum credidit et ipsum amavit, uterum, quo eum portavit, ubera, quibus eum lactavit, manus ejus tornatiles, quibus ei servivit, et pectus ejus, in quo recubuit, virtutum omnium apothecam specialiter venerans, ad singula faciens frequenter singulas venias cum totidem Ave Maria, adaptando illi virtutes, quibus meruit fled mater dei,” etc. 14

purely negative asceticism governed by no living conception. Even, indeed, where it manifestly degenerates into paganism, there will still remain some remnant of that liberating message, that the divine is to be found in humility and in patient suffering, and that the innocent suffers that the guilty may have peace. In the period under review, this newly attuned piety, born of the Crusades, and nurtured on Augustine as now understood, was still in process of growth. But we have already alluded to the man who stood at the beginning, though he was himself no initiator, Saint Bernard.16 Bernard is the religious genius of the twelfth century, and therefore also the leading spirit of the age. Above all, in him the Augustinian contemplation was revived. Too much is not asserted when it is said that he was Augustinus redivivus, that he moulded himself entirely on the pattern of the great African,17 and that from him what lay at the foundation of his pious contemplations was derived. So far as Bernard furnishes a system of contemplation, and describes the development of love,18 on to its fourth and highest stage, at which man, rising above self-love, is wholly absorbed in the love of God, and experiences that momentary ecstasy in which he becomes one with God — so far Bernard has simply experienced anew what Augustine experienced before him. Even his language indeed is to a very large extent dependent on the language of the Confessions. 1af8 19 But Bernard has also learned his relation to 11 Jesus Christ from the great leader. Like the latter20 he writes: “Dry is all food of the soul if it is not sprinkled with the oil of Christ. When thou writest, promise me nothing, unless I read Jesus in it. When thou conversest with me on religious themes, promise me nothing if I hear not Jesus’ voice. Jesus — honey to the taste, melody to the ear, gladness to the soul.”21 But here Bernard has taken a step beyond Augustine. “Reverence for what is beneath us” dawned upon him, as it had never dawned upon any Christian of the older world (not even upon Augustine); for these earlier Christians, while revering asceticism as the means of escape from the body, still, as men of the ancient world, were unable to see in suffering and shame, in the cross and death, the form of the divine. The study of the Song of Songs (under the direction of Ambrose), and the spirit enkindled

16

See the Monograph by Neander, new edit. (edited by Deutsch, 1889); Hüffer, Der hl. Bernard von Clairvaux, vol. I., 1886. 17 This is true to a much greater extent than Neander has shown. 18 Caritas and humilitas are the fundamental conceptions in Bernard’s Ethics. 19 v. the Treatise De diligendo deo. 567 20v. the numerous passages in the Confessions. 21 Jesus mel in ore, in aure melos, in corde jubilus. In cantic. cantic. XV. 6.

by the Crusades, led him before the image of the crucified Saviour as the bridegoom of the soul. In this picture he became absorbed. From the features of the suffering Christ there shone forth upon him truth and love. In a literal sense He hangs on His lips and gazes on His limbs: “My beloved, saith the Spouse, is white and ruddy: in this we see both the white light of truth and the ruddy glow of love” (in hoc nobis et candet veritas et rubet caritas), says Gilbert in the spirit of Bernard.22 The basis for this Christcontemplation — the wounds of Christ as the clearest token of His love — was laid by Ambrose and Augustine (Christ, mediator as man), and the image of the soul’s bridegroom goes back to Origen and Valentinus (cf. also Ignatius); but Bernard was the first to give to the pious spirit its historic Christian intuitions; he united the Neoplatonic self-discipline for rising to God with contemplation of the suffering 12and dying Redeemer, and released the subjectivity of the Christ-Mysticism and the Christ-Lyricism.23

22

How the cross of Christ is for Bernard the sum and substance of all reflection and all wisdom, see Sermo XLIII.; on loftiness in abasement see XXVIII. and XLII.; de osculo pedis, manus et oris domini III.; de triplici profectu animæ, qui fit per osculum pedis, manus et oris domini IV.; de spiritu, qui est deus, et quomodo misericordia et judicium dicantur pedes domini VI.; de uberibus sponsi, i.e., Christi IX.; de dupl ac8 ice humilitate, una vid. quam parit veritas et altera quam inflammat caritas XLII., etc. etc. 23 See the Poems of Bernard and the 86 Sermons on the Song of Songs, which determined the character of the piety of the following generations. These sermons became the source of the Catholic Christ-mysticism. Ritschl, however, (Lesefrüchte aus dem hl. Bernhard, Stud. u. Krit. 1879, pp. 317-335) has noted (see Neander, 1.c. p. 116), that in these sermons true evangelical thoughts also find expression. “The cause of that I was constrained to see in this, that the preacher did not handle his doctrinal material in the historical order which dogmatic theology adheres to among both Catholics and Evangelicals — an order according to which the doctrines treated first are dealt with without regard to those that follow. We can see rather, without difficulty, that the preacher uses the points of doctrine as they present themselves in the practical circle of vision.” Ritschl points to the following passages (see also Wolff, Die Entw. d. einen christl. K. 1889, p. 165 ff.): Sermo LXIX. 3 (the gravity of original sin: the degree of injury is determined by regeneration); Sermo LXXII. 8 (significance of death: among the redeemed “propter quos omnia fiunt,” it must be regarded as an expression, not of God’s wrath, but of His mercy, as the act of redemption from the conflict between the law in the members and the sanctified will); Sermo XXII. 7-11 (righteousness by faith; it is not equivalent to power given for good works, but “unde vera justitia nisi de Christi misericordia? . . .soli justi qui de ejus misericordia veniam peccatorum consecuti sunt . . .quia non modo justus sed et beatus, cui non imputabit deus peccatum”); Sermo XX. 2; XI. 3; VI. 3 (redemptive work of Christ: the work of love [“non in omni mundi fabrica tantum fatigationis auctor assumpsit”], of which the modus is the exinanitio of God, its fruit nostri de illo repletio, and which is divine, because Christ here kept in view the way

But in spite of all quickening of the imagination, and in spite of his most ardent devotion to the person of Christ, even Bernard was obliged to pay the heavy tribute that is exacted of 13every mystic, — the mood of abandonment after the blessed feeling of union, and the exchange of the historic Christ for the dissolving picture of the ideal. With him the latter is specially remarkable. It might have been expected that for one who became so absorbed in the picture of the suffering Christ, it would have been impossible to repeat the direction given by Origen and Augustine, that we must rise from the word of scripture, and from the Incarnate Word, to the “Spirit.” And yet this final and most questionable direction of mysticism, which nullifies historical Christianity and leads on to pantheism, was most distinctly repeated by Bernard. No doubt what he has written in ep. 106, on the uselessness of the study of Scripture, as compared with practical devotion to Christ,24 may still be interpreted in the light of the thought, that Christianity must be experienced, not known. But there is no ambiguity in the expositions in the twentieth sermon on the Song of Songs. Here the love to Christ that is stirred by what Christ did or offered in the flesh is described as still to some extent fleshly. It is no doubt a

of acting which is God’s way, who makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good. The communicatio idiomatum is not understood here in the Greek sense, but is exhibited in the motives of Christ; VI. 3: “dum in carne et per carnem facit opera, non carnis sed dei . . .manifeste ipsum se esse judicat, per quem eadem et ante fiebant, quando fiebant. In carne, in 564 quam, et per carnem potenter et patienter operatus mira, locutus salubria, passus indigna evidentur ostendit, quia ipse sit, qui potenter sed invisibiliter sæcula condidisset, sapienter regeret, benigne protegeret. Denique dum evangelizat ingratis, signa præbet infidelibus, pro suis crucifixoribus orat, nonne liquido ipsum se esse declarat, qui cum patre suo quotidie oriri facit solem super bonos et malos, pluit super justos et injustos?” ): Sermo XXI. 6, 7; LXXXV. 5 (the restored image of God in man); Sermo LXVIII. 4; LXXI. 11 (the founding of the Church as the aim of redemption); LXXVIII. 3 (Church and predestination); Sermo VIII. 2, XII. 11, XLVI. 4, LI. 5 (conception and marks of the historic Church, where the rigidly juristic view is quite absent: in XII. 11, it is said that no individual may declare himself the bride of Christ; the members of the Church only share in the honour which belongs to the Church as bride). Cf. also Ritschl, Gesch. des Pietismus I., p. 46 ff., and Rechtfert. u. Versöhn, I.2 p. 109 ff., where it is shown how for Bernard the thought of grace controls everything. 24 “Why dost thou seek in the Word for the Word that already stands before thine eyes as Incarnate? Iie that hath ears to hear, let him hear Him crying in the temple, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. . . . O, if thou only once tastedst of the rich marrow of the grain with which the heavenly Jerusalem is satisfied, how willingly wouldst thou leave the Jewish scribes to gnaw at their bread-crusts. . . . Experto crede, aliquid amplius invenies in silvis, quam in libris. Ligna et lapides docebunt, quod a magistris audire non possis.”

valuable circumstance that Bernard does not regard the distress and anguish awakened by the picture of the man Jesus as the highest thing, that he rather sees in it a portion of the fleshly love. But he then goes on to say, that in true spiritual love we must rise altogether from the picture of the historic Christ to the Christ κατὰ πνεῦµα (after the spirit), and for this he appeals to John VI. and 2 Cor. V. 16. All the mysticism of after times retained this feature. It learned from Bernard the Christ-contemplation;25 but, at the same time, it adopted the pantheistic 14tendency of the Neoplatonists and Augustine.26 In the second half of the twelfth century the new piety was already a powerful force in the Church.27 The subjectivity of

25

Bernard was reverenced as an apostle and prophet “among all nations of Gaul and Germany.” The lament of Odo of Morimond (see Hüffer, l.c. p. 21 ff.) is very touching, and proves at the same time the incomparable influence of his personality. Since Augustine, no such man had been given to the Church. “Vivit Bernardus et nardus ejus dedit odorem suum etiam in morte.” “His life is hid with Christ in God,” with this the disciple comforted himself at the grave. “Verba ejus spiritus et vita erant.” The recollection of the days when Bernard wandered as a preacher of the cross through the districts of Germany long survived; for the Germans had never heard such a preacher. See the Historia miraculorum in itinere Germanico patratorum in Migne CLXXXV.; Hüffer, p. 70 ff. (who certainly is remarkably credulous). The correspondence of Bernard stands alone in the twelfth century as regards importance and extent. Almost 500 letters by himself are extant. 26 The “excedere et cum Christo esse” (S. LXXXV.) was understood even by Bernard as meaning, that the soul loses itself, and in the embraces of the bridegroom ceases to be a proper ego. But where the soul is merged in the Godhead, the Godhead becomes resolved into the All-One. 577 27 Follow Christ became the watchword; it broke through the restrictions which dogmatic had drawn, and turned to the Lord Himself. For all relations of life, the suffering, humble, and patient Saviour was presented as an example. What a quickening was the result! But from this point it was possible that a familiarity of feeling should develop itself, which conflicts with reverence for the Redeemer, and because the value of Christ was seen, in a one-sided way, in His example, other sides necessarily suffered neglect. With Bernard that was not yet the case; but already in him it is astonishing how the Greek dogmatic scheme of Christology had to give place in praxi to a scheme quite different. After he has shown in the 16th sermon that the rapid spread of Christianity was due simply to the preaching of the person of Jesus, that the image of Jesus had assuaged wrath, humbled pride, healed the wounds of envy, checked luxury, quenched lust, bridled avarice, and, in short, had driven out all the lower passions of men, he continues: Siquidem cum nomino Jesum, hominem mihi propono mitem et humilem corde, benignum, sobrium, castum, misericordem et omni denique honestate et sanctitate conspicuum eundemque ipsum deum omnipotent ac8 em, qui suo me et exemplo sanet et roboret adjutorio. Hæc omnia simul mihi sonant, cum insonuerit Jesus. Sumo itaque mihi exempla de homine et auxilium de potente.” Thus did one write, while in theory rejecting

pious feeling was unfettered in the monasteries.28 But as the same man who, 15in the seclusion of his monastery, spoke a new language of adoration, preached flight from the world, and called to the Pope that he sat in Peter’s chair to serve and not to rule — as this man at the same time continued fettered by all the hierarchical prejudices of his age, and himself guided the policy of the worldruling Church, even the pious in the Church in the twelfth century had not yet felt the contrast between Church and Christianity. The attachment of monachism to the Church was still of a naive kind; the contradiction between the actual form of the world-ruling Church and the gospel which it preached was felt, indeed, but always suppressed again.29 That great mendicant monk had not yet

Adoptianism! This Bemardine Christology, of which the roots lie in Augustine, requires no two-nature doctrine; it excludes it. It is fully represented by the formula that Jesus is the sinless man, approved by suffering, to whom the divine grace by which He lives has lent such power that His image takes shape in other men, i.e., incites to counter love and imparts humility. Caritas and humilitas were practical Christianity, till St. Francis gave as much vividness of form to the latter in his demand for poverty as was to be exhibited by love in imitation of Christ in His course of suffering. All the ascetic treatises of the period speak of humility; see Petrus Comestor, Hist. evang. c. 133: “est debita humilitas subdere se majori propter deum, abundans (humilitas) subdere se pari, superabundans subdere se minori.” Note the distinction also, so important subsequently in the doctrine of the merit of Christ, between debita, abundans, and superabundans. 28 It counterbalanced the legal righteousness and “meritoriousness” that lay close at hand from other sides. Ritschl remarks very correctly (Rechtf. und Versöhn. I.2, p. 117): “It is an erroneous view that the Latin Catholicism of the Middle Ages was summed up in the cultivation of legal righteousness and meritoriousness.” It has as its correlate the mysticism that sacrifices the personal ego, to which at one time a theologico-acosmistic, at another time a christologico-lyrical character is given. But the simple trust in God, who reveals His grace in Christ, with the confession: “Sufficit mihi ad omnem justitiam solum habere propitium, cui soli peccavi” (Bernh. serm. in cant. xxiii. 15), was certainly not wanting in individual cases. Here and there, but above all in view of death, it triumphed, both over the calculations of legal righteousness and over the vagueness of mysticism. Flacius and Chemnitz were right in seeking and collecting testimonies for the evangelical doctrine of justification from the Middle Ages, and as Augustine in his day could justly assert that his doctrine of grace had its tradition in the prayers of the Church, so Chemnitz also was entitled t ac8 o affirm that the cardinal evangelical doctrine could produce evidence for itself from earlier times, “Non in declamatoriis rhetoricationibus nec in otiosis disputationibus, sed in seriis exercitiis pænitentiæ et fidei, quando conscientia in tentationibus cum sua indignitate vel coram ipso judicio dei vel in agone mortis luctatur. Hoc enim solo modo rectissime intelligi potest doctrina de justificatione, sicut in scriptura traditur.” 29 The “eternal gospel” of Joachim of Fiore belongs to the close of our period, and for a time remained latent; see Reuter, l.c. II., p. 198 ff.

come on the scene whose appearing was to work the crisis in the fluctuating struggle between renunciation of the world and lordship over it. But already the Church was beset all around by the wrathful curses of the “heretics,” who saw in the Church’s powerful exercise of her dominion and in the alienation of her gifts of grace the features of the ancient Babylon. 16

2. The Development of Ecclesiastical Law.30 Let us notice at least in a few words the increased activity in ecclesiastical law in the period under review, which was not without its influence on the mode of conceiving of dogma, and on the history of dogma. First, it is a fact of importance that from the middle of the second half of the ninth century, Church law was framed more and more on a Pseudoisidorian basis. Second, the preponderating attention given to law in general, and the growing subjection of all ecclesiastical questions to legal conceptions are characteristics of the period. As to the first point, it is well known that the Popes always continued to take more to do with the administration of the dioceses,31 that the old metropolitan constitution lost its importance, and that the old constitutional state of things in general — during the first half of our period — fell into decay and ceased to exist. The Episcopal power, it is true, strengthened itself in many places by assuming a civil character, and on the other hand, the Emperors, from Otto I. to Henry III. after having reformed the enfeebled papacy, brought it for a time into dependence on the imperial crown. But as they also deprived all laymen, who were not princes, of all share in the direction of ecclesiastical affairs, and as they suppressed the independence of the local ecclesiastical bodies (the congregations), in the interests of imperialism and of “piety,” only the Emperor (who called himself rector ecclesiæ and vicarius Christi), the Pope, and the bishops remained as independent powers. It was about the property of the bishops, and on the question as to who was the true ruler of the divine state and

30

For the earliest period see Maassen, Gesch. der Quellen und Litt. des Kanonischen Rechts I. vol. (till Pseudoisidore) 1870. For the later period see v. Schulte, Gesch. der Quellen und Lit. des Kanonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf Gregor IX., 1875. See the introductions to von Friedberg’s edition of the corp. jur. can. 31 Nicholas I., Leo IX., Alexander II., Alexander III. represent the stages prior to Innocent III. But Gregory VII. was the soul of the great movement in the eleventh century.

the vicar of Christ, that the great battle was really waged between the empire and the reformed papacy. In this struggle the latter, acting on the 17 5641 impulse given by Gregory VII., developed itself into the autocratic power in the Church, and accordingly after having freed itself in Rome from the last remnants of older constitutional conditions, framed its legislation by means of numerous decretals. At the “œcumenical” Lateran Synods of 1123 and 1139, the papacy left no doubt as to this new position which it meant to assert.32 The Popes afterwards, 18till the time of Innocent

32

The numbering of the œcumenical Councils, which has now become a sententia communis among the curialist theologians, has been established on the authority of Bellarmin (see Döllinger and Reusch, Die Selbstbiographie des Cardinals Bellarmin, 1887, p. 226 ff. That previous to him Antonius Augustinus [ob. 1586] counted them in the same way, has been 564 pointed out by Buschball: “Die Professiones fidei der Päpste,” separately printed from the Röm. Quartalschr. 10 Bd., 1896, p. 62). In the sixteenth century there still prevailed the greatest diversity in the enumeration: indeed the majority did not regard those Councils in which the Greek Church did not take part as œcumenical at all. There was likewise conflict of opinion as to whether the Councils of Bâsle, Florence (and Constance), were to be reckoned in. Antonius Augustinus and Bellarmin (in the Roman edition of the Concilia generalia of 1608 f.), included the Lateran Councils of 1123 and 1139 (and left out the Council of Bâsle). “The question, it is true, was of subordinate importance for Bellarmin, in as much as he places on the same level with the decrees of the General Councils those of the ‘Particular’ Councils held under the presidency of the Pope, or sanctioned by him; but having in view those who held, not that the Pope, but that the General Council was infallible, it was certainly necessary for him to discuss the question as to what Councils are to be regarded as general.” But in thus determining the question, he naturally allowed himself to be influenced by his strong curialistic standpoint, that is, he set aside the Council of Constance and Bâsle, and placed among the œcumenical Councils that of Florence, t ac8 he fourth and fifth Lateran Councils, the first of Lyons, and that of Vienna, on the ground that these favoured the papacy. He thus arrived at the number of eighteen approved General Councils (eight from the first ten centuries, the Lateran Councils of 1123, 1139, 1179, 1215, those of Lyons in 1245 and 1274, that of Vienna in 1311, that of Florence, the fifth Lateran Council, and that of Trent). But here also, as everywhere in Catholic dogmatics, there are “half” authorities, and half genuine coin, in spite of the Holy Ghost who guides into all truth. That is to say, several Councils are “partly ratified, partly rejected,” those of Constance and Bâsle being among them, and the Council of Pisa in 1409 is “neither manifestly ratified nor manifestly rejected.” Since the year 1870, the question about the number of the Councils has completely lost all real interest for Catholics. But reactionary Protestantism has every reason to feel interested in it. Buschball (l.c. pp. 60, 74, 79), holds that in the Middle Ages a distinction in principle was not made between the view taken of the Councils of the first thousand years and that taken of those that were later. But he adduces no proof that prior to the Council of Constance the later Councils were placed quite on a level with the earlier, and even by

III., defended and strengthened their autocratic position in the Church amid severe but victorious struggles. No doubt, they had to hear many an anxious word from their most faithful sons; but the rise of the papacy to despotic power in the Church, and thereby to dominion over the world, was promoted by the piety and by all the ideal forces of the period. Not in opposition to the spirit of the times — how would that have been possible? — but in union with it, the papacy ascended the throne of the world’s history in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Its opponents, so far as they possessed religion, were its secret allies, or contended with doubtful consciences, or, at least, were unable to show that the benefits for which they fought (national churchism, etc.) were the highest and the holiest. Under such circumstances the papal decretals obtained an ever-increasing authority.33 They took their

what he adduces for the time subsequent uncertainty is suggested. How could the Mediæval Councils be regarded even before the Council of Trent as quite of equal standing with those of the first ten centuries, when, up to the time of this Council, the general opinion was certainly to the effect that dogma was contained in fundamental and final form in the twelve articles, and in the interpretation relating to them which they had received from the older Councils! The process of equalising was probably begun by the Councils of Florence and Basle, with their high degree of self-consciousnes. That Councils at all could be pointed to in the long period between the ninth and the fifteenth centuries, was necessarily of more importance than the taking account of what was decided at these Councils, of how they were constituted, and of the authority that guided them. We may very well venture to say therefore: in the fifteenth century the equalising had begun with some hesitation, the Council of Trent favoured it by its weight, and it then became established. 33 On the devel eaa opment of the primacy in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, see Döllinger, Janus, p. 107 ff. (Schwane, Dogmengesch. des Mittelalters, p. 530 ff.). How much stronger was the Gregorian party in the eleventh century than the Pseudoisidorian in the ninth, and how much more revolutionary and aware of his aim was Gregory VII. than Nicolas I.! “He was the first who, with full, clear consciousness, was determined to introduce a new condition of things into the Church by new means. He regarded himself not merely as the reformer of the Church, but as the divinely chosen founder of an order of things such as had never before existed.” His chief means were Synods held by the Pope (this was begun by Leo IX.) and new ecclesiastical law-books. The nephew of Pope Alexander II., Anselm of Lucca, became the founder of the new Gregorian Church law, this being effected by him partly by making apt use of that of Pseudoisidore, and partly by a new set of fictions (e.g., that the episcopacy everywhere originated from Peter) and forgeries. He was followed by Deusdedit, Bonizo, and Cardinal Gregorius. Deusdedit formulated the new principle, that contradictions in the traditional Church law must always be harmonised by letting, not the older, but the greater authority, that is, the dictum of the Pope cancel the opposite view. In this way the autocracy of the Popes was established. On the series of new fictions and falsifications of the old tradition, see Janus,

place 19beside the old canons,34 nay even beside the decrees of the œcumenical Councils. Yet, strictly speaking, the measure of their authority remained still quite uncertain, and prior to Innocent III. dogmatic questions were not treated in them, or treated only very seldom, while the Popes in general, in the period of 150 years from the Synod of Sutri till 1198, had their hands fully occupied with establishing the Roman autocratic and monastic Church order.35 In developing itself as the supreme court of jurisdiction, the papacy could never have obtained in the Church, which assuredly is fellowship in faith and worship, monarchical rule as regards faith and morals, had not the amalgamation of dogma and law become perfect in this period. It was not the Popes who brought about this fusion; they merely turned to account a mode of view which prevailed everywhere, and from which scarcely an individual dissented. In what has been represented from the beginning of Book II. of our Second Part, it has been shown that the legal view of religion was an old inheritance of the Latin Church; religion is lex dei, lex Christi. In principle, it is true, this view had been radically corrected by Augustinianism; but Augustine himself allowed the legal schemes to remain in many important particulars. Then there followed the mission of the Western Church among the foreign nations, pagan and Arian. With these it came into contact, not merely as an institution 20for religious worship, but as the Roman Christian system of civilisation and law. Not simply as a system of faith did it wish and venture to assert itself; it could assert itself at all, rather, only by placing its entire equipment, and all its principles, some of which

p.:12 ff. Specially important is the way in which history was induced to furnish testimony in proof of the infallibility of the papal decretals, and in which even Augustine was pronounced an authority for this new doctrine (p. 119 ff. ). A sentence of his was so manipulated that it came to mean that the papal letters stood on a level with canonical Scripture. Since then the defenders of the infallibility of the Pope, to which Gregory VII. already made a distinct claim, and, indeed, treated it as concessum (p. 124 ff.), have always appealed to Augustine. Indeed, Gregory VII., following an earlier precedent, ciaimed for the Popes a complete personal holiness — for they have all that Peter had — and the Pope’s holiness, in addition to his infallibility, was so boldly taught by the Gregorians (imputation of the merit of Peter) that anything stronger in the way of claim became impossible. 34 Alexander II. wrote to King Philip of France, requesting him to rank the papal decrees along with the canons; see Jaffé, Regesta, 2 Edit., Nr. 4525. 35 The Lateran Synods of 1123, 1139, 1179, contain nothing whatever of a dogmatic character (excepting the twenty-seventh canon of the Council of 1179, which urges the extermination of the Cathari, but says nothing of their doctrine); see Mansi XXI., XXII., Hefele V.2, pp. 378 ff., 438 ff., 710 ff.

had an extremely profane origin, under the protection of the divine law. Thus the Germanic and Romanic nations came to regard all legal ordinances of the Church as ordinances of faith, and vice versâ. Boniface and Charlemagne then set themselves to secure that the two would harmonise. The “must” became identical in the three sentences: “He who will be saved must believe as follows”; “the Christian must pay tithes”; “adultery must be atoned for by this particular penalty.” How busily the framing, or the codification, of Church law was carried on from the time when Dionysius Exiguus made his collection till the time of Pseudoisidore, is shown by the numerous collections which were everywhere produced — even in Rome still — by the rich synodical life of the provincial Churches, and which were meant to guard the independence, the rights, and the distinctive life of the Church in the new world of Germanic manners. Everywhere (prior to the ninth century) dogma fell quite into the background; but just on that account the feeling became habitual, of regarding all deliverances of the Church as legal ordinances. The Cluniacensian-Gregorian reform of the eleventh century put an end to numerous traditional ordinances pertaining to constitution and law, and replaced them with new ones, in which the independence of the Church in relation to the State, and of Roman universalism in relation to the national Churches, found ever stronger expression. As the result of this, there developed itself in the eleventh century an imposing legislation, which was gathered up and completed in Gratian’s collection — though this collection was in so far out of date and behind the facts, as in it the legislation was not yet determined throughout by the thought of the concentration of ecclesiastical power in the hands of the Pope.36 But besides their adoption of the Gregorian doctrines, this collection, and some older ones that preceded it, show quite a new turn of things, for they are the product of a study of law. Here also Gregory VII. was 21epoch-making. He was the great jurist in the papal chair, and from his time onward, the treatment of all functions of the Church in accordance with juristic science began to be the main problem. The study of law, carried on chiefly in Bologna,37 exercised an immeasurable influence on the intellectual vision of the Church throughout its whole extent; the study of law, indeed, moulded thought in general. Hellenism also at that time exerted an incalculable influence in the way of fostering this study. The Romo-Grecian legislation came into the West, and although,

36

See v. Schulte, Lehrbuch des Kathol. und evang. Kirchenrechts 4 Aufl., p. 20. See Denifle, Die Univ. des Mittelalters I. 1885. Kaufmann, Gesch. der deutschen Univers. I., p. 157 ff. 37

at the first, it began by modifying what was still a “barbarian” form of secular legal life there, and by building up a sovereign State with its laws and officials, it yet gradually exercised also a furthering influence on the construction of the strict monarchical Church system; for what is legal for the Emperor is allowable for the Pope; or rather — he is in truth the Emperor. It cannot be doubted that here also Rome knew how to gather grapes of thorns and figs of thistles. The new rights of its adversary, the Emperor, it applied to itself. What had formerly developed itself under the force of circumstances — the Church as a legal institution — was now strengthened and built up by thought.38 Juristic thought laid its arrest on everything. And yet even here need controlled the situation. For when the impulse to reflect is once awakened, what else can those at first become, who still live in a world of abstractions and are blind to nature and history, but jurists and dialecticians? Thus there settled down upon the whole Church, even upon its faith, the spirit of jurisprudence, now grown conscious of itself. Everything was laid hold of by it. It was a strong force in what is styled “Scholasticism”; it governed the most powerful Popes (Alexander III. as Magister Rolandus), and it began to bring 22within its sweep the form in which the traditional dogmas were presented. Certainly this was an easy matter for it; for in their practical conclusions these dogmas had already been made to serve quite as legal means in a legal process. What still remained was to submit to juristic exposition even the central tenets of faith themselves, and so to justify and defend them “scientifically.” Here too, indeed, the material was not entirely in a raw state; to some extent, rather, the foundation stones had received a juristic shaping from the Latin fathers of dogma themselves (cf. Tertullian); but there was still an immense task presenting itself, to the full accomplishment of which an approach even had never been made; it was to re-think the whole dogmatic tradition in the spirit of jurisprudence, to represent every-thing under the categories of judge (God), accused, advocate, legal measures, satisfactions, penalties, indulgences, to make out of

38

See v. Schulte, Gesch. der Quellen, etc., I., p. 92 ff.; II., p. 512 f. As Gregory VII. held still more strongly than any of his predecessors that the Church is the kingdom founded upon Peter, and that everything is to be traced back to the power given to it, the legal organism was placed in the foreground; see Kahl, Die Verschiedenheit Kathol. und Evang. Anschauung über das Verhältniss von Staat und Kirche (1886), p. 7 f.: “The character of the Catholic Church as a legal organism is already involved in the doctrine of its founding, and in the conception of it.” The fullest and most reliable historic proofs in Hinschius, Kath. Kirchenrecht.

dogmas as many distinctions as obtain in secular legal order between universally valid, relatively valid, probable, consuetudinary law, positive law, etc., and to convert dogmatics into a chamber of justice, out of which there was afterwards to develop the merchant’s hall and the den of thieves. But in the period we are considering, the Church was certainly the basis and sum of the highest ideals of the mediæval man, and the enormous contradiction on which one proceeded — had proceeded indeed, from the time of Augustine — of regarding the Church as at once the society of the faithful (societas fidelium), and as the hierarchically organised assemblage (coetus), of recognising the secular power in its divine right and yet suppressing its authority, was by many scarcely felt39. Only at the end of the epoch did the inner antagonism become apparent; but the hierarchy had then already become the Church. Just at that time, therefore, the claim of the hierarchy, and specially of the papacy, was proclaimed as dogma, and the struggle of the 23civil powers against the despotism of the Pope was declared to be as really rebellion against Christ as was the assertion of the sects that the true Church is the opposite of the hierarchy. This will have to be dealt with in the following chapter. 3. The Revival of Science.40 Theologians and philosophers have vied with one another in endeavouring to find a specific definition of Scholasticism, and to differentiate what this term is meant to denote, from the theology and philosophy of the old (Greek) Church on the one hand, and from modern science on the other. These efforts have led to no accepted result; nor could they lead to any such, for Scholasticism is simply nothing but scientific thought. That this thought was

39

In the valuable inquiry of Mirbt, Die Stellung Augustin’s in der Publicistik des gregorianischen Kirchenstreits (1888) — cf. the same author’s work “Die Publicistik im Zeitalter Gregor’s VII.,” 1894 — the significance of Augustine for the struggles in Church politics in the eleventh century has for the first time been methodically and thoroughly described. It amounted directly to less than one would have expected, and it is noteworthy that the Antigregorians can show a larger heritage of Augustinian thoughts than their opponents (see Theol. Lit. Ztg., 1889, Col. 599). 40 See the histories of philosophy by Ueberweg, Erdmann and Stöckl; Prantl, Gesch. der Logik Bd. II.-IV.; Bach, l.c., I. and II.; Reuter, Gesch. der Aufkl. I. and II.: Löwe, Der Kampf zwischen dem Nominalismus und Realismus, 1876; Nitzsch, Art. Scholastische Theologie in der R.-E., XIII.2, p. 650 ff., where in p. 674 ff., the literature is noted. Dilthey, Einl. in die Geisteswissensch. I. Denifle, 1.c.; Kaufmann, l.c., p. 1 ff.; Denifle in the Archiv f. Litt.-u. Kirchengesch. des Mittelalters, I. and II.; v. Eicken, l.c., p. 589 ff.

governed by prejudices,41 and that from these it in some respects did not free itself at all, and in some respects freed itself only slowly, is shared by the science of the Middle Ages with the science of every age. Neither dependence on authorities, nor the preponderance of the deductive method, was specially characteristic of Scholasticism; for science in fetters has existed in every period — our descendants will find that present-day science is in many respects not controlled merely by pure experience — and the dialectico-deductive method is the means that must be used by all science that has the courage to emphasise strongly the conviction of the unity of all that is. But it is not even correct to say that within mediæval science that method prevailed alone, or chiefly. The realism that was represented by Albert and Thomas, acting upon impulses received 24from Augustine, made excellent use of experience, and Scotism and Nominalism in particular are partly based on the empiric method, though as compared with the deductive, Duns may have found fault with this method as confused. What is of importance here is only this, that the observation of the external world was extremely imperfect, that, in a word, natural science, and the science of history did not exist, the reason being that men knew how to observe spirit, but not how to observe things of sense.42 But least of all must Scholasticism be reproached with treating “artificial,” “fabricated” problems. On its premises they were not artificial, and if they were boldly wrought out, it was only a proof of scientific energy. The Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, then, was simply science, and it is merely perpetuating an unwarranted mistrust when it is thought that this part of the general history of science may be designated by a special name.43 As if science in general

41

The fundamental prejudice, which, however, Scholasticism shared with the theology of antiquity, and unfortunately also of modern times, was that theology is cognition of the world, or that it has to verify and complete cognition of the world. If it is said to-day that it has to supplement it, seeing that it steps in where knowledge fails, modesty has extorted the expression, but the same thing is still meant. 42 Yet even this does not apply to the whole of Scholasticism. Especially in its later period, it pointed also to the book of nature. 43 Kaufmann remarks correctly, p. 5: “There still attaches to the term Scholasticism something of the hatred and contempt which the Humanists poured upon it.” This hostile spirit is, no doubt, intelligible, inasmuch as Scholasticism still threatens our present-day science. Yet in more recent years a complete change of judgment has appeared, which comes to the help of the Pope in his renewed recommendations of St. Thomas. Indeed, in the effort to be just, the once disparaged Scholasticism is beginning to be extravagantly belauded, as is shown by the pronouncement of a very celebrated jurist. With this praise the circumstance may also have some connection, that the Schoolmen are now being read

had not its stages, as if the mediæval stage was distinguished from the rest by its unparalleled and culpable obscurity! On 25 the contrary, it may rather be said that Scholasticism furnishes a unique and luminous example of the fact that thought finds its way even under the most adverse conditions, and that even the gravest prejudices that weigh it down are not heavy enough to quench its life. The science of the Middle Ages gives practical proof of eagerness in thinking, and exhibits an energy in subjecting all that is real and valuable to thought, to which we can find, perhaps, no parallel in any other age.44 Hence it is useless to direct one’s ingenuity to answering the question as to what kind of science presents itself in Scholasticism; we have simply rather to inquire into the conditions under which scientific thought was placed at that time. Not equally useless, but vaguely treated, is the academic question, much discussed and marked by confusion and wearisomeness, with regard to the relation of Scholasticism to Mysticism.45 If by Scholasticism there is understood (though this is arbitrary) “the hand-maid of hierarchism,” or, with sudden change of front, the “construction of systems without concern for the needs of the inner life,” or the “rationalistic craving for proof,” and if Mysticism is then placed alongside as the free pectoral theology, then the most beautiful

again, and readers find to their surprise that they are not so irrational as had been believed. The strongest contribution to the glorification of Thomas has been furnished by Otto Willmann in the second volume of his “Gesch. des Idealismus” (1896). Here Idealism and Thomism (of the strictest type) are simply placed on a level. Nominalism is the corrupt tree, which can hear no good fruit, and is to be regarded, moreover, merely as an episode, as a nubicula; for since its rising, the sun of the Thomist Realism has been always in the heavens, and has given warmth to every century. The real enemy of Thomas and of Idealism is Kantianism, which has slowly prepared itself, that, on its assuming its perfect form, it may forthwith be assailed and overthrown by the true Idealism. Protestantism is viewed as the continuation of monistic Mysticism (!), because it (v. the strict determinism) does not take account of the causes secundh. So Thomism alone, sans phrase, is the saviour of the holy things of humanity! Augustinianism at the same time still finds recognition here, but yet it is still no completed system; it only represents the way to the right one. 44 We may say, indeed, with the poet about that age: “Everything now aims at fathoming man from within and from without; truth, where hast thou an escape from the wild chase?” 45 On Mysticism, see the works which Karl Müller has cited in his krit. Uebersicht (Zeitschr. f. K.-Gesch. VII., p. 102 ff.). Above all the numerous works of Denifle and Preger (Gesch. der deutschen Mystik I., II.) have to be consulted; as also Greith, Die deutsche Mystik im Predigerorden, 1861. For the earlier Mysticism, cf. the monographs on Anselm, Bernard, and the Victorinians.

contrasts can be drawn — Hagar and Sarah, Martha and Mary. But with little trouble Scholasticism and Mysticism can, on the other hand, be resolved into each other, and a daring dialectic performance can be carried on with these terms, which does honour to the acuteness of the author, but which has only the disadvantage that one is as wise after, as before, the definitions have been given. The thing to be dealt with here is simple. Scholasticism is science, applied to religion, and — at least, till the time when it underwent self-disintegration — science setting out from the axiom, that all things are to be understood from theology, that all things therefore must be 26traced back to theology. This axiom regularly presupposes that the thinker feels himself to be in entire dependence on God, that he seeks to know this dependence ever more deeply, and that he uses every means for the strengthening of his own religious life; for only in the measure in which he finds, and knows himself to be, under and in God, is he made capable of understanding all else, since, of course, to understand things means nothing else than to know their relation to the One and All, or to the Author (i.e., in both cases, to God). From this it follows at once that personal piety is the presupposition of science. But in so far as personal piety at that time was always thought of as contemplation of the relation of the ego to God accompanied by asceticism,46 Mysticism is the presupposition of Scholasticism; in other words, mediæval science bases itself on piety, and on piety, too, which is itself contemplation, which lives therefore in an intellectual element. From this it follows, that this piety itself prompts to thought; for the strong impulse to become acquainted with the relation of one’s own ego to God necessarily leads to the determination of the relation of the creation, of which one knows himself to be a part, to God. Now, where this knowledge is so pursued that insight into the relation of the world to God is sought for solely or chiefly with the view of understanding the position of one’s own soul to God, and of inwardly growing through such understanding, we speak of Mystic theology.47 But where this reflex aim of the process of knowledge does not present itself so distinctly, where, rather, the knowledge of the world in its relation to God acquires a more independent

46

Piety is, above all, not the hidden temper of feeling and will, from which spring love to one’s neighbour, humility and patience, but it is growing cognition, begotten of steadfast reflection on the relation of the soul to God. 15a4 47How largely dependent on Scholasticism the later Mystic theology in particular was; or, more correctly, how identical the two were, has been shown especially by the works of Denifle (against Preger in the histor. polit. Blattern, 1875, p. 679 ff., and on Master Eckhart in the Archiv f. Litt.-u. K.-Gesch. des Mittelalters II. Bd.).

objective interest,48 the term Scholastic theology 27is employed. From this it appears that we have not before us two magnitudes that run parallel, or that, forsooth, collide with each other, but that Mystic theology and Scholastic theology are one and the same phenomenon, which only present themselves in manifold gradations, according as the subjective or objective interest prevails.49 The former interest was so little lacking even to the most distinguished Schoolmen that their whole theology can be unhesitatingly described as also Mystic theology — for Thomas, Mysticism is the starting-point and practical application of Scholasticism — and, on the other hand, there are theologians who are described as Mystics, but who, in the strength of their desire to know the world, and to understand in a systematic way the Church doctrine, are not a whit behind the so-called Schoolmen. But in saying this the further position is already stated, that a specific difference between the scientific means 35e8 had likewise no existence. Here also it is simply a question of shade (nuance). The view of the God in whom, and from whom, all things must be

48

It is only a question of difference of degree; very correctly Karl Müller says (Zeitschr. f. K.-Gesch. VII., p. 118): “The character of mediæval piety always expresses itself, more or less, even in the theoretic discussions of Scholasticism, because among the representatives of the latter the entire half of the way of salvation is dominated throughout by the interests and points of view of Mysticism, this circumstance having a connection with their monastic training and education. As soon as these men come to deal in their theoretical discussions with the appropriation of salvation, they bring along with them the presuppositions of their practical Mysticism.” 49 Even in Nitzsch’s determination of the relationship (l.c., pp. 651 ff., 655) I cannot find a clearing up, while in Thomasius-Seeberg the distinct vision of the matter is completely obscured by a mass of details. Nitzsch first accentuates strongly the formalistic character of Scholasticism, then, with a view to understanding Mystic theology, points to its origin, the Pseudo-Dionysian doctrine, and now concludes: “It is obvious that this theology of the soul, of feeling, and of direct intuition is fundamentally distinct from the Scholastico-dialectic theology.” But the assertion that the Scholastic theology is formalistic is scarcely cum grano salis correct, as will appear more clearly below. How can one call a mode of thought formalistic which takes the greatest interest in relating everything to a living unity? And if the means employed cannot secure the proposed end (as we think), have we therefore a right to reproach these scholars with a merely formalistic interest in things? But, further, the Pseudo-Dionysian theology is as much the presupposition of Scholasticism as of Mysticism, and that which Nitzsch calls “theology of the soul, of feeling, and of direct intuition” plays in both the same part, as alpha and omega, while the Mystic theology certainly keeps manifestly to its point of departure throughout the whole alphabet, the Scholastic, on the other hand, apparently forsakes it, but in the end (doctrine of the way of salvation) always returns to it, thereby showing that it has never really lost sight of it.

understood, was given by the Church tradition. But in this view also subjective piety was 28trained. The formal shaping elements were likewise everywhere the same. Inasmuch as the scientific means were derived entirely from the same three sources, the authoritative dogma, inner experience, and the traditional philosophy, any differences that would be more than varieties cannot be made out (a greater or less passing into the background of logical formalism, a preference for inner observation over authoritative tradition50). Yet it is said that great inner antagonisms entered into mediæval science. Anselm and his opponents are pointed to, Bernard and Abelard, the German theologians of the fourteenth century and the Churchmen who pronounced them heretics, and from the contrasted positions in these cases the formula is framed, that here Mysticism is in conflict with Scholasticism. Differences certainly there are here; but that stock controversial term throws a very uncertain light on them. Above all, the phenomena here gathered together can by no means be united in one group. But before we deal with them, it will be well to answer the main question stated above, under what conditions the scientific thought of the Middle Ages was placed, or, let us say, how it developed itself, and what were the concrete factors which determined it (in the way of advancing or retarding), and thereby gave it its peculiar stamp. From this inquiry the proper light will naturally be thrown upon these “antagonisms” which are erroneously represented when they are described as a struggle of two opposing principles. The Middle Ages received from the ancient Church not only the substantially completed dogma, but also — as a living force — the philosophy, or say, the theology which had been employed in the shaping of dogma, and together with this also a treasury of classical literature, which had little or no connection with the philosophy and the dogma, but which answered to an element in the antique view of life in Italy and Byzantium that had never quite disappeared. These three things constituted the legacy of the old world to the new. But they already contained in them all the contrasts that came to view in the inner life of the Middle Ages, when consciousness of that inheritance had been awakened. 29These “antagonisms” were as actively at work in the Greek Church from the days of Origen and Jerome as they afterwards were in the Mediæval Church. In this sense all scientific developments of the West in the Middle Ages were simply a

50

Scholasticism shares with Mysticism the “finis,” and Mysticism uses essentially the same means as Scholasticism.

continuation of what the Greek Church had already partly passed through, and was partly still continuing to pass through in feeble movements. The difference consisted only in this, that in the West everything gradually developed itself to a higher degree of energy; that the Church, as the visible commonwealth of God on earth, impressed its stamp on all secular life, taking even science into closer connection with itself, giving it a higher flight, and at the same time requiring it by its authority to adopt juristic thought; and finally in this, that from Greek science Augustinianism was absent. We have remarked above that along with the substantially completed dogma the Middle Ages received from antiquity the related philosophy or theology. But this very circumstance introduced strain: for while this theology was certainly “related,” yet as certainly also did it contain, as a living force, elements that were hostile to dogma, whether we think of Neoplatonism or Aristotelianism. It is well known that in the Greek Church, from the fifth and sixth centuries, both schools worked upon dogma, and that “heresies” to the right and left were the result (pantheism and tritheism, spiritualistic Mysticism and rationalistic Criticism), and that then, from the Justinian age, the Scholasticism evolved itself which found the via media between the Areopagite and John Philoponus.51 In the theological science of John of Damascus there presents itself the reconciliation of dogma with Neoplatonism and Aristotelianism.52 Here the former plays the principal part in the principles, the latter in the working out; for with the help of dialectic distinction one can remove all difficulties and contradictions that emerge. But the independent force of the Neoplatonic and Aristotelian philosophies was not broken by the harmonising. The books in which they were contained continued to be read, and thus in Byzantium the strain did not cease. Mystic 30theology was further cultivated, Aristotle was studied, and although the acts of aggression always grew feebler, both of them threatened the Church with its dogma, the Church that was meanwhile growing more powerless in the embraces of the State. There were the further circumstances that memories of the theologically unconcerned age of antiquity had never died out, that a certain worldly culture, indifferent to religion, and often indeed degenerating into barbarism, still survived, which was strong enough to hinder the Eastern Church from ever making even an approach to the carrying out of its ideals and aims in secular life

51 52

v. Vol. IV. p. 232 f. of this work. Vol. IV. p. 264 f.; see also p. 331 ff.

and secular culture. From the days of the Alexandrian Theophilus monks and pious laymen might lament over the godlessness of the ancient literature and wish it in hell, but no one was able either to banish it, or to purify it, and bring it entirely into the service of ecclesiastical science. If we pass now to the Carlovingian period, i.e., to the first epoch of scientific advance in the West, we find exactly the same elements side by side, only with one important addition (Augustinianism). There is an eager endeavour to become acquainted with the traditional dogma and to think it out, and, as the Adoptian controversy shows, there is at the same time a surrender to entire dependence on the Greeks. In the writings of Boethius and Isidore there is possessed a source, rich enough for that period, from which the dialectic science of method may be learned. As the work of John Scotus shows, the Neoplatonic Mysticism had already become known to the West from the writings of Dionysius and Maximus; besides this, however, it was represented in a theistic setting, and with incomparable attractiveness, by Augustine. Finally, the ancient literature (poets and historians) was sought out, and through contact with Italy there arose the seductive pictures of a blithesome life that had never altogether vanished. But the forces which the West had at its command at that time were still too weak to admit of working independently with the capital that had been inherited. To become familiar with Augustine and Gregory I., to understand the christological speculations of the Greeks, and to master the simplest rules of logic and method — that was the real task of the period. What was 31attempted beyond this, Scotus excepted, was a feeble renaissance: indeed the union of the antique with the theological at the court of Charles the Great has something childish. This union therefore was soon dissolved again. Not for the first time under Louis the Pious, but as early as the last years of Charles I. himself, the ascetic thought of the ancient Church asserted its influence even in science. And so it continued to be afterwards; we can observe indeed, on till the thirteenth century, a steady increase of aversion to the antique, while, no doubt, some bold spirits sought more than before to learn from it. In theory secular studies were discarded. Ancient literature was regarded as a source of temptations. All science which did not place itself under theology, i.e., which did not refer everything to the knowledge of God, was held to be pernicious, nay, to be a seduction of the devil. But as what is characteristic, in all fields, of the mediæval view of the world consists in this, that it aims at uniting the ununitable, and requires that negation of the world shall be attained in the form of dominion over it, so we observe here

also that what is rejected is again adopted. Ancient literature and philosophy were certainly employed as a formal means of culture, and with a view also to the refutation of pagans, Jews, and heretics, and to a fathoming of the divine mysteries. It was to some extent the same persons who rejected them in the end, who on their slow, toilsome journey to the summit made use of them. And where they were different persons, yet there was at bottom between the two an elective affinity; for all thinkers who came to be influential, though some of them may appear to us “illuminists” (Aufklärer) and others traditionalists, were dominated by the same fundamental thought of tracing back all things to God and understanding them from Him. And when in the end the Church released Aristotle and allowed full use to be made of him, that was not done by way of yielding to outward constraint, but because the Church theology was now strong enough to master this master, and because he could furnish it with the most effectual help against the dangers of a bold idealism which threatened dogma. Though the schools, the universities, might not be ecclesiastical institutions in the strict sense of the term, science 32was ecclesiastical, theological. There was no lay science. The thought of such science was for that age equivalent to paganism and nihilism. From the Carlovingian period a chain of scientific tradition and schools of learning extends into the eleventh century;53 but a continuous increase of scientific activity cannot be ascertained, and even the greatest masters (Gerbert of Rheims) did not produce effects that were epoch-making. Not till the middle of the century was the advancement begun that was followed by no further declension, and the thread formed that was not again to break. The inner rise of the Church was unquestionably the determining cause of this upward movement of science, although we are surprised at meeting quite at the beginning with a trained skill in dialectic for which we had not been prepared, and which must have gone on developing in the dark ages (saculum obscurum) in spite of their darkness. But how could the inner revival of the Church have continued without results for science? The Church conceived itself at that time as spiritual power, as the power of the supersensuous life over the sensuous; the subject of science was the supersensuous; science, therefore, was challenged by this revival! But even the science which revels in the transcendental, and which readily attaches itself to revelations, cannot deny its character as science. Even where it is, and wishes to be, the handmaid of revelation, it will always embrace an element by which it offends

53

Berengar was a disciple of Fulbert of Chartres (ob. 1028); the latter had studied under Gerhert.

the faith which desires rest; it will exhibit a freshness and joy which to devoutness appears as insolence; nay, even when it knows itself to be one with the Church in its starting-point and aims, it will never be able to deny a negative tendency, for it will always be justified in finding that the principles of the Church suffer deterioration in the concrete expressions of life, and are disfigured by superstition. In the dazzling light in which Reuter, the marvellous master of that literature, has presented the conflicts between young mediæval science and the men of the Church (Berengar and Lanfranc, Anselm and his opponents, Abelard and Bernard), 33the persons engaged appear like spectral caricatures. Because this scholar tries to find “negative illuminism” everywhere in the movements, things are deprived of their proportion, and the common ground on which the combatants stand almost entirely disappears. With wonder and astonishment we see one Herostratus after another cross the stage, surrounded by troops of like-minded disciples; the “primacy of infallible reason” is set up bcac by them, after they have destroyed authority; the antitheses become as abrupt as cliffs, and frightful chasms open up. But the biographer of these heroes, so far as he does not charge them with hypocrisy, must himself regularly acknowledge in some stray turn of thought, that they stood in closest connection with their age and with their opponents, that their enormously magnified performances were of a much more modest kind, and that the great illuminists were obedient sons of the Church. In opposition to this representation we follow out the hints given above, in order to elucidate and understand these struggles. In the higher rise of science three things were involved: the penetrating more deeply into the Neoplatonic-Augustinian principles of all theology, the dialectic art of analysis, and, united with both, a certain knowledge of the ancient classics and of the Church Fathers. As regards those principles, it was the spirit of the so-called Platonic Realism that prevailed. By means of it, as it had been derived from Augustine and from dogma itself, and from a hundred little sources also, dogma — but the world, too, as well — came to be understood, and all things came to be known from and in God. Till the beginning of the twelfth century this Platonic Realism, with its spiritualistic sublimating tendency and its allegorical method, reigned pretty much unbroken. It reigned all the more securely, the less a conception of it had as yet been

consciously formed (as a theory of knowledge).54 It 34was peculiar to it that it set out from faith, and then made itself master of dogma in the way in which dogma had formerly arisen (“credo ut intelligam” — this position of Augustine was not merely reasserted by Anselm, but was willingly assented to by all Church thinkers of the period). But it was, further, peculiar to it that it took a flight beyond dogma. This had occurred in Greek Mysticism as well as with Augustine, and it repeated itself, without the danger being observed, from the eleventh century (and just, too, among the “most pious” philosophers). Here lay the first antagonism. As one got to understand dogma by the help of the same means by which it had arisen, that idea of the immanence of God, of all things existing in God, asserted itself, before which the historical, and dogma itself, threatened to vanish, i.e., were viewed as the final stage needing sublimation. So Origen thought, so also had Augustine felt, and had expressed it at the outskirts of his speculation,55 so was it taught by the Greek Mystics.56 From this point, as by a circuit, a complete rehabilitation of reason could take place. After getting its dismissal at the beginning — revelation

54

Till far on in the twelfth century the scholars were not first philosophers and then theologians; they possessed as yet no philo abb sophic system at all; their philosophy rather was quite essentially dialectic art; see Deutsch, Abælard, p. 96: “The relation of philosophy to theology in the initial period of Scholasticism was essentially different from what it was at its maturity. In the earlier period a proper philosophic system, a view of the world developed on different sides, had as yet no existence. Only logic was known with some completeness . . .but, as a distinct discipline, metaphysic did not yet exist for the philosophers of that period. What they had of it consisted in single propositions, partly Platonic, partly Aristotelian. . . . Only when the Aristotelian writings became known in the second half of the twelfth century did the West learn to know a real philosophic system.” 55 See Vol. V., p. 125 ff. 56 Hence even in the question about the universals, which was already dealt with at that time on the basis of passages from Porphyry and Boethius, the treatment was almost entirely realistic: general notions exist in and of themselves, or they exist in things as their real essence (though very different turns of thought were possible here in matters of detail; see Prantl, Gesch. der Logik, II., p. 118 ff.). Certainly there were already to be found also in this period representatives of Nominalism, according to which general notions are intellectus, or, say, only voces; indeed, it probably always existed side by side with Realism; but theology still treated it with indifference. When the Nominalist Roscellin, the teacher of Ahelard, applied the Nominalist view to the doctrine of the Trinity, he was resisted by Anselm (v. Deutsch, p. 100 f.). The latter had no doubt that those who held the universales substantiæ to be mere votes, must err from the Christian faith, and were heretics. But how did it stand with those who logically applied the substantiality of general notions?

decides and authority — reason was now the means for removing out of the way whatever hindered the thought of the absoluteness, the immutability and immanence of God. It neutralised miracle, in order to give expression to the strict uniformity of the operation 35of the All-One; it neutralised even the history of salvation, and history in general, or transformed it into the circulating course of the operative Being that is, was, and shall be; it neutralised, finally, the creature. The “illuminist” of the eleventh and twelfth centuries would still have to be found who did not play his “illuminist” part under the influence of this mysticism, who did not likewise take the “credo ut intelligam” as his starting-point. Though, like Berengar, he might compare the literally understood Jewish law with the laws of the Romans, Athenians, and Spartans in order to give the palm to the latter, though like Abelard, he might unite into one the history of salvation and general history in the “philosophy of religion on a historic basis” — this was still done on the understanding that there was to be absolute validity obtained for all that the Church offered of material content, by means of sublimating (allegory); it was done in the name of the conception of God and of the theology which prevailed also among the opponents, so far as they thought at all, and these latter started back before conclusions which Justin, Origen, and the great group of Greek and Latin Fathers had long before drawn.57 So it was not that principle stood opposed to principle, but the amount of application was disputed58 — unless we should have to regard as

ad5 57

The inquiry would be interesting and important that would lead us to determine whether, and through what channels, the older Pre-Jeromic Church literature influenced Scholasticism; e.g., are the agreements of Abelard with Justin and Origen accidental, or only indirect, or direct? That the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache continued to have influence admits of proof. Contradictions within tradition, between the older and the later, and again between tradition (the sacred canons) and Scripture had already been discovered in the Gregorian period, and up to a certain point had been admitted (see Mirbt, Augustine, p. 3 f.); but Abelard was the first to emphasise the importance of these contradictions, while on the other hand, certainly, he began to have an inkling of what his contemporaries were far from thinking of, namely, that errors promote the progress of truth. 58 It surely does not require to be specially noted, that no teacher of importance in this period drew all the conclusions of Platonic Realism (as little as Augustine did). They lay only on the horizon of their view, and were touched on in passages here and there. Till Abelard taught him better, William of Champeaux, it is true, seems to have asserted the full immanence of the generic notion, conceived of substantially, in every individual, a view which must necessarily have led to the doctrine of the one latent substance, and of the negating of all that is individual as mere semblance or mere contingency. This doctrine certainly lay on the outskirts of the view then taken of the world, and made its

the real principle 36of mediæval ecclesiastical theology, lack of thought, or blind surrender. But that was not what the Church Fathers taught, nor was it what the Church itself wished when it again conceived of itself as spiritual power in the eleventh century. How slight really is the distinction between Berengar and Anselm as theologians! It often entirely disappears; for how far were those represented as wild destroyers from drawing the conclusions in their totality, and from repeating, say, the thoughts of Erigena! They were not innovators, but restorers; not a trace is to be found in them of negative illuminism. In the Greek Church Aristotelianism had made its appearance when dogma and speculation could no longer be reconciled, and it rendered the Church invaluable service as the Horos which kept the Sophia of the Mystics from plunging into the abyss of the primeval Father. But along with these services it had at the same time brought at first unpleasant gifts in addition. While it checked unrestrained idealism, and at the same time set to work to make paradoxical and burdensome formulæ tolerable by means of distinctions, it also subjected to revision formulæ that collapsed as soon as their basis of Platonic Realism was taken from them. This Aristotelianism, which was so necessary, but of which there had been such bad experiences, as it appeared in John Philoponus and other Greeks, not to speak of the old Antiochian School, was known also to those in the West, through Boethius, and from other sources (in a poor enough form, no doubt, more directly as logical method), and long before had concluded (in the case of Boethius himself, e.g.), an irregular marriage with the Neoplatonic doctrine of principles. To the spirit of the West, which had more of understanding than of reason, and, as juristic also, constantly strove after distinctions, this Aristotelianism was congenial. From it there developed “dialectic,” at first, too, as scientific art. And as this scientific art always encourages insolence and pride where it is held to be the sum of all wisdom, so was it at the beginning of the Middle Ages. The schooled “ dialecticians” of the eleventh 37century looked proudly down on the obscurantists who did not understand art, while these again became concerned about the traditional Church doctrine, although the operations of the youthful science only seldom touched the kernel of things, unless it was that one here and there ventured too far with his art in regard to dogmas that stood in the centre of vision (doctrines of the Trinity, of the two natures, of the Eucharist), and, anticipating the later Nominalism, or recalling unpleasant facts in the history of

appearance in Mysticism as the expression of pious contemplation, afterwards even as a theoretic conviction. On Abelard’s having the credit of discarding it see below.

tradition, served up a questionable attempt at solving the trinitarian problem (tritheistic, Sabellian), or approached too near the old Adoptianism, or threw doubt on the current opinion about the external miracle in the Eucharist. In this way the first conflicts arose, which were lacking in real sharpness, however, because the dialectic itself stood in league with Platonic Realism, and at bottom did not know very often what it really wanted. At the same time it must not be denied, that wherever the understanding is brought in, it will assert its own rights and will overleap the limits of a purely formal activity. But it is shown, e.g., by the science of Anselm, how peacefully, under certain conditions, dogma, Platonic Realism, and dialectic harmonised. Yet in the twelfth century that came to be otherwise. In Abelard59 both the critical tendency of Platonic Realism (cf. his 38view of history) and the critical tendency of dialectic grew stronger, without his abandoning, however, in the fundamental theses, his relation of dependence on the Church doctrine. Abelard was the boldest theologian of his time, because he understood how to derive the critical side from all elements of tradition, and was really persuaded of the defectiveness just of what was held valid.

59

See the excellent monograph of Deutsch upon him (1883), the best book we possess on the history of the theological science of that period, distinguished pre-eminently by calmness and caution of judg 564 ment, as compared with the overstrained biographies to the right and left. In the introduction, p. 11 f., it is denied on good grounds that there was a widely prevailing negative illuminism in this period. What widely prevailed was not negative but ecclesiastical, and what was negative (frivolity of course there has been in every age; “the frivolity and avarice of the jeunesse dorée that vaunted itself in the apostolic chair up to the middle of the eleventh century”: Sackur) or expressly heretical had no widespread influence (to what extent at the time of the establishment of Clugny practical and theoretical atheism, frivolous criticism of the Bible, etc., prevailed among the West-Frankian lay circles is shown by Sackur). That to Abelard there belongs a unique position in his time, Deutsch has grounds for asserting, but he is far from characterising him simply as an illuminist. If it were necessary to describe him as such, then it would be peculiar to Catholic religion to be purely acquiescent faith — but at that time at least it certainly had not yet made that claim; then Justin, Origen, and Augustine would be “creedless free-thinkers”; then Abelard himself would be a double-tongued hypocrite, for his wish was to be a Church theologian, believing in revelation, and yet at the same time one who could give account of his faith and ac8 was capable of showing it to be plain truth. That while this was his aim he became entangled in contradictions, that in undertaking to commend religion to the understanding he frequently had more regard to the judge than to the client, was certainly not peculiar to him as a theologian! For ascertaining the theology of Abelard the sentences of his disciple, Magister Roland Alexander III. (see the edition by Gietl, 1891, and Denifle in Archiv, Vol. I., pp. 434 ff. 603 ff.) may be consulted.

His opponents of his day thought that the dangers of his science arose quite essentially from his dialectic, and, accordingly, discredited this above everything else. In point of fact, boldness in submitting particulars to the treatment of the understanding was an outstanding feature in Abelard; the understanding, too, when once released, asserted its own rights, frequently overleapt the boundaries theoretically recognised, scorned authority, and proclaimed, with the support of a certain knowledge of ancient history, the eternal right of reasonable thought as the highest court of appeal. But that the most dangerous theses of the restless scholar sprang from Platonic (Augustinian) Realism, i.e., from the fundamental view that was adhered to by one’s self, was not observed. In principle Abelard certainly moderated this view by means of his critico-dialectic reflections. He was no more a representative of thorough-going Realism. He was rather the first to introduce into epistemology a kind of conceptualism,60 to break through the strict doctrine of immanence, and, by beginning to restore independence to the creature, to begin also to emancipate the conception of God itself from pantheism. For Abelard, the dialectic art ceases to be mere art; it begins to become a material principle, and to correct the traditional (Neoplatonic-Augustinian) doctrines of the first and last things. The paradox in Abelard’s position consists in this, that on the one hand in contemplating history he 39drew certain conclusions from the Mystic doctrine of God (cf. Justin, Origen, but also Augustine himself) more confidently than his contemporaries, while, on the other hand, he allowed sober thought to have a material influence on the view taken of ground principles. His opponents saw in him only the negative theologian. This negative theologian really laid the foundation for the classical structure of mediæval conservative theology.61 For 40the Church dogma could not be held by the

60

How his theory of knowledge is to be understood is a disputed point among scholars (v. Deutsch, p. 104 ff.). It is certain that he held a sceptical attitude towards Platonic Realism, that he rejected it indeed, without however passing over to Nominalism. 61 This seems paradoxical, and certainly other things come more prominently to view in Abelard at first: his genuine, unquenchable scientific ardour, his sense for the natural (sound human understanding), his ambitious striving, not devoid of vanity, his dialectic acuteness, his critical spirit, finally, the conviction animating him that the ratio has its own field of play, and that there are many questions on which it first, and it alone, must be heard (on his learning, which has often been over-rated, see Deutsch, p. 53 ff.). But on the other hand the following factors in his mode of teaching are to be noted, which obtained quite a positive importance for the time that followed (while we pass over what is an understood matter, viz., that even by him all knowledge was ultimately traced up to the revelation of God): (1) The man charged with “rationalism” has no great confidence

in the capabilities of the human power of knowledge, and openly expressed this, in opposition to the self-assurance of the dialecticians and mystics; he did not possess it, but pointed to revelation, because he (2) did not regard thought and being as identical, but took up a critico-sceptical attitude towards the reigning Realism, such as was just required for the defence of the Church doctrine — as was taught by the time that followe 564 d. With this there is connected (3) that, while keeping very much on Augustine’s lines in the conception of God, he avoided those conclusions from his conception which led at one time to the assumption of a rigid, unchangeable divine working (a rigid order of nature), at another time to an unlimited arbitrariness on God’s part. This he effected by bringing in again (with Origen, partly against Augustine) very strongly though not at every point, the thought of the ethically determined character of the divine action, and of the limitation of the divine power by the notion of purpose (and so by what actually happens). With this he also drew a sharp distinction between God and the creature, and asserted the independence of the latter, corrected thereby the questionable Mystic conception of God, and prepared the way for the conception of God held by the great Schoolmen. His opponents, on the other hand, such as Hugo (and afterwards also the Lombard) adhered to that conception of God which afterwards proved more convenient in defending any kind of Church doctrine; but there is no question that Abelard was really the more positive. If he has nevertheless been classed with Spinoza, that only proves that there has been ignorance of the notion of God which elsewhere prevailed in his time among Church theologians, and that just that side in Abelar ac8 d’s notion of God has been emphasised which was not peculiar to him, for he sought to unite the standpoints of immanence and transcendence, while his opponents assailed him from the standpoint of the “Spinozist” notion of God. (4) As with the doctrine of God so is it with all the other doctrines of the faith: here Abelard always set out from Augustine (see Deutsch’s account), keeps essentially to his formulations, but, with more courage and confidence than the great master, fettered by his Neoplatonism, strives to free theology and the objects of faith from the embraces of a Mysticism which is ultimately philosophy of nature. The ethical interest, the assurance that what answers to the moral law is also the holy and good before and for God, dominates Abelard (hence also his special interest in moral philosophy), and so far as this interest corrected the Mystical scheme of Christian doctrine in the thirteenth century, Abelard must be thought of as the pioneer. But if in this sense it may be said that Abelard laid the foundation for the great structures of Scholasticism in the thirteenth century — not only because he was the teacher of the Lombard, nor only because he was the acutest thinker of the period, but because he was the first to attempt that amalgamation of the immanence and transcendence doctrines, and taught that lower estimation of the principles of knowledge, which became the presuppositions of ecclesiastical systems — yet it cannot be denied that the following age did not attach itself directly to him. What he found independently the following age learned from Aristotle, who became more and more known to it from the second half of the twelfth century; it learned it only indirectly, or not at all, from Abelard. But that cannot diminish his fame. He was the first to show how all Church doctrines can and must be so treated that the principles of morality (the moral law) shall have as much justice done to them in the system as the fundamental thoughts of theological speculation

thinking mind under the entire domination of the Mystic Neoplatonic theology. Although it was by this theology that it had been chiefly elaborated, yet the Church had always reserved to itself the supra-mundane God and the independence of the creature, and had formed a set of dogmas which Platonism could only sublimate, but could not justify as the final expression of the matter itself. The Church needed, therefore, the 41help of dialectics (of sober intelligence, and of juristic acuteness directed to the given formulæ ) and of a lowering of the lofty flight of speculation, and this help Aristotelianism alone could afford it, i.e., the Aristotelianism, which was then understood as such, and which was then exercising its influence, as the view of things according to which it is held — not that the phenomenal and creaturely are the form transitorily expressing the divine — but that the supernatural God, as Creator in the proper sense of the word, has created the creature and endowed it with independence. It needed the help of Aristotelianism to defend a set of dogmas in the form in which they were already established.62 But still more was the

on nature. That he did not solve this problem no one will make the ground of a reproach, for it is insoluble. But that it must be set down as the task of all ecclesiastical science — so long as this science at all declares that its ideal is that of knowing the world — is quite obvious. The contemporaries of Abelard were not willing to learn enough from him, and that, as a rule, determines the amount of influence that belongs to a teacher. They felt repelled (1) by the still novel form of the science in general; (2) by many propositions of Abelard, which were afterwards found to be tolerable — indeed to be the only correct ones; (3) by many individual negative, or critical judgm 564 ents, both in regard to history and the validity of opinion prevailing at the time, and in regard to particular ecclesiastical doctrines, of which his defensive presentation was felt to be questionable (Sabellianism in the doctrine of the Trinity, yet see Augustine; strong inner variance in the Christology, which thus approached Nestorianism, yet see likewise Augustine). (4) It must not be denied that Abelard himself injured the influence of his doctrines by many contradictions and by the immaturity of his systematising. But how much could have been learned from him; compare only his admirable discussions of love, reconciliation, and the Church! The Church had no genius between Augustine and Luther; but among the men of second rank, Abelard deserves to be named. Karl Müller (Abhandl. f. Weizsäcker 1892, pp. 308 f., 319 f.) has strongly emphasised the importance of Abelard for the ways of stating problems and for the positive views of the following period. 62 Very correctly v. Eicken l.c. p. 602: “The importance which Plato an ac8 d Aristotle acquired in mediæval philosophy was really in the inverse relation to the position which the two had taken up in the history of the development of Greek philosophy. The Platonic philosophy had placed the substance of things in the general ideas, and had deduced from this assumption the transcendence of the latter, and especially of the highest idea, that is, the idea of God. But the extreme Realism of the Middle Ages adopted the Platonic doctrine of ideas, not to derive from it the transcendence of the supreme idea, but to

“Aristotelianism” to do for it. Reason will never ultimately make a compact with authority, but the understanding will. Whoever has entered into the spirit of the All-One and embraces the doctrine of immanence, will feel himself to be as “God,” and will therefore reject all authority, of whatever kind it be. Whoever, on the other hand, feels his independence, side by side with other forms of independence, will become certain of his dependence also. He will no longer take part in the dialectic performance of exchanging his estimate of himself as the perfect nothing (as an individual) for an estimate of himself as the perfect being (as spirit); but while within certain limits, and perhaps with great 42tenacity, he will embrace a rational mode of view, he will, in that which lies beyond these limits, be ready to recognise authorities. Yet for the great inaugurator of Mediæval Scholasticism (for Anselm everything is still naive) — for Abelard, the elements were still vaguely intermingled. He set down already as force all that, in the time following, the period when Scholasticism flourished, was conceived of as mutually limiting potencies, or that then became differentiated as distinct tendencies. His contemporaries had as yet no presentiment, that an element in him which they specially censured would yet become the means of saving the Church doctrine. Orthodoxy and the Platonic Realism were still in closest union. The French Mystics declared the efforts of the “dialecticians” heretical; Aristotle was hated. When the great disciple of Abelard, Petrus Lombardus, published his Sentences, and in them fittingly placed the learning of his master at the service of the Church theology — as yet the Middle Ages had not possessed a compendium for the study of theology63 — much would not have been required for even this book to be set aside on suspicion. No doubt, this work, because, from the patristic tradition

derive rather the harmonious co-existence of all things in the supreme idea, and just with this aim before it it arrived at that doctrine of God which bore a pantheistic character, as compared with the strict transcendence of the Church doctrine. On the other hand the Aristotelian philosophy had asserted the reality of the general ideas in the individuals, with the view of refuting Plato’s transcendent doctrine of ideas. The Aristotelian Realism, however, attached itself to the Aristotelian doctrine, in order that, by guarding the substantial character of the individuals, it might prove their extra-divine subsistence, and accordingly also the divine transcendence that harmonised with the Church doctrine. This view, which quite inverted the historical and logical relation of the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies, was maintained till the close of the Middle Ages.” 63 Only since Abelard’s times were there somewhat more comprehensive statements of Christian doctrine, which, besides, were still in many respects different. He himself and Hugo of St. Victor took the lead in producing them; see Abelard’s “Introductio”; faith, love, the sacraments as subjects of dogmatic.

being uncertain, it still frequently adds opinion to opinion, bears the stamp of a freedom which was afterwards lost. But the mere fact that it became the authoritative compendium of the thirteenth century is a proof that on the part of the Church free inquiry, dialectic investigation, and Aristotelian philosophy were now tolerated, not because inward freedom had increased, but because the faculty had grown for making friends with these forces, and because there began to be observed what the Aristotelian method and mode of thought could do for dogma. In the second half of the twelfth century the turn round of things was already preparing itself. The “pious” theologians (the Mystics), so far as they gave themselves up to the work of expounding and establishing dogma, were forced to see that by means of thoroughgoing 43Realism contemplation might be enriched, but the objective doctrine could not be defended. The coalition of naive faith on authority with a Mysticism that, in its ultimate ground, was not without danger, came to an end. Church faith, Mysticism, and Aristotelian science formed a close alliance. On the other hand, the dialecticians, in the degree in which they passed from the Aristotelian formalism to Aristotle’s doctrine of principles (perhaps the increasing knowledge of this philosophy contributed most to this), lost that audacity which had once given so much offence, and which, certainly, had often been only a sign of playing with empty forms. No doubt in connection with this many a fresh piece of knowledge came to be lost.64 One who has much to carry gets more anxious, and moves more slowly, than one who marches under an easy burden. To this there came to be added, that from decade to decade the authority of the Church grew stronger. Though there was a growth also of opposition, which forced to anxious reflection (Mohammedans, Jews, heretics, knowledge of the ancient classics),65 at the end of the twelfth century the Church outshone all else with its lustre. Its rights in respect of life and doctrine became the worthiest subject of investigation and exposition. Into this task blended the other, of referring all things to God and construing the knowledge of the world as theology. The theology of the ecclesiastical facts pressed itself on the theology of

64

In the writings of the earlier Schoolmen, i.e., of Abelard chiefly, there are not a few thoughts that were directly fitted either to enrich or to modify dogma. But at that time the Church accepted nothing from the Schoolmen, and when it was prepared to have the doctrine interpreted to it by them, these men had no longer the freedom and boldn 54e ess to say anything new to the Church. 65 What importance for Abelard the discussion with the Jew and the philosopher had may be learned from the “Dialogue” (v. Deutsch, p. 433 ff., against Reuter I., pp. 198221.)

speculation. Under what other auspices could this great structure be erected than under those of that Aristotelian Realism, which was at bottom a dialectic between the Platonic Realism and Nominalism, and which was represented as capable of uniting immanence and transcendence, history and miracle, the immutability of God and mutability, Idealism and Realism, reason and authority? Thus it was only 44in the thirteenth century that there made its appearance the theology adequate to the Church and its dogma, and no longer viewed with suspicion,66 after a new wave of piety (the Mendicant Orders) had imparted to it the highest measure of power of which the Catholic religion is at all capable. The fear of the Lord was also the beginning of this new wisdom. In form and contents, in its systematic method, and in the exhaustive fulness of its material, it is related to the theology of the twelfth century as, we might say, Origen was related to Clement of Alexandria. This is more than a comparison, for the course of events really repeated itself. Clement, the inaugurator, the bolder spirit, the less “enlightened,” who does not yet know that the full authority of the Catholic Church is against him; Origen, the man of system, more comprehensive, but at the same time more closely tied to the Church and its doctrine. The same relation obtained between the theologians of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. (Compare, e.g., the “aggregating” character of the Sentences of Robert Pulleyn [Deutsch, p. 6 f.] with the Stromateis of Clement, and the great “Sums” of the thirteenth century with Origen’s De principiis.) In the following chapter we shall take up the thread here again. If we direct no further attention here to the Lombard, and especially to Hugo, the somewhat earlier, and, in respect of matter, the most influential theologian of the twelfth century (“a second Augustine”), the fact may serve as an excuse that the importance which the two obtained for the history of dogma appeared only at the great Lateran Council, and in the theologians of the thirteenth century. On Hugo’s Sentences see Denifle in the Archiv f. L-u. K.-Gesch. des Mittelalters III., p. 634 ff. 45

4. Elaboration of Dogma. The theological conflicts of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, as they were fought out between the dialecticians and their

66

The diminishing distrust of theology in contra-distinction to the former period is also to be explained from the circumstance that the general average of culture among the higher clergy became higher. The theologians of the thirteenth century were no longer confronted with so much unreason as the “dialecticians” of the eleventh century had to contend with in the wide development of the Church.

opponents, do not belong to the history of dogma. This science has to confine itself to showing what position dogma asserted in connection with the revival and the crises of theology, what enrichments it received, and how far the Scholastic activity (or the theological systematising) already influenced it. As to the first of these questions, the statement may be quite brief: dogma, as it was fixed by the Councils, as it had been described by Augustine and Gregory I.,67 was the presupposition of all theological thought, and was held inviolate. Isolated exceptions were without any importance. The dialectic experiments on dogma were always based on the traditional view of it. As regards the third question, an influence on dogma of Scholastic activity and systematic theology can already be pointed to in the twelfth century; but the influence was still so much in its beginnings that it is better to treat it first in connection with the thirteenth century.68 And so there remains only the question as to the “enrichments.” Strictly speaking, this question also would have to be answered in the negative,69 were it not that in the Berengarian controversy a movement presents itself, in which a dogma that had still always been the subject of dispute, attained a relatively complete form, and had not Anselm set up a doctrine of satisfaction, which, indeed, was a product of purely private work, and found few adherents, too, in the period that followed, but which brought before the Church a dogmatic problem that was hitherto unsolved, nay, 46had scarcely ever been touched as yet, but which was not again to pass out of view. In what follows, therefore, we have to treat of these two movements. A. The Berengarian Controversy.

ade 67So far as there was at all a single authoritative book here, it was Augustine’s Enchiridion. But it is characteristic that Abelard, in his systematic work, already added the Sacraments to faith and love. 68 The doctrine of the sacraments is chiefly thought of here. 69 Almost everything that Bach has set forth in the second volume of his work on the history of dogma in the Middle Ages, including the “history of Adoptianism in the twelfth century” and the “systematic polemic against the dialecticians” (p. 390 ff.; Gerhoch against the German Adoptians, p. 475 ff.), belongs simply to the history of theology, and has no significance for the history of dogma.

Besides its dogmatic, this controversy70 has a philosophic71 interest, and an interest also in connection with Church politics.72 The last of these interests may be left quite out of view here; the second is closely connected with the first. From the place which the dogma of the Eucharist held in the theory and practice of the Church, the criticism of it was a criticism of the reigning Church doctrine as a whole. When the youthful science, represented and led by Berengar of Tours, began at this point, charged the accepted view with error, and applied the scientific doctrine of method to the dogma of the Eucharist, expression was given to the thought, that there may not be a resting satisfied with mere Church tradition, with what is held as valid to-day. But this thought was not expressed in the name of a negative “illuminism,”73 but, on the contrary rather, that the true tradition of the Church might be delivered from the embraces of a bad routine, that the spirit of the doctrine 47might be protected against a coarse and superstitious realism, that the λογικὴ λατρεία (reasonable service) might be maintained against a barbarian craving for mysteries, and that the mystery of faith might not be profaned. But combined with this interest, which was by no means merely pretended, there was the pleasure in thinking, and the daring reliance on dialectics as on “reason” in general. As theologians, Berengar and his followers were Augustinians, but, at the same time, Berengar had an enjoyment in criticism as such, and a confidence in “science,” that were not Augustinian.

70

Besides Lessing’s well-known work and Vischer, De sacra cœna adv. Lanfrancum lib. posterior, 1834; also the Acts of the Roman Council (Mansi XIX., p. 761 ff.), see Sudendorf, Berengarius, 1850; Schnitzer, Berengar v. Tours, sein Leben u. s. Lehre, 1890; Bach I., pp. 364-451; Reuter I., p. 91 ff., Dieckhoff, Die Abendmahlslehre im Reform.-Zeitalter I., p. 44 ff. 71 Here, for the first time, the categories “subjectum,” “quod in subjecto,” “de subjecto,” the distinction of “esse” from “secundum quod esse,” in short, the dialecti ac8 c manipulations of the notion of substance (according to Porphyry, Boethius, etc.) were applied to a dogma in the West. 72 The outward political side of the controversy has been thoroughly treated by Schwane (Studien zur Gesch. des 2. Abendmahlsstreits, 1887, see Loofs, Gött. Gel.-Anz., 1888, No. 15), who follows Sudendorf. On the antagonism to Berengar, see the accounts of Schnitzer, l.c. p. 246 ff. 73 Reuter’s judgment is, I., p. 97: “Thus the second controversy on the Eucharist became what the first was not, a struggle as to the supreme criteria of religious truth, a conflict of the tendency of negative ‘illuminism,’ directly with the authoritative ecclesiasticism of the time, indirectly with the Christianity of positive revelation.” This is to me utterly unintelligible. Even the most deeply convinced Romish theologian will hesitate to endorse this opinion.

Berengar, Director of the Cathedral School in Tours, from about 1040 Archdeacon in Angers (ob. 1088), had instituted studies on the doctrine of the Eucharist, searched through the Church Fathers, occupied himself with the first Eucharist controversy, and rejected74 the doctrine of Paschasius, long before a controversy developed itself. In the doctrine as it prevailed at the time he saw apostacy from the Church Fathers and unreason; for he saw in it only the view, that after the consecration bread and wine have disappeared, and in place of them there exist the real flesh and blood of Christ in so sensibly palpable a form that they are present as pieces (portions) of His bloody body. He was right; so the widely prevailing superstition taught;75 yet 48Paschasius had certainly taken also a more spiritual view of the change, and among the authoritative churchmen of that period such a “conversion” was not taught by all the more prominent.76 By means of a letter to Lanfranc, Berengar himself opened the controversy.77 We have his doctrine fully stated for us for the first time in his work de sacra cœna. adv. Lanfrancum (ab. 1073; anything earlier is almost entirely lost). His leading idea was to introduce reason into the Church doctrine, or, more correctly, to

74

See on this Reuter I., p. 95, “Paschasius ineptus ille monachus Corbeiensis.” Berengar is correct in seeing contradictions in Paschasius. The book of Ratramnus was then regarded as a work of John Scotus, and was condemned as such at Vercelli in 1050. 75 The confession of faith which was forced upon him in 1059 (composed by Cardinal Humbert), also contained the coarse view. Even Bach I., p. 366, n. 4, declares the confession “at least objectionable.” In Lanfranc de corp. et sang. dom. 2 (Migne CL.) the words occur: “panem et vinum quæ in altari po 564 nuntur post consecrationem non solum sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus et sanguinem J. Christi esse et sensualiter, non solum in sacramento sed et in veritate, manibus sacerdotum tractari et frangi et fidelium dentibus atteri.” The most characteristic thing is that those who were quite logical declared even the word “sacrament” to be unsatisfactory: “The Eucharist is the mystery (sacramentum) in which there is no mystery, but all takes place vere et sensualiter.” That is the fundamental thought of Berengar’s opponents. That this was a falling away from tradition stands beyond doubt. But the traditional theologians, as is well known, are most fanatical, when to the old beaten track which they call tradition, or to their fancies, which, from their lack of understanding, they surround with the halo of the venerable, there is opposed the truth that has the protection of the true tradition. 76 The controversy is also so uninspiring, because, as usual, the opponents exaggerated. Berengar proceeded as if he had only the vi ac0 ew against him that parts of the bloody body of Christ are chewed by the teeth, while his adversaries asserted that according to him the elements were empty symbols. He had at any rate more right on his side in his description; yet not only Fulbert (Bach I., p. 365), but some also who were later, did not think of a spatial extension of the body of Christ in the converted elements. 77 See Mansi T. XIX., p. 768.

bring to light by means of reason the reason that lies in the divine doctrines of the Church. Dialectics, the science which had always differentiated, is nowhere more in its proper place than where there is a question about two objects, which, in one respect, are one, and in another respect are different. Thus the two-nature doctrine is very peculiarly its province; and so also is the doctrine of the Eucharist, with its earthly elements and its heavenly gift.78 Berengar showed that the doctrine of the bodily transmutation was absurd (“ineptia”), and went directly in the face of the old traditions, as well as of reason, which we must make use of as reasonable beings created in the image of God.79 He accordingly adopted the standpoint of Scotus (Ratramnus), as he understood it. He taught that the words are to be understood tropically; but he held this interpretation 49with much greater firmness than his predecessor, and gave it an exclusiveness of which his predecessor had not thought; Christ is spoken of under many symbols, hence the bread is also a symbol;80 Scripture teaches that, till His return, Christ remains in heaven;81 a piece of bread is not capable of taking into itself the body born of the Virgin, and yet it is a question about the whole Christ;82 a destruction of the subject (the

78

Of course the chief arguments of Berengar are derived from Scripture and tradition. To them he attaches decisive weight. The distinction that already prejudges everything, between the sensible, the visible, and the sacrament, the invisible — Berengar had made it the basis of his doctrine and the starting-point of his dialectic, as long as he could think — originates with Augustine. With the dialectic there mingle the beginnings of a more independent, a critical view of history. Yet Berengar meddles with no decree of any Council. Only, the decrees connected with his subject are ridiculed by him. 79 See Vischer, p. 600: “maximi plane cordis est, per omnia ad dialecticam confugere, quia confugere ad eam ad rationem est confugere, quo qui non confugit, cum secundum rationem sit factus ad imaginem dei, suum honorem reliquit nec potest renovari de die in diem ad imaginem dei.” 80 1Berengar compares the description of Christ as a lion, lamb, corner-stone. 56c 81 P. 199: “constabit, eum qui opinetur, Christi corpus cœlo devocatum adesse sensualiter in altari, ipsum se dejicere, quod vecordium est, dum confirmat se manu frangere, dente atterere Christi corpus, quod tamen ipsum negare non possit impossibile esse et incorruptibile.” 82 The last point was for Berengar of the greatest weight. He always regards his opponents as assuming that there are “portiunculæ” of the body of Christ on the altar, and objects to this, (1) that it is a question of the whole body (see pp. 148, 199 f.); (2) that the body of Christ is not something “corruptible,” which can be touched, broken, and bitten. Then, again, the bread is not capable of affording room for such a body, and then the “sensualiter” is above all objected to. The incorr ac5 uptibility and uniqueness of the body of Christ are the presuppositions of his dialectic. A body so constituted cannot

elements) involves the destruction of all essential attributes of the elements, for concretely (in concreto) these cannot be distinguished from the subject itself (Nominalist tendency).83 Yet the tropical view, as he did not stand by it, was not equivalent for Berengar to the symbolical. This latter view rather he explicitly rejected, in so far as he followed the old tradition, and recognised two things in the Eucharist, sign and sacrament. The elements become sacrament through consecration, and this implies that they now include something objectively holy. A “conversio” takes place; but for Berengar this expression has certainly an unusual sense.84 It is meant to suggest that the 50 elements remain what they are, but at the same time become the body of Christ. They become in a certain respect something different, i.e., there is now added to the visible a second element, which is real, but invisible. The consecrated elements remain in one respect what they are, but in another respect they become the sacraments, i.e., as the visible, temporal, and mutable subjects, they become the guarantees (pignora, figuræ, signa) of the reception of the whole heavenly Christ by the believer. While the mouth therefore receives the “sacrament,” the truly genuine Christian receives by discernment (“in cognitione”), and into his heart that which the sacramental elements represent, namely, Christ as food, the power of the heavenly Christ. Hence the enjoyment and the effect of the Eucharist are spiritual: the inner man (so it depends on faith, in addition to the consecration) receives the true body of Christ, and

become sensible, and it cannot be at the same time in a thousand places. The expedient also of supposing a creating-anew of the body of Christ is effectively refuted by him; this would involve us in the thought of two bodies. 83 Here Berengar emphasised the correct logical reflection, “quod in subjecto erat superesse quacunque ratione non potest corrupto subjecto” (p. 93), i.e., when the substance is destroyed, the essential attributes (taste, colour, form) cannot remain behind; or p. 59: “non potest res ulla aliquid esse, si desinat ipsum esse.” Even Protestant historians will take no account of such reasons. 84 It most be assumed that it rests on accommodation; for although there answers to the sacrament a res sacramenti, which is created by the consecration, yet it is certainly not a question of transmutation. Nor did the old tradition furnish this term. In substance Berengar is a correct Augustinian; hence it is unnecessary to quote further passages. The proper expression for what Berengar means would be a divine “auctio” in the elements, and so also he has expressed himself, p. 98. On the other hand, it is said, p. 125: “per consecrationem altaris fiunt panis et vinum sacramenta religionis, non ut desinat esse quæ fuerant, sed ut sint quæ erant et in aliud commutentur.”

appropriates the death of the crucified Christ through believing remembrance).85 Augustine would have had nothing to object to this doctrine of the Eucharist, even though some dialectic arguments and devices in it had surprised him. But the men of the period were shocked, both at the result, and partly also at the course of thought that led to this result. At Rome and Vercelli (1050), in Berengar’s absence, the doctrine was condemned, on the ground of the letter to Lanfranc. Nine years later, after it had become artificially mixed up in France with ecclesiastico-political questions, but had thereby become for the time more tolerable for Rome, and after its author had suffered much from slander and imprisonment, Berengar was compelled to subscribe at Rome, under Nicolas II., a formula of faith, which made it clear that his worst fears with regard to the tyranny of superstition in the Church were not exaggerated.86 Having returned to France, he kept in retirement at first; but subsequently he 51could have no rest. He came to the front again with his doctrine, for which he had influential supporters in Rome itself, and a new, heated literary controversy was the result. During its course the most important writings on both sides were produced. Gregory VII. treated the controversy in a dilatory way, and with much indulgence towards Berengar, who was personally known to him: in all ages Rome has been clever enough not to be hasty in making heretics, and a Pope who, in ruling the world, must so often wink at things, knows also how to exercise patience and forbearance, especially when personal sympathy is not wanting.87 But in the end Gregory was compelled, in order not to shake his own authority, to force Berengar, at the Synod of 1079, to recognise the transmutation doctrine.88 For a second time Berengar outwardly submitted; the Pope was satisfied with the form; but with this the cause which the broken scholar represented became lost.

85

“Christi corpus totum constat accipi ab interiore homine, fidelium corde, non ore” (p. 148). At the same time also a memorial feast: “spiritualis comestio, quæ fit in mente.” 567 86v. above p. 47, note 2. 87 On the interesting relation of Berengar to the Curia and Gregory VII., see Reuter I., p. 116 ff., 120 ff. 88 The formula (in Lanfranc, c. 2) was milder than that of 1059, but yet sufficiently plain: “Ego Berengarius corde credo et ore confiteor panem et vinum quæ ponuntur in altari per mysterium sacræ orationis et verba nostri redemptoris substantialiter converta in veram et propriam et vivicatricem carnem et sanguinem J. Christi et post consecrationem esse verum corpus Christi, quod natum est de vir 563 gine . . .et quod sedet ad dexteram patris . . .non tantum per signum et virtutem sacramenti sed in proprietate naturæ et veritate substantiæ.”

The transmutation theory of Paschasius — the term transubstantiation was apparently first used casually by Hildebert of Tours (beginning of twelfth century) in his 93rd Sermon (Migne CLXXI., p. 776), and therefore already existed89 — was further developed by the opponents of Berengar.90 First, the mystery was conceived of still more sensuously, at least by some (manducatio infidelium);91 secondly, there was a beginning, 52though with caution, to apply to dogma the “science” that was discredited in the opponent. The crude conceptions (which embraced the total conversion) were put aside, and an attempt was made to unite the older deliverances of tradition with the new transmutation doctrine, as also to adapt the Augustinian terminology, by means of dialectic distinctions, to the still coarsely realistic view of the object.92 The

89

In his two treatises (of date 1157) against the followers of Soterichos, in whose opinion the mass was not offered to the Son, but only to the Father and Spirit, Nicolas of Methone used the expression µεταστοιχείωσις, see Hefele V.2, p. 568. These treatises were published by Dimitracopulos in the year 1865 (see Reusch, Theol. Lit.-Blatt, 1866, No. 11). 90 Yet everything acquired settled form only in the thirteenth century: the questions resulting from the new doctrine are innumerable. 565 91 Lanfranc, 1.c. c. 20: even sinners and the unworthy receive the true body of Christ. Only in this respect did Lanfranc develop the doctrine beyond Paschasius. 92 There was an aiming above all at recognising the whole Christ as present in the host, at reconciling the Augustinian, as well as the older rich and manifold conception of the Eucharist as a whole, with the transmutation doctrine, at rationalising the relation of element to verum corpus Christi by dialectic distinctions of accident and substance, at reconciling the presence of Christ in heaven with the sacramental presence, and at not forgetting, too, in these speculations the Church as corpus Christi. Note here as specially important the treatise de corp. et sang. Christi veritate in eucharistia, by Guitmund ac8 of Aversa (Migne CXLIX.), who certainly learned from Berengar. For the theories of other opponents of Berengar (Lanfranc, Adelmann of Brixen, Hugo of Langres, Durandus of Troaune, Alger of Lüttich, Abelard [he taught differently from Berengar, see Deutsch, l.c. pp. 401 f., 405 ff.], Walter of St. Victor, Honorius of Autun, etc.), see in Bach p. 382 ff. On the German theologians who occupied themselves with the doctrine of the Eucharist, see ibid., p. 399 ff. (the Reichersberg theologians, Gerhoch, Rupert of Deutz; in the last named there is a peculiar, spiritualistic consubstantiation doctrine). Guitmund attributed the whole Christ to every particle, and thereby led on to the new view, first expressed by Anselm, that the whole Christ is container) in one form (ep. IV., 107); “in acceptione sanguinis totum Christum deum et hominem et in acceptione corporis similiter totem accipimus.” In this the dogmatic basis was laid for withholding the cup, which afterwards became the rule. There is interest connected with the timid attempts that were made to teach also a “certain” incorruptibility of the accidents of the converted substances (these terms are now used even by the orthodox). Yet appearance witnessed against this

struggle of Berengar, therefore, did not continue altogether without fruit; but the fruit consisted essentially in this, that science was left quite free, 53because it was gradually seen that in face of the gravity of the problems the simplicity of faith was powerless. At the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) the mediæval doctrine of the Supper was solemnly framed as dogma in the famous confession of faith, which, previous to the Tridentine confession, was the most influential symbol (after the Niceno-Constantinopolitan; see Mansi XXII., p. 982; Hefele V.2, p. 878 ff.; and the Corpus juris canonici, where the topic finds a place under X. I: de summa trinitate [I. 1]). What is important here is (1) that the doctrine of the Eucharist is immediately attached to the confession of the Trinity and Incarnation. In this way it is represented even in the symbol as having a most intimate relation to these doctrines, as, indeed, forming with them a unity; i.e., the state of things was now created that was disastrous even for the history of the Reformation: the real presence obtained the same value as the Trinity and the two-nature doctrine, so that every one was regarded as an ecclesiastical anarchist who called it in question. This valuation certainly corresponds with the development of the doctrine of the Eucharist, inasmuch as the Eucharist appears as the continuously present, earthly incorporation of the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, but it robs the Gospel of its spiritual character. (2) Transubstantiation was now expressly taught; the words run: “moreover there is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one whatever can be saved, in which Jesus Christ is at once priest and sacrifice, whose body and blood are truly (veraciter) contained in the sacrifice of the altar under the appearances of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into the body, and the wine into the blood by divine power, so that for the effecting of the mystery of unity (ad perficiendum

assumption, and there was not yet resolution enough to adopt the doctrine that even here the empirical misleads. That Lutheran theologians take sides with Berengar’s opponents (Thomasius-Seeberg, p. 48: “really religious position as opposed to the rationalising misinterpretation of this man,” cf. Reuter), although their final argument was the omnipotence of God, belongs to the peculiarities of the Romantic theology of the nineteenth century. Thomasius (p. 49) is specially delighted with the timid anticipations of the doctrine of the ubiquity of the substance of the body of the heavenly Christ in Alger (de sacram. corp. et sang. domini I., 11-16), whereby the difficulties which attach to the idea of the creatio of the Eucharistic body are to be set aside (Bach. I., p. 389 ff.): “Christ can be corporeally present wherever he wills.” For the rest (see Lanfranc), there was as yet no more declared than that with the body exalted to the right hand of God the Eucharistic body is identical, and yet not identical. How necessary here, therefore, was the so much despised dialectic of Berengar!

mysterium unitatis) we receive of His what He received of ours (here the conjunction with the Christology is manifest). And this sacrament especially (hoc utique sacramentum) no one can administer but the priest who has been duly ordained according to the Church authority (secundum claves ecclesiæ) which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors.” The symbol then immediately continues: “But the sacrament of baptism, which is consecrated in water on invoking the undivided Trinity, avails for salvation both to 54infants and adults, by whomsoever it is duly administered in the forms of the Church (in forma ecclesiæ). And if after receiving baptism any one shall have fallen into sin, he can always be restored (reparari) through true penitence.” Thus this line of development also is completed, and at the same time the related one (see Vol. V., p. 325), according to which every Christian must make confession of his sins before the parish priest (parochus). It is laid down in the twenty-first chapter: “Every believer, of either sex, after arriving at the years of discretion, must by himself (solus) faithfully confess all his sins, at least once a year, to his own priest, and must study to carry out to the best of his ability the repentance enjoined upon him, receiving reverently, at least at Easter, the sacrament of the Eucharist.” The novelty in the symbol — the direct attachment of the Eucharist dogma to the Trinity and Christology — is the most distinctive and boldest act of the Middle Ages. Compared with this immense innovation, the addition of the “filioque” weighs very lightly. But on the other hand, the symbol certainly shows also very plainly how the old dogmatic tradition still dominated everything, for it contains nothing of the specific Augustinian-Western propositions about sin, original sin, grace, and justification. “Dogma,” in the strict sense of the word, consists of the Trinity, Christology, the doctrine of the Eucharist, the doctrine of Baptism, and of the Sacrament of Penance. All else is at the most dogma of the second order. This state of things also was of the greatest weight for the history of the Reformation; the doctrines of the Trinity, of Christ and of the Sacraments (i.e., the doctrine of the three Sacraments, Baptism, Penance, Eucharist) constitute Catholic Christianity — nothing else. B. Anselm’s Doctrine of Satisfaction, and the Doctrines of Atonement of the Theologians of the Twelfth Century.93 Ever since the days when an attempt was made to punish, without decimating the Church, the great apostasy occasioned by

93

See Baur, Lehre von der Versöhnung; Hasse, Anselm 564 , 1853; Ritschl, Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung 2 Aufl. I., p. 31 ff.

the Decian persecution, the positions were held as valid, that 55God’s mercy is unlimited, even as regards the baptised, but that only a satisfactio, consisting of legitimate penance (pœnitentia legitima), can move the offended God to regard the sinner again with favour. Since that time these ideas had obtained the widest circulation,94 united themselves at a later period with Germanic ideas, and dominated the whole penitential system of the Church.95 Connected with this system stood the conception of “merits,” i.e., of such supererogatory acts as establish a claim to reward, when no guilt exists to be expiated. Through this idea a calculation of the value of particular deeds was introduced, and of these calculations the whole ethical system was full. Whether an act was obligatory, or abundans, or superabundans, whether, under given circumstances, it was compensatory (satisfactory), or meritorious, had to be established in each particular case, so that each one might know how his account stood with heaven. The Augustinian conception of prevenient grace freely bestowed (gratia gratis data præveniens), which had been generally accepted, wrought no change on this view, but only made it more complicated. Yet neither by Gregory the Great, nor by any theologian of the Carlovingian period, was this view applied to the work of Christ. Frequent reference, it is true, was already made to the “copiousness of the value of the mystery of the passion” (pretü copiositas mysterii passionis; see the fourth chapter of the Synod of Chiersey); but a theory had not been framed, because there was no reflection at all on the nature, the specific worth, and the effect of the redemption contained in the suffering and death of Christ. The Fathers, Augustine included, had handed down nothing certain on this. The only view taken by the Greeks was that the reign of death was broken by the cross and resurrection of Christ, or that mankind were thereby bought 1590 off, or cunningly wrested, from the devil. All that they said of the sacrifice in the suffering was quite vague. Only Athanasius spoke with noteworthy clearness of the penal suffering which Christ took from us and laid upon Himself. But, from the days 56of Paul, all of them testified that Christ died for us, and delivered us from the power of the devil. That was felt and proclaimed as the great act of redemption. Ambrose and Augustine had then emphasised the position that Christ is Mediator as man, and had given many instructions about particular points; but the question why that Man, who was at the same time God, was obliged to suffer and die, was dealt with by pointing to His

94

See the confidence in the unlimited mercy of God on the part of the Carlovingian theologians, especially Alcuin (Hauck, K.-Deutschlands II., p. 136 f.). 95 See Vol. V., p. 323 ff.

example, or by reciting biblical texts about ransom, sacrifice, and such like, without the necessity of the death here coming clearly to view.96 But Augustine certainly had laid the foundation for a new and vigorous apprehension of the significance of Christ’s work, by emphasising so strongly the gravity of sin, and by representing the relation between God and man under the scheme of sin and grace. At this point Anselm came in. The importance of his doctrine of satisfaction, as developed in Book H. of his “Cur deus homo,”97 composed as a dialogue, lies in this, that he made use of all the factors of the Augustinian theology, so far as they came into consideration here, but that at the same time he was the first of all to frame a theory, both of the necessity of the appearing of the God-man, and of the necessity of His death. This he did by making the principles of the practice of penance the fundamental scheme of religion in general.98 The “necessity” 57was understood by

96

The necessity resulted, no doubt, when the right of the devil over mankind was thought of. Beyond this, it may be said that we have in one respect an ac8 anticipation of the Anselmic representation in the sermon composed about 500 by a contemporary of Faustus of Reji: Why Christ redeemed mankind from the power of the devil, not through the use of His divine might, but by becoming man, fulfilling the law, suffering and dying. (Caspari, Briefe, Abhandlungen und Predigten, 1890, pp. 202 ff. 411 ff.). The whole view of redemption, it is true, is still given here under the scheme of redemption from the devil, but the mode of redemption is dominated by the thought that “deus est rationis atque justitiæ et auctor et exactor.” Something similar is also to be found in some homilies of Faustus (see Caspari, 1.c. p. 418 ff.). 97 Edit. II., by Fritzsche, 1886. 98 Cremer (die Wurzeln des Anselm’schen Satisfactionsbegriff, in den Stud. und Krit. 1880, p. 7 ff.) has endeavoured to show that the fundamental thesis of Anselm’s satisfaction theory (I. 13: “necesse est, ut aut ablatus honor solvatur aut pœna sequatur.Edit. II., by Fritzsche, 1886. I. 15: “necesse est, ut omne peccatum satisfactio aut pœna sequatur”) is of Germanic origin. The correspondence is no doubt easily proved, but the Roman law also knows of this alternative in the case of private offences, and there can be no doubt that the Church, in its ordinances of penance, had acted on the principle, “aut pœnitentia legitima (satisfactio congrua) aut mors acterna,” long ere it learned to know Germanic law. In Tertullian, certainly, there still prevails another idea, when (de pudic. 2) he says: “omne delictum aut venia dispungit aut pœna”; but the fatal turn of thought is already anticipated, when he forthwith adds: “venia ex castigatione, pœna ex damnatione.” — Thus I had written in the first edition; since then, Cremer has again described his standpoint in the Stud. u. Krit., 1893 (pp. 316-345). I must adhere to the position that it is not necessary for understanding Anselm to have recourse to the Germanic notion of satisfaction, since the material in hand, of which we have to take account, is quite sufficiently giv 564 en in the prevailing practice and theory of penance. These go back in the West to the time of Cyprian, or say of Tertullian (see Wirth, Der Verdienstbegriff bei Tertullian, 1892; see also Tertullian’s notion of “compensatio,” cf.

Apolog. 50: “veniam dei compensatione sanguinis expedire”), and developed themselves everywhere in the same way. It may be enough to point to Sulpitius Severus (Dial. II. 10), who was certainly not affected by Germanic influence: “fornicatio deputatur ad pœnam, nisi satisfactione purgatur.” That is surely clearly enough the Anselmic scheme. (See other passages in Karl Müller, Abhandl. f. Weizsäcker, 1892, p. 290 f.: God is satisfied with a lesser performance; this appears sometimes as mutatio of, sometimes as compensatio for, the eternal penalty.) Nor is it advisable here, or in Tertullian, to speak of “compensating penalty” (“Ersatzstrafe”) as distinct from “compensation for injury” (“Schadenersatz”), for these notions cannot at all be strictly kept apart everywhere. “The sacrifices that are well-pleasing to God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart.” From this passage and similar ones, from the consensus gentium also, which may very well be appealed to here, and finally from the rule, well-known even to the Romans, as to every other nation, that privat 564 e injuries are cancelled by indemnifications which restore to the injured party his honour, it is quite sufficiently explained, how in the gemitus, lamentationes, humiliationes, etc., there should both be recognised mortificationes temporales, and also something seen which changes the feeling of the angry God and makes Him again gracious. That is compensation for injury as regards the honour of God (because voluntary self-humiliation), for in the normal relationship one is not obliged in such a way to testify his subjection (therefore it is also a “merit” — i.e., something which God gladly sees and prizes — when in this condition one nevertheless offers those performances, and under certain circumstances a saint can also offer them for a sinner). But it can also be described as compensating penalty, for the satisfaction, it is true, and even the Anselmic is no exception, is in no sense endurance of deserved penalty, but it is a performance, which to the performer is painful and arduous. In Roman public law the pœna is certainly the satisfactio — that has not been disputed — but, so far as I know, in the penitential discipline of the ancient Church the satisfactio was never thought of purely in the forms of Roman law (against Cremer, p. 316), but was always the evasion of penalty by acts which were at once (as castigatio) compensa 564 ting penalties and (as surplus exercise of lowly submission to God) compensations for injury. It may be that to the man of the ancient world the compensating penalty was more distinctly present than the compensation for injury, although all public penal procedure has developed itself from compensating performances, and the consciousness of this has never disappeared (even “pœna” is originally “ransom”). But when Cremer asserts: “The term and conception ‘penance’ (Busse), in the penal law and current language of the Romish Church, springs from the satisfactio of German law,” that is an error which prejudices all his further exposition (see also Loots, Dogmengesch.3, p. 273 f.). At the same time it may be held by way of reservation that the transfusion of the penance discipline of the Church with Germanic ideas strengthened the theory, and gave a casuistic tinge and externality to the practice (Weregild, instead of, and in addition to, cor humiliatum and lamentationes). So also the peculiar expression Anselm gives to the notion “honour” of God is perhaps due to Germanic influence, although one must look very closely to discover a shade of difference on this point between Anselm’s God and the injured and wrathful God of Tertullian. Why then (according to Tertullian) is God injured by sins? Because the obedience is withhe ac8 ld which is due to His commands.

Anselm in the sense of the strictest reasonableness, i.e., his aim is to show that even if we knew nothing of Christ, and such an One had never existed, reason would have 58to confess that men can only be saved if a God-man appears and dies for them.99 Jews and pagans must be constrained to acknowledge this necessity. They, and unbelieving Christians, must see that it is unreason to assert that God could also have redeemed us by another person (whether man or angel), or that He could have redeemed us by a mere determination of His will;100 they must perceive that the mercy of God does not suffer wrong through the death on the cross, and that it is not unworthy of God that Christ should have stooped to abasement and taken upon Himself the uttermost suffering. No doubt it holds good that we first believe and then see.101 But though the attempt may fail — faith, of course, would remain unshaken — we 59must advance to the knowledge of what we believe, and in this case a perfect reasonable knowledge is possible. At the outset Anselm rejects three ideas, one as insufficient, the others as erroneous. It is not sufficient to justify redemption through the death on the cross by emphasising the “conveniens,” i.e., the correspondence of the person and work of Christ with the person and fall of Adam; that is an asthetic view, which is correct, but which proves nothing until the “necessarium” is established.102 It is erroneous to think that a man could have redeemed us; for we should then become the servants of him who should have delivered

When Cremer asserts (p. 329) that in the ancient penance discipline, the satisfactio congrua (“congrua” — that is, determined by the penance regulations; the expression can be pointed out already in the fourth century) was as much penalty as the mors æterna, that is certainly a wonderful statement. When, finally (p. 326), he throws on me the burden of proving that the Roman law, in the case of private injuries, recognises the alternative: “aut pœna aut satisfactio,” I grant that I expressed myself too strongly, and in a way not incapable of being misunderstood. The law, so far as it was publicly administered and codified, may no longer recognise this principle; but a jurist like Tertullian shows that the scheme must have been a familiar one, and how can we think of the settlement of private wrongs at all otherwise than by supposing that a satisfactio is rendered to the injured? 99 Augustine already propounded the question of the absolute necessity of redemption by means of the incarnation and death of the Logos, but answered it in the negative. He saw in this means not the only, though certainly the worthiest, way. 100 I. 1. 101 “I. 2: Sicut rectus ordo exigit, ut profunda christianæ fidei prius credamus, quam ea præsumamus ratione discutere.” 102 I. 3, 4: “. . .Multa alia, quæ studiose considerata inenarrabilem quandam nostræ redemptionis hoc modo proc 53e uratæ pulchritudinem (see Augustine) ostendunt . . .sed si non est aliquid solidum super quod sedeant, non videntur infidelibus sufficere.”

us from eternal death. But in that way our original dignity would not be restored, in virtue of which we were like the d7a0 angels and servants of God alone.103 It is erroneous, finally, to think that by redemption legal claims of the devil upon us had to be wiped out; for although by reason of our sins we have justly come under the devil’s power, yet the devil does not rule justly, but rather unjustly. He has obtained no claim upon us, and over against God he has absolutely no right.104 Before Anselm begins his process of proof, he further endeavours — the arrangement is extremely unskilful — to refute the objection that the suffering and death of a God-man, just because he is man, are without effect, because every man is bound to be obedient unto death. He rejects this view, which is only apparently supported by passages of Scripture that teach that the death of Christ was obligatory, because it was fulfilment of the divine will; a sinless man, rather — and the Godman was such — was only under obligation to observe justitia and veritas (righteousness and truth), but not to die, for death follows only upon sin.105 Having now cleared the path for himself, he goes on to put the question thus: Assuming that we knew nothing whatever of the God-man 60man and His action, what must take place, if men, who are created for blessedness in the world beyond, but who can attain to this blessedness only as sinless, have all become sinners? The most natural answer is (for it has already been said in I. 4, that it would not become God not to carry out His plan): sins must be forgiven. But how must that be done? What is foriveness of sin? What range has it? In order to answer this question, we must first ask, What is sin? With this the development begins.106

103

I. 5, I. 6, 7. 105 I. 8-10. In the 2nd Book this decisive point is repeatedly treated very fully in c. 10, 11 and 16, 18. 583 106In the course of it (I. 16-18) the Augustinian theologoumenon, that the men destined to salvation take the place of the fallen angels, fills a large space. But it is in no way connected with the doctrine of satisfaction. Anselm differs from Augustine in this, that he thinks that the number of saved men is greater than that of the fallen angels; from the beginning God had in view the numerus beatorum as consisting of angels and men. Otherwise the creation of men would be simply a consequence of the fall among the angels, and there would result the inconveniens that we men should have to rejoice over this fall. This correction of the Augustinian doctrine does all honour to Anselm’s heart; but as the doctrine has its point in the equally great number of the fallen angels and saved men, it is really cancelled by Anselm. Yet he was himself not quite sure of his case. See I. 18, p. 37. 104

Every rational creature owes to God entire subjection to His will. That is the only honour which God demands. He who pays it is righteous; he who pays it not, sins; sin, indeed, is nothing else than the dishonouring of God by withholding from Him His own.107 This robbery God cannot tolerate; He must defend His honour. He must therefore demand that man restore it to Him, and, indeed, “for the insult inflicted, that he restore more than he took away”; otherwise he continues “in culpa” (under guilt).108 Every sinner, therefore, must furnish a satisfaction.109 God cannot dispense with this; for that would 61be equivalent to the impunity of sin, and would violate the divine honour. But the impunity of sin would be equivalent to God’s ceasing to be the controller of sin (ordinator peccatorum); He would let something disorderly pass in His kingdom (“aliquid inordinatum in suo regno dimittere.”) Right and wrong also would then become the same; the latter, indeed, would have the advantage, because, as unrepented of and unpunished, it would be subject to no law. No doubt we men are enjoined simply to forgive those who sin against us. But that is said to us, that we may not encroach upon the prerogative of God: “for it belongs to no one but Him to take vengeance.” Nor may we appeal against this to the omnipotence and goodness of God, and say that all that God does is good, even when He simply forgives sin therefore; for God’s power and goodness are determined by His will (“it is not to be so understood that if God wills something improper [inconveniens], it is right because He wills it; for it does not follow that if God wills to lie, it is right to lie”); hence, as God wills to do nothing wrong or disorderly (inordinate), the absolving without penalty of a sinner who does not restore to Him what he has robbed Him of, is not within the scope of the freedom or the goodness or the will of God.110 The supreme righteousness,

107

I. 11: “non est aliud peccare quam non reddere deo debitum . . . debitum est subjectum esse voluntate deo . . .hæc est justitia sive rectitudo voluntatis, quæ justos facit sive rectos corde, i.e., voluntate, hic est solus et totus honor quem debemus deo . . .hunc honorem debitum qui deo non reddit, aufert deo quod suum est et deum exhonorat, et hoc est peccare.” 108 I. II: “non sufficit solummodo reddere quod ablatum est, sed pro contumelia illata plus debet reddere, quam abstulit, sicut enim qui lædit salutem alterius, non sufficit si salutem restituit, nisi pro illata doloris injuria recompenset aliquid, ita qui honorem alicujus violat, non sufficit honorem reddere, si non secundum exhonorationis factam molestiam aliquid, quod placeat illi quem exhonoravit, restituit. Hoc quoque attendendum, quod cum aliquis quod injuste abstulit solvit, hoc debet dare, quod ab illo non posset exigi, si alienum non rapuisset.” 109 I. 11 fin. 110 I. 12.

therefore, which is nothing else than God Himself, requires restitution or — this turn of thought appears first here — penalty.111 Even the latter, that is to say, as deprivation of salvation (damnation), restores the divine honour, in as much as by it “man unwillingly pays back of his own what he took away .. . as man by sinning seized what is God’s, so God by punishing takes away what is man’s.”112 Even by penalty the beauty and order of the universe are maintained, which must never be shaken (of the honour of God in itself it holds good that it cannot be shaken; “for to Himself He is the incorruptible and in no way mutable honour. . . . No one can honour or dishonour God so far as He is in Himself.”)113 But it is “extremely 62alien to God “that He should abandon His costliest work, the rational creature (creatura rationabilis), to complete ruin.114 But as, on the other hand, He cannot associate sinful men with the holy angels, satisfaction must come in (“hold this most firmly, because without satisfaction, i.e., without spontaneous payment of the debt, God cannot allow sin to pass with impunity”).115 The objection that we are directed to pray to God for forgiveness, which would surely be unmeaning if only satisfaction were of any avail, is met by saying that the prayer for forgiveness is itself a part of the satisfaction.116 Now the satisfaction is subject to the twofold rule, that it must be, first, restitution, and secondly, smart-money (Schmerzensgeld).117 But what can man give to God which he was not already required to give Him in any case, since entire surrender is included in obligatory obedience? “If I owe Him myself and all I can do —

111

I. 13, see above, p. 56, note 3. I. 14: “deum impossibile est 542 honorem suum perdere: aut enim peccator sponte solvit quod debet aut deus ab invito accipit.” 113 I. 15. 114 In II. 4, it is said indeed (cf. I. 4): “Si nihil pretiosius agnoscimr deus fecisse quam rationalem naturam ad gaudendum de se, valde alienum est ab eo, ut ullam rationalem naturam penitus perire sinat.” I. 25, p. 52. 115 I. 19. 116 I. 19: The Interlocutor says: “Quid est, quod dicimus deo: dimitte nobis debita nostra, et omnis gens orat deum quem credit, ut dimittat sibi peccata? Si enim solvimus quod debemus, cur oramus ut dimittat? Numquid deus injustus est, ut iterum exigat quod solutum est? Si autem non solvimus, cur frustra oramus, ut faciat quod, quia non convenit, facere non potest?” To this Anselm replies: “Qui non solvit, frustra dicit: dimitte; qui autem solvit, supplicat, quoniam hoc ipsum pertinet ad solutionem ut supplicet; nam deus nulli quicquam debet, sed omnis creatura illi debet; et ideo non expedit homini, ut agat cum deo, quemadmodum par cum pari.” Unfortunately Anselm has forgotten this last thought in his exposition elsewhere. 117 See above, p. 60, note 3. 112

even when I sin not, that I do not sin (so there is no thought here of supererogatory deeds), I have nothing that I can render back (reddam) for my sin.” The objection: “if I consider reasons (rationes), I do not see how I can be saved, but if I fall back upon my faith, then in Christian faith which worketh by love [hope that my salvation is possible,” is repelled; for here it is just a question of reason.118 Man can therefore do nothing. And how much he would have to do! “Thou hast not yet considered of what gravity thy sin is.” Even the smallest disobedience entails an infinite guilt (even to gain the whole world one may not commit 63the smallest sin) for the guilt is to be measured by the God who is despised.119 Man has therefore to furnish an infinitely great satisfaction, since it is already an established rule, that God’s honour does not permit of man’s receiving salvation, “if he does not restore to God all he has taken from Rim, so that as God has lost by him, He may also recover by him.”120 The incapacity of human nature to furnish satisfaction can make no change on this law, which follows from the honour of God121 So therefore there remains only one solution, if the “convenientia” (the befitting) requires redemption122 — namely, the God-man. There must be someone “who shall pay to God for the sin of man something greater than all that is, apart from God . . .it is necessary, therefore, that he who shall be able to give of his own to God something that shall surpass all that is under God, shall be greater than all that is not God . . .but there is nothing above all that is not God, save God. . .No one, therefore, is able to make this satisfaction save God.” Again, “nor must that satisfaction be made by anyone save man, otherwise man does not satisfy.” Conclusion: “If, therefore, as is certain (sicut constat), it is

118

I. 20. See the exposition in I. 21. Because every sin is committed contra voluntatem dei, it is greater than the value of the world — infinitely great. Further (I. 22), because man in paradise preferred the devil to God, it is “contra honorem dei, ut homo reconcilietur illi cum calumnia hujus contumeliæ deo irrogatæ, nisi prius honoraverit deum vincendo diabolum, sicut inhonoravit ilium victus a diabolo.” But how can he do that? 120 eb5 I. 23. 121 I. 24. 122 I. 4, and the strongest passage, I. 25: “Si deo inconveniens est, hominem cum aliqua macula perducere ad hoc, ad quod ilium sine omni macula facit, ne aut boni incepti pænitere aut propositum implere non posse videatur: multo magis propter eandem inconvenientiam impossibile est nullum hominem ad hoc provehi, ad quo factus est.” In II. 4, 5, it is said, indeed, that while God “nihil facit necessitate, quia nullo modo cogitur aut prohibetur facere aliquid,” yet an inner self-willed necessity exists for God’s carrying out His work: “necesse est, ut bonitas dei propter immutabilitatem suam perficiat de homine quod incepit, quamvis totum sit gratia bonum quod facit.” 119

necessary that that heavenly State be made perfect from men, and this cannot be unless there is made the aforesaid satisfaction, which no one can make save God, and no one owes save man, it is necessary that the God-man shall make it.”123 64

This God-man must possess the two natures unchanged (otherwise he would be either only God or only man), unmingled, too (otherwise he would be neither God nor man), but also unseparated (otherwise no work having unity is effected); therefore he must possess them “entire in one person” (integras in una persona).124 The God must have derived the human nature from Adam and Eve, but from a virgin,125 and he must as man have surrendered this nature to death voluntarily. His dying was really free, for he was sinless.126 If the supposed God-man now surrenders his life voluntarily to God, the satisfaction sought for is obtained. It must be his life; for only this he is not under obligation to offer to God; all that he could give of his own, it behoved him in some way or other to offer to God. “Let us see if, perhaps, this giving of his life, or parting with his soul, or surrender of himself to death, is for the honour of God. For God will not require it from him as a debt, because, as there shall be no sin in him, he shall not owe it to die . . .if man has had a sweet experience in sinning, is it not fitting that he should have a hard experience in satisfying? And if he has been so easily prevailed upon by the devil to dishonour God by sinning that nothing could be easier, is it not just that, in satisfying for sin, he should overcome the devil to the honour of God with a measure of difficulty that could not be exceeded? Is it not becoming (dignum) that as he who by sinning so denied

123

II. 6. II. 7. 125 II. 8: The former, because the descendants of Adam must make satisfaction; the latter, because of the four ways in which God can create man (from man and woman [the rule], neither from man nor woman [Adam], from man alone [Eve], from woman alone), the fourth had not yet occurred. But that it must he a virgin, if it was to be a woman, “non opus est disputare.” Here is a piece of Schoiasticsm in the strictest sense of the term, and this kind of proof is continued in the following chapter, where it is shown that it had to be the second person of the Trinity who became man, because otherwise the predicates in the Trinity would have been destroyed, and for other equally cogent reasons (“duo nepotes essent in trinitate, quia, si pater incarnatus esset, esset nepos parentum virginis per hominem assumptum, et verbum cum nihil habeat de homine, nepos tamen esset virginis, quia filii ejus erit filius” II. 9). Here, besides, there is a working everywhere with “mundius,” “honestius,” in short, with relative notions. 126 11a8 The prolix demonstration here in II. 10, 11 and 16 ff. shows that Anselm did not understand how to make this point quite “rational.” 124

himself to God that he could not deny himself 65in a greater degree, should by satisfying so give himself to God that he could not give himself in a greater degree? . . .But there is nothing harder or more difficult that a man can suffer for the honour of God spontaneously and not of debt than death, and in no way can man give himself more fully to God than when he surrenders himself to death for His honour.” Hence the man sought for must be one who does not die “of necessity,” because he is almighty, nor “of debt,” because he is sinless, who therefore can die “of free choice because it will be necessary” (ex libera voluntate quia necessarium erit.)127 The worth of such a life as a satisfaction is infinite. Because the smallest violation of this life has an infinitely negative worth, the voluntary surrender of it has an infinitely positive worth. Because sins are as hate-worthy as they are bad, so that life also is as loveworthy as it is good. Hence the acceptance of the death (acceptio mortis) of such a God-man is an infinite good for God (!), which far surpasses the loss by sin.128 But the giving of life (datio vitæ) 66can only have taken place “to the honour of God;” for another spirit and purpose cannot be discovered. To this there is to be added, no doubt, the further design of setting us an example, so

127

II. 11. In II. 12, 13 further allied questions are discussed. The God-man was not “miser,” although he took the incommoda on himself; he was omniscient, because otherwise he would not have been perfectly good (!). 128 II. 14: “Si omne bonum tam bonum est, quam mala est ejus destructio (!), plus est bonum incomparabiliter quam sint ea peccata mala, quæ sine æstimatione superat ejus interremptio . . .tantum bonum tam amabile potest sufficere ad solvendum quod debetur pro peccatis totius mundi, immo plus potest in infinitum (II. 17 fin.: plus in infinitum. II. 20: “pretium majus omni debito”) . . .si ergo dare vitam est mortem accipere (!), sicut datio hujus vitæ prævalet omnibus hominum peccatis, ita et acceptio mortis.” The question is next discussed, whether the death of Christ can be of advantage even to His enemies who crucified Him (II. 15: the question is answered affirmatively; for they acted in ignorance), then how Christ could be sinless (II. 16), for although He was conceived “absque carnalis delectationis peccato” — the sexual appetite is, after Augustine, original sin — yet Mary was not sinless. This question is discussed with much prolixity. Anselm was apparently at a loss for a rational solution. In the end, though with uncertainty, he offers the explanation, that in prospect of the future effect of the work of Christ, Mary was purified from her sins before her birth, i.e., God purified her. After this the question of the voluntariness of the death of Christ is again discussed; for if Mary was only purified in view of His death, while He needed a purified mother, it was necessary that He should die. This question again occupies a very large space, and is only solved by a subtle dialectic, which in the end cannot do without the support of the proposition, “ad hoc valuit in Christo diversitas naturarum . . .ut quod opus erat fieri ad hominum restaurationem si humana non posset natura, faceret divina, et si divinæ minime conveniret, exhiberet humana” (II. 17, p. 85).

that by no sufferings we might let ourselves be drawn aside from the righteousness which is due to God. Others, it is true, have given us such an example; but his is the most powerful, for he suffered without being obliged to suffer.129 Once again it is asked, by way of objection, whether he was not really obliged, because the creature “owes all to God, what he is, and what he knows, and what he can do.” As the answer, there suddenly appears the doctrine of surplus merit. When God leaves us free to offer Him something smaller or greater, a reward is the result if we give the greater, “because we give spontaneously what is our own.” When this is applied to the God-man, the conclusion follows that his dying was necessary, because he willed it, but at the same time was not necessary, because God did not demand it. His death therefore is voluntary.130 Now at length can the long-looked-for solution be given.131 It follows in a surprising form, and, above all, with strange brevity: the God-man acts for himself, by no means as the representative of mankind. But the Father must recompense him for that.132 But nothing, again, can be given to the Son, since he has all. Yet it would be outrageous to assume that the whole action of the Son should remain without effect. Hence it is necessary that it should be for the advantage of another, and if that is willed by the Son, the Father cannot object, otherwise He would be unjust. “But to whom more fittingly (convenientius) shall he impart the fruit and recompence of his death than to those for whose salvation, as true reason (ratio veritatis) has taught us, he made himself man, and to whom, as we have said, he gave in dying the example of dying for righteousness’ sake? In vain surely shall they be imitators of him, if they are not to be partakers 67of his merit. Or whom shall he more justly make heirs of that which is due to him, but which he does not need, and of the superabundance of his plenitude (exundatiæ suæ plenitudinis) than his own parents and brethren, whom he looks on, burdened in their poverty with so many and so great debts, and languishing in the depths of misery, that what they owe for their sin may be remitted to them, and what, by reason of their sin, they lack, may be given to them?”133 God accordingly now rejects no one who comes to Him in the name of

129

This thought is dropped into the course of the discussion, II. 18. II. 18. 131 II. 19: “intueamur nunc prout possumus, quanta inde ratione sequatur humana salvatio.” The Interlocutor: “ad hoc tendit cor meum.” 132 527 II. 19: “eum autem qui tantum donum sponte dat deo, sine retributione debere esse non judicabis . . .alioquin aut injustus (!) videretur esse si nollet, aut impotens si non posset.” 133 II. 19, p. 93 sq. 130

this God-man, on condition that he comes as it befits him, i.e., that he so approaches Him, and so lives, as Holy Scripture directs.134 The divine mercy, therefore, has not been made void by the death on the cross — so it would seem when sin and the divine righteousness are contemplated — but it appears rather as inconceivably great, and at the same time as in perfect harmony with righteousness. God’s word, indeed, to the sinner is: “Take mine only-begotten Son and give him for thyself,” and the Son’s word is: “Take me and redeem thyself.”135 Only the wicked angels cannot be redeemed. Not as if the “price of His death would not be availing through its magnitude for all sins of men and angels”; but the condition of the angels (they are not descended from one angel, and fell without a tempter) excludes redemption.136 Anselm concludes with the lofty consciousness that “by the solution of one question” he has shown to be reasonable “all that is contained in the New and Old Testaments.”137 Because it really is what Anselm, in the last sentence, has asserted, namely, a (new) construction of the whole of dogma from the point of view of sin and redemption, and because in this construction the disjecta membra of the Augustinian Mediæval view of Christianity were for the first time knit together into a unity, this representation deserves a searching criticism. Standing on the shoulders of Augustine, but eliminating the “patristic,” i.e., the Greek elements of his mode of thought, Anselm has, by his book, “Cur deus homo,” placed 68himself, as distinctively a dogmatic theologian, side by side with the Fathers of Greek dogma (Irenæus, Athanasius, and Origen). With the outline which John of Damascus had furnished another outline is now associated, which certainly, and not to its advantage, is still dependent on the old, but yet is evidently dominated by another principle. Anselm’s representation, however, also deserves special consideration because it has given the impulse to permanent treatment of the subject, and because it is still regarded in our own day — and by evangelical theologians, too — as essentially a model. First of all, as against misunderstandings, it must be stated what Anselm’s theory is not, and is not meant to be. It is (1) no doctrine of reconciliation in the sense of showing how the opposition of will between God and sinful humanity is removed; it is (2) no theory of penal suffering, for Christ does not suffer

134

II. 19. II. 20. aef 136II. 21. 137 II. 22. 135

penalty; the point rather at which penalty is inflicted is never reached, for God declares Himself satisfied with Christ’s spontaneous acceptio mortis; just for this reason it is (3) no theory of vicarious representation in the strict sense of the term, for Christ does not suffer penalty in our stead, but rather provides a benefit, the value of which is not measured by the greatness of sin and sin’s penalty, but by the value of His life, and which God accepts, as it weighs more for Him than the loss which He has suffered through sin (between sin, therefore, and the value of the life of Christ there exists only an external relation; both are infinite, but the latter is more infinite; hence it more than satisfies God);138 it is, finally (4), not a theory which guarantees to the individual that he really becomes saved; it aims rather at only showing for all the possibility of their being saved; whether they shall be saved depends “on the measure in which men come to partake of so great grace, and on the degree in which they live under it,” i.e., on how they fulfil the commandments of holy scripture (II. 19, p. 94). From this consideration of what the Anselmic theory is not and does not offer, it already appears how inadequate it is. Above all, its unevangelical character shows itself in the 4th 69point. The entire ancient world, indeed, and, as Anselm shows, the mediæval world as well, rested satisfied with the doctrine of redemption, as demonstrating the possibility of the redemption of the individual from sin; but as this “possibility” can afford no comfort whatever to any distressed conscience, as it only satisfies the understanding, it is a worthless substitute for a real doctrine of redemption — Luther would say it is of the devil. If it cannot be shown from the person of Christ that we really are redeemed, if the certainty of salvation (certitudo salutis) is not derived therefrom, nothing is gained; all, rather, is lost, when we rest satisfied with such a doctrine, and append to it, as Anselm does, the conclusion, “If thou fulfillest the commands of Scripture, then the great provision of the God-man has an effect for thee.” For Anselm, the question of personal certitude of salvation, the fundamental question of religion, is simply not yet raised at all. He is an old-world, a mediæval, in a word, a Catholic Christian, inasmuch as he is satisfied with having made out that in virtue of Christ’s provision some certainly from the “mass of perdition” can be saved, and in fact shall be saved, because they live piously. But a second point is to be noted here. With every effort to express it as strongly as possible, the gravity of sin (pondus peccati) is not treated with sufficient earnestness if the thought of penalty, and therefore also

138

The theory of a vicarious penal suffering is to he found, along with the theory of ransom of men from the devil, in Athanasius, see Vol. III. p. 308 of this work.

of vicarious penal suffering, is entirely eliminated. In the idea that sin can be compensated for by something else than penalty there lies an underestimate of its gravity that is extremely objectionable. A recognition of the deep proposition that the innocent suffers for the guilty, that the penalty lies upon him, that we might have peace, is not to be found in the Anselmic theory. It does not appear even in the statement, prompted by warm feeling, II. 20: “Accept mine only-begotten and give Him for thyself.” “Take Me and redeem thyself,” for nothing is said of a penal suffering (just as little in the equally warm line of exposition II. 16, pp. 77 sq.). But before entering upon the objections to the theory, let us indicate its excellences. These are not small: (1) It must be held as greatly to the credit of Anselm that he laid hold of the problem at all, and made it the centre for a survey of faith; (2) 70that he so apprehended it that redemption from guilt is the question dealt with (the Greeks had always thought primarily of redemption from the consequences of sin, liability to death); (3) it is to be specially noted that he conceived of guilt exclusively as guilt before God (disobedience), and entirely set aside the traditional doctrine (see even Augustine) that in redemption (by means of the crucifixion of the God-man) the question is about satisfying the devil;139 (4) that he discarded a merely esthetic, or an externally historical, grounding of the death on the Cross (Christ did not die because it was prophesied, nor because the accomplishment of redemption had to correspond in its particulars with the history of Adam and the fall); (5) it is a point of much importance that Anselm made earnest efforts to prove the moral necessity of this precise mode of redemption.140 That which he calls “reason” (ratio) is, at least in many lines of proof, nothing but the strict moral imperative, and is accordingly entirely admissible here, and he expressly refuses to lay at the basis of his investigation the conception of an unrestricted divine arbitrariness; with deeper insight and more courage than Augustine, he rather assumes everywhere that God’s omnipotence is in inner subjection to His holy will. What, in his judgment, makes it possible to reflect rightly on God’s arrangements is just our title to feel assured that the supreme righteousness and the supreme mercy, which He is Himself, can be understood by us as righteousness and mercy. Finally (6), according to Anselm, Jesus Christ, in His historic person and through His death, is for us the redemption. The grace of God is

139

Whether indeed what Anselm offered as a substitute was in every respect better, or was not rather worse, will appear below. 140 A noteworthy passage already in Tertullian (de jejun. 3): “homo per eandem materiam causæ deo satisfacere debet, per quam offenderat.”

nothing but the redeeming work of Christ, i.e., the thought of grace is now for the first time entirely dissociated from that of nature and located in history, i.e., is connected solely with the person of Christ. But contrasted with these excellences there are so many defects that this theory is entirely untenable. To a great extent these defects lie so much on the surface, and do such 71violence, equally to reason and to morality (not to speak of the attack on the gospel), that if the present-day theology stood under normal conditions not a word would have to be lost upon them. But as the current theology stands under the dominating influence of traditional faith and Romanticism, and discards all the criteria of gospel, morality, logic, and culture, when it sees the “necessity of the possibility” of the traditional objects of its faith in some way justified, some discussion will here be in its right place. Besides what has been already noted above, the following things fall to be observed: First, the theory contains a series of imperfections, or, say contradictions; for (1) the necessarium is to be strictly carried through, yet at important points Anselm does not get beyond the conveniens, above all at the most important point, that it is just to men that the merit of Christ is imparted (II. 19, pp. 93 fin.). Moreover, that God accepts the death of the God-man for the wrong done to Him is not based on strict necessity, for the sin of men, and the nature of the satisfaction of Christ, have nothing inwardly in common;141 (2) the satisfaction theory must be brought to a point in a way that is foreign to it, that it may be proved to have any effect at all. That is to say, the theory itself, strictly taken, only goes so far as to show that God’s injured honour is vindicated and men take an example from the death of Christ to adhere steadfastly to righteousness, even under the severest sufferings. But how can they take an example? Will the example, then, have the power to incite to earnest imitation? Will they not rather go on sinning? Yet the whole provision, according to Anselm, avails only for those who regulate their life according to Holy Scripture. So the provision will be a failure! Anselm certainly felt this, and therefore passed quite beyond his theory by asserting that God sees occasion for His rewarding the voluntary action of the God-man, and for His conferring this reward on men, by reckoning to them as the kinsmen of Christ the merit of Christ, without which they shall be quite unable to become imitators of 72Christ. This turn of

141

The keen criticism which the present-day Catholics apply to Anselm’s theory (see Schwane, pp. 296 ff.) rests, on the contrary, on the strong Scotist antipathy to unconditional necessity.

thought does all honour to Anselm’s piety; but it destroys his doctrine of satisfaction; for if Christ’s suffering establishes merit, it does not contain strict reparation; but if it contains satisfaction, it establishes no merit. Nor does Anselm speak here of a surplus merit, but he suddenly regards the whole work of Christ as merit; but then it is not satisfaction. Further, when men suddenly come to be considered as kinsmen of Jesus, the question arises as to why this standpoint — that Christ is to be regarded as the head of elect humanity — was not asserted at the beginning of the inquiry. (3) The way in which the conceptions of the righteousness and honour of God are treated is full of contradictions. On the one hand righteousness, it is maintained, finds expression in penalty as much as in the positive attainment of salvation as an end; on the other hand righteousness requires that this end be reached. In keeping with this is the way the conception of honour is dealt with; indeed, three conceptions are here presupposed. First of all, it must be held entirely impossible for God to receive personal wrong; His honour can suffer absolutely no injury (I., 15: “By nothing can the honour of God, so far as it is concerned, be increased or diminished; since for itself it is the same incorruptible and absolutely immutable honour”). Then it is asserted that His honour, certainly, can be injured, but that it can likewise be restored, either by penalty (damnation of the human race) or by satisfaction. Lastly, it is asserted that the honour of God cannot tolerate the destruction of His world-plan, which culminates in the salvation of the reasonable creature, that, accordingly, God must forego penalty, bring about the salvation of the creature, and therefore choose satisfaction. (4) While in general the idea is always carried through, that on account of His honour God cannot simply pardon men, the turn of thought occurs in c. 19, p. 41, that God cannot do so on man’s account, because a man polluted by sin, even though he were restored to paradise, would not be as he was before the fall. Yet this important turn of thought is not wrought out to a further issue. (5) It is asserted of God that He stands above all change of human conditions, and supports all things by His holy omnipotence; hence the rule holds good (l.c.): “it is not 73for man to transact with God as an equal with an equal.” Yet this rule is contravened by the whole exposition, which proceeds on the principle (I. 23, p. 47): “Man never should, and never can, receive from God what God has proposed to give him, unless he restores to God all that he took from Him, so that as God has lost by him, He shall also recover by him.” This principle places God and man entirely on the same footing as injured and injurer. God is wronged as a man is wronged. But if it is said, that in point of fact, as moral beings, they would stand on the same footing, yet this correct observation must not alter the fundamental relationship, that God is the Lord

and man His creature. (6) The assumption that Christ’s death was voluntary, in the sense that He could also have declined death, cannot be carried through without contradiction, and yet, as Anselm knew very well, everything in his theory depends on this point. First of all, Anselm can only set aside by clumsy sophisms the Bible passages that assert that death was included in the obedience of Christ, and that He drank the cup in trembling fulfilment of the will of the Father. Secondly, when the subject itself is dealt with, it cannot be proved that the obedience of Christ did not extend to the suffering of death, for as it was — according to Anselm — the man Christ that suffered, death is also included in what He owed to God, since man, even apart from sin, owes himself entirely to God. The action, moreover, which Christ offered up when He died “to the honour of God” was not objective; it was personal. But — again according to Anselm — man is under obligation to direct all personal action “to the honour of God.”142 Second, the old ecclesiastical material with which Anselm works is not adapted to the new purposes for which he employs it. From the time of Athanasius, and even earlier, the doctrine of the two natures was so understood as to imply that the God-Logos is the subject, and that He takes human nature into the unity of His divine being. This idea alone suits the purpose which the Greeks had in view, namely, to explain the reality of the conquest of death, and the deification of our nature. From this as a starting-point, Athanasius developed in detail a multitude 74of points of view, this among the rest, that by His dying — which was possible to Him through the human nature — the God-Logos bore the penalty, and expelled death from human nature. But Anselm wished to trace back everything to satisfaction, and he adhered strictly to the correct theory of Ambrose and Augustine, that it was the man Jesus who died, and that it is He therefore who is our mediator. At the same time, however, the impossibility of reconciling this view with the doctrine of the two natures now at last found definite expression in him; for where the subject of the redeeming personality is regarded, not as the God-Logos, but as, with Anselm, the man, there is a cancelling, not, indeed, of the Godhead of Christ, but certainly of the two-nature doctrine. The term, “the Godhead of Christ,” occurs in Anselm, within the lines of the strict theory, only as a determination of the value of the human person in his action.143 Christ appears as the man, whose life has an infinite value. That that is something quite different from the second

142 143

See Ritschl 1.c. I., pp, 44 f. See Ritschl I., pp. 43 f.

person of the Godhead is obvious.144 When Anselm now continues to use the two-nature doctrine as a hallowed tradition, a quite Nestorian diremption of the person is the result (see I. 9, 10), such as had regularly occurred in the West from the time of Augustine, when there was an attempt to work out one’s own Christology as a doctrine of redemption, and yet a refusal to relinquish that doctrine of natures. But further, the two-nature doctrine still appears welcome on this ground also, namely, that by means of it every difficulty whatever which the theory of redemption offers can be got quit of; for as everything conceivable can be distributed between the predicates, “human and divine natures,” one finds himself herewith equal to any difficulty, and can suppress every doubt, and excuse all indolence of thought. 75Anselm confessed that himself in a naïve way (c. 17, p. 85): “What does not answer to the man in Christ must be transferred to the God, what does not suit the God must be applied to the man.” In this way the earnest Greek speculation, which always stood for the unity of the Godman, was discarded; and thus it continued to be in the West. Among those who to-day interject in discussion the “Godhead” of Christ, how many reflect that the term obliges them to prove the divine-human unity, and that, if they imagine they may disregard this obligation, an Athanasius and the Fathers of dogma would despise them as empty talkers or as heretics? These men knew full well that the mere term, “the divinity of Christ,” affirms simply nothing, is heretical, indeed, because the God-manhood must be proved. But to those in the West that no longer occurs; for they neither can, nor will, prove it, by employing the means of the Greeks; nay, they follow quite a different scheme in the doctrine of redemption: Christ is the man whose action has an infinite value. If, then, the term, “doctrine of two-natures,” continues in use, then among those who really reflect on Christ as Redeemer it is deprived of its meaning through the Western conception of it. Hence it is only used still in the service of “conservative interests,” or to secure an authorised exemption from all energetic reflection on Christ as Redeemer by means of the convenient formula; this He did as God, and that as man.

144

Hence also the feeling in relation to Christ is quite different among the Latins from what it is among the Greeks. The latter look for the most part to the God in Christ, the former to the man. Ritschl has (p. 47) pointed out the remarkable, though by no means solitary, passage in Anselm’s Meditations (12): “Certe nescio, quia non plene comprehendere valeo, unde hoc est, quod longe dulcior es in corde diligentis te in eo quad caro es, quam in eo quod verbum: dulcior in eo, quod humilis, quam in eo quod sublimis . . . Hæc omnia (the human) formant et adaugent magis ac magis exsulta aa6 tionem, fiduciam et consolationem, amorem ac desiderium.”

Third, besides what has been set forth up to this point, there is still a series of the gravest objections to be urged against the whole character of the Anselmic doctrine. Let us only briefly indicate them: (1) In many passages, and these, too, the most important, Anselm proceeds according to a logic by which already everything can be proved. The gravest malpractices of Scholasticism already betray themselves in him; the self-restraint of the ancient thinkers, modest as was the expression given to it by the Fathers, is wanting to him. (2) Everything is conceived of quite abstractly, very much in the way in which a clever child thinks and speaks of such things, This theory manages to describe the work of redemption by Jesus Christ without adducing a single saying of His (what is brought forward does not serve to elucidate, but consists in the explaining 76away of important passages of Scripture). Anselm holds it as superfluous to accentuate any one personal feature in the picture of Christ; the sinless man with the infinitely valuable life is enough. The death of Christ is entirely severed from His life-work on earth, and isolated. This God-man need not have preached, and founded a kingdom, and gathered disciples; he only required to die. (3) There is no reference to the eternal election of the Christian community, or the reference is only feeble (see I. 16, and in connection with Mary). As the Kingdom of God is not spoken of, so neither is the Church, and its eternal existence in the view of God. The category of the inner moral necessity of the good and holy even for God is consistently confounded with that of reason (ratio), by means of which, it is represented, one can constrain even a heathen to believe in the God-man, the result being that the mystery of faith is profaned. (4) Sin is conceived of certainly as guilt before God; but this guilt is not the want of trust (faith) in Him, but is conceived of as a personal injury. How any one pleases to deal with personal injuries is a matter for himself; on the other hand, the guilt which is want of child-like fear and love, and which destroys God’s world, must be wiped out, whether it be in wrath or in love. Anselm fails to see that. (5) And this brings us to the worst thing in Anselm’s theory: the mythological conception of God as the mighty private man, who is incensed at the injury done to His honour and does not forego His wrath till He has received an at least adequately great equivalent; the quite Gnostic antagonism between justice and goodness, the Father being the just one, and the Son the good; the frightful idea (as compared with which the views of the lathers and the Gnostics are far to be preferred) that mankind are delivered from the wrathful God;145 77 the illusory performance between

145

Very correct statement by Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alex., p. 290: “It was reserved for Anselm, centuries afterwards, to array the justice against the goodness of

Father and Son, while the Son is one with the Father; the illusory performance of the Son with Himself, for according to Anselm the Son offers Him-self to Himself (II. 18: “filius ad honorem suum seipsum sibi obtulit”);146 the blasphemous idea that the Son’s giving of life (datio vitæ) is for God, as acceptance of death (acceptio mortis), a benefit; the dreadful thought that God is superior to man, as having the prerogative of not being able to forgive from love, a payment always being needed by Him (I. 12); the vitiated conception of our prayer to God for forgiveness, that it is a part of our satisfaction, but can never in itself have the effect of forgiveness (I. 19: “qui non solvit, frustra dicit: dimitte”). If it is now added that, as has been shown above, there is proved by all this only the possibility of our being saved, that the thought of the penalty of sin is eliminated (and therefore the righteousness of God too laxly conceived of), that here no innocent one suffers penalty for the guilty, and that, in the effect upon us, only the feeble thought of example comes clearly to view, then we must say, that in spite of Anselm’s good intentions, and in spite of some correct

God, and thus to complete the resemblance of Christianity to its ancient deadly foe” (namely, Gnosticism). Only, Gnosticism distinguished between the just God (the demiurge) and the good God as two hostile deities. But the old patristic theory was that by His death Christ has redeemed men from the devil. If we isolate the death from the life of Christ, this is in fact the best theory, for it brings no discord into the deity. It was no doubt a step of progress on Anselm’s part that he wished to carry through the thought that God is at the same time holy and merciful. But this thought cannot be carried through by means of the death of Christ as isolated, and thought of as satisfaction, if this is held as satisfaction to God Himself. So it is always better to let the satisfaction be paid to the devil, because even on that assumption the idea of righteousness is satisfied — in a mythological way, no doubt (the right view would be, that justice must he done to evil, namely by penalty) — without Christ the merciful and God the wrathful being brought into conflict, while Christ is nevertheless regarded as Himself God. That the latter is an impracticable thought was clearly seen, moreover, by Augustine, after he had weighed its possibility. Bigg points to de trinit. XIII. 11: “Sed quid est justificati in sanguine ipsius? Quæ vis est sanguinis hujus, obsecro, ut in eo justificentur credentes? Et quid est reconciliati per mortem filii ejus? Itane vero, cum irasceretur nobis deus pater, vidit mortem filii sui pro nobis et placatus est nobis?” This cannot be; “for omnia simul et pater et filius et amborum spiritus pariter et concorditer operantur.” He therefore rejects the Anselmic theory in anticipation. This theory can only be explained from the fact that the thought of God as the Father who is nigh to us had fallen into the background in the Middle Ages, and the old view of the Trinity as unity was no longer held. Here too, therefore, the ancient traditional dogma was discarded, the term Trinity retained. 586 146In Constantinople the Synods from the year 1156 f. decided, that the mass is offered also to the Son, as He is at the same time the offerer and the offered, and the Trinity admits of no diremption. See Hefele V.2, p. 567.

perceptions, no theory so bad had 78ever before his day been given out as ecclesiastical. But perhaps no one can frame a better, who isolates the death of Christ from His life, and wishes to see in this death something else than the consummation of the “service” which He rendered throughout His life.147 In its complete form Anselm’s theory exercised little influence. The conception, which he only touched on, of the “meritoriousness” of the work of Christ, very rapidly came to the front, and made his satisfaction theory — which, moreover, conflicted with the Augustinian tradition — without effect. Added to this was the fact that interest in the proof of our reconciliation to God was not satisfied by Him. At this point Abelard intervened, without giving, certainly, a connected and exact development of the doctrine.148 After rejecting still more decidedly than Anselm the relation of the death on the Cross to the devil, he sets out from the fundamental thought of the love of God, and at the same time makes it clear to himself that sin has separated men from God, that it is a question therefore of bringing them back to God, and of again imparting to them trust in God. Further, he keeps it before him that the fruit of redemption relates to the chosen, with regard to whom God’s disposition did not first need to be changed. Accordingly, the incarnation and death of the Son of God can be conceived of only as an act of love, and even the righteousness of God must be so defined that it is subordinated to love, or, say, is identical with it. It was not required then that Christ should first assuage the wrath of God. It is as easy for God to forgive sin as it was for Him to bring into existence a sinless man, who united himself to Christ. But in order really to win us for Himself, Christ has given us the highest proof of love, which kindles our cold hearts and leads us back to the trust and love of God. Further (the reflections do not 79stand in a strict order) in this deed of Christ in dying on the Cross God beholds us, that is, He forgives us our sins, in so far as He reckons to us the merit of Christ, because Christ stands before God as the head of humanity; He likewise lets the merit of the perfect righteousness of Christ fall to our advantage; for in the obedience of Christ God is satisfied. Finally, Christ goes on working continuously for us, for inasmuch as He prays for us

147

That Anselm himself, however, has, in other writings, carried through other thoughts with regard to redemption has been shown by Ritschl, l.c. I., pp. 46 f., 109. He surrendered himself to the certainty of grace even without such calculations, on the other hand emphasised more strongly the conception of merit. 148 See Ritschl, l.c. I., pp. 48 ff.; Schwane, pp. 304 ff.; Deutsch, Abälard, pp. 336 ff.; Seeberg in the “Mittheil. u. Nachricht. f. die ev. K. in Russland,” 1888, March-April. Also Reuter in his 1st, and especially Bach in his 2nd, vol., pp. 68 f., 77 f., 88 ff.

unceasingly to the Father, it is in keeping with the righteousness of God to reckon to us this merit. But by Christ’s “merit” Abelard never understands “a sum of distinct actions; the fulness of love to God dwelling in Christ is His merit.” “Thus it is in will, not in works, which are common to the good and evil, that all merit consists.149 There is therefore here nothing objective and nothing magical. Even the death on the Cross is not estimated as an objective deed, but belongs entirely — as a chief part — to the evidences of the love of Christ which He exhibited from the beginning. Christ’s merit is His service of love; but love calls forth responsive love, and he who loves (because Christ has first loved him) has forgiveness of sins granted him, nay, in the interchange of love which springs from Christ there lies the forgiveness of sins itself.150 Abelard has furnished no strict proof for the necessity of the death on the Cross; his propositions, moreover, are inadequate, because he has not clearly perceived that that love is the highest, is indeed alone effectual, which, by taking the penalty upon itself, reveals at the same time the greatness of the absolution and the greatness of the cancelled guilt. He did not perceive that the sinner cannot be otherwise delivered from guilt than by experiencing and seeing the penalty of guilt. But he had too keen a sense of the love of his God, and of the oneness of God 80and Christ, to entertain the Gnostic thought that God needs a sacrifice or an equivalent, or that for Him Christ’s death is a benefit. And he knew himself so intimately united to Christ in living fellowship that it was he who first introduced again into the doctrine of redemption the apostolic thought of the perpetual intercession of Christ for us, and on the other hand saw also in the earthly life of Christ, not one proof of love — the death — but a continuous stream of love, in which the “work” of Christ also, namely His “ merit,” i.e., the operation of His loving eb0 will, is included.151

149

So a disciple of Abelard, who hit upon his meaning; see Seeberg, p. 7, and Deutsch, p. 378 ff. 150 I do not transcribe here the passages, for in their isolation they do not give a true view. There fall to he considered more particularly several passages from the Exposit. ep. Rom. (especially on chap. III. 22 ff., V. 12 ff.), from the Sermons V., X., XII., theolog. christ. IV., and the Dialogue. How much Abelard’s whole Christology and doctrine of redemption are dominated by the thought of love and counter love, how entirely love is “merit,” could not be ascertained from separate quotations. 151 Deutsch says very correctly, p. 382: “Accordingly the ultimate and deepest thought of Abelard is this, that reconciliation rests on personal fellowship with Christ. It is He who, by perfectly fulfilling the will of God as man, realised the divine destination of humanity, in this sense satisfied God, and thereby opened again to mankind the closed

81

The polemic against Abelard directed itself also against his theory of redemption; but it was contested essentially from the basis of the Augustinian theory of redemption (vanquishment of the claim of the devil), while there was no following of Anselm.152 At the same time all were increasingly at one in this, that the point of view of merit must be applied, and that Christ must be contemplated as Redeemer in the light of His human quality. With this understanding also the Lombard drew up his connected

gates of paradise. He who belongs to Him has through Him the forgiveness of sins, and with Him access to God, but at the same time also the power of the new life, in which he fulfils the commands of God from love; and so far as this fulfilment is still imperfect the righteousness of God comes in to complete it.” On the other hand Reuter (I., p. 243) has given this perverted view of Abelard’s doctrine: “For one who wrought reconciliation, there was substituted one who proclaimed th ac7 at God was already reconciled [but according to Abelard Christ is no “proclaimer,” and God is not reconciled, if we are not]; instead of a passion of the Son, who alone opens again the way to the Father [but that is just Abelard’s meaning], a martyrdom with psychological efficacy was held up to view [the word “psychological” is here meant to create an impression of the profane, but we have surely only the choice between this and physico-chemical]; instead of change of disposition on God’s part, change of disposition on man’s was spoken of.” [Is God love or is He of alienated mood? Is it not the penalty for man that as a sinner he must think of a God of terror, and can anything greater take place in heaven or earth than when a man’s feelings are revolutionised, i.e., when his fear of a God of terror is transformed into trust and love? If it were possible to bring home to the sinner the thought of the loving God, in whom he can have confidence, while he feels himself guilty, then certainly Christ would have died in vain; but that is a contradictio in adjecto.] Even Seeberg, in spite of all his efforts to be impartial, has made a nationalistic caricature of Abelard’s doctrine, and in keeping with this has much bepraised sayings of Bernard, some of which are to he found also in Abelard, some of which Abelard has happily set aside (the justa potestas diaboli). That which we really miss in Abelard — that Christ bore our penalty — is also wanting in Bernard, and the “example” of Christ is much more incautiously emphasised by the latter than by the former, who always thinks of the power of love that proceeds from Christ. But Bernard, it is alleged, stands much higher than Abelard, because he can give a more lyrical expression to the impassioned love to Christ, while Abelard thinks only of the doctrine and the example (!), and because, it is asserted, something “objective” is to be found in him which is supposed to be wanting in Abelard. Even according to Seeberg, indeed, this “objective” is quite falsely defined by Bernard, but that is of no consequence, if only there is “something” there. When will there be a getting rid in Protestantism of this “something,” which at best only establishes the possibility of redemption; and when will there be a distinguishing between a vicarious penal suffering and a satisfaction demanded by God? 152 ac9 See Bach II., pp. 88-122. Besides Bernard, William of St. Thierry specially comes into view here.

account of the opinions of the Fathers in his doctrinal compendium. As in the case of Augustine, the “man” (homo) in Christ takes the prominent place, as the moral personality chosen and sustained by God, and the whole life of Christ is understood from this point of view.153 At the same time, in order to understand the peculiar nature of redemption, all points of view were combined that were furnished by the past: obedience, redemption from the devil, death and penalty, but, above all, the merit of death, then also sacrifice. With Augustine, the strict necessity of this precise means (death on the Cross) is rejected; with him and the other Fathers, the buying off of the devil (including deception) is asserted. With Abelard, the death is viewed as a proof of love, which awakens counter love; with him Christ is regarded as the representative of humanity before God; with Augustine, the necessity for a reconciliation of God through the death of Christ is rejected (God loves even His enemies; He has loved us beforehand from eternity, and we are reconciled, not with the wrathful, but with the loving God); finally, a penal value in the death of Christ is asserted, in the sense that by it the eternal penalty is remitted (see Athanasius), the temporal penalty in future (after death) falls away. On the other hand the Anselmic theory is not mentioned at all.154 The Lombard shows therefore 82 that the patristic tradition still continued to be the only subject of doctrine, and that it was only with an effort that what was new asserted itself against it. Yet the whole undertaking to give a combined and connected view was itself new (on which account the Lombard was regarded with much distrust as an Abelardian)155

153

Sentent. lib. III., dist. 18, 19. Ritschl I., p. 56 f. 155 This was not without ground; for apart from the objective redemption which consists in deliverance from the fetters of the devil (yet even to this a subjective turn is given, see Sentent. III. Dist. 19 A: “si ergo recte fidei intuitu in ilium respicimus qui pro nobis pependit in ligno, a vinculis diaboli solvimur, i.e., a peccatis, et ita a diabolo liberamur, ut nec post hanc vitam in nobis inveniat quod puniat. Morte quippe sua, uno verissimo sacrificio, quidquid culparum erat, unde nos diabolus ad luenda supplicia detinebat, Christus exstinxit, ut in hac vita tentando nobis non prævaleat”) the Lombard knows only of a subjective redemption; l.c. “quo modo a peccatis per Christi mortem soluti sumus? Quia per ejus mortem, ut ait apostolus, commendatur nobis caritas dei, i.e., apparet eximia et commendabilis caritas dei erga nos in hoc, quod filium suum tradidit in mortem pro nobis peccatoribus. Exhibita autem tantæ erga nos dilectionis arrha, et nos movemur accendimurque ad diligendum deum, qui pro nobis tanta fecit, et per hoc justificamur, i.e., soluti a peccatis justi efficimur. Mors ergo Christi nos justificat, dum per eam caritas excitatur in cordibus nostris.” Yet along with this the other turn of thought is found: “dicimur quoque et aliter per mortem Christi justificati, quia per fidem 154

Not till the thirteenth century did the new dogmatic impulse de80 s of the eleventh and twelfth centuries take their place with equal rights, materially, though not formally, alongside the mass of traditional patristic tenets. By the latter, which were represented partly by a voluminous exegetical tradition, and partly 83by theological positions no longer understood in their original connection, the trivial spirit of mediæval theology was fostered, which mingled in a marvellous way with its energy and with its juristic acuteness. The statement of the thesis in scholastic science was invariably lofty and great; “but by its love for details even heaven was dragged down.” From the scientific standpoint, and from the standpoint of “juristic thinking,” we cannot find fault, certainly, with this spirit; for does not science require that the problems be thought out to their ultimate consequences? The error lay simply in the premises, and in the idea that that thinking was thinking about religion. But even that idea it was necessary then to entertain, for religion was of course contemplation! 84

CHAPTER II. HISTORY OF DOGMA IN THE PERIOD OF THE MENDICANT ORDERS, TILL THE BEGINNING OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.

mortis ejus a peccatis mundamur.” But his thought is not further followed out; on the contrary, it is said again Dist. 19 F: “reconciliati sumus deo, ut ait apostolus, per mortem christi. Quod non sic intelligen 564 dum est quasi nos sic reconciliaverit Christus, ut inciperet amare quos oderat, sicut reconciliatur inimicus inimico, ut deinde sint amici qui ante se oderant, sed jam nos diligenti deo reconciliati sumus; non enim ex quo ei reconciliati sumus per sanguinem filii nos coepit diligere, sed ante mundum, priusquam nos aliquid essemus. Quomodo ergo nos diligenti deo sumus reconciliati? Propter peccatum cum eo habebamus inimicitias, qui habebat erga nos caritatem, etiam cum inimicitias exercebamus adversus eum operando iniquitatem. Ita ergo inimici eramus deo, sicut justitiæ sunt inimica peccata et ideo dimissis peccatis tales inimicitiæ finiuntur, et reconciliamur justo quos ipse justificat. Christus ergo dicitur mediator, eo quod medius inter deum et homines ipsos reconciliat deo.” But here again another thought comes in, when the Lombard immediately continues: “reconciliat autem dum offendicula hominum tollit ab oculis dei, id est dum peccata delet quibus deus offendebatur et nos inimici ejus eramus.” The prevading thought of the awakening of counter love, which the Lombard took over from Abelard, is already to be found in Augustine; see e.g., de catech. rud. 4: “Nulla est major ad amorem invitatio, quam prævenire amando, et nimis durus est animus, qui dilectionem si nolebat impendere, ac6 nolit rependere.”

IF in this chapter we again direct our attention in the first instance to the history of ecclesiastical piety, of ecclesiastical law and of ecclesiastical science, it is less with the view of understanding the changes which dogma passed through in this period, than in order to show how the conditions under which it stood served to make it ever more stable and to protect it from all attack. It must, above all, be shown how it was possible that the enormous revolution of the sixteenth century — keeping out of view the Anabaptist movements — stayed its course before the old dogma. This can only be understood, however, when we consider what confirmations dogma received from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century. These confirmations were a consequence of the peculiar history of piety, of ecclesiastical law and of science in this period. All of these sought, not for an “unmoved mover” in the background — for dogma was simply no longer a “mover” — but for an immovable basis. Mysticism, the development of ecclesiastical law, Nominalist theology — all of them could only develop themselves on the basis of an authoritative dogma, or, say, could only protect themselves on that basis against dangerous consequences. It is only in the second place that there fall to be considered how far the general conditions produced also certain changes in dogma, then how far an individual piety developed itself, how from this piety the need for individual certainty of salvation arose, and how this need gathered itself into a mighty force. Of itself the force was strong enough to demand, and to carry out, a revision of the entire ecclesiastical tradition. But it will 85appear in the last Book (see below) that it was impeded in its unfolding by the still greater power of a fifteen century long development.

1. On the History of Piety. What was germinating in the twelfth century, the century of the Crusades — namely, the piety of which Bernard was the subject and delineator, which derives its power from humility before God and from love to the sorely suffering Redeemer — opened into blossom in the holy beggar of Assisi, and “its fragrance filled the world.” In Francis mediæval piety attained its clearest and most forcible expression. In him it uttered itself most simply, and therefore most powerfully and most impressively, because its chord — “humility, love and obedience” — was here struck with

the greatest purity, while the quality of tone which Francis lent to it was the most melting.156 Humility — that is entire poverty. The reverence for that which is beneath us, which Bernard and his followers proclaimed, admits of no other robe than that of perfect poverty and humility. Long ago no doubt, nay, on from the beginning, Greek monks had striven after this ideal; but in their hands it became a torch, which consumed, along with the body, the imagination also, the powers of perception, and the wealth of the inner life. It was to be the means of emancipation from the body; but often enough it made a wilderness of the spirit. Here, on the other hand, it is the imitation of the poor life of Jesus, and while it thus acquired a personal ideal, it also developed out of itself, in the inexhaustibly fresh imagination of 86St. Francis, a wealth of intuitions from which all provinces of the outer and inner life derived profit. A spirited investigator has shown us what effects were produced by St. Francis in the field of art.157 But in all spheres of human life, even including that of strict science, the new impulse took effect — the godly fear which gives honour to God alone, the living view of Christ, which brought the personal into the foreground, the holy simplicity which shed its light into the heart and over the world. In the sunny soul of the sacred singer of Assisi, the troubadour of God (“joculator domini”) and of poverty, the world mirrored itself, not as merely the struggle for existence, or the realm of the devil, but as the paradise of God with our brothers and sisters, the sun, the moon and the stars, the wind and the water, the flowers and the living creatures. In poverty, which is nothing else but sister of the humility by which the soul becomes like the eye, which sees everything save only itself, a new organ was obtained for contemplating God and the world. But poverty is not only imitation of the poor life of Jesus, it is also, nay pre-eminently, imitation of the apostolic life, the life without care, of “the pilgrim preacher and herald of love.” The oldest rule of St. Francis

156

Müller, Die Anfänge des Minoritenordens und der Bussbruderschaften, 1885 Sabatier, Leben des h. Franz v. Assisi, German by M. L., 1895 R. Mariano, Francesco d’Assisi e alcuni dei suoi più recenti biografi. Napoli, 1896. Mariano brings a sharp, and in many respects well-deserved, criticism to hear on the work of Sabatier, which is captivatingly written and instructive, but, after the style of Renan, mingles confusedly past and present, religion and poetry. Mariano has made a substantial contribution to the estimation of St. Francis, by correcting the partly rhetorical, partly material, exaggerations of Sabatier. An excellent lecture, taking a survey of all the principal points, has been published recently by Hegler “Franciskus von Assisi und die Gründung des Franciskanerordens” (Zeitschr. f. Theol. u. K. 6 Bd. p. 395 ff. 157 Thode, Franciskus v. Assisi und die Anfänge der Kunst der Renaissance 1885.

presented this ideal with the utmost clearness, and created the joyous, devout Franciscan “family.”158 With the spirit of which poverty and humility are the evidence, love must unite itself. Going forth in pairs, the new Apostles must serve in lowly love; there is no work for which they must hold themselves too feeble; “for the love of Jesus Christ” they must “expose themselves to enemies, both visible and invisible”; according to the Sermon on the Mount, they must willingly suffer wrong; above all, wherever they come, in house and hall, they must render to men the loving service of preaching repentance, must deliver the message: “fear ye and honour, praise and bless, thank and adore, the Lord God omnipotent in trinity and unity . . .be of penitent heart, bring forth fruits meet for repentance, for know ye that we shall soon die. Give and it shall be given you, forgive and ye shall be forgiven, 87and if ye forgive not, the Lord will not forgive you your trespasses. Blessed are they who die in penitence, for they shall be in the Kingdom of Heaven,” etc.159 But the power of this love had its source in the example of Christ and of His devoted disciple, St. Francis, who reproduced ever more deeply in his experience the life and suffering of his Master. More and more his feelings became merged in one alone — in love. This feeling, which in him was so strong that it often overpowered him, so that he was forced to retire to lonely churches and forests to give it full vent, was love to Christ; but it wedded itself ever more closely to unlimited devotion to his neighbour, to concern for his spiritual and bodily well-being, to warm compassion and selfabasement in the service of his brethren. So out of humility and love he made of his life a poem — he, the greatest poet who then lived; for, after fiery conflicts, the sensuous element in his ardent nature appeared — not destroyed, but subdued and glorified, nay, transformed into the purest organ of the soul’s life.160 A great work of home missions was not contemplated by St. Francis, but begun; he was not the first to undertake it, but he was the first through whom the whole Church derived benefit from it: Christendom has certainly the right faith; but it is not what it ought to be. It is subject to priests and sacraments; but now the individual must be dealt with. He must be laid hold of, and guided to repentance. The gospel must be brought home to every man: the world must be again shaken, and rescued from its old ways, by a mighty call to repentance: he who has tasted the sweetness of the

158

See Müller, l.c. pp. 19. ff., 185 ff. The Rule of 1209. See Müller, p. 187. 160 See the beautiful characterisation in Thode, l.c. p. 59 ff. 159

love of Christ will turn with gladness to repentance and poverty. Yet it is not for the monks and priests alone that there must be concern, but for individual Christians, for the laity; they, likewise, must be won for a penitent and holy life. The “Brothers of Penitence,” of whom St. Francis formed visions, and whom he brought into existence, were, in spite of their continuing in family life, really ascetics, who were required to maintain strict separation from the world and from civic life, and, above all, to take no part in 88military service. The great saint had not yet made terms with the world; the later Tertiaries were as little his creation as the later Franciscans.161 From the monks to the secular priests, from the secular priests to the laity — this was the course by which Christianity was to be delivered from secularity; it is at the same time the history of the awakening of religious individualism in the West. And in the measure in which religion became, extensively and intensively, more world-renouncing, it acquired (paradoxical, it may seem, but intelligible enough) a higher social and political importance, penetrated more deeply into the life of the people, and developed itself out of the aristocratic form (in which, as Roman, it had come to the barbarian nations) into a form that was popularly social.162 The further the monachising proceeded, the more did the virtuosi in religion see themselves compelled to engage in practical tasks. When the new factor of apostolic life was introduced into the ideal of poverty and ascetic self-denial, the ideal acquired an enormous immanent power for propagandism, a power such as monachism

161

See Müller, pp. 117-144. An excellent description of the aim of St. Francis in Werner (Duns Scotus, p. 2): “The original designs of the order founded by St. Francis were the restoring of the original Christian Apostolate, with its poverty and renunciation of the world, that through the force of this restoration there might be restored to the Church itself the apostolic spirit; the awakening in Christian souls everywhere of a striving after holiness and perfection; the keeping the example of a direct following of Christ before the eyes of the world as a continuous living spectacle; the comforting of all the suffering and wretched with the consolation of Christian mercy; and, by selfsacrificing devotion, the becoming all things to those spiritually abandoned and physically destitute.” 162 578 Cf. Thode, l.c. p. 521 f.: “The beggar of Assisi is the representative of the third estate, the great lower mass of the people, in their combined upward striving towards a position self-sustained and independent; but at the same time also the representative of each individual out of this mass, as he becomes conscious of himself, and of his rights in relation to God and to the world. With him, and in him, mediæval humanity experiences the full power of the emotional force that dwells in each individual, and this inner experience brings with it a first knowledge of one’s own being which emancipates itself from dogmatic general conceptions.”

had never before possessed, and which does not belong — either formerly or now — to its distinctive nature. Where “apostolic life” becomes the watchword, there monachism is at once seen to apply itself to positive work among the people. In the eleventh 89and twelfth centuries what engaged attention was the great political problem of releasing Church from State; the question was, how to break down the great forces, the power of the Princes, the power of purely secular national bishops, in short, the title to exist of all unpliant political factors. At the close of the twelfth, and in the thirteenth centuries, there followed immediately upon this undertaking the positive evangelising of; and giving ecclesiastical character to, all relationships, to the whole of civilisation and the individual life, this being done under the dominating idea of the apostolical. Monachism, as apostolic life, entered upon this new work as formerly in the days of Clugny it entered upon the work of freeing Church from State. And how powerfully did religious individualism assert itself in Francis, when he ventured to place before himself and his disciples the example of the Apostles, and did not hesitate to say to the brothers that they could, and should, be what the Apostles once were, and that to them everything that Christ had said to the Apostles applied! He was not the first who awakened this “apostolic life.” We know of powerful phenomena in the twelfth century in which the new impulse had already found expression.163 But these older movements, tenaciously as they survived (and to some 90extent

163

See the history of sects in the twelfth century, especially the Waldensian, cf. Müller, Die Waldenser und ihre einzelnen Gruppen bis zum Anfang des 14. Jahrhunderts (1886), and the older fundamental work of Dieckhoff. The ground-thought of the Waldensian movement is unquestionably “to imitate the ap 553 ostles, and therefore to observe literally the instructions which the Lord gave to his wandering disciples in the missionary address, Matth. to. The undertaking, therefore, displays everywhere the same features as, thirty years later, the similar attempt of Francis in its initial stages: distribution of all property among the poor and renunciation of all further possessions, according to Matth. 19, 21, 29; then, the apostolic preaching, in constant itineracy, and the particulars as to apostolic garb and methods of travelling. They go two and two, without shoes, only sandals of wood on their feet, in simple woollen garments, without money. They move from place to place, seek shelter and support among those to whom they preach the gospel — for the workman is worthy of his hire — and despise all settled life and private householding, in imitation of the Son of man, who had not where to lay His head.” The Waldensians seem to have exercised an influence on St. Francis; but as to how, and by what means, nothing is known. On this account it will always be possible to believe in an entire independence, in a resemblance merely in fact; but this is not probable, especially as relations have been ascertained between St. Francis and Southern France.

survived as Catholic, in spite of being condemned), came too early; the clergy were not yet strong and matured enough to tolerate them, and, besides, there was lacking to them the element of unconditional submission to the Church, or more exactly, to the secular clergy, and of renunciation on principle of criticism of the Church.164

575 164The “Poor” were already excommunicated by Lucius III. (1184). On their spread in Northern Italy, where they had precursors in the Order of the Humiliates, but were only brought into existence by Waldes, on the relation of the Lyonnese Poor to those of Lombardy, and on the breach between the latter and Waldes, see Muller, 1.c. pp. 11-65. The view that the efficacy of the Sacraments depends on the worthiness of the celebrator — a revolutionary principle under then existing conditions — appeared again among the Poor of Lombardy before 1211 Of itself the view was fitted to sever entirely the connection with the ancient Church, and was perhaps one of the causes of the ultimate breach between the Lyonnese and Lombard poor. The former were not so sharply opposed to the Roman Church as the latter. They did not regard it as Antichrist, but included it rather in the great community of the baptised, and recognised its administration of the Sacraments. But they made it a grave reproach against the Roman Church that its hierarchy exercised apostolic powers without adopting the apostolic life of poverty and homelessness (s ac8 ee the demand of the Didache regarding the qualities of apostles and prophets). They did not contest the full authority of the duly ordained bishops, who derived their dignity from the apostles; but they looked upon it as a deadly sin that they refused to live as did the apostles. A certain wavering in their attitude towards the Roman Church was the result. The judicial and legislative authority of the hierarchy was certainly disputed, or at least held as needing restriction. But as the “Brothers” did not organise into communities the “Friends” (the “believers”) won over by them, but rather left them in the old relationships, the position of the reigning Church towards the Brothers and their adherents was much more definite and decided than was their position towards it. The French kinsmen of the Waldensians were not a new evangelical community, based on the idea of the universal priesthood, but “the sect itself is nothing but a hierarchy, which, founded on the thought of the apostolic life and the demand for a special ethical perfection, places itself alongside the Roman hierarchy, that, in an organisation which partakes at least of the fundamental forms of the latter, it may carry on preaching, dispense sacramental penance, and in its own innermost seclusion celebrate the Eucharist. So little is there the idea of the universal priesthood that the laity do not belong at all to the sect, membership being conferred rather only by consecration to one of the three hierarchical grades.” (See Müller, p. 93 ff. and cf., as a parallel, the way in which the Irvingites now carry on their propaganda, and relate themselves to the communitas baptizatorum). Nor was the old traditional Church doctrine assailed by the Waldensians. They diverged only in respect of certain doctrines which bore upon practice, and which, besides, had not yet been formulated. Thus they rejected purgatory, and disapproved therefore of the Church practice that was connected with the idea of it (i.e., of all institutions that were meant to extend their influence into the world beyond). The rejection of oaths, of service in war, of civil jurisdiction, of all shedding of blood,

seemed to them, as to so many mediæval sects, simply to follow from the Sermon on the Mount. On the other hand, the branch in Lombardy (which carried on a propaganda in Germany) took up a much more radical attitude towards the Roman Church (see Müller, p. 100 ff.) Although in what was cardinal it adhered to the standpoint of the French group of the stock (close communion, but only of men and women living apostolically; administration of the sacrament of penance; instruction of the “Friends” by preaching), it nevertheless ac8 saw in the Roman Church only apostasy, which at a subsequent time it traced to the benefactions of Constantine (cf. the Spirituales). This Church appeared to them accordingly as the synagogue of evil-doers and as the whore, its priests and monks as Scribes and Pharisees, its members as the lost. And so all regulations, orders, sacraments, and acts of this Church were to be rejected. Everything without exception, above all, the Pope and the mass, then also all legal regulations for worship fell under the adverse judgment. We can therefore gather testimonies here to the full for the “evangelical” character of these Lombards, who rejected all ecclesiastical differences of rank within the Christian community, all pomp, riches, lights, incense, holy water, processions, pilgrimages, vestments, ceremonies, etc., and in place of these required support of the poor, who would have nothing to do with the worship of Mary and the saints, who disbelieved as much in miracles of saints as in relics, who — at least originally — rejected the entire sacramental system of the Church, and both limited the number of sacraments and only recognised their validity on condition that the priest was free from mortal sin. But from the beginning onwards this attitude towards the reigning Church was really in many respects only “academic,” for the great mass of the “Friends,” i.e., of adherents, by no means actually so judged the Roman Church, but remained within the sacramental bonds. Further, the extremely defective vindication of this radical opposition on the part of the Brethren themselves shows that it was more the result of the breach forced upon them from without, or, say, of the doctrine of poverty, than the product of a religious criticism dealing with what was essential. Finally, this view is confirmed by the circumstance that from the beginning the Brethren left themselves, as can be proved, a convenient alternative, by means of which they might be able to recognise the celebration of the sacraments by one guilty of mortal sin (they said that in that case the worthy Christian receives directly from the lord in the dispensation of sacramental grace). Moreover, in the time following they approached always more closely to the Church and its sacramental celebration, partly on practical grounds (to avoid detection), partly because confidence in their own “apostolic” powers always became feebler, and the Catholic orders were viewed with longing and with greater trust. The whole movement, therefore, was at bottom not dogmatic. It was on the one hand — if we would draw the conclusions without hesitation — too radical to play a part in the history of dogma (Christianity is the apo ac8 stolic life), on the other hand too conservative, as it set aside absolutely nothing that was Catholic with good conscience and clear insight. It is a phenomenon in the history of Catholic piety, though it may be worth considering in connection with the history of dogma that the whole hierarchicosacramental apparatus of the Church was called in question. Had the movement come a generation later, the Church would no doubt have found means for incorporating it into itself, as it did the Franciscan. Such an attempt was even made with the “Catholic Poor”

91

For this is the third element in the piety of St. Francis — childlike confidence in the Church and unconditional obedience to the secular clergy. “Let all the Brethren,” so it runs in the Rule of 1209, “be Catholics, live and speak as Catholics . . . 92and let us regard the clergy and all religious persons as masters in those things which relate to the salvation of the soul, and do not deflect from our religion, let us reverence in the Lord both their rank (ordinem) and their office and their administration.” (See the Rule of 1221, c. 19).165 That a nature like St Francis felt oppressed by nothing external, if only free scope was given him for his ideal,166

of the converted Durandus of Huesca, formerly a French Waldensian (acknowledged by Innocent III. a year before St. Francis stood before him), and of the converted Lombard, Bernhard Primus, also one of the “Poor”; but there was no more success in leading the whole movement back to the channel of the Church by means of such approved Poor ones (Müller, p. 16 ff.) Only in the Mendicant Orders did the powerful countermovement become organised and permanent (cf. Miller’s excellent directions for finding the connection between the approvals of the Societies of Durandus, Dominic, and Francis (Waldenser, p. 65 ff.); also the same author’s Anfänge des Minoritenordens (pp. 43, 69 f.), and the perhaps anti-Waldensian passage on the Rule of 1209 (p. 187): “Nulla penitus mulier ab aliquo fratre recipiatur ad obedientiam”). The Mendicant Orders naturally, particularly that of Dominic, set themselves in opposition, not only to the unsanctioned “Poor,” but to sectarianism as a whole. On this latter there is no reason to enter in the history of dogma, for however high its importance may have to be estimated in connection with Church politics and social life, and however clearly it indicates that piety felt itself straightened within the tyrannical structure of the Roman Church and among its priests and ceremonies, it is equally certain that the mediæval sects continued entirely without influence as regards the development of dogma. It cannot even be said that they prepared the way for the Reformation; for the loosening which, to some extent, they brought about, was no prior condition of that movement. In the controversies rather which prevailed between the Roman Church and the dualistic (or pantheistic) sects, the Reformation placed itself entirely on the side of the former. What prepared the way for the Reformation in the domain of theology (keeping out of view the development of the ideas of the State and of natural rights) was always only the revived Augustinianism and the subjectivity of mysticism allied with it. As long, therefore, as it is regarded as expedient that the history of dogma should not be treated as histor 564 y of culture, or as universal history, attention must be withdrawn from such phenomena as the Cathari, Albigenses, etc. 165 But in the year 1210, and later, Francis would not be induced to connect himself with an already existing Order, or to conform to the older Monachism, and in this obstinacy towards the Pope and the cardinals he showed that he knew the greatness of his cause. 166 This was not done indeed, and it led to sore distress on Francis’ part; yet Sabatier seems to me to have exaggerated this strain in relationship (see Mariano, and especially

that he could maintain his inner freedom and 93pure cheerfulness of soul, even under quite other burdens than the Church then imposed, that he must have emptied himself of his very essence if he had undertaken to “abolish” anything, are things that are manifest. For him, obedience to all existing ordinances was as much a need as humility, and never assuredly did the shadow of a sceptical reflection as to whether the hierarchy was as it should be, or as to whether it should exist at all, fall upon the soul of this pure fool. But how could it fail to come about that the ideal of poverty and the ideal of obedience should come into conflict? We cannot here unfold the history of St. Francis and of the Minorite Order. It is well known against what mistrust he had to contend on the part of the secular clergy (even the curia), especially in France (but even on the part of the older Orders), and how the conditions reproduced themselves here which we have observed at the establishment of monachism in the end of the fourth, and beginning of the fifth, centuries, as well as in connection with the Cluniacensian reform in the West. It is well known also that “poverty” was the great theme in the history of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; that there was as much stubborn and passionate controversy over it as in the fourth and fifth centuries over the natures of Christ, and that in this controversy as artful and clever formula made their appearance as at Chalcedon and Constantinople. For thousands, the controversy about poverty was a controversy about the gospel itself. By this conflict the formulæ of the old dogmatic were little or in no way touched; but they, so to speak, sank into the ground. The question about the nature of the gospel was narrowed down to a practical question about lifeconduct. Even when we keep out of view the pedantic mode of treatment, the way of stating the question appears to us strangely inadequate. Yet “poverty,” certainly, was only the final expression for the whole sum of the virtues involved in imitating Christ. What the watchword “poverty” denoted was an immense step of advance from dead faith, and from a barren service of ceremonies and works to spiritual freedom in religion, 94and to an earnest personal Christianity. The new Order soon broke up into different sections. In the one principal section, the last to submit, it certainly wrought invaluable results in the first generations of its existence. Its preaching kindled an earnest Christian life, indeed in many regions it was the first thing that produced an individual Christianity at all

Hegler); the Cardinal to whom the movement was chiefly due also did the most to make it political. The relation of St. Francis to the Curia and to the Chur ac8 ch politicians, or rather the relation of these to him, still needs a thorough investigation. Excellent discussions in Hegler, l.c. 436 ff.

among the laity — so was it in Germany. Yet as everything was brought by it into closest connection with the confessional, the sacraments and the Pope, as all greater freedom was repressed as sectarianism, or crushed out — just by the Mendicant Orders — only an inferior kind of existence was allowed to this individual piety of the laity. For what the Minorites were obliged to sacrifice to the hierarchy — it was nothing less than the chief part of their original ideal, only the shadow remaining — they, so to speak, indemnified their conscience by the unparalleled energy with which they served the Church in its plans for ruling the world, and won for it the interest and allegiance of the laity. Here, at this final stage, therefore, the enemy the Church had in her own midst was once more vanquished; the enormous force of world-forsaking Christianity, which threatened the political supremacy of the Church, became visibly her servant; the “exempted” Order became, along with the Order of Preachers, her surest support. But in other sections the obedience was not powerful enough to control that force.167 “Poverty” turned itself against the rich and worldly Church, and when there was to be threatening and forced silence, it threw off restraint. It called upon the Church to serve; it united itself with the old apocalyptic ideas, that had already been long exercising their power in secret; it adopted the critical attitude of the “Lombard Poor”; it joined hands readily with the new social, and even the new territorial, ideas, the conceptions that were taking shape of the inherent rights of nations and individuals, of States and Princes.168 While 95 it declared the Church to be Babylon, and hierarchy Anti-Christ, it was not fastidious about its partnership. It left the dogmatic of the Church unassailed; but against the Church itself it declared war, an undertaking so full of contradiction that it was only possible in the Middle Ages, the period of contradictions and illusions; for did not this Church possess in its system of dogma the surest and most definite title for its existence? Only in one branch (the Fraticelli) did the contradiction become so radical

167

Of course many personal elements entered also, such as we can study in the most interesting of the earlier Franciscans, Elias of Cortona. 168 See the writings of Joh. de Oliva and Ubertino de Casale (both were under the influence of the writings of Joachim of Fiore). The view of history friendly to the State as against the Secularised Church appears already in the middle of the thirteenth century (and even among the Dominicans): see Voelter in the Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. IV., H. 3. On the “Spirituales,” and the “Fraticelli” (the latter are not to be identified with the former), as well as on the conflicts in the time of John XXII. and Louis of Bavaria, see Ehrle in the Archiv. f. Litt.-u. K.-Gesch. des Mittelalters, Vol. I. and II., Müller, Kampf Ludwig’s des Bayern 1879 f., the same author in the Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. VI., part 1, Gudenatz, Michael von Cesena, 1876.

that the fences dividing from the heretical sects (Apostolic Brethren, Beghards) became frail. From these last-mentioned sections nothing permanent developed itself.169. The importance for universal history of the vast movement of the Mendicant Orders is not to be seen at all in new doctrines or institutions, though these were not entirely wanting, but lies rather in the religious awakening that was produced by them during a period of 150 or — if a time of slackened 96effort on the part of the Orders is overlooked — of 300 years. “The individual began to reflect on the saving truths of the Christian religion, to enter himself into a personal relation to them.” That is the highest significance of the Mendicant Order movement. In this sense the Orders were a prior stage of the Reformation. But when religion passed into the circles of the laity, and independent religious life was awakened there, it was a natural result that redoubled vigilance should be exercised lest the old dogma should be injured. So long as dogma is in the hands of priests and theologians, it can maintain a certain freedom; this is here natural to it, indeed. But as soon as the laity become thoughtfully interested in ecclesiastical Christianity, dogma becomes extraordinarily sensitive. Those who are entrusted with the care of the religio publica must—as the Mendicant Orders did — guard it with jealousy, if the result of the general interest is not

169

At a later time Hussism incorporated and wrought over a great part of the Fianciscan and Joachimic-Franciscan elements (see Müller, Bericht uber den gegenwärtigen Stand der Forschung auf dem Gebiet der vorreformatorischen Zeit, in den Vorträgen der theol. Conferenz zu Giessen 1887 S. 44), and as it spread widely, even beyond Bohemia, among the lower orders it prepared the way for the great Baptist movement and the social revolutions of the sixteenth century. Yet creations of a lasting kind appeared here as little as permanent influences on the Church generally. But from the point of view of Church history and the history of culture, the study of the powerful movement, essentially one throughout, which began w ab1 ith Joachimism and culminated with the Hussites and Baptists, is of the deepest interest. Like the “Illuminism” (Aufklärung) in the eighteenth century, and the Romantic ideas in the nineteenth, Joachimism spread over Europe in the thirteenth century, not as a new system of dogma, but as a new mode of viewing history and the highest problems, comforting to the seriously disposed, because it flattered them; cf., e.g., the Chronicle of Salimbene (Michael, Salimbene und seine Chronik., Innsbruck 1889). Strange that this movement should have begun in the hills of Calabria, the most out-of-the-way district of Southern Europe! It is still too little studied, while it certainly belongs to a period more open to our inspection than any in which prophetism played a part. Where prophets appear and are welcomed, fabrications are the immediate sequel. But the history of Joachimism is the typical history of all prophetism. Of the way in which it succeeds in adjusting itself in the world, Salimbene also furnishes some beautiful examples.

to be a general running wild of religious speculation. The criterion of what is firmly fixed ecclesiastically must everywhere be applied without hesitation, especially if the Church practice of the present is to be corrected. On the other hand, the ecclesiastically pious laymen themselves demand that the dogma shall continue as a rocher de bronze, and they feel every movement or alteration of it to be an injury to their personal Christianity. This was the situation that was always becoming more firmly established in the three centuries before the Reformation. The larger the number grew of those who sought to become really familiar with religion, the larger became also the number of sectaries of all kinds; but the more inviolable also did dogma appear to the ecclesiastically faithful, and the greater were the efforts of the hierarchy to put down all “heresy.” Besides, dogma had come from the beginning, and indeed chiefly, to the mediæval nations, as a series of legal ordinances. This character it must retain, all the more if the spiritual life had a more vigorous and manifold development; otherwise the unity of the Church was lost. There must at least be an imperative demand for fides implicita, i.e., for respectful obedience. Thus the awakening, which in Germany seems to have gone on continually increasing from the middle of the thirteenth century, contributed to maintain 97the unalterable character of dogma. Ideally dogma had always been immutable; but now to the reality of this unchangeable thing there attached itself a profoundly practical interest. The history of piety in the centuries immediately preceding the Reformation consists of a series of sermons on repentance and of revivals, of reforms with a view to a deepening of spiritual life that was to extend through the whole of Christendom. Only in its leading points have we to take a survey of it. What comes first under our notice here is the alliance of the Mendicant Orders with Mysticism. By Mysticism, as has been explained above, there is to be understood nothing but theological piety (contemplation), having a reflex aim, modelled on Augustine and the Areopagite, and fertilised (though not thoroughly) by Bernardine devotion to Christ. That this theology should have been found congenial to the temper of the Mendicant Monks, as soon as they at all took to do with theology, is easily understood. Bonaventura, Albertus, and Thomas Aquinas were the greatest Mystics, not although, but

because, they were theologians and Mendicant Monks.170. The same is true of David of Augsburg and Theodoric of Freiburg. Widely-extended investigations have been instituted with the view of classifying the Mystics, and it has been thought possible to distinguish between a Scholastic, a Romanic, and a German, a Catholic, an Evangelical, and a Pantheistic Mysticism. But at bottom the distinctions are without importance. Mysticism is always the same; above all there are no national or confessional distinctions in it. The differences never have to do with its essence, but only either with the degree, the way and the energy with which it is applied, or with its being predominantly directed upon the intellect or upon the will. Even as regards this last point it is only a question of difference of degree, and, at the same time, this lastmentioned distinction shows again very plainly the complete alliance of 98Mysticism with objective theology; for it is from this alliance that distinction springs. Mysticism is Catholic piety in general, so far as this piety is not merely ecclesiastical obedience, that is, fides implicita Just for that reason Mysticism is not one form among others of pre-reformation piety — perhaps the latent evangelical — but is the Catholic expression of individual piety in general. The Reformation element that is ascribed to it lies here simply in this, that Mysticism, i.e., Catholic piety, when developed in a particular direction, is led to the discernment of the inherent responsibility of the soul, of which no authority can again deprive it; and that it is thereby, at the same time, brought face to face with the question of the certitudo salutis (assurance of salvation), a question which can never again pass out of its view till it is solved in the act of faith. But where that question is determined, Mysticism points beyond itself; for the entire scheme of thought in which it moves always admits only of a perpetually increasing approach to the Deity, and never allows the constant feeling of a sure possession to arise. That, as a Christian, one must always be growing, was rightly discerned by the Catholic piety; but it never arrived at a clear and peaceful vision of the truth, that this growth can, and must, have its sure and inalienable basis in firm confidence in the God of grace, that is, in salvation. As for Catholic Christianity to-day, the Evangelical faith, described as “trust-faith” (“Fiduzglaube”), is a stumbling-block and foolishness, so also before the tribunal of Mediæval Mysticism it was a thing of which there was no understanding. For these Mystics, who framed and saw through so many sacred paradoxes, there was one paradox

170

Herrmann remarks very correctly (Verkehr des Christen mit Gott I. Aufl., p. 100): “The (present day) lovers of Mysticism present on a diminished scale the same spectacle as the great Schoolmen; they seek repose from the work of their faith in Mystic piety.”

that remained hidden, namely, that in the spiritual life one can only become what he already is in faith. Only where they arrived at the discernment of this can they be described as precursors of the Reformation. If Mysticism is withdrawn from the Catholic Church and set down as “Protestant,” then Catholicism is emptied of its character, and evangelical faith becomes deteriorated. Is there then to be no living and individual Catholic piety? But where should we have to seek it, if not in Mysticism? In the three centuries before the Reformation, where can we find even a single 99manifestation of truly religious life that had not its source in “Mysticism”? Or is Mysticism to be denied to Catholicism, because the latter requires, above everything else, devotion to the Church and the Sacraments, and because the history of Mysticism is the history of continual conflicts between it and sacramental and authoritative ecclesiasticism? But when did it become permissible to regard such conflicts as showing that one of the two factors is illegitimate? Is there not a conflict also between the unquestionably Catholic ideal of asceticism, and the equally unquestionable Catholic ideal of world supremacy? Are the great Mystics not the great Saints of the Church? Or shall it be held, against all that appears, that this Church cannot produce and tolerate independent piety within its own lines? Now, no Evangelical Christian, certainly, would ever think of confounding his delight in the warm spiritual life which Catholic Christianity exhibits in the centuries before the Reformation171 with full approval of it, if — one must, unfortunately, add it — he had made clear to himself what evangelical faith is. The inability to fight one’s way to such faith produces the craving for Mysticism which is then, as one is of course a Protestant, claimed for Protestantism. The fondness, it is true, for “German” Mysticism has received a severe check from records that have shown that if one is enthusiastic about Master Eckhart, etc., and derives edification from him, one must be still more enthusiastic about St. Thomas, or about the Areopagite and Augustine. But still more powerful checks will be needed if a view of history is to be got quit of,

171

Herrmann (Verkehr des Christen mit Gott 3 Aufl., p. 21) justly emphasises the following also: “We must confess to ourselves that if we Evangelicals think we have another kind of religion, we are in any case still far from having reached the thoroughness of culture which Catholicism possesses in that Mysticism . . .it is a wonderfully perfect expression of a particular kind of religion. The speculations of Catholic Mysticism are of ancient date. Apart from Neoplatonism, it has little peculiar to it in this respect. But in the capacity to make personal life the subject of observation and delineation, it represents a height of attainment which Protestantism has not yet reached.”

which seems the proper one to all fragmentary natures that deal in a dilettante way with religion, theology and philosophy — a Mystic that does not become a Catholic is a dilettante. For one, what is of value in the 100Mystics is their “individualism,” as if everything were already implied under this form; for another, it is their feeling, no matter what the “feeling” is for; for a third, it is the pantheistic metaphysic, which, without much trouble, can be abstracted from Mysticism; for a fourth, it is their ascetic views and their resolution of Christology into the Ecce Homo, or into the endless series of men travailing in birth with the Christ; for a fifth, it is the light of “illuminism” (Aufklärung) which broke forth from Mysticism. What historian, with clear vision, will be able to pass by these fruits of Mysticism without sympathy, or with amused indifference? What Christian will not draw with heart-felt delight from the spring of fresh intuitions which flows forth here? Who, as an investigator of history, will not readily acknowledge that an Evangelical Reformation was as impossible about the year 1200 as it was prepared for about the year 1500? But if Protestantism is not at some time yet, so far as it means anything at all, to become entirely Mystical, it will never be possible to make Mysticism Protestant without flying in the face of history and Catholicism.172

adf

172

The right conception of Mysticism as Catholic piety has been taught — in opposition to Ullmann’s “Reformers before the Reformation” — by Ritschl (Rechtfert. und Versöhn. vol. I., Geschichte des Pietismus, vols. I.-III. Theologie und Metaphysik) who has also given hints for further investigation (connection of the Mystics with the Anabaptists, Hussites, etc.). He has been followed by a large number of more recent investigators. Besides the works named above, p. 25, among which those of Denifle are epoch-making, as having shown that Master Eckhart is, in his Latin writings, entirely dependent on Thomas, and even in other respects owes his best to him (Archiv f. Litt.und K.-Gesch. des Mittelalters II., pp. 417-640; preparatory work had already been done here by Bach in his monograph on Eckhart), see Lasson, Meister Eckhart, 1866, also the more recent works on Tauler and the Friends of God (Denifle), Pfeiffer’s edition of the German Mystics (2 vols., 1845-57), Suso’s Works, edited by Denifle (1877), still further, Ritschl in the Zeitschr. f. K.-Gesch. IV., p. 337 ff., Strauch, Marg. Ebner und Heinrich v. Nördlingen, 1882. On the earliest German Mystics see Preger, Vorarbeiten z. einer Gesch. der deutschen Mystik (Ztschr, f. die hist. Theol. 1869, and several essays in the Abhandl. der hist. Klasse d. bayer. Akad. d. Wissensch., which, along with his comprehensive history of Mysticism, are rich sources of material). On Ruysbroek cf. Engelhardt, Rich. v. St. Victor und R. 1838; on Thomas à Kempis “de imitatione Christi” the literature is voluminous, cf. Hirsche, Prolegomena z. einer neuen Ausg. 2 vols. 187383, the same author on the Brothers of the Common Life in the R.-E 2. In general: Denifle, Das geistliche Leben. Blumenlese aus den deutschen Mystikern und Gottesfreunden. 3. Aufl. 1880, A very full delineation of Mysticism is also given in

101

In the three pre-Reformation centuries, the individual Catholic piety, which we call Mysticism, had in it only the difference represented by varieties. It was rooted in the NeoplatonicAugustinian view of the first and last things, as this has been described above, Vol. V. p. 106 f.: God and the soul, the soul and its God , the one and the many, God and the creature. The soul that has departed from God must return to Him by purification, illumination, and essential unification; it must be “unformed,” “formed,” and “transfigured” (“entbildet,” “bildet,” “überbildet”). With their more definite and richer vision of the inwardly experienced, Mediæval Saints spoke of the retirement of the soul within itself, of the contemplation of the outer world as a work of God, of the poverty and humility to which the soul must dispose itself, of conversion and return to God, and the school of suffering. But they also described the whole process in the most exact way. It begins with longing; there follows the renunciation of the creaturely, but also of al self-righteousness and all self-conceit. That is the purification of the soul for true Christian poverty. What the Church offers in the shape of means — the Sacraments — must be used; but all things must be taken up into the inner life. It is as signs of the 102love of God that they must be contemplated. And as formerly in Neoplatonism (cf. also Origen, and again the

Thomasius-Seeberg, D.-Gesch. 2 Aufl. II. 1 pp. 261 ff., cf. also Seeberg, Ein Kampf um jenseitiges Leben. Lebensbild eines mittelalterlichen Frommen., 1889. I give no extracts from the writings of the German Mediæval Mystics, because I should like to avoid even seeming to countenance the error that they expressed anything one cannot read in Origen, Plotinus, the Areopagite, Augustine, Erigena, Bernard and Thomas, or that they represented religious progress, while in respect of intrinsic Christian worth, their tractates really stand for the most part lower than the writings of ac8 Augustine and Bernard. The importance of those works rests in this, that they were written in German, and that they were intended for the laity. They are therefore of inestimable value within the history of the German church and dogma. But in general history we may, and must, content ourselves with a characterisation. Whether, perhaps, they represent a considerable advance in the history of epistemology and metaphysic, is a question I do not trust myself to answer, nor does it fall to he considered here. As to the idea of regeneration, which is strongly emphasised in many Mystic writings, we must take in connection with it the silence on forgiveness of sins, that we may see how even this idea stood under the ban of intellectualism. The “clarification.” which the Mysticism of the fourteenth century underwent in the fifteenth certainly related very specially to that aggressive intellectualism, so that the piety which expresses itself, for example, in the famous book de imitatione Christi (Thomas à Kempis) may he described as essentially Bernardine without Neoplatonic admixture, but yet only as Bernardine. A new, powerful element of joy in God, who forgives sin, and bestows faith, is sought for in vain.

Areopagite) everything sensible on which the lustre of a sacred tradition rested, was highly esteemed as a sign of the eternal, and, therefore, as a means of spiritual exaltation, so by this piety also, sacred signs were not discarded, but were multiplied and increased. As the more recent investigations have shown us,173 in the centuries before the Reformation a growing value was attached, not only to the Sacraments, but to crosses, amulets, relics, holy places, helpers of the needy, saints, etc. As long as what the soul seeks is not the rock of assurance, but means for inciting to piety, it will create for itself a thousand holy things. It is, therefore, an extremely superficial view that regards the most inward Mysticism and the service of idols as contradictory. The opposite view, rather, is correct; such piety seeks for holy signs, and clings to them. It can at the same time hold redemption by Christ as the supreme, allembracing proof of the love of God;174 but the sovereignty of Christ has not dawned upon it, because it really regards the supreme proof of love as the means by which the possibility of individual salvation is given, that is, the impulse towards imitation is strengthened. Just as little does the inward purification conflict with the sacramental, as mediated by the sacrament of penance. The Mystics rather, with dwindling exceptions, always directed attention, not to contrition merely, but to the whole confessional, and to perfect repentance, that is, to the sacrament of penance. After purification, there follows illumination. Here the Bernardine direction now comes in: there must be a being formed in Christ, and after Christ’s image. In one’s own experience, Christ’s life of poverty and His suffering humanity must be reproduced, with a view to attaining to his Deity. It is well known how, in this direction, the tenderest training of the 103soul is combined with a distressingly sensuous presentation of the sufferings of the “man” Jesus. The following of Christ that is prompted by compassion, the imitation of Him that has its spring in love — these are required to a degree that can be reached only by long practice, and by the most anxious straining of every thought. Not unfrequently, this imitation then becomes changed into the idea that one must become a Christ one’s self, must travail anew in birth with Christ. There were nuns, indeed, who fancied that they bore Christ in their womb. The

173

See the works of Gothein, Kolde, Kawerau, Haupt, and above all v. Bezold (Gesch. der deutschen Reformation) on the inner state of Catholicism at the close of the fifteenth century. Succinct accounts in Lenz, Martin Luther, 1883 (introduction) and Karl Müller, Bericht uber den gegenwärtigen Stand, etc., 1887. 174 There are several Mystics of the fourteenth century who, in many passages of their devotional writings, find their sole ground of comfort, as definitely as St. Bernard, in the sufferings of Christ.

highly-trained imagination, and theory, had equal parts in the production of this idea. The former — inasmuch as it actually experienced what it passionately contemplated; the latter — inasmuch as in the Neoplatonic-Augustinian tradition there was contained that idea of God and the spiritual creature, according to which the appearance of the Logos in Christ was only a special case in a long series; with Him the indwelling of God in man took its beginning; and, besides this, all love of God is something so sovereign that it does not admit of the intermingling of a third in the relation to which it gives life. But, on the other hand, this view of Christ as the first in a series stood in agreement again with the view of His death as an extraordinary event that is the basis of reconciliation with God; for, as this piety sacrifices no outward visible sign, so it surrenders also no part of the sacred history; only, it allows no weight to it at the highest stage. Yet, at countless times in the case of the most distinguished Mystics, as already in the case of St. Bernard, it is just at the highest stages of religious feeling that confidence in Christ asserts itself; for, as they derived everything from divine grace — especially where the theology of St. Thomas exercised its influence — so this grace is discerned in the Christ who is our righteousness. Further, there was added here the trinitarian speculation, as it was developed from the thought of love. Thus the piety shown by Richard of St. Victor in the earlier period, by Bonaventura and others in the later, was able to attach itself most intimately to this intractable dogma of the Trinity, and also to the other dogma of the Incarnation. The infinite love must be contemplated in the Mystery of the Trinity, and the highest point of the spirit’s enlightenment is reached 104when in prayer, in knowledge, and in vision, man becomes absorbed in the great mystery of the union of deity and humanity, and contemplates the indifference of opposites (indifferentia oppositorum), seeing how the Creator and the creature, the lofty and the lowly, the being and the not-being coalesce in one. From all these speculations, in which the old formulas are placed in the light of omnipotent love, in which the boldest and most complex theology is finally led back to the All-One, and converted into feeling, there resulted an intense deepening of inner life. This inner life was again discovered, and there was given to it the place of central command. But it found much richer expression still than in the days of Neoplatonism; for, in those centuries before the Reformation, in conjunction with the most frightful self-torturing, nay in the midst of them (think of St. Elizabeth), and in conjunction with whimsical or insane ideas, the elevating power of suffering, and the purifying influence of pain, were proved by experience and preached. What an ennobling of feeling, and what a deepening of the life of the soul issued from this — a Renaissance before and alongside of the Renaissance —

cannot be described. One must read the writings in poetry and prose, for example the verses of Jacopone,175 or the treatises and sermons of the German Mystics, to see how even the language here underwent a regeneration. A lyric poetry that awakens a response in us exists only from the thirteenth century, and what force the Latin and German tongues are capable of developing in describing the inner life we have been taught by the Mendicant Monks. From the discernment that lowliness and poverty, scorn and contempt, shame and misery, suffering and death, are aids to the saint’s progress, from the contemplation of the Man Jesus, from compassion, and pain, and humility, there sprang for Western Christianity, in the age of the Mendicant Monks, that inner elevation and that enrichment of feeling and of moral sensibility which was the condition for all that was to grow up in the time that followed. One speaks of the Renaissance and the Reformation, and comprehends in these words, taken together, 105the basis of our present-day culture; but both have a strong common root in the elevation of religious and æsthetic feeling in the period of the Mendicant Monks. But the Catholic character of this elevation shows itself most plainly in this, that with repentance, faith, and love to Christ, the process is not concluded: man must become entirely nothing; he must pass out of himself, in order, finally, to be merged into the Godhead. There is meant by this, certainly, the highest spiritual freedom also (see, e.g, the “Deutsche Theologie”); but as the freedom is enfolded in the metaphysical thought that God is all and the individual nothing, freedom can only be conceived of as absorption into the deity. He alone can experience this union with God who has followed the way of the Church, and has been an imitator of Christ. But how can the command be given to adhere to the historical, when all the powers of the imagination have been let loose, and it has been declared the organ for coalescing with the Godhead. The Church Mystics made earnest attempts to check the pantheistic, “extravagant,” wild-growing piety; but they themselves frequently were at least incautious with their final directions, nay, to these the ardent application was wanting, so long as they had still respect to something that lay outside of God and the soul (even the Trinity here was felt to be something disturbing; the God with whom the soul has to do at this supreme height of exaltation is the solitary One). Thomas himself, “the normal dogmatic theologian,” gave the strongest impulse to this restoration of the most extravagant Mysticism. He was followed by

175

See Schlüt 559 er u. Storck, Ausgewählte Gedichte Jacopone’s, 1864. Thode, l.c. pp. 398 ff.

Eckhart and others.176 According to Thomas, the soul can already here on earth so receive God into itself that it enjoys in the fullest sense the vision (visio) of His essence. It itself already dwells in 106heaven. The earthly, that still clings to it, is, as it were, as unsubstantial as the earthly in the consecrated elements. But if the soul is capable, through rapture (per raptum), of such a flight from its nothingness to God, if God can enter into its innermost depth, then — here is the necessary inversion of view — the soul itself includes, in its innermost being, a deeply hidden divine element. Pantheism is transformed into self-deification. The divine is at bottom the capacity of the soul to abstract and emancipate itself from all that is phenomenal; it is the pure feeling of spiritual freedom and exaltedness above all that is and can be thought. In this feeling, which arises as an act of grace, and is only guarded by this co-efficient in its mood from the pride of self-assertion, the soul has the sense of being one with the divine Being, who, in the Catholic view, is Himself best described by negative definitions. In these negative definitions the Mediæval Mystics went much further than Augustine and the Areopagite.177 We must go back to Valentinus and Basilides, to the Βύθος (abyss), to the Σιγή (silence) and the Οὐκ ὢν θεός (the God that is not), to find the fitting parallels to the “Abysmal Substance” (“Abgründlichen Substanz”), the “Waste Deity” (“Wüsten Gottheit”), the “Silent Silence” (“Stillen Stillheit”). In this hot forcing-house of thought, religion was not really matured, but the Mediæval man had his sense of self-importance awakened. In the Thomist Mysticism, which, of course, always insists on principle that the essential distinction between God and man must be recognised, both the whole process and the supreme attainment are intellectually conditioned. Knowledge is the means of reaching spiritual freedom, and the highest state attained is nothing but the natural result of the absolute knowledge given in vision. Here Thomas and his disciples adhere strictly to Augustine, who also admitted no progress in religious life without advancing knowledge, and for whom the highest fellowship with God had also no other content

176

Although, shortly before his death, Eckhart had retracted everything unecclesiastical in his writings, two years after his death a process was instituted against him, i.e., twenty-eight of his propositions were condemned, partly as heretical, and partly as open to suspicion (Bull of John XXII., 1329). On this condemnation, and on the relation of Suso to Eckhart, see Denifle in the Archiv. f. L.-u. K.-G. des Mittelalters II. and Seeberg, Ein Kampf um jenseitiges Leben. 1889, p. 137 ff. Even Suso could not quite escape the reproach of polluting the land with heretical filth. It was always the Ultra’s, who, by making an appeal to them, brought discredit upon the “Church” Mystics. 177 Cf. especially Eckhart and Suso.

than that of the visio dei, i.e., of essential knowledge. The contemplation that rises to intuition suffers thereby no qualitative change; for intuition is simply that form of knowledge in which every medium has fallen away, in which the subject, having become wholly intellect, 107apprehends the purely spiritual object, and so, also, as there is no longer any hindering restriction, coalesces with it. Yet in this conception of the contemplated end there was presupposed the Anselmic conviction, that all objects of faith here below can be made rational, so that the whole ascent to the Supreme end can take place through the intellect. Where this conviction, however, became uncertain, then, if the final end of union to God was to be held as attainable in this world, it could no longer be contemplated as enjoyment of God and eternal life through the intellect. But this latter idea was unsatisfactory also for this reason, that the Thomists had to admit that the end thus described could always be reached only per raptum, i.e., intermittently and seldom. Hence we see how, after the appearance of Duns Scotus, and after the development of Nominalism, the end is otherwise described. The confidence in the rationality of the objects of faith threatens to disappear, on the other hand the religious impulse towards constant supreme fellowship with God grows stronger — therefore the enjoyment of God and eternal life came to be placed in the will, which, in general, indeed, had increased attention directed to it in Nominalist science.178 Salvation consists in union of will with God, in the rest which the creaturely will finds in the will of God, that is, in surrender and repose. That this way of viewing things likewise found an eccentric expression was unavoidable from the monastic character of all Catholic piety. Yet a very marked advance was certainly made here, which directly prepared the way for the Reformation; for, first, piety was now delivered from intermixture with those speculative monstrosities, which really served only to stupefy simple devout feeling (of course the speculative philosophers will always prefer Thomas to Duns); second, a way was indicated by which the soul might attain to the feeling of constant fellowship with God. This “Nominalist” Mysticism tended more and more to supplant the Thornist in the 15th century.179 One must give up his own will to the will of God. 108The Nominalists themselves,

178

To this distinction between the Thomist and the Quietist (Nominalist) Mysticism Ritschl was the first to point, see Gesch. des Pietismus I., p. 467 ff., and Zeitschr. f. K.Gesch. IV., p. 337 ff.; also already in the first vol. of Rechtfertig. u. Versöhn.-Lehre. 179 About 1500 it seems to have gained the ascendency; cf. the attitude of Staupitz and Thomas Münzer. Even the “German Theology,” of which Luther was so fond, is quietistic.

certainly, failed to see clearly where the divine will is to be sought for, and what it is, and just on that account much wild growth still developed itself even here. But only within Nominalist piety could the question about assurance of salvation (certitudo salutis) arise, because there was no longer a building upon the intellect, because the pointing to bare authority was bound, in the course of time, to be felt unsatisfactory, and because the problem was correctly stated, as being the question, namely, about the power that is capable of breaking self-will and leading the will to God.180 This revival of piety from the thirteenth century to the fifteenth would not be perfectly described were not a fact, at the same time, strongly emphasised, which, on first view, seems very paradoxical, 109namely, the revival of a life of practical activity in the service of one’s neighbour. We should think that where Catholic piety, i.e., Mysticism, flourished, monastic contemplation and asceticism

180

In the section on the history of theology the characteristics and significance of Nominalism will receive a still further illustration. Meanwhile, however, let it be noted here, that by its “positiveness,” based on mere authority, Nominalism purchased its truer insight into the nature of religion at a heavy cost. Here Anselm and Thomas undoubtedly hold a higher position; but these men were hindered by their intellectualism from doing justice to the Christian religion as a historic magnitude and force. What I have set forth in these pages (p. 97 ff.) has been keenly assailed by Lasson and Raffaele Mariano. Plainly enough they put before me the alternative of irreligious criticism or blind faith (Köhlerglauben), when on their side they claim for the Thomist Mysticism that it is the only form of religion in which faith and thought, history and religious independence, are reconciled. It must be the endeavour of each of us to find something in his own way. What we have ultimately to do with here is the great problem as to what history and the person of Christ are in religion, and then there is the other problem also as to whether religion is contemplation or something more serious. That th ac8 e end to which our striving is directed is the same — the seeking, finding, and keeping hold of God — may be confidently granted on both sides. But my opponents have an easier position than I have: they can prove — and I recognise this proof — that the piety that culminates in Mysticism and the old ecclesiastical dogma hang together, and they can at the same time let the question rest as to what reality of fact answers to the dogma. That is to say, the dogma renders them the best services, just when they are at liberty to contemplate it as a mobile and elastic magnitude, which hovers between the poles of an inferior actuality and that “highest,” which can never have been actual as earthly: out of the darkness there is a pressing forward to the light; luminous clouds show the path! But I seek in the dogma itself of the Christian Church for something concrete, namely the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the Lord. The tradition which the dogma represents is treated with more respect when it is criticised and sifted, than when one takes it as it is, in order ultimately to bid it a secret farewell, i.e., to substitute for it something quite different — namely the idea.

would repress everything else.181 In point of fact, there was a weighty problem for that piety here. Yet the way in which it was solved shows again most distinctly that in the Mendicant Order movement we have to do with a reformation of the Church. This movement strengthened, theoretically, the old Catholic position, that the contemplative life is higher than the practical. But as it presents itself in St. Francis as a movement born of love, so also from the first, as “imitation of the poor life of Jesus,” and as “Apostolic life,” it recognised in loving activity the highest sphere for its exercise. In this way the old Monasticism was superseded, which rendered services of love only to the hierarchy, the princes and the papal policy, but otherwise retired within itself, and felt service to a poor brother to be a work of supererogation. It was the Mendicant Orders and their theologians who first gave a conspicuous place again to the command, “Love thy neighbour as thyself.” They praised the contemplative life; they still continued always to maintain the distinction between it and the practical; but they drew this distinction in such a way that one living in contemplation (that is, the monk) was, nevertheless, required to serve his neighbour with all his powers, while the Christian occupied with the affairs of life, was never justified in leaving out of account concern for his brother. Thus there came to exist between the contemplative and active lives a wide neutral province, so to speak, which belonged to both, to the former as well as to the latter — the province of self-denying love. The love of God on the part of monk and layman could prove its existence only in the love of one’s neighbour. Hence it is to be understood how enthusiastic Mystics used expressions that sound like an exaltation of the active life above the contemplative; what they had in their mind was unfeigned brotherly love, mercy, gentleness, the spirit that returns good for evil, and active 110ministration to need. Neither their “intellectualism” nor their “quietism” hindered them in their powerful preaching of mercy, but rather strengthened them in it; for they would no longer recognise any monachism, or any service of God, that disregarded the service of one’s neighbour. The obligation to make one’s self every man’s servant in love was first plainly asserted again by Francis, and after him it was repeatedly enforced as the highest attainment of Christian life by Thomas and Bonaventura, by Eckhart, Suso, Tauler, Thomas à Kempis, and all the hundred active witnesses to Christian piety in

181

On the relation of Metaphysic to Asceticism, or, say, of Mysticism to Asceticism, see the dissertation of Bender in the Archiv. f. Gesch. der Philos. vol. 6, pp. 1 ff., 208 ff., 301 ff.

the centuries before the Reformation.182 The simple relation of man to man, sanctified by the Christian command of love and by the peace of God, issued forth from all the traditional corporations and castes of the Middle Ages, and set itself to break them up. Here, also, the advent of a new age, in which, certainly, only a few blossoms developed into fruit, was brought about by the history of piety. But this piety, although it always continued to call more loudly f eb0 or reform in the affairs of the Church, still remained under the ban of the idea that God gives grace in the measure in which a man progresses in love. How this state of things was to be remedied, no one had any inkling. In what precedes it has already been indicated several times that, while maintaining the line of distinction, the Mendicant Orders brought about inwardly (to some extent even outwardly) a mutual approximation of monks and laity. The activity of the former among the people on the one hand, and the awakening of a strong religious life among the laity on the other, brought them together. But it was in general the characteristic of the period under review, that the laity always came more to the front, and in the fifteenth century they took their place in their free religious associations alongside the monks in theirs, though, no doubt, as a rule, there was dependence on the monastic unions. The period from 1046 to 1200 was the period of the monachising of the priests; that from 1200 to 1500 brought the monachising of the laity (notice, also, the participation of women in the Mystic and charitable movements); but the latter process 111was not carried out without a deeply penetrating alteration of Monachism, and it is to be observed that the charitable element was here determinative. When, in spite of earnest reforms, the Mendicant Orders were now, nevertheless, unable (from the end of the fourteenth century) fully to recover the position and confidence they had once enjoyed, the free Christian associations came quite into the foreground. But they secured, if I see aright, a large measure of influence only on German soil. What they did for the German was done for the Romanic peoples, naturally more mobile, but less susceptible of abiding impressions, by the great Preachers of Repentance, of whom there was no lack among them at any period, from the time of Francis to that of Savonarola, and who, along with their preaching of repentance, knew also how to stir national and political feeling. But it was only the Anglo-Saxons and the Czechs, hitherto kept in subjection and poverty by other nations, who understood, at this period, how to derive from the Franciscan

182

With Eckhart the direction originated to let even ecstacy go, though it should be as great as that of Paul, if one can help a poor man even with a sop.

doctrine of poverty a politico-national and an ecclesiastical programme, and among whom a great movement took place, in which the rise to independent piety united itself with a national rise and emancipation. In both countries the result, certainly, did not correspond with the first steps. In England, the movement ran its course comparatively quickly, and in Bohemia deeper religious motives were unable to hold their ground alongside the national and political aims imperiously asserting themselves, and at first, at least, were overborne by motives of an ecclesiastical, a social revolutionary, and an anti-hierarchical character, though afterwards the religious element wrought its way to the front again. Any one, therefore, wishing to describe the stages in the history of piety during this period, must begin, by way of introduction, with a view of the Lyonnese, Lombard and Catholic “Poor.” Then follows the establishment of the Mendicant Orders, who, by developing the principle of poverty, the apostolic life and repentance, as well as by preaching love (caritas) raise monachism to its highest point, and free it from its restrictions, but at the same time impart to it a most powerful influence upon the lay world. The Church succeeds in taking this movement into its service, in creating by means of it de80 an 112interest in Church institutions among the aspiring lay Christianity, and in placing a check upon heresy. The Mendicant Orders made themselves masters of all the forces of the Church; above all, they developed more deeply the individual Mystic piety, by grasping more firmly its old fundamental elements, poverty and obedience, adding to these love, and gave it a powerful force of attraction, which united itself to the aspiring individualism and trained it. By urgent preaching of repentance, which pointed to future judgment, even the widest circles were stirred, and the new movement settled down, in part, into monk-like associations (the third Order). But the principle of “poverty” embraced not only an ascetically religious, but also a social and anti-hierarchical, nay, even a political ideal, for the neutral state could be regarded as the power that had to deprive the Church of her property, or, in the event of her being recalcitrant, to execute judgment upon her. The new movement united itself therefore with the apocalyptic ideas, which, in spite of Augustine, had never died out in the West, and which had received a new development from Joachim and his following.183 Partly within the Order, and partly beyond it, an apocalyptic socio-political

183

See Wadstein, Die eschatologische Ideengruppe in den Hauptmomenten ihrer christlich-mittelalterlichen Gesammtentwickelung, 1896. The details of these ideas scarcely belong to the history of theology, not to speak of ac8 the history of dogma; but as was the case with the ideas about the devil, they exercised a very strong influence.

excitement grew up, asserting itself in a hundred different ways. Its relative justification over against the rich worldly hierarchy was furnished by the wide hold which it everywhere secured for itself: it made its appearance in all lands, and it continued to exist, always again gathering new strength, till far on in the period of the Reformation. In the second half of the thirteenth century the Mendicant Orders reached, at least in the Romanic lands, their highest point of influence. From that time they began to decline: after the close of the century the movement as a whole was broken up and distributed among the efforts of individual men. The great struggle about poverty in the age of John XXII. had, so far as it was religious, only a limited importance. In Germany, on the other hand, there began, from the end of the 113thirteenth century, the “German” Mystic movement, i.e., the introduction of the impassioned individual piety of the monastic theologians into the circles of the laity. For a century and more, the work of bringing about an inward conversion of the laity in Germany was carried on, and it was quite specially by Mendicant monks, chiefly Dominican, that this service was rendered. (David of Augsburg, Theodoric of Freiburg, Master Eckhart, Tauler, Merswin, the “Friends of God,” Suso, Henry of Nördlingen, Margaret Ebner, Ruysbroek, etc.) While in the Romanic lands the Mendicant Orders grew weaker, and in Germany the religious life, still through their influence partly, slowly advanced, the world-ruling Church pursued a course of complete self-abandonment at Avignon, and seemed to have the deliberate wish to subject the ecclesiastical fidelity of the already imperilled piety to the severest test. Nay, how firmly the papacy and the Church as an institution still held together souls and the world is shown by the confusions and complaints which, when the great schism ensued, became still more numerous. Under the impression produced by frightful elemental calamities, the apocalyptic, anti-hierarchical ideas became the real danger, especially as even Mendicant monks were regarded as enemies of the papacy. But only in England did a great movement at that time result. The law of God, poverty, the Augustinian theology — these were the dominant ideas under which Wyclif undertook his Catholic reform and preached to the reigning Church judgment and repentance — a second Francis, of more understanding but less resolute, more cautious but less free. Beyond England at first no similar movement was anywhere to be traced; but it was everywhere apparent that the world had entered upon a religious age, in which the multiplicity of aspirations testified that the dissolution of what existed at the time was felt to be the signal for a new construction — the ridicule and frivolity of some Italian poets and novelists of an inferior order have no claim

whatever to be considered. In its greatest representatives, the Renaissance, especially the German, which was much more important in the realm of thought than the Italian, felt that it had outgrown neither the Catholic Church nor the Christian religion. 114What was really breaking up was mediæval society, mediæval institutions, the mediæval world.184 So far as the Church was interwoven with this last, nay, constituted the chief part of it, and in this form had hitherto been held as holy — a state of things on which the Mendicant Orders had been able to work no change — the crisis was already prepared. But there was no proclaiming of separation from the Church; there was a seeking for means for politically reforming it (this almost alone was the question at the Reform Councils), and monachism also took itself seriously to task.185 From the end of the fourteenth century till the time of the Reformation there was a continuous succession of efficient reforms in the older Orders and in the younger, of course on the basis already laid. If the signs do not mislead, the Mendicant Orders in particular rose higher again in the course of the fifteenth century and gained an always increasing influence on popular circles, in the Romanic lands through the occasional appearing of preachers of repentance, in Germany through earnest, steady work. But it is certainly unmistakable that all this did not yet give satisfaction and rest. The proof of this lies — apart from other sectarian agitations — in the fact that the Wyclifite movement, which in literary form had crept in among the Czechs, who were already deeply infected with apocalyptic excitement and Franciscan fanaticism, could strike its roots so deeply in Bohemia under Huss, and could occasion so terrible a revolution, a revolution that shook the half of Germany. From the confused intermingling of “religious, social, national, Joachim-apocalyptic, chiliastic, specifically Wyclifite and Waldensian tendencies, thoughts, hopes and dreams,” individuals gathered out what appealed to them. All shades were represented, from the wild 115warriors of God, who inflicted judgment with fire and sword on the Church and on all despisers of divine law, to the quiet brothers, who really judged the Church as hardly, and clung

184

See Lamprecht, Zum Verständniss der wirthschaftlichen und Socialen Wandlungen in Deutschland vom 14. zum 16. Jahrh., in the Ztschr. f. Social-und Wirthschaftgesch. I., 2. 3, pp. 191-263. The significance of the state of the towns is specially to be observed (see the works by Schmoller). 185 Höffer, Die Romanische Welt und ihr Verhältniss zu den Reformideen des Mittelalters, 1878. Maurenbrecher, Gesch. d. Kathol. Reformation I., 1880. Kolde. Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation, 1879. Dittrich, Beiträge z. Gesch. der Kathol. Reform im 1. Drittel des 16. Jahrh. I. u. II. (Görres-gesellsch.-Jahrbuch V. 1884, p. 319 ff., VII. 1886, p. 1 ff.).

to as utopian hopes regarding the adjustment of human relationships, but who were willing to wait in patience and quietness. In the fifteenth century the currents of all foregoing attempts at reform flowed together; they could converge into one channel; for all of them sprang originally from one source — the doctrine of poverty, wedded to apocalyptic and to certain Augustinian thoughts, that is, Catholicism. “Silent and soft is poverty’s step,” Jacopone had once sung in his wonderful hymn. That was truly no prophecy of the future. Even after the papacy, by an unparalleled diplomacy, had released itself from the oppressive requirements of the Reform Councils, when the nations were defrauded of the sure prospect of a reform of the Church, when the Popes, with their great undertaking of securing a sovereign state, descended to the lowest depths of degradation and spoke of reform with scorn, piety as a rule did not lose faith in the Church, but only in her representation at the time, and in her corrupt order. It is a mistake to conclude from the contempt for priests and for lazy monks to the existence of an evangelical spirit. There can express itself in such contempt the purest and most obedient Catholic piety. This piety displayed in the second half of the fifteenth century a strength of vigorous impulse, in some measure even a power, greater than ever before. And it remained immovably the old piety. It attracted the laity more powerfully; it became richer in good works and in the spirit of love; it united clergy and laity in common religious undertakings; it wrought for the deepening and strengthening of the inner life. But just on these grounds it attached higher value to outward signs, sought for them, increased their number, and gave itself up to them. One may detect in this something of unrest, of dissatisfaction; but we must not forget that this is just what belongs to Catholic piety. This piety seeks, not for a basis of rock, but for means of help, and even where it is most inward, and seems to have bidden farewell to everything external, 116 it must confess that, openly or secretly, it still uses the narcotics and stimulants. An enormous revolution, ever again retarded, was preparing in the fifteenth century. But this revolution threatened institutions, political and ecclesiastical; threatened the Church, not its gospel, the new dogma-like doctrines, not the old dogma. That a reformation of piety in the sense of faith was preparing, is suggested by nothing whatever that is historically apprehensible; for the most radical opponents, and the most faithful supporters, of the dominant Church, were at one in this, that the forces for a reform of the ecclesiastical life were bound up in Augustine and

Francis. The Church doctrines that became the subject of controversy were really no Church doctrines as yet;186 and then again — even the most radical Church programme had its strong roots, and its justifying title, in elements of the vulgar Church doctrine. Thus dogma remained substantially unassailed. How could anyone imagine, in the age of Nominalism, that the salvation by reform must come from doctrine, so long as the authority of the dogmatic tradition remained untouched? And yet, certainly, it would be a very childish view that would regard the Reformation as something absolutely new, because no direct preparatory stages of it can be pointed out. Individualism, the force of personal life, the irresistible demands for a reconstruction of civil life and social order, the needs of a piety always growing more restless, the distrust of the hierarchy, the rising consciousness of personal responsibility and craving for personal certainty, the conviction that Christ is in His Church, and yet that He is not in ecclesiasticism — all these things could not have reached the ends contemplated by them without a Reformation, which, to outward view, appeared less radical than the programme of the devastating and burning Hussites, but in reality left that programme far behind it. And the piety, i.e., the ecclesiastical faith itself, had, among the manifold elements it included, the new element implanted within it, in the shape of words of Christ and doctrines 117of Paul, in the life displayed by every Christian who, through trust in the grace of God in Christ, had found inward deliverance from the law of grace-dispensations and merit, and from the law of the letter. Under a theology that had degenerated into a tangled brake, from the hundreds of new religious-ecclesiastical institutions, societies, and brotherhoods, from the countless forms in which the sacred was embodied and sought after, from the sermons and the devotional literature of all kinds, there was to be heard one call, distinct and ever more distinct — the call to vigorous religious life, to practical Christianity, to the religion that is really religion. “ Say unto my soul, I am thy salvation” — this prayer of Augustine was the hidden force of the unrest among the nations, especially the Germanic, in the fifteenth century. Dogmatically expressed: there was a seeking for a sure doctrine of salvation; but one knew not himself what he sought for. The uncertain and hesitating questions got only uncertain and hesitating answers. Even at the present day we cannot escape the charm that clings just to such questions and answers; for they let us see into the living movement of the heart;

186

The doctrines of indulgence, of the hierarchy, of free will, etc. Certainly there was opposition also to some old traditional doctrines (eternal damnation, purgatory, etc.), but it was not thorough-going.

but he for whom religion has become so serious a matter that he seeks, not for charms, but for nourishment, will not be inclined to exchange Luther’s Smaller Catechism and his hymns for all the wealth, beauty, and freshness of the German devotional literature of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.187 118

187

What is here said applies also to Gothic architecture. It is certainly the greatest, most perfect, and most harmonious product of architectural art since the time of the Greek temple; indeed, it is the only style that is all-pervasive, and that embraces all in unity, as the Greek temple style does. In itself it proves that the mediæval period at its highest point of attainment possessed a harmonious culture which of its kind was perfect. But just abb on that account the Gothic is the style of mediæval Catholic Christianity, the style of Mysticism and Scholasticism. It awakens exactly the feelings, emotions, and sensations of awe which the Catholic piety, of which it is born, seeks to produce; just on that account also it is of Romanic origin, and the history of its spread is simply a parallel to the history of the spread of Romanic piety. Perhaps the deepest thing that can be said about the Gothic, about its ineffable charm and its æsthetic impressiveness — though at the same time it suggests the inevitable reaction of Protestant piety against it — has been put into words by Goethe in his Wahlverwandschaften (Hempel’s edition, XV., pp. 143, 137, 173): “ . . .She sat down in one of the seats (in a Gothic chapel), and it seemed to her, as she looked up and around, as if she was, and yet was not, as if she realised her identity and yet realised it not, as if all this that was before her was to vanish from her and she from herself, and only when the sun passed from the hitherto very brightly illumined (stained glass) window did she awake.” “From all figures there looks forth only the purest existence; all must be pronounced, if not noble, at least good. Cheerful collectedness, ready recognition of something above us to be reverenced, quiet selfdevotion in love and expectant waiting, are expressed in all faces, in all attitudes. The aged man with the bald head, the boy with the curly locks, the sprightly youth, the graveminded man, the glorified saint, the hovering angel, all seem to know the bliss of an innocent satisfaction, of a devout expectancy. The commonest thing that happens has a touch of heavenly life about it, and an act of divine service seems perfectly adapted to every nature. For such a religion most men look as for a vanished golden age, a lost paradise.” But on the other hand: “As for myself, this mutual approximation and intermingling of the sacred and the sensuous is certainly not to my liking; I am not pleased when people set apart and consecrate and adorn certain special places, that thereby alone they may foster and maintain the feeling of piety. No surroundings, not even the commonest, should disturb the feeling in us of the divine, which can accompany us everywhere, and make every place a consecrated temple. I would like to see an important religious service held in the saloon, where people usually take food, gather for social intercourse, and enjoy themselves with games and dancing. The highest, the most excellent thing, in man is formless, and we must guard against giving it shape in anything save noble deeds.”

2. On the History of Ecclesiastical Law. — The Doctrine of the Church. “In the fifty years that elapsed between the appearing of the Gratian book of laws (which contains, besides the Isodorian, numerous forgeries of the Gregorian Deusdedit, Anselm and Cardinal Gregorius) and the pontificate of Innocent III., the papal system achieved for itself complete supremacy. In the Roman Courts justice was dispensed according to Gratian’s law, in Bologna the teaching was regulated thereby, even the Emperor Frederick I. already had his son, Henry VI., instructed in the Decretum and in Roman law. The whole decretal legislation from 1159 to 1320 was framed on the basis of Gratian, and presupposes him. The same holds good of the dogmatic of Thomas in the relative material, while the scholastic dogmatic in general was made entirely dependent in questions of Church constitution on the favourite science of the clergy at the time, namely, jurisprudence, as it had been drawn up by Gratian, Raymund, and the other collectors of decretals. The 119theory, as well as the texts and proofs relating thereto, were derived by the theologians from these collections of laws.”188 With regard to the nature of the Church, while the Augustinian definition was firmly retained, that the Church is the community of believers or of the predestinated, the idea was always gaining a fuller acceptance that the hierarchy is the Church, and that the Pope, as successor of Peter, and episcopus universalis, unites in himself all the powers of the Church. The German Kings themselves were in great part to blame for this development, for while they, and, above all, the Hohenstaufens, led the struggle for the rights of the State against the papacy, they left the latter to its own irresponsible action in the ecclesiastical domain. Only when it was now too late did Frederick II. point out in his address to the Kings of the Franks and Angles (ad reges Francorum et Anglorum) that the hierarchy must be restored by an inner reform to its original poverty and humility.189 In its development to autocratic supremacy within the Church and the Churches, a check was put upon the papacy from the beginning of the fourteenth century only from France.190

571

188

See Janus, p. 162 f. See the passage in Gieseler II., 2, 4 ed. p. 153. 190 The “pragmatic sanction” of Louis the Holy is a forgery of the year 1438 (or about this time), as Scheffer-Boichorst has shown in the Kleinere Forsch. z. Gesch. des Mittelalters (Mitth. des Instituts f. österreich. Geschichtsforschung VIII., Bd. 3 part; published separately, 1887). In the first edition of this work I had still treated this sanction as genuine, but my atte a98 ntion was immediately directed to the mistake. 189

We cannot be required to show here what particular conclusions were drawn by the Popes and their friends from the idea of the Church as a civil organism of law in the thirteenth century and in the first half of the fourteenth, and in what measure these conclusions were practically carried out. The leading thoughts were the following: (1) The hierarchical organisation is essential to the Church, and in all respects the Christianity of the laity is dependent on the mediation of the priests (“properly ordained”), who alone can perform ecclesiastical acts. When we pass from Cyprian to Gregory I., from the latter to Pseudoisidore and Gregory VII., we might conclude on superficial consideration that the principle just stated had long been determinative. But when we enter into detail, and take into 120account the ecclesiastical legislation from the time of Innocent III., we observe how much was still wanting to a strict application of it in theory and practice till the end of the twelfth century. Only from the time of the fourth Lateran Council was full effect given to it, expressly in opposition to the Catharist and Waldensian parties.191 (2) The sacramental and judicial powers of the priests are independent of their personal worthiness. This also was an old principle; but after having been long latent, it was now strongly emphasised, asserted in opposition to all “heretical” parties, and so turned to account that by it the hierarchy protected themselves against all demand for reform, and, above all, evaded the appeal to resume the apostolic life. Whoever returned from the “heretical” parties to the bosom of the Church was required to declare that he recognised the celebration of Sacraments by sinful priests.192 (3) The Church is a visible community with a constitution given to it by Christ (even as such it is the body of Christ [corpus Christi]); as a visible, constituted community it has a double power, namely, the potestas spiritualis and the potestas temporalis (spiritual and temporal power). Through both is it, as it shall endure till the end of the world, superior to the transitory states, which are subordinate to it. To it, therefore, must all states and all individuals be obedient de necessitate salutis (as a necessary condition of salvation); nay,

191

See especially the first and third decrees of the Synod; Mansi XXII., p. 982 sq., Hefele V., p. 879 ff. It was not, however, carried out to its full logical issue, as is shown by the admission of the right of the laity to baptise in case of emergency, by the recognition of absolution by a layman in casu mortis, and by the treatment of the sacrament of marriage. 192 See e.g. the confession of Durandus, Innocent III., ep. XI. 196.

the power of the Church extends itself even to heretics193 and heathen.194 Even these principles195 have their root in the Augustinian doctrine of the Church;196 but 121from the logical expression and thorough-going application which they received between 1050 and 1300, they present the appearance of an unheard-of innovation. They obtained their complete formulation from Boniface VIII.;197 but long before him the Popes acted according to these principles. The worst consequence was not the undervaluing,198 repression and serious deterioration of civic life (here, on the contrary, there can be discerned also many salutary effects in the interests of popular freedom), but the inevitable profanation of religion, inasmuch as all its aims and benefits were perverted and falsified through the light being foreign to them in which they presented themselves from the standpoint of Church law; and obedience to an external human institution, that was subject to all errors of human passion and sin, was raised to the first condition of Christian life. “It was this Church on which there fell that heaviest responsibility that has ever been incurred in history: by all violent means it applied as pure truth a doctrine that was vitiated and distorted to serve its omnipotence, and under the feeling of its inviolability abandoned itself to the gravest immorality; in order to maintain itself in such a position, it struck deadly blows at the spirit and conscience of the nations, and drove

193

On the Inquisition, see Janus, p. 254 ff., and Thomas, Summa Sec. Sec. quæst. 11 art. 3 conclusio: “Hæresis est peccatum, per quod meruerunt per mortem a mundo excludi”; art. 4 concl. 194 Augustinus Triumphus (ob. 1328), Summa de potest. eccl. ad Johannem XXII., Quæst. 23 art. 1: “Pagani jure sunt sub papæ obedientia.” Yet this continued a controverted question in spite of the Bull “Unam sanctam.” 195 The hierarchy together with the monks are held as properly the Church. ae3 196There were certainly also passages to be found in Augustine that could be employed against the Gregorian claims of the Church, v. Mirbt. Die Stellung Augustin’s in der Publicistik des Gregor. Kirchenstreits, 1888. 197 See note 2 on p. 122. 198 Gregory VII. carried to the furthest extreme the opposition to the evangelical doctrine that the powers that be are ordained of God; see epp. VIII. 21: “Quis nesciat, reges et duces ab iis habuisse principium, qui deum ignorantes, superbia, rapinis, perfidia, homicidiis, postremo universis pæne sceleribus, mundi principe diabolo videlicet agitante, dominari cæca cupiditate et intolerabili præsumptione affectaverunt.” But even according to Innocent III., the State arose “per extorsionem humanam.” On the other hand, even the strictest papalists, indeed Gregory VII. himself, were not clear as to the limits between civil and ecclesiastical power.

many of the more highly gifted, who had secretly withdrawn from it, into the arms of unbelief and embitterment.”199 (4) To the Church has been given, by Christ, a strictly monarchical constitution in His representative, the successor of Peter, the Roman Bishop. Not only is all that is valid with regard to the hierarchy valid in the first instance of the Pope, but 122to him all powers are committed, and the other members of the hierarchy are only chosen in partem solicitudinis (for purposes of oversight). He is the episcopus universalis (universal bishop); to him belong, therefore, both swords, and as every Christian can attain salvation only in the Church, as the Church, however, is the hierarchy, and the hierarchy the Pope, it follows that de necessitate salutis all the world must be subject to the Pope. In numerous letters these principles had already been maintained by Gregory VII. in a way that could not be out-vied (cf. also the socalled dictatus Gregorii). Yet in his case everything appears as the outflow of a powerful dominating personality, which, in a terrible conflict, grasps at the extremest measures. In the period that followed, however, his principles were not only expressed, but were effectively applied, and, at the same time, as the result of a marvellous series of forgeries, were believingly accepted even by those who felt obliged to combat the papacy. At the time when the papacy saw itself confronted with a weak imperial power in the West, and with a still weaker Latin Empire in the East, this view of things established itself (from the time of Innocent III. onward) in the souls and minds of men. So far as I know, Thomas was the first to state the position roundly in the formula: “(ostenditur etiam), quod subesse Romano pontifici sit de necessitate salutis” (it is also shown that to be subject to the Roman pontiff is essential to salvation).200 Then the whole theory was summed up in a form not to be surpassed in the Bull “Unam sanctam” of Boniface (1302), after the Popes for a whole century had strictly followed it in hundreds of small and great questions (questions of Church policy, of civil policy, of diocesan administration, etc.), and were in a position for daring to disregard all protests.201 123 The setting up of

199

Burckhardt, Kultur der Renaissance, 3. ed. 2. vol., p. 228. Opusc. c. err. Græc. fol. 9. The Roman law was in general paraded in an extravagant way before the weak Greeks in the thirteenth century, and that had a reflex influence on the West. add 201 The most important sentences of the Bull ran thus: “Unam sanctam ecclesiam Catholicam et ipsam apostolicam urgente fide credere cogimur et tenere. Nosque hanc firmiter credimus et simpliciter confitemur, extra quam nec salus est nec remissio peccatorum (the Church is now spiritually described with its head, Christ). Igitur ecclesiæ 200

strict monarchical power and the destruction of the old Church constitution is represented in three stages by Pseudo Isidore, Gratian, and the Mendicant Orders; for the latter, through the special rights which they received, completely broke up the local powers (bishops, presbyteries, parish priests), and were subject entirely to papal direction.202 All the premises from which there

unius et uniæ a unum corpus, unum caput, non duo capita, quasi monstrum, Christus videlicet et Christi vicarius Petrus Petrique successor (there follows John XXI., 16; here the oves universæ were entrusted to Peter). In hac ejusque potestate duos esse gladios, spiritualem videlicet et temporalem, evangelicis dictis instruimur. Nan dicentibus apostolis: ecce gladii duo hic (Luke XXII. 38) in ecclesia scilicet, cum apostoli loquerentur, non respondit dominus nimis esse, sed satis. Certe qui in potestate Petri temporalem gladium esse negat, male verbum attendit domini proferentis; converte gladium tuum in vaginam (Matt. XXVI. 52). Uterque ergo est in potestate ecclesiæ, spiritualis scilicet gladius et materialis. Sed is quidem pro ecclesia, ille vero ab ecclesia exercendus. Ille sacerdotis, ille manu regum et militum, sed ad nutum et patientiam sacerdotis. Oportet autem gladium esse sub gladio et temporalem potestatem spirituali subici potestati, nam cum dicat apostolus (there follows Rom. XIII. 1) . . .non ordinatæ essent, nisi gladius esset sub gladio (the spiritual power trancends in dignity and nobility all earthly power as much as the spiritual the earthly). Nam veritate testante spiritualis potestas terrenam potestatem instituere” (is it literally institute? or institute in the sense of religious consecration ? or instruct? In view of the immediately following “judicare,” and of the sentence of Hugo St. Victor, which is here the source, the first meaning is the most probable; Finke [Rom. Quartalschrift 4. Supplementheft, 1896, p. 40] is inclined to adopt the second) “habet et judicare, si bona non fuerit (there follows Jerem. I. 10). Ergo si deviat terrena potestas, judicabitur a potestate spirituali, sed si deviat spiritualis minor, a suo superiori, si vero suprema, a solo deo, non ab homine po 551 terit judicari, testante apostolo (1 Cor. II. 25). Est autem hæc auctoritas, etsi data sit homini et exerceatur per hominem, non humana sed potius divina, ore divino Petro data sibique suisque successoribus in ipso quem confessus fuit petra firmata, dicente domino ipsi Petro (Matt. XVI. 19). Quicunque igitur huic potestati a deo sic ordinatæ resistit, dei ordinationi resistit, nisi duo sicut Manichæus fingat esse principia, quod falsum et hæreticum judicamus, quia testante Mose non in principiis sed in principio coelum deus creavit et terram. Porro subesse Romano pontifici omni humanæ creaturæ declaramus, dicimus, definimus [et pronuntiamus] omnino esse de necessitate salutis.” As can be understood, the Bull at the present day gives trouble to not a few Catholics, and the attempt is made to strip it to some extent of its dogmatic authoritative character, or to find help in interpretation. A collection of the more important papal pronouncements from the time between Gregory VII. and Alexander VI. is given by Mirbt, Quellen z. Gesch. des Papstthums, 1895, p. 47 f. 202 577 Janus, p. 166: “Ready everywhere to interpose and take action as agents of the papacy, entirely independent of the bishops, and of higher authority than the secular priests and the local clergy, they really formed churches within the Church, laboured for

necessarily followed the infallibility of the 124Pope had been brought together; they were strictly developed, too, by Thomas, after new forgeries had been added.203 Nevertheless, though the doctrine had long been recognised, that through a special divine protection the Roman Church could not entirely fall from faith, and was the divinely appointed refuge for doctrinal purity and doctrinal unity, beyond the groups that stood under the influence of the Dominican Order, the doctrine of infallibility did not command acceptance. The history of the Popes was still too well known; even in the canonical law-book there were contradictory elements,

the honour and aggrandisement of their orders, and for the power of the Pope, on which their privileged position rested.” 203 There are specially to be considered here the Pseudocyrillian passages; see the valuable inquiry by Reusch, Die Fälschungen in dem. Tractat des Thomas v. Aquin gegen die Griechen, Abhandl. d. k. bay. Akad. der Wissensch. III., Cl. 18, Bd. 3 Abth., 1889. On Thomas as the normal theologian for the doctrine of infallibility, see Langen, Das Vatic. Dogma, 3 Thl., p. 99 ff.; Leitner, Der hl. Thomas über das unfehlbare Lehramt des Papstes, 1872, Delitzsch, Lehrsystem der römischen K., I., p. 194 ff. Thomas, Summa Sec. Sec. qu. 11 art. 2: “Sic ergo aliqui doctores vident 564 ur dissensisse vel circa ea quorum nihil interest ad fidem utrum sic vel aliter teneatur, vel etiam in quibusdam ad fidem pertinentibus, quæ nondum erant per ecclesiam determinata. Postquam autem essent auctoritate universalis ecclesiæ determinata, si quis tali ordinationi pertinaciter repugnaret, hæreticus censeretur. Quæ quidem auctoritas principaliter residet in summa pontifce.” Sec. Sec. qu. 1 art. 10 (“utrum ad summum pontificem pertineat fidei symbolum ordinare?”). Here, as usual, the thesis is first denied, then follows: “editio symboli facta est in synodo generali, sed hujusmodi synodus auctoritate solius summi pontificis potest congregari. Ergo editio symboli ad auctoritatem summi pontificis pertinet.” Further: “Nova editio symboli necessaria est ad vitandum insurgentes errores. Ad illius ergo auctoritatem pertinet editio symboli, ad cujus auctoritatem pertinet finaliter determinare ea quæ sunt fidei, ut ab omnibus inconcussa fide teneantur. Hoc autem pertinet ad auctoritatem summi pontificis, ad quem majores et difficiliores ecclesiæ quæstiones referuntur (there follows a passage from the decretals). Unde et dominus (Luke XXII. 32) Petro dixit, quem summum pontificem constituit: ego p 548 ro te rogavi, etc. Et hujus ratio est: quia una fides debet esse totius ecclesiæ secundum illud I Cor. I. 10: Id ipsum dicatis omnes, et non sint in vobis schismata. Quod servari non posset nisi quæstio exorta determinetur per eum, qui toti ecclesiæ præest, ut sic ejus sententia a tota ecclesia firmiter teneatur, et ideo ad solam auctoritatem summi pontificis pertinet nova editio symboli, sicut et omnia alia quæ pertinent ad totam ecclesiam, ut congregare synodum generalem et alia hujusmodi.” The tenet, that to every Pope there belongs personal holiness (Gregory VII.), was no longer reasserted, because, as Döllinger (Janus, p. 168) supposes, the danger existed of arguing from the defective holiness of a Pope to the illegality of his decisions.

and204 Popes as great as Innocent III. admitted the possibility of a Pope falling into sin 125in matters of faith, and, in that case, acknowledged the competency of the judgment of the entire Church.205 It was thus possible that at the University of Paris a decided opposition should establish itself, which led, e.g., to the Pope being charged with heresy in connection with a doctrine of John XXII. The indefiniteness in which many Church doctrines (and theories of practice, e.g., in regard to ordination) still stood, and the hesitating attitude which the Popes assumed towards them, also prevented the dogmatic authority of the papacy from being taken as absolute.206 Although the falsification of history, by the publication of historic accounts that painted over in an incredible way the great conflict between the papacy and the Empire, reached its climax about 1300,207 and the principles of the Thomist policy208 always received a fuller adoption, the decisive question of the infallibility remained unsolved. From about the year 1340, indeed, the literature in which the papal system was delineated in the most extravagant way,209 ceased entirely to be 126produced.

204

See the canon in Gratian ascribed to Boniface “Si Papa,” dist. 40, 6. On the whole question see Mirbt, Publicistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII., p. 566 ff. 580 205 See the admission in Eymerici Director. Inquis., p. 295 (cited in Janus, p. 295). 206 See the question of reordination in connection with “Simonists.” 207 Martin of Troppau and Tolomeo of Lucca. 208 Thomas, de regimine principum, continued by Tolomeo. 209 The most extreme works are those of Augustinus Triumphus, Summa de ecclesiast. potest. (ob. 1328) and of the Franciscan Alvarus Pelagius, De planctu ecclesiæ (ob. 1352). From the Summa de potestate eccl. of the former, and from the work de planctu ecclesia of the latter, Gieseler II., 3, 2 Aufl., p. 42 ff. and 101 ff., gives full extracts, which show that the glorification of the Pope could not be carried further in the nineteenth century. Augustinus asserted generally: “Nulla lex populo christiano est danda, nisi ipsius papæ auctoritate;” for only the papal power is immediately from God, and it embraces the jurisdictio et cura totius mundi. Alvarus carried the identifying of Christ with the Pope to the point of blasphemy, and at the same time declared the Pope to be the rightful possessor of the imperium Romanum from the days of Peter. At bottom, both distinguish the Pope from God only by saying that to the earthly “dominus deus nos 564 ter papa” (see Finke, l.c., p. 44 ff.; observe that I have placed the word “earthly” before the expression, which indicates the trope here employed, so far as there is one), adoration is due only “ministerialiter.” (Finke, l.c., pp. 40-44, has objected to this last sentence, and believes he has refuted it from the source, Augustinus Triumphus. That, according to Augustinus, there belongs to the Pope the servitus summa [i.e., the Latreia, full divine worship] I have not asserted. But certainly Augustinus teaches that the Pope possesses participative and exercises ministerialiter the summa potestas [the dominatio, the divine power of rule]; in accordance with this therefore must the dulia also he defined

Only after 120 years did it reappear, when it was a question of rescuing and asserting the old claims of the papacy against the Council of Bâsle. It was then that Cardinal Torquemada wrote that defence of the papal system,210 which, resting on a strict Thomistic foundation, was still regarded at the period of the Reformation as the most important achievement of the papal party. But from the middle of the fifteenth century the papal system, as a whole, was again gathering power, after the storm of the Councils had been happily exorcised by the brilliant but crafty policy of Eugene IV. Only the French nation maintained what ground of freedom was already won in opposition to the Pope (Bourges 1438). The other nations returned, through the Concordats, to their old dependence on the Autocrat in Rome;211 indeed, they were, to some extent, betrayed just by their own local rulers, inasmuch as these men saw it to be of advantage in hastening their attainment to full princely power to take shares with the Pope in the Church of the country.212 This fate overtook, in the end, even the French national Church (through the concordat of Dec. 1516), and yet in such a way that the king obtained the chief share of the power over it. While, as the fifteenth century passed into the sixteenth, the Popes were indulging wildly in war, luxury, and the grossest simony, Cajetan and Jacobazzi wrought out the strictest papal theory, the former including in it the doctrine of infallibility.213 The hopes of the

which belongs to the Pope. Instead of the somewhat short expression “ministerialiter,” which it would be better not to use, I should have said: “The adoration” belongs in the way in which it is due to him who shares in the divine power of rule, and exercises it as an instrument of God.) 210 De Pontifice Max 564 imo et generalis concilii auctoritate; see also his Summa de ecclesia and the Apparatus super decreto unionis Græcorum. 211 Rome, however, always understood these concordata as acts of grace, by which only the party admitted to partnership was bound. Even at an earlier time this view was maintained by Roman canonists, and was deduced from the supreme lordship of the Pope over all men. 212 Think of the development of the territorial-prince system in the fifteenth century. Great rulers (Emperor Frederick III.) and small literally vied with each other, till far on in the sixteenth century, in injuring the independence of their national churches. The local princes derived a passing, but the Pope the permanent, 52b advantage. 213 In the period of conflict between the Popes and the Councils the question about the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith had retired into the background. At the Union Council at Florence it was not mentioned. Even Torquemada admitted the possibility of a Pope falling into a heresy; from this, however, he did not conclude that the council was superior to him, for a heretical Pope was ipso facto deposed by God. This impracticable, imbecile assumption was first rejected by Cajetan, who reverted to the doctrine of Thomas, which was based on fictitious passages from the Fathers, while he added himself

nations in the Council were 127quenched, the old tyranny was again set up; it was complained, indeed, that the ecclesiastical despotism was worse than that of the Turks, but, nevertheless, men submitted to the inevitable. About the year 1500 the complaints were perhaps more bitter than at any other time; but the falling away was slight, the taking of steps less frequent. Heresy seemed to have become rarer and tamer than in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, especially after the Hussite movement had exhausted itself. The “heretics” — so it appeared — had really become the “silent in the land,” who shunned an open breach with the Church; their piety appeared less aggressive. “It was pretty generally felt that it had happened to the Church with the Reformation, as formerly it had happened to the King of Rome with the Sibylline books; after the seed of corruption sown by the Curia had, for fifty years, borne a much larger harvest, and the Church itself made no more effort to save it, the Reformation had to be purchased at a much heavier price and with still smaller prospect of success.”214 The Lateran Council at the beginning of the sixteenth century, which treated with scorn all wishes of the nations and promulgated the papal theory in the strictest sense,215 as if there had never been councils at Constance and Basle, was tacitly recognised. But it was the lull before the storm — a storm which the Pope had yet to experience, who had entered upon his office with the words: “Volo, ut pontificatu isto quam maxime perfruamur.” (It is my wish that we may enjoy the pontificate in the largest measure possible.)216 Before the time of Thomas theology took no part in this imposing 128 development of the papal theory; even after him the share taken by it was small. The development was directed by jurisprudence, which founded simply on external, mostly forged, historic testimonies, and drew its conclusions with dialectic art. The meagre share of theology is to be explained on two grounds. First, Rome alone had a real interest in the whole theory; but in Rome theology never flourished, either in antiquity or in the Middle Ages. There was practical concern in Rome neither with Scripture exposition nor with the dogmatic works of the Fathers. Whoever wished to study theology went to France. For the Curia,

a new falsification by suppressing the proposition laid down at Constance: “error est, si per Romanam ecclesiam intelligat universalem aut concilium generale.” With him also originated the famous proposition, that the Catholic Church is the born hand-maid of the Pope. 59d 214 Janus, p. 365. 215 The Pope, it is said in the Bull “Pastor acternus,” has the “auctoritas super omnia concilia”; he alone may convene, transfer, and dissolve them. 216 On the handing down of this saying, see Janus, p. 381, n. 407.

only the student of law was of any account; from the time of Innocent IV. a school of law existed in Rome; the great majority of the Cardinals were well-equipped jurists, not theologians, and the greatest Popes of the Middle Ages, Alexander III., Innocents III. and IV., Boniface VIII., etc., came to the papal chair as highlyesteemed legal scholars.217 When it was now much too late, men with clear vision, like Roger Bacon, or pious patriots, like Dante, saw that the ruin of the Church was due to the decretals, which were studied in place of the Church Fathers and Scripture. The former, in particular, demanded very loudly that the Church should be delivered from the secularised Church law which was poisoning it. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there were complaints constantly made about the papacy, and about the corrupted Church law (“Jurists bad Christians”) as being the real source of all evil. It was the spirit of ancient Rome that had settled down on the Mediæval spirit, that Roman spirit of jurisprudence, which had now, however, degenerated into a spirit of tyranny, and used as its means audacious forgeries. But the slight share of theology in the development of the hierarchical conception of the Church is to be explained not merely from the lack of theology, but, second, from the fortunate incapacity of theology (till past the middle of the thirteenth century) to lower itself to this notion of the Church. Anyone who reflected as a theologian on the Church, instituted researches into the works of the Church fathers, especially 129Augustine. But here the spiritual conception of the Church (i.e., the Church as corpus Christi [body of Christ], as multitudo fidelium [multitude of the faithful], as universitas Christianorum [entire mass of Christians]) came so clearly to view that for the time it riveted reflection, and there was failure to force one’s way with any confidence to the hierarchical, not to speak of the papal, conception, or it was only touched on. This explains how all the great theologians before Thomas, from Anselm onwards, even those of Gregorian tendency, achieved as theologians very little in promoting the development of the hierarchical conception of the Church. They taught and wrote like Augustine, indeed they still remained behind him in precise definition of the Church as an external society.218 Theology did nothing for the development and

217

See Döllinger, Ueber das Studium der deutschen Geschichte (Akad. Vorträge II., pp. 407 ff., 418 f. 218 See Hugo of St. Victor, de Sacr. II., p. II., c. 2 sq. In his Sentences the Lombard made no mention whatever of the papacy! So far as others dealt with the Church at all, even the firmness of Cyprian in apprehending the hierarchical notion of the Church was not reached. Numerous proofs in Langen, Das Vaticanische Dogma, 2. Theil. If Hugo differs from the other earlier theologians in entering more fully into a description of the

establishment of the papal system till far on in the thirteenth century, and it may here be said at once in its honour, that with a single, and that even not a perfect, exception (Thomas), it did only half work in the time that followed, leaving the most to be done by the Post-Tridentine theology.219 So far as I know, there is nothing to be found in the theological writings of the Schoolmen in the shape of rounded off formulæ for, nothing of strictly systematic exposition of, the conception of the Church (as in the case of the doctrine of the Sacraments). On the other hand, both in Hugo St. Victor, and in the later Schoolmen also, not a few fundamental lines of proof with regard to the notion of the Church can be pointed to which were directly and without change taken over by the 130“heretical” parties, and by men like Wyclif.220 What most simply explains this is that the patristic, and especially the Augustinian, expositions still determined theology. Yet it is not to be denied, that from the middle of the thirteenth century theology took a certain share in developing the conception of the Church. It was just the Mendicant Monks — to the shame of St. Francis — who, even as theologians, began to be enthusiastic for the papal theory, after there had been conferred upon them such excessive privileges as could only be held legal if the Pope was really the Lord of the Church. There was added to this, that in the thirteenth century, in the course of the negotiations with the Greeks, theology saw that it had to face the task of ingratiating them into the papal system also. It was in connection with this task that there was awakened the interest theology took in the hierarchical conception of the Church which formed the presupposition of the papal system,221 and the great thinker, Thomas Aquinas, now developed

Church, this has a connection with his interest in the Sacraments. What he says about the hierarchy and the Pope falls behind the Gregorian ideas, and therefore does nothing to advance them. Even about the relation of the Church (the Pope) to the State he has still evangelical ideas. And yet here, as elsewhere also, he must be held as in many respects the precursor of Thomas. 54e 219It is amazing that in Thomasius-Seeberg (p. 196) the sentence: “As in general, so also with regard to the Church, Scholasticism set itself the task of proving that what exists ought to exist,” is followed at once by the other: “It must be emphasised here first of all, that Scholasticism does not know of a dogma of the Church.” 220 The agreement of the “heretics” with the fundamental Catholic notion of the Church was not unfrequently substantiated by their Catholic opponents. These men were still naïve enough to hold the conception of the Church as societas unitatis fidei as their own basis; see correct statement by Gottschick (Zeitschr. f. K.-Gesch. VIII., p. 348 f. ). ae0 221The Council of Lyons in 1274 was of epoch-making importance here. The vigorous re-awakening of interest in the theoretic statement and proof of the papal system in the middle of the fifteenth century likewise finds an explanation in the transactions

at once the hierarchical and papal theory, together with a bold theory of the state.222 But he was far 131from surrendering, at the

with the Greeks. In this way the relation of the Greeks to the West came to be of sinister omen. There was a wish to win them for the papacy, and this became the occasion for developing “scientifically” for the first time — mostly by means of forgeries — the papal theory! 222 Thomas develops the chief attributes of the Pope (summus pontifex, caput ecclesiæ, cura ecclesiæ universalis, plenitudo potestatis, potestas determinandi novum symbolum). The discussions on the distribution of hierarchical power may here be left aside (on the development of the notion of the Church as a monarchy Aristotle’s influence was at work). We have only to note how entirely the second conception of the Church, i.e., the hierarchical, is dominated by the doctrine of the Sacraments. The particulars of the Thomist conception of the Church were not dogma in his day, but they afterwards became the norm for dogmatic construction. That Thomas, moreover, does not place the hierarchical notion of the Church side by side with the spiritual without indicating a relation has been shown by Gottschick, l.c. pp. 347-357. Yet it must not be forgotten that such tenets as those of Augustine regarding the Church (taken in connection with predestinarian grace) continued to exercise their own influence even when they were subordinated to alien thoughts. Thomas (Explanation of the Apostolic Symbol; see also “Summa” III., qu. 8) begins by representing the Church as a religious community (congregatio fidelium, corpus mysticum) whose head is Christ. But while so describing it — as the community of those who are united to Christ by the love that proceeds from God — he at the same time accentuates the moral character of the community, as an entire whole ruled by the divine law, which embraces the earth, heaven, and purgatory, and which has its end in the vision and enjoyment of God. In more precisely defining the compass of th ac8 e Church, Thomas’s process of proof is affected by all the uncertainties which we already observed in Augustine, and which were due to regard on the one hand to predestinarian grace (in accordance with which all particulars are determined), and on the other hand to the empirical circumstances. Even the reprobi, according to him, are in the Church de potentia, that is to say, so long as they stand under the influence of the virtus Christi or still through their free will hold a connection with him. Now, so far as the Church imparts to the individual the love of God, and thereby sanctification, it is an external community like the state, is discernible by external marks, is defined by an external limit (excommunication) and requires the hierarchical organisation; for this last is the presupposition of sacramental celebration. If, until felicity is reached, the life of the individual as a believer proceeds by stages of faith (i.e., of holding true upon authority) and is regulated by the several sacraments which contain the saving grace, this implies that it is of the essence of the Church that it is the authority on doctrine and the administrator of the Sacraments. But this it can only be as a community with a strictly legal and hierarchical organisation. In this way the second conception of the Church is brought by Thomas into closest connection with the first, and Gottschick (p. 353) is quite correct in further pointing out that “faith in the objective sense is part of the commands of the law by which (see above) the Church must be guided.” The Church as a legal authority on doctrine, and as a priestly sacramental

same time, the spiritual conception of the Church, or — as was done in the Post-Tridentine period — from correcting it throughout by means of the hierarchical. With all his logical consistency in the development of the papal system, he certainly did not derive the powers of the bishops and priests entirely from the papal; in his “Summa” he still works to a great extent with the notion of the “Ecclesia” as having the force of a central conception, and in doing so has no thought of monarchy. For him it is no figure of speech that the 132individual bishop “is called specially the bridegroom of the Church as also Christ” (specialiter sponsus ecclesiæ dicitur sicut et Christus).223 But, so far as the influence of Thomas extended, the result was unquestionably a mingling of jurisprudence and theology in this department and the acclimatising of the hierarchico-papal notion of the Church.224 Yet his influence must not be over-rated. The Franciscan (Nominalist) dogmatic took little to do, so far as I know, with this development of the conception of the Church. Even at the beginning of the Reformation, the whole hierarchical and papal theory had no sure position in dogmatic — it was Romish decretal law. But it had attained more than a place in dogmatic. From about 1450 it was

institution, is therefore the “exclusive organ by which the Ilead of the Church, Christ, forms its members.” One sees then that a very spiritual conception of the Church, nay, even the predestinarian, can be brought into combination with the empirico-hierarchical (Summa III., qu. 64, art. 2: “per sacramenta dicitur esse fabricata ecclesia Christi.”) As salvation is a mystery that cannot be experienced, i.e., as a certainty regarding its possession can never be reached, inasmuch as it consists of forces that mysteriously operate in the human sphere that is inaccessible to reflection, nothing remains but simply to surrender one’s self to the sacramental saving institution, which, again, involves the graded priesthood. In this way the authority of the clergy necessarily became absolute, and the spiritual (predestinarian) notion of the Church, so far from correcting, necessarily aided this advance of view. Hence follows the tenet of the infallibility of the Church, which was bound to issue in the infallibility of the Pope; for some kind of rock to build on 564 must be sought for and found. If this does not lie in an overmastering certainty which the subject-matter itself brings with it, inasmuch as it transforms the absoluteness of the moral imperative into the absolute certainty of the grace of God in Christ, it must be given in something external. This external thing, certainly, the infallibility of the priesthood in teaching and administering the Sacraments, can never guarantee to the individual the possession of salvation, but only its possibility. 223 Summa, III. suppl. qu. 40 art. 4 fin. 224 The attitude to the State was involved in the position that only the priest is able rightly to teach the law of God, but that even the States have no other task than ac8 to care for the salvation of the souls of their subjects by promoting the virtus that corresponds to the law of God.

again energetically acted upon from rome, and the opposition to it appeared no longer so powerful as a century before.225 This opposition we have still to review. Here it is to be observed, above everything else, that the imperfect public development of the conception of the Church was a matter of little importance, because in the doctrine of the Sacraments all was already acquired as a sure possession which could be expected from a formulation of the conception of the Church in hierarchical interests. From this, again, it followed still further, that the opposition to the hierarchical papal notion of the Church necessarily continued — in spite of all fostering — without danger, 133so long as the doctrine of the Sacraments was not objected to. But the latter again rested on the peculiar view of salvation, as the sanctification that leads to the visio dei, as active holiness (measured by the standard of the law of God). Here we must go back to an earlier point.226. Augustine combined the old Catholic notion of salvation, as the visio et fruitio dei (vision and enjoyment of God), with the doctrine of predestination on the one hand and with the doctrine of the regnum Christi (kingdom of Christ) and the process of justification on the other. As contrasted with the Greek view, both combinations were new; but the union of the idea of salvation with the process of justification and sanctification was easily effected, because this process was taken as regulated entirely by the Sacraments, while the Sacraments, as the Greek development shows, formed the necessary correlate to the idea of salvation. If in salvation, that is to say, the supramundane condition in which one is to find himself is mainly emphasised, then there answer to the production of this condition, means that operate as holy natural forces. When Augustine conceived of these natural forces as forces

225

No good Catholic Christian doubted that in spiritual things the clergy were the divinely-appointed superiors of the laity, that this power proceeded from the right of the priests to celebrate the Sacraments, that the Pope was the real possessor of this power, and was far superior to all secular authority. The question, however, as to the Pope’s power to rule was certainly a subject of controversy. 226 A full understanding of the Catholic conception of the Church can only be reached by starting from the conception of the Sacraments, which, as has been observed, is dependent on the view taken of salvation. But from this point of view it can also be said that the Catholic notion of the Church forms the necessary supplement to the imperfect idea of faith. That which is lacking to faith, taken in the Catholic sense, namely, the certitudo salutis, is supplied by the doctrinal authority of the Church on the one side and by the Sacramental Church institution on the other, and yet in such a way that it is obtained only approximately.

of love working for righteousness, a very great step of progress was taken; but no difference was made thereby in the general scheme, since love was regarded as infused. But certainly he made it possible that there should also be given to the whole process a very decided tendency towards morality — which had dropped out of the Greek view as held within the lines of dogma. The forces of love, that is to say, bring it about that here on earth the law of Christ, which is summed up in the commandment to love, can be fulfilled. In this way there arises from the forces of love, which are transmitted through the Sacraments as channels, the kingdom of Christ, in which righteousness reigns according to the 134example and law of Christ. The Sacraments have therefore the double effect, that of preparing for, and conducting gradually to the visio et fruitio dei, and that of producing on earth the Church in which the law of Christ reigns and by which the “bene vivere” (rightliving) is produced. By the latter of these two views the position of the State is determined — as the bene vivere is its end, it must submit itself to the sacramental institution. But by the whole idea the priesthood as the teaching and sanctifying corporation is legitimised; for the administration of the Sacraments is tied to a particular order, whom Christ has appointed, and this order, at the same time, is alone empowered to interpret the law of Christ with binding authority. To them, therefore, there must be subjection. This whole view, which, certainly, had not received a clear and precise expression from Augustine, obtained clearness and precision in the period that followed — less through the labours of the theologians than by the force of the resolute Roman policy. Because this policy aimed, above all, at monarchy in the Church, it had, as the result of its victorious exercise, brought out clearly for the first time, and at the same time created, the general hierarchical conditions requisite for the existence of such a monarchy. Yet, in spite of many forgeries, it could not bring it about that the factor of hierarchical gradation, comparatively insignificant from a dogmatic point of view, but extremely important from the point of view of practice, should obtain the support of an imposing tradition; for from Augustine and the Fathers in general it was as good as absent. But still further, Augustine, as we have noted above, combined with the dogma of salvation as the visio dei the doctrine of predestination, and developed from the latter a doctrine of the Church that held a neutral relation to hierarchy and sacrament. No doubt it can easily be shown that the predestinarian and the sacramental hierarchical notions of the Church are not necessarily mutually exclusive, nay, that in a certain sense they require each other, inasmuch as the individual’s uncertainty of his own election, affirmed by Augustine, necessarily forces him to make a diligent use of all the

means furnished by the Church, and the explanation very naturally occurs that God effectuates the fulfilment 135of the predestinating decree only through the empirical Church with its Sacraments. But Augustine himself did not assert that; and although in the time that came after, this mode of adjusting things came to be very much in favour, yet, as there was no allowing the doctrine of predestination to drop out, there was involved in this doctrine an element that threatened, like an overhanging mass of rock, to destroy the existence of the structure beneath. Finally, Augustine had no doubt carried on a victorious conflict with Donatism; but there was still one point at which it was not easy to deny entirely the correctness of the Donatist thesis, and that was the sacrament of penance. It could certainly be made credible that baptism, the Lord’s supper, confirmation, ordination were valid, even when an unworthy priest dispensed them; but how was such a man to be able to sit in judgment upon the holy and the unholy, to apply the law of Christ, to bind and loose, if the load rested on himself of ignorance of sin? It was surely more than paradoxical, it was an inconceivable thought, that the blind should be able to judge aright as to light and darkness. Was excommunication by such a man to be held valid before God? Was his absolution to have force? There was no doubt an escape sought for here, also, by saying that it is Christ who binds and looses, not the priest, who is only a minister; but when flagrant unrighteousness was practised by the priest, when such cases increased in number, what was then to be done?227

227

Let it be distinctly noted here that it was just the strict papal system that had widely given rise in the period of the great conflicts (eleventh and twelfth centuries) to the greatest uncertainty about ordinations, seeing that the Popes cancelled without hesitation “simonistic” orders, and likewise orders of the imperial bishops, nay, even ordinations at which a single simonist had been present. Innocent II., indeed, at the second Lateran Council, pronounced invalid all ordinations of the schismatics, i.e., of the bishops who adhered to Pope Anaclete II. (“From him whom he ha 550 th ordained we take away the orders” [evacuamus et irritas esse consemus]; the curialist theologians are disposed to see in this only a suspension of the exercise of office; Hefele, Concil. Gesch. V.2, p. 438 f., leaves the passage unexplained; Friedrich [in his edition of Janus, 2 Aufl., pp. 143, 456] holds to the cancelling of the orders.) Thus it was the Popes who were the instructors of those sects that spread the greatest uncertainty as to the most important Catholic question, the question regarding the validity of orders. At the time of the Schism it was laid down by the papal Secretary, Coluccio Salutato, that as all Church power emanates from the Pope, and as a wrongly elected Pope has himself no power, such an one can give none; consequently the bishops and priests ordained since the death of Gregory XI. were incompetent to dispense the Sacraments. If, accordingly, says Coluccio, a believer adores the Eucharist that has been consecrated by a bishop ordained in the Schism, he worships

136

In a way indicating the greatest acuteness, Thomas combined the predestinarian (spiritual) and the hierarchical conceptions of the Church, and tried to eliminate the points from which a “heretical” conception could develop itself; but it is apparent from what has been stated that one could accept substantially the Augustinian-Thomist notion of the Church with its premises (doctrines of salvation and the Sacraments), and yet, when tested by the claims which the Mediæval Church set up at the time of its greatest power, could become “heretical,” in the event, namely, of his either (1) contesting the hierarchical gradation of the priestly order; or (2) giving to the religious idea of the Church implied in the thought of predestination a place superior to the conception of the empirical Church; or (3) applying to the priests, and thereby to the authorities of the Church, the test of the law of God, before admitting their right to exercise, as holding the keys, the power of binding and loosing. Certainly during the whole of the Middle Ages there were sects who attacked the Catholic notion of the Church at the root; but however important they may be for the history of culture, they play no part in the history of dogma; for as their opposition, as a rule, developed itself from dualistic or pantheistic premises (surviving effects of old Gnostic or Manichæan views), they stood outside of ordinary Christendom, and, while no doubt affecting many individual members within it, had no influence on Church doctrine.228 On the other hand, it may be asserted that all the movements which are described as “reformations anticipating the Reformation,” and which for a time resisted not unsuccessfully the introduction of the Romish 137conception of the Church, set out from the Augustinian conception of the Church, but took exception to the development of this conception, from the three points that have been defined above. Now whether we look at the Waldensian, the Lombard, the Apocalyptico-Joachimic, the Franciscan opposition to the new conception of the Church, whether at that of the Empire or the Councils, of Wyclif or Huss, or even, indeed, at

an idol (in a letter to Jost of Moravia in Martene, Thes. Anecd. II., p. 1159, quoted by Janus, p. 318). 228 ac1 There are referred to here sects like the Catharists and Albigenses, “Patarenes,” “Bulgarians,” as also the adherents of Amalrich of Bena, the Ortliebists (allied to the Waldensians), the sect of the New Spirit, the sect of the Free Spirit, and many similar movements; see Hahn, Gesch. der Ketzer ins Mittelalter, 3 Bdd., Reuter, Aufklärung Bd. II., the different works of Ch. Schmidt, Jundt, Preger, Haupt; Staude, Urspr. d. Katharer (Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. V. I); Döllinger, Beiträge z. Sectengesch. des Mittelalters, 1890.

the humanist, we have always the same spectacle. On the first view the opposition seems radical, nay, expressly antagonistic. Angry curses — Anti-Christ, Babylon, Church of the devil, priests of the devil, etc. — catch the ear everywhere. But if we look a little more closely, the opposition is really much tamer. That fundamental Catholic conception of the Church, as a sacramental institution, is not objected to, because the fundamental conception of salvation and of blessedness remains unassailed. Although all hierarchical gradation may be rejected, the conception of the hierarchical priesthood is allowed to stand; although the Church may be conceived of as the community of the predestinated, every Christian must place himself under the influence of the Sacraments dispensed by the Church, and must use them most diligently, for by means of these his election is effected; although the sacramental acts of unworthy priests may be invalid, still priests are needed, but they must live according to the law of Christ; although the Church as the community of the predestinated may be known only to God, yet the empirical Church is the true Church, if the apostolic life prevails in it, and a true empirical Church of the kind is absolutely necessary, and can be restored by reforms; although, finally, all secular rights may have to be denied to the P e98 ope and the priesthood, yet secular right in general is something that has gradually to disappear. The criticism of the Romish conception of the Church is therefore entirely a criticism from within. The criticism must not on that account be under-estimated; it certainly accomplished great things; in it the spiritual and moral gained supremacy over the legal and empirical, and Luther was fortunate when he came to know Huss’s doctrine of the Church. Yet we must not be deceived by this as to the 138fact that the conception of the Church held by all the opposing parties was only a form of the Augustinian conception of the Church, modified by the Waldensian-Franciscan ideal of the apostolic life (according to the law of Christ). The ways in which the elements were mingled in the programmes of the opposition parties were very different; at one time the predestinarian element preponderated, at another time an apocalyptic-legal, at another the Franciscan, at another the biblical (the lex Christi), at another they were all present in equipoise. Especially on the ground that these opposition parties, starting from the doctrine of predestination, enforced the conception of the “invisible Church,” and applied the standard of Scripture to everything, they are praised as evangelical. But attention has very rightly been drawn of late to the fact229 that they by no means renounced the conception of an empirical, true

229

See Gottschick in the dissertation cited above and K. Müller, Bericht, etc., p. 37 f.

Church, a conception to which they were driven by individual uncertainty about election, and that their stand-point on the ground of Scripture is the Catholic-legal, as it had been adopted by Augustine, Bernard, and Francis. Under such circumstances it is enough to delineate in a few of their features the conceptions of the Church held by the several parties. The Waldensians contested neither the Catholic cultus nor the Sacraments and the hierarchical constitution in themselves, but they protested (1) as against a mortal sin, against the Catholic clergy exercising the rights of the successors of the Apostles without adopting the apostolic life; and (2) against the comprehensive power of government on the part of the Pope and the bishops, hence against the Romish hierarchy with its graded ranks. But the French Waldensians did not, nevertheless, contest the validity of the Sacraments dispensed by unworthy priests, though this certainly was done by those of Lombardy.230 Among the Waldensians, then, the conception of the law of Christ, as set forth in Scripture and as prescribing to the priests the apostolic life, rises above all other marks of the Church (among those in Italy the Donatist 139element developed itself from this). The same applies to a part of the Franciscans, who passed over to the opposition. In the sharp polemic against Rome on the part of the Joachimites, the apocalyptic element takes its place side by side with the legal: clergy and hierarchy are judged from the standpoint of emancipated monachism and of the approaching end of time. de98 231 No wonder that just this view gained favour with not a few Franciscans, that it extended itself to far in the North among all sections of the people,232 and that it came to take up a friendly (Ghibelline) attitude towards the State. As thus modified it freed itself up to a certain point from the wild apocalyptic elements, and passed over to be merged in the imperialist opposition. Here also they were again Franciscans who passed over also, and to some extent, indeed, conducted the resistance to the papal power (Occam). In this opposition the dispute was by no means about the Church as a sacramental institution and as a priesthood, but simply about the legitimacy of the hierarchical gradation of rank

230

See above, p. 90, and Müller, Waldesier, p. 93 ff. and passim. See Reuter., 1.c. II., p. 191 if., and Archiv. f. Litt.-und K.-Gesch. des Mittelalters I., p. 105 ff. 232 In greater numbers than before protocols of processes against heretics have been published in recent years; see Wattenbach in the Sitzungsberichten der Berliner Academie, 1886, IV., and Döllinger, l.c., Bd. 2. We can very easily understand how, above all, the charge was brought against the heretics that they did away with the Sacraments. 231

(including the Pope, whose divine appointment Occam contested), and about the governing powers of the hierarchy, which were denied. But these powers were denied on the ground of the Franciscan view, that the Church admits of no secular constitution, and that the hierarchy must be poor and without rights. The assigning of the entire legal sphere to the State was at bottom an expression of contempt for that sphere, not indeed on the part of all literary opponents of the papacy in the fourteenth century, but yet on the part of not a few of them.233 The imperialist opposition was 140dissolved by that of the Councils. Reform of the Church in its head and members was the watchword — but the professors of Paris, who, like the German professors in the fifth and sixth decades of the present century, gave themselves up to the illusion that they sat at the loom of history, understood by this reform merely a national-liberal reform of the ecclesiastical constitution (after the pattern of the constitution of the University of Paris), the restriction of the tyrannical and speculative papal rights, the giving to the Council supremacy over the papacy,234 and the liberating of the national Churches from papal oppression, with a view to their possessing independence, either perfect or relative. The importance of these ideas from the point of view of ecclesiastical policy, and the sympathy we must extend to the idealism of these professors,

57f 233

Besides Occam, Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun are specially to he named here; cf. Riezler, Die lit. Widersacher der Päpste z. Z. Ludwig’s des Bayern, 1874, K. Müller, der Kampf Ludwig’s d. B. mit der röm. Curie, 2 Bdd., 1879 f., Friedberg, Die Grenzen zwischen Staat und Kirche, 1882, the same author, Die mittelalterlichen Lehren über d. Verh. v. St. u. K., 1874 Dorner, Das Verhältniss von K. u. St. nach Occam (Stud. u. Krit. 1885, IV.). How powerfully the idea of the State asserted itself in the fourteenth century (cf. even Dante earlier) is well known. 234 Cf. the famous decrees of the fourth and fifth Sessions of the Council of Constance: “Every legally-convened œcumenical Council representing the Church has its authority directly from Christ, and in matters of faith, in the settlement of disputes and the reformation of the Church in its head and members, every one, even the Pope, is subjec ac8 t to it.” Even the cardinals did not venture to refuse their assent. The Thomist conception of the Church was as yet no dogma; by the decisions of Constance it was tacitly — unfortunately only tacitly — described as error; but at the Council, so far as is known, no voice was raised on its behalf, and though Martin V. took his stand at the beginning on the newly acquired ground, it was only for a minute. That the Council of Bâsle, on an understanding with the Pope, gave a fresh declaration of the decrees of Constance, is well known. But thereafter Eugene IV. himself, and wisely, brought about the breach. On the Council of Constance we shall shortly be able to judge much better than before, when the great publication of Finke, Acta concilii Constanciensis will be before us, of which the first volume (Acten z. Vorgeschichte) has already appeared (1896).

must not lead to our being deceived as to the futility of their efforts for reform, which were supported by the approval of peoples and princes. They attacked at the root the Gregorian (Pseudo-Isidorian) development of the ecclesiastical constitution and of the papacy; but they did not say to themselves, that this development must always again repeat itself if the root, the doctrines of the Sacraments and of the priesthood, be left untouched. But how could these doctrines be assailed when there was agreement with the Curialists in the view taken of salvation and of the law of Christ? In face of the actual condition of 141things, which had developed throughout many centuries in the Church, the idea that the Church’s disorders could be healed by paralysing the papal system of finance, and declaring the Council the divinely instituted court of appeal in the Church, was a Utopia, the realisation of which during a few decades was only apparent. It is somewhat touching to observe with what tenacity in the fifteenth, and beginning of the sixteenth, centuries, men clung to the hope that a Council could heal the hurt of Israel, and deliver the Church from the tyranny of the Pope. The healing indeed came, but in a way in which it was not expected, while it was certainly the only healing which a Council could permanently bestow — it came at the Councils of Trent and the Vatican.235

235

On the conception of the Church held by the Paris theologians and their friends — they thought of themselves, not without reason, as restoring the old Catholic view, yet under quite changed circumstances the old thing became a new — see Schwab, Gerson, 1858, Tschackert, d’Ailly, 1877, Hartwig, Henricus de Langenstein, 1858, Brockhaus, Nicolai Cusani de concilii univ. potest. sentent., 1867. Also the works on Clemange and the Italian and Spanish Episcopalists. In particular matters the representatives of the conciliar ideas, at that time and later, widely diverged from each other, and more especially, each one defined differently the relation of the Pope to the Council and to the Church: there were some who held the papacy to be entirely superfluous, and some who only wished for it, so to speak, a slight letting of blood. The great majority interfered in no way with its existence, but aimed merely at purifying and restricting it; see the good review of the Episcopal system in Delitzsch, Lehrsystem der rom. K., p. 165 ff. Janus, p. 314 ff. No doubt it only needs to be recalled here that the Episcopal system arose from the frightful trouble created by the Schism, when the Italians wished to wrest back the papacy from the French. The termination of the Schism was a real, but it was also the only permanent, result of the Councils. Yet it must not be overlooked that in the definitions of the Church which the Episcopalists had furnished, Reformation elements were included, though these certainly were der 564 ived almost entirely from Augustine; for Augustine reiterated the position that the keys are given, not to an individual, but to the Church, and in his dogmatic expositions he always subordinated the constitutional to the spiritual unity of the Church.

Even before the beginning of the great opposition movement of the Councils against the papal system, the most important mediæval effort towards reform had been initiated — the Wyclifite, which continued itself in the Hussite. In spite of wild extravagances, the movement under Wyclif and Huss, in which many of the earlier lines of effort converged, must be regarded as the ripest development of mediæval reform-agitation. Yet it will 142appear, that while doing much in the way of loosening and preparing, it gave expression to no Reformation thought; it, too, confined itself to the ground that was Augustinian-Franciscan, with which there was associated only a powerful national element. Yet to Wyclif’s theory, which Huss simply transcribed,236 a high value is to be attached, as being the only coherent theological theory which the Middle Ages opposed to the Thomist. All the other mediæval opponents of the Romish Church system work with mere measuring-lines or with fragments. When we look at what Wyclif and Huss challenged or rejected, we might suppose that here a radical criticism of the Catholic conception of the Church was carried through, and a new idea of the Church presented. Everything must be determined by Holy Scripture; the practice in regard to worship and the Sacraments is everywhere represented as perverted and as encumbered by the traditions of men; the doctrine of indulgence, the practice of auricular confession, the doctrine of transubstantiation (Wyclif), the manducatio infidelium (communicating of unbelievers), the priests’ absolute power of the keys, are as zealously opposed as the worship of saints, images, and relics, private masses, and the many sacramentalia. For the worship of God there are demanded plainness, simplicity, and intelligibility; the people must receive what will be inwardly and spiritually edifying (hence the preference for the vernacular).237 With the thorough reform of

236

Wyclif’s works are only now being made fully accessible; cf. the Trialogues edited by Lechler, the controversial writings published by Buddensieg, and especially the treatise de ecclesia edited by Loserth (Wyclif Society from 1882). Monographs by Lechler, 2 vols., 1872 (and in Herzog’s R.-E.) and by Buddensieg, 1885. The discovery that Huss simply, and to a large extent verbally, adopted the Wyclifite doctrine, we owe to Loserth (Hus und Wiclif, 1884), see also the same author’s Introduction to the treatise de ecclesia. The results of Gottschick’s discussion of Huss’s doctrine of the Church (Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. VIII., p. 345 ff.) apply therefore throughout to Wyclif. I do not venture an opinion as to how far Wesel and Wessel were influenced by Huss. Savonarola c 561 ontinued the opposition of the Mendicant Monks in the old style. 237 The translation of the Bible was a great achievement of Wyclif; but it must not be forgotten that the Church also of the fifteenth century concerned itself with Bible translation, as more recent investigations have shown.

worship and of sacrament celebration 143there must be a corresponding reform of the hierarchy. Here also there must be a reverting to the original simplicity. The papacy, as it existed, was regarded as a part of Anti-Christ, and this was not less true of the secularised Mendicant Monk system (as Lechler has shown, it was only towards the end of his life that Wyclif entered upon a vigorous conflict with both; his original attitude towards the Mendicant Monks was more friendly). The Pope, who contravenes the law of Christ, is the Anti-Christ, and in the controversial treatise “de Christo et suo adversario Anti-Christo,” it is proved that in twelve matters the Pope has apostatised from the law and doctrine of Christ. The head of the Church is Christ, not the Pope; only through Constantine has the latter, as the bishop of Rome, become great. Therefore the Roman bishop must return to a life of apostolic service. He is not the direct and proximate vicar of Christ, but is a servant of Christ, as are the other bishops as well. The entire priestly order exists to serve in humility and love; the State alone has to rule. The indispensable condition of priestly service is imitation of the suffering man Jesus. If a priest disregards this and serves sin, he is no priest, and all his sacred acts are in vain. But behind all these positions, which were for the most part already made familiar by older reform parties, there lies a distinctly defined conception of the Church, which is not new, however, but is rather only a variety of the Thomist. Wyclif’s conception of the Church can be wholly derived from the Augustinian (influence on Wyclif of Thomas of Bradwardine, the Augustinian), when the peculiar national and political conditions are kept in view under which he stood,238 and also the impression which the Franciscan ideal — even to the length of communism indeed — made upon him. Huss stood under quite similar conditions, and could therefore simply adopt Wyclifism. Wyclif sets out from the Augustinian definition of the Church 144as the entire sum of the predestinated in heaven and on earth. To this Church the merely præsciti (foreknown) do not belong; they do not belong to it even at the time when they are righteous; while, on the other hand, every predestinated one is a member of it, even if at the time he is still not under grace, or, say, is a heathen or Jew. No one can say of himself without special revelation (revelatio

238

This has been observed especially by Buddensieg, l.c. In dealing with Wyclif, as with all the opposition movements from the thirteenth century to the fifteenth, the great national economical revolution in Europe must be remembered. At the same time the Anglo-Saxon type in Wyclif, as contrasted with the Romanic, must not be overlooked.

specialis) that he belongs to this Church. This momentous proposition, which dominates the whole of the further discussion, is a clear proof that Wyclif and Huss stood on Catholic ground, i.e., that the significance of faith was entirely ignored. As a fact, the definition of the Church as congregatio fidelium was a mere title; for, as we shall immediately see, faith was not what is decisive; it comes to view rather within the conception of the Church as merely an empirical mark (equivalent to community of the baptized). Further, as it is an established fact that no one can be certain of his election — for how can one surrender himself here on earth to the constant feeling of felicity which springs from the vision and enjoyment of God after all other feelings have been quenched? how is it possible to attain to this state of heart even now? — then there is either no mark at all by which the existence of the Church may be determined, or we may rest assured that the Church of Christ exists where the legacy of Christ is in force — the Sacraments and the law of Christ. The latter, not the former, is the opinion of Wyclif and Huss. The true Church of Christ is where the law of Christ reigns,239 i.e., the law of love, humility, and poverty, which means the apostolic life in imitation of Christ, and where, accordingly, the Sacraments also, which prepare for the life beyond, are administered in the Spirit of Christ. The predestination doctrine is not brought into service therefore with the view of making room for faith over against the Sacraments, or in order to construct a purely invisible Church — what interest would Wyclif and Huss have then had in the reform of the empirical Church?240 — but it is brought into 145service that it may be possible to oppose the claims of the hierarchy as godless pretensions and to set up the law of Christ as the true nota ecclesiæ catholica. For from what has been shown it follows that there can be no rights in the Church which do not Originate from the acknowledged supremacy of the law of Christ. The question is entirely one of establishing this law. A leap is taken over faith. The important matter is fides caritate formata (faith deriving form from love), i.e., caritas, i.e., the law of the Sermon on the Mount (consilia).241 What is contested is not only the hierarchical gradation, but the alleged independent right of the clergy to represent the Church and administer the means of

acb 239“Lex Christi” and “lex evangelica” were the terms constantly applied to the contents of the New Testament even by the Reformers of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, see Otto Clemen, Pupper von Goch (Leipzig, 1896), p. 120 ff.; but at the same time it is in some way to hold good that that law is a “lex perfectæ libertatis.” 240 See Gottschick, 1.c., p. 360 ff. 241 See Ritschl, Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung, 2 ed. I., p. 134.

grace without observing the law of Christ.242 How can such a right exist, if the Church is nothing but the community of the predestinated, and as such can have no other mark save the law of Christ? How, again, can acts of priests be valid, when the presupposition of all action in the Church, and for the Church, is lacking to them — obedience to the law of Christ? But this law has its quintessence in the Sermon on the Mount and in the example of the poor life of Jesus; nevertheless (this feature is genuinely Augustinian) the whole of Scripture is at the same time the law of Christ. This standard then must be applied to all ecclesiastical practice. And yet in its application, which of course must become entirely arbitrary as soon as the attempt is really made to follow the thousand directions literally, everything is to be subordinated to the law of love that ministers in poverty and — to the reigning dogma. With the exception of the transubstantiation doctrine, which Wyclif alone objected to, both Reformers left dogma entirely untouched, nay, they strengthened it. What they aimed at reforming, and did reform, were the ordinances relating to worship and Sacraments, which had originated in the immediately preceding centuries, and were justly felt by them to be restrictions on the 146full and direct efficacy of word and Sacrament. At the same time they did not renounce the view that the numerus predestinatorum (number of the predestinated) may find its earthly embodiment in a true, empirical Church. It certainly could not but come about, that in the Hussite movement, when once the watchword had again been emphatically given forth that everything must be reformed according to the law of holy Scripture, there should be introduced into the Church the disorder and terror connected with Old Testament socialist and apocalyptic ideas; but such things seldom last beyond the third generation, nor did they last longer then. There was a falling back upon patience, and the once aggressive enthusiasm became changed into silent mistrust and reserve. How this Wyclifite conception of the Church, which really came into conflict with the Romish only about the Pope and the sacrament of penance, and arose from an over-straining of the good Catholic principle of the lex Christi (law of Christ), can be called evangelical, is difficult to understand. Equally with

242

Huss adhered firmly to the Catholic distinction between clergy and laity. Wyclif regarded laymen called directly by Christ as capable of priestly acts. But that a direct appointment by Christ is valid could scarcely be contested even by a Romish opponent of Wyclif. The only question, therefore, must be as to whether such an appointment can be established. Hence the assertion that Wyclif and Huss opposed the universal priesthood to the priestly order is incorrect.

Thomas’s conception of the Church it leaves faith aside, as Luther understood it; and it has as its presuppositions, in addition to the predestinarian doctrine, the Catholic conception of salvation, the Catholic conception of the Sacraments, and the Catholic ideal of poverty. It puts an end to the priests who govern the world; but it does not put an end to the priests who dispense the Sacraments, who expound the law of God, and who alone — by the apostolic life — perfectly fulfil it. Will these world-ruling priests not return, if it must really be the highest interest of man to prepare himself for the life beyond by means of the Sacraments, seeing that that life is not attainable by faith alone, and a clear, certain and perfect faith does not fall to the lot of every man?243 But however certain it is that this question 147 can only be answered in the affirmative (as long as the Sacraments play the chief part in the Church, the priest will be a man of power on earth, and as long as the letter of scripture is regarded as the law of Christ, the official interpreters will be the ruling authorities in the Church) it is equally certain that the Wyclifite conception of the Church represented a great advance. The attempt was here made to separate the religious from the secular; moreover, the value of the law of Christ, as something spiritual, was placed on a level with the value of the Sacraments, nay, the efficacy of all ecclesiastical acts was derived from inward Christian disposition; the whole “objective” right of a hierarchy in

243

See Gottschtck, l.c., p. 364 f.: “Huss has no other view of salvation than the ordinary Catholic one. Man’s goal is union with God through visio dei and the love dependent thereon. There is preparation on earth for this by means of faith and the meritorious fulfilm ab5 ent of the law of love. By faith is understood throughout the theoretic assent to a quantum of doctrines; there suffices for a good part of this quantum the fides implicita. Faith having value only as fides caritate formata, it follows that the chief matter is fulfilment of the law. But the qualification for this is dependent on the infusion of grace on the ground of the merit of Christ, a grace whereby sin is abolished. And Huss never mentions any other way in which this takes place than by preaching and the Sacraments, more particularly baptism and the Eucharist or the sacrifice of the mass.” Cf. the passages quoted by Gottschick, l.c., from the treatise de ecclesia, among which those upon fides implicita are specially instructive. I. 38: “Christianus debet fidem aliqualiter cognoscere.” 62: “Quantum oporteat fidelem de necessitate salutis explicite credere, non est meum pro nunc discutere, cum deus omnipotens suos electos secundum gradum fidei multiplicem ad se trahit.” 259: “Quicunque habuerit fidem caritate formatam . . .in communi sufficit cum virtute perseverantiæ ad salutem. . . . Non exigit deus, ut omnes filii sui sint continue pro viatione sua in actu cogitanti particulari de qualibet fidei particula (so always quantitatively estimated), sed satis est, quod post posita desidia habeant fidem in habitu formatam.” Wyclif had a similar opinion (“omnia sacramenta sensibilia rite administrata [but for this there is requisite also, and above all, the priest who lives like the apostles] habent efficaciam salutarem”).

the Church was shaken;244 Christians were most urgently reminded that the gospel has to do with life. And this did not take place outside theology, as if these were personally-formed notions, but on the ground and in the name of the truly ecclesiastical theology. About the year 1500 Hussitism, as a great movement, had run its course. But it exerted an incalculable influence: it loosened the hold of the hierarchical papal conception of the Church on the hearts and minds of men, and helped to prepare the way for the great revolution. No doubt at the beginning of the Reformation the greatest vagueness of view prevailed among the really pious in the land: there was no wish to part with the Pope, but episcopalist (conciliar) and 148Waldensian-Hussite ideas were widely disseminated.245 A distinct settlement was necessary: either the establishment of the papal system, or a new view of the Church that should be able to furnish a firm basis for the numerous and heavy assaults upon that system. The empirico-monarchical conception of the Church was challenged by the Episcopalists, the juristic by Wyclif and Huss — in this lies the chief importance of these men. But for the juristic conception they substituted a moralistic. From the latter the former will always develop itself again. What was lacking was the conception of a Church to which one belongs through living faith. The mere criticising of the hierarchy, however much courage that might imply, was not all that was needed. Nor was it enough that the legal ordinances of the Church should be traced back to their moral conditions. For having done this Wyclif and Huss cannot be too highly praised. But it must not be forgotten that the Church of Christ has to take the criteria for judging what she is from Romans V.-VIII. One thing, however, and for our purposes the most important, will be made apparent from this whole review, namely, that the manifold development of the conception of the Church in this period, so far from threatening the old dogma, gave it an always firmer lodgment — not, indeed, as a living authority, but as a basis and boundary line. Where would the Waldensians and the Hussites, with their appeals to the lex Christi, to Scripture and the Apocalypse, have arrived at, if they had not been held fast by the quiet but powerful force of the ancient dogma?

244

The Council of Constance contested the Wyclifite-Hussite propositions that were adverse to the Pope, as also the exclusive definition of the Church as universitas prædestinatorum. 245 Besides the works on the history of the spread of Hussitism (especially von Bezold, Zur Gesch. des Husitenthums 1874, and the Studies of Haupt), see the works of Keller, which, however, must be used with caution.

But at this point we may extend our observations still a step further. Is it the case, then, that the so-called “Reformers before the Reformation” were the only reformers before the Reformation, or is it not apparent rather that this designation has only a proper meaning when it is applied, not to any one phenomenon in the Medieval Church, but to the Mediæval Church as a whole? For the highest level of observation, there lies between the Christianity of the Ancient Church and the 149Christianity of the Reformation, the Christianity of the Middle Ages as the intermediate stage, i.e., as the Pre-Reformation. None of its leading tendencies can be dispensed with in the picture, not even the hierarchical. The very conception of the Church shows that. For those opposing the “PreReformers” represented with their Church ideal the certainty that Christ has left behind Him on earth a kingdom, in which He, as the exalted One, is present, and the holiness of which does not depend on the moral goodness of its members, but on the grace which God gives them. This thought they no doubt disfigured and secularised, yet it must not be said that it had value for them only in its disfigured form. No, even it was for many really an expression of Christian piety. They thought of the living and reigning Christ when they thought of the Pope and his power, of the bishops and the Church, who reduced the whole world to their rule. In this form their faith was a necessary complement to the individualistic Christianity of the Mystics, and the Reformation with its thesis of the holy community and the kingdom of God, which have Christ in their midst, connected itself directly with the Catholic thoughts of Augustine and the Middle Ages, after it had learned from Paul and Augustine to judge spiritual things spiritually. 3. On the History of Ecclesiastical Science. In connection with the history of piety we have been already obliged to enter upon the history of theology; for piety and theology are most intimately related in the Middle Ages. In the former chapter also (p. 23 ff.) a sketch of the history of science till the close of the twelfth century has been given. From the immense amount of material in the thirteenth to the fifteenth century only some cardinal points shall be brought more prominently to view.246

54d

246

See the histories of philosophy by Erdmann, Ueberweg-Heinze (where are the fullest lists of literary works), Stöckl and Werner (Monograph on Thomas v. Aqu., various dissertations on Duns Scotus, Die Scholastik des spateren Mittelalters in 3 vols., 1881 f.: (1) Johannes Duns Scotus. (2) Die Nachscotistische Scholastik. (3) Der Augustinismus des späteren Mittelalters). Baur, Vorles. über die christl. Dogmengesch. 2

150

The great advancement of mediæval science from the beginning of the thirteenth century was occasioned (1) by the immense triumph of the Church and the papacy under Innocent III. and his successors; (2) by the intensification of piety in consequence of the Mendicant Orders movement;247 (3) by the enrichment and extension of general culture, which was partly a consequence of inner developments, and partly arose from contact with the East, in Palestine, Constantinople, and Spain.248 Here the acquaintance, now obtained for the first time, with the true Aristotle, the teacher of logic, physics, ethics, and politics, became of supreme importance. His philosophy, understood as dogmatism,249 was hailed as a gospel, or at least as 151the

Bd., p. 199 ff. We owe to Bach a beautiful dissertation on Albertus M., distinguished by thorough knowledge and abundant points of view. 247 On the entrance of the Minorite Order into the scientific movement, see Werner, Duns Scotus, p. 4 ff. af2 248Cf. Books 6-8 of the History of the Aufklärung by Reuter, especially the sections on the Averrhoistic Aufklärung, as well as on the importance of the Arabic and Jewish middle-men, also on the influence of the Natural Sciences and on the University of Paris in the thirteenth century. The Arabs Avicenna (ob. 1037) and Averrhoes (ob. 1198), the former supranaturalistic, the latter pantheistic, in his tendency, were the most important commentators on Aristotle, whose works became known to the West by means of Spanish Jews. But by Averrhoes, who exercised a powerful attraction, Aristotle was in the first instance discredited, so that several Church interdicts were issued against him. But it was soon observed that Aristotle, so far from favouring pantheism, really refuted it. Scotus Erigena and Averrhoes — his system meant for the Church of the thirteenth century what Gnosticism in the second century, Manichæanism in the fourth, Socinianism in the seventeenth, meant for Church Christianity, see Renan, Averroes et l’Averroisme — were now regarded as the real enemies of Church dogma. Naturalistic pantheism in general now became the chief object of persecution; to oppose it, the supranaturalistic elements were derived from Aristotelianism, and this Aristotelianism had the widest scope given to it (see Schwane, Dogmengesch. des Mittelalters, p. 33 ff.). Among the Jewish scholars it was chiefly Maimonides who influenced the Schoolmen of the thirteenth century. Thomas owed very much to him, and in part transcribed him (see Merx, Prophetie des Joel, 1879). In this way the juristic-casuistic element in Scholasticism was still further strengthened, and pharisaic-talmudic theologoumena crept into mediæval theology, which are partly traceable to the Persian age of Judaism. But besides this, Neoplatonic and Aristotelian material found its way to the schoolmen from the translations of the Jews, who had rendered the Arabic versions of the Greek philosophical writings into Latin; see Bardenhewer, Die Schrift de causis, 1882. 249 In the sense in which Kant exposed and refuted dogmatism. It was only Roger Bacon who stoutly fought his way out of these fetters in the thirtee 564 nth century; see Reuter, II., p. 67 ff.

necessary introduction to one (“præcursor Christi in naturalibus”) and through him the science of the thirteenth century received an almost incalculable amount of material, and, above all, impulses to master the material. The two new forces of commanding importance in the period, the Mendicant Orders250 and Aristotle, had first to achieve a position for themselves. At the beginning they met with hostility from the old Orders, and from the teachers and universities that were in alliance with them. An attitude of self-defence was assumed towards both. The new Aristotelianism, indeed, came under ecclesiastical proscription, and there was a wish to exclude theologians of the Mendicant Orders from university chairs. There were always some, too, who still were influenced by the attacks in general on the scientific-dialectic theology, which had been made by such men as John of Salisbury and Walter of St. Victor.251 But the new movement asserted itself with an irresistible energy, and the opposition was silenced. Yet this was only possible because the new factors really furnished nothing new, but completed the triumph of the Church over everything spiritual. The new Aristotle, as he was understood, taught the theory of knowledge, metaphysics and politics, which admitted of a surer vindication of dogma against such opposition as had formerly appeared, e.g., in William of Champeaux and Roscellin, and offered a defence against the 152dangers both of an eccentric realism and of an empirical mode of thought. If it is permissible, nay necessary, to conceive of the universals on the one hand, as the archetypes that express the cosmos of ideas in the thought of God, then they exist ante rem (before the thing); if on

250

Among all the Orders the Dominican was the first to adopt into its rules directions as to study (see Denifle, Archiv. fur Litt.-u. Kirchengesch. des Mittelalters I., p. 165 ff. 251 Cf. e.g., for the period about 1250 the Chronicle of Salimbene and Michael l.c., p. 39 f. That in the Dominican Order itself a tendency had at first to be checked, which, after the style of the older Orders, emphasised asceticism so strongly that no room was left for study, which indeed described science (including theology) as dangerous and pernicious, has been convincingly proved by Wehofer O. P. from the book of the Dominican Gérard de Frachet, “Vitas Patrum” (published not long a ac8 fter 1256, issued in the Monum. Ord. Frat. Prædic. Historica. Löwen, 1896), and from the attitude of Humbert of Romans (General of the Order from 1254 to 1263; Gorres-Jahrbuch f. Philos. Bd. IX., 1896, p. 17 ff.) That “propter philosophiam” one goes to hell or at least — after a great example — receives here already on earth a sound cudgelling from angels, was never forgotten in the Catholic Church. The founder of the Trappist Order simply attempted to bring into force again an old monastic tradition: “study, i.e., philosophy is sin.”

the other hand they must be regarded as simply realised in things (categories and forms) then they are in re (in the thing); if, finally, it is undeniable that it is only by the observation of things that they are obtained, that accordingly the intellect derives them from experience, then they are post rem (after the thing). In this way it was possible to apply to every dogma the epistemological mode of view which seemed best fitted to defend it. The “qualified” realism, which could assume the most different forms, and which had been already represented by Abelard, certainly more in a spirit of sceptical reserve than with a view to speculative construction, became dominant in the thirteenth century. But what was of most importance was that the great theologians who developed it showed even greater energy than their predecessors in subordinating the whole structure of thought to the principle that all things are to be understood by tracing them back to God. But the tracing back to God was equivalent to subjecting all knowledge to the authority of the Church. The same science which displayed an astonishing energy of thought, and through such scholars as Thomas made a really important advance upon antiquity in the ethical and political sciences, appeared in many respects still more fettered than the science of the eleventh and twelfth centuries; for in its view, not only the old dogma (“articuli fidei”), but the entire department of ecclesiastical practice, the principles of which were traced back to the articuli fidei, was absolutely authoritative, and it proceeded much more frankly than before on the principle that in particular questions every instance of authority had as much weight as a deliberate reflection of the understanding. It was only in the thirteenth century — and by the theologians of the Mendicant Orders — that the whole existing structure of ecclesiasticism was theologically vindicated, and its newest and most questionable parts, as well as the oldest and 153most important, declared inviolate by “science”; it was only in the thirteenth century that there was introduced that complete interblending of faith on authority and of science which means that at one and the same level there is a working at one time with the “credo,” at another time with the “intelligo”; such interblending is not yet found in Anselm, for example. Certainly it was still theoretically held that theology, resting on revelation, is a (speculative) science.252. But it was not held as required, nor even

252

See the first question in Part I. of the Summa of Thomas; Art. I.: “Utrum sit necessarium præter philosophicas disciplinas aliam doctrinam haberi.” Art. II: “Utrum sacra doctrina sit scientia.” Answer: “Sacram doctrinam esse scientiam. Sed sciendum est

as possible, to rear on the basis of faith a purely rational structure: there was rather an alternating between authority and reason; they were regarded as parallel methods which one employed. The object in view indeed continued to be the knowledge that culminates in the visio dei; but there was no longer the wish always to eliminate more fully as knowledge advanced the element of faith (authority) in order to retain at the last pure knowledge; at all stages, rather, the element of authority was held as justifiable and necessary. Nay, there was now the conviction that there are two provinces, that of natural theology, and that of specific (revealed). The two, certainly, are thought of as being in closest harmony; but yet the conviction has been obtained that there are things known, and these, too, the most important, which belong simply to revealed theology, and which can be interrelated certainly, but not identified with natural theology. Natural theology, moreover, must subordinate itself to revealed, for theology has its foundation in revelation. In point of fact, however, the dogmatic theologian alternated between 154reason and revelation, and his structure derived its style from the former; for in particular questions the content of revelation is not derived solely from the thought of redemption — however truly this, as the visio dei, may be the contemplated end — but is set forth also in a thousand isolated portions, which are nothing else than heterogeneous fragments of a real or supposed knowledge of the world. It was the effect of holding that very conception of the goal of redemption as visio dei that the view of the content of revelation threatened to become broken up into an incalculable number of things known, and, in spite of the still retained title, acquired the character of a natural knowledge of supernatural things. Accordingly there was now introduced also the idea of articuli mixti, i.e., of such elements of knowledge as are given both in a natural way and by revelation, only in the latter way, however, in perfection. What appeared

quod duplex est scientiarum genus. Quædam enim sunt, quæ procedunt ex principiis notis lumine naturali intellectus sicut Arithmetica; quædam vero sunt quæ procedunt ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientiæ, sicut Perspectiva procedit ex principiis notificatis per Geometriam. . . . Et hoc modo sacra doctrina est scientia, quia procedit ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientiæ, quæ scil. est scientia dei et beatorum. Unde sicut Musicus credit principia revelata sibi ab Arithmetico, ita doctrina sacra credit principia revelata sibi a deo.” Art. III.: “Utrum sacra doctrina sit una scientia?” Conclusio: “Cum omnia considerata in sacra doctrina sub una formali ratione divinæ revelationis considerentur, eam unam scientiam esse sentiendum est.” Artic. IV.: “Utrum s. doctrina sit scientia practica?” Conclusio: “Tametsi s. theologia altioris ordinis sit practica et speculativa, eminenter utramque continens, speculativa tamen magis est quam practica,” etc.

outlined already in Tertullian (see Vol. V. c. ii.) as the distinctive character of Western theology, now came to its fullest development. From the newly-discovered Aristotle the scholars derived courage to advance from the compilation of mere “sentences” to the rearing of entire doctrinal systems. The imposing form of the Church also, with the unfolding of its uniform power, may have been a co-operating influence here; for the Scholasticism of the thirteenth century presents the same spectacle in the sphere of knowledge, which the Church of which it is the servant presents in the sphere of human life generally. In the one sphere as in the other everything is to be reduced to subjection; in the one as in the other everything is to be brought into a harmonious system; in the one as in the other the position is held, tacitly or expressly, that the Church is Christ, and Christ is the Church. Thus the theological science of the thirteenth century can be described as the submitting to dialectic-systematic revision of ecclesiastical dogma and ecclesiastical practice, with the view of unfolding them in a system having unity and comprehending all that in the highest sense is worthy of being known, with the view of proving them, and so of reducing to the service of the Church all the forces of the understanding and the whole product of science. But most intimately connected with this end is the other, namely, the theologian’s attaining in this way 155to the visio (fruitio) dei; these two ends, indeed, are mutually involved, for all knowledge of Church doctrine and of Church practice is knowledge of God — this was taught by the Church itself. Now, if the gradual knowledge of God is the only means whereby the individual can attain to salvation (visio dei), then in theology the objective and subjective aims simply coincide; one serves the Church in serving himself, and the converse is equally true. The great Schoolmen by no means felt that they wrought as slaves, labouring under compulsion for their masters. The only end indeed that was clearly before them was their own advancement in the knowledge of God; but, standing as faithful sons within the Church, to which all power was given in heaven and on earth, their speculations necessarily served, with more or less of intention on their part, to glorify the Church’s power and give a divine character to all that it did. And yet how many things did they come to know, the truth of which is entirely independent of the truth of Church theory and practice; how necessary and how helpful was even this period in the general history of science and theology; and how many seeds were sown broadcast by the great Schoolmen, of the development of which they did not allow themselves to dream! Never yet in the world’s history was any science quite fruitless which served God with true devotion. Theology has at any time become a hindrance, only

when it has lost faith in itself or become vacillating. We shall see that this was verified also in medieval theology. For all that has been stated up to this point applies only to the pre-Scotist Scholasticism; it applies above all to Thomas. He exercised, moreover, an enduring influence on the period that followed, and his influence is still at work at the present day. His predecessors and contemporaries have passed out of view in him. The Thomist science, as embodied above all in the “Summa,” is characterised by the following things: (1) by the conviction that religion and theology are essentially of a speculative (not practical) nature, that they must therefore be imparted and appropriated spiritually, that it is possible so to appropriate them, and that ultimately no conflict can arise between reason and revelation; (2) by strict adherence to 156Augustinianism, and in particular to the Augustinian doctrines of God, predestination, sin and grace,253 but on the other hand by contesting on principle Averrhoism; (3) by a

253

Thomas shows himself an Augustinian by his estimation also of Holy Scripture. Scripture alone was for him absolutely certain revelation. All other authorities he held as only relative. Very many passages can be quoted from Thomas to prove that the 564 formal principle of the reformation” had a representative in the great Schoolman. Cf. Holzhey, Die Inspiration d. hl. Schrift in der Anschauung des Mittelalters, 1895. This book, which did not necessarily require to be written, gives an account of the estimation of Holy Scripture on the part of the mediæval theologians and sectaries from the period of Charles the Great till the Council of Trent. The author remarks very correctly (p. 164 f.) that the view of Holy Scripture, or the mode of apprehending the notion of inspiration, does not pass beyond what is furnished by the Church Fathers, and that even among the theologians from the time of Alcuin till the beginning of the sixteenth century the greatest agreement regarding Holy Scripture prevailed. But when the author says further, that the doctrine of the absolute perspicuity and sufficiency of the Bible finds no confirmation in the mediæval Church — for even if expressions of the kind were to be met with among the mediæval theologians, yet the living union with the Church and tradition is at the same time presupposed — then that is in one respect a platitude. It is such also (but only in one respect) when the author remarks that the Middle Ages always recognised the exposition of Holy Scripture as an attribute of the Church. But on the really interesting problem Holzhey has scarc ac8 ely touched, namely whether even in the Middle Ages a unique importance does not belong to Scripture as rule for the vita Christiana and whether it was not held by very many in this respect as absolutely clear and sufficient. That this question is to be answered affirmatively is to me beyond doubt. To the sentence of Duns Scotus: “Sacra scriptura sufficienter continet doctrinam necessariam viatori,” many parallels may be adduced. Besides, there is still another question on which Holzhey has scarcely entered: since when was the decision of the Church in matters of faith placed as another kind of authority alongside Scripture as of equal weight? Certainly not yet since Thomas, scarcely only since Duns, but, as Ritschl likewise (Fides implicita, p. 31 f.) remarks, only since Occam, and even since his time not yet generally.

thoroughly minute acquaintance with Aristotle, and by a comprehensive and strenuous application of the Aristotelian philosophy, so far as Augustinianism admitted in any way of this (under the conception of God the Areopagitic-Augustinian view is only slightly limited); (4) by a bold vindication of the highest ecclesiastical claims by means of an ingenious theory of the State, and a wonderfully observant study of the empirical tendencies of the papal ecclesiastical and sacramental system. Aristotle the politician and Augustine the theologian, two enemies, became allies in Thomas; in that consists the importance of Thomas in the world’s history. While he is a 157theologian and an Augustinian, he is still always an absolute thinker full of confidence; and yet it must not be overlooked that in him there are already recognisable the seeds of the destruction of the absolute theology. Although hidden, arbitrary and relative elements have already found a place for themselves in him. It is still his aim to express all things in the firm and sure categories of the majesty of the deity whose pervasive power controls all things, and to prove the strict necessity of all theological deliverances: the Christian religion is believed in and demonstrated from principles; but yet at not a few points the strength failed, and the thinker was obliged to fall back upon the authority which supports the probable, although he understood how to maintain for the whole the impression of absolute validity.254

254

Anselm proves in part the articuli fidei; in principle Thomas refuses to do so (Pars. I., Quæst. I., Art. 8); yet the ratio bases itself on the articuli fidei in order to prove something else. We shall see how, as the development proceeded, Scholasticism always relied less on ratio in divine things. This may be an appropriate place for a short description of the “Summa” (see Portman, Das System der theol. Summe des hl. Thomas, Luzern 1885). The 1. Part (119 Quæst.) treats of God and the issue of things from God, the 2. Part (1. Sect.) of general morality (114 Quæst.), the 2. Part (2. Sect.) of special morality (189 Quæst.) from the point of view of the return of the rational creature to God, the 3. Part of Christ and the Sacraments (90 Quæst.) As a supplement there has been added, from the commentary on the Lombard, the concluding part of the doctrine of the Sacraments, and the eschatology (102 Quæst.) Every Quæstio contains a number of articuli, and every articulus is divided into three parts. First the difficultates are brought forward, which seem to answer in the negative the question propounded, then the authorities (one or more, among them here and there also Aristotle), then follows the speculative discussion, dealing with principles, and thereafter the solution of the particular difficulties (the conclusiones are not formulated by Thomas himself, but by his commentators). The scheme corresponds with the Pauline-Augustinian thought: “From God to God.” The introduction (Quæst. i) comprises the questio 564 ns on theology as a science, on the subject (object) of theology — God and all else sub ratione dei, — on the methods (auctoritas and ratio, theology as doctrina argumentativa, sed “hæc doctrina non

argumentatur ad sua principia probanda, quæ sunt articuli fidei, sed ex eis procedit ad aliquid aliud probandum . . .nam licet locus ab auctoritate quæ fundatur super ratione humana sit infirmissimus, locus tamen ab auctoritate quæ fundatur super revelatione divina est efficacissimus. Utitur tamen sacra doctrina etiam ratione humana, non quidem ad probandam fidem [quia per hoc tolleretur meritum fidei], sed ad manifestandum aliqua alia, quæ traduntur in hac doctrina. Cum enim gratia non tollat naturam, sed perficiat, oportet quod naturalis ratio subserviat fidei, sicut et naturalis inclinatio voluntatis obsequitur caritati. . . . Sacra doctrina utitur philosophorum auctoritatibus quasi extraneis argumentis et probabilibus, auctoritatibus autem canonicæ scripturæ utitur proprie et ex necessitate arguendo, auctoritatibus autem aliorum doctorum ecclesiæ quasi argumentando ex propriis sed probabiliter. Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi apostolis et prophetis factæ, qui canonicos libros scripserunt, non autem revelationi, si qua fuit aliis doctoribus facta”), on the exposition of Holy Scripture, etc. Q ac8 uest. 2-27 of the I. Part treat of God’s existence (five proofs for God), the nature of God (primum movens, ens a se, perfectissimum, actus purus), His attributes, His unity and uniqueness, His knowableness, the name of God, further of the inner life-activity in God (of His knowledge, His world of ideas, His relation to truth, His life, His will, the expressions of His will, providence and predestination); lastly, of the outer activity of God or the divine omnipotence, and of the divine blessedness. Then follows in Q. 27-44 the investigation de processione divinarum personarum (Trinity); lastly, Q. 44-119, the doctrine of creation, and here (1) the origination of things (creation out of nothing, temporality of the world); (2) division of creation (doctrine of angels, doctrine of the world of bodies, doctrine of man, here minute investigations into the substance of the soul, the union of body and soul, the powers of the soul, human knowledge; then concerning the creation of man, the divine image in man, paradise and the original state); (3) the doctrine of the divine government of the world (on angels as means of providence, etc.). The II. Part (1 sect.) is grounded entirely on the Aristotelian Ethics. It begins with an introduction on man’s end (the bonum = beatitudo = deus ipse = visio dei), and proceeds to treat of freedom, the nature of free acts of the will, the goodness and badness of acts of the will (to the goodness belongs the rationality of the act of the will), merit and guilt (Q. 6-21). Thereon follow investigations into the emotional life of man (passiones), which is minutely analysed (Q. 22-48). Now only comes the account of the principles of moral action, of “habitus” or of the qualities of the soul. After an introduction (Q. 49 sq.) the doctrine of virtue is discussed (divided according to the object into intellectual, moral, and theological virtues), the cause of the virtues, their peculiarities (virtue as moderation or the “middle” course between two extremes) and the culmination of the virtues in the gifts of the Holy Ghost (the eight beatitudes and the fruits of the Spirit). This is followed by the doctrines of the nature of sin (contrary to reason and nature), of the division of sins, of the relation of sins to one another, of the subject (the will), the causes (inner and outer) of sin, of original sin and its effects (the deterioration of nature, darkening = macula, the reatus pœnæ, mortal sins and venial sins). All this belongs to the inner principles of moral conduct. This part concludes with the discussion of the outer principles, namely, the law and grace. The “law” is discussed on all sides, as eternal law (that is, the law according 564 to which God Himself acts, and whose reflected rays are

all laws valid for the creatures), as natural law, as human law, as Old Testament and New Testament law, and as law of “counsels” for special perfection. But the New Testament law, as it is inward, and infused by grace, is the law of grace, and thu the way is prepared for passing to the second outer principle of moral acts — to grace which gives man aid for the good. Grace is the outer principle of the supernatural good; in the intellectual sphere it is not necessary for the knowledge of natural truths, but it is so for the knowledge of the supernatural; it is likewise requisite for ability to do the supernatural good. Here there is a keen polemic against Pelagianism: man cannot by naturally good acts even prepare himself sufficiently for grace; he can neither convert himself, nor continue always steadfast in goodness. An inquiry into the nature, division, causes, and effects of grace (doctrine of justification, doctrine of the meritoriousness of good works), forms the conclusion. The II. Part, 2. section now contains special ethics, namely, first, the precise statement of the theological virtues (faith, hope, and love), the commands corresponding to these virtues, and the sins against them, then the discussion of the cardinal virtues, wisdom, righteousness (here in Q. 57-123 th 564 e most exhaustive account is given, inasmuch as religiousness as a whole is placed under this term), courage, and moderation; lastly, the discussion of the special virtues, i.e., of the gifts of grace and duties of station (Q. 171-189). Under this last title there are dealt with (a) the charisms, (b) the two forms of life (the contemplative and the active), (c) the stations of perfection (namely, the station of the bishops as the virtuosi in neighbourly love, and the station of the monks, with special reference to the Mendicant monks). The III. Part now aims at showing by what provision and means the return of the rational creature to God has become possible by way of faith, hope, and love, namely, through Christ and the Sacraments. To this there is the intention to add eschatology. Hence there is a treatment here (1) of Christ, in particular of His incarnation and His natures. After a discussion of the necessity of the incarnation (on account of sin, and since a satisfactio de condigno was requisite) for the removal of original sin, the personal unity, the divine person, of Christ, and His human nature are set forth (in which connection, Q. 8, there is reference to the Church as the mystic body of Christ, and the thought of “Christus” as the head of mankind is strongly accentuated); then the consequences of the personal union (communic 564 atio idiomatum) and all bearings of the constitution of the Godman are explained. On this follows (2) a section on the work of Christ, which, however, contains almost no speculation whatever, but illustrates in an edifying way the history of Christ from his entrance into the world (Q. 27-31, the doctrine of Mary). In connection with the suffering and death of Christ, the point of view of the “conveniens” as distinguished from the “necessarium” has special prominence given to it. Immediately after the work of Christ the doctrine of the Sacraments is added (Q. 60 sq.); for redemption is imparted to individuals only through the Sacraments, which have their efficacy from Christ, and through which men are incorporated into Christ. The statement begins with the general doctrine of the Sacraments (nature, necessity, effect, cause, number, connection); then follows the discussion of baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, and penance. Here Thomas was obliged to lay down his pen. It was not granted to him to complete his “Summa.” What was still wanting, as has been remarked, was supplied from his other works; but in this supplement we miss somewhat of the strictness marking the

158

But was this strict necessity of any service at all to the Church? Should the Church not rather have been gratified, when the understanding perceived its incapacity to follow up the decisions of authority, and therefore abandoned further 159effort? To this question the reply must not be absolutely affirmative, but still less must it be negative. The Church, as it then already was, and as it still is to-day, needs both things; it 160is indispensable to it that its articuli fidei and modes of practice be also proved, and their rationality brought to view; but it is still more needful to it that there be a blind surrender to its authority. In this respect there was still obviously too little done by Thomas. In him, the determination of the relation of ratio to auctoritas is, indeed, marked by a quite special amount of confusion, the claims of faith (as faith on authority) and of knowledge receive no elucidation whatever, not to speak of reconciliation, and he stated not a few propositions in which there was a complete surrender to authority, that “faith” might not be deprived of its “merit” (see the sentence quoted above: “Sacred doctrine, however, uses human reason also, not indeed for proving faith, for through this the merit of faith would be lost” [Utitur tamen sacra doctrina etiam ratione humana, non quidem ad probandam fidem, quia per hoc tolleretur meritum fidei]). Yet his real interest in theology is still the same as that of Augustine. Theology is cognition of God in the strict sense; the necessity, which is accentuated in God, must also pervade the whole cognition of Him. The articuli fidei, and all results of worldknowledge, must be merged in the unity of this knowledge which truly liberates the soul and leads it back to God. At bottom the imposing and complicated system is extremely simple. Just as the perfect Gothic Cathedral, from its exhibiting what is really an organic style, expresses a single architectural thought, and subordinates all to this, even making all practical needs of worship serviceable to it, so this structure of thought, although all ecclesiastical doctrines are submissively and faithfully taken account of, still proclaims the one thought, that the soul has had its origin in God, and returns to Him through Christ, and even the Augustinian-Areopagite turn given to this thought, that God is all in all, is not denied by Thomas.

expositions given by himself in the Summa, since it was mainly constructed out of notes and excursus on the text of the Lombard. Observe lastly, that in the Summa r 564 epetitions are not only not avoided, but occur to an incalculable extent.

But this attitude is dangerous. There will always be a fresh development from it of the “Spurious Mysticism,” as the Catholics call it, in which the subject is eager to go his own way, and avoids complete dependence upon the Church. Nevertheless, the course of scientific development came to be helpful 161to the Church, and we may almost say that the Church here gathered figs of thistles. The assiduous study of Aristotle, and the keener perception gained through philosophy and observation, weakened the confidence of the theologians regarding the rationality and strict necessity of the revealed articles of faith. They began to forego revising them by means of reason, and subordinating them as component parts of a system to a uniform thought. Their scientific sense was strengthened, and when they now turned to the revealed tenets, they found in them, not necessity, but arbitrariness. Moreover, the further they advanced in psychology and secular science and discovered what cognition really is, the more sceptical they became towards the “general”: “latet dolus in generalibus” (deception lurks under general conceptions). They began to part with their inward interest in the general, and their faith in it. The “idea,” which is to be regarded as “substance,” and the “necessity” of the general, disappeared for them; they lost confidence in the knowledge that knows everything. The particular, in its concrete expression, acquired interest for them: will rules the world, the will of God and the will of the individual, not an incomprehensible substance, or a universal intellect that is the product of construction. This immense revolution is represented in mediæval science by Duns Scotus, the acutest scholastic thinker;255 but only with Occam did it attain completion. We should expect that the result of this revolution would have been either a protest against the Church doctrine, or an attempt to test it by its foundations, and to subject it to critical 162reconstruction. But it was 200 years before these results

255

See Baur, l.c. II., p. 235: “The thorough reasonableness of the ecclesiastical faith, or the conviction that for all doctrines of the ecclesiastical system some kind of rationes can be discovered, by which they are established even for the thinking reason, was the fundamental presupposition of Scholasticism. But after Scholasticism had risen to its highest point in Thomas and Bonaventura, it became itself doubtful again of this presupposition. This very important turning-point in the history of Scholasticism, after which it tended increasingly to fall to pieces, is represented by Duns Scotus.” (Doctrine of double truth as consequence of the Fall!) Besides Duns Scotus, and after him, it was chiefly the doctor resolutissimus Durandus who, at first a Thomist, passed over to Nominalism and obtained currency for its mode of thought (see his commentary on the Lombard). He worked in the first third of the fourteenth century; on him see Werner in the 2 564 . vol. of the “Scholastik des spateren Mittelalters.”

followed, in Socinianism on the one hand, and in the Reformation theology on the other. What happened at first was quite different: there was a strengthening of the authority of the Church, and, along with full submission to it, a laying to its account of responsibility for the articles of faith and for the principles of its practice.256 What was once supported by reason in league with authority must now be supported by the latter alone. Yet this conversion of things was felt to be by no means an act of despair, but to be an obviously required act of obedience to the Church, so complete was the supremacy of the latter over the souls of men, even though at the time it might be in the deepest debasement. When Nominalism obtained supremacy in theology and in the Church, the ground was prepared for the threefold development of doctrine in the future: Post-Tridentine Catholicism, Protestantism and Socinianism are to be understood from this point of view.257 Nominalism exhibits on one side a number of outstanding excellences: it had come to see that religion is something different from knowledge and philosophy; it had also discovered the importance of the concrete as compared with hollow abstractions, 258 163and to its perception of this it gave brilliant expression, e.g, in psychology; through recognising the importance of will, and giving prominence to this factor even in God, it strongly accentuated the personality of God, and so prepared the way for the suppression of that Areopagite theology, from which the

256

Even the sufficiency of the Bible was doubted by Duns (against Thomas). Nominalism only achieved its position in the Church after a hard struggle. From the clays of Roscellin it was viewed with suspicion, and the appearing of Occam in its support could not be in its favour (Occam’s writings prohibited in 1389 by the University of Paris). But from the middle of the fourteenth century it established itself, and even Dominicans — although the controversy between Thomists and Scotists continued — became advocates of it. Indeed, when Wyclif and other Reformers (Augustinians) again adopted realism, a new chapter began. Realism now, from the cl 55e ose of the fourteenth century, became ecclesiastically suspected (on account of the spiritualism, the determinism, and the intellectualistic mysticism, which seemed to endanger ecclesiasticism). The most important representatives of Post-Scotistic Scholasticism are Petrus Aureolus, John of Baconthorp, Durandus, and Occam. On the “theological mode of thought and the general mental habit” of these scholars, see Werner, Nachscotist. Scholastik, p. 21 ff. On the Thomist scrutiny applied by Capreolus to Post-Scotistic Scholasticism, see ibid., p. 438 ff. That Nominalism, in spite of its dogmatic probabilism, did not, at least at the beginning, weaken dogma, is best illustrated by the fanatical attack on the peculiar doctrine of Pope John XXII. 258 See Siebeck, Die Anfänge der neueren Psychologie in der Scholastik, in the Zeitschr. f. Philos. u. philos. Kritik, 1888, 1889. 257

danger always arose of its causing the world and the reasonable creature to disappear in God;259 finally, by placing restrictions on speculation it brought out more clearly the positiveness of historic religion. But this progress in discernment was dearly purchased by two heavy sacrifices: first, with the surrender of the assurance that an absolute accordant knowledge could be attained, there was also surrendered the assurance of the categorical imperative, of the strict necessity of the moral in God, and of the moral law; and secondly, among the historic magnitudes to which it submitted itself, it included the Church with its entire apparatus — the commands of the religious and moral are arbitrary, but the commands of the Church are absolute. The haven of rest amidst the doubts and uncertainties of the understanding and of the soul is the authority of the Church. Neither the latter nor the former was, strictly speaking, an innovation.260 Through the institution of penance an uncertainty about the moral had for long become widely diffused: it was only a question of expressing in theory what had for centuries been the fundamental thought in practice — the sovereign right of casuistry.261 Moreover, the contradictory mode of procedure, 164which the great Schoolmen (Thomas at the head of them), in obedience to the spirit of jurisprudence, applied to each particular dogma and each ethical position, necessarily had the effect of shaking the conviction that there is something absolutely valid. If, as any page of Thomas will suggest, from two to twelve grounds

ace 259Duns also rejected the Thomist idea that in created things the absolute divine original form is pictured forth, and, under the direction of Aristotle, passed over to a naturalistic doctrine of the world. 260 Still less, as frequently happens, is the Jesuit Order, with its casuistic dogmatic and ethic, to be made accountable here, as if it was the first to introduce the innovation. This Order simply entered into the inheritance of mediæval Nominalism. 261 For the speculative Scholasticism there was substituted the empirico-casuistic. The Nominalists sought to show, with an immense expenditure of acuteness and speculation, that there could not be a speculative Scholasticism. When they had furnished this “proof,” there remained over purely hollow forms, which were bound to collapse, or could be maintained only through the compulsory force of a powerful institution. What was not brought within the view of Nominalism, in spite of all its progress, was the idea of personality (see for the first time the Renaissance), and consequently the person of Christ (see the Reformation), and above all, history (see the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries). For it the place of history was still occupied always by the rigid Church It is not otherwise still to-day with the science of the Jesuits. They consistently trifle with history, and can treat it, in the tone of a man of the world, with a certain amusement and easy scorn, when once they have estabished the things which the conception of the Church requires to be established.

can be adduced for every heresy and for many immoral assertions — if, e.g., there are a dozen grounds on which it may be alleged that simplex fornicatio is no mortal sin (Thomas), how can the belief be firmly maintained in face of this that it must nevertheless be regarded as such? From the conflict between yes and no will there always result certainty on behalf of the answer which the dogmatic theologian prefers? How can certainty be reckoned on at all, so long as there is still one ground only for the counter position, and so long as the one ground cannot be shown which alone is valid? Nominalism only continued here what Realism had begun; it merely did still more in the way of differentiating and distinguishing; it extended the recognised method of the acute advocate to ever new fields, to the doctrine of God, to the doctrines of creation and providence, to the holiness and the honour of God, to sin and reconciliation, and it always came to the conclusions, (1) that all is relative and arbitrary — but even in Thomas’s dogmatic already much that is very important in the doctrine of religion is only “conveniens”; (2) that the doctrines of revealed religion conflict with natural theology, with the thought of the understanding about God and the world (doctrine of double truth). Finally, when Nominalism taught that, since belief (credere) and understanding (intelligere) cannot be reconciled, there must be a blind surrender to the authority of the Church, and that it is just in this blind obedience that both the nature, and also the merit, of faith consist, here also it only wrought out fully a general Catholic theorem; for Tertullian had as little doubt as Thomas that all faith begins with submission. 165Though afterwards — from the time of Augustine — many considerations had been adduced for modifying the original theorem and changing faith into inward assent and love, nevertheless the old position remained the same, that faith is originally obedience, and that in this it has its initial merit. But if it is obedience, then it is fides implicita, i.e., submission is enough. When the later Nominalism declared with increasing distinctness the sufficiency of fides implicita, or laid it at the foundation of its theological reflections, because many truths of faith, taken in general, or as dealt with by individuals, do not admit of being accepted in any other way, it only gave to an old Catholic thought a thoroughly logical expression;262 for the danger of transforming

262

The juristic Popes from Gregory VII. o ac8 nwards, especially the Popes of the thirteenth century, anticipated the Nominalist doctrine of fides implicita: “In his commentary on the Decretals (in lib. I., c. 1 de summa trinitate et fide Catholica) Innocent IV. laid down two momentous rules. First, that it is enough for the laity to believe in a God who recompenses, but with regard to everything else, of dogma or moral

166religion

into an ecclesiastical regime was at no time absent from Western Catholicism.263

doctrine, merely to believe implicitly, that is to think, and to say, I believe what the Church believes. Second, that a cleric must obey even a Pope who issues an unrighteous command” (Döllinger, Akad. Vorträge II., p. 419). The latter position does not interest us here; there is interest, however, in the more precise definition of the former given by Innocent, (1) that the lower clergy, who cannot carry on the study of theology, are to be regarded as laymen; only they must believe in transubstantiation; (2) that an error with regard to Christian doctrine (the doctrine of the Trinity even) does not do harm to a layman, if he at the same time believes (believes erroneously) that he holds to the doctrine of the Church. Ritschl (Fides implicita, 1890) has dealt more minutely with this important doctrine. He shows that it originated from a passage of the Lombard (1. III., dist. 25). But the terminology, the range and the validity of the fides implicita remained uncertain among the theologians and Popes till the end of the thirteenth century. The great teachers of the thirteenth century (above all Thomas) confined it within narrow limits, and in this contradicted the Popes (even Innocent III. comes under consideration; see Ritschl, p. 5 f.). Even Duns differs little from Thomas (p. 20 ff.). But Occam reverted to the exposition of Innocent IV. (p. 30 f.); nay, although he is a doctor, he claims fides implicita for himself (with regard to the doctrine of the Eucharist): “quidquid Romana ecclesia credit, hoc solum et non aliud vel explicite vel implicite credo.” Occam wishes to get free play for his doctrine of the Eucharist, which diverges from the traditional view; he saves himself therefore by roundly acknowledging the Church doctrine, that he may then make his divergence appear as a theological experiment. Here therefore the fides implicita is turned to account for another purpose. It is remarkable that in its original purpose it was rejected (no doubt on account of Thomas) by Gregory XI. (against Raymund Lullus); but by Biel it is again accepted, and treated apparently with reserve, but in the end there is seen just in it the proof of fides as infusa (as the work of God). Neither Occam nor Biel wishes by this to treat dogma ironically, on the contrary they show their want of inner freedom in relat ac8 ion to dogma; but when Laurentius Valla winds up his critical supplementings with the assertion that he believes as mother Church does, the irony is manifest, In what way the fides implicita extended into the period of the Reformation has been shown by Ritschl, p. 40 if., who also traces out the doctrine among later Catholic teachers. That there is an element of truth in the recognition of the fides implicita is easily seen; but it is not easy to define theologically what is right in it. Where value is attached to the mere act of obedience, or where, for that part, there is also something of merit attributed to it, the limit of what is correct is transgressed. 263 Into the philosophy of Duns Scotus (see Werner, l.c., and the summary in the article by Dorner in Herzog’s R.-E., 2 ed.) and of Occam (see Wagemann in the R.-E.) I cannot here enter further. Important theological doctrines of both will fall to be spoken of in the following section. It is well known that Duns Scotus himself was not yet a Nominalist, but prepared the way for applying this theory of knowledge to dogmatics. He already emphasised the independence of the secular sciences (even of metaphysics) as over against theology, while in general he brought out much more clearly the independence of the world (in continual discussions with Thomas) as over against God.

What has already been briefly hinted at above may be distinctly stated here — the problem was the elimination of Augustinianism from the ecclesiastical doctrine. The whole turning from Realism to Nominalism can be represented theologically under this heading. Augustine falls and Aristotle rises — ostensibly not in theology indeed, but only in the field of world-knowledge, yet as a fact in theology as well; for no one can keep 167metaphysics and theology entirely asunder, and the theological doctrines of the Nominalists prove that, while they have reverently called a halt before the old dogmas, after having shown them irrational, on the other hand they have revised in a new-fashioned way the circle of the new, and really living, doctrines (Sacraments, appropriation of salvation). This work directed itself against Augustine, in its directing itself against Thomas. We have frequently pointed out already, that the history of Church doctrine in the West was a much disguised history of struggle against Augustine. His spirit and his piety undoubtedly rose far above the average of ecclesiasticism, and the new discoveries which he made were in many ways inconvenient to the

To balance this he gives wide scope to the arbitrary will of God as over against the world. Yet that this opinion may not lead to everything being plunged in uncertainty, the knowledge of God derived from revelation (as distinguished from rational knowledge) is strongly accentuated. In Duns we still observe the struggle of the principle of reason with the principle of arbitrariness tempered by revelation and made conceivable; in Occam the latter has triumphed. To the understanding, which Occam brings into court against dogma, the task is assigned of showing that logic and physics cannot be applied to the articles of faith, and to the supernatural objects that answer to them. All doctrines of faith are full of contradictions; but so also it must be, according to Occam; for only in this way do they show themselves to be declarations about a super-sensible world, which to the understanding is a miracle. This theologian has been misunderstood, when his criticism of dogma has been taken as suggesting the irony of the doubter. If, after provin 550 g the doctrine of transubstantiation impossible, he finally holds it as more probable than any other doctrine, because the Church has fixed it, and because the omnipotence of God appears in it most unlimitedly, i.e., because it is the most irrational doctrine that can be thought of, in this he is severely in earnest, however much he might like to maintain his own dialectic doctrine on this point. And what holds good of the doctrine of the Supper holds good also of all other cardinal doctrines of the Church. Unreasonableness and authority are in a certain sense the stamp of truth. That is also a positivism, but it is the positivism whose sins have fully developed. Here, too, it applies, that one abyss calls up another. The Pre-Nominalist theology had loaded reason with a burden of speculative monstrosities, and at the same time required it to bear the whole weight of religion; the sobered ratio abandoned entirely the thought of a λογικὴ λατρεία, became always more prepared to recognise the faith of ignorant submission as religion, and fell back on knowledge of the world. On Biel, see Linsenmaun in the Tub. Quartalschr., 1865.

Church as an ecclesiastical institution, and did not harmonise with its tendencies. No doubt the Church had accepted Augustinianism, but with the secret reservation that it was to be moulded by its own mode of thought. We have seen to what extent there was success in that in the period that ends, and in the period that begins, with Gregory the Great. Gottschalk already experienced what it costs in Catholicism to represent Augustinianism. In the time that followed there was developed in the sacramental and penance systems a practice and mode of thought that was always the more plainly in conflict with Augustinianism; all the more important was the fact that the Dominican Order, and especially Thomas, sought to rejuvenate the theology of Augustine. Duns Scotus and the Nominalist theology directed themselves in the first instance against Augustine’s philosophy of religion, against those doctrines of the first and last things, which gravitated so strongly to pantheism. But in controverting these doctrines, and shaking confidence in the doctrine of God as the All-One, they also 168shook confidence, for themselves and others, in the Augustinian doctrines of grace and sin, e9e which certainly had the closest connection with his doctrine of God. These Nominalists, who (following Duns Scotus) always insisted that reason relates to the realm of the worldly, and that in spiritual things there must simply be a following the traditional authority of revelation, that the understanding, therefore, must be left out of play, really wrought in a most vigorous way, and with the utmost use of the “understanding,” within the lines of the Church doctrine. Under certain circumstances “not to speculate” leads also to a metaphysic, or at least does not hinder a traditional speculation from being corrected and transformed in many of its details, and so also in its entire cast. At any rate this principle did not prevent the Nominalist theologians from revising the existing dogma under the protection of authority. But not only did this work now acquire an entirely external, formalistic character, but there were also introduced into everything the principles of an arbitrary morality, of the “conveniens” too, the expedient and the relative. One might say, that the principles of a cosmopolitan diplomacy in matters of religion and morals were applied to objective religion and to subjective religious life. God is not quite so strict, and not quite so holy, as He might be imagined to be; sin is not quite so bad as it appears to be to the very tender conscience; guilt is not immeasurably great; redemption by Christ, taken as a whole, and in its parts, is very serviceable, but not really necessary; faith does not require to be full surrender, and even of love a certain amount is really enough. That is the “Aristotelianism” of the Nominalistic Schoolmen, which Luther declared to be the root of all mischief in the Church; but that is also the “Aristotelianism” which must be

most welcome to the hierarchy; for here they hold the key of the position, seeing that they determine how strict God is, how heinous sin is, etc. That at the same time they neither can nor will part entirely with Augustinianism (Thomism) was remarked above. But they determine where it is to come in, and they showed that they watched jealously the extent to which it was applied. In the Pelagianism and Probabilism of Nominalism there lies 264 169the express apostasy from Augustinianism. But just because the apostasy was so manifest, there could not fail to be a certain reaction — though certainly no longer a strong one — in the Church. Not only did the Dominican Order, in their defending the theology of their great teacher, Thomas, persistently defend Augustine also (though not, as a rule, in the most important points), but men also appeared in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries who observed the Pelagian tendency of Nominalism, and strenuously resisted it in the spirit of Augustine.265 Here Bradwardine must first be mentioned (ob. 1349) who placed the entire Augustine, together with the predestination doctrine, in strong opposition to the Pelagian tendency of the period. de88 1 On

adc 264

Also from the ancient Church and from dogma in its original sense as a whole. Whoever transforms all dogmatic and ethic into casuistry, thereby proves that he is no more inwardly, but only outwardly, bound. 265 Werner has the credit of having described the reaction of Augustinianism in the third vol. of his “Scholastik des Spätteren Mittelalters.” Yet his account is by no means complete. In pp. 1-232 he treats of “the representation of the Scholastic Augustinianism given by the mediæval Augustinian-Hermit School,” i.e., almost exclusively of the doctrines of ægidius (ob. 1315), the great defender of Thomas, and of Gregory of Rimini; then, in pp. 234-306, of Bradwardine’s doctrine. Stöckl also goes into the Augustinianism of the fifteenth century, but in his own way. Moreover, Werner will not admit a rejuvenated Augustinianism. “The earlier and later attempts to obtain a specific Augustinianism fall under different points of view, according as they signify a reaction against the enfeebling and externalising of the Christian ecclesiastical thought of salvation, or the opposition, supported by the name of Augustine, of a resuscitated onesided Platonism to Aristotelianism, or, finally, as they arose from a vague fusion of the respect for Augustine in the Church generally, with the authority of the head and leader of a particular school. It was to such a vague fusion that the Mediæval Order-theology of the Augustinian Hermits (?) owed its origin, which came into existence as schola ægidiana, and, under many changes, continued to exist till last century” (p. 8 f.). 266 See Lechler, Wiclif I. Bd., and the same author’s monograph on Bradwardine, 1863. Bradwardine made a further endeavour to create a philosophy adequate to the Christian conception of God, and on that account went back on the Augustinian Anselmic speculation as regards an absolutely necessary and perfect being, from which all that is and can h 545 e is to be deduced. But yet he shows himself to be dependent on Duns in this, that he represents God and the world exclusively under the contrast of the necessary

170him

Wyclif was dependent as a theologian, and as Huss took all his theological thoughts from Wyclif, and introduced them into Bohemia and Germany, Bradwardine is really to be signalized as the theologian who gave the impulse to the Augustinian reactions that accompanied the history of the Church till the time of Staupitz and Luther, and that prepared the way for the Reformation. In the fifteenth century the men were numerous, and some of them influential too, who, standing on the shoulders of Augustine, set themselves in opposition to Pelagianism. But they neither overthrew, nor wished to overthrow, the strong basis of the Nominalist doctrine, the authority of the Church. Moreover, Augustinianism exercised an influence in many ways on the reform parties and sects; but as no new theology resulted, so also all these efforts led to no Reformation. The Augustinians still allowed a wide scope to the fides implicita and the Sacraments, because even they believed in the idol of Church authority. The reigning theology remained unshaken so long as it was not assailed at the root. Even attacks so energetic as those of Wesel and Wessel passed without general effect.267 But the fact is unmistakable, that in the course of the fifteenth century the Nominalist Scholasticism fell steadily into disrepute. While the period revelled in new, fresh impressions and perceptions, that theological art became always more formalistic, and its barren industry was always the more keenly felt. While the rediscovered Platonism was being absorbed with delight, that art still lived under the impulses of the Aristotle who had arisen 250 years before. The spirit of the Renaissance and of Humanism was in its innermost nature alien to the old

and the contingent (see his book de causa dei adv. Pelag., Werner pp. 255 ff. 299), while in other respects also very strong influences of Nominalism are discernible in him. Yet these influences disappear behind the main tendency, which is directed to showing the “immediate unity and coincidence of theological and philosophical thought,” and to restoring Augustine’s doctrine of grace together with Determinism. (“All willing in God is absolute substance.”) Werner will have it that he has proved that Bradwardine is no Thomist, but that he reverts to the pre-Thomist Scholasticism. That is right in so far as Bradwardine is a logical Augustinian. But Werner has an interest in emphasising as strongly as possible the peripatetic elements in Thomas; for only when these are emphasised in a one-sided way can Thomas continue to he the normal theologian. “According to the ‘universal feeling’ the Aristotelian basis was indispensable for the ends of a methodically conducted theological scholastic science, and as a rational restraint upon giving a false internal character to the Christian ecclesiastical religious consciousness” (p. 305). 267 Even the rejection of all philosophy and of the whole of Scholasticism, of which we have an instance in Pupper of Goch (O. Clemen, l.c. p. 135 ff.) — whom Luther described as “Vere Germanus et gnosios theologus” — changed nothing.

Scholasticism; for it had no wish for formulæ, 171 syllogisms, and authorities; it wished neither the darkness nor the illumination of the “Aristotelian” Scholasticism, but was eager for life, that can be reproduced in feeling, and for perceptions that elevate above the common world and the common art of living.268 For the poets and humanists — though not for all, yet certainly for the most of them — the ecclesiastical theology, as represented in the Scholastic labours of the Schoolmen, was like stagnant, filthy water. But still there was always the endeavour to find the redeemers in antiquity. Plato, at length the true Plato, was discovered, revered and deified. It was not by chance that the Platonic reaction coincided with the Augustinian in the fifteenth century; for the two great spirits of ancient times had an elective affinity — Plato’s Dialogues and Augustine’s Confessions are not incapable of being united. The influence of Plato and Augustine guided all the movements in the fields of science and theology in the fifteenth century that rose against a Scholasticism which, in spite of its rich perceptions, had become fossilised and hollow, and had lost touch with the needs of the inner life and of the present time. The reflection of the Germans was more serious than that of the Italians and French. In the last third of the fifteenth century Germany took the lead in thought and scholarship. The Romanic nations did not produce in the fifteenth century a man like Nicolas of Cusa.269 Nicolas was the precursor and leader of all the distinguished men who, in the following century, starting from the Platonic view of the world, brought so strong and fresh a current of real illuminism into the world. Though fantastical in many ways and even greatly interested in magic and ghosts, some of them at once discoverers and charlatans, these men laid, nevertheless, the basis for the scientific (even experimental) observation of nature, and were the restorers of scientific thought. Assurance of the unity of all things and the bold flight of imagination — both of which had been lost by scholastic wisdom — made the new 172science possible. This science by no means arose because Nominalism, or the philosophy of the great student of nature, Aristotle, as it was then treated, was always growing more empirical, and gradually developed itself into exact science, but a new spirit passed over the withered leaves of Scholasticism, scattered them boldly to the four winds, and

268

Burckhardt, Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italien. 4. Aufl., 1885. Voigt, Wiederbelebung des class. Alterthums. 2 Aufl. 2 Bde., 1880 f. 269 See Stöckl, l.c., Janssen, Gesch. des deutschen Volkes Bd. I., Clemens, Giordano Bruno u. N. v. K., 1847. Storz, Die specul. Gotteslehre des. N. v. K. in the theol. Quartalschr., 1873, I. Laurentius Valla is superior to Nicolas as a critic, but otherwise not on a level with him.

derived confidence and power for gathering out of nature and history their secrets, from the living speculations of Plato that grasp the whole man, from the original historic sources now discovered, and from converse with the living reality. By theology little advantage, certainly, was derived from this in the fifteenth century. The Italian Humanists, the fathers of this European movement, practically took nothing to do with it — at the most they instituted some historical investigations, with the view of annoying the priests and monks (Laurentius Valla: favours from Constantine, origin of the Apostolic Symbol, writings of the Areopagite) — and even the Germans made no real contributions to progress.270 One could help all other sciences by going back upon antiquity, but not theology. What it could learn from Plato and the Neoplatonists it had learned long before. When men like Nicolas of Cusa sought to release it from the embraces of the Schoolmen, they themselves knew of no better form for it than that which had been given to it by Augustine and Mystics like Eckhart. But trial had been made of this form of long time. Just because it appeared unsatisfactory, and there was an unwillingness any longer to breathe in this fine fog, there had been, in course of time, a passing over to Nominalism. Now, there must be a reverting to the beginning — though it might be better understood. Another prescription was not offered. Theology seemed doomed to move helplessly in a circle; fundamentally it remained as it was; for the iron ecclesiastical authority remained. Then came the help, not from Aristotle, nor even from Plato and Augustine, but from the conscience of a Mendicant Monk. But what the Renaissance and Humanism did indirectly for theology271 must not be ignored. While it was not really 173demolished by them, and still much less re-shaped, yet for the future re-shaping they certainly rendered most valuable services. The sources of history were gradually disclosed for it also, and the Humanist Erasmus not only laid the foundation of textual criticism of the New Testament and scientific patrology, but carried them at once to a high state of perfection. From a taste for the original, criticism grew up. What had died out in the Church with Origen, nay, in some measure even before Origen, or what — keeping out of view a few Antiochians — had never really developed themselves strongly, namely, historic sense and historic exegesis, developed themselves now. The Reformation was to reap the

270

Yet, “German patriotism effected a union in many ways of the anti-Romish traditions with Humanistic Illuminism” (Loofs). 271 Drews, Humanismus und Reformation, 1887.

benefit of them; but by the Reformation also they were soon to be swallowed up again. For the history of theology, and of dogmas, in the strictest sense of the term, Humanism was otherwise quite unfruitful. Theology was put aside by it with a respectful recognition, or with an air of cool superiority, or with saucy ridicule. Scarcely anyone approached it with serious criticism. Erasmus aimed at giving it a humanistic ennoblement and freeing it from restrictions. When the Reformation dawned, he pronounced, among other things, the controversy about indulgences to be a monks’ quarrel, or a delightful dilemma for causing stir among the parsons. When things then grew serious and a decision had to be made, it became apparent that the Franciscan ideal, in peculiar combination with antique reserve and humanistic worldliness, with silent hatred of dogma and Church, and external submission, had a stronger hold on many aspiring souls than a liking for the gospel.272 The scholar, besides, would not let himself be disturbed by the din of the “Lutheran rogues.” Theological doctrine was held to be something indifferent: “Quieta non movere” — (let things that are at rest not bestirred) — or, at least, only in the form of a learned passage of arms. The avenger was at the door; the following 150 years showed the terrified scholars to a frightful extent that theology will not be mocked. 174

4. The Moulding of Dogma in Scholasticism. In the Scholasticism of the thirteenth century the Latin Church attained what the Greek Church attained in the eighth century — a uniform systematic exhibition of its faith. This exhibition had as its presuppositions, first, Holy Scripture and the articuli fidei, as these had been formulated at the Councils; second, Augustinianism; third, the ecclesiastical (papal) decisions and the whole development of ecclesiasticism from the ninth century; fourth, the Aristotelian philosophy. We have shown in the third and fourth chapters of Vol. V. how the old scheme of Christian doctrine had undergone a trenchant modification at the hands of Augustine, but how, in its ultimate basis — as regards the final aim of religion and theology — it did not lose its recognised validity, its form, rather, having only become more complicated. While Augustine described the influences of grace that operate in the Sacraments as the influences

272 566

Dilthey (Archiv. f. Gesch. d. Philos. 5 Bd., p. 381 ff.), in a way that seems to me substantially correct, but somewhat forced, has described Erasmus as the founder of theological Rationalism with accommodation to the Church. Erasmus was too manysided, and too uncertain of principles, to found anything beyond methods.

of love, he allowed the old view of the Sacraments to remain, namely, that they prepare for, and help to secure, the enjoyment of God. But he at the same time gave the most powerful impetus to a dual development of piety and ecclesiastical doctrine; for the forces of love that operate in the Sacraments establish also the “kingdom of righteousness” on earth, produce in this way the life in love that corresponds with the “law of Christ,” and qualify the individual for those good works which establish merit before God and create a claim for salvation. In this last turn of thought Augustine had subordinated (by means of the intermediate idea, “nostra merita dei munera” [our merits gifts of God]), his new view of divine grace as a gratia gratis data (grace freely given) to the old, chiefly Western, view of religion, as a combination of law, performance, and reward, and in the period that followed this subordinating process always continued to be carried further. Grace (in the form of the Sacraments) and merit (law and performance) are the two centres of the curve in the mediæval conception of Christianity. But this curve is entirely embedded in faith in the Church; for 175 since to the Church (as was not doubted) the Sacraments, and the power of the keys dependent on them, were entrusted, the Church was not merely the authority for the whole combination, but was in a very real sense the continued working of Christ Himself, and the body of Christ, which is enhypostatically united to Him. In this sense mediæval theology is science of the Church (Ecclesiastik), although it had not much to say about the Church. But on the other hand, at least till Nominalism triumphed, this theology never lost sight of the fundamental Augustinian aim: “Deum et animam scire cupio. Nihilne plus? Nihil omnino” (I desire to know God and the soul. Nothing more ? No, nothing whatever), i.e., it never discarded the view that in all theology what is aimed at ultimately is exclusively the cognition of God and of the relation of the individual soul to Him.273 It was the intermingling of theology as ecclesiasticism with theology as nourishment for the soul that produced within mediæval theology its internal discords, and lent to it its charm. From this intermingling also there is to be explained the twofold end here set before the Christian religion, although to the theologians only one of the ends was consciously present: religion and theology must on the one hand lead the individual to salvation (visio dei or surrender of the will), but it must on the

273

In Nominalism this became otherwise. The exhibition of the ecclesiastical doctrine became more and more an end in itself, and was detached from the philosophy of religion. That on this account the originality and independence of the Christian religion as a historic phenomenon came to view again more plainly, is not to be denied.

other hand build up on earth the kingdom of virtue and righteousness, which is the empirical Church, and bring all powers into subjection to this kingdom.274 176

Augustine utilised in quite a new way the articuli fidei; for him they are no longer faith itself; but, re-shaping them in many ways, he builds up faith by means of them. Yet their authority was not thereby shaken, but in a certain way was still further increased, inasmuch as the external authority became greater in the degree in which the internal — that faith identified itself exclusively with them — became less. This was exactly how things continued to move on in the Middle Ages. It was solely the articles of faith of ecclesiastical antiquity that were, in the strict sense, dogmas. Only the doctrine of transubstantiation succeeded in winning for itself equal dignity with the old dogmas,275 by the quid pro quo that it is implied in the doctrine of the incarnation. When in this way the doctrine of transubstantiation took its place side by side with the old dogmas, everything really was gained; for by this link of attachment the whole sacramental system might be drawn up to the higher level of absolute Christian doctrine. This, too, afterwards took place, although, prior to the Council of Trent, the distinction

274

In their definition of salvation or of the a94 finis theologiæ, the Schoolmen exhibit a Mystic, i.e., an Augustinian, i.e., an old Catholic tendency. The fruitio dei is held to be the final end, whether it is realised in the intellect or in quiescence of the will in God. For this individualistic mode of viewing salvation, which is indifferent to the moral destiny of man, the Church is either not taken into account at all, or is taken into account simply as a means, and as an auxiliary institution. Only in so far as man conceives of himself as a being that is earthly, bound to time, and must train himself, are all his ideals, and the forces that render him aid, included for him in the Church (salvation in time is salvation in the Church), and he must reverence the Church, as it is, as the mother of faith, as the saving institution, nay, as the regnum Christi. But this regnum has in the world beyond a form totally different from its present form. In this whole view Scholasticism nowhere passed beyond Augustine. The relation is not drawn between the aim to be realised in the earthly, and the aim to be realised in the heavenly Church. In the last resort Roman Catholicism was then, and is also to-day, no phenomenon with but one meaning, as the Greek Church is, and as Protestantism might be. At one time it points its members to a contemplation that moves in the line of knowledge, love, and asceticism, a contemplation that is as neutral to the Church as to every association among men, and to everything earthly; at another time it directs men to recognise in the earthly Church their highest goods and their proper aim. These directions can only be followed alternately, not together. In consequence of this, Roman Catholics maintain two notions of the Church, which are neutral towards each other, the invisible communion of the elect and the papal Church. 275 See the Symbol of 1215.

was never made in detail between what belongs to dogma and what is simply a portion of theology, and even after the Council of Trent the Church wisely avoided the distinction. It is thus explained how, about the year 1500, no one except the most decided papists could affirm how far the province of necessary faith in the Church really extended. The task of Scholasticism, so far as it was dogmatic theology, was a threefold one. Following Augustine, it had to shape the 177old articuli fidei so that they would adjust themselves to the elliptic line drawn round the sacrament and merit; it had to revise the doctrine of the Sacraments, which had come to it from Augustine in an extremely imperfect form;276 and it had to gather from observation the principles of present-day Church practice, and to bring these into accord, on the one hand with the articuli fidei, raised to the level of theology, and with the doctrine of the Sacraments, and on the other hand with Augustinianism. This task became more complicated from the fact that the Schoolmen — at least the earlier — uniformly combined dogmatics with philosophy of religion, and thus introduced into the former all the questions of metaphysics, as rising out of the general state of knowledge at the time. But this great task was really faithfully carried out by mediæval theology. That theology fulfilled the claims that were made upon it; indeed, there has probably never been a period in history when, after hard labour, theology stood so securely in command of the situation, i.e., of its age, as then. At the same time it knew how to maintain for itself until the fifteenth century the impression of a certain roundedness and unity, and yet left room, as the contrast between the Franciscan and Dominican dogmatists shows, for different modes of development. Yet on the other hand it must not be denied that the opinion here expressed by no means applies when we deal with the relation between piety and theology. In the case of Thomas, it is true, the claims of the latter and former still coincide, although not so perfectly as in the Greek Church at the time of the Cappadocians and of Cyril. But from the close of the thirteenth century piety and theology manifestly held an increasingly strained relation to each other. The former recognised itself always less clearly in the latter. They were one, it is true, in their ultimate ground (finis religionis, authority of the Church); even the most devoted piety was not really able to free itself from these bonds. But starting from the common basis, theology unfolded a tendency to treat the holy as something authoritative, external and made easy by the Church, and this tendency piety viewed with growing suspicion and annoyance. 178In the doctrines

276

In this lies the greatest importance of Scholasticism within the history of dogma.

of the Sacraments and of grace, as Scholasticism gave fuller shape to them — developing germs which were not wanting even in Thomas — the strain between theology and piety reached clearest expression. The Augustinian reactions from the middle of the fourteenth century, at one time noisy in their course, at another time moving on silently and steadily, were the result of this strain. The official theology of the fifteenth century must be recognised only in a relative way as the expression of the true Catholic piety of the period. This applies even to Tridentine Catholicism, and holds true to the present day. The doctrine, as it is, is not the sphere in which vital Catholic faith lives. But because its foundations are also the foundations of this faith, the faith lets itself in the end be satisfied with this doctrine. As we have not to do with the philosophy of religion, we must confine ourselves in what follows to describing the scholastic revision of the old articuli fidei, the scholastic doctrine of the Sacraments, and the scholastic discussion of Augustinianism as related to the new Church principles, which led finally to an entire dissolution of the Pauline Augustinian doctrine. With regard to the first of these points the statement can be quite brief, seeing that in the revision of the old articuli fidei theological doctrines were dealt with which, as scientifically unfolded, never acquired a universal dogmatic importance, and seeing that this revision leads over at many points into the philosophy of religion. A. The Revision of the Traditional Articuli Fidei. 1. The article “de deo” (on God) was the fundamental and cardinal article.277 In the strictly realistic Scholasticism the Areopagitic Augustinian conception of God was held as valid: God as the absolute substance. Where this conception was adhered to, its absolute necessity for thought was also asserted (Anselm’s ontological proof,278) and a high value was ascribed to 179the proofs for God. Through the acquaintance with Aristotle, however, the Areopagite conception of God was restricted, which had developed itself in Scotus Erigena, Amalrich of Bena and David of Dinanto, as well as among the adherents of the Averrhoistic Aristotelianism, into pantheism. The cosmological proofs, to which

589 277See the excellent selection of passages from the sources in Miinscher-Coelln II., 1, § 118, 119. Schwane, l.c., p. 122 ff. 278 Anselm’s discussions of the conception of God, in which there is the first step of advance beyond the Areopagite conception, are not taken note of at all by the Lombard, who adhered simply to the patristic tradition. Thomas is the first to adopt Anselm’s speculations.

preference was more and more given,279 led also to a stricter distinguishing between God and the creature, and Thomas himself, although the Areopagite Augustinian conception of God is still for him fundamental, stoutly combated pantheism.280 Following Anselm, Thomas also linked the conception of God as the absolute substance with that of self-conscious thought, adopted, still further, from Aristotle the definition of God as actus purus, and thus gave the conception a more living and personal shape. But he had at the same time the very deepest interest in emphasising absolute sufficiency and necessity in God; for only the necessary can be known with certainty; but it is on certain knowledge that salvation, i.e., the visio dei, depends. Thomas accordingly now conceived of God, not only as necessary being, but also as an end for Himself, so that the world, which He creates in goodness, is entirely subordinated to His own purpose, a purpose which could realise itself indeed even without the world.281 Yet Duns already combated (against Richard of St. Victor, see also Anselm, Monolog.,) the notion of a necessary existence due to itself, and thereby really abandoned all proofs of God:282 the infinite is not cognisable by demonstration, and hence can only be 180believed in on authority. Occam made as energetic an attack on the “primum movens immobile” (prime immovable mover) and likewise fell back on authority. But with the impossibility of demonstrating the infinite, and of giving life by speculation to the notion of the “necessarium ex se ipso,” there disappeared also for Nominalism the conception of the necessity of the inner determinedness of the infinite Being, of whom authority taught. God is not summum esse (supreme being) and summa intelligentia (supreme intelligence) in the sense in which intelligence belongs to the creature, but He is, as measured by the understanding of the creature, the unlimited almighty will, the cause of the world, a cause, however, which could operate quite otherwise from the way in which it does. God is thus the absolutely free will, who simply wills because He wills to, i.e., a cognisable ground of the will does not exist. From this

279

See Thomas, P. I., Q. 2, Art. 3, where the cosmological argument appears in a threefold form. 280 Ritschl, Gesch. Studien z. christl. L. v. Gott, Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theol., 1865, p. 277 ff., Joh. Delitzsch, Die Gotteslehre des Thomas, 1870. Ritschl has shown (see also Rechtfert. u. Versöhnungslehre, Bd. I., 2 Aufl., p. 58 ff.,) that the Aristotelian conception had already a strong influence on Thomas. 281 Summa, P. I., Q. 19, Art. 1, 2. 282 In Sentent. Lomb., I. Dist. 2, Q. 2, Art. I. On Duns’ doctrine of knowledge and of science, see Werner, Duns Scotus, p. 180 ff.; ibid., p. 331 ff., on his doctrine of God, which only admits of an a posteriori ascertainment of the qualities of the divine Being.

point of view the doctrine of God becomes as uncertain as, above all, the doctrine of grace. Occam went so far as to declare monotheism to be only more probable than polytheism; for what can be strictly proved is either only the notion of a single supreme Being, but not His existence, or the existence of relatively supreme beings, but not the one-ness. Accordingly the attributes of God were quite differently treated in the Thomist and in the Scotist schools. In the former they were strictly derived from a necessary principle, but only to be cancelled again in the end, as identical in the one substance, in the latter they were relatively determined; in the former — in accordance with the thesis of the summum esse — a virtual existence of God in the world was assumed, and in the last analysis there was no distinguishing between the existence of God for Himself and His existence for the world, in the latter — as the world is a free product of God’s will, entirely disjoined from God — only an ideal presence of God is taught. As can easily be seen, the contrast is ultimately determined by different ideas of the position of man and of religion. For the Thomists, the idea is that of dependence on God Himself, who comprehends and sustains all things, for the Scotists the idea is that of independence in relation to God. It certainly meant an important advance upon Thomas when God was strictly conceived 181of by Duns as will and person, and was distinguished from the world; but this advance becomes at once a serious disadvantage when we can no longer depend upon this God, because we are not permitted to think of Him as acting according to the highest categories of moral necessity,283 and when, accordingly, the rule holds, that the goodness of the creature consists in surrender to the will of God, of which the motives are inscrutable, while its content is clearly given in revelation (so Duns).284 The view that contemplates God as also arbitrariness, because He is will, becomes ultimately involved in the same difficulties as the view that contemplates Him as the alldetermining substance, for in both cases His essence is shrouded in

283

Werner, l.c., p. 408: “It is a genuinely Scotist thought that the absolute divine will cannot be subjected to the standard of our ethical habits of thought (!)” 284 In contrast with this, Thomas had taught (P. I., Q. 12, Art. 12) that indeed “ex sensibilium cognitione non potest tota dei virtus cognosci et per consequens nec ejus essentia videri,” but that both the existence of God and “ea quæ necesse est ei convenire” can be known. Duns and his disciples denied this; but, on the other hand, 539 they asserted that God is more cognisable than the Thomists were willing to grant. The latter denied an adequate (essential) knowledge of God (cognitio quidditativa); the Scotists affirmed it, because it was not a question at all about the knowledge of an infinite intelligence, but about the knowledge of the God who is will, and who has manifested His will.

darkness. But the narrow way that leads to a sure and comforting knowledge of God, the way of faith in God as the Father of Jesus Christ, the Schoolmen would not follow. Therefore their whole doctrine of God, whether it be of a Thomist or of a Scotist cast, cannot be used in dogmatic. For on this point dogmatic must keep to its own field of knowledge, namely, the historic Christ, and must not fear the reproach of “blind faith” (“Kahlerglaubens,” collier’s faith,) if it is blind faith that God can be felt and known only from personal life — and, in a way that awakens conviction, only from the personal life of Christ. This does not exclude the truth that Thomistic Mysticism can warmly stir the fancy, and gently delude the understanding as to the baselessness of speculation. How far, as regards the conception of God, mediæval thought in Nominalism had drifted from the thought which had once given theological fixity in the Church to the articulus de deo, can best be seen when we compare the doctrine of God of Origen, 182Gregory of Nyssa, or John of Damascus with that of Duns or Occam.285 But the whole of dogmatic is dependent on the conception of God; for that conception determines both the view of salvation and the view of reconciliation.286 Finally, it must be pointed out, that mediæval theology strongly emphasises the conception of God as judge, though this conception was not introduced by it into speculations as to the nature of God. 2. Stormy debates on the right way of understanding, and the right way of mentally representing the doctrine of the Trinity,287 had already run their course, when the Mendicant Orders made their appearance in science. The bold attempts to make the mystery more intelligible, whether by approximating to tritheism (Roscellin),288 or by passing over to Modalism (Abelard), were rejected in the period of Anselm and Bernard (against Gilbert).289

285

On this, and the acute criticism of the Aristotelian doctrine of God, see Werner, Nachscotistiche Scholastik, p. 216 ff. 286 It is a special merit of Ritschl that in his great work in the department of the history of dogma he has shown everywhere the fundamental importance of the conception of God. 287 See Münscher, § 120, Schwane, l.c. p. 152 ff., Bach, Dogmengesch. Bd. II., Baur, L. v. d. Dreieinigkeit, Bd. II. 288 Application of the Nominalist mode of thought; against him Anselm; see Reuter I., p. 134 f.; Deutsch, Abelard, p. 256 f. 289 There was a disposition to detect even tritheism in Abelard; on his doctrine of the Trinity, see Deutsch, p. 259 ff. Ahelard’s wish was to reject both the Roscellin conception and strict Sabellianism, yet he does not get beyond a fine Modalism (see Deutsch, p. 280 ff.). It is noteworthy that, like Luther at Worms, he stated in the prologue

Where Augustine’s treatise De trinitate was studied and followed, a fine Modalism introduced itself everywhere,290 and it was easy for any one who wished to convict another of heresy to bring the reproach of Sabellianism against his opponent who was influenced by Augustine. Even the Lombard was charged with giving too much independence to the divina essentia, and with thus teaching a quaternity, or a species of Sabellianism.291 The lesson derived in the thirteenth 183century from these experiences was to guard the trinitarian dogma by a still greater mustering of terminological distincions than Augustine had recourse to. The exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity continued to be the high school of logic and dialectic. In Thomism the doctrine still had a relation to the idea of the world, in so far as the hypostasis of the Son was not sharply marked off from the world-idea in God. Thomism was also necessarily obliged to retain its leaning to Modalism, as the conception of God did not at bottom admit of the assumption of distinctions in God, but reduced the distinctions to relations, which themselves again had to be neutralised. The Scotist School, on the other hand, kept the persons sharply asunder. But this school, especially in its later period, could equally well have defended, or yielded submission to, the quaternity, or any other doctrine of God whatever. But before this the whole doctrine had already come to be a mere problem of the schools, having no relation to living faith. The respect that was paid to it as the fundamental dogma of the Church was in flagrant contrast with the incapacity to raise it in theological discussion above the level of a logical mystery. Like Augustine in his day, the mediæval theologians let it be seen that they would not have set up this dogma if it had not come to them by tradition, and the decree of the Lateran Council (see page 182, note 7,) which places behind the persons a “res non generans

to his Introductio in theol., that he was ready to be corrected, “cum quis me fidelium vel virtute rationis vel auctoritate scriptum correxerit” (see Münscher, p. 52). 290 Thus it was with Anselm and the Victorinians, especially Richard, who reproduced and expounded the Augustinian analogies of the Trinity (the powers of the human spirit). 291 Joachim of Fiore made it a reproach that the 4th Lateran Council, c. 2, took the Lombard under its protection and decreed: “Nos (i.e., the Pope) sacro et universali concilio approbante credimus et confitemur c 563 um Petro (scil. Lombardo), quod una quædam summa res est, incomprehensibilis quidem et ineffabilis, quæ veraciter est pater et filius et spiritus, tres simul personaæ, ac singulatim quælibet earundem. Et ideo in deo trinitas est solummodo, non quaternitas, quia quælibet trium personarum est illa res, videlicet substantia, essentia sive natura divina, quæ sola est universorum principium, præter quod aliud inveniri non potest. Et illa res non est generans neque genita nec procedens, sed est pater qui generat, filius qui gignitur, et spiritus sanctus qui procedit, ut distinctiones sint in personis et unitas in natura.”

neque genita nec procedens” (a thing not begetting nor begotten nor proceeding) really transforms the persons into mere modalities κατ᾽ ἐπινοίαν (existing for thought), or into inner processes in God. Or is it still a doctrine of the Trinity, when the immanent thinking and the immanent willing 184in God are defined and objectified as generare and spirare (begetting and breathing)? But in Nominalism the treatment of this dogma grew no better. The Thomist School was certainly still regulated by a concrete thought, when it sought to make the Trinity more intelligible by means of analogies; for according to these the finite world, and especially the rational creature, show traces of the divine nature and the divine attributes. But this idea Scotism had set aside, emphasising the threefold personality as revealed fact. Its “subtle investigations,” even Schwane confesses,292 “went astray too much into a region of formalism, and came to be a playing with notions.” 3. The doctrine of the eternity of the world293 was universally combated, and the creation from nothing adhered to as an article of faith. But only the Post-Thomist Schoolmen expressed the temporality of the world, and creation out of nothing, in strict formulæ. Although Thomas rejected the pantheism of the Neoplatonic-Erigenistic mode of thought, there are still to be found in him traces of the idea that creation is the actualising of the divine ideas, that is, their passing into the creaturely form of subsistence. Further, he holds, on the basis of the Areopagite conception of God, that all that is has its existence “by participating in him who alone exists through himself” (participatione ejus, qui solum per se ipsum est). But both thoughts obscure the conception of creation.294 Hence it is characteristic of Thomas, who elsewhere, as a rule, finds strict necessity, that he refrains from showing that the world’s having a beginning is a doctrine necessary for thought; Summa., P. I., Q. 46, Art. 2: “It is to be asserted that the world’s not having always existed is held by faith alone, and cannot be proved demonstratively: as was asserted also above regarding the mystery of the Trinity . . .that the world had a beginning is 185credible, but not demonstrable or knowable. And it is useful to consider this, in case perhaps some one, 292

L.c., p. 179. See Münscher, § 121, 122, Schwane, pp. 179-226. 294 For a pantheistic view of creation in Thomas an appeal, however, can scarcely be made to the expression frequently employed by him, “emanatio” (processio) creaturarum a deo; for he certainly does not employ the expression in a pantheistic sense. If he says, P. I., Q. 45, Art. I: “emanationem totius entis a causa universali, quæ est deus, designamus nomine creationis,” just for that reason he shows in what follows, that “creatio, quæ est emanatio totius esse, est ex non ente, quod est nihil.” 293

presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should adduce reasons that are not necessary, thus giving occasion for ridicule to infidels, who might think that on the ground of such reasons we believe what is of faith.” If only Thomas had always taken to heart these splendid words, which, moreover, were directed against Bonaventura and Albertus Magnus, who undertook to prove the beginning of the world in time a doctrine of reason! Duns Scotus and his school naturally followed Thomas here, in so far as they held the temporality of the world as guaranteed simply by the authority of faith.295 Yet the view of Albertus certainly survived at the same time in the Church. The purpose of the creation of the world was taken by all the Schoolmen to be the exhibition of the love (bonitas) of God, which seeks to communicate itself to other beings. Even Thomas, correcting the Areopagite conception of God, declared the creation of the world no longer a necessary, but only a contingent, means, whereby God fulfils His personal end. Yet he certainly represented the personal end of God, which is freely realised in creation, as the supreme thought: “divina bonitas est finis rerum omnium”296 (the divine love is the end of all things), i.e., God’s willing His own blessedness embraces all movements whatever of that which exists, His willing it by means of creation of the world is His free will; but as He has so willed to create, the end of the creature is entirely included in the divine end ; the creature has no end of its own, but realises the divine end, which is itself nothing but the actualising of the love (bonitas). In this way the pantheistic acosmism is certainly not quite banished, while on the other hand, in the thesis of Thomas, that God necessarily conceived from eternity the idea of the world, because this idea coincides with His knowledge and so also with His being, the pancosmistic conception of God is not definitely excluded. In the Scotist school, the personal 186end of God and the end of the creature are sharply disconnected.297 As regards divine providence, from the time of Anselm and Abelard onwards, all the questions were again treated which were formerly dealt with by Origen; but from the time of Thomas they were added to in an extraordinary

295

Scotus holds the possibility of a divine creation from eternity as not unthinkable, but disputes the arguments by which Thomas sought to corroborate the position that a beginning of creation in time cannot be proved; see Werner, Duns Scotus, p. 380 ff. 296 P. I., Q. 44, Art. 4; see also Q. 14, 19, 46, 104. 297 Here would be the place to deal with the doctrine of angels held by the Schoolmen; but as the material relating to this subject — the fencing and wrestling ground of the theologians, who had here more freedom than elsewhere — is very loosely connected with dogma, and is at the same time unworthy of serious consideration, it may be passed over; see Thomas, P. I., Q. 50-65; Schwane, pp. 194-217.

degree, so that quite new terminology was here created.298 To the question whether this world is the best, Thomas gave a negative answer, after Anselm had answered it in the affirmative; yet even Thomas thinks this universe cannot be better; God, however, could have created other things, which would have been still better.299 As a consequence of his fundamental view, Thomas assumes that God directs all things immediately; yet the greater the independence was that was attributed to the world, the stronger became the opposition to this thesis. In the theodicy, moreover, which was 187vigorously revised in the thirteenth century in opposition to the dualistic sects, Thomas attached himself more closely to Augustine. He did not shrink from the thought that God produces “quasi per accidens” (as it were accidentally) the corruptiones rerum (corruption in things); for the “perfection of things in the universe requires that there shall be not only incorruptible, but also corruptible entities” (“perfectio rerum universitatis requirit, ut non solum sint entia incorruptibilia, sed etiam corruptibilia”); but from this it follows that the perfectio universi requires beings that can fall from the good, “ex quo sequitur ea interdum deficere” (from which it follows that they are sometimes defective).300 In these doctrines, too, greater caution came to be exercised, as the

ac0 298

See Summa, P. I., Q. 103-117: de gubernatione rerum, divided according to the points of view of finis gubernationis, conservatio and mutatio rerum. Under the first point of view it is established speculatively that the finis rerum must be “quoddam bonum extrinsecum,” because the finis universalis rerum as the ultimate goal must be the “bonum universale,” but this latter cannot be included in the world, since the world, in virtue of its created quality, can never include more than a participative bonum; hence God Himself is the finis gubernationis (see above). Further, in the general doctrine of government the questions are treated, whether there is a gubernatio at all, whether it proceeds from one, whether its effect is uniform or manifold, whether everything is under it, whether it is everywhere direct, whether anything can happen præter ordinem gubernationis, and whether anything “reniti possit contra ordinem gubernationis dei.” The “conservatio” is defined (q. 104, art. 1) as only a continued creating, and so it is said at the close of the article (ad. 4): “conservatio rerum a deo non est per aliquam novam actionem, sed per continuationem actionis quæ dat esse, quæ quidem actio est sine motu et tempore, sicut etiam conservatio luminis in aëre est per continuatum influxum a sole.” This not unobjectionable definition is applied in many different ways. Thus miracle is declared impossible, in so far as the ordo rerum depends on a prima causa, while on the other hand it is admitted in view of the causæ secundæ (art. 6). But according to Thomas the real miracles, although they are not so designated, are the creation of the world and of souls, and also the justificatio impiorum; for they are præter ordinem naturalem. The miracle of all miracles is God, quod habet causam simpliciter et omnibus occultam. 299 P. I., Q. 25, Art. 6. 300 P. I., Q. 48, Art. 2.

distinction came to be more sharply drawn between God, and the creature as endowed with its own volitional movement.301 4. The history of Christology was similar to that of the doctrine of the Trinity. In the twelfth century there was still much keen discussion with regard to the former, as the satisfaction was not general with the Greek scheme that had been framed in opposition to Adoptianism (Abelard’s Nestorian Christology was a protest against the doctrine of John of Damascus and of Alcuin, and continued to extend its influence).302 Even the Lombard, although, with Alcuin, he denies that the Logos assumed a human person,303 still gravitated — certainly in a very peculiar way — to a Nestorian thought, in so far as he denied, in the interest of the immutability of God, that by the incarnation God “became” something, the humanity rather being for him only like a garment.304 But against this doctrine, 188described as Nihilianism, and adopted by the dialecticians (Christ was, as man, non aliquid [not something]), a strong opposition was raised in the period of Alexander III., especially by German scholars (Gerhoch); there was asserted, in opposition to it, the most complete and real interpenetration of deity and humanity in Christ (see Alcuin), and the Lombard’s doctrine was even publicly described as dangerous.305 With this “nota” against “Nihilianism,” the doctrine of the two natures came to the great Schoolmen, and the problem of the “hypostatic union” now became as much the field of contest for the acutest thought as the problem of the Trinity.306 At the same time the view all took of the communicatio idiomatum implied that the thought must be excluded of a human person as existing for himself in Christ. But here, also, there resulted important differences between the Thomists and Scotists; for Thomas made the greatest effort to give 301

Very worthy of notice is Duns’ criticism of Augustine’s and Anselm’s doctrines of malum; see Werner, l.c., p. 402 ff. 302 See Deutsch, l.c., pp. 289-318. Abelard’s doctrine is a very vigorous attempt to give full justice to the humanity of Christ within the lines of the traditional dogma. But there was the feeling that this attempt was heretical, and it is, in fact, questionable, if we consider that it threatens the unity of the person of Christ, on which all depends, but which, of course, at that time could only be expressed in the impracticable categories of the natures. 303 Sentent. III., dist. 5 C. 304 Sentent. III., dist. 6. Yet it was only the disciples that utilised the thought thrown out by the Master. Besides, the doctrine asserts nothing else than what Cyril had expressed regarding the incarnation of the Logos with µεµένηκεν ὅπερ ἦν. 305 See Bach, 1.c., Bd. II., Hefele, Conciliengesch. V.2, p. 616 ff. (Synod of Tours, 1163), and p. 719 f: (3rd Lateran Synod, 1179). ae8 306See Schwane, pp. 251-296.

such predominance to the divine factor that the human became merely something passive and accidental; as he was influenced by the Areopagite, he continued also, in a very real way, the Greek Monophysite Christology; nor was there wanting to him the Areopagite background, that the Logos entered into just the same relation to human nature as a whole, into which he entered with the human nature of Jesus. Against this Scotus made an effort, in a very modest way, and with a profusion of confusingly complicated terminology, to save something more of the humanity of Christ. But in return for this, he has to hear the verdict of modern Catholic theologians of dogma, that “he won for himself no laurels; that what he did, rather, in this field, with his critical censures (of the Angelic Doctor) was mostly a fiasco.”307 His effort to attribute existence even to the human individual nature 189 of Christ was disapproved. His mild attempts, likewise, were repudiated to fix certain limits to the human knowledge of Christ, and to deduce the sinlessness of the human will of Jesus, not from the hypostatic union, but from the “plenissima fruitio quam habuit Christus” (fullest enjoyment that Christ had), i.e., from his perfect surrender of will.308 On this field Thomism continued victorious. The Scotists did not succeed in securing the recognition of a special mode of being for the individual human nature of Christ.309

307

Schwane, p. 288; compare the full account in Werner, l.c., p. 427 ff. Duns taught a double filiation, and in the Report. Paris. expressly professed belief also in the probability of Adoptianism; see p. 439 f. On the similar Christology of Post-Scotist Scholasticism, see Werner II., p. 330 f. 308 See Werner, p. 440 ff. 309 The doctrine of the Holy Spirit did not receive a further development in Scholasticism. From the days, certainly, of the Latin Empire in the East till the Synod of Florence there was controversy and negotiation with the Greeks in numberless treatises about the procession of the Holy Spirit. The negotiations for union lasted, with interruptions, for almost 250 years, and for a time they furnished a certain prospect of success, because from the thirteenth century there was a small Latin party in the East, which, however, in the end was disowned by the whole Eastern Church. At Lyons in 1274 (can. 1) Greeks made admission that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (“non tamquam ex duobus principiis, sed tamquam ex uno principio, unica spiratione”), and at Florence (Mansi XXXI., p. 1027 sq.) there was a coming to terms in a complicated formula, which, however, expressly justified the “filioque.” But as early as 1443 the Florentine Council was condemned at a Jerusalem Synod by the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. The Greeks with Latin sympathies either confessed penitently their “betrayal of the faith,” or preferred to remain in Ital 562 y and become Roman dignitaries.

The victory of the Monophysite doctrine of Christ concealed under the Chalcedonian formulæ,310 was all the more surprising from no practical religious use whatever being made of it, the real interest in Christ finding expression rather, on the one hand, in the idea of the poor life of Jesus and the Ecce homo, on the 190other hand, in the doctrines of reconciliation and of the Sacraments.311 But it is only apparently that the doctrine of reconciliation has the Greek Christology, together with the doctrine of the two natures, as its presupposition. This has been shown already above in connection with the reconciliation doctrine of Anselm, Abelard, and the Lombard.312 It still remains to us here to specify concisely the thoughts of the later Schoolmen on the work of Christ.313 The Lombard had brought the merit of Christ into the foreground, and at the same time had given expression to all possible thoughts about redemption by Christ — the Anselmic theory excepted — and had attached himself closely to Augustine and Abelard (“reconciliati sumus deo diligenti nos” [we are reconciled to God, who loves us]). The modification in the thirteenth century consisted now in this, that, in opposition to

310

This victory, it is true, came about not in Scholasticism but in the Church. Scholasticism was led on rather by Occam to a complete dissolution of the God-Manhood of Christ, so that for Socinianism there remained nothing more to do (see Werner II., p. 353 ff.). In Certilog., concl. 6, Occam writes: “Est articulus fidei, quod deus assumpsit naturam humanam. Non includit contradictionem deum assumere naturam asininam; pari ratione potest assumere lapidem vel lignum.” Also (l.c. concl. 62): “To Christ the predicate Son of God can only be attributed in so far as in Him the Verbum divinum appears united with the human nature; of a filiation relation of the Verbum divinum in itself the reason of man knows nothing”; so also the doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to reason (I., Dist. 9, Q. 1). If as over against this there is a pointing to fides, it is simply submission to authority that is meant. If, now, from any cause, this authority fell away, Socinianism was ripe. 311 There was repeated here what we have already observed in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity. In regard to both dogmas theoretical speculation strikes out paths which are scarcely any longer united with the paths along which faith moves. There can scarcely be conceived of a greater contrariety than is implied, when in the doctrine of the person of Christ the “homo” is almost entirely eliminated, and then in the doctrine of the work of Christ this “homo” takes the commanding place. No doubt by means of words and terminologies all chasms can be bridged over; but they are still only words. 312 See p. 54 ff. 313 See Ritschl, Vol. I., p. 55 ff.; Münscher, § 135; Schwane, pp. 296-333. The passio Christi dominates the whole Western theology. If John of Damascus (see Vol. III., p. 288) calls the incarnation the only new thing under the sun, Walter v.d. Vogelweide expresses the general conviction of the West, when in one of his best-known poems he exalts the suffering of Christ as the miracle of all miracles.

Abelard, and with a certain adherence to Anselm, objective redemption (in its bearing upon God) was brought into the foreground, but at the same time, the point of view of merit, which Anselm had only suggested, was strongly emphasised. This turn of things appears already in Alexander of Hales and Albertus; but Thomas was the first to furnish a full, strictly-thought-out doctrine of redemption. Certainly even he alternates between the points of view, which is always a sign that the point of view is not firmly got hold of; for, where the sufficient reason is wanting, reasons tend to accumulate. But the sufficient reason was really wanting to Thomas; for P. III., Q. 46, Art. 1-3, the 191necessity of the death of Christ is explicitly rejected — God could also have simply remitted sin in the exercise of His free will, — the chosen way of deliverance by the death of Christ (liberatio per mortem Christi) is only the most fitting, because, by it, more and greater things are imparted to us than if we were redeemed solely by the will of God (sola voluntate dei). There were three points of view especially which Thomas applied. First, he stated (Q. 46) a large number of arguments that were intended to prove that the death of Christ, with all the circumstances of His suffering, was the most fitting means of redemption. Within the lines of this idea many points of view are already suggested that deal with the facts. But above all the infinite pain which He endured is taken into account. His suffering (during His whole life and in death) is represented as being the sum of all conceivable suffering, in the sense too of its being His own pain and the pain of sympathy on account of our sin. Here justice is done to the Abelardian-Augustinian tradition, viz., that the suffering of Christ, the Mediatorial Man, is redemptive, inasmuch as it brings God’s love home to our hearts, becomes an example to us, recalls us from sin, and stirs as a motive responsive love. But on the other hand, the convenientius (more fitting) in an objective sense is also already brought out here, inasmuch as the death of Christ was the most fitting means for winning for men the gratia justificans (justifying grace) and the gloria beatitudinis (glory of beatitude).314

314

Q. 46, Art. 3: “Tanto aliquis modus convenientior est ad assequendum finem, quanto per ipsum plura concurrunt, quæ sunt expedientia fini. Per hoc autem quod homo per Christi passionem liberatus, multa concurrerunt ad salutem hominis pertinentia præter liberationem a peccato: Primo enim per hoc homo cognoscit, quantum hominem deus diligat, et per hoc provocatur ad eum diligendum, in quo pe ac2 rfectio humanæ salutis consistit. Unde Apostolus dicit: ‘Commendat suam caritatem deus,’ etc. Secundo quia per hoc nobis dedit exemplum obedientiæ et humilitatis et constantiæ, justitiæ et ceterarum virtutum in passione Christi ostensarum, quæ sunt necessaria ad humanam

192

In Q. 408, new points of view are now introduced under the heading “de modo passionis Christi quantum ad effectum” (on the mode of Christ’s suffering as regards its effect). The hypothetical character here passes into the rear behind the necessary result of the suffering. But the whole inquiry is dominated by the fundamental thought: “Christus non est passus secundum divinitatem, sed secundum carnem,” (Christ did not suffer as to His divinity, but as to His flesh), with which the divinity associated itself. Here the death of Christ is placed under the points of view of merit (Art. 1), satisfaction (Art. 2), sacrifice (Art. 3), redemption (Arts. 4 and 5), and “efficientia” (Art. 6). This is succeeded, in Quest. 49, by an inquiry as to how far the death of Christ has freed us from sin (Art. 1), from the power of the devil (Art. 2), and from liability to penalty (a reatu pœnæ) (Art. 3), and again, as to whether by it we are reconciled to God (Art. 4), whether by it entrance to heaven is secured for us (Art. 5), and whether by it Christ was exalted (Art. 6). Among these points of view there stand out prominently (secondly) that of satisfaction and (thirdly) that of merit as specially important. eba The conception of satisfaction is obtained by taking (against Anselm) in the strictest sense the voluntariness of Christ’s sufferings, and then defining this voluntary suffering according to the particular rule, that satisfaction always consists in a gift for which the party injured has more love than he has hatred for the injury. This is shown in the suffering of Christ, which is described (see above) as not only suffering in death but suffering in life,315 and which has its value in the divine-human life of the Mediator. Just on that account the satisfactio is not only sufficient but

salutem. Unde dicitur, I., Pet. 2: ‘Christus passus pro nobis, nobis relinquens exemplum, etc.’ Tertio quia Christus per passionem suam non solum hominem a peccato liberavit, sed etiam gratiam justificantem et gloriam beatitudinis ei promeruit, ut infra dicetur (Q. 48). Quarto, quia per hoc est homini inducta major necessitas, se immunem a peccato conservandi, qui se sanguine Christi redemptum cogitat a peccato, secundum illud I., Cor. 6: ‘Empti estis pretio,’ etc. Quinto quia hoc ad majorem dignitatem hominis cessit, ut sicut homo victus fuerat et deceptus a diabolo, ita etiam homo esset qui diabolum vinceret, et sicut homo mortem meruit, ita homo moriendo mortem superaret. Et ideo convenientius fuit quod per passionem Christi liberaremur, quam per solam dei voluntatem.” In Q. 47 the treatment of redemption from the point of view of the convenientissimum is continued. 315 It is a step in advance on the part of Thomas that he does not confine himself to the death of Christ, but embraces in his view His whole life as suffering.

superabundans;316 i.e., it is not only æqualis omnibus 193peccatis humani generis (equal to all the sins of the human race), but positively in excess of them. In this way an idea is obtained which, though apparently unobjectionable and worthy, was to give occasion to the most unhappy speculations. A vicarious penal suffering, in the strict sense of the terms, is not recognised even by Thomas, because on the whole question he allowed only a limited

316

Q. 48, Art. 2: “Respondeo dicendum, quod ille proprio satisfacit pro offensa, qui exhibet offenso id quod æque vel magis diligit, quam oderit offensam. Christus autem ex caritate et obedientia patiendo majus aliquid deo exhibuit, quam exigeret recompensatio totius offensæ humani generis; primo quidem propter magnitudinem caritatis ex qua patiebatur, secundo propter dignitatem vitæ suæ quam pro satisfactione ponebat, quæ erat vita dei et hominis; tertio propter generalitatem passionis et magnitudinem doloris assumpti, ut supra dictum est (Q. 46, Art. 6). Et ideo passio Christi non solum sufficiens, sed etiam superabundans satisfactio fuit pro peccatis humani generis.”

range to the justitia dei.317 Still, some lines of exposition in Quest. 49 touch on that thought.318

317

To this satisfactio superabundans Thomas returns in the 4 Art. [redemptio: “respondeo dicendum, quod per peccatum dupliciter homo obligatus erat, primo quidem servitute peccati, quia qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati. . . . Quia igitur diabolus hominem superaverat, inducendo ad peccatum, homo servituti diaboli addictus erat. Secundo, quantum ad reatum pœnæ, quo homo erat obligatus secundum dei justitiam. Et hoc etiam est servitus quædam; ad servitutem enim pertinet quod aliquis patiatur, quod non vult, cum liberi hominis sit uti se ipso ut vult. Quia igitur passio Christi fuit sufficiens et superabundans satisfactio pro peccato et reatu pœnæ generis humani, ejus passio fuit quasi quoddam pretium per quod liberati sumus ab utraque obligatione. Nam ipsa satisfactio qua quis satisfacit, sive pro se sive pro alio, pretium quoddam dicitur, quo seipsum vel alium redimit a peccato et a pœnæ. . . . Christus autem satisfecit non quidem pecuniam dando aut aliquid hujusmodi, sed dando id quod fuit maximum, seipsum scil. pro nobis. Et ideo passio Christi dicitur esse nostra redemptio.” There is a not unimportant turn of thought (Q. 47, 2; 48, 3), where the suffering of Christ is looked at from the point of view of sacrifice. Here it is not merely love in general that is described as that which has efficacy in the voluntary sacrifice, but still more precisely obedience: “Convenientissimum fuit, quod Christus ex obedientia pateretur . . . obedientia vero omnibus sacrificiis antefertur . . .miles vincere non potest nisi duci obediat, et ita homo Christus victoriam obtinuit per hoc quod deo fuit obediens. . . . Quia in morte Christi lex vetus consummata est, potest intelligi quod patiendo omnia veteris legis præcepta implevit: moralia quidam, quæ in præceptis caritatis fundantur, implevit in quantum passus est et ex dilectione patris et etiam ex dilectione proximi, cæremonialia veto præcepta legis, quæ ad sacrificia et oblationes præcipue ordinantur, implevit Christus sua passione, in quantum omnia antiqua sacrificia fuerunt figuræ illius veri sacrificii, quod Christus obtulit moriendo pro nobis. . . . Præcepta vero judicialia legis, quæ præcipue ordinantur ad satisfaciendam injuriam passis, implevit Christus sue passione, permittens se ligno affigi pro pomo quod de ligno homo rapuerat contra dei mandatum.” 318 See Art. 3 and 4: “Respondeo dicendum, quod per passionem Christi liberati sumus a reatu pœnæ dupliciter. Uno modo directe, in quantum scil. passio Christi fuit sufficiens et superabundans satisfactio pro peccatis totius humani generis; exhibita autem satisfactione sufficienti tollitur reatus pœnæ (this is, of course, no taking over of penalty). Alio modo indirecte, in quantum scil. passio Christi est causa remissionis peccati, in quo fundatur reatus pœnæ.” To the objection that on the liberati pœnæ satisfactoriæ are still imposed by the Church, he replies thus: “Ad hoc quod consequemur effectum passionis Christi, oportet nos ei configurari. Configuramur autem ei in baptistmo sacramentaliter, secundum Rom. 6, 4: ‘Consepulti sumus ei per baptismum in mortem.’ Unde baptisatis nulla pœna satisfactoria imponitur, quia sunt totaliter liberati per satisfactionem Christi. Quia vero Christus semel tantum pro peccatis nostris mortuus est, ut dicitur I. Pet. 3, 18, ideo non potest homo secundario configurari morti Christi per sacramentum baptismi. Unde oportet quod illi, qui post baptismum peccant, configurentur Christo patienti per aliquid pœnalitatis vel passionis quam in se ipsis sustineant (!) Quæ tamen multo minor sufficit, quam esset condigna peccato, cooperante satisfactione Christi.” A wonderful

194

With regard to merit, a distinct idea is to be got under this term as to how far Christ’s suffering really profits individuals. It is a circumstance of value that Thomas sets aside, and ceases to employ, the Greek thought which dominates his doctrine of the person of Christ, namely, that the humanity of Christ is in itself human nature in general. With this mechanical idea of the matter he was not satisfied. Here also we see that between his doctrine of the person of Christ, and his doctrine of His work, there is quite a chasm. Only once319 does he touch on 195the thought that God is reconciled because He has now found the good in human nature. Elsewhere he has quite a different view, with which indeed he crowns his discussion (Q. 48, 1), and of which as his discussion proceeds he never loses sight. It is the view hinted at by Anselm, that by His voluntary suffering Christ merited exaltation (Q. 49, 6), that the exaltation, however, cannot be conferred upon Him, but passe d3b8 s over from Him to the Church of which He is the Head.320 The fulness with which Thomas stated and repeated this

illustration of satisfactio superabundans! Even in the 4 Art. the reconciliatio dei is traced, not to the endurance of the penal suffering, but to the “sacrificium acceptissimum.” God is reconciled (1) because the passio Christi peccatum removat, (2) because it is sacrifice; “est enim hoc proprie sacrificii effectus, ut per ipsum placetur deus”; for as man propter aliquod obsequium acceptum forgives the injury, “similiter tantum bonum fuit, quod Christus voluntarie passus est, quod propter hoc bonum in natura humana inventum deus placatus est super omni offensa generis humani, quantum ad eos qui Christo passo conjunguntur.” With a change of disposition on God’s part Thomas will have nothing to do, although he expresses himself more cautiously than the Lombard. “Deus diligit omnes homines qu 54d antum ad naturam quam ipse fecit, odit tamen eos quantum ad culpam . . ., non dicendum, quod passio Christi dicitur quantum ad hoc, deo nos reconciliasse, quod de novo nos amare inciperet, sed quia per passionem Christi sublata est odii causa, tum per ablationem peccati tum per recompensationem acceptabilioris beneficii.” In the 5 Art. the passio Christi is expressly related both to the peccatum commune totius humanæ naturæ (et quantum ad culpam et quantum ad reatum pœnæ), and to the peccata propria singulorum, qui communicant ejus passioni per fidem et caritatem et fidei sacramenta. Yet in connection with the latter the removal of the reatus pœnæ is not expressly emphasised. The clearest passage on the penal worth of the death of Christ is in Q. 47, Art. 3: “in quo ostenditur et dei severitas, qui peccatum sine pœna dimittere noluit.” But a connected view is not outlined from this as a starting-point, while such a view can be shown in Bernard. 319 See the foregoing note. 320 Q. 48, Art. 1: “Christo data est gratia non solum sicut singulari personæ, sed in quantum est caput ecclesiæ, ut scil. ab ipso redundaret ad membra. Et ideo opera Christi hoc modo se habent tam ad se quam ad sua membra sicut se habent opera alterius hominis in gratia constituti ad ipsum. . . .” Q. 49, Art. 1: “Passio Christi causat

thought is a guarantee that for him it was an extremely valuable one. It has also been expressed by him thus (Q. 48, Art. 2): “The head and the members are, as it were, one mystical person, and thus the satisfaction of Christ belongs to all believers, just as to His own members” (caput et membra sunt quasi una persona mystica, et ideo satisfactio Christi ad omnes fideles pertinet, sicut ad sua membra). Here, finally, the conception of the faithful (fideles) also (as the ecclesia) is introduced into the question about the effect and bearings of redemption; but only in the 1st Art. of Quest. 49 has Thomas come to deal more closely with faith — simply however to pass over at once to love: “It must be affirmed that by faith also there is applied to us the passion of Christ, with a view to its fruit being seen, according to the passage Rom. 3: ‘Whom God hath set forth as a propitiator through faith, etc.’ But the faith by which we are cleansed from sin is not fides informis, (unformed faith), which can exist even along with sin, but is fides formata per caritatem (faith deriving form from love), so that in this way the passion of Christ is applied to us, not intellectually merely, 196but also effectually.” (“Dicendum quod etiam per fidem applicatur nobis passio Christi ad percipiendum fructum ipsius, secundum illud Rom. 3: ‘Quem proposuit deus propitiatorem per fidem, etc.’ Fides autem per quam a peccato mundamur non est fides informis, quæ potest esse etiam cum peccato, sed est fides formata per caritatem, ut sic passio Christi nobis applicetur, non solum quantum ad intellectum, sed etiam quantum ad effectum.”) When we review the exposition given by Thomas, we cannot escape the impression created by confusion (multa, non multum, [many things, not much]). The wavering between the hypothetical and the necessary modes of view, between objective and subjective redemption, further, between the different points of view of redemption, and finally, between a satisfactio superabundans and the assertion that for the sins after baptism we have to supplement the work of Christ, prevents any distinct impression arising. It was only a natural course of development when Duns Scotus went on to reduce everything entirely to the relative. It is what always happens when an attempt is made to find a surer hold for the actual in what is assumed to be the metaphysically necessary; this actual

remissionem peccatorum per modum redemptionis, quia enim ipse est caput nostrum, per passionem suam quam ex caritate et obedientia sustinuit, liberavit nos tam quam membra sua a peccatis, quasi per pretium suæ passionis, sicut si homo per aliquod opus meritorium, quod manu exerceret, redimeret se a peccato quod pedibus commisisset. Sicut enim naturale corpus est unum ex membrorum diversitate constans, ita tota ecclesia, quæ est mysticum corpus Christi, computatur quasi una persona cum suo capite, quod est Christus,” and other passages, especially P. III., Q. 8.

presents itself in the end only as the possible, and so, very soon also, as the irrational. No one thought of the moral necessity of penalty. Duns Scotus draws the true logical conclusion from the theory of satisfaction (as distinguished from the idea of vicarious penal suffering), by tracing everything to the “acceptatio” of God. All satisfaction and all merit obtain their worth from the arbitrary estimation of the receiver. Hence the value of Christ’s death was as high as God chose to rate it. But in the strict sense of the term infinity cannot at all be spoken of here ; for (1) sin itself is not infinite, seeing that it is committed by finite beings (it is, at the most, quasi infinite, when it is measured, that is to say, though this is not necessary, by the injury done to the infinite God); (2) the merit of Christ is not infinite, for He suffered in His human (finite) nature321; (3) in no sense is 197an infinite merit needed, because God can estimate any merit as highly as He pleases; for nothing is meritorious in itself, because nothing is good in itself, but the sovereign divine will declares what it wills to be good and meritorious. And so Duns has not hesitated to assert that an angel, or even a purus homo who should have remained free from original sin and been endowed with grace, could have redeemed us. It is a question merely of receiving the first impulse; the rest every man must acquire for himself together with grace. Grace must only raise him, so to speak, above the point at which he is dead. Of course, Duns made the further effort to show the conveniens of the death of the God-man, and here he works out essentially the same thoughts as Thomas. But this no more belongs, strictly speaking, to dogmatic. For dogmatic, it is enough if it is proved that in virtue of His arbitrary will God has destined a particular number to salvation; that in virtue of the same arbitrary will He already determined before the creation of the world, that the election should be carried out through the suffering of the Godman; and that He now completes this plan by accepting the merit of the God-man, imparting the gratia prima to the elect, and then expecting the rest from their personal efforts. Here the reason at bottom for Christ’s having died is its having been prophesied (see Justin), and it was prophesied because God so decreed it. Everything “infinite” — which is surely the expression for what is divine and alone of its kind — is here cleared away; as a fact, human action would have been enough here, for nothing is

321

In Sent. III., Dist. 19, n. 7: “Meritum Christi fuit finitum, quia a principio finito essentialiter dependens, etiam accipiendo ipsum cum omnibus respectibus, sive cum respectu ad suppositum Verbi, sive cum respectu ad finem, quia omnes respectus isti erant finiti.”

necessary in the moral sense, and nowhere does there appear more than a quasi-infinity.322 This 198theory, the product of thought on the uncontrollable, predestinating arbitrariness of God (and on legal righteousness), stands side by side with an explicit doctrine of two natures!323 But it is quite distinctly irreligious in this respect, that it confines the work of Christ to the procuring of that “gratia prima” (primary grace), which is nothing but the creating of a kind of possibility, in order that man may himself take concern for the reality of his redemption.324 By Scotus it was brought about that this doctrine also became severed from faith, and was entirely transformed into a dialectic problem. In this lies the disintegration of dogma through Scotism. The doctrine of the Trinity, Christology, and the doctrine of redemption, were now happily withdrawn from the domain of the

322

See Ritschl, I., pp. 73-82; Werner, p. 454 ff. In Sentent. III., Dist. 19, Q. 1. The 20 Dist. is entirely devoted to the refutation of Anselm. Let us quote some leading sentences here: “Sicut omne aliud a deo ideo est bonum, quia a deo volitum, et non e converso, sic meritum illud tantum bonum erat, pro quanto acceptabatur et ideo meritum, quia acceptatum, non autem e converso quia meritum est et bonum, ideo acceptatum.” . . .“Christi passio electis solum primam gratiam disponentem ad gloriam consummatam efficaciter meruit. Quantum vero adtinet ad meriti sufficientiam aa8 , fuit profecto illud finitum, quia causa ejus finita fuit, vid. voluntas naturæ assumptæ et summa gloria illi collata. Non enim Christus quatenus deus meruit, sed in quantum homo. Proinde si exquiras, quantum valuerit Christi meritum secundum sufficientiam, valuit procul dubio quantum fuit a deo acceptatum, si quidem divina acceptatio est potissima causa et ratio omnis meriti. Omne enim aliud a deo ideo est bonum quia a deo dilectum, et non e contrario . . .deus non acceptat opus idcirco quod sit meritorium aut bonum. Tantum ergo valuit Christi meritum sufficienter, quantum potuit et voluit ipsum trinitas acceptare. Verum tamen ex sua ratione formali et de condigno non potuit in infinitum seu pro infinitis acceptari, quia nec illud in se fuit formaliter infinitum. Nihilosecius si spectes suppositi merentis circumstantiam et dignitatem, habebat quandam extrinsecam rationem, propter quam de congruo in infinitum extensive, id est pro infinitis, potuit acceptari. Sed quid meruit Christus? Meruit sane primam gratiam omnibus qui eam recipiunt, quæ et absque nostro merito confertur. Nam licet in adultis qui baptizantur non desideretur aliqua dispositio, nihilominus non merentur illam gratiam per suam dispositionem . . .nullus actu ingreditur regnum cœleste, nisi cooperetur, si habuerit facultatem, et utatur prima gratia, quam sibi Christus promeruit.” 323 Certainly this doctrine of two natures, from its Nestorianism, has already the tendency in it to do away with the deity of Christ. 324 The redemption theory of Scotus, which, dialectically considered, is superior to the Thomist through its completeness, is very severely criticised even by Schwane, who, however, does not bring out its Pelagian feature (p. 327 ff.). He speaks of “shallow apprehension of the incarnation, and a weakening of the conceptions of righteousness and merit.”

inwardly necessary, comforting faith that saves. Thus it continued to be in the Nominalist school. Only in the one particular, which, however, was constantly brought under the category of the conveniens — namely, that the love of God shown in the death of Christ becomes a motive to reciprocal love — did there survive a meagre remnant of an inspiring thought. While in the fourteenth century the Scotist theory of satisfactio secundum acceptationem (satisfaction on the ground of acceptance) gained always more adherents, was here and 199there carried even to the point of blasphemy by the formalism of dialectic, and had an influence even on the Thomists, traces are not wanting in the fifteenth century that more serious reflection, dealing with the essence of the matter, had begun to return. This had undoubtedly a connection with the revival of Augustinianism, perhaps also with a renewed study of St. Bernard, and it is to be met with more in the practical religious, than in the systematic expositions; indeed, in the former the thought of Christ’s having borne the penalty of guilt in the interests of the righteousness of God seems never to have entirely disappeared. Ritschl points to Gerson.325 “Gerson declares sin to be the crime of high treason, and finds God’s righteousness so great that in mercy He surrenders His innocent Son to penalty, evidences, in this way, the harmony between His righteousness and His mercy, and removes sin on condition that the sinner unites himself to Christ by faith, i.e., by obedience and imitation.326 In the Nominalist school the same view is still to be met with in Gabriel Biel.327 In the end, even John Wessel comes back to it.” But Ritschl is inclined to think that the idea of the penal value of Christ’s death, which, from the time of Athanasius, had ever again appeared sporadically in the Church, did not pass from Biel and Wessel to the Reformers.328

ae8 325L.c. I., p. 85. 326 Expos. in pass. dom. (Opp. ed. du Pin III. pp. 1157, 1187, 1188): “Per læsæ majestatis crimen morti est obnoxius. Rex tamen adeo justus fuerit, quod nec ullo pacto crimen tuum dimittere velit impunitum, altera vero ex parte tam benignus et misericors, quod proprium filium suum innocentem doloribus committat et morti, et quidem sponte sua, ut justitiam concordet cum misericordia fiatque criminis emendatio. . . . Nunquam deus malum impunitum permitteret, eapropter omnia peccata et delicta nostra Jesu Christo supposuit. Ideo ipse est justitia et redemptio nostra, modo nos junxerimus ei et per fidem gratiamque ei adhæserimus.” 327 See Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, III., 1, p. 249 ff. Seeberg, l.c., p. 147. 328 In dealing with the history of dogma, we are not required to enter on the history of the doctrine of Scripture, for that doctrine underwent no change, even the uncertainties about the Canon were not removed, and the slight differences in the way of understanding the notion of inspiration have no weight attaching to them. The history of

200

B. The Scholastic Doctrine of the Sacraments.329 The uncertainty of the Schoolmen regarding the doctrine of redemption, and the fact that the treatment of it could be as easily relegated by them to the School as the doctrines of the Trinity and of the natures in Christ, are explained from the circumstance, that in the doctrine of the Sacraments it was definitely set forth what faith in the divine grace in Christ needed. In the Sacraments this grace is exhibited, and in the Sacrament of the Eucharist particularly it is clearly and intelligibly traced back — through the doctrine of transubstantiation — to the in-carnation and death of Christ. That was enough. Those facts now form merely the presuppositions; faith lives in the contemplation and enjoyment of the Sacraments. But the Sacraments are committed to the Church, and are administered by the hierarchy (as servants, priests, and as judges). Thus the connection with Christ, which is effected only through the Sacraments, is at the same time mediated by the Church. Christ and the Church indeed are really made one, in so far as the same Church which administers the Sacraments is also, as the mystical body of Christ, so to speak, one mystical person with Him. This is the fundamental thought of Mediæval Catholicism, which was adhered to even by the majority of those who opposed themselves to the ruling hierarchy. The Schoolmen’s doctrine of the Sacraments has its root in that of Augustine; but it goes far beyond it (formally and materially). Above all, there was not merely a passing out of view in the Middle Ages of the connection between verbum and sacramentum, on which Augustine had laid such stress, but the verbum disappeared entirely behind the sacramental sign. The conception became still more magical, and consequently more objectionable. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that in its seven Sacraments Catholicism created a very efficient and impressive institution of an educational kind, the service of 201which, however, for the individual, did not consist in giving him certainty of salvation, but in training him as a member of the Church. And yet the mediæval doctrine of the Sacraments must be regarded, at least in its Thomist form, as the logical development of the Old Catholic fundamental view; for the definition of grace given by Thomas (P. III., Q. 62,

Bible prohibition, or of the restriction of the use of the Bible among the laity, does not fall to be considered here (see above, p. 156). 329 Münscher, § 138-152. Hahn, Lehre v. d. Sacramenten, ac2 1864: same author, Doctr. romanæ de num. sacram. septennario rationes hist. 1859. Schwane, 1.c., pp. 579693.

Art. 1): “grace is nothing else than the communicated likeness of the divine nature, according to the passage II Pet. I: he hath given to us great and precious promises, that we may be partakers of the divine nature” (gratia nihil est aliud quam participata similitudo divinæ naturae secundum illud, II Pet. I: Magna nobis et pretiosa promissa donavit, ut divina simus consortes natura), allows of no other form of grace than the magical sacramental. Augustine’s view, which, however, does not at bottom contradict the one just stated, is here thrust aside, and only comes under consideration so far as a link with it is found in the “participata similitudo divine naturae” (communicated likeness of the divine nature). Hence the further suppression of the verbum, to which even Augustine, though he has the merit of having taken account of it, had not done full justice. A strictly developed doctrine of the Sacraments could not exist, so long as the number of the Sacraments was not definitely fixed. But on this point, as antiquity had handed down nothing certain, the greatest vacillation prevailed for centuries, so difficult was it to determine anything which had not already been determined by the tradition of ancient times. The doctrine of the Sacraments was accordingly developed under the disadvantage of not knowing for certain to what sacred acts the general conceptions were to be applied. Still, theology had already wrought for long with the number seven, before the number was officially recognised by the Church. The number seven developed itself in the following way: As sacred acts in a pre-eminent sense, there had been handed down from ecclesiastical antiquity only baptism and the Eucharist, but baptism included the Chrisma (anointing). This last could be counted separately or not. At the same time, there was an indefinite group of sacred acts which were enumerated quite variously (the reckoning of the Areopagite was not determinative). 202Bernard, e.g., speaks of many Sacraments, and himself mentions ten.330 Even Hugo of St. Victor gives quite a special place to baptism and the Eucharist. Yet it was just he who contributed to a widening of the conception. By him,331 as well as by Abelard,332 there are reckoned as the sacramenta majora or spiritualia baptism, the Eucharist, confirmation, unction333 and marriage.334 How this

330

See Hahn, p. 103 f., and in general the copious proofs, pp. 79-133. Summa sentent. tract., 5-7. 332 See Deutsch, Abälard, p. 401 ff. 333 Extreme unction cannot be traced back under the term “Sacrament” further than to Innocent I. (ep. ad Decent). 331

combination arose is unknown. It continued to exist, however, in the school of Abelard, i.e., there was no reduction again made, only additions followed. Robert Pullus may have exercised an influence here,335 who in his Sentences counts along with the other three Sacraments, not unction and marriage, but confession336 and ordination.337 From the combination of these reckonings the number seven as applied to the Sacraments may have arisen.338 No doubt the sacred number also gave fixity to this particular enumeration.339 It is first found in the Sentence Book of Alexander III., when he was still Master Roland,340 and then in the Lombard.341 The latter however represents it, not as a recognised tenet, but as his own view, without 203specially emphasising it. The vacillation continued to exist even in the period that followed. The decrees of the great Councils of 1179 and 1215 imply that there was still nothing fixed as to the number of the Sacraments. But the great Schoolmen of the thirteenth century, who followed the Lombard, all accepted seven as the number of the Sacraments, and although special stress was laid by them on baptism and particularly the Eucharist, which was described, e.g., by Thomas as the most potent of all the Sacraments (“potissimum inter alia sacramenta sacramentum,”)342 they already made some attempt to

334

Marriage of course is very often named a sacrament from the earliest times, on the ground of the Epistle to the Ephesians. 335 Sentent. V. 22-24; VII. 14. 336 How gradually the “sacrament of penance” arose our whole account in the foregoing chapters has shown; see Steitz, Das Römische Buss-sacrament, 1854. Gregory I. called the reconciliatio of the sinner a sacrament. From the time of Petrus Damiani (69. orat.) confession was often so described, e.g., even by Bernard. 337 Since Augustine’s time ordination had very frequently been styled a “sacrament”; but even the anointing of princes, and the consecration of bishops and of churches, etc., were regarded as Sacraments. 338 In a passing way the number six also occurs. In the twelfth century, moreover, the considerations connected with the Sacraments have a very close connection with the struggle against the heretics (Catharists). It may be that subsequent investigation will succeed in showing that the fixing of the number seven was the direct consequence of this struggle. 339 See Hahn, p. 113 f. 340 Denifle in Archiv. f. Litt.-u. K.-Gesch. d. Mittelalters, vol. I., pp. 437, 460, 467. 341 Sentent. IV., dist. 2 A. The former vie 564 w, that Otto of Bamberg already has the number seven, is disproved; see Hahn, p. 107. 342 P. III., Q. 65, Art. 4: “Sacramentum eucharistiæ est potissimum inter alia sacramenta. Reasons: (i) because in it there is contained Christus substantialiter, not merely a virtus instrumentalis participata a Christo: (2) because all other Sacraments look

vindicate the number on internal grounds.343 For the first 204time at Florence (1439) was there a definite ecclesiastical declaration made as to seven being the number of the Sacraments.344

to this Sacrament sicut ad finem (this is then proved in the case of each separately); (3) because almost all Sacraments in eucharistia consummantur.” 343 In l.c. the Sacraments are graded according to their value: “Aliorum sacramentorum (i.e., the Eucharist is previously assumed to be the chief Sacrament) comparatio ad invicem potest esse multiplex. Nam i ac8 n via necessitatis baptismus est potissimum sacramentorum, in via autem perfectionis sacramentum ordinis; medio autem modo se habet sacramentum confirmationis. Sacramentum vero pænitentiæ et extremæ unctionis sunt inferioris gradus a prædictis sacramentis, quia, sicut dictum est, ordinantur ad viam Christianam non per se, sed quasi per accidens, scil. in remedium supervenientis defectus. Inter quæ extrema unctio comparatur ad pænitentiam, sicut confirmatio ad baptismum; ita scil. quod pænitentia est majoris necessitatis, sed extrema unctio est majoris perfectionis.” But in Q. 65, Art. 1, the number seven is justified at length. The Sacraments are instituted “ad perficiendum hominem in his quæ pertinent ad cultum dei secundum religionem Christianæ vitæ et in remedium contra defectum peccati. Utroque modo convenienter ponuntur VII. sacramenta. Vita enim spiritualis conformitatem aliquam habet ad vitam corporalem.” In the bodily life of the individual there is taken into consideraton his individual weal and his weal as a social being. This is then set forth scholastically in several sub-sections, and it is then shown that in the spiritual life baptism means birth (regeneration), confirmation the augmentum (robur), the eucharist, nourishment; penance, healing of the maladies that have supervened; extreme unction, the taking away of the “reliquiæ peccatorum.” These five Sacraments relate to the individual. To man as animal sociale there relate also in spiritual things ordo and marriage. Proof: the potestas regendi multitudinem et exercendi actus publicos is necessary in the spiritual life, and marriage provides for the propagatio tam in corporali quam in spirituali vita. In the same way it is now shown that each separate Sacrament has also its meaning contra defectum peccati, and that the number seven is conveniens (e.g., ordo contra dissolutionem multitudinis and marriage in remedium contra concupiscentiam personalem et contra defectum multitudinis, qui per mortem accidit). Thomas also mentions another view, which he had found entertained by others: “fidei respondet baptismus et ordinatur c. culpam originalem, spei extrema unctio et ordinatur c. culpam venialem, caritati eucharistia et ordinatur c. pœnalitatem malitiæ, prudentiæ ordo et ordinatur c. ignorantiam, justitiæ pænitentia et ordinatur c. peccatum mortale, temperantiæ matrimonium et ordinatur c. concupiscentiam, fortitudini confirmatio et ordinatur c. infirmitatem.” We may smile at these attempts; but yet we shall not be able to deny the serviceableness of this combination of the seven Sacraments which accompany life. The inclusion particularly of orders on the one hand, and of marriage on t 563 he other, was a master-stroke of a perhaps unconscious policy. 344 Eugene IV. in Bull “Exultate deo” (Mansi XXXI., p. 1054): “(sacramentorum septem noviæ legis) quinque prima ad spiritalem uniuscujusque hominis in se ipso perfectionem, duo ultima ad totius ecclesiæ regimen multiplicationemque ordinata sunt (quite according to Thomas, see above); per baptismum enim spiritualiter renascimur, per

The technical revision of the conception of the sacrament begins with Hugo of St. Victor. He sets out from the Augustinian definition: “sign of a sacred thing” (“visible form of invisible grace”), but it appears to him unsatisfactory, because too wide. He adds to it two things: first, that the sacrament must have a natural resemblance to the sacred thing which it represents; second, that it is also the vehicle of this sacred thing, and communicates it to the receiver of the sign. Hence (de sacram, Christ. fid. I. 9, 2): “A sacrament is a corporeal or material element set forth sensibly to view, representing by resemblance, signifying by institution, and containing by consecration some invisible and spiritual grace” (sacramentum est corporale vel materiale elementum foris sensibiliter propositum ex similitudine repræsentans, ex institutione significans et ex sanctificatione continens aliquam invisibilem et spiritalem gratiam), or (Summa tract. IV. 1): “a sacrament is a visible form of invisible grace conveyed in it, i.e., which the sacrament itself conveys, for it is not only the sign of a sacred thing, but also its efficacious operation” (sacramentum est visibilis forma invisibilis gratiæ in eo collatæ, quam scil. confert ipsum sacramentum, non enim est solummodo sacræ rei signum sed etiam 205efficacia). The sacrament has, further, the similitudo from nature, the significatio from institution, the efficacia through the consecrating word of the priest, or the first from the Creator, the second from Christ,345 and the third from the dispenser (!). This German “Mystic” was therefore the first to give fixed form to the mischievous definition which so sadly externalised the sacrament and eliminated the word. The Augustinian distinction between the sacrament and the saving benefit in the sacrament (res sacramenti or res cujus sacramentum est) Hugo retained. Hugo’s definition passed over to the Lombard, and was never again set aside in the Church. By it the Sacraments, in the stricter sense of the term, were raised above the field of the “sacramentalia”: the Sacraments are not merely signs; they are vehicles and “causes” of sanctification. The Lombard defines thus (Sent. IV., Dist. 1 B): “That is properly called a sacrament which is a sign of the grace of God, and a form of invisible grace in such a way that it bears the image thereof, and exists as a cause (et causa existat). Sacraments, therefore, are instituted for the purpose, not

confirmationem augemur in gratia et roboramur in fide, renati autem et roborati nutrimur divina eucharistiæ alimonia. Quod si per peccatum ægritudinem incurrimus animæ, per pœnitentiam spiritualiter sanamur, spiritualiter etiam et corporaliter, prout animæ expedit, per extremam unctionem; per ordinem vero ecclesia gubernatur et multiplicatur spiritualiter, per matrimonium corporaliter augetur.” 345 ac9 But Hugo still refrained from tracing all Sacraments to institution by Christ.

merely of signifying, but also of sanctifying. For things that are merely instituted for the sake of signifying are only signs and not sacraments, as were the carnal sacrifices and ceremonial observances of the old law.” But, further, Sacraments are “;signa data” (signs given, not “natural” signs), in the sense, namely, that they rest on free divine institution. The Lombard differs, accordingly, from Hugo in his regarding as necessary, not a corporeal or material element, but only some kind of sign, which may therefore consist also in an act; and also in his not saying that the Sacraments contain grace, but only — with greater caution — that they effect it causally. In general, this definition of the Lombard lies at the foundation of the later definitions. But the more firmly it came to be held that the number of the Sacraments was seven, the more distinctly was the difficulty felt of applying the definition given to all the Sacraments individually. Hence it is not to be wondered at that the Nominalist theologians abstained more and 206more from giving a general definition that dealt with the essence346. Thomas begins (III., Q. 60) his statement of the doctrine of the Sacraments with the words: “After consideration of those things which relate to the mysteries of the incarnate Word, there are to be considered the Sacraments of the Church, which have efficacy from the incarnate Word Himself”347 By these terms, the unguarded definition of Hugo is set aside. He then proceeds, down to Quest. 65, to state the general doctrine of the Sacraments. Here it is worthy of note that Thomas, going still further than the Lombard, modifies the cruder conception of Hugo (“continet”). Indeed, he will not accept, without guarding clauses, the “causa existit” of the Lombard. He rejects, certainly, the opinion of Bernard and others, that God only works “adhibitis sacramentis” (with employment of sacraments). This would not lead beyond an interpretation of them as signs; but he then shows that it can be

346

Biel, Sentent. IV., Dist. 1., Q. 1, dub. 1 (see Hahn, 1.c., p. 18 f.): “Sciendum quod duplex est definitio. — Una est oratio exprimens quid rei, alia est oratio exprimens quid nominis. Primo modo nihil definitur, nisi sit res una h. e. terminus significans unam rem (that is logical Nominalism). Definitione quid nominis potest omnis terminus categorematicus definiri, quicquid significet in recto vel in obliquo. Nam pro omni nomine possunt poni plura nomina distincte significantia illa, quæ significantur per illud unum nomen tam in recto quam in obliquo. Ad propositum dicitur, quod sacramentum non potest definiri primo modo h. e., definitione quid rei quia sacramentum non res una, sed aggregatum ex pluribus . . . sed tantum definitur definitione quid nominis.” 347 More exactly, Q. 62, Art. 5: “Sacramenta novæ legis habent virtutem ex passione Christi.” Hence also the incorporatio in Christo is the effect (Q. 62, Art. 1).

said of the Sacraments that “in some way” (per aliquem modum) they “cause grace.” The “causa principalis” of grace, rather, is God, who works as the fire does by its warmth, that is, communicates in grace His own nature. The Sacraments are the “causa instrumentalis”; but this latter cause “does not act by virtue of its own form, but only through the impulse it receives from the principal agent” (non agit per virtutem suæ formæ, sed solum per motum quo movetur a principali agente). “Hence the effect does not derive its character from the instrument, but from the principal agent; as a couch does not derive its character from 207the axe, but from the design which is in the mind of the artificer (unde effectus non assimilatur instrumento sed principali agenti; sicut lectus non assimilatur securi, sed arti, quæ est in mente artificis). And in this way the Sacraments of the new law cause grace, for they are applied to men by divine appointment (ex divina ordinatione) for the purpose of causing grace in them (ad gratiam in eis causandam). . . . It is to be asserted that the causa principalis cannot properly be called the sign of an effect that may be hidden (effectus licet occulti), though the cause itself is sensible and manifest; but the causa instrumentalis, if it be manifest, can be called the sign of a hidden effect, because (eo quod) it is not only cause, but also in a certain way (quodammodo) effect, in so far as it is set in motion (movetur) by the principal agent. And according to this, the Sacraments of the new law are at the same time causes and signs, and hence it is that it is commonly said of them, that they effect what they symbolise (efficiunt quod figurant).” The “causæ et signa” is in the style of Old Catholic thought; but the opposition of a spiritual to a coarse Mysticism is quite specially apparent here. In the period that followed, the loosening of grace from sacrament, in the sense of regarding the latter as merely associated with the former, was carried still further, but not because a more spiritual view was advocated (as by Thomas), or because weight was laid on the “word,”348 but because the

348

This laying of weight on the word would, on the other hand, have necessarily led to the recognition of a closer union of sacrament and grace; for the word, as the word of forgiveness of sin, is itself the grace. The mistake therefore of Thomas and the Lombard does not lie in their uniting the Sacraments too closely with grace by calling them causæ (indeed the position, rather, of Hugo is correct — “continent gratiam”); their mistake lies in their defining grace as “participata similitudo divinæ naturæ”; for to describe a grace so conceived of as the content or the effect of the Sacraments amounts to 564 changing the Sacrament into a magical means. We can understand the relative title which the Nominalists had as over against this, to regard the grace so conceived of as merely accompanying the Sacrament; but by this again the certainty and comforting power of God’s offer of grace were imperilled.

conception of God, which indeed exercised its influence even upon Thomas, only in another way, allowed only of a conjunction by virtue of divine arbitrariness.349 Bonaventura already had denied, both that the Sacraments contain grace substantially (substantialiter), and 208that they effect it causally (causaliter); God has not bound His grace to the Sacraments, but has appointed by decree (“ex decreto”) that it shall be derived “per sacramenta” from the supreme physician, Christ. In this direction Scotus went further. He defines the Sacrament350 as “a sensible sign, which efficaciously signifies, by divine appointment, the grace of God, or the gracious effect of God, and is ordained for the salvation of man the pilgrim” (signum sensibile, gratiam dei vel effectum dei gratuitum ex institutione divina efficaciter significans, ordinatum ad salutem hominis viatoris). But the ambiguous formula, which he employs elsewhere also, “significans efficaciter effectum dei gratuitum” (signifying efficaciously the gracious effect of God), really means that God’s grace works side by side with the Sacraments; for the cause of grace is exclusively the divine will, while this cause is represented by the Sacrament, in the Sacrament’s accompanying it (concomitatur). There does not lie in the Sacraments an “intrinsic supernatural virtue,”351 but (in Sentent. IV., Dist. 1, Q. 5) “the receiving of the Sacrament is an appointment binding in order to the effect which the Sacrament signifies (dispositio necessitans ad effectum signatum per sacramentum), not, indeed, through some intrinsic form, . . . but only per assistentiam dei (through the aid of God), who causes that effect, not of absolute necessity, but by a necessity that has regard to the power ordained (necessitate respiciente ad potentiam ordinatam). For God has made the appointment universal (disposuit universaliter), and has certified to the Church (but how ?)352 that on him who receives such a Sacrament, He will confer the signified effect.” The same doctrine was taught by Occam and Biel.353 But this view is directly counter to that of Thomas, who had asserted that in the Sacrament itself there is 209inwardly

349

Brevilog., p. VI., c. I. In Sentent. IV., Dist. 2, Q. 2. 351 In this there is a gratify ac8 ing protest expressed against the magical. 352 Scotus speaks even directly of a “pactum dei initum cum ecclesia,” that He will always be present at the Sacraments with His influence. 353 Yet Biel endeavours, by means of ingenious distinctions, to get beyond the idea of mere concomitance, and to conceive in such a way of the “pactum cum ecclesia” that God is thought of as in virtue of it making the Sacraments causæ secundæ of grace, just as all that happens in the world is caused by causæ secundæ, which have their efficiency from the causa prima; see Dieckhoff, Ev. Abendmahlslehre, p. 219. 350

present “a virtue for producing the sacramental effect” (virtus ad inducendum sacramentalem effectum). The Nominalist thesis wanted inward stability; for it is quite formalistic, and leaves the concrete nature of the gracious effect out of account. This point being reached, a threefold development was possible; either that there should be a turning back to the Old Catholic realism of Thomas (Biel already entered upon this course, and later Catholicism followed him), or that the Sacraments should be conceived of strictly as signs (thus many mediæval sects and Zwingli), or that the content of the gracious will of God should be defined anew, namely, as the word of the gospel, and it should be shown that this word forms also the content of the Sacrament, that the two therefore coincide. Of one thing, at any rate, there can be no doubt, viz., that the motive of the so-called “evangelical” opposition on the part of many sects and “Earlier Reformers” to the reigning view of the Sacraments, is to be sought for in logical Nominalism, that at bottom the opposition directed itself therefore against the Thom ist practice. The “word,” so far as my knowledge goes, was not seen to be the content of the Sacrament and of the divine will. Now there was still an almost countless number of questions of detail regarding the Sacraments,354 in answering which the Thomists and Scotists were, as usual, of different opinions. First of all, Thomas (following Augustine) distinguished sharply between the Sacraments of the old and new Covenants. The former only prefigured grace, the latter cause it. But already Bonaventura, and after him Scotus, were of opinion that certain Old Testament institutions (circumcision) were real Sacraments. Yet Bonaventura also made the distinction, that only the New Testament Sacraments are efficacious per se (the Old Testament 210only “per accidens,” that is, by means of the added faith!!),355 while Scotus declared

354

Hahn has distinguished the following leading points of inquiry: the conception of the Sacraments, their necessity, their serviceableness, their difference at different periods of human history, the conception of New Testament Sacraments, their parts, their institution, the administrators of the several Sacraments, the conditions under which the Sacraments come to exist, their effect (their character indelebilis, their gracious effect (a) in its nature, (b) relation of the different Sacraments in respect of their gracious effect, (c) more precise definition of the gracious effect of the Sacraments severally) origin and conditions of the sacramental efficacy. 355 Even Thomas makes this distinction in Sentent. IV., Dist. 2, Q. 1, Art. 4, and, moreover, we find here the expression “ex opere operato,” which we lo 564 ok for in vain in parallel passages of the Summa, although he has the thing it denotes (Q. 61, Art. IV., and elsewhere). In the commentary on the Lombard the words occur: “Sacramenta veteris legis non habebant aliquam efficaciam ex opere operato sed solum ex fide; non autem ita

circumcision to be a Sacrament efficacious ex opere operato (“by effect of Christ’s passion”). But at the Council of Florence Thomas’s view was approved:356 “the Sacraments of the new law differ much from the Sacraments of the old law. For the earlier did not cause grace, but only prefigured a grace to be given through the passion of Christ, while those which we have both contain grace, and convey it to those who worthily receive” (complete return to the position of Hugo and Thomas). In what follows the chief points of the Thomist doctrine are stated, since that doctrine finally became dominant: Generically (in genere) the Sacraments as a whole are necessary to salvation, but specifically (in specie) this applies, in the strictest sense, only to baptism. The other Sacraments partly come under the rule “non defectus sed contemptus damnat” (not omission but contempt condemns), and they are partly necessary only under particular circumstances (orders, marriage, extreme unction, even the Sacrament of Penance). But the perplexity 211showing itself here appears still greater when the Sacraments are considered in their effects. It is here seen, that is to say, that according to the Augustinian distinction of sacramentum and res sacramenti all would require to have a threefold effect, namely, first, a significative (sacramentum); second, a neutral (as compared with the real saving benefit of grace) or preparatory (sacramentum et res) — Augustine called this character, and compared it with the corporalis nota militiæ (corporal mark of military service); and, third, a saving effect (res sacramenti). Now, this distinction Thomas also followed. He shows that those who are set apart to the

est de sacramentis novæ legis, quæ ex opere operato gratiam conferunt.” On the expression “ex opere operato” see R.-Encyckl.2 XIII., p. 277 f. It was already used in the twelfth century (not by the Lombard), before it was applied to the Sacraments. As distinguished from the expression “ex opere operantis or operante,” it denotes that the act as such is meant, not the actor. An effect ex opere operato therefore is an effect that is produced simply by the act itself as performed, independently of all co-operation of him who performs it, or of him who derives benefit from it. Peter of Poictiers is supposed to have been the first to use the term in connection with the doctrine of the Sacraments (he adds further “ut liceat uti.”) William of Auxerre says: “Opus operans est ipsa actio (oblatio) vituli, opus operatum est ipsa caro vituli sc. ipsum oblatum, ipsa caro Christi.” Also Albertus M. on John 6, 29: “Dixerunt antiqui dicentes, quod est opus operans et opus operatum. Opus operans est, quod est in operante virtutis opus vel a virtute elicitum vel 564 quod est essentialis actus virtutis, et sine illo nihil valet virtus ad salutem. Opus autem operatum est extrinsecum factum quod apothelesma vocant sancti, sicut operatum legis est sacrificium factum vel circumcisio facta vel tale aliquid.” 356 Mansi XXXI., p. 1054.

service of God must, first of all, have a certain stamp impressed on them, as in the case of soldiers. Through this process of stamping a certain capacity is imparted, i.e., for receptio et traditio cultus dei (receiving and administering the worship of God); hence the character is the “character Christi.” This character is not implanted in the essentia (essence), but in the potentia (powers) of the soul, and as participatio sacerdotii Christi (participation in the priesthood of Christ) is engraven on the soul “indelibly,” and hence cannot be repeated. Yet all Sacraments do not impart such a character, but only those which qualify the man “ad recipiendum vel tradendum ea quæ sunt divini cultus” (for receiving and dispensing those things which pertain to divine worship), and this holds good of baptism, confirmation, and orders. The objection, that surely all Sacraments make man a “partaker of the priesthood of Christ,” and so, must impart a character, is obviated by the ingenious distinction between that formula and the other: “deputari ad agendum aliquid vel recipiendum quod pertineat ad cultum sacerdotii Christi” (deputed to do something or receive something that pertains to the worship connected with the priesthood of Christ) (baptism, orders, confirmation).357 So 212also if the serious objection is urged that “in any Sacrament of the new law there is something that is only res, and something that is only sacramentum, and something that is res and sacramentum,” and that therefore in every Sacrament a character is to be assumed, since this character is just res and sacramentum, the objection is got quit of by saying that that which is at the same time res and sacramentum does not require always to be a character.358 This whole theory was sanctioned at Florence (1. c.): “Among the Sacraments there are three which indelibly impress on the soul character, that is, a certain spiritual sign distinct from the rest (a

357

P. III., Q. 63, Art. 2-6; cf. 1: “sacramenta novæ legis ad duo ordinantur, vid, ad remedium c. peccata et ad perficiendam animam in his quæ pertinent ad cultum dei secundum ritum Christianæ vitæ. Quicumque autem ad aliquid certum deputatur, consuevit ad illud consignari, sicut milites qui adscribebantur ad militiam antiquitus solebant quibusdam characteribus corporalibus insigniri, eo quod deputabantur ad aliquid corporale.” This i ab9 s then applied to the spiritual, see Art. 2: “Sacramenta novæ legis characterem imprimunt, in quantum per ea deputantur homines ad cultum dei secundum ritum Christianæ religionis.” Also Art. 3: “Totus ritus christianæ religionis derivatur a sacerdotio Christi, et ideo manifestum est, quod character sacramentalis specialiter est character Christi, cujus sacerdotio configurantur fideles secundum sacramentales characteres, qui nihil aliud sunt quam quædam participationes sacerdotii Christi.” 358 The real, at least the original, motive here, is to save the objectivity of the sacrament in view of unbelieving reception.

cæteris); hence they are not repeated in the same person. But the remaining four do not impress character and admit of repetition.” The question, “What is a Sacrament?”359 is answered as follows: it is (1) a sign; (2) not any sign whatever of a sacred thing (quodvis rei sacræ signum), but such a sign of a sacred thing as makes man holy; (3) this “making holy” (sanctificare) is to be looked at under three aspects: “ the cause of our sanctification is the passion of Christ, the form of sanctification consists in grace and virtues, the ultimate end (finis) is life eternal.” Hence now the complete definition: “A sacrament is a sign commemorative of what went before (rememorativum ejus quod præcessit), viz., the passion of Christ, and representative (demonstrativum) of what is effected in us by the passion of Christ, viz., grace, and anticipatory, that is, predictive (prognosticum, i.e., prænuntiativum) of future glory”; (4) the sacrament must always be a “res sensibilis,” for it corresponds with the nature of man that he should attain to the knowledge of intelligible, through sensible, things; (5) these sensible signs must be “res determinate,” that is, God must have selected and appointed these things: “ in the use of Sacraments two things can be considered, viz., divine worship and the sanctification of 213man, of which the first pertains to men viewed in their relation to God (pertinet ad homines per comparationem ad deum), the second, on the other hand, pertains to God viewed in His relation to man; but it does not belong to anyone to determine what is in the power of another, but only what is in his own power”; hence “in the Sacraments of the new law, by which men are sanctified, it is necessary to use things appointed by divine institution (ex divina institutione determinatis)”; (6) it is very fitting that “words” also are used in connection with the Sacraments, because the Sacraments are thereby in a certain way conformed (quodammodo conformantur) to the incarnate Word, and can thus symbolise the sacred things more plainly;360 and, moreover (7) “verba determinata” are necessary, just as “res sensibiles determinatæ” are necessary, nay, they are necessary even in a higher degree; hence he who utters sacramental words in a corrupt form, if this is done designedly (qui corrupte profert verba sacramentalia, si hoc ex industria facit), does not show that he intends to do what the Church does, and thus the sacrament is not seen to be perfectly celebrated (non videtur perfici sacramentum); nay, even an unintentional lapsus linguæ, which destroys the sense of the words (e.g, if one says, “in nomine

359

Q. 60. So it is only for this reason that the word is necessary in connection with the Sacrament. 360

matris”) hinders the Sacrament from becoming perfect; likewise (8) every addition or subtraction annuls the Sacrament, if made with the intention of introducing another rite than that of the Church. Further, the res sensibiles are described as being the materia, the words as the forma (Aristotelian) of the Sacrament.361 To the question as to the necessity of the Sacraments,362 it is replied (1) that they are necessary on three grounds, (a) from the constitution of human nature (ex conditione humanæ naturæ; man must be led through the corporeal to the intelligible); (b) from the state of man (ex statu hominis; “medicinal remedy 214against the disease of sin”); (c) from a tendency in human action (ex studio actionis humanæ; man clings to the sensible, and it would be too hard to sever him entirely from it). To the objection, again, that the passion of Christ is surely sufficient in itself for salvation, the answer is given, that the Sacraments are not useless, “because they work in the power of Christ’s suffering, and the passion of Christ is somehow363 applied to men by the Sacraments” (quia operantur in virtute passionis Christi, et passio Christi quodammodo applicatur hominibus per sacramenta); (2) in the state of innocence man neither required the Sacraments as a remedy for sin (pro remedio peccati), nor for perfecting the soul (pro perfectione animæ); (3) in the state of sin before Christ certain Sacraments were necessary “by which man might confess his faith concerning the future advent of the Saviour” (quibus homo fidem suam protestaretur de futuro salvatoris adventu); (4) in the Christian state Sacraments are necessary, “which represent those things which took place before in Christ” (quæ significant ea quæ præcesserunt in Christo). By this change in the Sacraments the unchangeableness of God is not affected, who, like a good father in a home, “gives different precepts to His family to suit different times” (“pro temporum varietate diversa præcepta familiæ suæ proponit”). The fathers were redeemed “by faith in the Christ who was to come,” we are redeemed “by faith in the Christ who has now been born and has suffered”; what they had to do with were Sacraments “that corresponded with grace that had to be foreshadowed” (quæ fuerunt congrua gratiæ præfigurandæ), what we have to do with are “Sacraments that correspond with grace

361

Hugo and the Lombard had already described the “words” as the form. This view likewise was fixed ecclesiastically by the Bull of Eugene IV.: “Hæc omnia Sacramenta tribus perficiuntur, vid. rebus tamquam materia, verbis tamquam forma, et persona ministri conferentis sacramentum cum intentione faciendi quod facit ecclesia.” 362 Q. 61. 363 Observe this word; Thomas is a Mystic.

that has to be shown as present” (sacramenta congrua gratiæ præsentialiter demonstrandæ).364 To the question as to the effect of the Sacraments365 it is replied, 215that we must distinguish between “grace” and “character.” The latter has already been treated above; we have also learned to know the view of Thomas (p. 206) on the Sacraments as “instrumental causes” in addition to the “principal cause” (God). But Thomas has given more precise definitions as to the effect. First, it is laid down (Art. 2) that sacramental grace adds something beyond the “grace of virtues and gift eb0 s,” namely, “a certain divine help for securing the end of the Sacrament” (quoddam divinum auxilium ad consequendum sacramenti finem).366 Second, the proposition “sacramenta signant et continent (causant) gratiam” (the Sacraments signify and contain [cause] grace) is more exactly explained (Art. 3). Third, it is shown that, as there is contained in the Sacraments (Art. 4), and that, too, “in verbis et rebus” (in words and things), “a certain instrumental virtue for conveying grace (which is the effect of the Sacrament)

364

Cf. on this also Q. 62, Art. 6: “Sacramenta veteris legis non contulerunt gratiam justificantem per se ipsa, i.e., propria virtute, quia sic non fuisset necessaria passio Christi. . . . Manifestum est, quod a passione Christi, quæ est causa humanæ justificationis convenienter derivatur virtus justificativa ad sacramenta novæ legis, non autem ad sacramenta veteris legis. . . . Patet, quod sacramenta veteris legis non habebant in se aliquam virtutem qua operarentur ad conferendam gratiam justificantem, sed solum significabant fidem, per quam justificabantur.” 57c 365Q.62. 366 “Gratia virtutem et donorum sufficienter perficit essentiam et potentias animæ, quantum ad generalem ordinationem actuum animæ, sed quantum ad quosdam effectus speciales, qui requiruntur in vita Christiana, requiritur sacramentalis gratia. — Per virtutes et dona excluduntur sufficienter vitia et peccata, quantum ad præsens et futurum, in quantum scil. impeditur homo per virtutes et dona a peccando; sed quantum ad præterita peccata, quæ transeunt actu et permanent reatu, adhibetur homini remedium specialiter per sacramenta. — Ratio sacramentalis gratiæ se habet ad gratiam communiter dictam, sicut ratio speciei ad genus, unde sicut non æquivoce dicitur animal communiter dictum et pro homine sumptum, ita non æquivoce dicitur gratia communiter sumpta et gratia sacramentalis.” The Protes 564 tant polemic had to come in here and show that the gratia virtutum et donorum as gratia fidei is the only grace, and that the sacramental grace in every sense is nothing but the manifestation of the gratia virtutum et donorum, or, say, of the general and only grace. Of this latter it is said (l.c.), “gratia secundum se considerata perficit essentiam animæ in quantum participat quandam similitudinem divini ‘esse’; et sicut ab essentia animæ fluunt ejus potentiæ, ita a gratia fluunt quædam perfectiones ad potentias animæ, quæ dicuntur virtutes et dona, quibus potentiæ perficiuntur in ordine ad suos actus.” But also: “Ordinantur autem sacramenta ad quosdam speciales effectus necessarios in vita Christiana.”

that is proportioned to the instruments” (quædam instrumentalis virtus ad inducendam gratiam, quæ est sacramenti effectus, proportionata instrumento), this virtue originates “from the benediction of Christ and the application of it by the minister to sacramental use,” and is to be traced back to the “principal agent.” Fourth, the relation of sacramental grace to the passion of Christ is more precisely defined 216(Art. 5): “The principal cause of grace is God Himself, in relation to whom the humanity of Christ is, so to speak, a conjoined instrument (ad quem comparatur humanitas Christi sicut instrumentum conjunctum) (as e.g., the hand is a conjoined instrument), while the Sacrament is, as it were, a separate instrument (e.g., like a stick). And thus it is necessary that saving virtue be derived for the Sacraments from the divinity of Christ through His humanity (et ideo oportet, quod virtus salutifera a divinitate Christi per ejus humanitatem in ipsa sacramenta derivetur). But sacramental grace appears to be appointed (ordinari) for two things especially, viz., for the removal of the defects of past sins, in so far as they pass away as acts (transeunt actu) and remain as guilt (remanent reatu), and again for the perfecting of the soul in those things which pertain to the worship of God according to the religion of the Christian life. But it is manifest from what has been said above, that Christ has wrought for us, chiefly by His passion, a deliverance from our sins that is not only meritorious and sufficient but also satisfactory (quod Christus liberavit nos a peccatis nostris, præcipue per suam passionem non solum sufficienter et meritorie sed etiam satisfactorie). In like manner also He initiated by His passion the ritual (ritum) of the Christian religion, yielding Himself up as an offering and sacrifice to God (offerens se ipsum oblationem et hostiam deo), as it is declared in Ephes. V. Whence it is manifest that the Sacraments of the Church have their efficacy principally from the passion of Christ, of which the virtue is in some way united (copulatur) to us through receiving the Sacraments, a 72b0 s a sign of which (in cujus signum) there flowed from Christ as He hung upon the Cross water and blood, of which the one relates to baptism, the other to the eucharist, which are the most potent (potissima) Sacraments.”367

367

I have quoted the whole passage, because it shows more clearly than any other that the Catholic doctrine of the Sacraments is at bottom nothing but a reduplication of the redemption by Christ, or, to put it otherwise, a second structure above the first, by which the first is crushed to the ac8 ground. As grace was conceived of physically, but this physical grace could not be directly connected with the death of Christ or derived from it, it was necessary to associate with God the Redeemer, besides the instrumentum conjunctum (the God-man Jesus), still another instrumentum separatum (the Sacraments).

217

To the question as to the “causa sacramentorum” (whether per auctoritatem or per ministerium) the reply is as follows:368 (1) as the “inner effect” of the Sacraments is justification, it appears as if this effect could be produced only by God; but by way of administering (“per modum ministri”) man also (the priest) can be the “ instrumental cause “ of the effect. Whether he is more or less good does not come into account here; the effect of the Sacrament remains always the same, nay, even as regards the “annexa,” the priest’s prayers, it makes no difference what the character of the priest is; for they are offered “ex parte ecclesiæ” (on the part of the Church), not on the part of an individual person. (2) God alone is the “institutor sacramentorum,” from whom alone also their “virtus” proceeds. Hence it follows: “those things which are done in the Sacraments by appointment of men (per homines instituta) are not necessary to the sacrament (de necessitate sac.), but have to do with a certain solemn observance of it (pertinent ad quandam solemnitatem) . . . but those things which are necessary to the Sacraments are instituted by Christ Himself, who is God and man. And although all things are not handed down in Scripture, yet the Church has these things from a well-known (familiari) tradition of the Apostles, as the Apostle says, 1. Cor. XI.: The rest will I set in order when I come.”369 To the objection that the Apostles acted as God’s representatives (“vicem dei”) on earth, and therefore might also be institutors of Sacraments, it is replied, that they were certainly not allowed to set up another Church, and so also “it was not lawful for them to institute other Sacraments, (for) it is by Sacraments that the Church of Christ is declared to 218be formed (fabricata).” (3) It is laid down that the authority in the Sacraments belongs to Christ as God, but that He as man “ had the power of the chief ministry or pre-eminence and works meritoriously and effectually (potestatem ministerii principalis habuit seu excellentiæ et operatur meritorie et efficienter).” (4) It is shown that Christ

If on the other hand the life and death of Christ can be so understood that these themselves are seen to be the grace and the Sacrament, the reduplication is useless. This is the evangelical Protestant point of view; at least it ought to be. Of course it is then no longer possible to conceive of grace physically; for in that case the Catholic doctrine of the Sacraments must again return, which is, how-ever, a pure invention of men, and has nothing to support it in the gospel history. This holds true notwithstanding the institution of the Supper by Jesus; for where is it found written that the consecrated elements “causant et continent gratiam ex opere operato”? 368 Q. 64. 369 If the necessaria in sacramentis are all to be traced to Christ the institutor, then the Bible is not enough; tradition must be appealed to; but where is then the limit?

could convey this “power of ministering” (not the “authority”) to other servants, viz., “by giving them such fulness of grace that their merit would operate for rendering the Sacraments effectual (operaretur ad sacramentorum effectus), that the Sacraments would be consecrated on the invocation of their names (ut ad invocationem nominorum ipsorum sanctificarentur sacramenta), and that they would themselves be able to institute Sacraments and, without the ritual of the Sacraments, be able to convey by their power alone the effect of the Sacraments (ut ipsi possent sacramenta instituere et sine ritu sacramentorum effectum sacramentorum conferre solo imperio).” But this “potestas excellentiæ” He has not conveyed to the servants, in order to avoid the “inconveniens,” that is, that there might not be many heads in the Church; “if He had nevertheless communicated it, He would Himself have been the head in the principal sense, and they only in a secondary (ipse esset caput principaliter, alii vero secundario).” (5) It is shown that the Sacraments can be validly celebrated even by bad servants, as these act only instrumentally, and “the instrument does not work by its own form or virtue, but by the virtue of him by whom it is moved (non agit secundum propriam formam aut virtutem sed secundum virtutem ejus a quo movetur); “ but of course (6) bad servants commit a mortal sin when they celebrate the Sacraments, though the sin does not extend to the receiver, “who does not communicate with the sin of the bad minister, but with the Church.” (7) The “intention” and “faith” of the minister are treated (in Art. 8 and 9). The former he must necessarily have,370 but not the latter: “as it is not required for 219the perfection of the Sacrament that the minister have love (sit in caritate), but sinners also can dispense Sacraments, so his faith is not required for the perfection of the Sacrament, but an unbeliever can dispense the true Sacrament, provided other things

370

More precisely: “Quando aliquid se habet ad multa, oportet quod per aliquid determinetur ad unum, si illud effici debeat. Ea vero quæ in sacramentis aguntur possunt diversimode agi, sicut ablutio aquæ quæ fit in baptismo potest ordinari ad munditiam corporalem et ad ludum et ad multa alia hujusmodi. Et idea oportet ut determinetur ad unum, i.e., ad sacramentalem effectum per intentionem abluentis. Et hæc intentio exprimitur per verba quæ in sacramentis dicuntur 54d , puta cum dicit: Ego te baptizo in nomine,” etc. An instrumentum inanimatum receives “loco intentionis motum a quo movetur,” but an instrumentum animatum must have the intentio, scil. “faciendi quod facit Christus et ecclesia.” But Thomas now places himself more decidedly on the side of the lax, i.e., he disputes the position that a mentalis intentio is necessary. What is enough, rather, as the minister acts in loco totius ecclesiæ, is the intention of the Church as actually expressed in the sacramental words which he speaks, “nisi contrarium exterius exprimatur ex parte ministri vel recipientis sacramentum.

are present which are necessary to a Sacrament.” Thus even heretics can dispense the Sacraments, that is, “sacramentum,” not “res sacramenti”; for the “power of administering sacraments pertains to spiritual character, which is indelible (he confers, but sins in conferring).” These doctrines of Thomas, from which a regard to faith (fides) is obviously lacking,371 and which altogether pass very rapidly over the question as to the conditions of saving reception of the Sacraments, underwent afterwards great modification from the time of Scotus onwards.372 In many points, moreover, the Thomist theses were novelties, and hence were not forthwith received. Thus Thomas was the first to assert the origination of all Sacraments by Christ. Hugo373 and the Lombard were frank enough to trace several Sacraments, not to Him, but to the Apostles, or to the preChristian Era (marriage), and were satisfied with saying that all Sacraments are now administered in the power of Christ (in potestate Christi). Only with Alexander of Hales begins a more exact investigation of the origin of the Sacraments. But till the time of Thomas we still find much uncertainty. It had been usual to fall back on the general assertion of their divine origin, or a “certain” institution by Christ was taught,374 while in the case of the different Sacraments 220very different hypotheses, attributable to embarrassment, were adopted. But there always continued to be some (on to the sixteenth century) who traced back individual Sacraments simply to apostolic institution.375 In addition to the problem as to how far the effect is bound to the Sacrament (see above), the chief questions in the period that followed were those as to the “minister sacramenti” and as to the conditions of saving reception. There was certainly agreement on the points, that there are Sacraments whose minister is not designated in the institution by Christ, and that we must distinguish between Sacraments which only a baptised Christian, a priest, or a bishop can duly celebrate; yet in making the application to each separate Sacrament, and in defining the relations of the minister and the receiver to the Sacrament, great controversies prevailed (is

371

Hence the 13th Art. of the Augustana; “Damnant illos, qui docent, quod sacramenta ex opere operato justificent, nec docent fidem requiri in usu sacramentorum, quæ credit remitti peccata.” 57b 372 Yet Scotus himself stands very near Thomas in the doctrine of the Sacraments. 373 On his want of logical thoroughness, see Hahn, p. 155. 374 See Hahn, p. 158 ff. 375 See Hahn, p. 163 f. By conveying the potestas excellentiæ to the apostles, Christ empowered them to institut 564 e Sacraments.

the priest who blesses the marriage, or are the parties to be married, the minister of the Sacrament of Marriage? In regard to the Eucharist, also, and other Sacraments, old ideas still continued to exercise their influence, and that not always in the case of declared heretics merely; further, as to confirmation there was doubt whether the exclusive power of the bishops rested on divine or on ecclesiastical appointment, while in connection with this there arose again the whole of the old dispute as to whether presbyters and bishops were originally identical, etc., etc.). The controversy as to the conditions of saving reception penetrated more deeply; for here it was necessary to show in what relation the two poles of the Romish view of Christianity were to be placed, whether the factor of merit was to have predominance over the factor of sacrament or vice-versa. The development in Nominalist theology was such that merit always asserted its superiority more decidedly, and the conditions accordingly were always more laxly conceived of, while at the same time the view taken of the depreciated effects of the Sacraments became always more magical. From this as a starting-point (namely, the conditions), which Thomas had merely touched on, the whole doctrine of the Sacraments really 221became a subject of controversy again, or received a fresh revision.376 The chief points are the following: 1. Alexander of Hales and Thomas had not indeed derived from all Sacraments a character, but they had asserted of all that they exercise an influence that is independent of the subjective condition of the receiver. But Scotus and those coming later denied this in the case of penance and extreme unction, teaching that these Sacraments remain without any effect if they are received without the requisite disposition. 2. In the earlier period it was held that for the unworthy recipient the virtue of the Sacraments becomes deleterious in its effect. This the Nominalists denied. In the worthy disposition and in the character, they saw on the contrary, as already existing, a positive dispositio ad gratiam, and declared accordingly that in the case of the unworthy the saving effect ex opere operato is not realised,377 while the “wrath-effect” is not produced by the

376

See Hahn, p. 392 ff. What takes place, therefore, is only that the Sacrament is observed as an external adorning of the soul (the unbeliever receives a character, enjoys the body of the Lord, stands in an indissoluble marriage bond, etc.), while the gracious eject is not wrought. But this last at once follows subsequently, if the “ indisposition” gives way. 377

Sacrament, but arises from the sin of the receiver, and hence is not ex opere operato, but ex opere operante. That a “disposition” belongs to the saving reception was therefore the general opinion; but as to why it was necessary there was difference of view. Some saw in the disposition, not the positive condition of sacramental grace, but only the conditio sine qua non, i.e., the disposition is not considered as worthiness; the Sacraments, rather, of the new covenant, as distinguished from those of the old, in which the fides was requisite (hence opus operans), work ex opere operato.378 This 222implied the exclusion, not of the necessity of the dispositio, but certainly of its causal significance. In entire contrast with this view stands the other, which, however, was represented only by a few, that the Sacraments can only mediate grace when inner contrition and faith are present, so that all saving grace is solely the result of penitent disposition and of faith; but these as inner motives (interiores motus) are wrought by God, so that on that ground we must not assume a justification ex opere operante; the Sacraments now declare this inner act of God, make man sure as to the reception of grace, and strengthen the belief that the reception transmits the effectual grace to the whole man and makes him the possessor of it. This view comes very near the evangelical one of the sixteenth century; but it differs from it in this, that the idea of grace is still always the Catholic, as participation in the divine nature, and that accordingly faith is really held as only something preliminary, that is, it is not yet seen that the “motus fiduciæ in deum” (trustful impulse God-wards) is the form and the essence of grace itself. Further, it is to be observed that this view has been expressed clearly and plainly by no Schoolman.379 223According to the third

378

In i eb0 ts application to the Sacrament the expression “ex opere operato” itself passed through a history which is too extensive to follow out here; see Schätzler, Die L. v. d. Wirks. d. Sacr. ex opere operato, 1860. The assertion is certainly false that the expression only denotes that the Sacraments are effectual on account of the work accomplished by Christ, or that Christ works in them, that is, it is an apologetic novelty of Möhler, or, say, of some theologians already in the sixteenth century. The leading thought of Scholasticism was rather this, that the Sacrament itself is the opus operatum, and starting from this point it proceeded to call the outer act opus operatum, the inner disposition opus operans. 379 Hahn (p. 401 f.) names as representatives of this view Robert Pulleyn, William of Auxerre, and John Wessel, and, as holding this view as regards at least the Sacrament of Penance, a large number of theologians, among whom the Lombard, Alexander of Hales, Bonaventura, and Henry of Ghent are mentioned, These men really taught that where there is true contritio, absolution comes directly from God, not through the Sacrament of Penance only, which in this case only declares. Karl Müller (Der Umschwung in der

view, which constantly gained more adherents, and always came to be more laxly expressed, the saving grace is a product of the Sacrament and of contrite faith, so that the Sacrament in itself merely raises the soul above the point at which it is dead and plants a seed which develops to saving effect only by the co-operation of contrition and faith. Here first the question now came to be of importance as to what the nature was of this contrition and this faith, or as to what the state of soul must be which puts the receiver into the position for letting the sacramental grace attain to its full effect. To begin with it was generally answered here, with Augustine, that the receiver must not “obicem contrariæ

Lehre von der Busse während des 12. Jahrh. in the Abhandl. f. Weizsäcker, 1892, p. 287 ff.) has shown that this view runs back to Abelard. He regards it as something new, and if applied to the common reigning practice, it would certainly have been something new. But there was no kind of change in this practice contemplated by it, and it was only a sign that theology again grappled with the question, and felt itself unable simply to justify theoretically the conception that prevailed in practice of sacrament and priest. It went back, therefore, at this point to ideas of the early Church, or to ideas that were Augustinian and more spiritual (Müller seems to me to overlook this, see further details below). Alexander of Hales (Summa IV., Q. 14, M. 2, Art. 1, § 3) writes: “Duplex est pænitentia; quædam quæ solummodo consistit in contritione, quædam quæ consistit in contritione, confessione, satisfactione; utraque est sacramentum. Sed primo modo sumpta non est sacramentum ecclesiæ, sed secundo modo. Sacramentum pænitentiæ est signum et causa et quantum ad deletionem culpæ et quantum ad deletionem pœnæ. Contritio enim est signum et causa remissionis peccati et quantum ad culpam et quantum ad pœnam” (the adding of the remission of temporal penalties for sin takes place, however, only through the priestly sacrament). With this view of repentance, as is well known, the Reformation formed a connection. That fides and sacramentum are exclusively essential to each other in the case of all Sacraments was emphasised by Robert Pulleyn and Wessel (the former, Sentent. I., octo P. V., c. 13: “quod fides facit, baptismus ostendit; fides peccata delet, baptismus deleta docet, unde sacramentum dicitur.” VI. 61: “Absolutio, quæ peracta confessione super pænitentem a sacerdote fit, sacramentum est, quoniam rei sacræ signum est. Et cujus sacræ rei est signum, nisi remissionis et absolutionis? Nimirum confitentibus a sacerdote facta a peccatis absolutio remissionem peccatorum, quam antea peperit cordis contritio, designat. A peccatis ergo presbyter solvit, non utique quod peccata dimittat, sed quod c36 dimissa sacramento pandat.” The latter, de comnuin. sanct. [edit. Groning, 1614], p. 817: “Effectus sacramentorum sunt secundum dispositionem suscipientis et secundum requisitam illi intentioni dispositionem. . . . Dispositio vero requisita huic sacramento, ut efficax fiat, est fames et sitis hujus vivifici cibi et potus. Unde quanto minus eum esurit et sitit, pro tanto minorem etiam effectum consequitur.” 818: “Semper sacramenta fidei sunt instrumenta, tanto semper efficacia, quanto est fides negotiosa”). But in view of these valuable sentences, we must remember, as has been remarked above, that to closer inspection a mysterious gratia is placed behind and above the fides, which lowers the fides to a means.

cogitationis opponere” (oppose a barrier of adverse thought.) But what is this “obex”380 or this “impedimentum”? It was replied that the receiver must not receive the Sacrament “cum fictione” (insincerely). But when is he a hypocrite? The earlier theologians required a “bonus motus interior,” that is, a really pious spirit that longs for grace, contrition, and faith, and so, since every “bonus motus” is in a certain way meritorious, 224certain merits. The “barrier” is here therefore the lack of such a positive good disposition. So it was taught by the Lombard, Alexander, Thomas,381 and a large number of theologians, and they further laid it down that, as all merit is rewarded, the reception of the Sacrament results in a twofold grace, namely (1) ex opere operato, (2) but also ex opere operante; the latter is different from the sacramental grace, but is always added to it (ex merito, on account of the disposition, and greater or less, according to the measure of the disposition). Here already, then, merit is introduced in a hazardous way. Yet the later theologians (among the earlier, Albertus) required only the absence of an undevout disposition; what is held by them as a barrier is simply the presence of a “motus contrarius malus,” i.e., contempt of the Sacrament, positive unbelief, or an unforgiven mortal sin.382 They said that the dignity of the New Testament Sacraments consists just in this, that they presuppose no positive disposition, while such disposition is to be presupposed in the case of all other grace. Hence Scotus defines: “for the first reception of grace (the non-sacramental) there is required some kind of merit (aliquis modus meritorius) de congruo; but for the second (the sacramental) nothing is required save a reception of baptism that is voluntary and without insincerity (sine fictione), i.e., with the intention of receiving what the Church confers, and without mortal sin in act or will (sine actu vel voluntate peccati mortaiis), so that in the first there is required some intrinsic work in some way accepted as meritum de congruo, in the second there is only required an external work (opus exterius), with putting away of inner hindrance (cum amotione interioris impedimenti).” One sees that here the doctrine of the

380

The Greek Scholasticism also knows of the obex. Antonius Melissa quotes in the Loci Comm. (Migne, Bd. 136, col. 823), sermo 16, the saying of a certain Theotimus: ἔοικεν ἡ ἁµαρτία παρακωλύµατι, κωλύοντι τὴν εὔνοιαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡµῖν γενέσθαι. 381 In Sentent. IV., Dist. 4, Q. 3, Art. 2: “Indispositus reputatur et qui non credi et qui indevotus accedit . . . in sacramentis præcipue fides operatur æ ideo defectus fidei specialius pertinet ad fictionem.” 382 Scotus, in Sent. IV., Dist. 1, Q. 6: “Sacramentum ex virtute operis operati confert gratiam, ita quod non requiritur ibi bonus motus interior qui mereatur gratiam, sed sufficit quod suscipiens non ponat obicem.”

Sacraments is already quite drawn into the (Pelagian) doctrine of justification, and subordinated to it, while apparently the power of the Sacrament is increased, seeing that it is to be held as effectual even where a tabula rasa exists. 225Yet with the increased power there contrasts the really small saving effect, which passes, rather, into the “acceptance of the merits of man.” Between these two views there was still a third, which certainly stands quite near the last mentioned, frequently coalesced with it, and was afterwards to become the predominant one; it is neither satisfied with the absence of the “malus motus,” nor does it require the “bonus motus,” but it demands that a “certain” sorrow shall precede the reception of the Sacrament, which does not require to spring from the highest motives, but may arise from lower, e.g., from fear of punishment or something similar. This “sorrow” is described as attritio,383 and it is said of it that, if there is earnest striving, the Sacrament can raise it to contritio. But others now went still further and taught that the Sacrament changes attritio into contritio ex opere operato. According to this extremely widely diffused view, the man can be saved who lets himself stand in dread of hell, even though otherwise all inner connection with the Christian religion is wanting to him; he must only assiduously use the Sacrament of Penance, in the opinion that it can protect him against hell. Yet even this “opinion” does not need to be a sure faith; he may only hold the effect of the Sacrament as not impossible; “attrition, when the Sacrament is added, is made sufficient by the power of the keys” (attritio superveniente sacramento virtute clavium efficitur sufficiens).384 A quite magical view of the Sacraments here competes in a pernicious way with that doctrine of “merit,” according to 226which God of His good pleasure (per acceptationem) takes as complete

383

Scotus was the first to direct his attention to this very correctly observed character of the commoner type of humanity, and began to use it in the way indicated for the doctrine of salvation; see Hahn, p. 413 f. ad6 384Or: “Attritus accedit ad confessionem, ex quo ibi fit contritus, unde fugatur fictio. Et sic non habet dubium, quia et sacramentum suscipit et effectum ejus scil. remissionem peccatorum.” Numerous passages in Hahn, l.c. From this point of view, indeed, the mere purpose to partake of the Sacrament, or the partaking per se, might come to be regarded as something initially meritorious, and this step was really already taken from the time of the Lombard, the view becoming quite widely prevalent. Nay, as if the conscience and the plain understanding reacted against the sacramental magic, the Lombard declares that the humiliatio before the sensible materials in the Sacrament establishes merit (Sentent. IV., Dist. 1 C.): “propter humiliationem quidem, ut dum homo sensibilibus rebus, quæ natura infra ipsum sunt, ex præcepto creatoris se reverendo subicit, ex hac humilitate et obedientia deo magis placeat et apud eum mereatur.”

what is only a beginning, and indeed is not even a beginning, since the motives of those “meritorious” acts may be religiously neutral. In connection with the doctrine of justification we shall return to this worst point, which dominated the whole practical and theoretical system of Catholicism at the beginning of the Reformation period.385 But certainly it is clear here already, that to hush up rather than to give comfort was the effect of a doctrine of the Sacraments having this form and issue. This doctrine was originally framed on the exalted idea of the “participatio divinæ naturæ,” and it still continues to betray its basis in the first stages of its construction. But it ends in confirming the man of common spirit in his low-type morality and feeble piety. The earnest Catholic may not apply these final conclusions to himself; he may confine himself to the original thesis, which is not forbidden to him, but for the careless, the Church has prepared a broad road and opened a wide gate. In a relative way it may work much good with this; for its system is derived from listening to life; it gives pedagogic direction on the question as to how one who is not quite thoughtless, who is not perfectly stolid, who is not entirely sunk in earthly enjoyment, can be aided, and introduced into a better society, with better modes of life. But as soon as we consider that it is the Christian religion we have to do with here, that religion of earnest spirit and comforting power, this structure of opus operatum, attritio and meritum is seen to be a mockery of all that is sacred.386

385

Apol. Confess. Aug. 13: “Hic damnamus totum populum scholasticorum doctorum, qui docent, quod sacramenta non ponenti obicem conferant gratiam ex opere operato sine bono motu utentis. Hæc simpliciter judaica opinio est sentire quod per ceremoniam justificemur, sine bono motu cordis, hoc est, sine fide. Et tamen hæc impia et perniciosa opinio magna auctoritate docetur in toto regno pontificio.” 386 On Duns Scotus’ doctrine of the Sacraments see Werner, Scotus (1881), pp. 462496; on the doctrine of Post-Scotist Scholasticism see the same author, Die Nachscotistische Scholastik (1883), p. 380 ff. As specially important characteristics of the Scotist doctrine of the Sacraments note the following: (1) the rejection of the inner necessity of the Sacraments, since God can grant the saving grace even without the employment of these outward signs (all the more firmly is the outer nec 564 essity maintained, on the ground of the positive divine appointment); (2) the rejection of an influence of a naturally necessary kind in the media of sacramental grace; (3) the strong emphasising of the Sacraments as notæ ecclesiæ; (4) the assertion that since the Fall there have been Sacraments effectual ex opere operato; (5) the rejection of the virtus supernaturalis in the Sacraments; (6) the rejection of the position, that the intellect is the vehicle of the sacramental character; (7) the assertion that only from the positive appointment of God is it to be concluded that baptism cannot be repeated; (8) the assertion, that the reatus culpæ after the act of sin is no reatio realis, i.e., that there

227

The individual Sacraments. (1) Baptism.387 This Sacrament388 is the medicine for the consequences of the Fall, and lays the basis of the new life; it has therefore a negative and a positive effect.389 The former, in which the “grace” already appears as “most perfect,390 relates to original sin. In so far as this consists in guilt, penalty, and concupiscence, baptism abolishes all these with the entire sin; i.e., the guilt (guilt of original sin and of the previously committed sinful deeds without exception)391 is 228blotted out, the penalty remitted (and that means the eternal penalty totally, the temporal penalty likewise, so far as it consists in pœnæ determinatæ; but so far as it finds expression in the penal evils of the earthly life, it remains), and the concupiscence is controlled. The last point is new, as only in Scholasticism is a clear distinction drawn between sinful and innocent concupiscence. The meaning is this, that through sin sinful concupiscence has come into existence as disorder of the lower impulses, or as dominion of these over the

remains nothing in the soul of the effect of sin, which would again be sin; for the habitus vitiosus is not sin, seeing that it remains even in the justified; hence there stands nothing that is a link between the sinful act and the obligatio ad pœnam; the latter, therefore, is only a relatio rationis of the divine intellect or will, which has its ground in the “ordering will” of God; in accordance with this the view of the Sacrament of Penance is formed. Occam emptied the Sacraments of every kind of inner and speculative import; they have simply an importance because God has so ordained them; but we do not know why. Here also the positio 55a n of things was such that as soon as the authority of the Church disappeared, there was necessarily a falling away, not only of the doctrine of the Sacraments in every sense — that was no misfortune — but also of every doctrine of grace; for no one had taken the precaution to secure that the latter should be able to exist independently of the Sacraments. 387 See the detailed exposition in Thomas, P. III., Q. 66-71. Schwane, pp. 605-622. 388 According to the general view (something similar already in Ignatius of Antioch) Christ, at His own baptism, imparted to the water consecration and power. Hence the water needs no special consecration, as the material does in the other Sacraments. 389 According to the Scholastic view, which, however, was not shared by all, an abolition of sin is in itself possible without infusion of saving grace (so Thomas). 390 Gabriel Biel (according to Hahn, p. 334): “Licet gratia baptismalis sit incipientium et ita imperfecta quantum ad habilitandum ad bonum, tamen quantum ad liberandum a malo habet vim gratiæ perfectissimæ . . . restituit perfectam innocentiam.” 391 ab5 On the other hand: “baptismus non est institutus ad delendum omnia peccata futura, sed tamen præterita et præsentia.” Hence the rule: “baptismus delet quidquid invenit.” This reluctance to relate the sin-cancelling grace of baptism to the future, had originally sprung from regard for the interests of human freedom and for the serious nature of Christian morality. But in the Scholastic period what is aimed at mainly is to protect the Church Sacrament of Penance.

higher impulses and over the province of human action, whereby a fomes peccati (slumbering fire of sin), ever continuing, and working with a certain necessity, h 1590 as developed itself. Baptism, now, has the effect of so rectifying the disorder of the passions, and moderating the “fomes peccati,” that man is now in a position for resisting, or for keeping within appointed limits, the concupiscence, which is involved in his earthly nature, and is therefore in itself innocent. This view of the natural life, which is not a religious one, will occupy us again in the next section (under C). Here it is enough to note that, in order to give expression to the absoluteness of the negative baptismal influence as an effectual one, the conception of an innocent concupiscence was admitted.392 The positive effect of baptism is summed up under the term, “sacramentum regenerationis.” But while here 229there was in general no occasion to pass beyond the old ecclesiastical conception (even the special connection of baptism with faith is still always emphasised), yet misgivings arose on two points. Is the positive grace in baptism “perfectissima,” and do the children receive this grace as perfectly as baptised adults? Although in general it was declared that baptism is the sacrament of justification, and that through it the baptised person receives the gratia operans and cooperans, provided he does not already possess it (in which case there is only an increasing), yet, from the time of Nominalism especially, baptism was in point of fact held to be only the sacrament of initiation for justification.393 Hence there was an increased willingness to assume in the case of children the

392

Lombard, Sentent. II., Dist. 32, A. B.: “Licet remaneat concupiscentia post baptismum, non tamen dominatur et regnat sicut ante, immo per gratiam baptismi mitigatur et minuitur, ut post dominari non valeat, nisi quis reddat vires hosti eundo post concupiscentias. Nec post baptismum remanet ad reatum, quia non imputatur in peccatum, sed tantum pœna peccati est, ante baptismum vero pœna est et culpa. . . . Per gratiam baptismi vitium concupiscentiæ debilitatur atque extenuatur, ita ut jam non regnet, nisi consensu reddantur ei vires, et quia reatus ipsius solvitur.” Thomas defines the fomes (after the Fall) in the 27 Q., P. III., as “rebellio inferiorum virium ad rationem,” or as “inordinata concupiscentia sensibilis appetitus”; but by grace it is weakened and loses the reatus. What was still thought of even then (see Augustine) was almost exclusively the sexual impulse and generation. Therefore there can be no thought of removing the concupiscence, and Thomas asserts: “baptismus non aufert actu infectionem, prout afficit personam, quod patet ex hoc, quod baptizatus per actum naturæ originale transmittit in prolem.” He says also, P. II., 1, Q. 74, Art. 3: “Transit peccatum originale reatu et remanet actu (this is not so strongly expressed afterwards). Sed talis corruptio fomitis non impedit, quin homo rationabili voluntate possit reprimere singulos motus inordinatos sensualitatis, si præsentiat, puta divertendo cogitationem ad alia.” 393 See note 4 on p. 227.

perfect application of baptismal grace,394 while it was held at an earlier period, that to children there is perfectly communicated only purification from original sin, the positive grace being only infused into them afterwards at successive times.395 As regards the faith of children, there was no fixed opinion; the majority seem to have held that the faith of the Church (or of the sponsors) intervenes here vicariously, and that thereby the saving effect is made possible.396 Thus baptism only lays the foundation for the process of justification, or it implants it “in habitu,” but not “in actu” (that Mary was thought of as an exception to this was a matter of course on the Catholic view; for to her nothing could 230be given by baptism which she had not already possessed before baptism).397 Baptism is absolutely necessary (baptism with blood a substitute), conveys a character, cannot be repeated, is valid when it is performed with water (materia) and with the words of institution (forma),398 and is regularly dispensed by the priest. Yet in an emergency a deacon, and even a layman, can baptise. The considerations regarding the sacramentalia which accompanied baptism do not belong to the history of dogma;399 just as little do the secondary consequences of baptism, as, e.g., spiritual affinity, etc.

578

394

As a rule, no doubt, with the addition, that the habitus ligatus est propter pueritiam, but that as truly is it perfectly imparted as the sleeping man is a living man. So already Thomas. At the Council of Vienna in 1311, the view was declared the sententia probabilior and sanctioned, that baptism is the cause in the case of parvuli, both of the remissio culpæ and of the collatio gratiæ (quoad habitum, etsi non pro illo tempore quoad usum), i.e., that it communicates the gratia informans et virtutes (Mansi XXV., p. 411). 395 Lombardus, IV., Dist. 4 H.: “de adultis, qui digne recipiunt sacramentum, non ambigitur quin gratiam operantem et cooperantern perceperint . . . de parvulis vero, qui nondum ratione utuntur, quæstio est, an in baptismo receperint gratiam qua ad majore ac8 m venientes ætatem possent velle et operari bonum? Videtur, quod non receperint, quia gratia illa caritas est et fides, quæ voluntatem præparat et adjuvat. Sed quis dixerit, eos accepisse fidem et caritatem!” 396 Following Augustine, Thomas III., Q. 68, Art. 9: the parvuli sunt in utero matris ecclesiæ and are thus nourished. 397 Here there were great controversies, which will be briefly dealt with afterwards. 398 Thomas, P. III., Q. 66, Art. 6, declares (against Hugo) that baptism in the name of Christ alone is invalid; yet the Apostles allowed themselves such baptism. 399 See Schanz, Die Wirksamkeit der Sacramentalien, Tüb., Theol. Quartalschr. 1886, Part. 4.

As the Church had to contend, especially from the thirteenth century onwards, against sects and sch 4614 ools who, on different grounds (as a rule out of opposition to the prevailing sacramental system, here and there also from opposition to the sacramental system in general), disputed the rightfulness of infant baptism, or who denied the necessity of baptism altogether, an apologetic, polemical discussion of the Sacrament of Baptism was necessary. Yet there was never nearly so much fulness of statement here as in the account given of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.400 2. Confirmation.401 This Sacrament obtained its independent existence simply through Western practice, inasmuch as only the bishop402 could administer it. Hence it naturally resulted, that it became dissociated from baptism, which, however, forms its presupposition,403 and with which it shares the quality, that it conveys a character, and therefore cannot be repeated. The 231material is the Chrisma consecrated by the bishop, the form the sacramental words: “consigno te, etc.” The effect, which, of course, as additional to that of baptism, either cannot be definitely expressed, or restricts the importance of the baptismal communication of grace, is power (robur) for growth, strength for conflict with enemies of the faith (military), the gifts of the Holy Spirit, or even — as a portion of the process of justification — the gratia gratum faciens (grace that renders well-pleasing).404 Doubts

400

See the polemic against the Catharists (Moneta), Petrobrusiani, etc. Thomas, P. III., Q. 72, Schwane, pp. 564 622-627. 402 Because only the Apostles had the power to impart the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands. 403 Not only its presupposition, “sed est majoris necessitatis,” Thomas, 1.c., Art. 12. With regard to the presupposition it is said in Art. 6: “si aliquis non baptizatus confirmaretur, nihil reciperet.” 404 “Robur,” or “potestas ad pugnam spiritalem,” is the chief conceptio ac8 n; baptism distinguishes believers from unbelievers, confirmation the newly-born from the mature. At the same time Thomas (Art. 7) sought to introduce confirmation into the process of justification, in which, certainly, he had poor enough success: “datur baptisato spiritus sanctus ad robur . . . missio seu datio spiritus s. non est nisi cum gratia gratum faciente. Unde manifestum est, quod gratia gratum faciens confertur in hoc sacramento . . . gratiæ gratum facientis primus effectus est remissio culpæ, habet tamen et alios effectus quia sufficit ad hoc quod promoveat hominem per omnes gradus usque in vitam æternam . . . et ideo gratia gratum faciens non solum datur ad remissionem culpæ, sed etiam ad augmentum et firmamentum justitiæ, et sic confertur in hoc sacramento.” But any number of Sacraments might then be forced in! See the summing up of the chief deliverances on the Sacrament by Eugene IV. (l.c., p. 1055), where it is said of the effect: “datur S. S. ad robur, ut vid. Christianus audacter Christi confiteatur nomen.” The Pope will have it, besides, that per apostolicæ sedis dispensationem even ordinary priests have celebrated 401

about this Sacrament, which, according to Thomas, 232“etiam a non jejunis dari vel accipi potest”405 (can be given or received even by those not fasting), never disappeared; Wyclif again gave emphatic expression to them; for a reliable proof from tradition could not be obtained.406 In the last resort Thomas is unable otherwise to defend the “conveniens” in the ritual than by the sentence:407 “it must be firmly held that the ordinances of the Church are directed according to the wisdom of Christ. And for this reason it ought to be certain that the ritual which the Church observes in this and in other Sacraments is fitting” (firmiter tenendum est, quod ordinationes ecclesiæ dirigantur secundum sapientiam Christi. Et propter hoc certum esse debet, ritus quod ecclesia observat in hoc et in aliis sacramentis esse convenientes). If we assume, not the dogmatic, but the practical pedagogic point of view, we cannot deny the serviceableness of this observance, especially when taken along with infant baptism, both as regards the plebs Christiana, and as regards the bishop, who in this way comes close to every member of his diocese.408

the Sacrament, yet only with oil which a bishop had consecrated. This continued afterwards to be the Catholic view, or, say, practice. This special linking of confirmation to the power of the Pope goes back to Thomas. He framed the theory, fraught with large consequences, that the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of ordination relate to the true body of Christ, the others to the mystical (the Church). Hence in the celebration of the latter five Sacraments there is to be taken into account, besides the potestas ministerii in general, the power of jurisdiction (in the case of one in a higher, in the case of another in a lower degree) belonging to the Church, that is, the Pope. In consequence of this he has the right, in the case of confirmation, to depute ordinary priests; in Sentent. IV., Dist. 7, Q. 3, A. 1: “Sciendum est, quod cum episcopatus non addat aliquid supra sacerdotium per relationem ad corpus domini verum, sed solum per relationem ad corpus mysticum, papa per hoc quod est episcoporum summus non dicitur habere plenitudinem potestatis per relationem ad corpus domini verum, sed per relationem ad corpus mysticum. Et quia gratia sacramentalis descendit in corpus mysticum a capite, ideo omnis operatio in corpus mysticum sacramentalis, per quam gratia datur, dependet ab operatione sacramentali super corpus domini verum, et ideo solus sacerdos potest absolvere in loco pænitentiali et baptizare ex officio. Et ideo dicendum, quod promovere ad illas perfectiones, quæ non respiciunt corpus domini verum, sed solum corpus mysticu 564 m, potest a papa qui habet plenitudinem pontificialis potestatis committi sacerdoti.” 405 Thomas, l.c., Art. 12. 406 A passage from Pseudo-Isidore (ep. episc. Melchiadis) played an important part, as also the Pseudo-Dionysius. 407 Thomas, 1.c. ac8 408Its institution by Christ, first asserted by Albertus, even Thomas has only “proved” by declaring that Christ instituted the Sacrament, John XVI. 7, “promittendo.”

3. The Eucharist.409 At the beginning of the thirteenth century, after the conflicts in the eleventh, and many uncertainties in the twelfth, the doctrine of transubstantiation, together with what was derived from it, or coheres with it, was substantially settled. The Lateran Council (see above, p. 53) of the year 1215 had brought the development to a conclusion, and had given to the Sacrament the highest conceivable place, as was shown by the deliverance regarding it being introduced into the Symbol.410 But the “heretical” opposition had made the deliverance necessary. This opposition never 233became silent; nay, in the circles of the Church theology itself, there were set forth in later times views of transubstantiation, that, strictly speaking, had the effect of cancelling it. Here, also, it was Thomas whose view of the Sacrament became classic in Catholicism. The modifications which Nominalism allowed itself to adopt disappeared; the doctrine of Thomas remained. Thomas put an end to the uncertainties still betrayed by the Lombard at some points,411 and he applied in perfected form to the Sacrament the dialectic mode of treatment which had once occasioned so much offence. He could dispose of the Sacrament with confidence, for he was a Realist, and Duns Scotus could do so likewise (in some respects in a still more perfect form), because he also readily adopted a realistic theory of

409

Thomas, P. III., Q. 73-83; Schwane, pp. 628-661; Article, “Transubstantiation,” by Steitz-Hauck, Real-Encyclopädie, vol. 152, pp. 803 ff., 815 ff. (a very thorough-going account). 410 Baur points out very correctly (Vorles, II., p. 475) that Thomas tries to prove that Christianity without transubstantiation is not the absolute religion. 411 Only the fact of the conversio was a certainty for the Lombard, not the modus; see Sentent. IV., Dist. 11 A.: “Si quæritur, qualis sit ista conversio, an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis, definire non sufficio; formalem tamen non esse cognosco, quia species rerum quæ ante fuerant, remanent, et sapor et pondus. Quibusdam videtur esse substantialis, dicentibus sic substantiam converti in substantiam, ut hæc essentialiter fiat illa.” Yet that is at bottom the opinion of the Lombard also, for he unequivocally teaches (Dist. 12 A.) that after the transformation the accidents are “sine subjecto.” In the doctrine of the Mass the Lombard had not yet reached the height of Realism; ideas of the ancient Church still exercised their influence on him; see Sentent. IV., Dist. 12 F.: “Quæritur, si quod gerit sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio, et si Christus quotidie immolatur vel semel tantum immolatus sit? Ad hoc breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur et consecratur a sacerdote vocari sacrificium et ob 564 lationem, quia memoria est et repræsentatio sacrificii veri et sanctæ immolationis factæ in ara crucis. Et semel Christus mortuus est in cruce, ibique immolatus est in semetipso, quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento, quia in sacramento recordatio, fit illius quod factum est semel.”

knowledge. But this confidence thereafter received a check; for it is only in a forced way, if at all, that the Nominalist mode of thought can come to terms with transubstantiation. It must either let it drop, or declare it an intensified miracle, by which two impossible things become actual. In the Sacrament of the Supper and the doctrine regarding it, the Church gave expression to everything that it highly prized — its dogma, its mystical relation to Christ, the fellowship of believers, the priest, the sacrifice, the miraculous power which God had given to His Church, the satisfaction of the sensuous 234impulse in piety, etc., only not the faith which seeks for certainty and to which certainty is given. This appears very plainly from the description of the effects of the Eucharist as a Sacrament and as a sacrifice. The Sacrament was universally reverenced as the chiefest Sacrament, the sun among the Sacraments, etc., because here res and sacramentum coincide (the matter becomes itself Christ), because the incarnation and the death on the Cross are represented as operative in it, or are repeated in it, and because it embraces the past, the present, and the future. Yet the effects, which are summed up under the term nourishment of the spiritual life of the soul, and are detailed as incorporation into Christ, incorporation into the Church, communion of the members with each other, forgiveness of venial sins, perseverance in faith, strengthening of human weakness, refreshment, foretaste and fore-celebration of the heavenly blessedness, anticipation of eternal fellowship with God, etc., do not attain to the effect of the Sacrament of Penance. Just as little is specific importance attached to the Eucharist as a sacrifice; under this term, indeed, personal merit rather is strongly asserted. In the sacrifice of the Mass one testifies his obedience to God; like every sacrifice it is a performance which can claim a reward. Thus all effects here are at the same time dependent on the receiver. These effects appear to be estimated most highly; the sacrifice of the Mass, indeed, is a constant repetition of the death on the Cross; but this constant repetition has respect only to daily sins, to penal evils and bodily need. It extends, no doubt, in its effect, beyond the earthly life — in practice, the bearing of the sacrifice of the Mass on the penalties in purgatory was almost its most important bearing — yet there are also other means, which are really not less effectual than the Masses.412

412

On the effect of the Eucharist, see Thomas, Q. 79. In the first Art. he shows that it conveys grace; in the second that it gives aid for eternal life; in the third that it does not blot out mortal sins, seeing that it is given to the spiritually alive, though under certain circumstances it removes an unconscious mortal sin; in the fourth that it blots out the peccata venalia; in the fifth that it does not cancel the penalty of sin entirely, but only

235

The materia of the Sacrament is wheaten413 bread and wine.414 The appropriateness of these, and, in particular, of this double form, is dealt with very minutely. The very ancient symbolic idea of the many grains which become one bread also reappears in the Schoolmen.415 The forma is the words of consecration, which are spoken in the name of Christ (not in the name of the minister).416 In connection therewith, Bonaventura explains the “hoc” as denoting the bread, Thomas as denoting the accidents of the bread (“hoc sub his specibus contentum,” i.e., that which is here presented is not bread, but my body). But the forma is not only an appeal to God (Bonaventura, Duns) that He will accomplish the transubstantiation, but an effectual power, as soon as the priest has the intention to work the mystery.417 But the difficult question was now this, How is the transubstantiation to be thought of?418 Here there was, first, a rejection already by the Lombard of the idea of a new-creation of the body of Christ, for Christ’s body already exists; but, second,

“secundum quantitatem devotionis sumentium”; in the sixth that it guards men against future transgressions; in the seventh that as a Sacrament it profits only the receivers, but as a sacrificium the spectators also: “In quantum in hoc sacramento repræsentatur passio Christi, qua ac8 Christus obtulit se hostiam deo, habet rationem sacrificii, in quantum vero in hoc sacramento traditur invisibilis gratia sub visibili specie, habet rationem sacramenti . . . hoc sacrificium, quod est memoriale dominicæ passionis, non habet effectum nisi in illis qui conjunguntur huic sacramento per fidem et caritatem. Unde et in Canone Missæ non oratur pro his qui sunt extra ecclesiam; illis tamen prodest plus vel minus secundum modum devotionis eorum.” So the Mass profits only those who already have fides and caritas, as securing for them an augmentum fidei, or a remission of penalty, and always according to the measure of their desert. The Eucharist is the Sacrament and sacrifice which accompanies the process of justification, so far as that process has already begun and is disturbed by no mortal sin, and which carries the process to its higher stages. 413 Controversy with the Greeks about leavened bread. 414 Mixing with water is the rule. 415 Thomas, Q. 74, Art. 1. 416 Q. 78, Art. 1. 417 Thomas, in Sentent. IV., Dist. 8, Q. 2, Art. 3: “In verbis prædictis sicut et in aliis formis sa ab8 cramentorum est aliqua virtus a deo, sed haæc virtus non est qualitas habens esse completum in natura . . . sed habet esse incompletum, sicut virtus quæ est in instrumento ex intentione principalis agentis.” 418 There was in possession no traditional doctrine whatever on this point; indeed, a proof for the fact itself of transubstantiation could not be derived from earlier times. Special appeal was made to Pseudo-Ambrosius.

the opinion was also rejected by him that Christ makes the bread and wine into His body, so that they become the Sacrament, whether by assumptio or by consubstantiality; there must be believed in rather a conversio of such a kind that the substances 236of the elements pass into the substances of the body of Christ, while the accidents remain behind without a subject.419 What happens to the substance of the elements, whether it breaks up and is destroyed, the Lombard declared that he did not know. Alexander of Hales distinctly rejects consubstantiality and destruction, and speaks of a “passing over.” But he at once adds, that after the change, the whole Christ is present, inasmuch as the human soul and the deity of Christ always are concomitantly (per concomitantiam) where His flesh is. The continuance of the accidents without a subject he pronounced a miracle.420 Bonaventura attached weight to the conversio taking place both as regards the materia and the forma of the bread (it would otherwise be imperfect); yet we must not understand by the former the materia prima (matter as the potency [potentia] of all material substances).421 With regard to the first Eucharist celebration — the treatment of which is the hardest crux of the whole theory — it was universally held, indeed, that Christ partook of Himself in eating (as an example, and with a view to the enjoyment of love, not with a view to being perfected), but while Hales thought that Christ partook then already of His glorified body, Bonaventura taught (Thomas following him) that Christ partook of His mortal body, which, however, as Eucharistic was already present “impassibiliter” (in impassible form). All of them thought of the parallels in creation and incarnation, and sought to explain the mystery from these. Thomas now submitted to a final treatment the accidents, which, as the subject is wanting to them after the conversio, are maintained in existence by God as the first cause (causa prima)422 But at the 237same time, following Bonaventura,

419

Sentent. IV., Dist. 12 A.: “Si vero quæritur de accidentibus, quæ remanent, scil. de speciebus et de sapore et pondere, in quo subjecto fundantur, potius mihi videtur fatendum existere sine subjecto, quam esse in subjecto, quia ibi non est substantia nisi corporis et sanguinis dominici, quæ non afficitur illis accidentibus. Non enim corpus Christi talem in se habet formam, sed qualis in judicio apparebit. Remanent ergo illa accidentia per se subsistentia ad mysterii ritum, ad gustus fideique suffragium, quibus corpus Christi habens formam et naturam suam tegitur.” 420 Summa IV., Q. 38, 40. 421 It is an opinion peculiar to Bonaventura, that the substance of the bread would return if the accidents were destroyed. 422 Thomas III., Q. 77. In the first Article the question is discussed: “Utrum accidentia quæ remanent, sint sine subjecto”; it is answered in the affirmative, since they cannot

he laid the foundation for an extremely complicated doctrine of the form of all matter, which was afterwards spun out by Duns and the Nominalists. As the bread, that is to say, is changed as regards the material and the form, both changes must be demonstrated in the transubstantiated result. But as the soul of Christ (form) only appears present concomitantly (per concomitantiam), the body of Christ must have a form for itself.423 Thus Thomas is led to the idea of a “form of corporeity” (forma corporeitatis), which is iden 564 tical neither with the soul nor with the outer shape, but appears as the ground of the qualities of the body. Further, in accordance with this, Thomas conceives of the conversio as a passing over in the strict sense of the term (no destruction = annihilatio of the elements).424 The miracle is identical with a miracle of creation in so far as in the case of both the two states are not united by a common subject (substance); for the continued existence of the accidents is no real bond. Duns pursued this line further, and came to the adoption of a plurality of forms in matter. He required this assumption, as he assailed St. Thomas with reflections arising from the hypothesis, that the Eucharist was conceivably celebrated during the time when Christ lay in the grave. The Thomist doctrine was not framed to meet this case, as it assumed a forma substantialis for the living body. Hence, according to Thomas, only an imperfect transubstantiation would the ac8 n have taken place — that is, a transubstantiation only into the material of the dead body. Duns himself appealed more confidently to the divine omnipotence, placed in the foreground the general possibility that God can transform everything (even the material into the spiritual, and vice versa), affirmed the existence of a matter without quality which is capable of everything, and came very close to the view, that in transubstantiation one substance 238is annihilated and another is introduced. Above all, however, his thesis, that God Himself, as if on the ground of a contract, always works the conversio, so that the words of consecration only form the occasion, influenced all the Nominalists afterwards. But by a logical process there then followed also upon this view a modification of the way of understanding transubstantiation, in the

become accidents of the body of Christ. In the second Article it is asked: “utrum quantitas dimensiva sit subjectum aliorum accidentum,” etc., etc. Here already the logical investigations into space begin. 423 Summa P. III., Q. 75, Art. 6: “Forma substantialis panis non remanet” (which is elaborately proved). Yet the breaking relates, not to the body of Christ, but to the species sacramentalis (“corpus Christi non frangitur”); see Q. 77, Art. 7. 424 Even animals, according to Thomas, enjoy the body of the Lord (Q. 80, Art. 3). Bonaventura is in favour of the opinio honestior that this does not happen.

direction of impanation and consubstantiality. For it became natural to assume, that if the divine working only accompanies the words of the priest (that is, the forma sacramenti), it only accompanies, also, the elements (the materia; a “moral” conjunction by the free will of Christ). This doctrine was first suggested as possible, and then asserted as possible. But when once the idea of the conversio was separated by a logical distinction into two acts — into annihilation, and entrance of the body of Christ into the place of the annihilated subject — the first act could also drop out. The miracle only becomes the greater when substance stands side by side with substance. At the same time the signal was now given for investigations into space in its relation to substance, investigations which, from the time of Scotus onwards, did not continue without fruit for the doctrine of space. Human thought does not advance without receiving a determining impulse from the practical sphere: from the doctrine of God there grew up the doctrines of thought and of will; from the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of the Kosmos; from the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, the doctrine of space. If the question as to the relation of the body of Christ to the elements already led to inquiries into space, still greater was the impulse in that direction as soon as the question arose as to how the eucharistic body is related to the glorified body of Christ in heaven. The thorny discussions on this subject do not belong to dogma strictly speaking. As new-creation was excluded, the question was as to the presence i ac5 n the Sacrament of the body that is already in heaven. And again, as the body as a whole appears at the same time in each of the independent particles of the consecrated bread, a space-less presence had necessarily to be taught. This Thomas began to do;425 but it was only the 239Nominalists who treated the question as virtuosi (especially Occam), though they did not come definitely to the doctrine of the ubiquity of the body of Christ. On the other hand, it was they, especially John of Paris and Occam, who anticipated the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence in the bread.426 An energetic opponent of the doctrine of

425

Q. 76, Art. 3-6. John of Paris (de modo existendi corpus Christi, etc., printed in London, 1686) declared that the interpretation of the real presence as conversio did not come within his faith, but that he was prepared to retract, if it was proved to him that the Church (the Pope) had defined it. After then rejecting the Berengarian doctrine, as not leading to communicatio idiomatum of bread and of body, he holds the following view as free from objection (p. 86): “ut substantia panis maneat sub accidentibus suis non in proprie supposito, sed tracta ad e ac8 sse et suppositum Christi, ut sic sit unum suppositum in duabus naturis.” As Münscher (p. 257) has correctly explained, the idea here is this, that 426

transubstantiation was Wyclif (but even he did not get clearly beyond impanation, and if he was incensed by the idolatry that was practised with the host, yet it was by grounds of reason [the absurdity of accidents without substance] that he was moved to opposition.)427 By him not a few (but not Huss)428 were constrained to renounce the 240monstrous doctrine, and in the fifteenth century the opposition to it is met with not infrequently.429 Yet it remained the reigning view; the hostility of declared heretics could only be in its favour.430

the bread and the body of Christ become united into one substance, in virtue of a common likeness of their qualities, similar to that which it was believed must be assumed in the conjoining of the two natures in Christ in the unity of one person. It may be said, therefore, that the orthodox Catholic view of the Supper is Monophysite; the Berengarian, Nestorian; and that of John of Paris, Chalcedonian. Even Occam declared that there is nothing in Scripture on the question that the substance of the bread does not remain (de sacram. alt. 5), and with regard to the view of the real presence, according to which “corpus Christi in eodem loco cum substantia panis et vini manet,” he says that it is “multum rationalis, nisi esset determinatio ecclesiæ in contrarium, quia salvat et vitat omnes difficultates quæ sequuntur ex separatione accidentium a subjecto” (for this contradicts the Nominalist theory of knowledge). But he falls back ultimately on the wish that the doctrine of the conversio may he revealed to the Church. 427 Trial. IV. 2: “Inter omnes hæreses, quæ unquam in ecclesia pullularunt, nunquam considero aliquam plus callide per hypocritas introductam et multiplicius populum defraudantem, nam spoliat populum, facit ipsum committere idololatriam, negat fidem scripturæ et per consequens ex infidelitate multipliciter ad iracundiam provocat veritatem.” In c. 4 he then works out the view that panis and body of Christ are at the same time present. Yet he scouts the idea that any kind of priest — even a sinful one therefore — can produce Christ. The doctrine of impanation receives from him a spiritual turn, though this has not the effect of entirely cancelling it. Against the coarse form of this doctrine he waged war, and came close to Berengar. 428 In his treatise de corpore Christi, written during imprisonment, Huss assents to transubstantiation. But from his other writings we must 564 assume that he was not of the opinion that a sinful priest can effect it (see above his conception of the Church, p. 143). 429 Wesel was an adherent of the impanation doctrine. 430 The decree as to the Lord’s Supper in the Bull of Eugene IV. “Exultate deo” runs: “Tertium est eucharistiæ sacramentum, cujus materia est panis triticeus et vinum de vite, cui ante consecrationem aqua modicissima admisceri debet (there follows an elaborate justification of this mixing in opposition to the Armenian practice). Forma hujus sacramenti sunt verba salvatoris, quibus hoc conficit sacramentum. Nam ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi et substantia vini in sanguinem convertuntur, ita tamen ac5 , quod totus Christus continetur sub specie panis et totus sub specie vini. Sub qualibet quoque parte hostiæ consecratæ et vini consecrati, separatione facta, totus est Christus. Hujus sacramenti effectus, quem in anima operatur digne sumentis, est adunatio hominis ad Christum. Et quia per gratiam homo Christo

567 The consequences of the transubstantiation doctrine were manifold, and of radical importance; the following may be mentioned: (1) The discontinuance of child communion.431 (2) The augmentation of the dignity of the priests, by whom daily Christ was magically produced and offered up. (3) The withholding of the cup. From the time of the Lombard it was a settled belief that the whole Christ is contained in each species, and that meant, too (according to the doctrine developed especially by Thomas),432 Christ concomitantly (per concomitantiam) in His body and soul as well as in His divinity. But that being so, it was permissible, safer indeed (that the wine might 564 not be spilt, and the Sacrament thereby profaned), and, with a view to increasing the dignity of the priest, “conveniens,” that the layman should receive only in the form 241of the bread (sub specie panis), while the priest drank the cup in the name of all.433 At Constance this became fixed. (4) The adoration of the elevated host (elevation is represented as having been already adopted in opposition to Berengar), the procession of the host, and the feast of Corpus Christi (1264. 1311): for the body of Christ is, of course, not present merely at the moment of enjoyment, but, when once produced by consecration, remains until the accidents are dissolved.434 Against this idolatry there arose in the fourteenth an 542 d fifteenth

incorporatur et membris ejus unitur, consequens est, quod per hoc sacramentum in sumentibus digne gratia augeatur, omnemque effectum, quem materialis cibus et potus quoad vitam agunt corporalem sustentando, augendo, reparando et delectando, sacramentum hoc quoad vitam operatur spiritualem, in quo, ut inquit Urbanus Papa, gratam salvatoris nostri recensemus memoriam, a malo retrahimur, confortamur in bono et ad virtutum et gratiarum proficimus incrementum.” 431 This certainly had also other grounds; but one ground lay in the extravagant ideas of the content of the Sacrament. 432 P. III., Q. 76, Arts. 1 and 2. 433 Thomas, P. III., Q. 80, Art. 12: The priest must enjoy the sacramentum perfectum, since he celebrates it; the custom of some Churches is to be approved (Thomas still expresses himself cautiously) of withholding the cup from incautious laymen. Thereafter there was a rapid advance made in practice; the history of this process, and of the opposition to it, is not relevant here, as a dogma was not involved. 434 Q. 76, Art. 6: “Corpus Christi manet, quousque species sacramentales manent.” 567

centuries much opposition, which, however, continued to be lacking in vigour. It was already pointed out above that as regards the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the Lombard was still influenced by the old ecclesiastical motive of recordatio (remembrance). But from ecclesiastical antiquity there was certainly taken over also the idea of the repetition of the sacrificial death of Christ (Gregory I.), and on the basis of the doctrine of transubstantiation this idea now necessarily became firmly established. The Roman Canon of the Mass, which did not originally contain the idea of the bloodless repetition of the death of Christ, and still bears traces to-day of not having contained it, has in its most recent portions the new idea. At the Lateran Council in 1215 the idea is presupposed, and brief note is taken of it,435 and the Schoolmen, although they do not here give elaborated doctrines, have no other thought than that the priest offers the body of the Lord. 586 436 The Eucharist as a sacrifice, as

435

Chap. I. For the Eucharist as a repetition of the sacrificial death of Christ, there could be produced from tradition only a bad, and, to some extent, a forged proof. Thomas treats the question in Q. 83, Art. 1. According to his custom he raises at the outset three objections, and they are very telling, against the position that Christ is offered in this Sacrament. He appeals, first, to the passage in Hebrews about the being once offered; secondly, to the circumstance that in the Mass Christ is not crucified; thirdly, to the Augustinian position, that in the sacrifice of Christ “idem est sacerdos et hostia,” which does not apply in the case of the Mass. But he then explains that (1) the one sacrifice is ac8 not touched by the repetition, for in the repetition it remains always the same; (2) that the altar is repræsentativum crucis; and (3) that the priest “gerit imaginem Christi,” and hence it holds good even for the sacrifice of the mass, that “quodammodo idem est sacerdos et hostia.” The positive exposition is extremely weak, even when we adopt Thomas’s standpoint, and shows plainly that at bottom the repetition of the sacrificial death of Christ could not in any way be theoretically justified. But it stands here as it does with the doctrine of the Church. The practice justifies itself by its existence! What Thomas has submitted is as follows: — “Duplici ratione celebratio hujus sacramenti dicitur immolatio Christi. Primo quidem quia, sicut dicit Augustinus ad Simplic. solent imagines earum rerum nominibus appellari, quarum imagines sunt . . . celebratio autem hujus sacramenti, sicut supra dictum est (Q. 79, Art. 1. 3), imago quædam est representativa passionis Christi quæ est vera ejus immolatio. Et ideo celebratio hujus sacramenti dicitur Christi immolatio (here, therefore, there is an expression only of symbol and remembrance). Alio modo quantum ad effectum passionis Christi, quia scil. per hoc sacramentum participes efficimur fructus dominicæ passionis, unde in quadam dominicali oratione secreta dicitur: Quoties hujus hostiæ commemoratio celebratur, opus nostræ redemptionis exercetur. Quantum igitur ad primum modum poterat dici Christus immolari etiam in figuris Veteris Testamenti . . . sed quantum ad secundum modum proprium est huic sacramento, quod in ejus celebratione Christus immolatur.” One easily 436

it formed the central 242part of divine service, was for the people much more important than the Sacrament. Although, in strict theory, there were connected with it only slender results (see above), yet misdirected piety made this observance entirely its own, and saw in it its real defence in life and in death. The mischief of low masses and masses for souls was as much the consequence of violent importunity on the part of the laity for as many masses as possible, as 243of priestly self-importance; for in the Mass the priest, who is here not a minister but an originator (autor), appears in a very real sense as the mediator between God and men, and, as priest of the body of Christ (sacerdos corporis Christi), his dignity comes most distinctly to view. The Mass was assailed as unbiblical by Wyclif. On the part of others also opposition arose in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries against the low masses and masses for souls, which, however, was directed, as a 55e rule, only against the abuse (abusus). 4. Penance.437 Although in theory baptism and the Eucharist were placed together and emphasised as the two principal Sacraments, yet, as a fact, the two chief closely connected Sacraments were baptism and penance (“second plank after shipwreck” [secunda tabula post naufragium] — so first Tertullian, after him many teachers). But inasmuch as baptism is only administered once, while the Sacrament of Penance is administered repeatedly, and as almost every baptised person comes to be in a

sees that there is not the smallest degree of proof given for the repetition of the sacrificial death of Christ. Even in other passages in which Thomas speaks of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, I have found nothing more than bare assertions, and sometimes an entire uncertainty as to the relation of the Eucharistic to the true sacrifice. How weak the position is, too, with regard to the effect of this sacrifice, is shown by Q. 79, Art. 5: “Sacramentum effectum sacrificii in eo qui offert habet vel in his, pro quibus offertur.” It is really instituted as a sacrament; for “non est institutum ad satisfaciendum, sed ad spiritualiter nutriendum per unionem ad Christum,” but “per concomitantiam” a certain remission of penalty also is effected. “In quantum est sacrificium, habet vim satisfactivam, sed in satisfactione magis attenditur affectus offerentis quam quantitas oblationis. Quamvis ergo hæc oblatio ex sui quantitate sufficiat ad satisfaciendum pro omni pœna, tamen sit satisfactoria il 564 lis, pro quibus offertur vel etiam offerentibus, secundum quantitatem suæ devotionis et non pro tota pœna.” It must by no means be regarded as an accident that Thomas has not repeated the audacious propositions of Hugo and Albertus (the Father first offered the Son for us, we then offer Him for the Father). Thomas has only allowed the term vera immolatio to stand, because he held that the “Church” taught it. In the Bull of Eugene IV., moreover (see above), there is no mention of a repetition. 437 Thomas, Summa, P. III. Q. 84-90, Suppl. Q. 1-28. Schwane, p. 661, ff. Steitz das römische Busssacrament, 1854.

position for requiring this latter Sacrament, for which no other can be substituted, this Sacrament became practically the most important means of grace. Now, as the Church had completely saturated this Sacrament with its hierarchical spirit, and at the same time attached to it its enfeebled doctrines of sin, grace, and merit, the most important means of grace thus became subordinated to the meaner ecclesiastical tendencies. 562 438 The hierarchical practice, which the laity themselves demanded as a security for grace, preceded the theory by many centuries. In respect of theory there was a special shyness on this point, and an adhering to the evangelical line of thought, that the genuine contrition of the Christian is in itself “sacramental” (see above).439 In spite of the attempts 244of Hugo to define the Sacrament of Penance in a stricter ecclesiastical sense (the priest effects forgiveness; but Hugo still demands, on the other side, the perfect contritio),440 the Lombard as the disciple of Abelard, and Master

438

Herrmann remarks correctly (Ztschr. f. Theol. u. Kirche 1 vol., p. 30): “In the Romish inst ac8 itution of penance the question is not about the way in which the Christian attains to renewal of mind, but about providing security for the Christian as he is. 439 Karl Müller, in the dissertation referred to above (p. 222), sees in this rather something new. Certainly this thought was for a long time not expressed, because there was entirely wanting a “theologian of penance”; but neither had the prevailing sacramental priestly practice any normal theologian. In my opinion it was a novelty in theology, when Hugo of St. Victor (see Müller, p. 218 f.) declared that man can only be freed from the sentence of eternal damnation by priestly absolution, that this absolution is perfectly real, and that “sententiam Petri non præcedit, sed subsequitur sententia cœli.” In opposition to this, Abelard, and all those who, following in his steps (see Müller, p. 308 ff.), emphasised the contritio, and regarded God as the judex, the priest as the declarator, appear to me to have reproduced an old ecclesiastical thought, which is parallel to the Augustinian “Crede et manducasti,” and coincides with the very early idea that sins against God are only forgiven by God. That — as the practice of penance, as regards the satisfactions, had become quite different from what it was in the ancient Church — the distinctions of Abelard and his disciples with respect to this were new, is certain. 440 De sacram. II. 1. 14. Moreover, Hugo certainly then makes other conditions still as regards the certainty and sovereignty of the priestly forgiveness of sin with respect to the forgiveness of God. That at bottom the Sacraments, as a whole, effect only the possibility of salvation — the cardinal thought that lies concealed under the Catholic doctrine of the Sacraments — is acknowledged by Hugo in the following very noteworthy sentence (c. 8): “Ubique magis virtus sacramentorum exprimitur, nec quod per ea quilibet participantes salvandi sint, sed quod salvari possint, significatur.” A pernicious influence on the shaping of the new theory and p 564 ractice of penance was exercised by the Pseudo-Augustinian treatise de vera et falsa pænitentia (Migne T. 40, col. 1113 sq.), which seems to have appeared in the tenth or in the beginning of the eleventh century

Roland, too,441 adhered to the old ecclesiastical theory.442 Gratian placed 245the old and new views side by side, without coming to a decision himself.443 The Lateran Council of 1215 laid here also the basis of a fixed doctrine. This doctrine appears in perfected form, not yet in Alexander of Hales, but certainly in Thomas. Thomas shows first (in Q. 84) that penance is a Sacrament. In the 1st Art. he starts the objections that there are no corporeal things (corporales res) present, that penance is not dispensed “by ministers of Christ,” but is inwardly wrought by God, and, finally, that we cannot distinguish between sacramentum, res, and res and sacramentum. But he sets aside these objections by pointing to the visible acts of the penitent and of the absolving priest, and by recognising in the former, which are completed by the latter, the materia sacramenti. In the 2nd Art. he shows that these acts are the materia proxima

(see Karl Müller, Abhandl. f. Weizsäcker, 1892, p. 292. ff.). Luther had already recognised its spuriousness before 1517. 441 It has been effectively shown by Müller, that the spiritual view of penance goes back to Abelard. He says, “the great innovation”; I would say “restoration.” 442 On this account, therefore, he is in disfavour among modern Catholic theologians. Credit is given to him, indeed, for placing together the three things, contritio (compunctio) cordis, confessio oris, satisf ac8 actio operis, but his demanding a perfect contritio (caritate perfecta), and his not regarding the priestly absolution as absolutely necessary, are held to be grave defects. As a fact, he declared the contritio, conjoined with the votum confitendi, to be sufficient; this is followed by the divine forgiveness of sins, the infusion of grace and the remission of the eternal penalty “ante oris confessionem et satisfactionem” (Sentent. IV., 17 A). Hence the consequent reckoning of the priestly absolution as a forgiveness merely declarative, or as a forgiveness merely ecclesiastical, as distinguished from the divine forgiveness, 18 E: “Ecce quam varia a doctoribus super his traduntur, et in hac tanta varietate quid tenendum sit? Hoc sane dicere ac sentire possumus, quod solus deus peccata dimittit et retinet, et tamen ecclesiæ contulit potestatem ligandi et solvendi. Sed aliter ipse solvit vel ligat, aliter ecclesia. Ipse enim per se tantum ita dimittit peccatum, quia et animam mundat ab interiori macula et a debito æternæ mortis solvit.” 18 F: “Non autem hoc sacerdotibus concessit, quibus tamen tribuit potestatem ligandi et solvendi i.e., ostendendi homines ligatos et solutos . . . Quia etsi aliquis apud deum sit solutus, non tamen in facie ecclesiæ salutus habetur nisi per judicium sacerdotis. In solvendis ergo culpis et retinendis ita operatur sarcerdos evangelicus et judicat, sicut olim legalis in illis qui contaminati erant lepra quæ peccatum significat.” In addition to the declaration of forgiveness as an ecclesiastical act (for the congregation), the binding and loosing on the part of the priests consists, according to the Lombard, simply in this, that they impose the works connected with penance, or, abate and remit them. Here, therefore, there still exists a complete understanding of the distinction between inward forgiveness and ecclesiastical reconciliation. 443 De pænit. P. II., c. 33, q. 3, dist. 1.

(proximate material), while the sins “to be detested and destroyed” (peccata detestenda et destruenda) are the materia remain (remote material). In the 3rd Art. there follows the fatal proof that the words, “I absolve thee” (ego te absolvo) are the form (forma) of the Sacrament, for “this Sacrament receives its full effect from those things which are spoken by the priest “ (hoc sacramentum per ac8 ficitur per ea quæ sunt ex parte sacerdotis); but these words of the priest are by appointment of Christ (Matt. 16). Since the Sacraments “effect what they represent” (efficiunt quod figurant), it is not enough in the sacramental absolution to say, “May God have mercy on thee” (misereatur tui deus); “yet such language is also premised in the sacramental absolution, that the effect of the Sacrament may not be hindered on the side of the penitent” (præmittitur tamen etiam in sacramentali absolutione talis oratio, ne impediatur effectus sacramenti ex parte 246pænitentis). The general rule that God alone forgives sin is not violated by the priest’s absolution, for the priests are “authorised ministers” (this is a makeshift). In Art. 4 the laying on of the hand at confession is dealt with (it is not necessary, as what is contemplated is forgiveness of sins, not the obtaining of positive grace). In Art. 5 the necessity of sacramental penance for anyone guilty of mortal sin is shown: “the salvation of the sinner — that is, that his sin be removed from him — is not possible without the Sacrament of Penance, in which there operates the virtue of Christ’s passion, through absolution of the priest together with the work of the penitent, who co-operates with grace for the destruction of sin.” To this there is further added: “When once anyone has fallen into sin (ex quo aliquis peccatum incurrit), love, faith, and mercy do not deliver the man from sin without penitence (as if they could exist at all without penitence!); for love requires that a man grieve for the offence committed against his friend, and that a man be anxious to satisfy his friend; faith also requires that he seek to be justified from his sins through the virtue of the passion of Christ, which operates in the Sacraments of the Church; rightly directed mercy (misericordia ordinata) also requires that a man find a remedy in his repenting for the misery into which his sin has plunged him (ut homo subveniat pænitendo suæ miseriæ, quam per peccatum incurrit)” (but the necessity of sacramental penance has not thus been proved). In Art. 6 it is shown that penance is “the second plank after shipwreck.” In Art. 8 it is explained that ac8 the “pænitentia” does not need to last till the end of life, but only “for a time determined by the measure of the sin” (ad determinatum tempus pro mensura peccati); yet “penitence is twofold, viz., internal and external. That is internal penitence in which one grieves over sin committed, and such penitence ought to last till the close of life. . . . That is external penitence in which one shows

external signs of grief, and verbally (verbo tenus) confesses his sins to the priest who absolves him, and makes satisfaction according to the priest’s judgment (juxta ejus arbitrium satisfacit); and such penitence does not need to continue till the end of life, but only for a time determined by the measure of the sin.” In Art. 9 it is shown 247that a penitence continuous in act (continua secundum actum) is impossible, but that a penitence continuous in habit (secundum habitum) is obligatory. In Art. 10 it is proved that sacramental penance can be repeated; love can be lost through free will; but God’s mercy seeks always to restore it. In Q. 85 there now follows a minute inquiry into penance as “virtue,” and in Q. 86 the effect of penance is dealt with “as regards the remission of mortal sins” (quoad mortalium peccatorum remissionem). Here it is explained in Art. 4 that with the forgiveness of guilt and the cancelling of eternal penalty all the “penal liability” (reatus pœnæ) is not blotted out (“potest remanere”). If sin, that is to say, is departure from God as the supreme good, and “a perverse turning to mutable good” (conversio inordinata ad commutabile bonum), then there follows from the former eternal, from the latter temporal guilt and penalty. Now, although penance takes the eternal guilt and penalty, as well as the temporal guilt, entirely away, yet the temporal penalty may remain; for “in baptism a man attains to (consequitur) a remission of his whole penal guilt (reatus totius pœnæ), but in penance he attains to the virtue of the passion of Christ according to the measure of his own acts (secundum modum propriorum actuum) (th 564 is, then, is the ultimate ground of the strange and objectionable view) which are the material of penance (qui sunt materia pænitentiæ); and so it is not always by the first act of penance, by which blame (culpa) is remitted, that liability to the whole penalty is cancelled, but by all the acts of penance when completed” (et ideo non statim per primum actum pænitentiae quo remittitur culpa, solvitur reatus totius pœnæ, sed completis omnibus pænitentiæ actibus).444 In Q. 87, in which the forgiveness of venial sins through penance is treated, it is shown that to one guilty of 248mortal sin no venial sins are forgiven, so

444

Hence, also, in the 5th Article the following exposition: “Pecca ac8 tum mortale ex parte conversionis inordinatæ ad bonum commutabile quandam dispositionem causat in anima vel etiam habitum, si actus frequenter iteretur. Sicut autem dictum est, culpa peccati mortalis remittitur, in quantum tollitur per gratiam aversio mentis a deo. Sublato autem eo, quod est ex parte aversionis, nihilominus remanere potest id quod est ex parte conversionis inordinatæ, cum hanc contingat esse sine illa (!), sicut prius dictum est; et ideo nihil prohibet, quin remissa culpa remaneant dispositiones ex præcedentibus actibus causatæ, quæ dicuntur peccati reliquiæ . . . sicut etiam remanet fomes post baptismum.”

long as the mortal sin is not blotted out (Art. 4). With Q. 90 begins the inquiry into the “parts of penance.” As all these thoughts of Thomas were no doubt already common property in his day, so they continued also to be among the Schoolmen. The nec ac8 essity of priestly absolution, hence also confession before the priest, and, still further, the idea of the effectual action of the priest in the Sacrament, were settled matters.445 The inner contrition was certainly regarded as res and sacramentum (the res sacramenti is the forgiveness of sins, the Sacrament is the external acts of the penitent and the priests, see Thomas III., Q. 84, Art. 1); but it is not enough, and just because it is not yet enough, the perverse opinion could easily creep in ex contrario, that perfect contrition is, indeed, essential to nonsacramental penitence, but that in the case of sacramental penitence the addition of the Sacrament completes the imperfect contrition. This opinion not merely crept in, it became actually dominant. But in the definition of the particular parts of penance (partes pænitentiæ) a general perversion of the worst kind made its appearance, of which the seeds, indeed, are to be found already in Thomas.446 With respect to contrition, no other thought was entertained till the thirteenth century (see above, p. 221 ff.) than that what is alone of account before God is a perfect penitent disposition, i.e., a disposition prompted by love.447 Contrition as an inner spirit and habit was magnified as an essential Christian virtue, and as “virtue” 249received elaborate treatment.448 But it was already

445

Yet there still continued certainly to be a want of logical consistency, in so far as many Schoolmen maintained that perfect contrition conjoined with the votum sacramenti is immediately followed by the forgiveness of sins — a position which even to-day is still valid in the Catholic Church. 446 How seriously even the fundamental theory was threatened (though that of Thomas continued to be held valid) is shown by the proposals of Duns Scotus and Durandus (see Schwane, p. 665) to call the sacrament not so much “penance” as “confession.” Durandus would only have confession and absolution described as material and form of the sacrament; for contrition and satisfaction are not parts of the Sacrament, but the preparation for the forgiveness of sin (Durandus, in Sent. IV., Dist. 16, Q. 1). This proposal is quite logical, but it shows very plainly how penitence had become externalised in having become a sacrament. It was inevitable that this process of externalising should continue. 447 See Stückert, Die Katholische Lehre v. d. Reue, 1896. 448 Thomas, Summa III., Suppl. Q. 1: contritio in opposition to superbia, which is initium omnis peccati. An extremely artificial and empty distinction between contritio as virtus and contritio as sacramental in Q. 5, Art. I: “Contritio potest dupliciter considerari,

pointed out by Alexander of Hales that God has made entrance into the Church eas 564 ier for man,449 and he distinguishes attritio (timor servilis [servile fear]) from contritio. This distinction Thomas adopted. He explains, however: “attrition, as is declared by all, is not a virtuous activity” (attritio, ut ab omnibus dicitur, non est actus virtutis). Yet he then defines it in the same article as “in spiritual matters a certain displeasure over sins committed, which, however, is not perfect, but is an approach to perfect contrition” (in spiritualibus quædum displicentia de peccatis commissis, sed non perfecta, [quæ est] accessus ad perfectam contritionem).450 Prior to him Bonaventura had already ac8 451 250said: “For the Sacrament of Penance it is not necessary that he who comes to it has love, or an inclination to love that is sufficient when judged by the standard of truth, provided it be sufficient when judged by the standard of probability; but this

vel in quantum est pars sacramenti vel in quantum est actus virtutis, et utroque modo est causa remissionis peccati, sed diversimode: quia in quantum est pars sacramenti primo operatur ad remissionem peccati instrumentaliter, sicut et de aliis sacramentis patet; in quantum autem est actus virtutis sic est quasi causa materialis remissionis peccati, eo quod dispositio est quasi necessitas ad justificationem, dispositio autem reducitur ad causant materialem.” To the question, why then the sacrament is necessary if the contritio is enough, Thomas replies (l.c. Art. 1): “Quamvis possit tota pœna per contritionem dimitti, tamen adhuc necessaria est confessio et satisfactio, tum quia homo non potest esse certus de sua contritione, quod fuerit ad totum tollendum sufficiens, tum etiam quia confessio et satisfactio sunt in præcepto.” 449 Summa IV., Q. 59, M. 2, A. 4: “expeditius et melius liberatur peccator per sacramentum pænitentiæ quam per pænitentiæ virtutem.” 450 P. III., Suppl. Q. 1, Art. 2. Without using the word “attritio,” he gives already the thing in P. III., Q. 85, Art. 5, where an exceedingly important statement of the stages of penance is given, which clearly shows the divergence of the Catholic from the evangelical view: “De pænitentia loqui possumus dupliciter. Uno modo quantum ad habitum. Et sic immediate a deo infunditur sine nobis principaliter operantibus . . . alio modo possumus loqui de pænitentia quantum ad actus 536 quibus deo operanti in pænitentia cooperamur. Quorum actuum primum principium est dei operatio convertentis cor, secundus actus est motus fidei, tertius est motus timoris servilis, quo quis timore suppliciorum a peccatis retrahitur” (take also: “peccatum prius incipit homini displicere [maxime peccatori] propter supplicia, quæ respicit timor servilis, quam propter dei offensam vel peccati turpitudinem, quod pertinet ad caritatem . . . ipse etiam motus timoris procedit ex actu dei convertentis cor”). “Quartus actus est motus spei, quo quis sub spe veniæ consequendæ assumit propositum emendandi. Quintus actus est motus caritatis, quo alicui peccatum displicet secundum se ipsum et non jam propter supplicia” (that is the contritio). “Sextus est motus timoris filialis, quo propter reverentiam dei aliquis emendam deo voluntarius offert.” 451 In Sentent. IV., Dist. 17, p. 2, a. 1, q. 4.

disposition is attritio, which, by reason of superadded confession and absolution of the priest, frequently so receives form from grace (formatur per gratiam), that it becomes contritio, or that contritio follows upon it.” This thought Thomas did not adopt; he tacitly rejected it rather, and expressed himself altogether with strictness and earnestness regarding contritio and its necessity in Q. 1-5. Yet the considerations suggested by Alexander of Hales452 and Bonaventura continued to have their influence. It was especially Scotus who secured currency for the view, that attrition, in itself inadequate, is sufficient for the reception of the Sacrament of Penance, since the Sacrament itself makes the sorrow perfect by “infusion of grace.”453 On this point the decrees of Trent adopted — though, indeed, only conditionally — the side of the Scotists.454

af6 452Summa IV., Q. 60, A. 3: “Si autem pænitens præparatus quantum in se est accedat ad confessionem attritus, non contritus . . . confessio cum subjectione arbitrio sacerdotis et satisfactio pænitentiæ injunctæ a sacerdote est signum et causa deletionis culpæ et pœnæ, quia sic subjiciendo se et satisfaciendo gratiam acquirit.” 453 See Reportt IV., Dist. 14, Q. 4, schol. 2 (quoted in Schwane, p. 666): “Dico, quod bonus motus præcedens sacramentum pænitentiæ tantum est attritio et dispositio de congruo ad deletionem culpæ et infusionem gratiæ, quæ remissio culpæ et collatio gratiæ sunt in virtute sacramenti pænitentiæ et non in virtute attritionis tantum, nisi dispositive. Sed hæc attritio post collationem gratiæ, quæ confertur in susceptione sacramenti, fit contritio formata.” 454 Sess. XIV. de pænit., c. 4: “attritio peccatorum ad dei gratiam in sacramento pænitentiæ impetrandam disponit.” In recent times, following Lämmer (Vortrident. Theologie), Bratke (Luther’s 95 Thesen und ihre dogmenhistor. Voraussetzung, 1884) and Dieckhoff (Der Ablasstreit, dogmengesch. dargestellt, 1886) have very fully treated the scholastic doctrine of penance in connection with the doctrine of indulgences, after a controversy on the doctrine of indulgences had broken out, occasioned by the great work of Janssen (see Kolde, Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation u. Johann v. Staupitz, 1879, the same author in the ThLZ. 1882, No. 23, and also dissertations by Kawerau, Köstlin, Schweitzer and Janssen “An meine Kritiker”). Bratke already placed the doctrine of indulgences in a clearer light in opposition to Köstlin. But Dieckhof has especially the credit of having traced back the theory to the lax view of penance, and of having shown that here the seat of the evil must be sought for. There can be no doubt that the doctrine of attritio 564 more and more threatened to become the Church’s chief means of producing ease of mind, and that it actually became such subsequently in wide circles (especially through the influence of the Jesuit Father Confessors; but also, prior to them, through the influence of the preachers of indulgences). Opposition certainly was not wanting, and it grew stronger in many circles in the fifteenth century (AugustinianThomist reaction, see Bratke, p. S9 ff. and elsewhere); but when one reads, e.g., the discussions of John of Paltz, the senior contemporary and Augustinian brother of Luther (Kolde l.c.), one is shocked to see what a withering up of religion and of the simplest morality resulted from the “attritio” (“gallows-repentance”). The priest is here

extravagantly dignified (in the book “Cœlifodina”); for he is the most necessary person, because only very few men are really contrite; on the other hand, everyone can bring himself in the end to an imperfect contrition; and now he, the priest, through the sacrament of penance, transforms this imperfect into a perfect sorrow (“paucissimi sunt vere contriti, ergo paucissimi salvarentur sine sacerdotibus; possunt autem omnes aliquo modo fieri attriti, et tales possunt sacerdotes juvare et eorum ministerio facere contritos et per consequens possunt eos salvare”). Or — everything depen ac8 ds on an experienced priest; there is nothing lacking to anyone who finds such (“non potest esse peccator adeo desperatus, quia posset consequi indulgentias, si habuerit intelligentem et fidelem informatorem et voluerit facere, quod potest, et habeat attritionem aliqualem, quæ tunc in sacramentis sibi succurritur et imperfectum ejus tollitur, et informis attritio, i.e., caritate carens formatur per gratiam sacramentalem”); see Kolde, pp. 187, 191; Dieckhoff, p. 14; Bratke, pp. 53 ff., 111 ff., 128 ff. The last-mentioned gives abundant material, from which it appears that Paltz by no means stood alone. Everywhere the assertion is made that it is easier, under the new covenant, to attain salvation on account of the wonderful efficacy of the cross of Christ. At the same time it did not fail to be clearly seen that attritio is something else than contritio, not merely quantitatively, but also qualitatively. Gabriel Biel, who certainly thinks more earnestly about contrition than Paltz, knows very well that under some circumstances attritio springs from immoral motives, hence is by no means a pars contritionis, and is besides, as a rule, a passing mood (Bratke, p. 46 f.). Others knew that also, and nevertheless calmly built up on this attritio their theories that were to lead to heaven. Indeed some actually gave instructions for deluding God in heaven and His holy law; entrance into heaven was to be secured by merely guarding against mortal sin for one day in the year or for one hour, and showing for this space of time aliquam attritionem (see Petrus de Palude in Bratke, p. 84 ff., especially p. 87, note 1). Thus the doctrine of attritio, which dominates the whole Christian life, is really the radical source of mischief in the Catholic system of doctrine; for in it both things are at work, the magical, and therefore godless, conception of the efficacy of the Sacrament, and the idea, which is no longer Pelagian, but is pressed to the point of denial of all that is moral, of a “ merit” recognised in any kind of motus that is only a turning away from sin. In the fourth extra number of the Rom. Quartalschr. (1896), p. 122 ff., Finke has attempted to combat the exposition given here. One proposition of the first edition I have now shaped more precisely. The sentence about the “withering up of religion and the simplest morality” I could not change. I would not have written it, if it said in a general way (so Finke seems to have misunderstood me), that at the end of the fifteenth century religion and the simplest morality had become a desolate waste. That was not my thought; I only said that where attritionism reigns, as in the case of John of Paltz and others, 564 withering up is a necessary result. To deal now with the subject itself, Finke asserts (1) that an attritio which has only the timor servilis, in which the fixed purpose of thorough repentance is not present, was never held to be adequate sorrow. If the “was held” is not to have the sense of “was established as an authoritative dogma,” or if the notion “adequate sorrow” is not equivocal (attritio is of course in itself never “adequate sorrow,” but it becomes such through the sacrament), then the position is false; cf. Döllinger and Reusch, Moralstreitigkeiten (1889), I., p. 69 ff., and many other passages.

251

The theologian on confession (before the priest) is Thomas, the Lombard having previously, as Catholic scholars express it, thrown obscurity over the connection between confession and 252the Sacrament, and over the necessity of the former, an obscurity not yet 564 entirely removed even by Halesius.455 In Q. 6 253(P. III. Suppl.) Thomas has dealt at length with the necessity of

Liguori himself was an attritionist (p. 458 f.); what he requires over and above the timor servilis, does not, from the way in which he has presented it, possess much weight. Finke asserts (2): “In the practice of penance, confession, and preaching, that is, in dealing with the Christian people, it was always taught from the seventh century to the sixteenth, that contritio is requisite for confession; the conception of contritio, which an Isidore presented in the seventh century and a Rabanus in the ninth, coincides with that which we meet with in the sermons at the close of the Middle Ages.” This thesis the author seeks to prove by furnishing (we are thankful to him for i ac8 t) on pages 128-135 of his dissertation, extracts from sermons at the end of the mediæval period, which are intended to show that sorrow springing from fear was not regarded as adequate. Certainly, we reply, how often must the words have been spoken from the pulpit at that time: “contritio non potest esse sine caritate”! But how little is proved by that! We must question the preachers of indulgences, and observe the real spirit that was awakened by the confessional and by indulgences. What the Reformers relate to us in this regard, what we can ourselves discern from the decrees of Trent as to the practice disapproved by the Fathers of the Council, what breaks out again afterwards as attritionism in spite of the Tridentinum, is certainly more important than what was said in sermons and general directions as to repentance, which of course urged to the utmost endeavour. In sermons it was also said that all good works are gifts from God; but did Luther simply misunderstand the temper of his Church, when, in looking back to his works as a monk, he speaks of his “own works” with a view to sanctification, which he had wished to practise in the spirit of the Church? Besides the assertion which Finke makes without qualifications, which he has printed in italics, and which relates to a thousand years, is itself very considerably restricted when he says (p. 123): “The question is as to whether attritio was the form of sorrow in the circles of our people, and not as to the doctrinal opinions of a Duns Scotus, etc., which remained unknown to the people.” As developed doctrines of course they remained unknown to the people; but were these doctrines really without consequences in practice? And why should one make so light of the doctrines of the theologians? In view of the worthlessness of attritio as timor servilis asserted by Finke, observe what Bellarmin (de pœnit. II. c. 57) says as to its value. Perrone (de pœnit. c. 2, § 91 f.) has certainly been somewhat more cautious, inasmuch as he introduces the distinction between the timor simpliciter servilis and the worthless timor serviliter servilis. 455 As the priest, according to Halesius, could still only remit temporal penalties and could not forgive sins, even on that account the necessity of confession could not be confidently proved yet. Even Bonaventura did not trust himself to represent the order to c 564 onfess as originating in the institution and command of Christ.

confession. In Art. 1 its absolute necessity is proved from the nature of the case;456 in Art. 2 it is shown that confession is divinely enjoined (juris divini); in 3 it is pointed out that though, according to divine law, only those guilty of mortal sin are obliged to confess, yet according to positive law all Christians must confess at least once a year;457 in Art. 4 it is laid down that one may not confess sins of which he does not know hims ac8 elf to be guilty; in 5 it is declared that it is not necessary to salvation (de necessitate salutis) to confess sins at once, but that delay is not without danger, and that a regard to Church regulations (times of confession) is advisable; finally in 6 it is proved that a dispensation exempting from confession (for ever) can on no account whatever be given; even the Pope can as little be exempted from confession as he can declare that a man can be saved without baptism.458 Q. 7 treats of the “quidditas confessionis,” i.e., of its nature, as “disclosure of the latent disease in the hope of pardon” (aperitio latentis morbi spe veniæ); and also as an “ exercise of virtue” (actus virtutis)459 and as an “exercise of the virtue of penitence” (actus virtutis pænitentiæ). Q. 8 is specially important, for it develops the doctrine as to the administrator (“minister”) of confession. Here it is at once said in Art. 1: “The grace that is conferred in the Sacraments descends from the head to the members, and so he only is the minister of the Sacraments in which grace is given, who has a ministry in connection 254with the true body of Christ (qui habet ministerium super corpus Christi verum), which belongs only to the priest who is able to consecrate the Eucharist, and therefore as in the Sacrament of Penance grace is conferred, the priest only is minister of this Sacrament, and therefore to him only must be made the sacramental confession (sacramentalis confessio) which ought to be made to the minister of the Church.” But in Art. 2 it is conceded, that “in case of necessity a layman supplies the place of the priest, so that it is

456

“Sicut aliquis per hoc quod baptismum petit se ministris ecclesiæ subicit, ad quos pertinet dispensatio sacramenti, ita etiam per hoc quod confitetur peccatum suum se ministro ecclesiæ subicit, ut per sacramentum pænitentiæ ab eo dispensatum remissionem consequatur, qui congruum remedium adhibere non potest, nisi peccatum cognoscat, quod fit per confessionem peccantis. Et ideo confessio est de necessitate salutis ejus, qui in peccatum actuate mortale cecidit.” 457 The “positive” law is the decree of the Council of 1215; further, every one of course must know himself to be a sinner; still further, one must confess in order to come ac8 with greater reverence to the Eucharist; finally, in order that the shepherd may be able to superintend his flock and protect it from the wolf. 458 “Sicut non potest dispensari in jure naturali, ita nec in jure positivo divino.” 459 Art. 2: “ad virtutem pertinet, ut aliquis ore confiteatur, quod corde tenet.”

possible to make confession to him” (in necessitate etiam laicus vicem sacer 55a dotis supplet, ut ei confessio fieri possit).460 The necessity of confessing venial sins to the priest is denied (Art. 3), and this view continued to be held, as even Duns assented to it. Confession must take place before the Parochus (priest of the parish); only by authority of one of higher rank (“ex superioris privilegio”) and in case of death (“in casu mortis”) (Art. 4-6) may this be departed from. In Q. 9, on the “quality of confession,” Art. 2, which treats of the “integrity of the confession,”461 and Art. 3, which forbids confession “through another or in writing,” are specially important. ad2 1 Q. 10 deals with the effect of confession, and 11 with the reticence of the minister, which is very strongly accentuated (“God covers the sin of him who surrenders himself in penitence; hence this also should be indicated in the Sacrament of Penance (hoc oportet in sacramento pænitentiæ significari), and thus it is of the essence of the Sacrament (de necessitate sacramenti), that one conceal confession, and he sins as a violator of 255the Sacraments who reveals confession” (et tanquam violator sacramenti peccat, qui confessionem revelat). These definitions of Thomas underwent, indeed, many modifications in the Scotist School, but in substance they became permanent. Confession is made before the priest; it is followed by absolution. We have already pointed out how much time elapsed before the new ideas became currently accepted, (1) that confession must be made to the priest,463 (2) that the priest confers absolution as proceeding from himself (in the exercise of divine authority)464 and as effectual (Matth. 16, John 20). The power of

460

Yet such confession is not sacramental in the strict sense. As one must disclose to the physician the whole disease, and this is the presupposition of being healed, so is it also with confession. “Ideo de necessitate confessionis est, quod homo omnia peccata confiteatur quæ in memoria habet, quod si non faciat, non est confessio, sed confessionis simulatio.” Mortal sins that have been forgotten must be confessed in the confession that follows. A voluminous work on the history of auricular confession has been written by Lea, 2 vols. (English), Philadelphia, 1896. I have not yet been able to look into it. 462 To describe the qualities of confession the scholastic stanza was framed (see Art. ac8 4): ” Sit simplex, humilis confessio, pura, fidelis, Atque frequens, nudo, discreta, libens, verecunda, Integra, secreta, lacrimabilis, accelerata, Fortis et accusans et sit parere parata.” 463 On the exception, see above. 464 Not ex potestate auctoritatis or excellentiæ, but ministerii. 461

absolution, which is given to every priest, appears complicated because it is connected with the power of jurisdiction (in its application), which, as is well known, was graded. Here also Thomas was the first to furnish the theory; for even for Halesius and Bonaventura there are still points of uncertainty, which were due to the continued influence of the older view. In the Summa P. III., Suppl. Q. 17-24, Thomas has developed the doctrine of the power of the keys (potestas clav 564 ium), and has shown that the priest’s absolution is the “causa instrumentalis” (in a physical sense) of the forgiveness of sin. But in the Scotist School, which in general relaxed the connection between the Sacrament and the res sacramenti, only a moral communication, through absolution, of forgiveness of sin was assumed, the priest being held as moving God by means of his absolution to fulfil his “covenant.” The priests’ power of jurisdiction has also been dealt with by Thomas, and from his time it was always treated in connection with the theory of absolution, although it leads in a quite different direction, is really calculated indeed to weaken confidence in the power of every priest to absolve. It was asserted, that is to say, by the majority, though not by all, that the power of jurisdiction is also ex jure divino (by divine authority), and that the restrictions therefore on the permissible conferring of absolution were not merely ecclesiastical regulations, but had divine right. But in the Middle Ages there had by this time developed itself an immense system of special permissions, 256reservations, etc., which had their basis in arbitrary decisions of ac8 the Popes. The position, though vigorously contested, continued to be held as valid, that ecclesiastical superiors “in conveying judicial power in foro interno can by reservation make any kind of restrictions in respect of duration, place, and object.” Was it not inevitable that by such procedure, in dealing with which it was impossible for the layman to find his way, confusion and uncertainty should arise about the Sacrament?465

465

The most important propositions of Thomas regarding absolution are the following: Suppl. Q. 17, Art. 1: “In corporalibus clavis dicitur instrumentum, quo ostium aperitur, regni autem ostium nobis per peccatum clauditur et quantum ad maculam et quantum ad reatum poenæ, et ideo potestas qua tale obstaculum removetur, dicitur clavis. Hæc autem potestas est in divina trinitate per auctoritatem, et ideo dicitur a quibusdam, quod habeat clavem auctoritatis, sed in Christo homine fuit hæc potestas ad removendum prædictum obstaculum per meritum passionis quæ etiam dicitur januam aperire. Et ideo dicitur secundum quosdam habere clavem excellentiæ. Et quia ex latere Christi dormientis in cruce sacramenta fluxerunt, ex quibus ecclesia fabricatur, ideo in sacramentis ecclesiæ efficacia passionis manet, et propter hoc etiam ministris ecclesiæ, qui sunt dispensatores sacramentorum, potestas aliqua ad prædictum obstaculum removendum est collata, non

propria, sed virtute divina et passionis Christi, et hæc pot ac8 estas metaphorice clavis ecclesiæ dicitur, quæ est clavis ministerii.” Especially important is Q. 18, Art. 1: “Sacramenta continent ex sanctificatione invisibilem gratiam. Sed hujusmodi sanctificatio quandoque ad necessitatem sacramenti requiritur tam in materia quam in ministro, sicut patet in confirmatione. Quandoque autem de necessitate sacramenti non requiritur nisi sanctificatio materiæ, sicut in baptismo, quia non habet ministrum determinatum quantum ad sui necessitatem et tunc tota vis sacramentalis consistit in materia. Quandoque vero de necessitate sacramenti requiritur consecratio vel sanctificatio ministri sine aliqua sanctificatione materiæ, et tunc tota vis sacramentalis consistit in ministro, sicut est in pænitentia . . . Per pænitentiæ sacramentum nunquam datur gratia, nisi præparatio adsit vel prius fuerit. Unde virtus clavium operatur ad culpæ remissionem, vel in voto existens, vel in actu se exercens . . . sed non agit sicut principate agens, sed sicut instrumentum, non quidem pertingens ad ipsam gratiæ susceptionem causandam etiam instrumentaliter, sed disponens ad gratiam, per quam fit remissio culpæ. Unde solus deus remittit per se culpam et in virtute ejus agit . . . sacerdos ut instrumentum animatum . . . ut minister. Et sic patet, quod potestas clavium ordinatur aliquo modo ad remissionem culpæ non sicut causans, sed sicut disponens ad eam; unde si ante absolutionem aliquis non fuisset perfecte dispositus ad gratiam suscipiendam, in ipsa confessione et absolutione sacramentali gratiam consequeretur, si obicem non poneret.” In what follows it is now proved that the priestly clavis cannot possibly relate only to the remission of penalty (“ut quidam dicunt”). In Art. 2 it is then shown that “ex vi clavium non tota pœna remittitur, sed aliqiud de pœna temporali, cujus reatus post absolutionem a pœna æterna remanere potuit, nec solum de pœna quam pænitens habet in confitendo, quia sic confessio et sacramentalis absolutio non esset nisi in onus, quod non competit sacramentis novæ legis, sed etiam de illa pœna, quæ in purgatorio debetur, aliquid remittitur.” With regard to the efficacy of the absolution a distinction also of this kind was drawn: God cancels the reatus culpæ, Christ the reatus pœnæ æternæ; both are effectually wrought by the minister sacramenti in the exercise of plenary divine power, and he has at the same time the right belonging to him to give abatement in his absolving of the reatus pœnæ temporalis. In Q. 19, Art. 3, Thomas shows that the clavis ordinis is given only to the priest, while the clavis jurisdictionis — quæ non clavis cœli est, sed quædam dispositio ac8 ad eam! — may be granted also to others. In Q. 19, Art. 5, it is explained that even the bad priest retains the keys; on the other hand, it is said in Art. 6 of the heretical and schismatic priests that in them “manet clavium potestas quantum ad essentiam, sed usus impeditur ex defectu materiæ. Cum enim usus clavium in utente prælationem requirat respectu ejus in quem utitur, propria materia in quam exercetur usus clavium est homo subditus. Et quia per ordinationem ecclesiæ unus subditur alteri, ideo etiam per ecclesiæ prælatos potest subtrahi alicui ille, qui erat ei subjectus. Unde cum ecclesia hæreticos et schismaticos et alios hujusmodi privet subtrahendo subditos vel simpliciter vel quantum ad aliquid, quantum ad hoc quod privati sunt, non possunt usum clavium habere.” In Q. 20, Art. 1, it is explained that only to the Pope, as he possesses the indistincta potestas super omnes, does there fall the application of the power of the keys with respect to all, while it is said of the others that “non in quolibet uti (potestatem clavium) possunt, sed in eos tantum, qui eis in sortem venerunt, nisi in necessitatis

257

Absolution is preceded by the appointment of satisfactio, if such has not already been made. Here the priest acts as a skilled physician (medicus peritus) and impartial judge (judex aequus). The practice of satisfactions (Church-penances) is very old (see vol. v., p. 268 f., 324 ff.), the giving it a mechanical form and the over-estimation of it — by putting it alongside contritio as a part of penance — are in theory comparatively new. The idea is now this, that satisfactio, as a portion of the Sacrament of Penance, is the necessary manifestation of sorrow through works that are fitted to furnish a certain satisfaction to the injured God (and thereby become the occasion also for limiting the temporal penalties). In baptism there is forgiveness of the 258sin, along with the penalty, without any satisfaction; but God requires from the baptised person a certain satisfaction — although both before and now the merit of Christ is the decisive thing — partly because the man can render a certain satisfaction, partly because it serves to make him better, and is fitted to protect him against further sins. But this satisfaction is only of real value when it is rendered in a state of grace (caritas). Hence the man guilty of mortal sin must first be absolved, that he may then furnish the satisfaction which is required of him, and which he has promised to render prior to absolution. But there is a certain value also in works that are not performed in a state of grace (caritas); even they are not without their weight as satisfactions, and can a 550 bridge the temporal penalties of sin. The satisfying works are especially prayer, fasting, and alms; for they deliver man from his natural disposition. But the Schoolmen also justified the practice that originated in the wilder times of the Germanic Church, according to which satisfaction can, under certain circumstances, be rendered by others, because Christians

articulo.” But the priest cannot always absolve even his subditus; for aliqua peccata — if the power is not conferred upon him — fall to be dealt with by his superior (Art. 2). A priest can absolve even a bishop; for “potestas clavium, quantum est de se, se extendit ad omnes” (Art. 3). Questions 21-24 treat of excommunication, with which the power of jurisdiction has specially to do (Q. 21, Art. 4: “Even an unjust excommunication habet effectum suum; in the case of a mortal sin it must be respected; sed si quis pro falso crimine in judicio probato excommunicatus est, tunc, si humiliter sustinet, humilitatis meritum recompensat excommunicationis damnum.” Q. 22, Art. 1: “Of the priests only bishops and majores prælati can excommunicate, qui habent jurisdictionem in foro judiciali, ad quod spectat causa, quæ obligat hominem in comparatione ad alios homines”: but even those who are not priests can excommunicate [because it is not a question of gratia], if they have the jurisdictio in foro contentioso).

are united to one another as members of one body. And this leads us to the subject of indulgences.466

466

Thomas treats satisfactio in Suppl. Q. 12-15. In Q. 12, Arts. 1 and 2, satisfactio is shown to be actus virtutis et justitiæ; in Art. 3 the old definition is justified, that satisfacere is both “honorem debitum deo imp 564 endere” and “præservare culpam futuram.” In Q. 13 it is shown that man is not in a position to satisfy God quoad æqualitatem quantitatis, but certainly quoad æqualitatem proportionis (“ex hoc quod per liberum arbitrium agit, deo satisfacere potest, quia quamvis dei sit prout a deo sibi concessum, tamen libere ei traditum est, ut ejus dominos sit”); in Art. 2 there follows the proof that one can render satisfactio for another; yet the thesis has its guarding clauses (“Pœna satisfactoria est ad duo ordinata, scil. ad solutionem debiti et ad medicinam pro peccato vitando.” In the latter regard one can help another only per accidens, in so far as by good works he can procure for the other an augmentum gratiæ: “sed hoc est per modum meriti magis quam per modum satisfactionis. Sed quantum ad solutionem debiti, unus potest pro olio satisfacere, dummodo sit in caritate, ut opera ejus satisfactoria esse possint”). In Q. 14 the quality of the satisfactio is treated; here the questions as to the necessity for the man’s being in a state of caritas are discussed and answered with still greater strictness (“Quidem dixerunt” — Art. 2 — “quod postquam omnia peccata per præcedentem contritionem remissa sunt, si aliquis ante satisfactionem peractam in peccatum decidat et in peccato existens satisfaciat, satisfactio talis ei 564 valet, ita quod si in peccato illo moreretur, in inferno de illis peccatis non puniretur. Sed hoc non potest esse, quia in satisfactione oportet quod amicitia restituta etiam justitiæ æqualitas restituatur cujus contrarium amicitiam tollit. æqualitas autem in satisfactione ad deum non est secundum æquivalentiam, sed magis secundum acceptationem ipsius. Et ideo oportet, etiamsi jam offensa sit dimissa per præcedentem contritionem, quod opera satisfactoria sint deo accepta, quod dat eis caritas, et ideo sine caritate opera facta non sunt satisfactoria,” but in Art. 5 it is conceded that bona opera extra caritatem facta diminuunt pœnam inferni, i.e., as Augustine says, moderate damnation and limit the temporal penalties. Q. 15 treats of the means of satisfactio (“satisfactio sive referatur ad præteritam offensam sive ad futuram culpam per pœnalia opera fieri asseritur”). Here the following shocking justification of the three penal means of satisfaction is given (Art. 3): “satisfactio debet esse talis, per quam aliquid nobis subtrahamus ad honorem dei, nos autem non habemus nisi tria bona, scil. bona animæ, bona corporis et bona fortunæ, scil. exteriora. Ex bonis quidem fortunæ subtrahimus nobis aliquid per eleemosynam, sed ex bonis corporis per jejunium. Ex bonis autem animæ non oportet quod 564 aliquid subtrahamus nobis quantum ad essentiam vel quantum ad diminutionem ipsorum, quia per ea efficimur deo accepti, sed per hoc quod ea submittimus deo totaliter, et hoc fit per orationem. . . . Secundum quosdam duplex est oratio; quædam quæ est contemplativorum, quorum conversatio in cœlis est, et talis quia totaliter est delectabilis non est satisfactoria. Alia est, quæ pro peccatis gemitus fundit et talis habet pænam et est satisfactionis pars. Vel dicendum et melius, quod quælibet oratio habet rationem satisfactionis, quia quamvis habet suavitatem spiritus, habet tamen afflictionem carnis.” The importance in respect of theory of satisfaction as expiation of temporal penalties of sins that are not remitted does not, for the rest, come specially into view for Thomas, in

259

Indulgences. The doctrine of indulgence stands inwardly in closest relation to the doctrine of attritio; outwardly it appears as a consequence of the doctrine of satisfactio.467 Theoretically it has nothing to do with the adc reatus culpæ (moral culpability) and the reatus pœnæ æternæ (liability to eternal death); in practice there not only arose, in the Middle Ages, serious irregularities, which the Catholics (see the Council of 260Trent) admit, but these irregularities still continue, and nothing is done to check the overestimation of indulgences.468 Scholasticism found indulgences already in existence, a great increase of them having taken place especially in the period of the Crusades. It simply framed its theory according to the practice. If the doctrine of satisfaction was already an extremely arbitrary one, which, in spite of all saving clauses, necessarily endangered the importance of repentance, the doctrine of indulgence became arbitrariness intensified, and exercised an extremely ruinous

addition to the other ends which satisfactions contemplate. Indeed, it is even granted in abstracto that contritio can be so perfect that all penalty is condoned by God. Yet as a fact satisfactions were regarded almost exclusively from the point of view of expiation of the penalties of sin (and these were chiefly the future penalties of purgatory). It was here that indulgences came in, and it was here that there entered the very pardonable misunderstanding of the laity that satisfactions in themselves deliver from all penalties for sin — and it ac8 was only with this deliverance that the majority took to do. 467 For the literature see above (p. 250, note 4). Add also Schneider, Die Ablässe, 7 ed., 1881. Thomas, Suppl., Qs. 25-27. Grötz, Studien z. Gesch. d. Buss-sacraments in the Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch., Vol. 15, p. 321 ff., Vol. 16, p. 541 ff. These investigations, which start from an examination of a series of forged Bulls on indulgences, illustrate the history of the development of indulgences, give important disclosures as to the Bulls connected with the Crusades, and treat also the papal cases of reservation in the penance discipline (cf. Hausmann, Gesch. der papstl. Reservatfälle, 1868). The importance which belonged in the course of the development of indulgences to the peregrinations to the sacred places, or to Rome (imposed as penance works), comes prominently to view in these studies. 468 That even in theory there were defects in the Middle Ages is acknowledged by Catholic witnesses themselves (see Schneider, p. 10, note 2): “Certain letters of indulgence are found which speak at the same time of forgiveness of guilt and of penalty (a culpa et a pœna); but, according to the opinion of Benedict XIV., these indulgences are spurious, and must be ascribed to those collectors of alms who proclaimed indulgences and at the same time collected alms previous to the Synod of Trent.” Of course on the Catholic side an appeal is readily made to the circumstance that “peccatum” was also used for “penalty for sin,” “atonement for sin.” This meaning can really be proved; but whether it suits all cases in which indulgences and sin are brought into conjunction is more than questionable.

influence on religion and morality. The practice and theory of indulgences can, no doubt, be idealised, nay, it is possible indeed to justify, in a certain way, the idealised practice.469 Were that not possible it would be incredible that so many earnest Christians have defended indulgences. But the scholastic theology by no means idealised them. The practice of indulgences has its root in the commutations. The exchange of more arduous for easier penitential acts was called indulgence.470 The penance performances were here taken into consideration in their significance for the expiation of the temporal penalties of sin. The heaviest temporal penalties for sin were those of purgatory: for the earthly penalties for sin were, on the one hand, as experience taught, unavoidable, and on the other hand, even though one thought of year-long 261penances, they were of no weight as compared with the long and painful penalties in purgatory. It was a refined practice of the Church, which had 564 gradually developed itself, to comfort men in an easy way about hell by means of grace (Sacrament of Penance), and, on the other hand, to terrify them by means of purgatory. Was this purgatory, then, not also a hell? But how skilfully was the whole idea derived from studying the moral feelings of the homines attriti (men practising attrition)!471 They did not really believe in hell, because the gravity of sin had not been disclosed to them, and because, accordingly, they were not to be constrained to a life in God. Hence the Church shut up hell by means of the Sacrament of Penance. But that at some period in the future it would, for a long time, go very badly with them, and that one day they must expiate all their sins, — that they believed. Therefore the Church opened

469

To defend at the same time both the satisfactions and the indulgences is 564 certainly difficult. If the former are due to the glad eagerness of the heart, delivered from guilt, to exercise the love bestowed on it, the thought of the indulgence will not arise. On the other hand, if indulgences are the remission of the temporal penalties of sin, they must not be brought into relation with the idealised satisfactions. 470 Such exchanges were also necessarily introduced, because the old penitential demands were in part exorbitantly high. 471 The indulgences were most truly the refuge of the Christians of lower type, although the most pious also made use of them. It is related of Tetzel that when, in the small town of Belitz, near Berlin, no one would buy indulgences from him, he said ind ac8 ignantly, that those in the town must either be “right pious people or desperate villains.” This is told by Creusing in his “Märkische Fürstenchronik,” edited by Holtze, p. 159, the informant being the Miller of Belitz, Meister Jacob (see Heidemann, Die Reform. in der Mark Brandenburg, p. 77).

purgatory.472 That this purgatory could be made 527 less severe or briefer, these homines attriti were also very ready to believe; for they lived, all of them, in the thought that good performances simply compensate for delinquencies, and even the “gallows contrition” is not so enduring as to constrain men to practise serious repentance — even in the sense of steady self-denial and heroic action. Hence the Church discloses indulgences. In them she shows to the man of lower type her real power; for the magic of the Sacrament of Penance has certainly not yet given him complete rest. He has a remnant of the moral feeling that something must be done on his part in order that forgiveness may become credible and sure. “Faith” and “contrition” 262he neither can nor will practise, but something he will willingly do. Here the Church now intervenes, and says to him that his poor performance can be converted and transformed by the power of the Church into something so lofty that by means of it the penalties of sin in purgatory are abolished. The man wishes to know no more. What has still to happen can cause him little concern, and the Church itself says to him that if he is well provided with the Sacrament of Penance, what follows will not affect him. afe 473 Attritio,

472

After these words were long written down, I came across Rousseau’s description in his Confessions of the demonic Madame de Warens. It is here said (German edition by Denhard, I., p. 291): “. . . although she did not believe in a hell, she strangely refused to let her faith in purgatory be taken from her.” Rousseau regards it as strange, because, in spite of his change of faith, he was never able to free himself entirely from the Protestant influences of his youth. 473 The doctrine of purgatory (purgatorium) was a settled matter for the Schoolmen, and was energetically maintained against the Greeks from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century. This purgatory, which is for departed souls who are absolved but have not made satisfaction for all sins, exists, according to the Latin view, till the judgment of the world (the Greeks, so far as they recognised it at all, put it after the judgment), or for a shorter time. The souls of the righteous, who need no further purification, attain at once to the vision of God (the counter doctrine of John XXII. was rejected). More particularly, the Schoolmen taught that there are five dwelling-places of departed souls: (1) hell, to which those guilty of mortal sin at once pass; (2) the limbus infantium, i.e., of children who have died unbaptised; (3) the limbus patrum, i.e., of the Old Testament saints; (4) purgatorium; (5) heaven; see the detailed statement in Thomas, Suppl., Q. 69. That the souls of the pious have knowledge of what takes place on earth, and intercede for their earthly brethren, has been shown by the Lombard (Sent. IV., Dist. 45 G): “Cur non credamus et animas sanctorum dei faciem contemplantium in ejus veritate intelligere preces hominum, quæ et implendæ sunt vel non? . . . I 564 ntercedunt ergo pro nobis ad deum sancti, et merito, dum illorum merita suffragantur nobis, et affectu, dum vota nostra cupiunt impleri. . . . Oramus ergo, ut intercedant pro nobis, i.e., ut merita eorum suffragentur nobis, et ut ipsi velint bonum nostrum, quia eis volentibus deus volt et ita

sacramentum pænitentiæ, indulgentia, — these form the Catholic triad. What was to be done for the indulgence was the only burdensome thing here; but even this was made very easy. Thus the indulgence became a 263caricature (persiflage) of Christianity as the religion of redemption through Christ. The theory of the Schoolmen is as follows: After there had been uncertainty till far on in the thirteenth century as to whether the indulgences did not relate merely to the ecclesiastical penalties imposed by the priest, Thomas laid it down that they apply in general to the liability to temporal penalty (reatus temporalis pœnæ) (“on earth and in purgatory”). The righteousness of God demands that no sin shall remain “inordinate” (inordinata), and that man shall also perform what he can perform. He is obliged, accordingly, even as absolved, to discharge the temporal penalties of sin. But what the merit of Christ does not do of itself and directly, inasmuch as in the Sacrament it cancels only the reatus culpæ et pœnæ, it does outwith the Sacrament as merit. Christ, that is to say, has done more by His suffering than was required for redemption, and even many saints have acquired for themselves merit which God’s grace rewards. This surplus merit (thesaurus operum supererogatoriorum [treasury of supererogatory works]) must necessarily fall to the benefit of the Church as the body of Christ, since neither Christ nor the saints can derive further advantage from it. But alongside the Sacrament of Penance it cannot have another effect than to moderate, abridge, or cancel the temporal penalties of sin. It can be applied only to those who, in penitent spirit, have been absolved after making confession, and it is administered in the first instance by the Pope as the head of the Church. Yet by him a partial power of ad-ministration can be conveyed to others. The regular mode of making the application is

fiet”; similarly Thomas (Suppl., Q. 73 or 74, Art. 1). The existence of purgatory is thus established by Thomas (l.c., Q. 69, Art. 7): “Satis potest constare purgatorium esse post hanc vitam; si enim per contritionem deleta culpa non tollitur ex toto reatus pœnæ nec etiam semper venialia dimissis mortalibus tolluntur, et justitia hoc exigit, ut peccatum per pœnam debitam ordinetur, oportet quod ille, qui post contritionem de peccato et absolutionem decedit ante satisfactionem debitam post hanc vitam puniatur. Et ideo illi qui purgatorium negant, contra divinam justitiam loquuntur, et propter hoc erroneum est et a fide alienum (there follows a forged passage from Gregory of Nyssa’s Works, representing that the whole Church so teaches). Quod non potest nisi de illis, qui sunt in purgatorio, intelligi; ecclesiæ autem autoritati quicunque resistit, hæresim incurrit.” Yet opposition to this doctrine never ceased, and it became very active in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Wyclif and Wessel strenuously adopted the ac8 hostile attitude of the Mediæval sects.

by requiring for the indulgence a comparatively very small performance (“eleemosynae,” i.e., penance money.) 56b 1

474

A thesaurus meritorum which the Church administers was first adopted by Halesius (see the passages in Münscher, l.c., p. 290 ff.). The theory received a fixed construction from Albertus and Thomas. In Suppl. Q. 25, Art. 1, the latter gives the following exposition: “Ab omnibus conceditur indulgentias aliquid valere, quia impium esset dicere, quod ecclesia aliquid vane faceret. Sed quidam dicunt, quod non valent ad absolvendum a reatu pœnæ, quam quis in purgatorio secundum judicium dei meretur, sed valent ad absolvendum ab obligatione qua sacerdos obligavit pænitentem ad pœnam aliquam vel ad quam etiam obligatur ex canonum statutis. Sed hæc opinio non videtur vera. Primo quia est expresse contra privilegium Petro datum cui dictum est, ut quod in terra remitteret, in cœlo remitteretur. Unde remissio, quæ fit quantum ad forum ecclesiæ valet, valet etiam quantum ad forum del.. Et præterea ecclesia hujusmodi indulgentias faciens magis damnificaret, quam adjuvaret, quia remitteret ad graviores pœnas, scil. purgatorii, absolvendo a pænitentiis injunctis. Et ideo aliter dicendum, quod valent et quantum ad forum ecclesiæ et quantum ad judicium dei, ad remissionem pœnæ residuæ post contritionem et conffessionem et absolutionem, sive sit injuncta, sive non. Ratio autem, quare valere possiut, est unitas corporis mystici, in qua multi in operibus pænitentiæ supererogavetunt ad mensuram debitorum suorum . . . quorum meritorum tanta est copia, quod omnem pœnam debitam nunc viventibus excedunt et præcipuæ propter meritum Christi, quod etsi in sacramentis operatur, non tamen efficacia ejus in sacramentis includitur, sed sua infinitate excedit efficaciam sacramentorum. Dictum est autem supra, quod unus pro alio satisfacere potest; sancti autem, in quibus superabundantia operum sanctificationis invenitur, non determinate pro isto qui remissione indiget, hujusmodi opera fecerunt, alias absque omni indulgentia remissionem consequerentur, sed communiter pro tota ecclesia, sicut apostolus ait (Coloss. I.), et sic prædicta merita sunt communia totius ecclesiæ. Ea autem quæ sunt alicujus multitudinis communia, distribuuntur singulis de multitudine secundum arbitrium ejus qui multitudini præest.” Note also the cautious remarks: “Remissio quæ per indulgentias fit, non tollit quantita 564 tem, pœnæ ad culpam, quia pro culpa unius alias sponte pœnam sustinuit.” — “Ille qui indulgentias suscipit, non absolvitur, simpliciter loquendo, a debito pœnæ, sed datur ei, unde debitam solvat.” — “Non est in destructionem indulgentias dare, nisi inordinate dentur. Tamen consulendum est eis qui indulgentias consequuntur, ne propter hoc ab operibus pænitentiæ injunctis abstineant, ut etiam ex his remedium consequentur, quamvis a debito pœnæ esse immunes, et præcipue quia quandoque sunt plurium debitores quam credant.” In Art. 2 those are confuted who assert that the indulgences “non tantum valent, quantum pronuntiantur,” only so far avail for the individual “quantum fides et devotio sua exigit.” It is proved, “indulgentiæ simpliciter tantum valent quantum prædicantur, dummodo ex parte dantis sit auctoritas et ex parte recipientis caritas et ex parte causæ pietas.” Also: “quæcunque causa adsit, quæ in utilitatem ecclesiæ et honorem dei vergat, sufficiens est ratio indulgentias faciendi . . . (nam) merita ecelesiæ semper superabundant.” It is further shown that indulgences belong to the clavis jurisdictionis (are not sacramental), and therefore “effectus ejus arbitrio hominis subjacet” (also authorised legati non sacerdotes can dispense indulgences). To the

question whether indulgence ac8 s can be dispensed pro temporali subsidio, it is answered in Art. 3 that this is not possible simpliciter, “sed pro temporalibus ordinatis ad spiritualia, sicut est repressio inimicorum ecclesiæ, qui pacem ecclesiæ perturbant, sicut constructio ecclesiarum et pontium et aliarum eleemosynarum largitio.” Q. 26 treats of those who can dispense indulgences (“papa potest facere prout vult”), Q. 27 of the receivers of indulgences. Here in Art. 1 the thesis is contested of those who assert that to those guilty of mortal sin indulgences are of benefit, not for forgiveness of sins, but yet ad acquirendum gratiam: “in omnibus indulgentiis fit mentio de vere contritio et confessis.” In Art. 3 it is shown that the indulgence does not avail for one who has not done what the indulgence is given for. Compare with this also Q. 74, where in Art. 10 the question is answered whether indulgences are of use for the dead. The answer is that they are of no direct use, as the dead cannot do what the indulgences are given for. On the other hand they are of indirect use, that is, if the indulgence formula runs thus: “Quicumque fecerit hoc vel illud, ipse et pater ejus vel quicumque alius ei adjunctus in purgatorio detentus, tantum de indulgentia habebit.” “Talis indulgentia non solum vivo sed etiam mortuo proderit. Non enim est aliqua ratio quare ecclesia transferre possit communia merita quibus indulgentiæ innituntur in vivos et non in mortuos.” The indulgences, moreover, do not work simply per modum suffragii; they are effectual. Yet arbitrariness on the part of the Pope in rescuing souls from purgatory must be limited by this, that there must always be a causa conveniens indulgentias faciendi; but such is always to be found. It is furthermore probable that the recognition of a thesaurus meritorum had a long course of historic preparation in the history of religion; see Siegfried in Hilgenfeld’s Ztschr., 1884, Part 3, p. 356 (also Gött Gel. Anz., 1881, St. 12 and 13): “The doctrine of a treasury of good works from which indemnifications can be derived for the sins of others came originally into Judaism under Iranian influences, as is known to have been the case with so much else in the later Jewish dogmatics. If we compare what appears regarding this in Spiegel’s “Franische Alterthumskunde” with what is to he found in Weber’s System der altsynagogalen paläst. Theol., 1880, p. 280 ff., that this is a fact we shall not be able to doubt. Now as this doctrine, after being first brought forward by Alexander of Hales, owed its recognition within the Catholic Church chiefly to Thomas Aquinas, of whom it is also well known that he transcribed Maimonides (Merx, Die Propheti 564 e des Joel, 1879, pp. 354-367), the suspicion at once arises that this doctrine also was derived from Jewish sources. The more exact proof that this was actually so we reserve, as it would lead us too far afield here.” Against this conjecture Güdemann (Jüd. Litt.-Blatt., 21 Jahrg., 29 Oct., 1890) has raised objections, and has tried to show that the “merit of the Fathers” (“Sechus Owaus”) is something else and much more harmless. Yet identity no one has asserted, but only a historical connection. The thesaurus meritorum has been developed in directions, and has found applications, of which certainly Judaism did not think. But my conviction that a historical connection exists has not been shaken by Giidemann’s objections. For the rest I do not presume to be a judge in this matter, but I would like to point out something akin. In the “History of Joseph” preserved in the Syriac, which is said to have been composed by Basil of Cæsarea, and yet contains only Jewish Haggada, and, so far as I can see, nothing Christian (and so apparently is of Jewish origin), one reads (see Weinberg, Gesch. Josefs,

264

Now this theory — keeping practice quite out of view — still admitted in detail of very different modifications (nuances). It 265could also be conceived of more strictly or more laxly. In particular, the demand that one must be in a contrite frame of mind could be lowered to an extraordinary degree.475 But not 266only did that happen; the practice, as has already been indicated, struck out on quite different paths. With more or less of design, it left the question in obscurity as to what really was cancelled by the indulgence (see the ambiguous expression “for the salvation of the soul,” and others similar); it substituted for the demand for true sorrow and honest resolution to reform a reference to the Sacrament of Penance, or it was quite silent upon the demand; it gave to the indulgence an interpretation aa3 in which the power of the Church and the priest thrust aside the theoretic basis of the merit of Christ, and, finally, it encouraged the shocking folly of believing that, by the means of religion, man can provide himself with temporal advantages, and that beyond this, the spirit and power of religion are summed up in warding off just punishments. With all this there is still unmentioned the ruinous effect that must have been produced by the frequently shameful use of the indulgence money, and by the whole speculative system of the Curia. The Sacrament of Penance culminated unfortunately in these indulgences, and without incurring the charge of deriding, one may state concisely the final word of this system thus: Every man who surrenders himself to the Catholic Church, and who, for some reason, is not quite satisfied with the inner state of his heart,

angeblich verfasst v. Basilius d. Gr. Berlin, 1893, p. 53): “Potipher’s wife said: But if thou art afraid of sin, as thou hast asserted, then take gold and silver, as much as thou wilt, and give to the poor; and God will forgive th ac8 ee thy guilt.” It is a woman under the devil’s influence whom the narrator represents as speaking, and he certainly disapproved of the woman’s speech; but it shows undoubtedly that such reflexions were not far off. The abusus — and that is condemned also by a pious Catholic — is disapproved. 475 A large amount of material on the lax and strict theories in Bratke, 1.c. One thing that made a principal difference was the question as to whether indulgences were not of use even for those guilty of mortal sin ad acquirendam gratiam, or, whether they could not be given beforehand to such persons, to be used by them when they felt disposed. Of course the differences of Scotists and Thomists as to attritio and contritio are important here also. The explanations of the Jubilee indulgence in Bratke, pp. 201 ff., 240 f., appear to use to be partly based on misunderstanding and partly exaggerated. The account of the indulgence theory of the ecclesiastical reform party, p. 243 ff. (Cajetan) is instructive, both as helping us to understand the earliest position of Luther, and as enabling us to see how poorly armed this reform party was.

can secure salvation and deliverance from all eternal and temporal penalties — if he acts with shrewdness and finds a skilful priest.476 267

Against this theory there not only was a reaction on the part of the re-invigorated or Augustinian Thomism, in the shape of a strong insistence on the moral and religious requirements for the reception of indulgences, but — keeping the sects out of view — there also arose in the fourteenth century a radical opposition, which had likewise an Augustinian (and biblical) basis. Against no other ecclesiastical practice and theory did Wyclif assume so determined an attitude as against indulgences. He saw in them nothing but arbitrariness, which had only forced its way in of recent times; the Bible knew nothing of indulgences, which encroached upon the prerogative of God, and were therefore positively blasphemous. He also saw clearly the mischief of indulgences in hindering obedience to the law of Christ; still he did not frame a satisfactory theory as to how a distressed conscience can be comforted. For him, and for his scholar Huss, the perniciousness of indulgences lies simply in their unbiblical character, in the pretensions of the hierarchy (the Pope), and in the corruption of morals. But indulgences cannot be rooted out by merely quickening conscience and contending against priestly power. acb 1

476

The theory of indulgence is summed up in the Extravagante Unigenitus of Clement VI. of the year 1349: “Unigenitus dei filius . . . sanguine nos redemit quam in ara crucis innocens immolatus, non guttam sanguinis modicam (quæ tamen propter unionem ad verbum pro redemptione totius humani generis suffecisset), sed copiose velut quoddam profluvium noscitur effudisse. . . . Quantum ergo exinde, ut nec supervacua, inanis aut superflua tanto effusionis miseratio redderetur, thesaurum militanti ecclesiæ acquisivit, volens suis thesaurizare filiis pius pater, ut sic sit infinitus thesaurus hominibus, quo qui usi sunt dei amicitiæ participes sunt effecti. Quem quidem thesaurum non in sudario repositum, non in agro absconditum, sed per beatum Petrum . . . ejusque successores suos in terris vicarios commisit fidelibus salubriter dispensandum, et propriis et rationabilibus causis: nunc pro totali, nunc pro partiali 564 remissione pœnæ temporalis pro peccatis debitæ, tam generaliter quam specialiter (prout cum deo expedire cognoscerent) vere pænitentibus et confessis misericorditer applicandum. Ad cujus quidem thesauri cumulum b. dei genetricis omniumque electorum a primo justo usque ad ultimum merita adminiculum præstare noscuntur, de cujus consumptione seu minutione non est aliquatenus formidandum (!), tam propter infinita Christi merita quam pro eo quod, quanto plures ex ejus applicatione trahuntur ad justitiam, tanto magis accrescit ipsorum cumulus meritorum.” 477 See Buddensieg, Wyclif, p. 201 ff., Trialogus IV., 32: “Fateor quod indulgentiæ papales, si ita se habeant ut dicuntur, sapiunt manifestam blasphemiam. Dicitur enim,

268

Not less strenuous than the opposition of Wyclif and Huss to the indulgences were the attacks of Wesel and Wessel. Both likewise wrote from the standpoint of Augustine against the indulgences. They too described the theory as unbiblical and as unsupported by any tradition, and used as weapons for overthrowing it the sole efficiency of God, the majesty of the divine penal righteousness and the gratia gratis data (caritas infusa). The punishments which God decrees man cannot avert; only the penalties of positive law, or the ecclesiastical penalties, can the Pope remit. God infuses His grace without merit (sine merito), but only in the case of those who are perfectly disposed for it. At the same time Wesel relaxes the connection between sacrament and communication of grace (nominalistically: “propter pactum institutum cum sacerdotibus” [on account of an agreement instituted with the priests]). At bottom there is no distinction between his doctrine of the Sacrament and the vulgar one. He is merely unable, from feeling more decidedly the majesty of God, to draw the conclusions from the indulgences, which, along with others, he calls “piæ fraudes.”478 269The Church, in spite of these forms of opposition, went on its way.479

quod papa prætendit, se habere potentiam ad salvandum singulos viatores, et quantumcunque viantes deliquerint, nedum ad mitigandum pœnas ad suffragandum eis cum absolutionibus et indulgentiis, ne unquam veniant ad purgatorium, sed ad præcipiendum sanctis angelis, ut anima separata a corpore ind ac8 ilate ipsam deferant in requiem sempiternam. . . . Contra ipsam rudem blasphemiam invexi alias, primo sic: nec papa nec etiam dominus Jesus Christus potest dispensare cum aliquo nec dare indulgentias, nisi ut æternaliter deitas justo consilio definivit. Sed non docetur, quod papa vel homo aliquis potest habere colorem justitiæ (on this falls the greatest weight) taliter faciendi; igitur non docetur, quod papa talem habeat potestatem. . . . Item videtur quod illa opinio multipliciter blasphemat in Christum, cum extollitur supra ejus humanitatem atque deitatem et sic super omne quod dicitur deus. . . . Sed eia, mili es Christi, abicite prudenter hæc opera atque fictitias principis tenebrarum et induimini dominum Jesum Christum, in armis suis fideliter confidentes, et excutite ab ecclesia tales versutias antichristi, docentes populum, quod in ipso solo cum lege sua et membris debet confidere et operando illis conformiter ex suo opere bono salvari, specialiter si antichristi versutias fideliter detestetur.” 478 A series of passages from the Disput. adv. indulgentias of Wesel has been reprinted by Hauck, p. 303 f. Everything in Wesel is really only apparently radical. He lets the vulgar doctrine of the Sacraments stand, up to the point at which the Sacrament of Penance does not cancel the temporal penalties of sin. But at this point he will stop short; for these penalties cannot at all be cancelled (1) because God decrees them and means to carry them out; (2) because there is no one who could remove them — the priests are in everything only ministri dei in remittendis culpis — (3) because it is in keeping with

5. Extreme unction.480 Only from Thomas’s time was it asserted that Christ Himself instituted this Sacrament, while the Apostle James (5, 14) only proclaimed it. The 577 Materia is oil blessed by the bishop, while the episcopal consecration was declared “conveniens” by Thomas on the same ground as in the case of confirmation (expression of the higher power of the bishop with respect to the “mystical body of Christ,” see above, p. 231, note; hence the Pope can also give power to ordinary priests to consecrate). The “form” is a deprecatory prayer (the indicative form can at the most be added). The administrator is any priest. The Sacrament can be repeated.481 The receivers are those under fatal illness and the dying. The purpose (res sacramenti) is the

piety to endure them; (4) because there could be no purgatory at all, if the theory of indulgences were correct; for the treasury of indulgences would be enough to compensate for all temporal penalties. If there mingles already in the polemic of Wesel a WyclifiteHussite (Donatist) element, in so far as it is required that the objective importance of the priests (the hierarchy) be diminished (by no means abolished), this element is much more recognisable in Wessel. To the pious alone are the keys given. Now as the Popes and priests are in many cases not pious, these carnales homines have power at all only in externis, i.e., what they undertake has to do, not with the true Church and grace and sin, but with the empirical C 564 hurch; see de sacram. pænit. f. 51: “Carnalis homo non sapit, quæ sancti amoris sunt, igitur judicare non potest. Unde judicium ecclesiæ et corum qui in ecclesia præsident, quia saepe carnales, animales, mundiales aut diabolici sunt et tamen suum officium vere administraut sicut viri spirituales est deo pleni, liquet excommunicationes et indulgentias non ad ea quæ caritatis et amoris sunt se extendere sed tantum ad exteriorem pacem et tranquillitatem ecclesiæ. Unde indulgentiæ sunt remissiones de his pœnis quas prælatus injunxit aut injungere potuit.” But further, the keys that are given to Peter are not handed over to arbitrary use; true repentance and divine forgiveness go together. Everything rests on grace, and only pious priests are ministri dei, i.e., ministers of the grace which God alone is able to infuse. But wessel took still another important step. He asked himself whether the temporal penalties of sin really remain after forgiveness, and he is inclined to see discipline rather in the penalties of the absolved. (f. 60.) From this point he also assailed the conception of satisfactio operum, and drew a conclusion from Augustinianism which scarcely anyone before him had ventured to draw: satisfaction cannot take place at all, where God has infused His love; it leads of necessity to a limitation of the gratia gratis data ab2 , and detracts from the work of Christ. The plenitudo gratiæ excludes the satisfactio (fol. 61, 62), how much more the indulgences, which he defines thus (l.c.): “indulgentiarum materia est abusus quæstorum et saepe illorum falsum crimen, nonnumquam impura et corrupta intentio papæ.” 479 At Constance (Mansi XXVII., p. 634, No. 42) the proposition was condemned: “Fatuum est credere indulgentiis papæ et episcoporum.” 480 Thomas, P. III., Suppl. Q. 29-33. Schwane, p. 675-677. 481 In the earlier period, Ivo and others expressed themselves against repetition. From the Lombard’s time repetition is approved, but not in one and the same illness.

remission of sins (remissio peccatorum), 270but only of venial sins, or the cleansing away of the remains of sin, or occasionally (per accidens), that is, if no hindrance exists, the full forgiveness of sins. ad7 1 Therefore the Sacrament is also defined as “completion” of the Sacrament of Penance, though it remains quite dark why and how far this Sacrament needs completion. Here also, as in the case of confirmation, we have to do, not with a Sacrament that is the product of a dogmatic theory, but with an observance, the value of which is raised so high on grounds of expediency,483 while theoretically it is rated very low. Even bodily healing is expected, if it please God, from this Sacrament. 6. Priestly ordination.484 In connection with this Sacrament the general sacramental theory can be maintained, if at all, only by artifice, because the hierarchical interest created it, and introduced it into the sacramental system of grace simply with a view to selfglorification. The “form” is the words “accipe potestatem offerendi” (receive the power of offering); the “material” cannot be pointed out to the senses with certainty; but Thomas here made a virtue of necessity, and the others followed him; from the very uncertainty the hierarchical nature of the Sacrament is proved.485

482

Thomas, 1.c., Q. 30, Art. 1: “Principalis effectus hujus sacramenti est remissio peccatorum, quoad reliquias peccati (what does that mean?), et ex consequenti etiam quoad culpam, si earn inveniat.” Art. 2: “Ex hoc sacramento non semper sequitur corporalis sanatio, sed quando expedit ad spiritualem sanationem. Et tunc semper eam inducit, dummodo non sit impedimentum ex parte recipientes”; cf. the comprehensive description of the Sacrament in the Bull of Eugene IV. (Mansi XXXI., p. 1058). 483 In itself it was, no doubt, very expedient to introduce a Sacrament in connection with death, and thereby to increase confidence in dying. This was strengthened by the rite of anointing the several members, and thereby showing in an impressive way to the sick, that the members with which he had sinned had been cleansed. Here, also, as in the case of confirmation, the Church gave heed to men’s need of something “objective,” instead of leading them without any ceremonies to Christ. 484 Thomas, P. III., Suppl. Q. 34-40. Schwane, pp. 677-685. 485 Q. 34, Art. 3: “Sacramentum nihil est aliud quam quædam sanctificatio homini exhibita cum aliquo signo visi abf bili. Unde cum in susceptione ordinis quædam consecratio homini exhibeatur per visibilia signa, constat ordinem esse sacramentum.” Art. 5: “Materia in sacramentis exterius adhibita significat virtutem in sacramentis agentem ex intrinseco omnino advenire. Unde cum effectus proprius hujus sacramenti, scil. character, non percipiatur ex aliqua operatione ipsius qui ad sacramentum accidit sicut erat in pænitentia sed omnino ex intrinseco adveniat, competit ei materiam habere, tamen diversimode ab aliis sacramentis quæ materiam habent. Quia hoc quod confertur in aliis sacramentis, derivatur tantum a deo, non a ministro qui sacramentum dispensat, sed illud quod in hoc sacramento traditur, scil. spiritualis potestas, derivatur etiam ab eo qui sacramentum dat sicut potestas imperfecta a perfecta. Et ideo efficacia aliorum

One thought of the vessels or 271symbols by which the hierarchical functions were represented (Thomas), another of the laying on of hands. The former was asserted by Eugene IV. in the Bull “Exultate” (l.c.). The dispenser is solely the bishop. Here there arose, however, many questions, in some respects entering deep into ecclesiastical law and ecclesiastical practice, indirectly also into dogmatic, which will only be noted here; (1) on the seven orders (ordines), and their relation (the Pope can empower even an ordinary priest to ordain to the lower orders); 552 (2) on the relation of the priestly to the episcopal consecration (in how far is the bishop superior to the priest? in respect of divine right? (jure divino); (3) — and this was the most important question — on the validity of orders that have been conferred by schismatic or heretical bishops. From as far back as the Donatist conflict there prevailed a controversy on this point, which was decided in the Church, as a rule, in a liberal spirit, to the effect, namely, that such ordinations are indeed unpermitted, i.e., are null and void as to their practical effects, but yet are not invalid. On the other hand the Lombard asserted that no heretic can duly celebrate confirmation, the Eucharist and ordination to the priesthood. Thereafter there prevailed among the Scholastic theologians great uncertainty; yet there was a growing leaning to the liberal view. the Sacrament of Penance alone being excepted. But in the Middle Ages the Popes very often declared entirely invalid the ordinations of bishops who were under disfavour and of rival Popes. As regards the effect of this Sacrament, the character was here the chief matter.486 576 It 272consists in the conveyance of the right to dispense the Sacraments,487 to forgive sins, to officiate as judge, and to be mediator between God and men.488 But on the other hand, again,

sacramentorum principaliter consistit in materia, quæ virtutem divinam et significat et continet, ex sanctificatione per ministrum adhibita. Sed efficacia hujus sacramenti principaliter residet penes eum, qui sacramentum dispensat, materia autem adhibetur magis ad demonstrandum potestatem, quæ traditur particulariter ab habente eam complete, quam ad potestatem causandam, quod patet ex hoc quod materia competit usui potestatis.” 486 Not a saving benefit, therefore, given to an individual; for the ordo serves the Church (Thomas, Q. 35, A. 1). Here, also, the doctrine of sacramental grace (participatio divinæ naturæ) has breaches made in it; nay, Thomas says plainly, Q. 34, Art. 2: “unde relinquitur, quod ipse character interior sit essentialiter et principaliter ipsum sacramentum ordinis!” 487 At the same time the celebration of the Mass is the chief matter; it alone is mentioned in the formula of consecration. 488 The Lombard, Sent. IV., Dist. 24 I. “Sacerdos nomen habet compositum ex Græco et Latino, quod est sacrum dans sive sacer dux. Sicut enim rex a regendo ita sacerdos a

all the seven orders were called Sacraments by some (in the case of others they are regarded only as sacramentalia), although it was added, that only the diaconate and the presbyterate have institution by Christ as their basis. The episcopate could not be reckoned as a special ordo, because tradition forbade it; but efforts were made to assign to it a special position, higher than the ordinary priesthood, and given to it by Chi ist, and a basis was found for it, not in sacramental, but in judicial power. Duns Scotus, moreover, laid 564 down the lines of the doctrine, that the episcopal consecration is a special Sacrament. 7. Marriage.489 Like the former Sacrament, this one also encroaches, in the particular questions connected with it, on the field of ecclesiastical law, only that these questions are tenfold more numerous than in the case of the other. The expediency of declaring marriage a Sacrament, and thereby bringing this foundation of society under ecclesiastical jurisdiction is obvious. Just on that account it was overlooked also that the declaring of marriage a Sacrament implied that breaches had previously been made in the general conception of a Sacrament. Marriage was already instituted by God in Paradise for the propagation of the human race (and therefore as an obligation [ad officium]), and to be indissoluble too; but according to Thomas it was only raised to the position of a Sacrament by Christ, inasmuch as He made it the picture of His union with the Church, thereby established anew its indissoluble character, and also un aa8 ited with 273marriage a saving gift.490 So far as it also provides for propagation within the

sacrando dictus est, consecrat enim et sanctificat.” At the same time being empowered to teach was also no doubt mentioned, and for the person of the priest an undefinable “amplius gratiæ munus, per quod ad majora redduntur idonei” (Thomas, Q. 35, Art. I). In the Bull “Exultate” (Mansi, l.c., p. 1058) it is said: “Effectus augmentum gratiæ, ut quis sit idoneus minister.” 489 Thomas, P. III., Suppl. Q. 41-68. Schwane, pp. 685-693. 490 Thomas, l.c., Q. 41, A. 1; 42, A. 2, 3. In the way in which the Lombard descr 54a ibes the marriage bond as sacramental, a beautiful proof is presented of the ultimate interest of Western Post-Augustinian Catholicism, in so far as it is determined at the same time by the thought of conformitas naturæ divinæ and by that of caritas, Sentent. IV., Dist. 26 F.: “Ut inter conjuges conjunctio est secundum consensum animorum et secundum permixtionem corporum, sic ecclesia Christo copulatur voluntate et natura, qua idem vult cum eo, et ipsa formam sumpsit de natura hominis. Copulata est ergo sponsa sponso spiritualiter et corporaliter, i.e., caritate et conformitate naturæ. Hujus utriusque copulæ figura est in conjugio. Consensus enim conjugum copulam spiritualem Christi et ecclesiæ, quæ fit per caritatem, significat; commixtio vero sexuum illam significat, quæ fit per nature conformitatem.”

Church, its sacramental character is already justified;491 but besides its sacramental effect, marriage, since the Fall, has also the character of an indulgence, as “remedium” against the insurgent passions of the flesh.492 It is further admitted, that among all the Sacraments marriage has the “minimum de spiritualitate,”493 hence it stands in the last place, and the unmarried life is to be preferred. The examination of the question, whether the “copula carnalis,” or, the right to demand the “debitum conjugale,” belongs to the essence of marriage, was necessarily treated with Joseph’s marriage in view. As there was no wish to exclude that right from the essence of marriage (the assertion of the right does not belong to its essence), one was led to the interesting question whether Mary, when she concluded marriage with Joseph, was not obliged to agree conditionally to a possible assertion of the right of marriage on the part of Joseph. The Lombard still answered this question in the affirmative;494 but Bonaventura already found another way of solving it. 584 1 As to “material” and “form,” there prevailed the greatest uncertainty. Yet in the Middle Ages it was not doubted that the decisive external sign is the expressed “consensus” of the parties to the marriage,496 the 274priest’s blessing was held to be only “a sacramental,” not the Sacrament.497 Many Schoolmen, it is true, sought to extract an effectual spiritual character, but the majority recognised only a quite undefined saving grace.498 On the ac8 other hand Durandus denied entirely the opus operatum (the saving grace), saying that marriage only signifies something sacred (union of the Church with Christ).499 That excessive recognition of saving grace stands in flagrant opposition to the view that was derived from Augustine, that the “copula carnalis” in marriage, because it is not materially different from the “copula carnalis fornicatoria,” is so deeply infected with sin, that sin is committed, not indeed by the partner who consents, but by the partner who demands, even when it is done for the

491

Thomas, P. III., Q. 65, A. 4. 54a 492Thomas, Q. 42, A. 2. 493 Thomas, P. III., Q. 65, A. 2. 494 Sentent. IV., Dist. 30 B. 495 See Schwane, p. 688. afc 496Thomas, Q. 42, Art. 1: “Verba quibus consensus matrimonialis exprimitur sunt forma hujus sacramenti.” Also: “Sacramentum matrimonii perficitur per actum ejus, qui sacramento illo utitur, sicut pænitentia. Et ideo sicut pænitentia non habet aliam materiam nisi ipsos actus sensui subjectos, qui sunt loco materialis elementi, ita est de matrimonio.” 497 Thomas, Q. 42, Art. 1: “benedictio sacerdotis est quoddam sacramentale.” 498 Thomas, Q. 42, Art. 3. 499 See Schwane, p. 689.

purpose of avoiding adultery.500 While therefore the Sacrament consists in the expressed “consensus” to enter into marriage with a person of the other sex, and thereby the right of the “debitum conjugale” is implicitly laid down, the assertion of this sacramental right is to be held a sin!501 In the Bull of Eugene IV. (l.c). there is to be found, again, a short serviceable summing up.”Septimum est sacramentum matrimonii, quod est signum conjunctionis Christi et ecclesiæ secundum apostolum. Causa efficiens matrimonii regulariter est mutuus consensus per verba de præsenti expressus. Adsignatur autem triplex bonum matrimonii. Primum est proles suscipienda et educanda ad cultum dei. Secundum est fides quam unus conjugum alteri servare debet. Tertium indivisibilitas matrimonii, propter hoc quod significat indivisibilem conjunctionem Christi et ecclesiæ. Quamvis autem ex causa fornicationis liceat tori separationem facere, non tamen aliud matrimonium contrahere fas est, cum matrimonii vinculum legitime contracti perpetuum sit.” How strong still in the fourteenth century was the disinclination of the Scotist theologians to regard marriage as a full sacrament, may b 564 e seen from Werner, II., p. 424 ff. (against Durandus Aureolus). 275

In the doctrine of the Sacraments Thomas was the teacher of determining influence in the Middle Ages, and he has remained such to the present day in the Catholic Church. But, so far as the new ecclesiasticism admitted of it at all, Thomas went back to Augustine. Yet how strongly even in him the doctrine of the gratia gratis data (grace graciously bestowed) is affected by a regard to the doctrine, that God treats with us according to our merits; how this latter view, which Augustine had not entirely eradicated, still exercised its influence, Thomas’s doctrine of the Sacraments shows already very plainly. The earnest, truly religious spirit which distinguished him was increasingly weakened and led astray by regard for what was held valid. Yet that, certainly, is not the only weakness. An influence, at least equally pernicious, was exercised by the logical apprehension of grace as a physical,

500

So Bonaventura and Thomas, Q. 49, Art. 4-6, especially Art. 5: “utrum actus matrimonialis excusari possit sine honis matrimonii.” Here, among other things, it is said: “si aliquis per actum matrimonii intendat vitare fornicationem in conjuge, non est aliquod peccatum; . . . sed si intendat vitare fornicationem in se . . . hoc est peccatum veniale.” 501 The contradictions on Thomas’s part are here very grea ac8 t; for on the other hand it is said, l.c., Art. 4, that proles, fides, and sacramentum not only excuse, but sanctify, the act of marriage. See also in Sentent. Dist. 26, Q. 2, Art. 3: “Cum in matrimonio datur homini ex divina institutione facultas utendi sua uxore ad procreationem prolis, datur etiam gratia, sine qua id convenienter facere non posset.”

mysterious act, and a communication of objective benefits. That also originated with Augustine, and that also, logically carried out, broke up Augustinianism; the breaking up of Augustinianism was really not occasioned from without; it was in great part the result of a89 an inner development. The three elements which Augustine left standing in and along with his doctrine of grace, the element of merit, the element of gratia infusa and the hierarchical priestly element, continued to work, till they completely transformed the Augustinian mode of thought. But as we have seen, that was already foreshadowed in Gregory the Great, and on the other hand the process did not reach its termination yet in the Middle Ages. The Augustinian reaction of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries which partly embodied itself in the decrees of Trent, was only fully checked again, after a struggle for three hundred years, in the nineteenth century. C. The Revision of Augustinianism in the Direction of the Doctrine of Merit. That the grace springing from the passio Christi is the foundation of the Christian religion, and therefore must be the Alpha 276and Omega of Christian Theology — this fundamental Pauline and Augustinian thought was directly denied by no ecclesiastical teacher of the West.502 But as in itself it may mean many things, and, without definite interpretation, by no means guarantees the purity of the Christian religion — for what is grace? God Himself in Christ, or divine forces? and what does grace effect? faith, or a mysterious quality? — so also, if the effect of grace is to be held as only “improvement,” for this very reason it is capable of being wrought over in a way that ultimately cancels it. The Lombard — in accordance with his intention to reproduce tradition — confined himself to repeating with precision the Augustinian propositions about grace, predestination and justification (faith and love).503 But as soon as he brings forward

502

The proposition of Irenæus (III., 18, 6): “Si non vere passus est, nulla gratia ei, cum nulla fuerit passio,” is the firmly adhered to basis of the whole of the Christianity and of the whole of the theology of the West. 503 Sentent. II., Dist. 25 P.: “Libertas a peccato et a miseria per gratiam est; libertas vero a necessitate per naturam. Utramque libertatem, naturæ scil. et gratiæ, notat apostolus cum ex persona hominis non redempti ait: ‘velle adjacet mihi, etc.,’ acsi diceret, habeo libertatem naturæ, sed non habeo libertatem gratiæ, ideo non est apud me perfectio boni. Nam voluntas hominis, quam naturaliter habet, non valet erigi ad bonum efficaciter volendum, vel opere implendum, nisi per gratiam liberetur et adjuvetur: liberetur quidem, ut velit, et adjuvetur, ut perficiat . . . dei gratiam non advocat hominis

propositions 277about free will, these have by no means an Augustinian, but rather a Semipelagian ring; for they are already dominated by a regard to merit. 5a3 504 Where this view is taken,

voluntas vel operatio, sed ipsa gratia voluntatem prævenit præparando ut velit bonum et præparatam adjuvat ut perficiat.” He repeats also correctly the Augustinian doctrine of predestination (I. Dist. 40 D.): God does not elect on the basis of prescience, but it is only the election that produces the merits. He rejects præscientia iniquitatis quorundam: “reprobatio dei, qua ab æterno non eligendo quosdam reprobavit, secundum duo consideratur, quorum alterum præscit et non præparat, i.e., iniquitatem, alterum præscit et præparat, scil. æternam pœnam.” Reprobation rests on the mysterious but just decision not to show mercy to some; its result is hardening. The chief propositions of the Lombard on faith, love, and works are: III. Dist. 23 D.: “Credere deo est credere vera esse quæ loquitur, quod et mali faciunt . . .; credere deum est ac8 credere quod ipse sit deus, quod etiam mali faciunt; credere in deum est credendo amare, credendum in eum ire, credendo ei adhærere et ejus membris incorporari: per hanc fidem justicatur impius” (word for word after Augustine). So also he distinguishes in faith, after Augustine, id quod and id quo creditur (l.c. sub. C.). The latter, subjective faith, is to be distinguished according as it is virtus and according as it is not virtus. Faith, so far as love is still wanting to it, is fides informis (not virtue). All deeds without faith are devoid of goodness, II. Dist, 41 A.: “cum intentio bonum opus faciat et fides intentionem dirigat, non immerito quæri potest, utrum omnis intentio omneque opus illorum malum sit, qui fidem non habent? . . . Quod a quibusdam non irrationabiliter astruitur, qui dicunt omnes actiones et voluntates hominis sine fide malas esse . . . Quæ ergo sine fide fiunt, bona non sunt, quia omne bonum deo placet.” II. Dist. 26 A.: “Operans gratia est, quæ prævenit voluntatem bonam: ea enim liberatur et præparatur hominis voluntas, ut sit bona bonumque efficaciter velit; cooperans vero gratia voluntatem jam bonam sequitur adjuvando . . . Voluntas hominis gratia dei prævenitur atque præparatur, ut fiat bona, non ut fiat voluntas, quia et ante gratiam voluntas erat, sed non erat bona et recta voluntas.” It is repeatedly said that grace consists in the infusion of fides cum caritate (i.e., the Holy Spirit), and that only with this the merits of man begin; accordingly justitia as bona qualitas mentis (virtus, qua recte vivitur) is entirely a work of God. 504 Sentent. II., Dist. 24 C.: “Liberum arbitrium est facultas rationis et voluntatis, qua bonum eligitur gratia assistente vel malum eadem desistente.” II. Dist. 27 G.: “Cum ex gratia dicuntur esse bona merita et incipere . . . gratia gratis data intelligitur, ex qua bona merita incipiunt. Quæ cum ex sola gratia esse dicantur, non excluditur liberum arbitrium, quia nullum meritum est in homine, quod non fit per liberum arbitrium.” II. Dist. 26 G.: “Ante gratiam prævenientem et operantem, qua voluntas bona præparatum in homine, præcedere quædam bona ex dei gratia et libero arbitrio, quædam etiam ex solo libero arbitrio, quibus tamen vita non meretur, nec gratia, qua justificatur.” II. Dist. 27 J.: “Cum dicitur fides mereri justifica ac8 tionem et vitam æternam, ex ea ratione dictum accipitur, quia per actum fidei meretur illa. Similiter de caritate et justitia et de aliis accipitur. Si enim fides ipsa virtus præveniens diceretur esse mentis actus qui est meritum, jam ipsa ex libero arbitrio originem haberet, quod quia non est, sic dicitur esse meritum, quia actus ejus est meritum, si tamen adsit caritas, sine qua nec credere nec sperare meritum vitæ

that is to say, a point must always be ultimately found, which makes it possible to attribute a value to the independent action of man over against God. But the contradiction which plainly comes out in the Lombard, when his doctrine of grace is compared with his doctrine of freedom, is equally prevalent among the theologians before him, nay, in them it comes out more strongly, most strongly in Abelard.505 There is still to be observed as 278noteworthy the specific view taken by the Lombard of saving grace, who simply identifies it with the Holy Spirit. His meaning is, that while all other virtues become man’s own by means of an infused habit (habitus), love arises directly in the soul through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, since it is the indwelling Holy Spirit Himself. In this noteworthy view there lies the approach ac8 to a more evangelical position; for “habitus” there is substituted the direct

est. Unde apparet vere quia caritas est spiritus s., qui animæ qualitates informat et sanctificat, ut eis anima informetur et sanctificetur, sine qua animæ qualitas non dicitur virtus, quia non valet sanare animam.” H. Dist. 41 C.: “Nullus dei gratiam mereri potest, per quam justificatur, potest tamen mereri, ut penitus abiciatur. Et quidem aliqui in tantum profundum iniquitatis devenerunt, ut hoc mereantur, ut hoc digni sint; alii vero ita vivunt, ut etsi non mereantur gratiam justificationis, non tamen mereantur omnino repelli et gratiam sibi subtrahi.” 505 In Anselm (Dialog. de lib. arb.), Bernard (de gratia et lib. arb.), and Hugo the Augustinian propositions regarding grace are repeated, but the explanations of free will are in part still more uncertain than in the Lombard. According to Anselm the rectitudo liberi arbitrii has disappeared indeed, but the potestas servandi rectitudinem remains; see c. 3: “liberum arbitrium non est aliud, quam arbitrium potens servare rectitudinem voluntatis propter ipsam rectitudinem.” The ratio and the will power remain, and so, after the Fall, men are like those who have eyes and can see, but for whom the object has disappeared (c. 4). The libertas arbitrii is accordingly defined by him (1) formally (ratio et voluntas tenendi), but also (2) materially, in as much as the voluntas tenendi remains. According to Bernard (c. 8) there belongs to free will, not the posse vel sapere, but only the velle; but the latter remains: “manet igitur post peccatum liberum arbitrium, etsi miserum, tamen integrum . . . non ergo si creatura potens aut sapiens, sed tantum si volens esse desierit, liberum arbitrium amisisse putanda erit.” In this formal description of free will Hugo diverges still further from Augustine; for what is characteristic of this fatal development is this, that for Augustine’s religious mode of view, for which freedom is beata necessitas, there is substituted an empirico-psycho 564 logical mode of view, which is of no concern for religion, and which nevertheless now influences religious contemplation. “Voluntas semper a necessitate libera est”: this proposition is again made a foundation in the doctrine of religion. On Abelard’s doctrine see Deutsch, 1.c., p. 319 ff., who illustrates in particular the dangerous side in the conception of intentio on which Abelard lays stress, and shows how the intellectualism of the theologian is in conflict with the traditional doctrine of original sin.

activity of the Holy Ghost. Just on that account this view506 seldom found followers;507 quite as few did the other, that in grace the gratia gratis dans (God Himself) and the gratia gratis data ought to be distinguished.508 The desire was to have, not God, but divine forces that can become human virtues. 279

Here lies the fundamental error. In its ultimate basis the mode of view is not a religious but a moral one. That comes out distinctly in the case of the Schoolman who may be styled par excellence the theologian of grace, namely Thomas. It would seem as if one could not value grace more highly than he has done; from God to God through grace — that is the theme of his entire dogmatic. And yet ultimately it is habitual virtue on which all depends. The decisive mistake was already made by Augustine. It lies in the gratia cooperans, which is distinguished from the gratia operans (præveniens). The latter does not procure justification and salvation, but the former. But the former is only cooperative, for it runs parallel with the liberated will, and the two together produce merit, which is the matter of importance. But why is merit the matter of importance? Because the theologian cannot conceive of anything else availing before God than improvement that exhibits itself in a habitus. That thought, however, is not framed from the standpoint of religion, but from the standpoint of morality, or is a distressed conscience to be comforted by saying that there will gradually be formed a habit of love? Look at it as we will, 564 faith appears important here only in so far as it opens the way for the procuring of virtues; the gratia præveniens becomes the bridge that leads over to morality. But in the last analysis the cause that led to this scheme of doctrine lies still deeper; for we must necessarily ask, why is the grace, which is, of course, to dominate the whole process, so narrowly conceived of in respect of its

506

See II. Dist., 27 J. (see above, p. 277, note 1); I. Dist., 17 B.: “Ipse idem spiritus sanctus est amor sive caritas, qua nos diligimus deum et proximum, quæ caritas cum ita est in nobis, ut nos faciet diligere deum et proximum, tunc spiritus sanctus dicitur mitti ac dari nobis.” I. Dist., 17 Q.: “Alios actus atque motus virtutum operatur caritas, i.e., spiritus s., mediantibus virtutibus quarum actus sunt, utpote actum fidei, i.e., credere fide media, et actum spei, i.e., sperare m a9f edia spe. Per fidem enim et spem prædictos operatur actus. Diligendi vero actum per se tantum sine alicujus virtutis medio operatur. Aliter ergo hunc actum operatur quam alios virtutum actus.” 507 Duns contested it; on the other hand, Pupper of Goch and Staupitz defended.it; see Otto Clemen, J. Pupper von Goch (Leipzig, 1896), p. 249. 508 Sentent. II., Dist. 27 G. “Cum ex gratia dicuntur esse bona merita et incipere, aut intelligitur gratia gratis dans, i.e., deus, vel potius gratia gratis data, quæ voluntatem hominis prævenit.”

power, that it is unable to effect, alone and perfectly, what it contemplates? The answer to this question must not simply run: in order to set aside the thought of an arbitrary procedure on God’s part, for in other connections there was a falling back on the hidden will of God. Nor is it enough to say that the moral principle, that each one shall receive according to his deeds, furnishes the solution here; this had an influence, but was not the only thing that was at work. At bottom, rather, it was because the conception itself of God and of grace admitted of no other conclusion. There was no recognition of personality, neither of the personality of God, nor of man as a person. If even in earthly relations man cannot be otherwise raised to a 280higher stage, than by passing into a person who is superior, more mature, and greater, that is, by entering into ac8 spiritual fellowship with such an one, and attaching one’s self to him by reverence, love, and trust, then the same holds good, but in a way that transcends comparison, of the rising of man from the sphere of sin and guilt into the sphere of God. Here no communications of things avail, but only fellowship of person with person; the disclosure to the soul, that the holy God who rules heaven and earth is its Father, with whom it can, and may, live as a child in its father’s house — that is grace, nay, that alone is grace, the trustful confidence in God, namely, which rests on the certainty that the separating guilt has been swept away. That was seen by Augustine as little as by Thomas, and it was not discerned even by the mediæval Mystics, who aspired to having intercourse with Christ as with a friend; for it was the man Jesus of whom they thought in seeking this. But all of them, when they think of God, look, not to the heart of God, but to an inscrutable Being, who, as He has created the world out of nothing, so is also the productive source of inexhaustible forces that yield knowledge and transformation of essence. And when they think of themselves, they think, not of the centre of the human ego, the spirit, which is so free and so lofty that it cannot be influenced by benefits that are objective, even though they be the greatest perceptions and the most glorious investiture, and at the same time is so feeble in itself that it can find support only in another person. Therefore they constructed the thesis: God and gratia (i.e., knowledge and participation in the divine nature), in place of the personal fellowship with God, which is the gratia. That gratia, only a little separated from God in the thesis, became in course of time always further removed from Him. It appears deposited in the merit of Christ, and then in the Sacraments. But in the measure in which it becomes more impersonal, more objective, and more external, confidence in it is also impaired, till at last it becomes a magical means, which stirs to activity the latent good agency of man, and sets in motion the standing machine, that it may then do its work,

and that its work may be of account before God. One sees plainly that everythings depends ultimately on the conception 281 of God. In the gratia cooperans that conception of God comes to view which represents God, not as the holy Lord in relation to guilty man, and as the Fathe ac8 r of Jesus Christ in relation to His child, but as the unfathomable power that comes to help man with knowledge and with secret influences of a natural kind, in order that, by love and virtue, man may be able to win independent worth before Him. In Thomas it is the Augustinian intellectualism, closely conjoined with the doctrine of deification, which ultimately determines the view of God and of grace. In the later Schoolmen the intellectualism is surmounted, and a beautiful beginning is made to reflect upon will, and thereby upon personality. But as it is no more than a beginning, grace appears finally in Nominalism simply as emptied of its contents and reduced to a magical force. Where the simplest and the hardest thing is not taken account of— childship and faith in contrast with the guilt of sin — piety and speculation are condemned to treat physics and morality (the natura divina and the bonum esse [the divine nature and the being good]) in endless speculations, to see grace in the conjunction of these two elements, with the result that, when the understanding has awakened and discovered its limits, there is an ending up with a bare aliquid (something) and with a morality that underbids itself. This conclusion is in keeping with the God who is inscrutable self-will, and who, just on that account, has set up an inscrutably arbitrary institution of grace as an establishment for the insurance of life. The fundamental features of Thomas’s doctrine of grace are the following:509 the external principles of moral action are the law and grace (Summa II. 1, Q. 90): “The exterior principle moving to goodness is God, who both instructs us by the law and aids us by grace.” In Qs. 90-108 the law is treated, and in Q. 107, Art. 4, it is asserted, that although the new law is easier as respects the external commands, it is more difficult as respects the “repression of the inner impulses” (cohibitio interiorum 282motuum).510 In 564 Qs. 109-114 there follows the doctrine of grace. Thomas treats first

509

On the general scheme in which Thomas has inserted his doctrine of grace, and especially on the significance of the Church as correlate of redemption, see Ritschl. Rechtfertigung, I. vol., 2 ed., p. 86 ff. The most wonderful thing in Thomas is that in the whole account no notice is taken of the specific nature of grace as gratis Christi. 510 “Quantum ad opera virtutum in interioribus actibus præcepta novæ legis sunt graviora præceptis veteris legis.” The later Schoolmen did not indeed directly contest this position, but they asserted that through the Sacraments the defective fulfilment of the commands of the new law is supplemented.

(Q. 109) of the necessity of grace. In Art. 1 it is laid down that it is impossible without grace to know any truth. The exposition is extremely noteworthy because it is very strongly determined by Aristotelian influences.511 At the same time the intellectualism of Thomas comes out here most distinctly: grace is the communication of super-natural knowledge; but the “light of grace” (lumen gratiæ) is, moreover, “superadded to nature” (naturæ superadditum). In both these views a disastrous step forward is taken; for what is “superadded” is not necessary to the accomplishment of man’s end, but reaches beyond it, may therefore be wanting, or establishes, if it is present, a superhuman worth, and hence a merit. Only now in Art. 2 is the relation of grace to moral goodness spoken of. Here appears at once the consequence of the “superadditum.” To man in his state ac5 of integrity the capacity is ascribed to do in his own strength “the good proportionate to his nature” (bonum suae naturae proportionatum)283—God only comes into view here, as everywhere else, as “primus movens” (the primary mover); yet divine help was needed in order to obtain a meritorious “bonum superexcedens” (surplus goodness). But after the Fall there is need in order to both these ends of grace, which must first restore man’s nature. Accordingly a twofold grace is required by him here. In this way the distinction is already drawn between gratia operans

58d 511

“Cognoscere veritatem est usus quidam vel actus intellectualis luminis (‘omne quod manifestatur lumen est’), usus autem quilibet quendam motum importat . . . videmus autem in corporalibus, quod ad motum non solum requiritur ipsa forma, quæ est principium motus vel actionis, sed etiam requiritur motio primi moventis. Primum autem movens in ordine corporalium est corpus cæleste.” This is now applied to the motus spirituales, whose ultimate author must therefore be God, “ideo quantumcunque natura aliqua corporalis vel spiritualis ponatur perfecta, non potest in suum actum procedere nisi moveatur a deo, quæ quidem motio est secundum suæ providentiæ rationem, non secundum necessitatem naturæ, sicut modo corporis cœlestis. Non solum autem a deo est omnis motio, sicut a primo movente, sed etiam ab ipso est omnis formalis perfectio, sicut a primo actu. Sic igitur actio intellectus et cujuscunque entis creati dependet et a deo quantum ad duo. Uno modo in quantum ab ipso habet perfectionem sive formam per quam agit, alio modo in quantum ab ipso movetur ad agendum. Intellectus humanus habet aliquam formam, scil. ipsum intelligibile lumen, quod est de se sufficiens ad quædam intelligibilia cognoscenda . . . altiora vero intel ac8 ligibilia intellectus humanus cognoscere non potest, nisi fortiori lumine perficiatur . . . quod dicitur lumen gratiæ, in quantum est naturæ superadditum. Sic igitur dicendum est, quod ad cognitionem cujuscunque veri homo indiget auxilio divino, ut intellectus a deo moveatur ad suum actum, non autem indiget ad cognoscendam veritatem in omnibus nova illustratione superaddita naturali illustrationi, sed in quibusdam quæ excedunt naturalem cognitionem.”

and gratia cooperans, and at the same time there is contemplated as man’s goal a supernatural state, which can only be reached by help of the second grace, which produces merits.512 In Art. 3 the question as to whether man can love God above all things without grace is dealt with in the same way: Nature before the Fall is certainly capable of that; for it is “quiddam connaturale homini” (something congenial to man); but after the Fall nature is incapable of it. “Man in the state of unfallen nature did not need the gift of grace superadded to natural goodness (naturalibus bonis) for loving God naturally above all things, though he needed the aid of God moving him to this, but in the state of corrupt nature man needs also for this the help of grace that heals nature.”513 In Art. 5 it is said regarding the question as to whether without grace man can merit eternal life, that every nature can, by its action, only bring about an effect which is proportionate to its strength. “But eternal life is an end exceeding the proportions (proportionem) of human nature; hence man cannot in his own strength produce meritorious works which are proportionate to eternal life. Therefore without grace 284man cannot merit eternal life.” Nothing is said here of merits 55e de congruo, nay, in Art. 6 it is denied that by natural good deeds man can prepare for this grace;514 no doubt conversion to God comes about in free will, but the will cannot turn to God unless God converts it; for man cannot raise himself independently from the state of sin without grace,515 cannot even in this state

512

“In statu naturæ integræ quantum ad sufficientiam operativæ virtutis poterat homo per sua naturalia velle et operari bonum suæ naturæ proportionatum, quale est bonum virtutis acquisitæ, non autem bonum superexcedens, quale est bonum virtutis infusæ; sed in statu naturæ corruptæ etiam deficit homo ab hoc, quod secundum suam naturam potest, ut non possit totum hujusmodi bonum implere per sua naturalia. Quia tamen natura humana per peccatum non est totaliter corrupta, ut scil. tanto bono naturæ privetur, potest quidem etiam in statu naturæ corruptæ per virtutem suæ naturæ aliquod bonum particulare agere, non tamen totum bonum sibi connaturale.” He must be healed auxilio medicinæ. “Sic igitur virtute gratuita superaddita virtuti naturæ indiget homo in statu naturæ integræ, quantum ad unum scil. ad operandum et volendum bonum supernaturale, sed in statu naturæ corruptæ quantum ad duo, scil. ut sanetur et ulterius ut bonum supernaturalis virtutis operetur, quod est meritorium.” 513 In Art. 4 the fulfilling of the law of God is treated in the same way. 514 “Quod homo convertatur ad deum, hoc non potest esse nisi deo ipsum convertente, hoc autem est præparare se ad gratiam, quasi ad deum converti . . . homo non potest se præparare ad lumen gratiæ 564 suscipiendum, nisi per auxilium gratuitum dei interius moventis.” 515 Art. 7: “Cum enim peccatum transiens actu, remaneat reatu, non est idem resurgere a peccato, quod cessare ab actu peccati, sed resurgere a peccato est reparari hominem ad ea quæ peccando amisit.” Sin has three evils as its consequences, macula, corruptio

avoid with certainty mortal sins (Art. 8), nay even the redeemed man needs grace in order not to fall into sin;516 hence perseverance is also a special gift of grace. ad1 1 After this, in Q. I to, the essence of grace is described. The inquiry begins very characteristically with the question “whether grace places anything in the soul” (utrum gratia ponat aliquid 285in anima). Here it is laid down that gratia has a threefold meaning = benevolent disposition, free gift without equivalent, and thanks. Divine grace is not only benevolent disposition, but also gift, and therefore “it is manifest that grace places something in him who receives grace.” Now the definition: “Thus, therefore, by man’s being said to have the grace of God, there is signified something supernatural in man proceeding from God. Sometimes, however, the grace of God is a designation for God’s eternal love itself, as it is also called the grace of predestination, in so far as God has predestinated or chosen some gratuitously, and not on the ground of merit” (sic igitur per hoc, quod dicitur homo gratiam dei habere, significatur quiddam supernaturale in homine a deo proveniens. Quandoque tamen gratia dei dicitur ipsa æterna dei dilectio, secundum quod dicitur etiam gratia prædestinationis, in quantum

naturalis boni, reatus culpæ. None of these results can be removed otherwise than by God. 516 Art. 9: “homo ad recte vivendum dupliciter auxilio dei indiget. Uno quidem modo quantum ad aliquod habituale donum, per quod natura humana corrupta sanetur et etiam sanata elevetur ad operanda opera meritoria vitæ æternæ, quæ excedunt proportionem naturæ. Alio modo indiget homo auxili ac8 o gratiæ, ut a deo moveatur ad agendum. Quantum igitur ad primum auxilii modum, homo in gratia existens non indiget alio auxilio gratiæ quasi aliquo alio habitu infuso, indiget tamen auxilio gratiæ secundum alium modum, ut scil. a deo moveatur ad recte agendum, et hoc propter duo. First generally (nulla res creata potest in quemcunque actum prodire nisi virtute motionis divinæ), second specially, propter conditionem status humanæ naturæ, quæ quidem licet per gratiam sanetur quantum ad mentem, remanet tamen in ea corruptio et infectio quantum ad carnem per quam servit legi peccati; remanet etiam quædam ignorantiæ obscuritas in intellectu; propter varios enim rerum eventus et quia etiam nos ipsos non perfectæ cognoscimus, non possumus ad plenum scire quid nobis expediat, et ideo necesse est nobis, ut a deo dirigamur et protegamur qui omnia novit et omnia potest. Et propter hoc etiam renatis in filios dei per gratiam convenit dicere: Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, et fiat voluntas tua, etc.” 517 Art. 10 (strictly Augustinian, against Pelagius): “Ad perseverantiam habendam homo in gratia constitutus non quidem indiget aliqua alia habituali gratia, sed divino auxilio ipsum dirigente et protegente contra tentationum impulsus . . . et ideo postquam aliquis est justificatus per gratiam, necesse habet a deo petete prædictum perseverantiæ donum, ut scil. custodiatur a malo usque ad finem vitæ: multis enim datur gratia, quibus non datur perseverare in gratis.”

deus gratuito et non ex meritis aliquos prædestinavit sive elegit).518 But as grace “places something in the soul,” it is also a quality of the soul, i.e., in addition to the help by which God in general moves the soul to good action, He infuses into it a supernatural quality.519 In the two following articles (3 and 4) it is now proved that grace is not only the being filled with this or that quality (not only with love even), but that it is related to the infused virtues as the natural light of reason (lumen rationis) to the acquired virtues (virtutes acquisitæ), and that it is to be regarded therefore as participation in the divine natur 564 e by means of an illumination penetrating the whole being, whereby the true sonship to God comes to exist.520 286

From this point, in Q. 111, the division of grace is sketched. And, first, a distinction is drawn between gratia gratum faciens (by which man is united to God [qua ipse homo deo conjungitur]), and gratia gratis data (the priestly official grace, by which the man himself is not justified, but the justification of another is contemplated [qua non homo ipse justificatur, sed justificatio alterius comparatur]). It is worthy of note that Thomas begins with this distinction (Art. I). Then follows the separation of grace into gratia operans and gratia co-operans (that by which He moves us to good volition and action — gift of habit divinely imparted to ac8 us [illa, qua nos movet ad bene volendum et agendum — habituale donum nobis divinitus inditum]); it is justified by the proposition: “the operation of any effect is not attributed to that which moves, but to the mover” (operatio alicujus effectus non attribuitur mobili, sed moventi). In the effect, so far as our soul is mota non movens (the moved, not moving) the gratia operans appears; in the effect, so far as it is mota movens (the moved, moving) the gratia

518

Art. 1. Art. 2: “. . . multo magis illis quos movet ad consequendum bonum supernaturale æternum, infundit aliquas formas seu qualitates supernaturales, secundum quas suaviter et prompte ab ipso moveantur ad bonum æternum consequend ac8 um.” 520 Art. 3: “Sicut lumen naturale rationis est aliquid præter virtutes acquisitas, quæ dicuntur in ordine ad ipsum lumen naturale, ita etiam ipsum lumen gratiæ, quod est participatio divinæ naturæ, est aliquid præter virtutes infusas, quæ a lumine illo derivantur et ad illud lumen ordinantur.” Hence because grace is not a mere virtue, but aliquid virtute prius, it is not placed in aliqua potentiarum animæ, but in the essence of the soul itself. “Sicut enim per potentiam intellectivam homo participat cognitionem divinam per virtutem fidei, et secundum potentiam voluntatis amorem divinum per virtutem caritatis, ita etiam per naturam animæ participat secundum quandam similitudinem naturam divinam, per quandam regenerationem” (Art. 4). 519

cooperans appears (Art. 2).521 Parallel with this is the division into gratia præveniens and gratia subsequens 287(Art. 3).522 In Art. 4 the gratia gratis data, i.e., the grace with which one helps others (for the edification of the community, official grace), is subjected to a further division according to I Cor. xi., and in Art. 5 it is shown that the gratia gratum faciens is to be valued much more highly than the gratia gratis data. In Q. 112 the causæ gratiæ (causes of grace) are now considered. That God alone can be the cause is deduced in a genuinely Old Catholic way from the conception of grace as deifica (making divine).523 Hence man cannot even prepare himsel

521

Note also: “Est autem in nobis duplex actus; primus quidem interior voluntatis; et quantum ad istum actum, voluntas se habet ut mota, deus autem ut movens, et præsertim cum voluntas incipit bonum velle, quæ prius malum volebat. Et ideo secundum quod deus movet humanam mentem ad hunc actum, dicitur gratia operans. Alius autem actus est exterior qui cum a voluntate imperetur consequens est quod ad hunc actum operatio attribuatur voluntati. Et quia etiam ad hunc actum deus nos adjuvat et interius confirmando voluntatem, ut ad actum perveniat, et exterius facultatem operandi præbendo, respectu hujusmodi actus dicitur gratia cooperans. (There follows a proofpassage from Augustine). Si igitur gratia accipiatur pro gratuita dei motione, quia movet nos ad bonum meritorium convenienter dividitur gratia per operantem, et cooperantem. Si vero accipiatur gratia pro habituali dono, sic est duplex gratiæ effectus, sicut et cujuslibet alterius formæ, quorum primus est esse, secundus est operatio. . . . Sic igitur habitualis gratia, in quantum animam sanat vel justificat sive gratam deo facit, dicitur gratia operans, in quantum vero est principium opens meritorii, quod ex libero arbitrio procedit, dicitur cooperan 564 s.” At an earlier point Thomas had already made an analogous distinction with regard to righteousness (justitia); see II., 1 Q. l00, Art. 12: “Si loquamur de justificatione proprie dicta sic considerandum est, quod justitia potest accipi prout est in habitu vel prout est in actu, et secundum hoc justificatio dupliciter dicitur. Uno quidem modo secundum quod homo fit justus adipiscens habitum justitia. Alio veto modo, secundum quod opera justitiæ operatur, ut secundum hoc justificatio nihil aliud sit quam justitiæ exsecutio. Justitia autem, sicut aliæ virtutes, potest accipi et acquisita et infusa. Acquisita quidem causatur ex operibus, sed infusa causatur ab ipso deo per ejus gratiam, et hæc est vera justitia, secundum quam aliquis dicitur justus apud deum.” 522 “Sicut gratia dividitur in operantem et cooperantem secundum diversos affectus, ita etiam in prævenientem et subsequentem, qualitercumque gratia accipiatur. Sunt autem quinque effectus gratiæ in nobis, ac6 quorum primus est ut anima sanetur, secundus est, ut bonum velit, tertius est, ut bonum quod vult efficaciter operetur, quartus est, ut in bono perseveret, quintus est, ut ad gloriam perveniat. Et ideo gratia secundum quod causat in nobis primum effectum, vocatur præveniens, respectu secundi effectus et prout causat in nobis secundum, vocatur subsequens respectu primi effectus.” 523 “Cum donum gratiæ nihil aliud sit quam quædam participatio divinæ naturæ, quæ excedit omnem aliam naturam, ideo impossibile est quod aliqua creatura gratiam causet. Sic enim necesse est, quod solus deus deificet, communicando consortium divinæ naturæ

564 f for this grace, the preparation rather, which is necessary, must be effected by grace itself,524 therefore the act of preparation for gratia infusa is not meritorious, for although every forma presupposes a materia disposita (prepared), yet it holds good even in the things of nature that “the preparedness of the material does not necessarily secure form save by virtue of the agent who causes the preparedness” (dispositio materiæ non ex necessitate consequitur formam nisi per virtutem agentis, qui dispositionem causat).525 This gratia gratum faciens can be smaller in the one, greater in the other, just because it is ac8 a free 288gift;526 but

per quandam similitudinis participationem, sicut impossibile est, quod aliquid igniat nisi solus ignis” (Art. 1). 524 The thought is this, that gratia as habituate donum dei requires a preparation, because (Aristotelian) “nulla forma potest esse nisi in materia disposita; sed si loquamur de gratia secundum quod significat auxilium dei moventis ad bonum (that is, the gratia prima), nulla præparatio requiritur ex parte hominis, quasi præveniens divinum auxilium.” With this momentous distinction the dissolution of Augustinianism took its beginning. 525 Art. 3: “Præparatio hominis ad gratiam est a deo sicut a movente, a libero autem arbitrio sicut a moto . . . Secundum quod est a libero arbitrio, nullam necessitatem habet ad gratiæ consecutionem.” 526 566 This also is a momentous, as it is also an Augustinian, proposition, due likewise to thinking of grace as gratia infusa (habitus). No doubt Thomas further explains, that ex parte finis the greatness of grace always remains the same (“conjungens hominem summo bono, quod est deus”). But “ex parte subjecti gratia potest suscipere magis vel minus, prout scil. unus perfectius illustratur a lumine gratiæ quam alius. Cujus diversitatis ratio quidem est aliqua ex parte præparantis se ad gratiam, qui enim magis se ad gratiam præparat pleniorem gratiam accipit.” This position was the main source of disaster for the period that followed: there was naturally the growing tendency to think more of the præparatio than of the causa, and to overlook the addition which Thomas had appended: “sed hac ex parte non potest accipi prima ratio hujus diversitatis, quia præparatio ad gratiam non est hominis, nisi in quantum liberum arbitrium ejus præparatur a deo. Unde prima causa hujus diversitatis accipienda est ex parte ipsius dei, qui diversimode suæ gratiæ dona dispensat ad hoc quod ex diversis gradibus pulchritudo et perfectio ecclesiæ consurgat, sicut etiam diversos gradus rerum instituit, ut esset universum perfectum.” This explanation manifestly leads in quite a different direction from the one mentioned first, with which i ac8 t is associated; for in the case of the former it is really a question about a more or less, in the case of the latter, on the other hand, it is a question about varieties, which are necessary to the perfectness of the beautiful whole. But Thomas could unite the two explanations in accordance with his ontology, because, like Augustine, he regarded ultimately even the less good as necessary in the cosmic system, since it is just in this way that the beauty of the whole comes out in the manifoldness of its parts. Of course this reflection simply cancels the ethical mode of contemplation and transforms it into the æsthetic. Thus, so far as Thomas does not derive the existence of

because it is something supernatural, no one here below to whom it is not specially revealed can know for certain whether he possess it.527 There follows in Qs. 113 and 114 the inquiry into the effects of grace. In correspondence with the distinction between gratia operans and gratia cooperans the effect of grace is twofold — justification and meritorious good works; but even in justification the will must co-operate. Only the very first point is distinguished by the sole efficiency of grace. This comes out at 289once in Art. 1 (Q. 113). Thomas raises the question whether the justification of the sinner is the remission of sins (utrum justificatio impii sit remissio peccatorum?), and in an extremely round-about explanation he answers at bottom with no, although he apparently replies to the question in the affirmative. He lays it down, that is to say, that “justification, passively received, introduces an impulse towards righteousness” (justificatio passive accepta importat motum ad justitiam), but that it comes into view here “as a certain change (transmutatio) from a state of unrighteousness to a state of righteousness.” “And because movement is described rather from the terminus ad quem than from the terminus a quo, so a change (transmutatio) of this kind, by which one is changed (transmutatur) from a state of unrighteousness into a state of righteousness, derives its name from the terminus ad quem, and is called the justification of the sinner”; in other words: the actual justification does not yet take place through the “remission of sins,” but only on account of the contemplated end can i 564 t be said that forgiveness of sins is already justification; in reality, however, justification — as a translation into a new state — only takes place later. This becomes still plainer, when it is affirmed in Art. 2 that even for the forgiveness of sins the gratia infusa is necessary. This has the effect, certainly, of introducing a bad confusion; for if the position: “remission of guilt cannot be understood where there is no infusion of grace” (non potest intelligi remissio culpæ, si non

more or less grace from the dispositio (præparatio) hominis, but traces it rather to God, he knows only of æsthetic ways of justifying it (Art. 4). 527 This is the third momentous position (Art. 5): “Nullus potest scire, se habere gratiam, certitudinaliter; certitudo enim non potest haberi de aliquo, nisi possit dijudicari per proprium principium.” No one is sure of a conclusion, who does not know the major premiss. “Principium autem gratiæ at objectum ejus est ipse deus, qui propter sui excellentiam est nobis ignotus.” One can only ascertain the possession of grace conjecturaliter (per aliqua signa). But one can very well be sure of possessing scientia and fides, “non est autem similis ratio de gratia et caritate.” We see here what ruin was wrought by the thought of gratia infusa as a mysterious habitus which is applied to the soul! But this habitus, of which one cannot be certain, corresponds with the deus ignotus!

adest infusio gratiæ) is correct (it is proved by the reflection that forgiveness of sins presupposes “the effect of divine love” in us, i.e., presupposes that we love God in return), then forgiveness of sins, instead of being the first thing, is the last, and one must ask himself, what then is really the effect of the gratia præveniens (in the strictest sense)? Is it mere vocatio (calling), or something undefinable? Thomas here got astray with his own distinctions, or — in a highly characteristic way — he left in darkness what man owes to prevenient grace. In accordance with this it is pointed out in Arts. 3-5, that for justification ac8 there must already co-operate a movement of free will (motus liberi arbitrii), a movement of faith (motus fidei) and a hatred of sin (odium peccati), i.e., we are at once led on to contemplate the 290intermingling of grace and selfactivity.528 Only now does justification take place (Art. 6); for “four things are to be reckoned (enumerantur) which are required for the justification of the sinner, viz., the infusion of grace, the movement of free will in relation to God (in deum) by faith, and the movement of free will in relation to sin (in peccatum), and the remission of guilt (this last follows, then, from the three other things); the reason of which is that, as has been said, justification is a certain movement by which the soul is moved by God from a state of guilt into a state of righteousness; but in any movement by which anything is moved by another, three things are required. First, the moving (motio) of the mover himself; second, the movement as in motion (motus mobilis); third, the consummation of the movement, or the arrival at the goal. From the side (ex parte), therefore, of the divine moving there is received the infusion of grace, from the side of free will the retirement and advance (recessus et accessus) of movement, while the consummation or arrival at the goal of this movement is brought about (importatur) by the remission of guilt. For in this justification is consummated.”529 But although justification culminates in the forgiveness of sins, yet, as will appear, the whole

528

Art. 3: “In eo, qui habet usum liberi arbitrii, non fit motio a deo ad justitiam absque motu liberi arbitrii, sed ita infundit donum gratiæ justificantis, quod etiam simul cum hoc movet liberum arbitrium ad donum gratiæ acceptandum in his, quæ sunt hujus motionis capaces.” 4: “deus m 564 ovet animam hominis convertendo eam ad se ipsum . . . prima conversio ad deum fit per fidem . . . ideo motus fidei requiritur ad justificationem impii.” 5: “recessus et accessus in motu liberi arbitrii accipitur secundum detestationem et desiderium . . . oportet igitur quod in justificatione impii sit motus liberi arbitrii duplex, unus quo per desiderium tendat in dei justitiam, et alius, quo detestetur peccatum.” 529 It may be remarked, by the way, that here and there in the Middle Ages it is related that those specially endowed with grace detected (sensibiliter) the infusion of grace, felt with the sense of taste a sweetness, etc.

process does not yet culminate in justification. Of this justification of the sinner it is further taught (Art. 7), that it is effected “origi 564 naliter” at the moment of infusion, and that “it is realised instantaneously and without succession” (in instanti fit absque successione). The difficulty, that the giving of form (infusion) can only take place in materia disposita (in prepared matter) is set aside by saying, that “for the infusion of grace into the soul God does 291not require any disposition save that which He Himself creates. But He creates a disposition of this kind sufficient for the reception of grace, sometimes indeed suddenly, but sometimes gradually and in stages” (ad hoc quod gratiam infundat animæ, non requirit aliquam dispositionem, nisi quam ipse facit. Facit autem hujusmodi dispositionem sufficientem ad susceptionem gratiæ quandoque quidem subito quandoque autem paulatim et successive).530 In what follows, the order of the process is now inverted in a bold way (Art. 8): from the point of view of time the four things na ac8 med above coincide, but causally they follow each other thus — (1) the infusion of grace; (2) the movement towards God in love; (3) the turning from sin; (4) the forgiveness of guilt. The legitimacy of this inversion is not proved by Thomas; the aim in view is manifest; grace must stand at the beginning. But because he is averse to distinguishing a grace which is not infused, but is simply the awakening of trust (fiducia), he cannot allow validity to the scheme which would really correspond with his mode of thought, namely, (1) a grace that is merely movens; (2) faith (fides); (3) detestation of sin; (4) remission of guilt; (5) infused grace (gratia infusa). He, therefore, places infused grace first “causally” (causaliter) (from the correct reflection that at all events the precedence belongs to this), but it is a mere assertion, which he himself cannot effectively prove, that this gratia is infusa; for its effects do not correspond with this. The confusion which, on closer inspection, we at once see to have been introduced by him here,531 was not without its influence in the period that followed. In

530

The exposition is again cosmological (Aristotelian): “Quod ac8 enim agens naturale non subito possit disponere materiam, contingit ex hoc, quod est aliqua proportio ejus quod in materia resistit ad virtutem agentis et propter hoc videmus, quod quanto virtus agentis fuerit fortior, tanto materia citius disponitur. Cum igitue virtus divina sit infinita, potest quamcunque materiam creatam subito disponere, etc. etc.” 531 It shews itself, e.g., in the contradiction Art. 8 ad Primum, where he says: “Quia infusio gratiæ et remissio culpæ dicuntur ex parte dei justificantis, ideo ordine naturæ prior est gratiæ infusio quam culpæ remissio. Sed si sumantur ea quæ ex parte hominis justificati, est ex converso; nam prius est ordine naturæ liberatio a culpa, quam consecutio gratiæ justificantis.” But only the one thing or the other holds good. It is the worst scholasticism to assert that the two views can be held together.

the concluding view taken of justification (Arts. 9 and 10), it is laid down that it is not only a great work (opus magnum) of God, 292but is really even a miraculous work (opus miraculosum); but at bottom the latter holds good only of sudden conversions: “certain miraculous works, although they are less than the justification of the sinner, so far as the good that comes into existence is concerned, are, nevertheless, beyond the usual order of such effects, and therefore have more of the nature of miracle” (“quædam miraculosa opera, esti sunt minora quam justificatio impii quantum ad bonum quod fit, sunt tamen præter consuetum ordinem talium effectuum et ideo plus habent de ratione miraculi”). This exhausts justification, yet not the whole process; only now, rather, are the effects first considered which are imparted through grace 564 in an increasing measure to him who is already justified. They are all placed under the head of merit (Q. 114). First, the question is raised whether man can acquire merit at all before God (Art. 1). The answer runs: not in the absolute sense of strict righteousness, but certainly in virtue of a benevolent arrangement of God.532 Then in accordance with this it is declared impossible that anyone should merit for himself eternal life, even if he lives in the state of unfallen nature (in statu 293natural integræ)

532

This is the religious robe that is thrown over the irreligious “merit.” Thomas says that meritum and merces are the same = retributio as pretium of a deed. Justitia in the strict sense exists only inter eos, quorum est simpliciter æqualitas. Where therefore there is simpliciter justum, there is also simpliciter meritum vel merces. In other cases there exists at the most a meritum secundum quid (not justum). But between God and men there is the greatest inequality, and all goodness which man has springs from God; hence there is here, not a meritum simpliciter, but certainly a meritum “in quantum uterque operatur secundum modum suum.” But the modus humanæ virtutis is appointed by God; “ideo meritum hominis apud deum esse non potest nisi secundum persuppositionem divinæ ordinationis, ita scil. ut id homo consequatur a deo per operationem quasi mercedem, ad quod deus ei virtutem operandi deputavit.” Still it is to be noted here, that Thomas does not determine merit purely according to the arbitrary will of God; it is estimated rather by the faculty and end of man. Yet in the period that followed, there was an adhering always more closely, beca 562 use it was more convenient, and because the conception of God admitted of it to pure arbitrariness as respects meritoriousness, and a relying on the Church’s being initiated into the purposes of this arbitrariness. But in this article Thomas has a still further addition that is not without its significance; he continues: “Sicut etiam res naturales hoc consecuntur per proprios motus et operationes, ad quod a deo sunt ordinatæ, differenter tamen, quia creatura rationalis se ipsam movet ad agendum per liberum arbitrium. Unde sua actio habet rationem meriti, quod non est in aliis creaturis.” It is implied therefore in the nature of free will that it acquires merits; in Art. 4, e.g., in addition to the thesis that the meritorious originates ex ordinatione divina, Thomas has made an independent use of this thesis.

(Art. 2); for “eternal life is something good that exceeds the proportions of created nature” (vita æterna est quoddam bonum excedens proportionem naturæ creatæ).533 On the other hand, to the question, whether the man who is in ac8 a state of grace can merit eternal life “ex condigno,” no explicit answer is given.534 The decision rather runs (Art. 3), “meritorious work of man can be looked at in two ways; on the one hand in so far as it proceeds from free will, on the other hand in so far as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Spirit. If it is looked at with respect to the substance of work and in so far as it proceeds from free will, there cannot here be condignity on account of the very great inequality of proportions. For it appears congruous, that man working according to his virtue should be rewarded by God according to the excellence of his virtue. But if we speak of meritorious work with respect to what proceeds from the grace of the Holy Spirit, it is in this case meritorious of eternal life ex condigno. For here the value of the merit is estimated according to the power of the Holy Spirit who moves us to eternal life. The reward also of the work is estimated by the dignity of the grace by which man, made a participant of the divine nature, is adopted as a son of God, to whom inheritance is due in virtue of the very right of adoption” (opus meritorium hominis dupliciter considerari potest; uno modo, secundum quod procedit ex libero arbitrio, alio modo, secundum quod procedit ex gratia spiritus sancti. Si consideretur secundum substantiam operis et secundum quod procedit ex libero arbitrio, sic non potest ibi esse condignitas propter maximam inæqualitatem proportionis. Videtur enim congruum, ut homini operanti secundum suam virtutem deus recompenset secundum excellentiam suæ virtutis. Si autem loquamur de opere meritorio secundum quod procedit ex gratia spiritus sancti, sic est meritorium vitæ æternæ ex condigno. Sic enim valor meriti attenditur secundum virtutem spiritus sancti moventis nos in vitam æternam. Attenditur etiam 294pretium operis secundum dignitatem gratiæ, per quam homo consors factus divinæ naturæ adoptatur in filium dei, cui debetur hæreditas ex ipso jure adoptionis). The same thing, then, is in one respect ex condigno, in another respect ex congruo! The period that followed was not satisfied with this, but attributed to human merit a higher worth; bu 564 t to this Thomas

533

“Nulla natura creata est sufficiens principium actus meritorii vitæ æternæ, nisi superaddatur aliquod supernaturale donum, quod gratia dicitur.” aca 534 “Ex condigno” = in a truly meritorious way, as contrasted with “ex congruo” = in the way of a performance, to which, when a benevolent view is taken of it, a certain worth and therefore also a certain merit can he attributed.

himself gave the impulse. In Art. 4 it is shown that the meritorious principle is love, whether we look at merit ex ordinatione divina (by divine arrangement), or at merit “in so far as man has, beyond other creatures, the power of acting for himself as a voluntary agent” (in quantum homo habet præ ceteris creaturis ut per se agat voluntarie agens). In both cases it can easily be shown, that in love and in no other virtue merit consists.535 In view of the principle “any act of love merits absolutely eternal life” 295(quilibet actus caritatis meretur absolute vitam æternam), it is now asked in Art. 8, whether man can merit the increase (augmentum) of grace or love, and this question is answered roundly in the affirmative; for “that to which the motion of grace extends falls under merito condigni, but the motio 564 n of any thing moving extends not only to the ultimate goal of the movement, but also to the whole progress in

535

Here in Arts. 5-7, as if by way of giving extra measure, Thomas introduces three chapters, in which he again expressly shows that one cannot merit the first grace, that one cannot merit it for another, and that one cannot merit even the reparatio post lapsum. But the sections are important, for the reason that the decided negative which Thomas here adopts everywhere was cancelled, or at least modified, in the period that followed. With regard to the first point, he explains most distinctly that “omne meritum repugnat gratiæ,” hence: “nullus sibi mereri potest gratiam primam.” But Thomas did not see that what holds good of the gratia prima holds good of all grace. Indeed the gratia prima, just because it has nothing to do with merit, is at bottom an extremely dark phenomenon for him, and this explains his passing over it so rapidly. He was himself accountable for it therefore, that in the period that followed even the communication of the gratia prima was attached to certain merits. The second point is important, because Thomas, in distinction from the later Schoolmen, here gives Christ the honour, and still keeps Mary and the saints in the background. He recalls first of all his expositions in Arts. 1 and 3, to the effect that in the meritorious works of the justified that which free will does is only a meritum de congruo, and then proceeds: “Ex quo patet, quod merito condigni nullus potest mereri alteri primam gratiam nisi solus Christus, quia unusquisque nostrum movetur a deo per donum gratiæ, ut ipsa ad vitam æternam perveniat, et ideo meritum condigni ultra hanc motionem non se extendit. Sed anima Christi mota est a deo per gratiam, non solum ut ipse perveniret ad gloriam vitæ æternæ, sed etiam ut alios in eam adduceret, in quantum est caput ecclesiæ. . . . Sed merito congrui potest aliquis alteri mereri primam gratiam. 521 Quia enim homo in gratia constitutus implet dei voluntatem congruum est secundum amicitiæ proportionem, ut deus impleat hominis voluntatem in salvatione alterius.” Thus the saints are certainly admitted by the back-door of meritum de congruo. Regarding the third point it is said: “Nullus potest sibi mereri reparationem post lapsum futurum, neque merito condigni, neque merito congrui”; for the former is excluded, because the grace that might be the ground of merit is lost by the Fall (“motione prioris gratiæ usque ad haec [viz., the Fall or the mortal sin] non se extendente”); the latter becomes in still higher degree an impossibility through the impedimentum peccati.

movement; but the goal of the movement of grace is eternal life, while the progress in this movement is according to the increase of love. Thus therefore the increase of grace falls under merito condigni” (illud cadit sub merito condigni, ad quod motio gratiæ se extendit, motio autem alicujus moventis non solum se extendit ad ultimum terminum motus, sed etiam ad totum progressum in motu; terminus autem motus gratiæ est vita aeterna, progressus autem in hoc motu est secundum augmentum caritatis. Sic igitur augmentum gratiæ cadit sub merito condigni). On the other hand, the question whether man can also merit perseverance in grace is denied in the following article, and thus the ultimate worth of “merit” is cancelled, and a way of return sought for to pure Augustinianism.536 In order to form a correct historic estimate of this grace doctrine of ac8 Thomas, we must keep in view, in addition to the interest of Christian piety by which he was really guided, and in addition to the practice of the Church, which for him was authoritative, that in the philosophy of religion he was determined by Augustine’s doctrines of God and of predestination, and in ethics by Aristotle’s doctrines of God and of virtue. Because both were certainties for him, and he therefore made it his business to unite the two, he framed that complicated system of doctrine in which the dexterous, often paradoxical, subtleties of Augustine, the believing sceptic, became as much fundamental tenets as the most direct and confident deliverances of his piety. These fundamental tenets are then placed in connection with the entirely contrasted thoughts of Aristotle, while with wearisome reiteration the definition of God as primum movens is made to 296serve as the bridge. How entirely dependent Thomas is upon Augustine is shown by the doctrine of predestination, which he has taken over in all its strictness;537 how largely dependent he 297is upon

536

“Perseverantia vitæ non cadit sub merito, quia dependet solum ex motione divina, quæ est principium omnis meriti, sed deus gratis perseverantiæ bonum largitur cuicunque illud largitur.” b0b 537See Summa I., Q. 23: Predestination is the providence of God in relation to creaturæ rationales; He alone can give them the ultimus finis, i.e., can “appoint their order.” In virtue of His decree, God determines the numerus electorum, and in so far as it belongs to divine providence “aliquos permittere a vita æterna deficere,” so also it belongs to it that God should reprobate some. “Sicut enim prædestinatio includit voluntatem conferendi gratiam et gloriam, ita reprobatio includit voluntatem permittendi aliquem cadere in culpam et inferendi damnationis pœnam pro culpa” (Art. 3), nay, l.c., Thomas asserts with chilling sternness that the reprobatio is also a bonum: “Deus omnes homines diligit et etiam omnes creaturas, in quantum omnibus vult aliquod bonum; non tamen quodcunque bonum vult omnibus. In quantum igitur quibusdam non vult hoc

Aristotle is shown both by his doctrine of God and above all by the Pars Secunda Secundae, the special doctrine of morals, in which it is demonstrated that virtue consists in the right government of the appetencies and impulses by reason, and is then perfected

bonum, quod est vita æterna, diciter eos habere odio vel reprobate.” According to this, therefore, there is also a bonum which is no bonum (for the receiver), and so nothing but the divine will itself: God loves these men in hell! But on the other hand it is also said with Augustine: “Aliter se habet reprobatio in causando quam prædestinatio. Nam prædestinatio est causa et ejus quod expectatur in futura vita a prædestinatis, scil. gloriæ, et ejus quod percipitur in præsenti, scil. gratiæ; reprobatio vero non est causa ejus quod est in præsenti, scil. culpæ, sed est causa derelictionis a deo (this has not its source in prescience); est tamen causa ejus quod redditur in futuro, scil. pœnæ acternæ. Sed culpa provenit ex libero arbitrio ejus, qui reprobatur et a gratia deseritur.” But how shall he not sin if God has forsaken him? What does it avail to add: “reprobatio dei non subtrahit aliquid de potentia reprobati; unde cum dicitur quod reprobatur non potest gratiam adipisci, non est hoc intelligendum secundum impossibilitatem absolutam, sed secundum impossibilitatem conditionatam”? It was not easy for Thomas to construe the doctrine of free will, since in the doctrine of God he had applied throughout the thought of the sole divine causality; and in the doctrine of the gubernatio (I., Q. 103) had shown that, just like the principium mundi, so also the finis mundi is aliquid extra mundum (Art. 2). But if the world has no independent end, it follows that the gubernatio must be conceived of as implying that by Him alone all things are moved, i.e., brought to their goal; for they themselves cannot move forward to that, quod est ex 564 trinsecum a toto universo. But by distinguishing the esse and operari, as also the primum movens in things and the movens ex se, and finally the gubernatio diversa in quantum ad creaturas irrationales and in quantum ad creaturas per se agentes, Thomas still succeeds in maintaining free will, which indeed he necessarily requires also, in order to get merit; see the discussion of freedom of will, I., 83 (Art. 1: “Homo est liberi arbitrii, alioquin frustra essent consilia, exhortationes, præcepta, prohibitiones, præmia et pœnæ. . . . Liberum arbitrium est causa sui motus, quia homo per liberum arbitrium seipsum movet ad agendum. Non tamen hoc est de necessitate libertatis, quod sit prima causa sui id quod liberum est, sicut nec ad hoc quod aliquid sit causa alterius, requiritur quod sit prima causa ejus. Deus igitur est prima causa movens et naturales causas et voluntarias. Et sicut naturalibus causis movendo eas non aufert, quin actus earum sint naturales, ita movendo causas voluntarias non aufert, quin actiones earum sint voluntariæ, sed potius hoc in eis facit; operatur in unoquoque secundum ejus proprietatem”). In accordance with this it is constantly emphasised in the determining paragraphs on justification that the process of grace realises itself with the consent of free will, which consent, however, is at the same time an ef ac8 fect of grace: when God infuses grace, He moves us according to our own proper nature, i.e., in such a way that He moves the free will to the willing acceptance of the gift of grace. The same thing is said of the virtues; on the one hand they are likewise infused; but on the other hand God never acts sine nobis, but always only with the assent of our free will; for the rational creature is so constituted that in its being impelled by God towards the goal, it must always be impelled consentiente voluntate.

supernaturally by the gifts of grace. Finally, in order to get a complete view of Thomas’s doctrine of grace, we must add his doctrines of the constitution of man, of the primitive state, of the Fall, of original sin and of sin, as they are developed in Parts I., Q. 90-102, and II., 1 Q. 71-89. But we may refrain from presenting these here in fuller detail, partly because Thomas attaches himself closely to Augustine, partly because the chief points have already been specified in the discussion of his doctrine of grace.538 Yet his

538

Let us adduce here only a few of the determining positions. As had been the case already with Augustine, the “primitive state” created a special difficulty for Thomas, inasmuch as on the one hand eternal life was to be regarded as a gift of grace, while on the other hand it was held as certain that it could only be acquired through merit. It necessarily followed from this that the view taken of the primitive state was indeterminate; it was not quite conceived of as mere possibilitas boni (in the sense of the highest goodness, quod superexcedit naturam), but neither was it quite thought of as habitus boni. So Thomas, introducing the idea that the vita æterna is a bonum superexcedens naturam, described the natural equipment of Adam as insufficient for the obtaining of this good, and accordingly assumed that in creation there was given to him over and above the natural equipment a special gratia superaddita, by the help of which his free will should acquire for itself the merit which fits for eternal life; see I., Q. 95, Art. 1: Adam received grace at once at creation (not only afterwards) — he was in gratia conditus — for only grace could secure for him the rectitudo, which consists in the subordination of the ratio to God, of the inferiores virtutes to the ratio, of the body to the soul. But this subordination was not “rationalis”; for otherwise it would have continued after the Fall; so it was secundum supernaturale donum gratiæ. Note also Art. 4: “Homo etiam ante peccatum indigebat gratia ad vitam æternam consequendam, quæ est principalis necessitas gratiæ.” But this view, still a religious one, had already many breaches made in it before Thomas’ time, and these always increased in number; see below. A further result of this view was that Thomas was not able to identify the justilia originalis 564 with the image of God, so far as this image is incapable of being lost, or say, to unite it with the innate end of human nature, but viewed it as a supernatural gift, which leads beyond the bonum naturale and the finis naturalis. The grounds for this view are easily discovered. They lie both in the purpose entertained that the coming into existence of merit shall be proved possible, and in the conceiving of merit as something supernatural; in short, in the regarding of asceticism as a state, or say opus, which is supernatural, meritorious, and which also conducts therefore to eternal life. If the supreme good cannot be so described that even the present life as an end is included in it, then nothing remains but to erect two stories, residence in the lower story simply serving the purpose of gathering merit for entering the higher. The sin which originated with Adam (inherited sin) is loss of the justitia originalis, and accordingly, as this latter alone effected the ordinatio partium, disorder, i.e., rebellion of the lower parts against the higher. On the other hand, the principia naturæ humanæ continue unaffected by the inherited sin, which is both a habitus and a culpa, and even the natural capacity of ratio to know and to will the good is only weakened but not eradicated. The chief sentences are

doctrine of the consilia 298evangelica deserves still a special consideration. This doctrine forms the conclusion of his discussion of the doctrine of the new law. But on the other hand the doctr 564 ine of grace also culminates in the “evangelical counsels,” so that in a very real sense these represent the summit of the whole course of thought. Thomas (II., 1 Q. 108, Art. 4) first of all gives the following definition: “This is the difference between counsel and precept, that precept introduces (importat) necessity, while counsel is made dependent on the option (in optione ponitur) of him to whom it is given, and so counsels are fittingly (convenienter) added to precepts in the new law, which is the law of liberty, but

(II., 1, Q. 82-89): “. . . al ac8 io modo est habitus dispositio alicujus naturæ ex multis compositæ secundum quam bene se habet vel male ad aliud . . . hoc modo peccatum originale est habitus; est enim quædam inordinata dispositio proveniens ex dissolutione illius harmoniæ, in qua consistebat ratio originalis justitiæ, sicut ægritudo corporalis . . . unde peccatum originale languor naturæ dicitur” (this view is partly æsthetic partly, pathological, 82, 1). “Peccatum originale materialiter quidem est concupiscentia, formaliter vero est defectus originalis justitiæ;” the former is original sin, because the “inordinatio virium animæ præcipue in hoc attenditur, quod inordinate convertuntur ad bonum commutabile, quæ quidem inordinatio communi nomine potest dici concupiscentia” (82, 3). “Peccatum originale non magis in uno quam in alio esse potest” (82, 4). “Anima est subjectum peccati originalis, non autem caro . . . cum anima possit esse subjectum culpæ, caro autem de se non habeat quod sit subjectum culpæ, quidquid pervenit de corruptione primi peccati ad animam, habet rationem culpæ, quod autem pervenit ad carnem, non habet rationem culpæ, sed pœnæ” (83, 1). “Peccatum originale per prius respicit voluntatem” (83, 3). “Cupiditas est radix omnium peccatorum” (84, 1); but, on the other hand, it holds good: “quoniam inordinate se homo ad temporalia convertens semper singularem quandam perfectionem et excellentiam tamquam finem desiderat, recte ex hac parte superbia, quæ inordinatus est propriæ excellentiæ appetitus, initium omnis peccati ponitur” (84, 2). With regard to the consequences of sin: “Principia naturæ (primum bonum naturæ) nec tolluntur nec diminuuntur per peccatum (empiricopsychological observation, to which, however, a certain worth also is given for the religious mode of apprehension), inclinatio ad virtutem a natura insita (secundum bonum naturale) diminuitur per peccatum (ethical observation, but important for religion), donum originalis justitiæ (tertium bonum naturæ) totaliter est ablatum” (religious view, v. 85, 1). That sin can ever remove totally the inclinatio of the ratio ad bonum is described as unthinkable, since, according to Augustine, “malum non est nisi in bono” (85, 2). “Omnes vires animæ remanent quodammodo destitutæ proprio ordine, quo naturaliter ordinantur ad virtutem, et ipsa destitutio dicitur vulneratio naturæ (vulnus ignorantiæ, malitiæ, infirmitatis, concupiscentiæ” v. 85, 3). “Mors et omnes defectus corporales consequentes sunt quædam pœnæ originalis peccati, quamvis non sint intenti a peccanti” (85, 5). Death is natural to man secundum naturam universalem, non quidem a parte formæ, 559 sed materiæ (85, 6). Q. 86 treats de macula peccati; Q. 87 de reatu pœnæ; P. 88 and 89 de peccato veniali et mortali.

not in the old law, which was the law of servitude (servitutis).” Thereupon it is remarked that the “precepts of the new law” are necessary to (but also sufficient for) eternal life, “but there ought to be counsels regarding those things by which man can attain the appointed end better 299and more readily” (consilia vero oportet esse de illis, per quae melius et expeditius potest homo consequi finem prædictum). Then it is explained that here on earth man is placed between the things of this world and spiritual benefits, and ac8 that entire devotion to the former is removed by the præcepta. Yet on the other hand man does not require to surrender the things of this world entirely in order to attain to the goal of eternal life (!), “but he attains more expeditiously by abandoning (abdicando) totally the good things of this world, and therefore the evangelical counsels are given regarding this.” But the benefits of this world consist in the possession of outward goods, in sexual pleasures, and in the possession of honours, which relate to the lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. To relinquish these entirely, so far as it is possible — in this consists the evangelical counsels, and in the adoption of them consists “omnis religio, quæ statum perfectionis profitetur” (all religion which professes a state of perfection). The adoption of even one of these counsels has a corresponding worth, as, e.g, when one gives alms to a poor man beyond what is obligatory, abstains from marriage for a long time for the sake of prayer, or does good to his enemies in excess of what is due, etc. The following of these counsels is a ground of merit in a still higher degree than the 300following of the commands, so that here in a pre-eminent way it holds good, that God gives eternal life to man, not merely in grace, but also by virtue of His righteousness.539 Thomas’s doctrine of grace, when judged of from the standpoint of religion, presents two faces. On the one hand it looks back to Augustine,540 on the other hand it looks forward to the

539

See the voluminous exposition in S. II., 2 Q. 184-189, “de statu perfectionis” (bishops and monks), where in Q. 184, Art. 2, the triplex perfectio is described, and it is said of that which is possible here on earth, that it is not indeed attainable that one “in actu semper feratur in deum,” but it is attainable that “ab affectu hominis excluditur non solum illud quod est caritati contrarium, sed etiam omne illud quod impedit ne affectus mentis totaliter dirigatur ad deum”; the whole idea of the consilia in particular of virginitas already in Pseudo-Cyprian (=Novatian) de bono pud. 7: “Virginitas quid aliud est quam futuræ vitæ gloriosa meditatio?” 540 ad3 It may also be traced back to Augustine that from Thomas, as has been already remarked, the specific nature of grace propter Christum and per Christum never receives clear expression in the whole doctrine of grace. The connection is simply now and again asserted, but is not distinctly demonstrated, while the whole doctrine of grace is treated

dissolution which Augustinianism was to undergo in the fourteenth century. Whoever examines Thomism carefully, will find that its author makes an earnest endeavour, by means of a strictly religious mode of view, to assert the sole efficacy of divine grace; but on the other hand he will be compelled to note, that at almost all decisive points the line of statement takes ultimately a different direction, the reason being that the effect of grace itself is s ac3 een in a contemplated end that has a character partly hyperphysical, partly moral (“participation in the divine nature,” and “love,” conjoined by the thought that love merits eternal life).541 But as compared with what was presented by Halesius, Bonaventura and others, or, with what was taught at the time, Thomism was already a religious reaction; for those theologians yielded to a much more decided tendency to render 301the doctrine of grace less effectual by means of the doctrine of merit. By the appearing of Thomas, a development was checked, which, apart from him, would have asserted itself much more rapidly, but which in the end, nevertheless (from the middle of the fourteenth century), gained, through the victorious conflicts of the Scotists against the Thomists, the ascendency in the Church, thereby calling forth a new reaction, which seems to have slowly gathered force from the close of the fourteenth century.542 At all points, from the doctrines as to the nature of man and as to the primitive state, on to the doctrine of final perfection, there are apparent the dissolving tendencies of the later scholasticism, led by Halesius, Bonaventura and Scotus. 1. Halesius, who was also the first to introduce into dogmatics the expression “supernatural good” as having a technical sense, taught that the justitia originalis belongs to the nature of man itself as its completion, but that there is to be distinguished from this the

completely prior to the doctrine of the person of Christ. Is that accidental? No, certainly not! It comes out here again, that in the West, because the Mystic-Cyrillian theory was not maintained (Soterology and Soteriology as identical), there had come to be — in spite of Anselm — entire uncertainty as to how really Christology was to be dogmatically utilised. The only possible solution was not found, namely in adhering, without theoretic speculation, to the impression produced by the person who awakens spirit and life, certainty and blessedness. 541 Therefore faith also, and forgiveness of sins play, in spite of all that is said of them, an insignificant part. Faith is either fides informis, that is, not yet faith, or fides formata, that is, no longer faith. Faith as inward fiducia is a transitional stage. 542 Just in the doctrines of grace and sin did the Scotists gain more and more the upper hand; as regards the other doctrines, their dialectico-sceptical investigations were crowned with a smaller measure of success.

gratia gratum faciens, which man already possessed in the primitive state as a supernatural good, though this was imparted to him, not in creation, but only after creation, while Adam moreover earned it for himself meritoriously by good works ex congruo.543 568 So merit was to begin so early! Thomas knows nothing of this; but Bonaventura repeated this doctrine;544 it is also to be found in Albertus,545 and the Scotists adhered to it.546 The advantage which this doctrine offered, namely the possibility of reckoning to the perfection of human nature itself the justitia originalis, which was distinguished from the gratia gratum faciens, was greatly counterbalanced by the 302injury involved in introducing the meritum de congruo ac9 into paradise itself, and thus placing merit from the beginning side by side with the “sole efficacy” of grace. The meritum de congruo is thus earlier than the meritum de condigno; for the latter could only be implanted, and was meant only to be implanted, in Adam after reception of the gratia gratum faciens, in order that he might merit for himself eternal life. 2. There already appear in Thomas (see above p. 297) approaches towards the breaking up of the Augustinian doctrines of sin and original sin, in so far as he no longer broadly grants the proposition, “naturalia bona corrupta sunt” (natural goodness is corrupt), in so far as he defines concupiscence, which is in itself not evil, as only “languor et fomes” (tinder), emphasizes the negative side of sin more strongly than Augustine, and assumes, on the ground of the ratio remaining, an abiding inclination towards goodness (inclinatio ad bonum). Yet he certainly taught a stricter doctrine than Anselm, who really only accentuated the negative side, and began to waver even in regard to its character as guilt.547

543

Schwane, 1.c., p. 379 f., S. II., Q. 96, membr. 1: “Alii ponunt, ipsum (Adam) fuisse conditum solummodo in naturalibus, non in gratuitis gratum facientibus et hoc magis sustinendum est et magis est rationi consonum . . . Sic noluit deus gratiam dare nisi præambulo merito congr 52d ui per bonum usum naturæ.” 544 See Schwane, p. 383. 545 See Schwane, p. 384. 546 L. C., p. 391. Werner, Scotus, p. 410 ff. Scotus himself says: “Adam conditus fuit sine omni peccato et sine gratia gratum faciente” (Report, Par. III. D. 13, Q. 2, n. 3) aff 547De conceptu virg. 27: “Hoc peccatum, quod originale dico, aliud intellegere nequeo in infantibus nisi ipsam, factam per inobedientiam Adæ, justitiæ debitæ nuditatem, per quam omnes filii sunt iræ: quoniam et naturam accusat spontanea quam fecit in Adam justitiæ desertio, nec personas excusat recuperandi impotentia. Quam comitatur beatitudinis quoque nuditas, ut sicut sunt sine omni justitia, ita sint absque omni beatitudine.” C. 22: “Peccatum Adæ ita in infantes descendere, ut sic puniri pro eo debeant ac si ipsi singuli illud fecissent personaliter sicut Adam, non puto.” Hence also

To him Duns attached himself, in so far as he at bottom separated the question about concupiscence from the question about original sin; the former is for him no more the formal in the latter, but simply the material. Thus there remains for original sin merely the being deprived of the supernatural good, from which there then resulted certainly a disturbing effect upon the nature of man, while however nothing was really lost of the natural goodness.548

the idea of the limbus infantium now came always more prominently in view. But the rejection of the damnation of infants overturns the whole of Augustinianism. 548 Comm. in Sent. II., Dist. 30 Q. 2: Original sin cannot be concupiscence; for the latter is (1) natural, (2) “ . . . tum quia non est actualis, quia tunc illa concupiscentia esset actualis, non habitualis, quia habitus derelictus in anima ex peccato mortali non est peccatum mortale, manet enim talis habitus dimisso peccato per pænitentiam; nec etiam ignorantia est, quia parvulus baptizatus ita ignorat sicut non baptizatus.” One is now eager to hear what original sin then is, and the answer is received (D. 32, with an appeal to Anselm): “carentia justitiæ debitæ.” “Et si obicitur, quod aliqui sancti videntur dicere concupiscentiam esse peccatum originale, respondeo: concupiscentia potest accipi vel prout est actus vel habitus vel pronitas in appetitu sensitivo et nullum istorum est formaliter peccatum, quia non est peccatum in parte sensitiva secundum Anselmum. Vel potest accipi, prout est pronitas in appetitu rationali, i.e., in voluntate ad concupiscendum delectabilia immoderate, quæ nata est condelectari appetitui sensitivo, cui conjungitur. Et hoc modo concupiscentia est materiale peccati originalis, quia per carentiam justitiæ originalis, quæ erat sicut frenum cohibens ipsam ab immoderata delectatione, ipsa non positive, sed per privationem, fit prona ad concupiscendum immoderate delectabilia.” Very loose also is Dun ac8 s conception of the first sin of man (of Adam) as distinguished from the sin of the angels; it did not arise from uncontrolled self-love, but had its root in uncontrolled love for the partner associated with him (Werner, p. 412); this uncontrolled conjugal love, however, was (1) not libidinous, for in the primitive state there was no bad libido; (2) the act to which Adam allowed himself to be led was not in its nature an immoral act, but only transgression of a command imposed for the purpose of testing. Adam accordingly sinned only indirectly against the command to love God, and at the same time transgressed the law of neighbourly love by over-passing, through his pliancy, the proper limit. That is a comparatively slight fault, and is not equal in its gravity to the smallest violation of a natural rule of morality. Compare with this empiristic view Augustine’s or Anselm’s description of the greatness of the first sin! In order to see clearly the Pelagianism of Scotus, it must still be added that he disputed the doctrine of Thomas, that in the state of justitia originalis even the smallest venial sin was unthinkable. According to him only mortal sins were impossible; on the other hand, as man in his original state was just man, such sins were quite well possible as do not entail directly the loss of righteousness, but only occasion a delay in arriving at the final goal. How small according to this view, in spite of all assertions to the contrary, is the significance of the first sin and of original sin! In a disguised way Duns taught, as did Julian of Eklanum, that on the one hand there belongs to the natural will the quality that leads it to turn to the good without effort, while on the other hand, because it is the will of

303

3. According to Thomas the magnitude of the first sin (and therefore also of inherited sin) is infinite, according to Scotus it is finite. 4. The Lombard had already taught that inherited sin is propagated simply through the flesh, and that 564 the soul created 549 304for the latter is thereby defiled. He held, therefore, as many others did, that inherited sin is inherited sin, in so far as it must propagate itself as a contagion (contagium) from Adam onwards. At the same time he also touches, on the other hand, on the thought of Augustine: “all these had been the one man, i.e., were in him

man, the possibility of “small sins” was given even in the original state! Occam draws here again the ultimate conclusions (v. Werner II., pp. 318 f.). As everything is arbitrary, he asserts on the one hand that we must not dispute that it is in God’s power to remit to the sinner the guilt of sin, and bestow upon him saving grace without repentance and contrition; on the other hand, he denies all inner ideal necessary connection between moral guilt and penalty or expiation. “In this way,” Werner justly remarks, “theological Scholasticism arrived at the opposite extreme to the idea expressed in the Anselmic theory of satisfaction of the inviolability of a holy order, whose absolute law of righteousness implies, that God can only remit the reatus pœnæ æternæ at the cost of a supreme atonement, the making of which transcends all the powers of a mere creature.” But it was not from laxity that Occam destroyed the principles of Augustiniani ac1 sm; there met in combination in him rather two clearly recognisable factors, “the absolute lack of an ideal understanding of the world” (or let us say more correctly, his philosophic empiricism), and the greatest interest in determining the necessity of the saving grace of Christ simply from revelation itself. But — vestigia terrent; we can learn by studying the historical consequences of Occamism, that thinking humanity will not continue to he satisfied, if religion is set before it simply as revelation, and all links are severed which bind this revelation with an understanding of the world. From Occam it either goes back again to Thomas (Bradwardine and his spiritual descendants, cf. also the Platonism of the fifteenth century) or passes on to Socinianism. But should it not be possible that the history of religion should henceforward render to thoughtful reflection the service that has hitherto been rendered to it by Plato’s and Augustine’s and Thomas’s understanding of the world? We shall not be able certainly to dispense with an absolute, but it will be grasped as an experience. The Nominalism that sought to deliver the Christian religion from the “science” that perverted it made a disastrous failure in carrying on this rightly chosen task, because it understood by religion subjection to an enormous mass of material, which, having arisen in history, admits of no isolation. 549 Sent. II., Dist. 31, A. B.: “caro sola ex traduce est.” With Augustine the propagation of inherited sin is derived from the pleasure in the act of generation “unde caro ipsa, quæ concipitur in vitiosa concupiscentia polluitur et corrumpitur: ex cujus contactu anima, cum infunditur, maculam trahit, qua polluitur et fit rea, i.e., vitium concupiscentiæ, quod est originale peccatum.”

materially” (omnes illi unus homo fuerant, i.e., in eo materialiter erant), though the emphasis lies on the materialiter, so that the matter is to be understood, not mystically but realistically.550 Now, although Thomas, with the view of giving expression to guilt, and at the same time placing the accent on the will (not merely 564 on the flesh), affirmed, in opposition to this, an imputation on a mystical basis,551 yet the former idea continued to be the ruling one. Now, if in spite of this the guilt of the inherited sin is greatly reduced even in Thomas, it appears in 305Duns quite insignificant, notwithstanding all that is said regarding it. Nay, even the consequences of sin are presented by him in another light; for, as inherited sin is simply nothing but loss of the supernatural gift (donum), it has not attacked the nature of man. This remains, even after the Fall, uninjured. Duns really carried on a polemic against the Thomist definition of inherited sin as vulneratio naturæ (wounding of nature).552 Now, if we add to this, that by hairsplitting over defilement, corruptio 564 n of nature, moral culpability, and penalty (macula, corruptio naturæ, reatus culpæ, pœna), the subject was quite brought down to the level of casuistry, we must come to be of the opinion that Scholasticism ultimately lost sight entirely of the Augustinian starting-point. The religious view of sin, which even Augustine, indeed, had not strictly wrought out, entirely disappeared. Inherited sin was an external negative character, which is cancelled by the positive character of magical grace. Thus there remained only the wretched dregs of a view that had once been full of life, and had deeply stirred the soul. 5. It is obvious that free will also was now bound to have a higher value attached to it than the Augustinian-Thomist tradition admitted of. When once the fundamental thesis was abandoned, that moral goodness only exists in connection with God (by dependence on Him), when, consequently, the view again prevailed that man can make a parade before God with his independent works, the process of emptying Augustinianism of its

550

So, I think, must Anselm also be understood, de conc. virg. 23. Adam’s sinful will (as the will of the primus movens in humanity) is the expression of the universal will; see II., 1, Q. 81, Art. 1: “Inordinatio quæ est in isto homine ex Adam generato, non est voluntaria voluntate ipsius, sed voluntate primi parentis, qui movet motione generationis omnes qui ex ejus origine derivantur.” Hence inherited sin is not personal sin, but peccatum naturæ, the effect of which really is that its significance and gravity are greatly lessened. 552 In Sentent. II., Dist. 29. See at the same place the passage showing that the “voluntas in puris naturalibus habet justitiam originalem.” 552 551

contents (for the formulæ durst not be surrendered) necessarily became inevitable. Thomas himself, indeed, had begun, though at first timidly, to assign to free will a speci 564 al range of action as apart from grace. His mode of procedure, in giving with the one hand and taking with the other, could not continue to be maintained. Bonaventura made predestination dependent on prescience, and limited God as cause in His relation to rational creatures. He is not entire cause (tota causa), but cause along with another contingent cause, i.e., with free will (causa cum alia causa contingente, scil. cum libero 306arbitrio). For Duns, and likewise for the leading theologians till the Council of Constance (and later), the will of the creature is the second great power next to God,553 and to what they correctly lay down in the sphere of

553

Bonaventura (in Sentent. I., Dist. 40, Art. 2, Q. I) asks: “an prædestinatio inferat salatis necessitatem?” He answers: “prædestinatio non infert necessitatem saluti nec infert necessitatem libero arbitrio. Quoniam prædestinatio non est causa salutis nisi includendo merita (complete apostasy from Augustine), et ita salvando liberum arbitrium (that is ambiguous). Ad intelligentiam autem objectorum notandum, quod prædestinatio duo importat, et rationem præscientiæ et rationem causæ. In quantum dicit rationem causæ, non necessario ponit effectum, quia non est causa per necessitatem, sed per voluntatem, et iterum non est tota causa, sed cum alia causa contingente, scil. cum libero arbitrio. Et regula est, quod quotiescumque effectus pendet ex causa necessaria et variabili — a necessaria tamquam ab universali, a variabili tamquam a particulari — denominatur a variabili (in this way predestination is set aside), quia denominatio est a causa particulari, et effectus, quia dependet a causa contingente, est contingens. Et præter rationem causæ importat rationem præscientiæ et præscientia quidem totum includit in cognitione liberum arbitrium et ejus cooperationem et vertibilitatem et totum. Et præterea non est nisi veri, et etiam de vero contingente est infallibilis.” Duns’ doctrine of predestination is very complicated. It is dependent on his conception of God, which includes a determinism of arbitrariness (see Ritschl, l.c., I., pp. 58 f., 64). But just because the all-working God is always the contingently working will, the possibility of there being contingency in the world is disclosed. God embraces this contingency only with His prescience, and this prescience embraces the possible equally with the actual. The effect of this is, not only that predestination, as having unity, and as being inwardly motived, is cancelled, but that God appears no longer as the absolute Being who wills and can do one thing, but as the relative Being who, in an unfathomable way, wills and can do everything possible. Over against such a conception of God the will of man can assert itself not only as free, but also as relatively good, and so predestination and the grace that is the alone cause vanish, or rather predestination remains, in so far as absolute contingency and absolute arbitrariness coincide; see in Sent. I., Dist. 40, in resol: “Prædestinatio bifariam accipitur. Primo et proprie pro actu divinæ voluntatis, quo rationalem creaturam ad æternam eligit vitam seu decernit ac determinat se daturum in præsenti gratiam et gloriam in futuro. Secundo accipitur fusius pro actu etiam intellectus div 564 ini, pro præcognitione vid. quam habet deus salutis electorum, quæ quidem præcognitio concomitatur et consequitur

empirical psychology, they also give a material and positive religious significance. But in this way they separate themselves both from Augustine and from religion; for, as a dogmatic theologian, Augustine knows of free will only as a formal principal or as the cause of sin. It was the 307hereditary f 564 ate of mediæval dogmatic, that through the mixing up of knowledge of the world with religion, a relatively more correct knowledge of the world became as dangerous, nay, still more dangerous to faith, than a knowledge that was false; for every piece of knowledge, in whatever way it was found, was at once introduced into the calculation as having religious worth. Against the Pelagianism, which, with ever decreasing hesitation, made use of Augustinianism simply as “an artistic form of speech,” Bradwardine was the first to take again a strong stand, and after his time, the reaction never again disappeared, but slowly gathered strength in the fifteenth century, till the time of Wesel and Wessel, Cajetan and Contarini, till the time of Luther and the Decrees of Trent.554

electionem. Divina autem voluntas circa ipsas creaturas libere et contingenter se habet. Quocirca contingenter salvandos prædestinat, et posset eosdem non prædestinare. . . . Ex quo consequitur, quod is qui damnatus est damnari possit, quandoquidem ob ejus prædestinationem non est ejus voluntas in bonum confirmata, ut peccare nequeat.” 554 From Bradwardine’s preface to his treatise de causa dei c. Pelagium Münscher quotes the following passage: “In hac causa, quot, domine, hodie cum Pelagio pro libero arbitrio contra gratuitam gratiam tuam pugnant, et contra Paulum pugilem gratiæ spiritualem! Quot etiam hodie gratuitam gratiam tuam fastidiunt solumque liberum arbitrium ad salutem sufficere stomachantur! aut si gratia utantur, vel perfunctorie necessariam eam simulant ipsamque se jactant liberi sui arbitrii viribus promereri, ut sic saltem nequaquam gratuita, sed vendita videatur! Quot etiam, d aa4 eus omnipotens, impotentes de sui potestate arbitrii præsumentes tuæ cooperationis auxilium in operationibus suis recusant, dicendo cum impiis ‘recede a nobis’ . . . Quin immo et voluntati suæ in contingenter futuris omnimodam tribuunt libertatem, in tantum ut etiam contra vocem propheticam a tua subjectione exemptionem prætendant . . . Et quot et quam innumerabiles eis favent! Totus etenim pœne mundus post Pelagian: abiit in errorem. Exsurge igitur, domine, judica causam tuam et sustinentem te sustine, protege, robora, consolare! Scis enim quod nusquam virtute mea, sed tua confisus, tantillus adgredior tantam causam.” It is easily seen that here, as in the case of Gottschalk, the spirit and style of Augustine have exercised an influence. But Bradwardine and all the Reformers after him and previous to Luther simply went back upon Augustine (Wyclif, Huss, Wesel, Wessel, Staupitz, etc.). Just on that account this movement issued, not in the Evangelical Reformation, but in the Articles of Trent, or, in Bajus and Jansen; see Ritschl, Rechtfertigung, 1 vol., 2. ed., pp. 105-140. Ritschl begins these discussions with the not quite accurate words: “The effort will be fruitless to point out in any theologian of the Middle Ages the Reformation conception of the doctrine of justification, that is to

308

6. Most distinct, and fraught with the gravest practical results, was the further development of Scholasticism as regards the doctrine of justification and the meritorious acquirement of eternal life. But how many germs tending to develop into the Pelagian deteriorat ac8 ion of these doctrines had already been deposited in his system by Thomas himself? I will not repeat here what must have already come clearly to view above in the account of the Thomist doctrine of grace. The most manifest outcome of the further development in Scotism consists in these things: (1) that the decisive effect of “prevenient grace” became more and more a mere assertion, or, say, a form of speech — “co-operating grace” is the only intelligible grace — (2) that what, for Thomas, was “meritum ex congruo” became “meritum ex condigno,” while the “merita ex congruo” were seen in impulses and acts which Thomas had not placed under the point of view of merit at all, and (3) that, as a parallel to the meritoriousness of attritio, the meritoriousness of “fides informis,” of the mere obedience of faith, became more highly estimated. In this point the corruption was perhaps greatest; for the fides implicita, the mere self-surrender, now became in a sense a fundamental dogmatic principle.555 According to Scotus, the man who does not possess the habit of grace (habitus gratiæ), who therefore is not in union with God, and hence can do nothing really meritorious to earn eternal life, must not be held as having no power to conform his conduct to the

say, the deliberate distinguishing between justificatio and regeneratio.” Bradwardine’s doctrine of free will has been treated in detail by Werner (III., p. 270 ff.). Conscious in the highest degree that it was a question about the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ, Bradwardine revived Augustine’s doctrine of the incapacity of free will. Whether he really contracted the horizon of the Augustinian theology by tracing back its contents to the doctrines of the immutability of the divine thought and will as being its ultimate fundamental import (Werner, p. 282 ff. ), is a question I leave undiscussed. Certainly to me also the determinism seems to come out more strongly in Bradwardine than in Augustine; but Werner has an interest in separating Bradwardine as far as possible from Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas, because his doctrine led to Wyclif, and to that Augustinianism which Catholic theology no longer tolerates, though, as a fact, it is the genuine Augustinianism. Yet neither can these theologians, on the other hand, make use of the pure Nominalism of Occam. Hence Bradwardine is recognised, so far as he became “an involuntary witness (?) as it were, for the necessity of a restoration of the ecclesiastical Scholasticism on a Thomist basis.” 588 555In germ the fides implicita was contained from the beginning in the Western system as a factor to which religious value was attributed. But only in Nominalism did this germ open into blossom.

divine commands. He can still always fulfil these commands (otherwise God would require of him something impossible, and would be partial were He not to save all), and He must fulfil them; for he must prepare himself for the first grace. As it is a natural duty to love God beyond everything, 309it is also a duty that can be fulfilled; accordingly, even the natural righteousness of heathen and sinners is not without connection with the supernatural virtues; indeed, it cannot at all be proved that a habit of love produced by supernatural grace is always necessary in order to love God above all; this rather is simply an ecclesiastical tenet. Before the Fall at least all this held good, and it can be proved, indeed, from Aristotle (!) that it holds good als ac8 o after the Fall. It is with this in view that Scotus’ doctrines of grace and of merit must be understood. In point of fact, merit always precedes grace with him, that is to say, first the merit de congruo, then the merit de condigno;556 the

556

See Werner I., p. 418 ff. In Sentent. II., Dist. 28, Q. 1, Question: “How can God forgive guilt without giving grace? videretur enim esse mutatio in deo, si non ponatur in ipso justificato. Potest illa opinio confirmari per hoc, quod illud præceptum ‘Diliges dominum deum, etc.,’ est primum, a quo tota lex pendet et prophetæ. Ad actum igitur hujus præcepti aliquando eliciendum (actus elicitus dilectionis, rationis) tenetur voluntas; ita quod non potest esse semper omissio actus hujus præcepti sine peccato mortali. Quodcumque autem voluntas actum hujus præcepti exsequitur, licet informis, et disponit se de congruo ad g 564 ratiam gratificantem sibi oblatam, vel resistet et peccabit mortaliter, vel consentiet et justificabitur.” In the following way the Augustinian position that meritum is the munus dei is justified (Dist. 17, Q. 1 in Resol.): “in actu meritorio duo sunt consideranda. Primum illud quod præcedit rationem meritorii, in quo includitur substantia et intentio actus ac rectitudo moralis. Secundum est ratio meritorii, quod est esse acceptum a divina voluntate, aut acceptabile, sive dignum acceptari ad præmium æternum. Quantum ad primum, potentia est causa prima et principalis, et habitus causa secunda, cum potentia utatur habitu, non e converso; alias habens semel gratiam nunquam posset peccare, cum causa secunda semper sequatur motionem causæ primæ, nec possit movere ad oppositum illius, ad quod causa prima inclinat. Sed accipiendo actum in quantum est meritorius talis conditio ei convenit principaliter ab habitu et minus principaliter a voluntate. Magis siquidem actus acceptatur ut dignus præmio, quia est elicitus a caritate, quam quia est a voluntate libere elicitus, quamvis utrumque necessario requiratur . . . Actus meritorius est in potestate hominis supposita generali influentia, si habuerit liberi arbitrii usum et gratiam, sed completio in ratione meriti non est in potestate hominis nisi dispositive, sic tamen dis 564 positive quod ex dispositione divina nobis revelata”; observe here the yes and no which comes out in these distinctions. Consequently Bradwardine was right in fixing down the following errors in the reigning Scholasticism: (1) While denying that the meritum is causa principalis doni gratiæ, it asserts that it is causa sine qua non; (2) while denying that man can of himself merit saving grace, it asserts that he can prepare himself for it in a way required of him, and that God then gives His grace, because even in naturalibus the forma is at once given to

former entirely neutralises the thought of 310prevenient grace, the latter cancels the decisive significance of co-operating grace. Everywhere in words, by means of extremely forced distinctions, Augustinianism is defended, but in reality it is discarded. The position that was not disputed even by Thomas and Augustine, that we are not justified unwillingly (inviti), receives from Nominalism a Pelagian interpretation, and the other position, that eternal life is the reward for the merits one acquires on the basis of infused grace, is so understood that the accent falls on the will, and not on the merit of Christ. The divine factor really appears only in the “acceptance” (acceptatio), which, as it dominates the whole relation between God and man and is arbitrary, does not allow merits in the strictest (necessary) sense to be spoken of. The Nominalist doctrine is not simple moralism, only in so far as the doctrine of God does not admit in any case of a strict moralism. This comes out most plainly in Occam, who, indeed, taken altogether, presents the paradoxical spectacle of a strongly pronounced religious nature finding refuge simply in the arbitrary will of God. It is reliance on this arbitrary will alone that frees him from Nihilism, and the same applies to the greatest theologians of the period of the Reform Councils, till Nicolas of Cusa brought about a change. Faith, in order to maintain itself, found no other means of deliverance from the inrushing floods of worldknowledge than the plank of the divine arbitrariness, to which it clung with intense eagerness. These theologians were still no moralists — they merely appear such to 311us; — it was only the Socinians who became that. “According to Occam the necessity of supernatural habits (habitus) for the obtaining of eternal life cannot

the materia disposita; (3) while denying that man can, strictly speaking, initiate the saving process, it asserts that he consents and follows ex propriis viribus; (4) it asserts that man merits divine grace ex congruo (c. Pelag. 39), “et quia iste error est famosior ceteris his diebus, et nimis multi per ipsum in Pelagianum præcipitium dilabuntur, necessarium videtur ipsum diligentiori examine perscrutari.” The situation at the beginning of the sixteenth century is excellently described by Ritschl thus (I., p. 138): “The state of things in respect of public doctrine which the Reformation found existing was not apprehended and represented by the two sides with historical precision and justice. The theological opponents of the Reformation, who were exclusively Realists, entirely ign 564 ore the fact, that for a century and a half the Nominalist School had maintained the Pelagian doctrine with regard to merita de congruo, and had over-rated the merita de condigno as compared with the merit of Christ, that as a School they had won equal public rights with the Realists, and even in respect of science and practice had exercised a far-reaching influence on the latter. The Reformers on the other hand directed their reproaches and charges of Pelagianism, which should have applied only to the Nominalist tradition, against Scholasticism in general.”

be proved on grounds of reason. What alone could support the proof would be, that the acts of faith, ac8 love, and hope corresponding to these habits are not possible without their supernatural habits; this, however, cannot be proved. A heathen living among Christians can come to hold the articles of the Christian faith as true, on grounds of purely natural conviction; a philosophically trained heathen can live according to the conviction, acquired in a natural way, that God, who is more excellent than all else, must be loved above all else. The acts of faith, hope, and love performed by such men originate, not from infused, but from acquired habits, while these latter can exist even among Christians, and really do exist where there is a certain height of moral and intellectual development. The necessity of supernatural habits is established solely by the authority of traditional Church doctrine. Thus then as regards the necessity of supernatural habits, we see Occam arriving at the most extreme opposition to the necessity of supernatural habits that is possible within the limits of Church faith.” (? !) So Werner.557 That here there is still always a keeping within the limits of ecclesiastical faith is an instructive assertion of the modern Catholic theologian. The truth is, that the displacement of “merits” is here carried so far, that the distinction between merita ex congruo and merita ex condigno is entirely neutralised; man can acquire for himself in the state of nature merita de condigno; but God has willed, nevertheless, the necessity of a supernatural habitus and has appointed the corresponding institutions.558 Now although many theologians, such as Occam himself, might feel their religious conscience quieted by the reflection that God’s arbitrary will is for us His mercy, yet the only general effect possible from this kind of theology — especially when we recall the attritio and the 312indulgences, was that there should be recognised in good works the instrumental causes (causæ instrumentales) for the r ac8 eception of eternal life, that these good works, moreover, should be judged to be meritorious even in their minimised form, and that, finally, self-subjection to the revelation taught by the Church should be held to be a sufficient good motive (bonus motus), which is so completed by the Sacraments that it imparts worthiness. In this way Nominalism was understood even by the earnest Augustinians of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. They saw in

557

II., P. 339 f. The Catholic precautionary position lies simply in this, that God need give the vita æterna to no one at all, but that that lif ac8 e is in every case an arbitrary gift, the source of which is an ordained arrangement. This precautionary position, however, has nothing to do with the question about sin and guilt, but originates in the general doctrine of God. 558

it a denial of the grace of God in Christ, and they did not let themselves be led astray from this judgment by the most acute distinctions of the Nominalists: “In vain is much said in the way of repudiation; what the other hears in everything is only a No.” Perhaps the plainest evidence of the decline of an inwardly grounded doctrine of salvation and of the growing attachment of value to creaturely goodness in the last centuries of the Middle Ages, is the doctrine of Mary, as embracing both the doctrine of her immaculate conception and the doctrine of her co-operation in the work of redemption.559 1. We have seen above (Vol. V., p. 235) that even Augustine had doubts as to whether Mary was subject to the general law of sin, and Paschasius Radbertus already knows that Mary was sanctified in the womb. Anselm, certainly, who on this point was more Augustinian than Augustine, had distinctly rejected the immaculate conception (Cur deus homo II. 16); but a few years after his death we meet with a festival in Lyons (1140) in honour of the immaculate conception of Mary, which proves how 313widely current the superstition had already become in the lower strata of the Church).560

559

The Pelagian motives underlying the doctrine of Mary are pretty much concealed in Scholasticism, but they are clearly apparent on closer inspection. The treatment, moreover, of the doctrine of the human soul of Christ by Scotus and the Scotists is also a beautiful demonstration of their Pelagianism, but the description here of this complicated line of doctrinal development would take us too far; see Werner I., p. 427 ff.; II., p. 330 ff. What alone reconciles us in the marialogy is the observing that pious faith allows itself utterances about the relationship of Mary to God and Christ which it does not venture to make about its own relationship. In this sense — though it appears paradoxical — there is much that is evangelical in the doctrine of Mary. It would be an interesting task to prove this from the doctrine of Mary as taught by the Schoolmen individually. 560 The history of the worship of Mary is throughout a history in which the superstitious religion of the congregations and the monks worked upwards from its dark foundations, and determined theology, which reluctantly submitted; but, on closer view, this is seen to hold good of almost all specifically Western Catholic practices and doctrines. The παράδοσις ἄγραφος, the tradition, which is now claimed as the papal, that has existed semper, ubique et apud omnes, is the common superstition, which everywhere and always expressed itself in analogous forms. In this sense the Catholic position cannot be disputed, that the Romish Church is the Church of stable, and yet at the same time living, tradition. This tradition is stable, because the lower religious instincts, which are compounded of fear and sensuousness, are stable; it is living, because theology by its devices gradually legitimised these instincts. This does not of course imply the den 564 ial, that apart from this there was another and higher content in the

Bernard (ep. 174 ad canonicos Lugd.) spoke against the new festival, but used feeble weapons in opposing the idea that was expressed in it: that Mary was already sanctified in the womb, and continued also to be protected against all sin; but that her conception was not sinless, otherwise that of her parents must also have been so (i.e., if in this way ac8 the proof is to be got of the sinless birth of Christ); that the sinless conception was a prerogative of Christ. But if general opinion already held as certain what Bernard had laid down as to the sinlessness of Mary,561 and if, besides this, the act of birth was surrounded with the halo of the miraculous, how could the logic in these fancies be hindered from pressing on to the ultimate extreme? The Pre-Scotist Schoolmen still denied, it is true, the immaculate conception (even Bonaventura); but if Thomas adheres to sanctification in the womb, and accordingly assumes, immediately after the conception, a special influence of grace upon Mary, why shall she not be declared exempt from original sin itself? Thomas answers, because Christ is the redeemer of all men; but that he would no longer be if Mary had remained free from original sin (S. III., Q. 27). Still — everything is possible, of course, for Scholasticism — why can it not be assumed that Christ’s death had a reflex power for Mary? Then, again, original sin is a mere privatio, is it not? Why cannot God, 314who can do everything, fill Mary from the beginning with grace? And is this being filled with grace not necessary if she is after-wards to act, not merely a passive, but an active part in the work of redemption (see sub. 2)? So Scotus then held it as “probable” that Mary was conceived without sin, and therefore never possessed the concupiscentia carnis (in Sent. III., Dist. 3, Q. 1). From that time the Franciscans strenuously maintained this view against the Dominicans (Thomists). The “reflex power of redemption” was the fig-leaf to cover the apostasy from Christ, and — to adopt the artistic form of speech — “her preservation from contracting original sin was due to its being fitting that the Mediator, Christ, should prove Himself in the most perfect way to be Mediator by means of some human creature that was above all others adapted for this (that is, meritum de congruo on Mary’s part, seen ex præscientia [in the exercise of prescience]). The most perfect kind of mediation is that by which the injured is anticipated in such a way that he never at all begins to be angry about the

Catholic tradition. For the literature on the worship of Mary see Vol. IV., p. 314, and Reusch, Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1887, No. 7. 561 A monk relates that Bernard, who appeared to him in a dream, regretted and retracted his doubts about the immaculate conception (see Werner II., p. 349, f.)

injury done to him, and therefore lets forgiveness drop as su 564 perfluous.”562 This proof is extraordinarily instructive, for it contains implicitly the admission that Christ is not the perfect Redeemer of all men, but that He only establishes for them the possibility of redemption. That is correctly thought from a Catholic point of view; but it is not usually plainly expressed in that quarter — nay, for good reasons there is a very grave reluctance to express it. Thomists and Scotists rivalled each other in glorifying Mary; but the former magnified in her the power and splendour of the grace which cleanses and purifies, the latter magnified the grace itself which originally (ab origine) imparts innocence. But if grace is able to do that, why does it not do it always? It seems, then, as if it were not really the glorifying of grace that is aimed at. Certainly not. “Only with the existence of a perfect innocence wrought by redeeming grace is a complete representation afforded of all orders of rank in human beatification. The highest stage is represented b ac8 y the blessedness of the soul of Christ, which was absolutely blessed even on earth without foregoing merit; then follows the holy virgin, whose beatifying merit 315was her perfect innocence wrought by the grace of redemption; in the third rank stand those whose souls were never stained by actual sins; lastly come those who, from being great sinners, have become saints.”563 In this graduated choir it is manifestly not grace that is of effect, but merit. Here again there was a connecting of the idea of consilia evangelica with salvation. As is well known, the great controversy about the immaculate conception was not fought out in the Middle Ages. But the University of Paris condemned the rejection of the new doctrine (1387); at Bâsle the “Reform Council” gave its voice for it (36. Sess. 1439), and Sixtus IV. (Extravag. III., 12, 1) prepared the way for its adoption as dogma by forbidding, under the penalty of excommunication, the pronouncing it heresy, though at the same time he declared to the world that the apostolic chair had not yet decided, i.e, could not yet overlook the opposition of the Dominicans at the time. Not without ground these latter could point out that they themselves

562

III. Dist. 3, Q. 1, n. 4 sq. Werner I., p. 460. III. Dist. 3, Q. 1, n. 7, 12. Werner I., p. 462. On the attitude of the later Scotists, l.c. II., p. 347 f. Two sanctifications of Mary were assumed, the first at the moment of her being conceived (extinction of original sin, i.e., of the fomes peccati), the second at the moment of her conceiving (impossibilitas peccandi). Occam adopted this double sanctification also, but made less of its effects, because he did not rate very highly the peccatum originis itself. 563 aba

encouraged the deepest conceivable veneration of Mary, for their great teacher had taught that there should be paid to the holy virgin, not, indeed, latreia as to God, nor yet douleia, as to the saints,564 but hyperdouleia.565 2. From as early as the time of Irenæus occasion was furnished, through the fatal parallel drawn between Eve and Mary, for attributing to Mary a certain share in the work of redemption; from the idea of the graded hierarchy of angels and saints in 316heaven the impulse was received to worship Mary along with Christ as the Queen of Heaven (“in the midst be 564 tween the Son, who is holiest of the holy, and all the saints, royal virgin, gate of heaven, way, the ladder from sins” [media inter filium, qui est sanctus sanctorum, et alios sanctos, virgo regia, janua cœli, via, peccatorum scala]; the most extravagant veneration even on the part of Bernard in the Sermones II. in adv. dom.: “let us also strive to ascend by her to Him who by her descended to us; by her to come into the grace of Him who by her came into our misery; by thee may we have access to the Son, O blessed contriver of grace, author of life, mother of salvation, that through thee He may receive us, who through thee was given to us. Thy innocence excuses before Him the guilt of our corruption . . . let thy abundant love cover the magnitude of our sins, and thy glorious fecundity confer on us fecundity of merits; our lady, our mediatrix, our advocate, reconcile us to thy Son, commend us to thy Son, represent us before

564

Special proofs of the worship of saints and relics are not necessary, as Scholasticism added nothing of importance to the practice and theory that prevailed even from early times. The doctrine of the saints was attached in the closest way to the doctrine of the consilia. The intercession of the saints was proved from the idea of the connection of the earthly Church with the heavenly; on their merita, see the doctrine of indulgences. Thomas was here also the ruling authority as a teacher, and by his doctrine of the merits of the saints he prepared the way for the Pelagianism of the Scotists. 565 Thomas, S. III., Q. 25, Art. 5. Thomas claimed latreia for the cross and the image of Christ, III., Q. 25, Arts. 3 and 4; see also II., 1 Q. 103, Art. 4.

thy Son! Grant, O blessed one, by the grace which thou hast found . . . that He who through thy mediation deigned to partake of our infirmity and misery, may, through thy intercession also, make us partakers of His glory and blessedness” [studeamus e aa6 t nos ad ipsum per eam ascendere, qui per ipsam ad nos descendit; per eam venire in gratiam ipsius, qui per eam in nostram miseriam venit; per te accessum habeamus ad filium, O benedicta inventrix gratiæ, genetrix vitæ, mater salutis, ut per te nos suscipiat, qui per te datus est nobis. Excusat apud ipsum integritas tua culpam nostræ corruptionis . . . copiosa caritas tua nostrorum cooperiat magnitudinem peccatorum, et fœcunditas gloriosa fœcunditatem nobis conferat meritorum; domina nostra, mediatrix nostra, advocata nostra, tuo filio nos reconcilia, tuo filio nos commenda, tuo filio nos repræsenta! fac, O benedicta, per gratiam quam invenisti . . . ut qui te mediante fieri dignatus est particeps infirmitatis et miseriæ nostræ, te quoque intercedente participes faciat nos gloriæ et beatitudinis suæ566]). From here it was only 317 a step to the doctrine of Scotus and the Scotists, that Mary cooperated, not only passively, but actively, in the incarnation.567

566

Bernard is also fond of variations on the thought that the Son will hear the mother, the Father the Son. “Hæc peccatorum scala, hæc mea maxima fiducia est, hæc tota ratio spei meæ.” The Son cannot refuse to hear the mother; for the “invenisti gratiam apud deum” is still in force. These thoughts passed over in succum et sanguinem of Catholicism; they were disseminated especially by the Franciscans. 96 567[568]On the proof, see Werner I., pp. 433 f., 435 ff.; II. 352 ff. In Duns the idea coheres with his general zoological ideas; yet for him it has also independent significance.

318

Indexes Index of Scripture References Jeremiah 1:10 Matthew 16:1-28 16:1-28 16:19 19 21 26:52 29 Luke 22:32 22:38 John 6:29 16:7 20:1-31 57a 21:16 Romans 3 3:1-30 4 6 13:1 1 Corinthians 1:10 2:25 11:1-34 11:34 2 Corinthians 5:16 Ephesians 5:2 Colossians 599 James 5:14 1 Peter 3:18 2 Peter 1:4 1:4

Index of Greek Words and Phrases • • • • • • • • • •

Σιγή ἔοικεν ἡ ἁµαρτία παρακωλύµατι, κωλύοντι τὴν εὔνοιαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡµῖν γενέσθαι. Βύθος Οὐκ ὢν θεός κατὰ πνεῦµα κατ᾽ ἐπινοίαν λογικὴ λατρεία µεµένηκεν ὅπερ ἦν µεταστοιχείωσις παράδοσις ἄγραφος

Index of Latin Words and Phrases •

•

• • • • • • •

•

“Utrum s. doctrina sit scientia practica?” Conclusio: “Tametsi s. theologia altioris ordinis sit practica et speculativa, eminenter utramque continens, speculativa tamen magis est quam practica,” “Utrum sacra doctrina sit una scientia?” Conclusio: “Cum omnia considerata in sacra doctrina sub una formali ratione divinæ revelationis considerentur, eam unam scientiam esse sentiendum est. “emanatio” (processio) creaturarum a deo ” Sit simplex, humilis confessio, pura, fidelis, fides implicita æqualis omnibus peccatis humani generis (aliquis modus meritorius) de congruo (ostenditur etiam), quod subesse Romano pontifici sit de necessitate salutis . . . alio modo est habitus dispositio alicujus 564 naturæ ex multis compositæ secundum quam bene se habet vel male ad aliud . . . hoc modo peccatum originale est habitus; est enim quædam inordinata dispositio proveniens ex dissolutione illius harmoniæ, in qua consistebat ratio originalis justitiæ, sicut ægritudo corporalis . . . unde peccatum originale languor naturæ . . . multo magis illis quos movet ad consequendum bonum supernaturale æternum, infundit aliquas formas seu qualitates supernaturales, secundum quas suaviter et prompte ab ipso moveantur ad bonum æternum consequendum

•

•

• • •

•

•

•

• •

• • •

. . . tum quia non est actualis, quia tunc illa concupiscentia esset actualis, non habitualis, quia habitus derelictus in anima ex peccato mortali non est peccatum mortale, . . .Multa alia, quæ studiose considerata inenarrabilem quandam nostræ redemptionis hoc modo procuratæ pulchritudinem (see Augustine) ostendunt . . .sed si non est aliquid solidum super quod sedeant, non videntur infidelibus sufficere. . . .si ergo dare vitam est mortem accipere (!), ;signa data Ab omnibus ac8 conceditur indulgentias aliquid valere, quia impium esset dicere, quod ecclesia aliquid vane faceret. Absolutio, quæ peracta confessione super pænitentem a sacerdote fit, sacramentum est, quoniam rei sacræ signum est. Et cujus sacræ rei est signum, nisi remissionis et absolutionis? Nimirum confitentibus a sacerdote facta a peccatis absolutio remissionem peccatorum, quam antea peperit cordis contritio, designat. A peccatis ergo presbyter solvit, non utique quod peccata dimittat, sed quod dimissa sacramento pandat. Ad hoc quod consequemur effectum passionis Christi, oportet nos ei configurari. Configuramur autem ei in baptistmo sacramentaliter, secundum Rom. 6, 4 Ad perseverantiam habendam homo in gratia constitutus non quidem indiget aliqua alia habituali gratia, sed divino auxilio ipsum dirigente et protegente contra tentationum impulsus . . . et ideo postquam aliquis est justificatus per gratiam, necesse habet a deo petete prædictum perseverantiæ donum, ut scil. custodiatur a malo usque ad finem vitæ: multis enim datur gratia, quibus non datur perseverare in gratis Adam conditus fuit sine omni peccato et sine gratia gratum faciente Alii ponunt, ipsum (Adam) fuisse conditum solummodo in naturalibus, non in gratuitis gratum facientibus et hoc magis sustinendum est et magis est rationi consonum . . . Sic noluit deus gratiam dare nisi præambulo merito congrui per bonum usum naturæ. Aliorum sacramentorum (i.e. Alios actus atque motus virtutum operatur caritas, i.e. Aliter se habet reprobatio in causando quam prædestinatio. Nam prædestinatio est causa et ejus quod expectatur in futura vita a prædestinatis, scil.

•

•

• • • • • • •

•

• • •

gloriæ, et ejus quod percipitur in præsenti, scil. gratiæ; reprobatio vero non est causa ejus quod est in præsenti, scil. culpæ, sed est causa derelictionis a deo (this has not its source in prescience); est tamen causa ejus quod redditur in futuro, scil. pœnæ acternæ. Sed culpa provenit ex libero arbitrio ejus, qui reprobatur et a gratia deseritur. Anima est subjectum peccati originalis, non autem caro . . . cum anima possit esse subjectum culpæ, caro autem de se non habeat quod sit subjectum culpæ, quidquid pervenit de corruptione primi peccati ad animam, habet rationem 564 culpæ, quod autem pervenit ad carnem, non habet rationem culpæ, sed pœnæ Ante gratiam prævenientem et operantem, qua voluntas bona præparatum in homine, præcedere quædam bona ex dei gratia et libero arbitrio, quædam etiam ex solo libero arbitrio, quibus tamen vita non meretur, nec gratia, qua justificatur. Articuli Fidei Attritio, sacramentum pænitentiæ, indulgentia Attritus accedit ad confessionem, ex quo ibi fit contritus, unde fugatur fictio. Augustinus redivivus Cœlifodina Caritas Carnalis homo non sapit, quæ sancti amoris sunt, igitur judicare non potest. Unde judicium ecclesiæ et corum qui in ecclesia præsident, quia saepe carnales, animales, mundiales aut diabolici sunt et tamen suum officium vere administraut sicut viri spirituales est deo pleni, liquet excommunicationes et indulgentias non ad ea quæ caritatis et amoris sunt se extendere sed tantum ad exteriorem pacem et tranquillitatem ecclesi 564 æ. Unde indulgentiæ sunt remissiones de his pœnis quas prælatus injunxit aut injungere potuit. Certe nescio, quia non plene comprehendere valeo, unde hoc est, quod longe dulcior es in corde diligentis te in eo quad caro es, quam in eo quod verbum Chrisma Christi corpus totum constat accipi ab interiore homine, fidelium corde, non ore Christi passio electis solum primam gratiam disponentem ad gloriam consummatam efficaciter meruit. Quantum vero adtinet ad meriti sufficientiam, fuit profecto illud finitum, quia causa ejus finita fuit, vid. voluntas naturæ assumptæ et summa gloria illi

• •

• • • •

•

•

•

collata. Non enim Christus quatenus deus meruit, sed in quantum homo. Proinde si exquiras, quantum valuerit Christi meritum secundum sufficientiam, valuit procul dubio quantum fuit a deo acceptatum, si quidem divina acceptatio est potissima causa et ratio omnis meriti. Omne enim aliud a deo ideo est bonum quia a deo dilectum, et non e contrario . . .deus non acceptat opus idcirco quod sit meritorium aut bonum. Tantum ergo valuit Christi meritum sufficienter, quantum potuit et voluit ipsum trinitas acceptare. Verum tamen ex sua ratione formali et de condign 555 o Christianus debet fidem aliqualiter Christo data est gratia non solum sicut singulari personæ, sed in quantum est caput ecclesiæ, ut scil. ab ipso redundaret ad membra. Et ideo opera Christi hoc modo se habent tam ad se quam ad sua membra sicut se habent opera alterius hominis in gratia constituti ad ipsum. . . . Christus Christus non est passus secundum divinitatem, sed secundum carnem Christus substantialiter Cognoscere veritatem est usus quidam vel actus intellectualis luminis (‘omne quod manifestatur lumen est’), usus autem quilibet quendam motum Consueverat venerari beatam virginem, cor ejus, quo in Christum credidit et ipsum amavit, uterum, quo eum portavit, ubera, quibus eum lactavit, manus ejus tornatiles, quibus ei servivit, et pectus ejus, in quo recubuit, virtutum omnium apothecam specialiter venerans, ad singula faciens frequenter singulas venias cum totidem Ave Maria, adaptando illi virtutes, quibus meruit fled mater dei 573 Contritio potest dupliciter considerari, vel in quantum est pars sacramenti vel in quantum est actus virtutis, et utroque modo est causa remissionis peccati, sed diversimode: quia in quantum est pars sacramenti primo operatur ad remissionem peccati instrumentaliter, sicut et de aliis sacramentis patet; in quantum autem est actus virtutis sic est quasi causa materialis remissionis peccati, eo quod dispositio est quasi necessitas ad justificationem, dispositio autem reducitur ad causant materialem. Convenientissimum fuit, quod Christus ex obedientia pateretur . . . obedientia vero omnibus sacrificiis antefertur . . .miles vincere non potest nisi duci obediat,

• • •

•

•

•

•

et ita homo Christus victoriam obtinuit per hoc quod deo fuit obediens. . . . Quia in morte Christi lex vetus consummata est, potest intelligi quod patiendo omnia veteris legis præcepta implevit: moralia quidam, quæ in præceptis caritatis fundantur, implevit in quantum passus est et ex dilectione patris et etiam ex dilectione proximi, cæremonialia veto præcepta legis, quæ ad sacrificia et oblationes præcipue ordinantur, implevit Christus sua passione, in quantum omnia antiqua sacrificia fuerunt figuræ illius veri sacrificii, quod Christus obtulit moriendo pro nobis. . . . Præcepta vero judicialia legis, 551 quæ præcipue ordinantur ad satisfaciendam injuriam passis, implevit Christus sue passione, permittens se ligno affigi pro pomo quod de ligno homo rapuerat contra dei mandatum. Corpus Christi manet, quousque species sacramentales manent. Crede et manducasti Credere deo est credere vera esse quæ loquitur, quod et mali faciunt . . .; credere deum est credere quod ipse sit deus, quod etiam mali faciunt; credere in deum est credendo amare, Cum dicitur fides mereri justificationem et vitam æternam, ex ea ratione dictum accipitur, quia per actum fidei meretur illa. Similiter de caritate et justitia et de aliis accipitur. Si enim fides ipsa virtus præveniens diceretur esse mentis actus qui est meritum, jam ipsa ex libero arbitrio originem haberet, quod quia non est, sic dicitur esse meritum, quia actus ejus est meritum, si tamen adsit caritas, sine qua nec credere nec sperare meritum vitæ est. Unde apparet vere quia caritas est spiritus s., qui animæ qualitates informat et sanctificat, ut eis anima informetur et sanctificetur, sine qua animæ qualitas non dicitur virtus, quia non valet sanare animam. 577 Cum enim peccatum transiens actu, remaneat reatu, non est idem resurgere a peccato, quod cessare ab actu peccati, sed resurgere a peccato est reparari hominem ad ea quæ peccando amisit. Cum ex gratia dicuntur esse bona merita et incipere . . . gratia gratis data intelligitur, ex qua bona merita incipiunt. Quæ cum ex sola gratia esse dicantur, non excluditur liberum arbitrium, quia nullum meritum est in homine, quod non fit per liberum arbitrium Cum ex gratia dicuntur esse bona merita et incipere, aut intelligitur gratia gratis dans, i.e.

•

• •

• •

•

• •

•

•

•

Cum in matrimonio datur homini ex divina institutione facultas utendi sua uxore ad procreationem prolis, datur etiam gratia, sine qua id convenienter facere non posset. Cur deus homo Cur non credamus et animas sanctorum dei faciem contemplantium in ejus veritate intelligere preces hominum, quæ et implendæ sunt vel non? . . . Intercedunt ergo pro nobis ad deum sancti, et merito, Curia Damnant illos, qui 564 docent, quod sacramenta ex opere operato justificent, nec docent fidem requiri in usu sacramentorum, quæ credit remitti peccata. De pænitentia loqui possumus dupliciter. Uno modo quantum ad habitum. Et sic immediate a deo infunditur sine nobis principaliter operantibus . . . alio modo possumus loqui de pænitentia quantum ad actus quibus deo operanti in pænitentia cooperamur. Quorum actuum primum principium est dei operatio convertentis cor, secundus actus est motus fidei, tertius est motus timoris servilis, quo quis timore suppliciorum a peccatis retrahitur Deum et animam scire cupio. Nihilne plus? Nihil omnino Deus diligit omnes homines quantum ad naturam quam ipse fecit, odit tamen eos quantum ad culpam . . ., non dicendum, quod passio Christi dicitur quantum ad hoc, deo nos reconciliasse, quod de novo nos amare inciperet, sed quia per passionem Christi sublata est odii causa, tum per ablationem peccati tum per recompensationem acceptabilioris beneficii Deus omnes homines diligit et etiam omnes creaturas, in quantum omnibus vult aliquod bonum; non tamen quodcunque bonum vult omnibus. In quantum igitur quibusdam non vult hoc b 55c onum, quod est vita æterna, diciter eos habere odio vel reprobate Dicendum quod etiam per fidem applicatur nobis passio Christi ad percipiendum fructum ipsius, secundum illud Rom. 3 Dico, quod bonus motus præcedens sacramentum pænitentiæ tantum est attritio et dispositio de congruo ad deletionem culpæ et infusionem gratiæ, quæ remissio culpæ et collatio gratiæ sunt in virtute sacramenti pænitentiæ et non in virtute attritionis tantum, nisi dispositive. Sed hæc attritio post collationem gratiæ,

•

•

•

• • •

• • •

quæ confertur in susceptione sacramenti, fit contritio formata. Dixerunt antiqui dicentes, quod est opus operans et opus operatum. Opus operans est, quod est in operante virtutis opus vel a virtute elicitum vel quod est essentialis actus virtutis, et sine illo nihil valet virtus ad salutem. Opus autem operatum est extrinsecum factum quod apothelesma vocant sancti, sicut operatum legis est sacrificium factum vel circumcisio facta vel tale aliquid. Duplex est pænitentia; quædam quæ solummodo consistit in contritione, quædam quæ consistit in contritione, confessione, satisfactione; utraque est sacramentum. ad0 Duplici ratione celebratio hujus sacramenti dicitur immolatio Christi. Primo quidem quia, sicut dicit Augustinus ad Simplic. solent imagines earum rerum nominibus appellari, quarum imagines sunt . . . celebratio autem hujus sacramenti, sicut supra dictum est (Q. 79, Art. 1. 3), imago quædam est representativa passionis Christi quæ est vera ejus immolatio. Et ideo celebratio hujus sacramenti dicitur Christi immolatio (here, therefore, there is an expression only of symbol and remembrance). Alio modo quantum ad effectum passionis Christi, quia scil. per hoc sacramentum participes efficimur fructus dominicæ passionis, unde in quadam dominicali oratione secreta dicitur: Quoties hujus hostiæ commemoratio celebratur, opus nostræ redemptionis exercetur. Quantum igitur ad primum modum poterat dici Christus immolari etiam in figuris Veteris Testamenti . . . sed quantum ad secundum modum proprium est huic sacramento, quod in ejus celebratione Christus immolatur. Ecce Homo Ecce homo Ecce quam varia a doctoribus super his traduntur, et in hac tanta varietate quid tenendum sit? Hoc sane dicere ac sentire possumus, quod solus deus peccata dimittit et retinet, Ecclesia Effectus augmentum gratiæ, ut quis sit idoneus minister. Effectus sacramentorum sunt secundum dispositionem suscipientis et secundum requisitam illi intentioni dispositionem. . . . Dispositio vero requisita huic sacramento, ut efficax fiat, est fames et sitis hujus

• •

•

•

•

•

• •

•

vivifici cibi et potus. Unde quanto minus eum esurit et sitit, pro tanto minorem etiam effectum consequitur. Ego Berengarius corde credo et ore confiteor panem et vinum quæ ponuntur in altari Ergo si deviat terrena potestas, judicabitur a potestate spirituali, sed si deviat spiritualis minor, a suo superiori, si vero suprema, a solo deo, non ab homine poterit judicari, testante apostolo Est articulus fidei, quod deus assumpsit naturam humanam. Non includit contradictionem deum assumere naturam asininam; Est autem hæc auctoritas, etsi data sit homini et exerceatur per hominem, non humana sed potius divina, ore divino Petro data sibique suisque successoribus in ipso quem confessus fuit petra firmata, dicen 564 te domino ipsi Petro Est autem in nobis duplex actus; primus quidem interior voluntatis; et quantum ad istum actum, voluntas se habet ut mota, deus autem ut movens, et præsertim cum voluntas incipit bonum velle, quæ prius malum volebat. Et ideo secundum quod deus movet humanam mentem ad hunc actum, dicitur gratia operans. Et si obicitur, quod aliqui sancti videntur dicere concupiscentiam esse peccatum originale, respondeo: concupiscentia potest accipi vel prout est actus vel habitus vel pronitas in appetitu sensitivo et nullum istorum est formaliter peccatum, quia non est peccatum in parte sensitiva secundum Anselmum. Vel potest accipi, prout est pronitas in appetitu rationali, i.e. Ex condigno Ex hoc sacramento non semper sequitur corporalis sanatio, sed quando expedit ad spiritualem sanationem. Et tunc semper eam inducit, dummodo non sit impedimentum ex parte recipientes Ex quo patet, quod merito condigni nullus potest mereri alteri primam gratiam nisi solus Christus, quia unusquisque nostrum movetur a deo per donum gratiæ, ut ipsa ad vitam æternam perveniat, et ideo ac8 meritum condigni ultra hanc motionem non se extendit. Sed anima Christi mota est a deo per gratiam, non solum ut ipse perveniret ad gloriam vitæ æternæ, sed etiam ut alios in eam adduceret, in quantum est caput ecclesiæ. . . .

•

• •

• • • •

Experto crede, aliquid amplius invenies in silvis, quam in libris. Ligna et lapides docebunt, quod a magistris audire non possis. Exultate deo Fateor quod indulgentiæ papales, si ita se habeant ut dicuntur, sapiunt manifestam blasphemiam. Dicitur enim, quod papa prætendit, se habere potentiam ad salvandum singulos viatores, et quantumcunque viantes deliquerint, nedum ad mitigandum pœnas ad suffragandum eis cum absolutionibus et indulgentiis, ne unquam veniant ad purgatorium, sed ad præcipiendum sanctis angelis, ut anima separata a corpore indilate ipsam deferant in requiem sempiternam. . . . Contra ipsam rudem blasphemiam invexi alias, primo sic: nec papa nec etiam dominus Jesus Christus potest dispensare cum aliquo nec dare indulgentias, nisi ut æternaliter deitas justo consilio definivit. Sed non docetur, quod papa vel homo aliquis potest habere colorem justitiæ (on this falls the greatest weight) taliter faciendi; igitur non docetur, quod papa talem habeat potestatem. . . . Item videtur quod illa opinio multipliciter blasphemat in Christum, cum extollitur supra ejus humanitatem atque deitatem et sic super omne quod dicitur deus. . . . Sed eia, mili es Christi, abicite prudenter hæc opera atque fictitias principis tenebrarum Fatuum est credere indulgentiis papæ et episcoporum. Fides implicita Forma substantialis panis non Gratia virtutem et donorum sufficienter perficit essentiam et potentias animæ, quantum ad generalem ordinationem actuum animæ, sed quantum ad quosdam effectus speciales, qui requiruntur in vita Christiana, requiritur sacramentalis gratia. — Per virtutes et dona excluduntur sufficienter vitia et peccata, quantum ad præsens et futurum, in quantum scil. impeditur homo per virtutes et dona a peccando; sed quantum ad præterita peccata, quæ transeunt actu et permanent reatu, adhibetur homini remedium specialiter per sacramenta. — Ratio sacramentalis gratiæ se habet ad gratiam communiter dictam, sicut ratio speciei ad genus, unde sicut non æquivoce dicitur animal communiter dictum et pro homine sumptum, ita non æquivoce dicitur gratia communiter sumpta 564 et gratia sacramentalis.

•

• • •

•

•

•

•

Hæc omnia Sacramenta tribus perficiuntur, vid. rebus tamquam materia, verbis tamquam forma, et persona ministri conferentis sacramentum cum intentione faciendi quod facit ecclesia. Hæc peccatorum scala, hæc mea maxima fiducia est, hæc tota ratio spei meæ. Hæresis est peccatum, per quod meruerunt per mortem a mundo excludi Hic damnamus totum populum scholasticorum doctorum, qui docent, quod sacramenta non ponenti obicem conferant gratiam ex opere operato sine bono motu utentis. Hæc simpliciter judaica opinio est sentire quod per ceremoniam justificemur, sine bono motu cordis, hoc est, sine fide. Et tamen hæc impia et perniciosa opinio magna auctoritate docetur in toto regno pontificio. Hoc peccatum, quod originale dico, aliud intellegere nequeo in infantibus nisi ipsam, factam per inobedientiam Adæ, justitiæ debitæ nuditatem, per quam omnes filii sunt iræ: quoniam et naturam accusat spontanea quam fecit in Adam justitiæ desertio, nec personas excusat recuperandi impotentia. Quam comitatur beatitudinis quoque nuditas, ut sicut sunt sine omni just ac8 itia, ita sint absque omni beatitudine. Homo est liberi arbitrii, alioquin frustra essent consilia, exhortationes, præcepta, prohibitiones, præmia et pœnæ. . . . Liberum arbitrium est causa sui motus, quia homo per liberum arbitrium seipsum movet ad agendum. Non tamen hoc est de necessitate libertatis, quod sit prima causa sui id quod liberum est, sicut nec ad hoc quod aliquid sit causa alterius, requiritur quod sit prima causa ejus. Deus igitur est prima causa movens et naturales causas et voluntarias. Et sicut naturalibus causis movendo eas non aufert, quin actus earum sint naturales, ita movendo causas voluntarias non aufert, quin actiones earum sint voluntariæ, sed potius hoc in eis facit; operatur in unoquoque secundum ejus proprietatem Homo etiam ante peccatum indigebat gratia ad vitam æternam consequendam, quæ est principalis necessitas gratiæ. Id ipsum dicatis omnes, et non sint in vobis schismata. Quod servari non posset nisi quæstio exorta determinetur per eum, qui toti ecclesiæ præest, ut sic ejus sententia a tota ecclesia firmiter teneatur, et ideo ad solam

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Ideo de necessitate Igitur ecclesiæ unius et uniæ a unum corpus, unum caput, non duo capita, quasi monstrum, Christus videlicet et Christi vicarius Petrus Petrique successor Ille qui indulgentias suscipit, non absolvitur, simpliciter loquendo, a debito pœnæ, sed datur ei, unde debitam solvat. In corporalibus clavis dicitur instrumentum, quo ostium aperitur, regni autem ostium nobis per peccatum clauditur et quantum ad maculam et quantum ad reatum poenæ, et ideo potestas qua tale obstaculum removetur, dicitur clavis. In eo, qui habet usum liberi arbitrii, non fit motio a deo ad justitiam absque motu liberi arbitrii, sed ita infundit donum gratiæ justificantis, quod etiam simul cum hoc movet liberum arbitrium ad donum gratiæ acceptandum in his, quæ sunt hujus motionis capaces. In hac causa, quot, domine, hodie cum Pelagio pro libero arbitrio contra gratuitam gratiam tuam pugnant, et contra Paulum pugilem gratiæ spiritualem! Quot etiam hodie gratuitam gratiam tuam fastidiunt solumque liberum arbitrium ad salutem sufficere stomachantur! aut si gratia utantur, vel perfunctorie necessariam eam simulant ipsamque se jactant li 564 beri sui arbitrii viribus promereri, ut sic saltem nequaquam gratuita, sed vendita videatur! Quot etiam, deus omnipotens, impotentes de sui potestate arbitrii præsumentes tuæ cooperationis auxilium in operationibus suis recusant, dicendo cum impiis ‘recede a nobis’ . . . Quin immo et voluntati suæ in contingenter futuris omnimodam tribuunt libertatem, in tantum ut etiam contra vocem propheticam a tua subjectione exemptionem prætendant . . . Et quot et quam innumerabiles eis favent! Totus etenim pœne mundus post Pelagian: abiit in errorem. In hac ejusque potestate duos esse gladios, spiritualem videlicet et temporalem, evangelicis dictis instruimur. Nan dicentibus apostolis: ecce gladii duo hic (Luke XXII. 38 In quantum est sacrificium, habet vim satisfactivam, sed in satisfactione magis attenditur affectus offerentis quam quantitas oblationis. In quantum in hoc sacramento repræsentatur passio Christi, qua Christus obtulit se hostiam deo, habet rationem sacrificii, in quantum vero in hoc sacramento traditur invisibilis gratia sub visibili specie, habet

•

•

•

•

•

• • • • •

rationem sacramenti . . . hoc sacrificium, quod est memoriale dominicæ passionis, non habet effectum nisi in illis qui conjun ac8 guntur huic sacramento per fidem et caritatem. Unde et in Canone Missæ non oratur pro his qui sunt extra ecclesiam; illis tamen prodest plus vel minus secundum modum devotionis eorum. In statu naturæ integræ quantum ad sufficientiam operativæ virtutis poterat homo per sua naturalia velle et operari bonum suæ naturæ proportionatum, quale est bonum virtutis acquisitæ, non autem bonum superexcedens, quale est bonum virtutis infusæ; sed in statu naturæ corruptæ etiam deficit homo ab hoc, quod secundum suam naturam potest, ut non possit totum hujusmodi bonum implere per sua naturalia. Quia tamen natura humana per peccatum non est totaliter corrupta, ut scil. tanto bono naturæ privetur, potest quidem etiam in statu naturæ corruptæ per virtutem suæ naturæ aliquod bonum particulare agere, non tamen totum bonum sibi connaturale. Indispositus reputatur et qui non credi et qui indevotus accedit . . . in sacramentis præcipue fides operatur æ ideo defectus fidei specialius pertinet ad fictionem. Inordinatio quæ est in isto homine ex Adam generato, non est voluntaria voluntate ipsius, sed voluntate primi parentis, qui movet motione generationis omnes qui ex ejus origine derivantur. Inter omnes hæreses, quæ unquam in ecclesia pullularunt, nunquam considero aliquam plus callide per hypocritas introductam et multiplicius populum defraudantem, nam spoliat populum, facit ipsum committere idololatriam, negat fidem scripturæ et per consequens ex infidelitate multipliciter ad iracundiam provocat veritatem. Ipse idem spiritus sanctus est amor sive caritas, qua nos diligimus deum et proximum, quæ caritas cum ita est in nobis, ut nos faciet diligere deum et proximum, tunc spiritus sanctus dicitur mitti ac dari nobis. Jesus mel in ore, in aure melos, in corde jubilus. Justitia Latreia Lex Christi Libertas a peccato et a miseria per gratiam est; libertas vero a necessitate per naturam. Utramque libertatem, naturæ scil. et gratiæ, notat apostolus cum ex persona hominis non redempti ait: ‘velle adjacet mihi, etc.,’ acsi diceret, habeo libertatem naturæ, sed non habeo

•

• •

• • •

libertatem gratiæ, ideo non est apud me perfectio boni. Nam voluntas hominis, quam natu 55f raliter habet, non valet erigi ad bonum efficaciter volendum, vel opere implendum, nisi per gratiam liberetur et adjuvetur: liberetur quidem, ut velit, et adjuvetur, ut perficiat . . . dei gratiam non advocat hominis voluntas vel operatio, sed ipsa gratia voluntatem prævenit præparando ut velit bonum et præparatam adjuvat ut perficiat. Liberum arbitrium est facultas rationis et voluntatis, qua bonum eligitur gratia assistente vel malum eadem desistente. Licet gratia baptismalis sit incipientium et ita imperfecta Licet remaneat concupiscentia post baptismum, non tamen dominatur et regnat sicut ante, immo per gratiam baptismi mitigatur et minuitur, ut post dominari non valeat, nisi quis reddat vires hosti eundo post concupiscentias. Nec post baptismum remanet ad reatum, quia non imputatur in peccatum, sed tantum pœna peccati est, ante baptismum vero pœna est et culpa. . . . Per gratiam baptismi vitium concupiscentiæ debilitatur atque extenuatur, ita ut jam non regnet, nisi consensu reddantur ei vires, et quia reatus ipsius solvitur. Magna nobis et pretiosa promissa donavit, ut divina simus consortes natura acd Materia Materia in sacramentis exterius adhibita significat virtutem in sacramentis agentem ex intrinseco omnino advenire. Unde cum effectus proprius hujus sacramenti, scil. character, non percipiatur ex aliqua operatione ipsius qui ad sacramentum accidit sicut erat in pænitentia sed omnino ex intrinseco adveniat, competit ei materiam habere, tamen diversimode ab aliis sacramentis quæ materiam habent. Quia hoc quod confertur in aliis sacramentis, derivatur tantum a deo, non a ministro qui sacramentum dispensat, sed illud quod in hoc sacramento traditur, scil. spiritualis potestas, derivatur etiam ab eo qui sacramentum dat sicut potestas imperfecta a perfecta. Et ideo efficacia aliorum sacramentorum principaliter consistit in materia, quæ virtutem divinam et significat et continet, ex sanctificatione per ministrum adhibita. Sed efficacia hujus sacramenti principaliter residet penes eum, qui sacramentum dispensat,

•

•

• • •

•

• •

• • •

• •

Meritum Christi fuit finitum, quia a principio finito essentialiter dependens, etiam accipiendo ipsum cum omnibus respectibus, sive cum respectu ad suppositum Verbi, sive cum respectu ad finem, quia omnes respectus isti erant finiti. Mors et omnes defectus corporales consequentes sunt quædam pœnæ originalis peccati, quamvis non sint intenti a peccanti Nam veritate testante spiritualis potestas terrenam potestatem instituere Non autem hoc sacerdotibus concessit, quibus tamen tribuit potestatem ligandi et solvendi i.e. Non est in destructionem indulgentias dare, nisi inordinate dentur. Tamen consulendum est eis qui indulgentias consequuntur, ne propter hoc ab operibus pænitentiæ injunctis abstineant, ut etiam ex his remedium consequentur, quamvis a debito pœnæ esse immunes, et præcipue quia quandoque sunt plurium debitores quam credant Non in declamatoriis rhetoricationibus nec in otiosis disputationibus, sed in seriis exercitiis pænitentiæ et fidei, quando conscientia in tentationibus cum sua indignitate vel coram ipso judicio dei vel in agone mortis luctatur. Hoc enim solo modo rectissime intelligi potest doctrina de justificatione, sicut in scriptura traditur. Nos (i.e. Nova editio symboli necessaria est ad vitandum insurgentes errores. Ad illius ergo auct 564 oritatem pertinet editio symboli, ad cujus auctoritatem pertinet finaliter determinare ea quæ sunt fidei, ut ab omnibus inconcussa fide teneantur. Nulla est major ad amorem invitatio, quam prævenire Nulla lex populo christiano est danda, nisi ipsius papæ auctoritate Nulla natura creata est sufficiens principium actus meritorii vitæ æternæ, nisi superaddatur aliquod supernaturale donum, quod gratia dicitur. Nulla penitus mulier ab aliquo fratre recipiatur ad obedientiam Nullus dei gratiam mereri potest, per quam justificatur, potest tamen mereri, ut penitus abiciatur. Et quidem aliqui in tantum profundum iniquitatis devenerunt, ut hoc mereantur, ut hoc digni sint; alii vero ita vivunt, ut etsi non mereantur gratiam justificationis, non tamen mereantur omnino repelli et gratiam sibi subtrahi.

•

• •

•

•

• • • • • •

•

•

• • •

Nullus potest scire, se habere gratiam, certitudinaliter; certitudo enim non potest haberi de aliquo, nisi possit dijudicari per proprium principium. Nullus potest sibi mereri ac8 reparationem post lapsum futurum, neque merito condigni, neque merito congrui Omnes vires animæ remanent quodammodo destitutæ proprio ordine, quo naturaliter ordinantur ad virtutem, et ipsa destitutio dicitur vulneratio naturæ (vulnus ignorantiæ, malitiæ, infirmitatis, concupiscentiæ Operans gratia est, quæ prævenit voluntatem bonam: ea enim liberatur et præparatur hominis voluntas, ut sit bona bonumque efficaciter velit; cooperans vero gratia voluntatem jam bonam sequitur adjuvando . . . Voluntas hominis gratia dei prævenitur atque præparatur, ut fiat bona, non ut fiat voluntas, quia et ante gratiam voluntas erat, sed non erat bona et recta voluntas. Opus operans est ipsa actio (oblatio) vituli, opus operatum est ipsa caro vituli sc. ipsum oblatum, ipsa caro Christi. Ordinantur autem sacramenta ad quosdam speciales effectus necessarios in vita Christiana. Pœna satisfactoria est ad duo ordinata, scil. ad solutionem debiti et ad medicinam pro peccato vitando. Pagani jure sunt sub papæ obedientia. Parochus Paschasius ineptus ille monachus Corbeiensis. Passio Christi causat remissionem peccatorum per modum redemptionis, quia enim ipse est caput nostrum, per passionem suam quam ex caritate et obedientia sustinuit, liberavit nos tam quam membra sua a peccatis, quasi Peccatum Adæ ita in infantes descendere, ut sic puniri pro eo debeant ac si ipsi singuli illud fecissent personaliter sicut Adam, non puto Peccatum originale materialiter quidem est concupiscentia, formaliter vero est defectus originalis justitiæ Peccatum originale non magis in uno quam in alio esse potest Peccatum originale per prius respicit voluntatem Per læsæ majestatis crimen morti est obnoxius. Rex tamen adeo justus fuerit, quod nec ullo pacto crimen tuum dimittere velit impunitum, altera vero ex parte tam benignus et misericors, quod proprium filium suum innocentem doloribus committat et morti, et quidem

•

•

•

•

•

• •

sponte sua, ut justitiam concordet cum miser 564 icordia fiatque criminis emendatio. . . . Nunquam deus malum impunitum permitteret, eapropter omnia peccata et delicta nostra Jesu Christo supposuit. Ideo ipse est justitia et redemptio nostra, modo nos junxerimus ei et per fidem gratiamque ei adhæserimus. Perseverantia vitæ non cadit sub merito, quia dependet solum ex motione divina, quæ est principium omnis meriti, sed deus gratis perseverantiæ bonum largitur cuicunque illud largitur Prædestinatio bifariam accipitur. Primo et proprie pro actu divinæ voluntatis, quo rationalem creaturam ad æternam eligit vitam seu decernit ac determinat se daturum in præsenti gratiam et gloriam in futuro. Secundo accipitur fusius pro actu etiam intellectus divini, pro præcognitione vid. quam habet deus salutis electorum, quæ quidem præcognitio concomitatur et consequitur electionem. Præparatio hominis ad gratiam est a deo sicut a movente, a libero autem arbitrio sicut a moto . . . Secundum quod est a libero arbitrio, nullam necessitatem habet ad gratiæ consecutionem. Principalis effectus hujus sacramenti est remissio peccatorum, quoad reliquias peccati (what does that mean?), et ac8 ex consequenti etiam quoad culpam, si earn inveniat. Principia naturæ (primum bonum naturæ) nec tolluntur nec diminuuntur per peccatum (empiricopsychological observation, to which, however, a certain worth also is given for the religious mode of apprehension), inclinatio ad virtutem a natura insita (secundum bonum naturale) diminuitur per peccatum (ethical observation, but important for religion), donum originalis justitiæ (tertium bonum naturæ) totaliter est ablatum Principium autem gratiæ at objectum ejus est ipse deus, qui propter sui excellentiam est nobis ignotus Quæritur, si quod gerit sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio, et si Christus quotidie immolatur vel semel tantum immolatus sit? Ad hoc breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur et consecratur a sacerdote vocari sacrificium et oblationem, quia memoria est et repræsentatio sacrificii veri et sanctæ immolationis factæ in ara crucis. Et semel Christus mortuus est in cruce, ibique immolatus est in semetipso,

• •

•

• •

• • •

•

•

•

•

quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento, quia in sacramento recordatio, Quæstio Quando aliquid se habet ad multa, oportet quod per aliquid determinetur ad unum, si illud effici debeat. Ea vero quæ in sacramentis aguntur possunt diversimode agi, sicut ablutio aquæ quæ fit in baptismo potest ordinari ad munditiam corporalem et ad ludum et ad multa alia hujusmodi. Et idea oportet ut determinetur ad unum, Quantum ad opera virtutum in interioribus actibus præcepta novæ legis sunt graviora præceptis veteris legis. Quantum oporteat fidelem Quartus actus est motus spei, quo quis sub spe veniæ consequendæ assumit propositum emendandi. Quintus actus est motus caritatis, quo alicui peccatum displicet secundum se ipsum et non jam propter supplicia Qui non solvit, frustra dicit: dimitte; Quia infusio gratiæ et remissio culpæ dicuntur ex parte dei justificantis, ideo ordine naturæ prior Quicumque fecerit hoc vel illud, ipse et pater ejus vel quicumque alius ei adjunctus in purgatorio detentus, tantum de indulgentia habebit. Quicunque habuerit fidem caritate 564 formatam . . .in communi sufficit cum virtute perseverantiæ ad salutem. . . . Non exigit deus, ut omnes filii sui sint continue pro viatione sua in actu cogitanti particulari de qualibet fidei particula Quicunque igitur huic potestati a deo sic ordinatæ resistit, dei ordinationi resistit, nisi duo sicut Manichæus Quid est, quod dicimus deo: dimitte nobis debita nostra, et omnis gens orat deum quem credit, ut dimittat sibi peccata? Si enim solvimus quod debemus, cur oramus ut dimittat? Numquid deus injustus est, ut iterum exigat quod solutum est? Si autem non solvimus, cur frustra oramus, ut faciat quod, quia non convenit, facere non potest? Quidem dixerunt” — Art. 2 — “quod postquam omnia peccata per præcedentem contritionem remissa sunt, si aliquis ante satisfactionem peractam in peccatum decidat et in peccato existens satisfaciat, satisfactio talis ei valet, ita quod si in peccato illo moreretur, in inferno de illis peccatis non puniretur. Sed hoc non potest esse, quia in satisfactione oportet quod amicitia restituta

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

etiam justitiæ æqualitas restituatur cujus contrarium amicitiam tollit. æqualitas autem in satisfactione ad deum non est secundum æquivalentiam, sed magis ac8 secundum acceptationem ipsius. Et ideo oportet, etiamsi jam offensa sit dimissa per præcedentem contritionem, quod opera satisfactoria sint deo accepta, quod dat eis caritas, et ideo sine caritate opera facta non sunt satisfactoria Quieta non movere Quis nesciat, reges et duces ab iis habuisse principium, qui deum ignorantes, superbia, rapinis, perfidia, homicidiis, postremo universis pæne sceleribus, mundi principe diabolo videlicet agitante, dominari cæca cupiditate et intolerabili præsumptione affectaverunt. Quod enim agens naturale non subito possit disponere materiam, contingit ex hoc, quod est aliqua proportio ejus quod in materia resistit ad virtutem agentis et propter hoc videmus, quod quanto virtus agentis fuerit fortior, tanto materia citius disponitur. Cum igitue virtus divina sit infinita, potest quamcunque materiam creatam subito disponere, etc. etc. Quod homo convertatur ad deum, hoc non potest esse nisi deo ipsum convertente, hoc autem est præparare se ad gratiam, quasi ad deum converti . . . homo non potest se præparare ad lumen gratiæ suscipiendum, nisi per auxilium gratuitum dei interius moventis. Quod non potest nisi de illis, qui sunt in purgatorio, intelligi; ecclesiæ autem autoritati quicunque resistit, hæresim incurrit. Remissio quæ per indulgentias fit, non tollit quantitatem, pœnæ ad culpam, quia pro culpa unius alias sponte pœnam sustinuit. Respondeo dicendum, quod ille proprio satisfacit pro offensa, qui exhibet offenso id quod æque vel magis diligit, quam oderit offensam. Christus autem ex caritate et obedientia patiendo majus Respondeo dicendum, quod per passionem Christi liberati sumus a reatu pœnæ dupliciter. Uno modo directe, in quantum scil. passio Christi fuit sufficiens et superabundans satisfactio pro peccatis totius humani generis; exhibita autem satisfactione sufficienti tollitur reatus pœnæ Robur Sacerdos nomen habet compositum ex Græco et Latino, quod est sacrum dans sive sacer dux. Sicut enim rex a

• •

•

•

• • •

• • •

regendo ita sacerdos a sacrando dictus est, consecrat enim et sanctificat. Sacra scriptura sufficienter continet doctrinam necessariam viator ac8 i Sacram doctrinam esse scientiam. Sed sciendum est quod duplex est scientiarum genus. Quædam enim sunt, quæ procedunt ex principiis notis lumine naturali intellectus sicut Arithmetica; quædam vero sunt quæ procedunt ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientiæ, sicut Perspectiva procedit ex principiis notificatis per Geometriam. . . . Et hoc modo sacra doctrina est scientia, quia procedit ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientiæ, quæ scil. est scientia dei et beatorum. Unde sicut Musicus credit principia revelata sibi ab Arithmetico, ita doctrina sacra credit principia revelata sibi a deo. Sacramenta continent ex sanctificatione invisibilem gratiam. Sed hujusmodi sanctificatio quandoque ad necessitatem sacramenti requiritur tam in materia quam in ministro, sicut patet in confirmatione. Quandoque autem de necessitate sacramenti non requiritur nisi sanctificatio materiæ, sicut in baptismo, quia non habet ministrum determinatum quantum ad sui necessitatem et tunc tota vis sacramentalis consistit in materia. Quandoque vero de necessitate sacramenti requiritur consecratio vel sanctificatio ministri sine aliqua sanctificatione materiæ, et tunc tota vis sacramentalis consistit in ministro, sicut est in pænitentia . . . Sacramenta novæ legis characterem imprimunt, in quantum per ea deputantur homines ad cultum dei secundum ritum Christianæ religionis. Sacramenta novæ legis habent virtutem ex passione Christi. Sacramenta veteris legis non contulerunt gratiam justificantem per se ipsa, i.e. Sacramenta veteris legis non habebant aliquam efficaciam ex opere operato sed solum ex fide; non autem ita est de sacramentis novæ legis, quæ ex opere operato gratiam conferunt. Sacramentum effectum sacrificii in eo qui offert habet vel in his, pro quibus offertur. Sacramentum eucharistiæ est potissimum inter alia sacramenta. Sacramentum matrimonii perficitur per actum ejus, qui sacramento illo utitur, sicut pænitentia. Et ideo sicut

•

• •

•

•

pænitentia non habet aliam materiam nisi ipsos actus sensui subjectos, qui sunt loco materialis elementi, ita est de matrimonio. Sacramentum nihil est aliud quam quædam sanctificatio homini exhibita cum aliquo signo 564 visibili. Unde cum in susceptione ordinis quædam consecratio homini exhibeatur per visibilia signa, constat ordinem esse sacramentum. Salve caput cruentatum Satis potest constare purgatorium esse post hanc vitam; si enim per contritionem deleta culpa non tollitur ex toto reatus pœnæ nec etiam semper venialia dimissis mortalibus tolluntur, et justitia hoc exigit, ut peccatum per pœnam debitam ordinetur, oportet quod ille, qui post contritionem de peccato et absolutionem decedit ante satisfactionem debitam post hanc vitam puniatur. Et ideo illi qui purgatorium negant, contra divinam justitiam loquuntur, et propter hoc erroneum est et a fide alienum Sciendum est, quod cum episcopatus non addat aliquid supra sacerdotium per relationem ad corpus domini verum, sed solum per relationem ad corpus mysticum, papa per hoc quod est episcoporum summus non dicitur habere plenitudinem potestatis per relationem ad corpus domini verum, sed per relationem ad corpus mysticum. Et quia gratia sacramentalis descendit in corpus mysticum a capite, ideo omnis operatio in corpus mysticum sacramentalis, per quam gratia datur, dependet ab operatione sacramentali super corpus domini verum, et ideo solus sacerdos potest e9a absolvere in loco pænitentiali et baptizare ex officio. Et ideo dicendum, quod promovere ad illas perfectiones, quæ non respiciunt corpus domini verum, sed solum corpus mysticum, potest a papa qui habet plenitudinem pontificialis potestatis committi sacerdoti. Sciendum quod duplex est definitio. — Una est oratio exprimens quid rei, alia est oratio exprimens quid nominis. Primo modo nihil definitur, nisi sit res una h. e. terminus significans unam rem (that is logical Nominalism). Definitione quid nominis potest omnis terminus categorematicus definiri, quicquid significet in recto vel in obliquo. Nam pro omni nomine possunt poni plura nomina distincte significantia illa, quæ significantur per illud unum nomen tam in recto quam in obliquo. Ad propositum dicitur, quod sacramentum non potest definiri primo modo h. e., definitione quid

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

rei quia sacramentum non res una, sed aggregatum ex pluribus . . . Sed quid est justificati in sanguine ipsius? Quæ vis est sanguinis hujus, obsecro, ut in eo justificentur credentes? Et quid est reconciliati per mortem filii ejus? Itane vero, cum irasceretur nobis deus pater, vidit mortem filii sui pro nobis et placatus est nobis? Semper sacramenta fidei sunt instrumenta, tanto semper efficacia, quanto est fides negotiosa Septimum est sacramentum matrimonii, quod est signum conjunctionis Christi et ecclesiæ secundum apostolum. Causa efficiens matrimonii regulariter est mutuus consensus per verba de præsenti expressus. Adsignatur autem triplex bonum matrimonii. Primum est proles suscipienda et educanda ad cultum dei. Secundum est fides quam unus conjugum alteri servare debet. Tertium indivisibilitas matrimonii, propter hoc quod significat indivisibilem conjunctionem Christi et ecclesiæ. Quamvis autem ex causa fornicationis liceat tori separationem facere, non tamen aliud matrimonium contrahere fas est, cum matrimonii vinculum legitime contracti perpetuum sit. Sextus est motus timoris filialis, quo propter reverentiam dei aliquis emendam deo voluntarius offert. Si autem pænitens præparatus quantum in se est accedat ad confessionem attritus, non contritus . . . confessio cum subjectione arbitrio sacerdotis et satisfactio pænitentiæ injunctæ a sacerdote est signum et causa deletionis culpæ et pœnæ, quia sic subjiciendo se et satisfaciendo gratiam acquirit Si deo inconveniens est, hominem cum aliqua macula perducere ad hoc, ad quod ilium sine omni macula facit, ne aut boni incepti pænitere aut propositum implere non posse videatur: multo magis propter eandem inconvenientiam impossibile est nullum hominem ad hoc provehi, ad quo factus est Si igitur gratia accipiatur pro gratuita dei motione, quia movet nos ad bonum meritorium convenienter dividitur gratia per operantem, et cooperantem. Si vero accipiatur gratia pro habituali dono, sic est duplex gratiæ effectus, sicut et cujuslibet alterius formæ, quorum primus est esse, Si loquamur de justificatione proprie dicta sic considerandum est, quod justitia potest accipi prout est in habitu

•

• •

•

•

•

•

• •

Si nihil pretiosius agnoscimr deus fecisse quam rationalem naturam ad gaudendum de se, valde alienum est ab eo, ut ullam c5a Si non vere passus est, nulla gratia ei, cum nulla fuerit passio Si omne bonum tam bonum est, quam mala est ejus destructio (!), plus est bonum incomparabiliter quam sint ea peccata mala, quæ sine æstimatione superat ejus interremptio . . .tantum bonum tam amabile potest sufficere ad solvendum quod debetur pro peccatis totius mundi, immo plus potest in infinitum Si quæritur, qualis sit ista conversio, an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis, definire non sufficio; formalem tamen non esse cognosco, quia species rerum quæ ante fuerant, remanent, et sapor et pondus. Quibusdam Sic ergo aliqui doctores videntur dissensisse vel circa ea quorum nihil interest ad fidem utrum sic vel aliter teneatur, vel etiam in quibusdam ad fidem pertinentibus, quæ nondum erant per ecclesiam determinata. Postquam autem essent auctoritate universalis ecclesiæ determinata, si quis tali ordinationi pertinaciter repugnaret, hæreticus censeretur. Quæ quidem auctoritas principaliter residet in summa pontifce Sic igitur virtute gratuita superaddita virtuti naturæ indiget homo in statu naturæ integræ, quantum ad unum scil. ad operandum et volendum bonum supernaturale, sed in statu naturæ corruptæ quantum ad duo, scil. ut sanetur et ulterius ut bonum supernaturalis virtutis operetur, quod est meritorium. Sicut aliquis per hoc quod baptismum petit se ministris ecclesiæ subicit, ad quos pertinet dispensatio sacramenti, ita etiam per hoc quod confitetur peccatum suum se ministro ecclesiæ subicit, ut per sacramentum pænitentiæ ab eo dispensatum remissionem consequatur, qui congruum remedium adhibere non potest, nisi peccatum cognoscat, quod fit per confessionem peccantis. Et ideo confessio est de necessitate salutis ejus, qui in peccatum actuate mortale cecidit. Sicut enim per potentiam intellectivam Sicut enim prædestinatio includit voluntatem conferendi gratiam et gloriam, ita reprobatio includit voluntatem permittendi aliquem cadere in culpam et inferendi damnationis pœnam pro culpa

•

•

•

• •

•

• • •

•

•

Sicut etiam res naturales hoc consecuntur per proprios motus et operationes, ad quod a deo sunt ordinatæ, differenter tamen, quia creatura rationalis se ipsam movet ad agendum per liberum arbitrium. Unde sua actio habet rationem meriti, quod non est in aliis creaturis. Sicut gratia dividitur in operantem et cooperantem secundum diversos affectus, ita etiam in prævenientem et subsequentem, qualitercumque gratia accipiatur. Sunt autem quinque effectus gratiæ in nobis, quorum primus est ut anima sanetur, secundus est, ut bonum velit, tertius est, ut bonum quod vult efficaciter operetu eb0 r, quartus est, ut in bono perseveret, quintus est, ut ad gloriam perveniat. Et ideo gratia secundum quod causat in nobis primum effectum, vocatur præveniens, respectu secundi effectus et prout causat in nobis secundum, vocatur subsequens respectu primi effectus. Sicut lumen naturale rationis est aliquid præter virtutes acquisitas, quæ dicuntur in ordine ad ipsum lumen naturale, ita etiam ipsum lumen gratiæ, quod est participatio divinæ naturæ, Sicut non potest dispensari in jure naturali, ita nec in jure positivo divino. Sicut omne aliud a deo ideo est bonum, quia a deo volitum, et non e converso, sic meritum illud tantum bonum erat, pro quanto acceptabatur et ideo meritum, quia acceptatum, non autem e converso quia meritum est et bonum, ideo acceptatum. Sicut rectus ordo exigit, ut profunda christianæ fidei prius credamus, quam ea præsumamus ratione discutere. Siquidem cum nomino Jesum, hominem Sufficit mihi ad omnem justitiam solum habere propitium, cui soli peccavi Talis indulgentia non solum vivo sed etiam mortuo proderit. Non enim est aliqua ratio quare ecclesia transferre possit communia merita quibus indulgentiæ innituntur in vivos et non in mortuos. Tanto aliquis modus convenientior est ad assequendum finem, quanto per ipsum plura concurrunt, quæ sunt expedientia fini. Per hoc autem quod homo per Christi passionem liberatus, multa concurrerunt ad salutem hominis pertinentia præter liberationem a peccato: Tertium est eucharistiæ sacramentum, cujus materia est panis triticeus et vinum de vite, cui ante consecrationem aqua modicissima admisceri debet

•

•

• •

• •

(there follows an elaborate justification of this mixing in opposition to the Armenian practice). Forma hujus sacramenti sunt verba salvatoris, quibus hoc conficit sacramentum. Nam ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi et substantia vini in sanguinem convertuntur, ita tamen, quod totus Christus continetur sub specie panis et totus sub specie vini. Sub qualibet quoque parte hostiæ consecratæ et vini consecrati, separatione facta, totus est Christus. Hujus sacramenti effectus, quem in anima operatur digne sumentis, est adunatio hominis ad Christum. Et quia per gratiam homo Christo incorporatur et membris ejus unitur, consequens est, quod per hoc sacramentum in sumentibus digne gratia augeatur, omnemque effectum, quem materialis cibus et potus quoad vitam agunt corporalem sustentando, augendo, reparando et delectando, sacramentum hoc quoad vitam operatur spiritualem, in quo, ut inquit Urbanus Papa, gratam salvatoris nostri recensemus memoriam, a malo retrahimur, confortamur in bono et ad virtutum et gratiarum proficimus incrementum. Transit peccatum originale reatu et remanet actu (this is not so strongly expressed afterwards). Sed talis corruptio fomitis non impedit, quin homo rationabili voluntate possit reprimere singulos motus inordinatos sensualitatis, si præsentiat, puta divertendo cogitationem ad alia. Ubique magis virtus sacramentorum exprimitur, nec quod per ea quilibet participantes salvandi sint, sed quod salvari possint, significatur. eb0 Unam sanctam Unam sanctam ecclesiam Catholicam et ipsam apostolicam urgente fide credere cogimur et tenere. Nosque hanc firmiter credimus et simpliciter confitemur, extra quam nec salus est nec remissio peccatorum Unde et dominus (Luke XXII. 32 Unigenitus dei filius . . . sanguine nos redemit quam in ara crucis innocens immolatus, non guttam sanguinis modicam (quæ tamen propter unionem ad verbum pro redemptione totius humani generis suffecisset), sed copiose velut quoddam profluvium noscitur effudisse. . . . Quantum ergo exinde, ut nec supervacua, inanis aut superflua tanto effusionis miseratio redderetur, thesaurum militanti ecclesiæ acquisivit, volens suis thesaurizare filiis pius pater, ut sic sit

•

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

infinitus thesaurus hominibus, quo qui usi sunt dei amicitiæ participes sunt effecti. Quem quidem thesaurum non in sudario repositum, non in agro absconditum, sed per beatum Petrum . . . ejusque successores suos in terris vicarios commisit fidelibus salubriter dispensandum, et propriis et rationabilibus causis: nunc pro totali, nunc pro partiali remissione pœnæ temporalis pro peccatis debitæ, tam generaliter quam specialiter (prout cum deo expedire cognoscerent) vere pænitentibus et confessis Ut inter conjuges conjunctio est secundum consensum animorum et secundum permixtionem corporum, sic ecclesia Christo copulatur voluntate et natura, qua idem vult cum eo, et ipsa formam sumpsit de natura hominis. Copulata est ergo sponsa sponso spiritualiter et corporaliter, i.e. Utitur tamen sacra doctrina etiam ratione humana, non quidem ad probandam fidem, quia per hoc tolleretur meritum fidei Utrum accidentia quæ remanent, sint sine subjecto Utrum sacra doctrina sit scientia. Utrum sit necessarium præter philosophicas disciplinas aliam doctrinam haberi. Verba ejus spiritus et vita erant. Verba quibus consensus matrimonialis exprimitur sunt forma hujus sacramenti. Verbum divinum Vere Germanus et gnosios theologus Virginitas quid aliud est quam futuræ vitæ gloriosa meditatio? Vivit Bernardus et nardus ejus dedit odorem suum etiam in morte. Volo, ut pontificatu isto quam maxime perfruamur. Voluntas semper a necessitate libera est a cæteris a culpa et a pœna a posteriori a reatu pœnæ ab affectu hominis excluditur non solum illud quod est caritati contrarium, sed etiam omne illud quod impedit ne affectus mentis totaliter dirigatur ad deum ab origine abdicando absque c dc0 arnalis delectationis peccato abstracto abundans

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

abusus acceptatio acceptio mortis accipe potestatem offerendi actus virtutis actus virtutis et justitiæ actus virtutis pænitentiæ ad acquirendam gratiam ad acquirendum gratiam ad determinatum tempus pro mensura peccati ad gratiam in eis causandam ad hoc quod gratiam infundat animæ, non requirit aliquam dispositionem, nisi quam ipse facit. Facit autem hujusmodi dispositionem sufficientem ad susceptionem gratiæ quandoque quidem subito quandoque autem paulatim et successive ad hoc tendit cor meum ad hoc valuit in Christo diversitas naturarum . . .ut quod opus erat fieri ad hominum restaurationem si humana non posset natura, faceret divina, et si divinæ minime conveniret, exhiberet humana ad officium ad perficiendum hominem in his quæ pertinent ad cultum dei secundum religionem Christianæ vitæ et in remedium contra defectum peccati. Utroque modo convenienter ponuntur VII. sacramenta. Vita enim spiritualis conformitatem aliquam habet ad vitam corporalem. ad perficiendum mysterium unitatis ad quem comparatur humanitas Christi sicut instrumentum conjunctum ad recipiendum vel tradendum ea quæ sunt divini cultus ad reges Francorum et Anglorum ad virtutem pertinet, ut aliquis ore confiteatur, quod corde tenet. adhibitis sacramentis aliqua peccata aliqua potentiarum animæ aliquam attritionem aliquid aliquid extra mundum aliquid inordinatum in suo regno dimittere. aliquid virtute prius aliquos permittere a vita æterna deficere

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

amplius gratiæ munus, per quod ad majora redduntur idonei an prædestinatio inferat salatis neces ab0 sitatem? annexa annihilatio ante oris confessionem et satisfactionem ante rem aperitio latentis morbi spe veniæ articuli articuli fidei articuli mixti articulus articulus de deo articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ assistentiam dei assumptio attritio attritio peccatorum ad dei gratiam in sacramento pænitentiæ impetrandam disponit. attritio superveniente sacramento virtute clavium efficitur sufficiens attritio, ut ab omnibus dicitur, non est actus virtutis auctio auctoritas auctoritas super omnia concilia augmentum augmentum (robur) augmentum fidei augmentum gratiæ aut pœna aut satisfactio aut pœnitentia legitima (satisfactio congrua) aut mors acterna autor auxilio medicinæ baptismus delet quidquid invenit. baptismus non aufert actu infectionem, prout afficit personam, quod patet ex hoc, quod baptizatus per actum naturæ originale transmittit in prolem. baptismus non est institutus ad delendum omnia peccata futura, sed tamen præterita et præsentia. acf beata necessitas bene vivere benedictio sacerdotis est quoddam sacramentale. bona opera extra caritatem facta diminuunt pœnam inferni bona qualitas mentis (virtus, qua recte vivitur)

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

bonitas bonum bonum = beatitudo = deus ipse = visio dei bonum esse bonum naturale bonum suae naturae proportionatum bonum superexcedens bonum superexcedens naturam bonum universale bonus motus bonus motus interior caput et membra sunt quasi una persona mystica, et ideo satisfactio Christi ad omnes fideles carentia justitiæ debitæ caritas caritate perfecta carnales homines caro sola ex traduce est castigatio causæ causæ et signa causæ gratiæ causæ instrumentales causæ secundæ causa causa conveniens indulgentias faciendi causa cum alia causa contingente, scil. cum libero arbitrio causa existit causa instrumentalis causa prima 575 causa principalis causa principalis doni gratiæ causa sacramentorum causa sine qua non causaliter causant et continent gratiam ex opere operato certitudo salutis clavis clavis jurisdictionis clavis jurisdictionis — quæ non clavis cœli est, sed quædam dispositio ad eam! clavis ordinis coetus cognitio quidditativa cohibitio interiorum motuum

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

• • •

collatio gratiæ (quoad habitum, etsi non pro illo tempore quoad usum) communicatio idiomatum communitas abf baptizatorum compensatio concomitatur concordata concupiscentia carnis conditio sine qua non conformitas naturæ divinæ congregatio fidelium congregatio fidelium, corpus mysticum congrua conjecturaliter conjungens hominem summo bono, quod est deus consensus consensus gentium consentiente voluntate consequitur conservatio conservatio rerum a deo non est per aliquam novam actionem, sed per continuationem actionis quæ dat esse, consigno te, etc. consilia consilia evangelica consilia vero oportet esse de illis, per quae melius et expeditius constabit, eum qui opinetur, Christi corpus cœlo devocatum adesse sensualiter in altari, ipsum se dejicere, quod vecordium est, dum confirmat se manu frangere, dente atterere Christi corpus, quod tamen ipsum negare non possit impossibile esse et incorruptibile. contagium continent gratiam continet continua secundum actum contra defectum peccati contra honorem dei, ut homo reconcilietur illi cum calumnia hujus contumeliæ deo irrogatæ, nisi prius honoraverit deum vincendo diabolum, sicut inhonoravit ilium victus a diabolo. contra voluntatem dei 56d contradictio in adjecto contritio

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

contritio (compunctio) cordis, confessio oris, satisfactio operis contritio ex opere operato contritio non potest esse sine caritate conveniens convenienter convenientia convenientissimum convenientius conversio conversio inordinata ad commutabile bonum copula carnalis copula carnalis fornicatoria copulatur cor humiliatum corporales res corporalis no ac8 ta militiæ corpus Christi corpus Christi in eodem loco cum substantia panis et vini manet corpus Christi non frangitur”) corruptiones rerum creatio creatio, quæ est emanatio totius esse, creaturæ rationales creatura rationabilis credere credo credo ut intelligam culpa cum amotione interioris impedimenti cum fictione cum grano salis cum intentio bonum opus faciat et fides intentionem dirigat, non immerito quæri potest, utrum omnis intentio omneque opus illorum malum sit, qui fidem non habent? . . . Quod a quibusdam non irrationabiliter astruitur, qui dicunt omnes actiones et voluntates hominis sine fide malas esse . . . Quæ ergo sine fide fiunt, bona non sunt, quia omne bonum deo placet. cum quis me fidelium vel virtute rationis vel auctoritate scriptum correxerit curia datio vitæ datur S. S. ad robur, ut vid. Christianus audacter Christi confiteatur nomen.

•

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

datur baptisato spiritus sanctus ad robur . . . missio seu datio spiritus s. non est nisi cum gratia gratum faciente. Unde manifestum est, quod gratia gratum faciens confertur in hoc sacramento . . . gratiæ gratum facientis primus effectus est remissio culpæ, habet tamen et alios effectus quia sufficit ad hoc quod promoveat hominem per omnes gradus usque in vitam æternam . . . et ideo gratia gratum faciens non solum datur ad remissionem culpæ, sed etiam ad augmentum et firmamentum justitiæ, et sic confertur in hoc sacramento. de adultis, qui digne recipiunt sacramentum, non ambigitur quin gratiam operantem et cooperantern percepe ac6 rint . . . de parvulis vero, qui nondum ratione utuntur, quæstio est, an in baptismo receperint gratiam qua ad majorem venientes ætatem possent velle et operari bonum? Videtur, quod non receperint, quia gratia illa caritas est et fides, quæ voluntatem præparat et adjuvat. Sed quis dixerit, eos accepisse fidem et caritatem! de condigno de condigno et de congruo de congruo de duplice humilitate, una vid. quam parit veritas et altera quam inflammat caritas de gubernatione rerum de macula peccati de modo existendi corpus Christi, etc. de modo passionis Christi quantum ad effectum de necessitate sac. de necessitate sacramenti de necessitate salutis de osculo pedis, manus et oris domini de peccato veniali et mortali. de potentia de reatu pœnæ de spiritu, qui est deus, et quomodo misericordia et judicium dicantur pedes domini de statu perfectionis de subjecto de triplici profectu animæ, qui fit per osculum pedis, manus et oris domini de uberibus sponsi de vera et falsa pænitentia debita, abundans debitum conjugale declarator

• • • •

• • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

• • • • •

deifica demonstrativum deputari ad agendum deum impossibile est honorem suum perdere: aut enim peccator sponte solvit quod debet aut deus ab invito accipit. aca deus est rationis atque justitiæ et auctor et exactor. deus ignotus deus movet animam hominis convertendo eam ad se ipsum . . . prima conversio ad deum fit per fidem . . . ideo motus fidei requiritur ad justificationem impii. dicimur quoque et aliter per mortem Christi justificati, quia per fidem mortis ejus a peccatis mundamur dictatus Gregorii dignum disjecta membra dispositio dispositio (præparatio) hominis dispositio ad gratiam dispositio materiæ non ex necessitate consequitur formam nisi per virtutem agentis, qui dispositionem causat dispositio necessitans ad effectum signatum per sacramentum disposuit universaliter divina bonitas est finis rerum omnium divina essentia doctor resolutissimus Durandus doctrina argumentativa, sed “hæc doctrina non argumentatur ad sua principia probanda, quæ sunt articuli fidei, sed ex eis procedit ad aliquid aliud dominatio dominus deus noster papa donum dulia dum in carne et per carnem facit opera, non carnis sed dei . . .manifeste ipsum se esse judicat, per quem eadem et ante fiebant, quando fiebant. In carne, inquam, et per carnem potenter et patienter operatus mira, locutus salubria, passus indigna evidentur ostendit, quia ipse sit, qui potenter sed invisibiliter sæcula condidisset, sapienter regeret, benigne protegeret. Denique dum evangelizat ingratis, signa præbet infidelibus, pro suis crucifixoribus orat, nonne liquido ipsum se esse declarat, qui cum patre suo quotidie oriri facit solem super bonos et malos, pluit super justos et injustos?

ac8 •

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

•

•

•

duo nepotes essent in trinitate, quia, si pater incarnatus esset, esset nepos parentum virginis per hominem assumptum, et verbum cum nihil habeat de homine, nepos tamen esset virginis, quia filii ejus erit filius ea quæ necesse est ei convenire ecclesia editio symboli facta est in synodo generali, sed hujusmodi synodus auctoritate solius summi pontificis potest congregari. Ergo editio symboli ad auctoritatem summi pontificis pertinet. effectus ejus arbitrio hominis subjacet effectus licet occulti efficacia efficientia efficiunt quod figurant ego te absolvo eleemosynae emanationem totius entis a causa universali, quæ est deus, designamus nomine creationis enumerantur eo quod episcopus universalis error est, si per Romanam ecclesiam intelligat universalem aut concilium generale. esse essentia est debita humilitas subdere se majori propter deum, abundans (humilitas) subdere se pari, superabundans subdere se minori. est enim hoc proprie sacrificii effectus, ut per ipsum placetur deus et causa existat et ideo non statim per primum actum pænitentiae quo remittitur culpa, solvitur reatus totius pœnæ, sed completis omnibus pænitentiæ actibus et ideo oportet, quod virtus salutifera a divinitate Christi per ejus humanitatem in ipsa sacramenta derivetur et quia iste error est famosior ceteris his diebus, et nimis multi per ipsum in Pelagianum præcipitium dilabuntur, necessarium videtur ipsum dilige abb ntiori examine perscrutari. et tanquam violator sacramenti peccat, qui confessionem revelat

• • •

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

etiam a non jejunis dari vel accipi potest eucharistia consummantur eum autem qui tantum donum sponte dat deo, sine retributione debere esse non judicabis . . .alioquin aut injustus (!) videretur esse si nollet, aut impotens si non posset. evacuamus et irritas esse consemus ex condigno ex conditione humanæ naturæ ex congruo ex contrario ex decreto ex divina institutione determinatis ex divina ordinatione ex hoc quod per liberum arbitrium agit, deo satisfacere potest, quia quamvis dei sit prout a deo sibi concessum, tamen libere ei traditum est, ut ejus dominos sit ex jure divino ex libera voluntate quia necessarium erit ex merito ex opere operante ex opere operantis or operante ex opere operato ex ordinatione divina ex parte ex parte ecclesiæ ex parte finis ex parte subjecti gratia potest suscipere magis vel minus, prout scil. unus perfectius illustratur a lumine gratiæ quam alius. Cujus diversitatis ratio quidem est aliqua ex parte præparantis se ad gratiam, qui enim magis se ad gratiam præparat pleniorem gratiam accipit ex potestate auctoritatis ex præscientia ex propriis viribus ab3 ex quo aliquis peccatum incurrit ex quo sequitur ea interdum deficere ex sensibilium cognitione non potest tota dei virtus cognosci et per consequens nec ejus essentia videri ex statu hominis ex studio actionis humanæ ex superioris privilegio ex vi clavium non tota pœna remittitur, sed aliqiud de pœna temporali, cujus reatus post absolutionem a pœna æterna remanere potuit, nec solum de pœna quam

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

pænitens habet in confitendo, quia sic confessio et sacramentalis absolutio non esset nisi in onus, quod non competit sacramentis novæ legis, sed etiam de illa pœna, quæ in purgatorio debetur, aliquid remittitur. excedere et cum Christo esse excellentiæ excommunication habet effectum suum exinanitio expeditius exundatiæ suæ plenitudinis fabricata faciendi quod facit Christus et ecclesia familiari fidei respondet baptismus et ordinatur c. culpam originalem, spei extrema unctio et ordinatur c. culpam venialem, caritati eucharistia et ordinatur c. pœnalitatem malitiæ, prudentiæ ordo et ordinatur c. ignorantiam, justitiæ pænitentia et ordinatur c. peccatum mortale, temperantiæ matrimonium et ordinatur c. concupiscentiam, fortitudini confirmatio et ordinatur c. infirmitatem. fideles fides fides caritate formata fides cum caritate fides formata fides formata per caritatem fides implicita fides informis aea fiducia filioque filius ad honorem suum seipsum sibi obtulit finis finis gubernationis finis gubernationis, conservatio and mutatio rerum finis mundi finis naturalis finis religionis finis rerum finis theologiæ finis universalis rerum firmiter tenendum est, quod ordinationes ecclesiæ dirigantur secundum sapientiam Christi. Et propter hoc certum esse debet, ritus quod ecclesia observat in hoc et in aliis sacramentis esse convenientes fomes

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

fomes peccati for omnia simul et pater et filius et amborum spiritus pariter et concorditer operantur. forma forma corporeitatis forma sacramenti forma substantialis formatur per gratiam fornicatio deputatur ad pœnam, fruitio dei gemitus, lamentationes, humiliationes, etc. generare gerit imaginem Christi gloria beatitudinis gratia gratia co-operans gratia conditus gratia cooperans gratia fidei gratia gratis dans gratia gratis dat ac7 a gratia gratis data (caritas infusa) gratia gratis data præveniens gratia gratum faciens gratia informans et virtutes gratia infusa gratia infusa (habitus) gratia justificans gratia nihil est aliud quam participata similitudo divinæ naturae secundum illud gratia operans gratia operans (præveniens) gratia operans and cooperans gratia præveniens gratia prima gratia secundum se considerata perficit essentiam gratia subsequens gratia superaddita gratia virtutum et donorum gratis Christi gubernatio gubernatio diversa in quantum ad creaturas irrationales habet et judicare, si bona non fuerit habituate habitus

• • • • • • • • • •

habitus boni habitus gratiæ habitus ligatus est propter pueritiam habitus vitiosus hoc hoc oportet in sacramento pænitentiæ significari hoc sacramentum perficitur per ea quæ sunt ex parte sacerdotis hoc sub his specibus contentum homines attriti homo ac9

•

• • • • • • • • •

•

homo ad recte vivendum dupliciter auxilio dei indiget. Uno quidem modo quantum ad aliquod habituale donum, per quod natura humana corrupta sanetur et etiam sanata elevetur ad operanda opera meritoria vitæ æternæ, quæ excedunt proportionem naturæ. Alio modo indiget homo auxilio gratiæ, ut a deo moveatur ad agendum. Quantum igitur ad primum auxilii modum, homo in gratia existens non indiget alio auxilio gratiæ quasi aliquo alio habitu infuso, indiget tamen auxilio gratiæ secundum alium modum, ut scil. a deo moveatur ad recte agendum, et hoc propter duo homo per eandem materiam causæ deo satisfacere debet, per quam offenderat. honestius honorem debitum deo impendere humiliatio humilitas id quo creditur id quod idem est sacerdos et hostia ideo meritum hominis apud deum esse non potest nisi secundum persuppositionem divinæ ordinationis, ita scil. ut id homo consequatur a deo per operationem quasi mercedem, ideo quantumcunque natura aliqua corporalis vel spiritualis ponatur perfecta, non potest in suum actum procedere nisi moveatur a deo, quæ quidem motio est secundum suæ providentiæ rationem, non secundum necessitatem naturæ, sicut modo corporis cœlestis. Non solum autem a deo est omnis motio, sicut a primo movente, sed etiam ab ipso est omnis formalis perfectio, sicut a primo actu. Sic igitur actio intellectus et

• •

• • • • • • • •

• •

cujuscunque entis creati dependet et a deo quantum ad duo. Uno modo in quantum ab ipso habet perfectionem sive formam per quam agit, alio modo in quantum ab ipso movetur ad agendum. Intellectus humanus habet aliquam formam, scil. ipsum intelligibile lumen, quod est de se sufficiens ad quædam intelligibilia cognoscenda . . . altiora vero intelligibilia intellectus humanus cognoscere non potest, nisi fortiori lumine perficiatur . . . quod dicitur lumen gratiæ, in quantum est naturæ superadditum. Sic igitur dicendum est, quod ad cognitionem cujuscunque veri homo indiget auxilio divino, ut intellectus a deo moveatur ad suum actum, non autem indiget ad cognoscendam veritatem in omnibus nova illustratione superaddita naturali illustrationi, sed in quibusdam quæ excedunt naturalem cognitionem. 564 illa, qua nos movet ad bene volendum et agendum — habituale donum nobis divinitus inditum illud cadit sub merito condigni, ad quod motio gratiæ se extendit, motio autem alicujus moventis non solum se extendit ad ultimum terminum motus, sed etiam ad totum progressum in motu; terminus autem motus gratiæ est vita aeterna, progressus autem in hoc motu est secundum augmentum caritatis. Sic igitur augmentum gratiæ cadit sub merito condigni impassibiliter impedimentum impedimentum peccati imperium Romanum importat importatur impossibilitas peccandi in acceptione sanguinis totum Christum deum et hominem et in acceptione corporis similiter totem accipimus. in actu in actu meritorio duo sunt c ac8 onsideranda. Primum illud quod præcedit rationem meritorii, in quo includitur substantia et intentio actus ac rectitudo moralis. Secundum est ratio meritorii, quod est esse acceptum a divina voluntate, aut acceptabile, sive dignum acceptari ad præmium æternum. Quantum ad primum, potentia est causa prima et principalis, et habitus causa secunda, cum potentia utatur habitu, non e converso; alias habens semel gratiam nunquam posset peccare, cum causa secunda semper sequatur motionem

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

causæ primæ, nec possit movere ad oppositum illius, ad quod causa prima inclinat. Sed accipiendo actum in quantum est meritorius talis conditio ei convenit principaliter ab habitu et minus principaliter a voluntate. in actu semper feratur in deum in casu mortis in cognitione in cujus signum in culpa in deum in externis in forma ecclesiæ in foro interno in genere in habitu in instanti fit absque successione in naturalibus in necessitate etiam laicus vicem sacerdotis supplet, ut ei confessio fieri possit in nomine matris in omnibus indulgentiis fit mentio de vere contritio et confessis. in optione in peccatum in potestate Christi in praxi in quantum ad creaturas per se agentes in quantum homo habet præ ceteris creaturis ut per se agat voluntarie agens in quo ostenditur et dei severitas, qui peccatum sine pœna dimittere noluit. in re in spec 564 ie in spiritualibus quædum displicentia de peccatis commissis, sed non perfecta, [quæ est] accessus in statu natural integræ in verbis et rebus inclinatio inclinatio ad bonum incommoda inconveniens incorporatio in Christo indelebilis indifferentia oppositorum indistincta potestas super omnes

•

•

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

indulgentiæ simpliciter tantum valent quantum prædicantur, dummodo ex parte dantis sit auctoritas et ex parte recipientis caritas et ex parte causæ pietas. indulgentiarum materia est abusus quæstorum et saepe illorum falsum crimen, nonnumquam impura et corrupta intentio papæ. ineptia ab1 inferiores virtutes infusa initium omnis peccati inordinata inordinata concupiscentia sensibilis appetitus inordinate inordinatio virium animæ præcipue in hoc attenditur, quod inordinate convertuntur ad bonum commutabile, quæ quidem inordinatio communi nomine potest dici concupiscentia institutor sacramentorum instrumentum animatum instrumentum conjunctum instrumentum inanimatum instrumentum separatum integras in una persona intellectus intelligere intelligo intentio inter eos, quorum est simpliciter æqualitas. interiores motus intueamur nunc prout possumus, quanta inde ratione sequatur humana salvatio invenisti gratiam apud deum inviti ipse esset caput principaliter, alii vero secundario ipso facto joculator domini judex judex aequus judicare jure divino juris divini jurisdictio et cura totius mundi jurisdictio in foro contentioso justa potestas diaboli 561 justificatio justificatio impiorum

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

justificatio passive accepta importat motum ad justitiam justilia originalis justitia justitia dei justitia originalis justum juxta ejus arbitrium satisfacit lamentationes languor et fomes lapsus linguæ latet dolus in generalibus legati non sacerdotes lex Christi lex dei, lex Christi lex evangelica lex perfectæ libertatis ac9 liberati pœnæ satisfactoriæ liberatio per mortem Christi libertas arbitrii liberum arbitrium non est aliud, quam arbitrium potens servare rectitudinem voluntatis propter ipsam rectitudinem. limbus infantium limbus patrum loco intentionis motum a quo movetur loco totius ecclesiæ lumen gratiæ lumen rationis lumen superadditum naturæ, gratia operans et cooperans, præveniens et subsequens macula macula, corruptio naturæ, reatus culpæ, pœna macula, corruptio naturalis boni, reatus culpæ majores prælati malum malum non est nisi in bono malus motus manducatio infidelium manet clavium potestas quantum ad essentiam, sed usus impeditur ex defectu materiæ. Cum enim usus clavium in utente prælationem requirat respectu ejus in quem utitur, propria materia in quam exercetur usus clavium est homo subditus. Et quia per ordinationem ecclesiæ unus subditur alteri, ideo etiam per ecclesiæ prælatos potest subtrahi alicui ille, qui erat ei subjectus. Unde

•

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

cum ecclesia hæreticos et schismaticos et alios hujusmodi privet subtrahendo subditos vel simpliciter vel quantum ad aliquid, quantum ad hoc quod privati sunt, non possunt usum clavium habere. manet igitur post peccatum liberum arbitrium, etsi miserum, tamen integrum . . . non ergo si creatura potens aut sapiens, sed tantum si volens esse desierit, liberum arbitrium amisisse putanda erit. materia materia disposita materia prima 57a materia proxima materia sacramenti materia, forma materialiter maximi plane cordis est, per omnia ad dialecticam confugere, quia confugere ad eam ad rationem est confugere, quo qui non confugit, cum secundum rationem sit factus ad imaginem dei, suum honorem reliquit nec potest renovari de die in diem ad imaginem dei. media inter filium, qui est sanctus sanctorum, et alios sanctos, virgo regia, janua cœli, via, peccatorum scala mediatrix medicus peritus mentalis merces merita merita de condigno merita de congruo merita ex condigno merita ex congruo ac8 merito condigni meritum meritum “in quantum uterque operatur secundum modum suum. meritum de condigno meritum de congruo meritum ex condigno meritum ex congruo meritum secundum quid meritum simpliciter minimum de spiritualitate minister minister sacramenti ministerialiter

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

ministerii ministri dei ministri dei in remittendis culpis miser misereatur tui deus misericordia ordinata modus modus humanæ virtutis mors æterna mortificationes temporales mota movens mota non movens motio motione prioris gratiæ usque ad haec [viz., the Fall or the mortal sin] non se extendente motus motus contrarius malus motus fiduciæ in deum motus liberi arbitrii motus mobilis motus spirituales movens movens ex se movetur acb

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

multa, non multum multitudo fidelium multum rationalis, nisi esset determinatio ecclesiæ in contrarium, quia salvat et vitat omnes difficultates quæ sequuntur ex separatione accidentium a subjecto mundius munus dei mutatio naturæ superadditum natura divina naturalia bona corrupta sunt naturalibus bonis necessaria in sacramentis necessarium necessarium ex se ipso, necesse est, ut aut ablatus honor solvatur aut pœna sequatur

•

• • • • • • • • •

• • • •

• • •

• • •

necesse est, ut bonitas dei propter immutabilitatem suam perficiat de homine quod incepit, quamvis totum sit gratia bonum quod facit. necesse est, ut omne peccatum satisfactio aut pœna sequatur necessitate respiciente ad potentiam ordinatam nihil facit necessitate, quia nullo modo cogitur aut prohibetur facere aliquid nisi contrarium exterius exprimatur ex parte ministri vel recipientis sacramentum non agit per virtutem suæ formæ, sed solum per motum quo movetur a principali agente non agit secundum propriam formam aut virtutem sed secundum virtutem ejus a quo movetur non aliquid non defectus sed contemptus damnat non est aliud peccare quam non reddere deo debitum . . . debitum est subjectum esse voluntate deo . . .hæc est justitia sive rectitudo voluntatis, quæ justos facit sive rectos corde, i.e. non est autem similis ratio de gratia et caritate. non est instit ac8 utum ad satisfaciendum, sed ad spiritualiter nutriendum per unionem ad Christum non in omni mundi fabrica tantum fatigationis auctor assumpsit non in quolibet uti (potestatem clavium) possunt, sed in eos tantum, qui eis in sortem venerunt, nisi in necessitatis articulo. non opus est disputare non ordinatæ essent, nisi gladius esset sub gladio non potest esse peccator adeo desperatus, quia posset consequi indulgentias, si habuerit intelligentem et fidelem informatorem et voluerit facere, quod potest, et habeat attritionem aliqualem, non potest intelligi remissio culpæ, si non adest infusio gratiæ non potest res ulla aliquid esse, si desinat ipsum esse. non sufficit solummodo reddere quod ablatum est, sed pro contumelia illata plus debet reddere, quam abstulit, sicut enim qui lædit salutem alterius, non sufficit si salutem restituit, nisi pro illata doloris injuria recompenset aliquid, ita qui honorem alicujus violat, non sufficit honorem reddere, si non secundum exhonorationis factam molestiam aliquid, quod placeat illi quem exhonoravit, restituit. Hoc quoque attendendum, quod cum aliquis quod injuste abstulit

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

•

solvit, hoc debet dare, quod ab illo non posset exigi, si alienum non rapuisset. non tamquam ex duobus principiis, sed tamquam ex uno principio, unica spiratione non tantum valent, quantum pronuntiantur non videtur perfici sacramentum nostra merita dei munera nostri de illo repletio notæ ecclesiæ nota nota ecclesiæ catholica nubicula nulla forma nulla res creata potest in quemcunque actum prodire nisi virtute motionis divinæ nullus numerus beatoru 547 m numerus electorum numerus predestinatorum obex obicem contrariæ cogitationis opponere obligatio ad pœnam odium peccati offerens se ipsum oblationem et hostiam deo omne delictum aut venia dispungit aut pœna omne meritum repugnat gratiæ omnes illi unus homo fuerant, i.e. omnia sacramenta sensibilia rite administrata [but for this there is requisite also, and above all, the priest who lives like the apostles] habent efficaciam salutarem omnis religio, quæ statum perfectionis profitetur operaretur ad sacramentorum effectus operari ae5 operatio alicujus effectus non attribuitur mobili, sed moventi opinio honestior opus exterius opus magnum opus meritorium hominis dupliciter considerari potest; uno modo, secundum quod procedit ex libero arbitrio, alio modo, secundum quod procedit ex gratia spiritus sancti. Si consideretur secundum substantiam operis et secundum quod procedit ex libero arbitrio, sic non potest ibi esse condignitas propter maximam inæqualitatem proportionis. Videtur enim congruum, opus miraculosum

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

opus operans opus operatum ordinari ordinatio partium ordinator peccatorum ordinem ordines ordo ordo contra dissolutionem multitudinis ordo rerum originaliter oves universæ pœnæ determinatæ pœna pœnitentia legitima pactum cum ecclesia pactum dei initum cum ecclesia panem et vinum quæ in altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus et sanguinem J. Christi esse et sensualiter, non solum in sacramento sed et in veritate, manibus sacerdotum tractari et frangi et fidelium dentibus atteri. panis papa potest facere prout vult parochus pars contritionis partem solicitudinis partes pænite 564 ntiæ participata similitudo divinæ naturæ participata similitudo divine naturae participatio divinæ naturæ participatio sacerdotii Christi participatione ejus, qui solum per se ipsum est parvuli parvuli sunt in utero matris ecclesiæ passio Christi passio Christi peccatum removat passiones paucissimi sunt vere contriti, ergo paucissimi salvarentur sine sacerdotibus; possunt autem omnes aliquo modo fieri attriti, et tales possunt sacerdotes juvare et eorum ministerio facere contritos et per consequens possunt eos salvare peccata detestenda et destruenda

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

peccata propria singulorum, qui communicant ejus passioni per fidem et caritatem ac8 et fidei sacramenta. peccata venalia peccatum peccatum commune totius humanæ naturæ (et quantum ad culpam et quantum ad reatum pœnæ) peccatum naturæ peccatum originis peccatum prius incipit homini displicere [maxime peccatori] propter supplicia, quæ respicit timor servilis, quam propter dei offensam vel peccati turpitudinem, quod pertinet ad caritatem . . . ipse etiam motus timoris procedit ex actu dei convertentis cor per Christum per acceptationem per accidens per aliqua signa per aliquem modum per apostolicæ sedis dispensationem per auctoritatem per concomitantiam per consecrationem altaris fiunt panis et vinum sacramenta religionis, non ut desinat esse quæ fuerant, sed ut sint quæ erant et in aliud commutentur. per extorsionem humanam per homines instituta per ministerium per modum ministri per modum suffragii per raptum per sacramenta per sacramenta dicitur esse fabricata ecclesia Christi perfectio rerum universitatis requirit, ut non solum sint entia incorruptibilia, sed etiam corruptibilia perfectio universi perfectissima persiflage pertinent ad quandam solemnitatem pertinet ad homines 549 per comparationem ad deum piæ fraudes pignora, figuræ, signa plebs Christiana plenissima fruitio quam habuit Christus plenitudo gratiæ pondus peccati portiunculæ

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

posse vel sapere possibilitas boni post rem potentia potest remanere potestas ad pugnam spiritalem potestas clavium potestas clavium, quantum est de se, se extendit ad omnes potestas excellentiæ potestas ministerii ae3 potestas regendi multitudinem et exercendi actus publicos potestas servandi rectitudinem potestas spiritualis potestas temporalis potestatem ministerii potissima potissimum inter alia sacramenta sacramentum præcepta præcursor Christi in naturalibus prædestinatio non infert necessitatem saluti nec infert necessitatem libero arbitrio. Quoniam prædestinatio non est causa salutis nisi includendo merita præmittitur tamen etiam in sacramentali absolutione talis oratio, ne impediatur effectus sacramenti ex parte pænitentis prænuntiativum præparatio præscientia iniquitatis quorundam præsciti præservare culpam futuram præter ordinem gubernationis præter ordinem naturalem pretü copiositas mysterii passionis pretium pretium majus omni debito prima causa primum movens primum movens immobile primum movens, ens a se, perfectissimum, actus purus primus movens principia naturæ humanæ principium mundi privatio pro perfectione animæ

• • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • • • • • • •

• •

• • • •

pro remedio peccati pro temporali subsidio 542 pro temporum varietate diversa præcepta familiæ suæ proponit prognosticum proles promittendo propagatio tam in corporali quam in spirituali vita proportionem propter Christum propter aliquod obsequium acceptum propter conditionem status humanæ naturæ, quæ quidem licet per gratiam sanetur quantum ad mentem, remanet tamen in ea corruptio et infectio quantum ad carnem per quam servit legi peccati; remanet etiam quædam ignorantiæ obscuritas in intellectu; propter varios enim rerum eventus et quia etiam nos ipsos non perfectæ cognoscimus, propter humiliationem quidem, ut dum homo sensibilibus rebus, quæ natura infra ipsum sunt, ex præcepto creatoris se reverendo subicit, ex hac humilitate et obedientia deo magis placeat et apud eum mereatur. 586 propter pactum institutum cum sacerdotibus propter philosophiam propter quos omnia fiunt purgatorium purus homo quæ fuerunt congrua gratiæ præfigurandæ quæ significant ea quæ præcesserunt in Christo quæcunque causa adsit, quæ in utilitatem ecclesiæ et honorem dei vergat, sufficiens est ratio indulgentias faciendi . . . (nam) merita ecelesiæ semper superabundant. quædam instrumentalis virtus ad inducendam gratiam, quæ est sacramenti effectus, proportionata instrumento quædam miraculosa opera, esti sunt minora quam justificatio impii quantum ad bonum quod fit, sunt tamen præter consuetum ordinem talium effectuum et ideo plus habent de ratione miraculi qua ipse homo deo conjungitur qua non homo ipse justificatur, sed justificat ac8 io alterius comparatur quantum fides et devotio sua exigit. quasi per accidens

• •

• • • •

• •

• • • • •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

qui corrupte profert verba sacramentalia, si hoc ex industria facit qui habent jurisdictionem in foro judiciali, ad quod spectat causa, quæ obligat hominem in comparatione ad alios homines qui habet ministerium super corpus Christi verum qui non solvit, frustra dicit: dimitte qui sunt materia pænitentiæ quia operantur in virtute passionis Christi, et passio Christi quodammodo applicatur hominibus per sacramenta quibus homo fidem suam protestaretur de futuro salvatoris adventu quid enim tam efficax ad curanda conscientise vulnera nec non ad purgandam mentis aciem quam Christi vulnerum sedula meditatio? quiddam connaturale homini quidditas confessionis quidquid Romana ecclesia credit, hoc solum et non aliud vel explicite vel implicite credo. quilibet actus caritatis meretur absolute vitam æternam quo modo a peccatis per Christi mortem soluti sumus? Quia per ejus mortem, ut ait apostolus, commendatur nobis caritas dei, i.e. quoad æqualitatem proportionis quoad æqualitatem quantitatis quoad mortalium peccatorum remissionem quod Christus liberavit nos a peccatis nostris, præcipue per suam passionem non solum sufficienter et meritorie sed etiam satisfactorie quod est extrinsecum a toto universo quod fides facit, baptismus ostendit; fides peccata delet, baptismus deleta docet, unde sacramentum dicitur. quod habet causam simpliciter et omnibus occultam quod in subj 54a ecto quod in subjecto erat superesse quacunque ratione non potest corrupto subjecto quod superexcedit naturam quodammodo quodammodo conformantur quodammodo idem est sacerdos et hostia quoddam bonum extrinsecum quoddam divinum auxilium ad consequendum sacramenti finem quodvis rei sacræ signum

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

• • • • • • • •

quoniam inordinate se homo ad temporalia convertens semper singularem quandam perfectionem et excellentiam tamquam finem desiderat, recte ex hac parte superbia, quæ inordinatus est propriæ excellentiæ appetitus, initium omnis peccati ponitur ratio ratio ad bonum ratio et voluntas tenendi ratio veritatis ae2 rationalis rationes reatio realis reatus reatus culpæ reatus culpæ et pœnæ reatus pœnæ reatus pœnæ æternæ reatus pœnæ temporalis reatus temporalis pœnæ reatus totius pœnæ rebellio inferiorum virium ad rationem receptio et traditio cultus dei recessus et accessus recessus et accessus in motu liberi arbitrii accipitur secundum detestationem et desiderium . . . oportet igitur quod in justificatione impii sit motus liberi arbitrii duplex, unus quo per desiderium tendat in dei justitiam, et alius, quo detestetur peccatum. reconciliat autem dum offendicula hominum tollit ab oculis dei, reconciliati sumus deo diligenti nos reconciliati sumus deo, ut ait apostolus, per mortem christi. Quod non sic intelligendum est quasi nos sic reconciliaverit Christus, ut inciperet amare quos oderat, reconciliatio reconciliatio dei recordatio rectitudo rectitudo liberi arbitrii rector ecclesiæ reddam redemptio: “respondeo dicendum, quod per peccatum dupliciter homo obligatus erat, primo quidem servitute peccati, quia qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati. . . . Quia igitur diabolus hominem superaverat, inducendo ad peccatum, homo servituti diaboli addictus erat.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Secundo, quantum ad reatum pœnæ, quo homo erat obligatus secundum dei justitiam. Et hoc etiam est servitus quædam; ad servitutem enim pertinet ab1 quod aliquis patiatur, quod non vult, cum liberi hominis sit uti se ipso ut vult. Quia igitur passio Christi fuit sufficiens et superabundans satisfactio pro peccato et reatu pœnæ generis humani, ejus passio fuit quasi quoddam pretium regeneratio regnum regnum Christi religio publica reliquiæ peccatorum remanent reatu remedium remedium contra concupiscentiam personalem et contra defectum multitudinis, qui per mortem accidit rememorativum ejus quod præcessit remissio culpæ remissio peccatorum reniti possit contra ordinem gubernationis dei. reparari reparatio post lapsum repræsentativum crucis reprobatio reprobatio dei non subtrahit aliquid de potentia reprobati; unde cum dicitur quod reprobatur non potest gratiam adipisci, non est hoc intelligendum secundum impossibilitatem absolutam, sed secundum impossibilitatem conditionatam reprobatio dei, qua ab æterno non eligendo quosdam reprobavit, secundum duo consideratur, quorum alterum præscit et non præparat, i.e. res res res cujus sacramentum est res determinate res sacramenti res sacramenti res sensibiles res sensibiles determinatæ res sensibilis retributio 57b revelatio specialis ritum robur

• • •

• • • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

sacerdos corporis Christi sacramenta congrua gratiæ præsentialiter demonstrandæ sacramenta novæ legis ad duo ordinantur, vid, ad remedium c. peccata et ad perficiendam animam in his quæ pertinent ad cultum dei secundum ritum Christianæ vitæ. Quicumque autem ad aliquid certum deputatur, consuevit ad illud consignari, sicut milites qui adscribebantur ad militiam antiquitus solebant quibusdam characteribus corporalibus insigniri, eo quod deputabantur ad aliquid corporale. sacramenta signant et continent sacramentalia sacramentalis confessio sacramentum sacramentum est corporale vel materiale elementum foris sensibiliter propositum ex similitudine repræsentans, ex institutione significans et ex sanctificatione continens aliquam invisibilem et spi ac8 ritalem gratiam sacramentum est visibilis forma invisibilis gratiæ in eo collatæ, quam scil. confert ipsum sacramentum, non enim est solummodo sacræ rei signum sed etiam efficacia sacramentum et res sacramentum perfectum sacramentum regenerationis sacramentum, res sacrificium acceptissimum saculum obscurum sanctificare satisfacere satisfactio satisfactio congrua satisfactio de condigno satisfactio debet esse talis, per quam aliquid nobis subtrahamus ad honorem dei, nos autem non habemus nisi tria bona, scil. bona animæ, satisfactio operum satisfactio secundum acceptationem satisfactio sive referatur ad præteritam offensam sive ad futuram culpam per pœnalia satisfactio superabundans schola ægidiana scientia secunda tabula post naufragium

• • • • • • • • •

•

•

•

• • • • • • • • •

•

secundum claves ecclesiæ secundum habitum secundum modum propriorum actuum secundum naturam universalem, non quidem a parte formæ, sed materiæ secundum quantitatem devotionis sumentium secundum quod esse secundum supernaturale donum gratiæ sed est majoris necessitatis sed hac ex parte non potest accipi prima ratio hujus diversitatis, quia præparatio ad gratiam no 562 n est hominis, nisi in quantum liberum arbitrium ejus præparatur a deo. Unde prima causa hujus diversitatis accipienda est ex parte ipsius dei, qui diversimode suæ gratiæ dona dispensat ad hoc quod ex diversis gradibus pulchritudo et perfectio ecclesiæ consurgat, sicut etiam diversos gradus rerum instituit, ut esset universum perfectum. sed hoc est per modum meriti magis quam per modum satisfactionis. Sed quantum ad solutionem debiti, unus potest pro olio satisfacere, dummodo sit in caritate, ut opera ejus satisfactoria esse possint sed pro temporalibus ordinatis ad spiritualia, sicut est repressio inimicorum ecclesiæ, qui pacem ecclesiæ perturbant, sicut constructio ecclesiarum et pontium et aliarum eleemosynarum largitio. sed si quis pro falso crimine in judicio probato excommunicatus est, tunc, si humiliter sustinet, humilitatis meritum recompensat excommunicationis damnum. semper, ubique et apud omnes sensibiliter sententia communis sententia probabilior aca sententiam Petri non præcedit, sed subsequitur sententia cœli. servitus summa servitutis si aliquis non baptizatus confirmaretur, nihil reciperet. si aliquis per actum matrimonii intendat vitare fornicationem in conjuge, non est aliquod peccatum; . . . sed si intendat vitare fornicationem in se . . . hoc est peccatum veniale. si ergo recte fidei intuitu in ilium respicimus qui pro nobis pependit in ligno, a vinculis diaboli solvimur, i.e.

•

• • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

sic igitur per hoc, quod dicitur homo gratiam dei habere, significatur quiddam supernaturale in homine a deo proveniens. Quandoque tamen gratia dei dicitur ipsa æterna dei dilectio, secundum quod dicitur etiam gratia prædestinationis, in quantum deus gratuito et non ex meritis aliquos prædestinavit sive elegit sicut ad finem significans efficaciter effectum dei gratuitum significatio signum sensibile, gratiam dei vel effectum dei gratuitum ex institutione divina efficaciter significans, ordinatum ad salutem hominis viatoris similiter tantum bonum fuit, quod Christus voluntarie passus est, quod propter hoc bonum in natura humana inventum similitudo simplex fornicatio simpliciter simpliciter justum simpliciter meritum vel merces sine actu vel voluntate peccati mortaiis sine fictione sine merito sine nobis sine subjecto sit in caritate societas fidelium societas unitatis fidei ac8 sola voluntate dei solus specialiter sponsus ecclesiæ dicitur sicut et Christus species sacramentalis spirare spiritualis comestio, quæ fit in mente. studeamus et nos ad ipsum per eam ascendere, qui per ipsam ad nos descendit; per eam venire in gratiam ipsius, qui per eam in nostram miseriam venit; per te accessum habeamus ad filium, O benedicta inventrix gratiæ, genetrix vitæ, mater salutis, ut per te nos suscipiat, qui per te datus est nobis. Excusat apud ipsum integritas tua culpam nostræ corruptionis . . . copiosa caritas tua nostrorum cooperiat magnitudinem peccatorum, et fœcunditas gloriosa fœcunditatem nobis conferat meritorum; domina nostra, mediatrix nostra, advocata nostra, tuo filio nos reconcilia, tuo filio nos commenda, tuo filio nos repræsenta! fac, O benedicta,

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

•

•

•

per gratiam quam invenisti . . . ut qui te mediante fieri dignatus est particeps infirmitatis et miseriæ nostræ, te quoque intercedente participes faciat nos gloriæ et beatitudinis suæ sub ratione dei sub specie panis subditus subjectum substantialiter succum et sanguinem summa intelligentia summum esse summus pontifex, caput ecclesiæ, cura ecclesiæ universalis, plenitudo potestatis, potestas determinandi novum symbolum superabundans superadditum superbia tabula rasa terminus a quo terminus ad quem thesaurus meritorum thesaurus operum supererogatoriorum ti aac mor servilis timor serviliter servilis timor simpliciter servilis tota causa transeunt actu transmutatio transmutatur triplex perfectio ultimus finis unde caro ipsa, quæ concipitur in vitiosa concupiscentia polluitur et corrumpitur: ex cujus contactu anima, cum infunditur, maculam trahit, qua polluitur et fit rea, i.e. unde effectus non assimilatur instrumento sed principali agenti; sicut lectus non assimilatur securi, sed arti, quæ est in mente artificis unde relinquitur, quod ipse character interior sit essentialiter et principaliter ipsum sacramentum ordinis! unde vera justitia nisi de Christi misericordia? . . .soli justi qui de ejus misericordia veniam peccatorum consecuti sunt . . .quia non modo justus sed et beatus, cui non imputabit deus peccatum universales substantiæ

• • • • •

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

universitas Christianorum universitas prædestinatorum ut ad invocationem nominorum ipsorum sanctificarentur sacramenta ut homo subveniat pænitendo suæ miseriæ, quam per peccatum incurrit ut ipsi possent sacramenta instituere et sine ritu sacramentorum effectum sacramentorum conferre solo imperio ut liceat uti ut quidam dicunt ut substantia panis maneat sub accidentibus suis non in proprie supposito, sed tracta ad esse et suppositum Christi, ut sic sit unum suppositum in duabus naturis. utrum actus matrimonialis excusari possit sine honis matrimonii utrum ad summum pontificem pertineat fidei symbolum ordinare? 568 utrum gratia ponat aliquid in anima utrum justificatio impii sit remissio peccatorum utrum quantitas dimensiva sit subjectum aliorum accidentum velle venia ex castigatione, veniam dei compensatione sanguinis expedire vera immolatio veraciter verba determinata verbo tenus verbum vere et sensualiter veritas verum corpus Christi vestigia terrent via media vicarius Christi vicem dei ac8 videretur enim esse mutatio in deo, si non ponatur in ipso justificato. Potest illa opinio confirmari per hoc, quod illud præceptum ‘Diliges dominum deum, etc.,’ est primum, a quo tota lex pendet et prophetæ. Ad actum igitur hujus præcepti aliquando eliciendum (actus elicitus dilectionis, rationis) tenetur voluntas; ita quod non potest esse semper omissio actus hujus præcepti sine peccato mortali. Quodcumque autem voluntas actum hujus præcepti exsequitur, licet informis, et

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

disponit se de congruo ad gratiam gratificantem sibi oblatam, vel resistet et peccabit mortaliter, vel consentiet et justificabitur. virginitas virtuosi virtus virtus Christi virtus ad inducendum sacramentalem effectum virtus instrumentalis participata a Christo virtus supernaturalis virtutes acquisitæ visio visio dei visio et fruitio dei vita æterna vita æterna est quoddam bonum excedens proportionem naturæ creatæ vita Christiana vocatio voces voluntas in puris naturalibus habet justitiam originalem. voluntas tenendi votum votum sacramenti vulneratio naturæ

Index of German Words and Phrases • • • • • • • • • • • • •

überbildet Abgründlichen Substanz Aufklärer 55b Aufklärung Ecclesiastik Ersatzstrafe Köhlerglauben Kahlerglaubens Schadenersatz Stillen Stillheit Wüsten Gottheit bildet entbildet

Index of Pages of the Print Edition i vi vii viii ix ix x xi xii xiii 56d xiv 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 572 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 561 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 56f 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 ac3 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 55f 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 55f 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 55f 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 55f 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 55f 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 55f 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 ad5 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318